Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRC-12-23-98 CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Wednesday, December 23, 1998 DOCS Conference Room 12:15 p.m. AGENDA 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes - December 2 meeting 3. Old Business 126`6 Street Right of Way Agreement 4. New Business Approval of Invoices to be paid - all related to City Center B.R. Hurt Realty, Inc Framemakers Baker & Daniels Baker & Daniels Baker & Daniels Baker &Daniels Baker & Daniels 5. Schedule meeting 6. Adjournment. Consulting Services 3 495.00 Photos for Nancy Heck 3 40.59 # 156267 consulting services 3 230.00 9156268 consulting services .52, 499.00 #156269 consulting services 3 322.00 9 165266 consulting services S3,673.88 .9 156270 consulting services S 26.95 .J 4 CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ( December 23, 1998 FS MINUTES The meeting was called to order by President Rick Roesch at .1220 p.m. Members present were Amy Boldt, Ron Carter, and Sue Westermeier, thus constituting a quorum. City Attorney Doug Haney was also in attendance, as was Tom Staten, a colleague of Karl Haas at Baker& Daniels. Ms. Westermeier made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 2°d meeting. Following a second by Ms. Boldt, unanimous approval ensued. Mr. Roesch explained that the Clerk Treasurer has reviewed the invoices listed on the agenda, and would like the commission to consider approving them for payment. Ms. Boldt made a move to approve payment, subject to the internal approval already noted. Unanimous approval followed a second by Ms. Westermeier. Mr. Haney introduced Mr. Staten, and reviewed the negotiations involved in the purchase offer of over $775,000 (the average of 2 appraisals) for the Helen Mueller property, which comprises the 126 h Street roadway. He also reviewed the commission approval of the right of entry agreement on the Mueller parcels. ( The 126th Street extension has been completed sufficiently for public use, and is now open. Mr.-Mike Antrim, Attorney for the Mueilers, has interpreted the right of entry agreement as authorizing only construction of the road, but not use of the road. The City disputes that interpretation. Mr. Haney said there has been no final adjudication at this point. The parties are still far apart on compensation. The Muellers are advocating over $3 million, and there is ongoing communication, but negotiations are not close enough for the commission to approve a final purchase price. In the interim we want to use the road. If the Muellers would want a jury trial during the process of determining the amount of compensation, things could be in process for a year. That process might include three court-appointed appraisers givinga report of the worth of the property. The Redevelopment Commission would have to deposit a sum of money while such a trial ensued. Judge Nation has a full schedule, and in light of the discrepancy in interpretation of the right of entry agreement, the parties have agreed (pending Commission approval) on a deposit of $1,775,166 which could be drawn upon by Mrs. Mueller, pending determination of compensation for her property. This does not represent a purchase price. That amount would be determined by a jury. Redev Commission 12/23/98 page 2 ?NO4c?? /0 a??'yvr Fs Mr. Haney said it is within statuatory giuidelines that if the approved purchase price is more than the deposited amount, the City would pay the difference. If the purchase price is less than the deposit, the Commission could request the difference, or apply it to the purchase of the City Center parcel. This would allow the road to continue being used. Mr. Antrim (representing Mrs. Mueller) is concerned that his client would be liable under the indemnification clause. Mr. Haney feels that the Redevelopment Commission is ,a creature of ordinance/an instrumentality of the city. He is instructing Fred Ellis (as agent of record) to add the commission to the city policy. The document under consideration today doesn't waive rights to proceed and does not set the price of the property. It is simply an instrument to enable the city to'use the road. If there were an accident, Mrs. Mueller would be indemnified, even though she is still the owner of the property. . Ms. Westermeier wondered if this would satisfy Mr. Antrim. Mr. Haney indicated Mr. Antrim agrees with the content thus,far, and understands city insurance would kick in. Ms. Boldt wondered if this type of agreement is "allowed" for a redevelopment commission. Mr. Haney explained it is an agreement entered into as part of litigation, and that it will not be filed until we sue them. At that time it will be presented to the court, which would need to approve the procedure/arrangement. Mr. Haney stated that Mary Elizabeth Solada of Bingham Somers Welsh & Spillman will be filing the condemnation with the court. Ms. Boldt questioned the amount of the fund, to which Mr. Haney acknowledged this amount is agreeable with the Mayor, and that approval could be conditional on the Clerk confirming that funds are available, although he believes the Mayor and Clerk have conferred on this. Ms. Boldt then asked about procedure for the Muellers to draw upon the deposited funds, whether it requires a written request, and consequences if funds run out. Mr. Haney said the Muellers have indicated they have unencumbered property worth this amount. Mr. Roesch stated that Luci Emison told the commission that this body is covered by the city insurance policy. Mr. Antrim doesn't want to accept that. Mr. Staten said Antrim wrote the initial draft of this pending agreement. Mr. Carter expressed reservations about the process of building the road without the deal being completed. He feels we are being asked to do something that may be appropriate, Redev. Commission 494l*U 12/23/98 rEs. page 3 but might compound the problem. After today's discussion, he is not prepared.to vote for this agreement. Mr. Roesch wondered whether there might be a strategy by them to get more money, to encumber the property, and if their appraisals are correct, they could make off with an extra million dollars. Ms. Boldt is uncomfortable knowing we have made improvements to property we don't own. Mr. Roesch said we must put them into a position so that if they encumber the property, we have some security. We need title work showing they are pure and simple owners, prior to the money being deposited, and pledging the property to back up the money. We are subject to criticism if this is not done carefully. We need more homework. Mr. Carter stated that Mr. Antrim should be here to work this'out. Mr. Haney said they could not draw anything out until the first of the year, and City Council needs five days to review the agreement prior to their approving it. Discussion ensued about the great discrepancy between our two appraisals and theirs. Mr. Staten said this is not unusual on parcels facing condemnation. Mr. Roesch wondered if we have seen their appraisals. Mr. Haney said we would have to get another appraisal when we go to court. Mr. Carter stated the procedure to reclaim money is lacking. He wants a recorded lien, or have the court identify the amout necessory for deposit. He also suggested following regular condemnation proceedings. There is no merit to this (agreement), and he would not be able to justify it to City Council. Mr. Roesch said he can't see taking this agreement to City Council, and Mr. Haney assured members that we would deposit no money until this is filed with the court. Mr. Haney said we might be able to get a lien - these agreements are reached every day - while we continue to litigate the price. He understands the concern about security, so that if they spend some of the money, we have the security to get the money back. Mr. Carter said he would make a motion that this proceed forward on only the following basis; with a change giving us security and deposit the appraised amount or that we proceed under ordinary eminent domain procedures. Redev. Commisson 12/23/98 page 4 Mr. Roesch suggested amending the motion to have a pledge to do title work to secure the deposit. Mr. Carter amended his motion to include that provision, Ms. Boldt seconded the motion. Unanimous approval followed. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. le W City of Carmel December 7, 1998 Jennifer Smith Jennifer's 924 S. Rangeline Rd. Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Jennifer: I am writing to inform you that the Carmel Redevelopment Commission met on, Wednesday, December 2nd. At this meeting I had occasion to discuss your concern regarding the lack of adequate lighting in your parking lot. The Commission would like for you to obtain three detailed quotes for the particular type of lighting you are requesting. Please send these quotes and any other correspondence regarding the lighting to my office. I will forward all paperwork to the Redevelopment Commission for their review. If you have any questions, please call my office at 571-2414. Sincerely, Diana Cordray Clerk-Treasurer ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571.2400