Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRC-04-25-00CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Tuesday, April'25, 2000 DOCS Conference Room 6:00 p.m. REVISED AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes, 4/1212000 Meeting 3. Financial Report 4. Old Business A. Discussion about organization and resolutions about.payment of invoices and approval of contracts B. Discussion about Community Survey Proposal C. Discussion about Artec Proposal D. Pac-Van Contract for Shoe Heeler Business 5. New Business A. Letter from Mayor Brainard, nominating Joseph Staehler as head of the Department of Redevelopment B. Approval of Invoices I. August Mack Environmental, Inc. $1,235 Pre-demo & Asbestos Survey for Valinet Property 2. Susan Neal Appraisal Services $3,500 For 111 1" Street S.W. and 120 1"Avenue S.W. 3. Robert Bommer Appraisal Services $3,500 Dunkerly-Hamblin Property, same addresses as above 6. Signing of Documents (if any) 7. Schedule Next Meeting 8. Adjournment Z:\redevcomm\2000 April 25 Agenda CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Meeting, Tuesday, April 25, 2000 The meeting was called to order by President Rick Roesch at 6:08 p.m. Commission members present were Ron Carter, Sue Westermeier, John Koven representing a quorum. Also present were Joe Staehler, Mayor Jim Brainard, Councilors Wayne Wilson and Luci Snyder, Clerk-Treasurer Karl Haas. Amy Boldt arrived at 6:12 p.m.. Aooroval of Minutes Sue Westetmeier moved the minutes of the CRC meeting of April 12, 2000, be approved as mailed. Following a second by John Koven, the motion was approved with Ron Carter abstaining since he was not present at the last meeting. Old Business Discussion about the organization and resolution about payment of invoices and approval of contracts. Mr. Haas distributed four versions of the resolution and explained what the different versions were: The first provides a director and a redevelopment department. The second shows the changes in that resolution from the one which was distributed at the April 12 meeting, but still providing for a director: Those changes are primarily how special meetings can be called and limitations on the amounts that can be expended as "seed money" for projects. The third version is a form of resolution that incorporates the concept of a liaison, which is something Mr. Roesch had requested as an alternative. The fourth one shows the difference between that and what was presented at the last meeting. Mr. Haas continued: Of the other three things I've distributed, all entitled "How the CRC Works", one is describing the CRC under either a director, or under a liaison, and the third one shows the difference between those two. Both the State Code and the City Ordinances provide for there to be a Department of Redevelopment. In practice there hasn't been one because there's no staff or director. Under the statute and ordinances there would be a director of that department. The statutes and the ordinances contemplate that that is the arrangement. And the state statutes do provide that the mayor does appoint the heads of the departments and that's subject to the approval of the commission. There isn't anything.in the statutes that precludes having a liaison so that's not an illegal arrangement. Mr. Roesch: So the difference procedurally between a liaison and a director is that the Mayor appoints the director subject to CRC approval and in the case of a liaison, he would nominate the liaison subject to CRC approval and the liaison serves until terminated by either the Mayor or CRC. Mr. Haas said that's correct. Mayor Brainard: Before 1996 when this administration came into office, there was an ordinance passed which paralleled the state statutes which said "if a redevelopment commission is established, the Mayor shall appoint a director." I didn't do that originally because I was concerned about the perception that would be out there... "here goes government again creating another new department", even though it was already created. But we've had this discussion about how we want to do everything by the rules, by the book, and Indiana Code Book says there shall be a director, appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the Redevelopment Commission. The way I read it requires us to do that. The intentwould be there wouldn't be any change except Joe Staehler would be at our meetings. Even though he's been doing much of the work as a staff person in our office, it would formalize that position. At this point in time there would' be no reason for additional staff. No new and additional projects would betaken on because we're formalizing this department. We'd just make sure we're doing everything based on what our local ordinance and state statute appears to say. Mr. Koven disagreed that the statute said that. Mayor Brainard said it was in 2-3 in the City Code. "The Mayor shall be the chief administrator of the city and shall have control of the day to day operations of the following executive departments which are established." [One of which is the Department of Redevelopment.] Mayor Brainard quoted the Indiana Code IC 36-4-9-2, Section 2 (a): "Notwithstanding any other law, the city execrative shall appoint the head of each department. established..." Clerk-Treasurer Cordray: But we really don't have a department because we don't have an appropriation in our budget for the financial support of a department. It's there intellectually... Mr. Koven said his interpretation was different. "It doesn't say just because we have to have a department it has to have a department head. If it has a department head, you [Mayor Brainard] get to appoint it. But it doesn't say, if you establish a department, it shall have a department head. Because if what you're saying is true, this commission has operated illegally for four years" Mayor Brainard, "No, it's just been operating without a department head." Mr. Koven, "Then it can continue to do that because it doesn't say anything about needing a department head." Mayor Brainard, "It says, `shall appoint' the head of each department established under this chapter." Mr. Koven: Yes, If you have one, you shall appoint him. [Pause] That's fine. Mr. Roesch: It seems to me there are several ways to go here. Both of these procedures essentially do the same thing and provide us with the control that we need over the finances, the contracts. The budget is perhaps going.to be a little bit different than other city departments because it is a cash flow statement or sources and uses of funds. We really don't have any operating expenses other than while we're holding property and we have utilities, etc. Clerk-Treasurer Cordray: If we create a department, which maybe we have but we didn't call it that, don't we then.have to handle it like we do all the departments? Mayor Brainard: Legally, I think our initial appropriation is a synonym for budget: We appropriated the initial 10 %million or so bond proceeds in the initial bond resolutions. I checked with Neil [Steinbart] at Barnes and Thomberg, too, and he indicated we have what I call recycled money. Or money that's not from the original bond proceeds, but money that has been spent on something and then it's coming back to the City, for instance, the AMLI sale. That recycled money needs to be appropriated by the CRC. It would be required under the law for this recycled money to prepare a budget. Clerk-Treasurer Cordray: Just like the 16 line statements that we have right now. All the invoicing would be handled like any other department in City Hall. So we're actually taking a step to formalize... So we get to do more. Mr. Koven: Who's head of our economic development department? Mayor Brainard: That's not on the,list as a department. That's on the.list as a board under State law. Mr. Koven: It says Department of Economic Development in our City Code. I.read it for comparison. Mayor Brainard: State Code doesn't call for it to have a director. It lists here [quoting from IC 36-4-9-2]...I take that back. It lists here department of economic development commission. I guess we should. It's never been done in Carmel. Redevelopment Commission's been around for a number of years before we came into office. These aren't, the sort of things that make action improper by this body, but if we want to go strictly by the book, we want to follow the rule of the law exactly, I think it's probably the way we want to do it. Mr. Carter: Since I wasn't here at the last meeting, Rich, can you give me some background on why we're looking at a liaison versus a director, etc? Mr. Roesch: What we're trying to accomplish with the whole discussion, since the projects have gotten more complicated and we have multiple projects to do... We could also be subject to criticism if we do not have procedures-in place to handle these things. We also have had some bills that have come from various areas where other city departments have approved bills on our behalf and our thought was that we need to budget, organize, also put a procedure in place to approve these bills so that we don't see them after the fact. There's been discussion about seed money and what needs to be appropriated. I'm not sure we're in total agreement as a commission about what that amount should be but that it should be appropriated and if that changes we should approve that in advance. When we're talking about how we organize this we need to have something that lays out the procedure, and have the rules in place for the city departments working on our behalf to follow to ensure that we all know what's going on at all times. And we're not getting ahead of ourselves spending money that we don't have. Or have people working on projects which perhaps may not be in line in the queue where the CRC feels they should.be. The purpose of this is how to do it. Mr. Carter: But my question was liaison versus director. Why do we have these two choices? Mr. Roesch: I think what you just heard is what's appropriate, whether we establish a department or not. Mr. Carter: It appears the department is already established. So where does the liaison again come in versus the director? Mr. Roesch: There are some differences about who appoints a director... Ms. Boldt: The version of 6-2000 that we approved at the last meeting, did it refer to a liaison? Mr. Roesch: It did not refer to a director or a liaison. Mr. Koven: It referred to the Commission making those decisions and when that was introduced the Mayor called Karl Haas and asked him to come up with an alternative resolution. Ms. Bolds. What advantage is there in calling someone a liaison versus a director? Mr. Roesch: It apparently does have some legal differences. Mr. Haas: The difference in these two resolutions is in how the person serves. In each case, there is a nomination or an appointment by the mayor which amounts to the same thing. And then approval by the commission. In the case of the director, there's not a statute that I'm aware of, a mechanism, for the commission to unapptove the director, but I think probably you could pass a resolution saying, "We now revoke our confirmation of the appointment made by the mayor." That would take a formalized process. The liaison was set up so that person was serving in that position like an employee of will and it was the will of either the mayor or the commission, so it was easier for you to get rid of the liaison. And at that point the mayor would come back and, appoint another liaison subject to your approval. The other difference is that since a person is a liaison instead of a director, under the resolution with the liaison the mayor is preparing and submitting through the liaison the budget, as opposed to having someone in the position of the director who, under that resolution, would prepare that budget himself or herself and submit it. Ms. Boldt: It seems to me we've created inconsistency in using the staff of the Department of Community Services. Mayor Brainard: Staffs-share employees all the time. It wouldn't change anything. Mr. Koven: We sit here as a commission and we pass something, it gets done, but how does it get done? None of us are really involved in how it.gets done. There is probably a need.for somebody to be in a position to carry the message out of here and see that it gets done and then report back to us. As long as we control, from a commission standpoint, the ability of that.person to spend money willfully without our consent, I think whichever way it goes is a moot point. But there probably is a need to have that. When I was appointed to the CRC initially, and then I became-a City Council member, I asked the Mayor, since we have a department here, why don't we function as a department? He said, "We don't need to." Mayor Brainard: And I disagree with my previous statement. We're at a point where we clearly need to now. Mr. Koven: And at this point in time maybe what we're going to do is aifferent series of projects than the commission has done before so there probably is a need for some things to be done. We start making decisions about which building to tear down ...there probably needs to be a focal point and.I don't know who has been at this point. We've had different people in and out of our meetings and things get done, but I just never really figured out who did it. Mr. Roesch: We.haven't sent the right directions sometimes because we haven't had a procedure. Perhaps sometimes people assume they're doing things in the direction we want them to and perhaps they weren't. Mayor Brainard: Different departments (Engineering, DOCS, Street) have been responsible for different things for the CRC: All that would continue but you'd have one person saying, "How are you going to do this, when is it going to get done and how much is it going to cost?" I think that would be real helpful and it's better that it not,be me. It would be better, as the statute seems to call, for, to have someone do it. Joe has been as involved as anybody, carrying things out, helping coordinate them and so he's the logical choice. Mr. Carter: Karl, state statute calls for a director, is that the case? Does state statute say anything at all to the position of liaison? Mr. Haas replied yes to the first question and no to the second. Mr. Carter: Then why are we looking to deviate from the state statute; forge new ground? Mr. Roesch: I'm not trying to forge new ground here as much as look at alternatives, Ron. Mr. Carter: What's the point in looking at alternatives when we've got state statute laid out there in front of us... Mr. Roesch: Because in the original resolution Mr. Haas brought to the last meeting, I did not agree with everything in that resolution. I think there were others who questioned that. We did pass another resolution on a temporary basis to fill the gap in the meantime while we investigated this. As you can see there are basically four drafts to look at. It is something.that is important. I'm not sure that because we've gotten this at the last minute, I think we should be having this discussion, since everybody has not had time to really take a look at them and see what they mean. It's important that we're looking at this in that much detail. We're forming this organization to deal with what we have in the future. Mr. Carter asked Mr. Roesch if he was comfortable with.the changes that have been made. Mr. Roesch responded that he is comfortable with just a few changes in the second draft of the director version. Mr. Roesch said, "I think there are a few changes that need to be made." Mr. Haas: The statutes and the ordinances contemplate a director. That doesn't mean that having a liaison is illegal. Here's the way the procedure would work (and this is keyed off not what the position is, but off of a budget). There is an annual budget that's presented and approved by the Commission. That budget would have as much detail as the other departmental budgets do. It's within the purview of the Commission to approve, reject, modify that. Then there are provisions for how you change the budget as you move along through the year. One way to be changing it in effect, let's suppose you have budgeted x dollars to acquire a piece of property and it turns out to be more expensive. Then you approve that expenditure, that results in an automatic change in the.budget because you would have voted affirmatively to spend more money than was budgeted. It's also the case that through the course of the year the budget could be inaccurate because your objectives have changed. In which case, again, the director would bring to you an updated budget saying this is now what I think reflects the financial direction in which we're headed. One of the items in the budget would be a category of preliminary expenses and from the discussions I've heard this is probably the most controversial. That would be an amount set by the commission for preliminary investigations of projects. So, for example, if someone said get rid of the Sherwin Williams lease. This would allow the director to set some amount to call, not an appraiser, but perhaps a broker or someone else who could establish a value and say if we wanted to get rid of Sherwin Williams the approximate amount we are looking at. And maybe calling a title company to confirm, in fact, who owns a property and.what's of record without getting a title permit. So that when an idea is then presented formally to the commission there would be enough basis on which you could make some informed decisions as to whether you wanted to proceed. There would be some set amount which could be expended at the discretion of the director for these preliminary investigations. It would not be for appraisals, or for obtaining surveys or title commitments, but for doing some background search. Then either the director or a commission member could bring before the CRC a formal proposal saying we've got some information-now on how much it would take to get SW out... I think we ought to pursue that. Then that proposal is adopted. The director is in effect the "legs" to go out and try to negotiate terminating the SW lease. During the negotiations the director would come back to you and report where it stands. If you want to have a report every month, the director would report to you. At any time you would have within your power to say this is going nowhere, the price is too high, or we've changed our objectives and you can stop that initiative. Once the director has negotiated a deal, then that's brought back to you with the terms and before it's binding on the commission it comes back to you again for final approval so you can say yes, we approve or no. Or, "That may be the best you can do so far but it's too much money, go try again." Or alternatively you say, "It's clearly too much money; let's just stop." Ms. Boldt: It seems to me we're trying to name someone into a position and that position hasn't been defined. In my experience you have to write ajob description, a scope of authority, a list of responsibilities, etc., to hire someone. I don't feel comfortable naming someone to do X for us without defining what we expect, what the job entails. I think it's a no win situation personally. I would feel sorry for the person. Mr. Haas: It is a tough position because the person who is the "legs" for this commission needs to be in some ways a "jack of all trades" because this is a person who is expected to evaluate the values of property, whether the transaction is properly structured, look at title issues, survey and environmental... Ms. Boldt: Basically, if anything goes wrong right now we could point at this person, if we name this person this evening. He's responsible for everything and responsible for nothing at the same time. Mr. Haas: I think that's true to the extent that the person doesn't report to you. Ms. Westermeier: The person is still held accountable and right now we don't have anybody doing any of this work. The Mayor's done some of this but there's nobody... Mr." Haas: The unfortunate reality is that the job changes, not from hour to hour, but from month to month. And it's very difficult to anticipate everything that this person might have to do in the job description. If you regard your commission as a business, your business is evolving from acquiring property and issuing bonds, to disposing property and performing site work to facilitate projects. Now maybe sometime in the future more bonds will be issued and your business will swing back. Ms. Boldt: I'm trying to think if the original intent was for. us to get some means of advance notice of what's happening. By appointing this person, what is to say that that person in that position wouldn't do things that we wouldn't have approved previously. Are we creating the "same situation that we have now, just naming it something else? Mr. Koven: Diana made the comment about are we going to go to a budget like every other department. I don't see how we can. We don't do anything except spend money on projects. We don't have payroll. We don't have overhead. It seems to me that we would establish a list of projects, the priority of the list of projects, and as the money comes in, we knock off the projects. We don't put project #4 ahead of project #1. The budget that we would have would be to determine... we sell the AMLI property, we get our money, we have a list of projects, and our first project is to tear the Kroger center down. The person with the legs (and I'm going to point at you, Joe [Staehler], because it's probably going to be you) would be responsible for getting quotes and bids and everything else on what it's going to take to tear that down and come back for approval. We approve and we appropriate X amount of dollars to get the job done and he goes and does it. And if there's a problem he has to come back and ask for additional money. Ms. Boldt: In any or all of these documents have we protected or have we tried to make new, the authority that we are saying in advance in our meetings that we would like this person to go and negotiate, for example, the termination of the. Kroger lease? Mr. Haas: Yes. Ms. Boldt: But how far could that person go toward negotiating other properties that may be considered to be part of the City Center project, but we didn't discuss the particulars of... the very same situation that brought us here, we could be. faced with again just with a different person being questioned, Mr. Haas: Yes, that could happen. But it won't happen. If -you have someone in a position that's looking to abuse authority, it doesn't really matter what resolutions we pass. But if you have a person that's not looking to abuse authority then the commission can grant authority on either a narrow or a broad basis. If you grant authority on a narrow basis, such as, negotiate the termination of the SW lease, then that authority doesn't extend to buying some additional property at the other end of the City Center to add to the project. Mr. Haas continued: You will have empowered the director to do what... the answer is circular. You will have empowered the director to do no more than you say is permissible to be done. So this also doesn't protect you against yourselves. You could make the mistake of authorizing someone to just do whatever deals you think are in the best interest of the City. Notwithstanding the fact that you pass a resolution, you'll be right back where you are today. Ms. Westermeier: So we have to define it to a degree. "You can go out and do this, this, and this... and this is all you can do." And that's how far we want to take it right now and we'll put financial limits on each project. Mr. Haas: Yes. Mayor Brainard: I'm reading from your [resolution], Karl, and it says, "Persons can authorize expenditures for preliminary expenses up to the amount appropriated by the CRC in the budget." Ms. Westermeier: So we control it. Mr. Haas: Yes. It is within your control It was decided the CRC members would review the different versions Mr. Haas brought and try to finalize the decision at the next meeting. Mr. Koven: Maybe the appropriate thing to do, by consensus, is decide that we're going to go with a director and we can discard the liaison paperwork. Discussion followed. It was agreed to dispose of the liaison paperwork. Ms. Boldt moved the resolution [about appointing a director] be tabled until the next meeting. Following a second by Mr. Carter, the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Haas noted if there were any questions about the resolution to call him. Mr. Carter moved, and Ms. Boldt seconded that the discussions about the Community Survey proposal and the Artec proposal (Items B and C) be tabled until the next meeting. Unanimously approved. Item D (The Shoeheeler) was on the agenda in error and will be brought back to the Commission when all the paperwork is ready. New Business The CRC received a letter from Mayor Brainard nominating Joe Staehler as director of the CRC. Mr. Koven moved this item be tabled until the next meeting. Following a second by Ms. Boldt, the.motion was approved. Approval of Invoices Discussion followed. It was decided that the invoice from August Mack had the wrong property listed and it will not be•approved at this time. Joe Staehler will follow up on this. Mayor Brainard: The appraisals are for the property which will be used for additional parking areas in Phase One of the Old Town project. This is an attempt to try to find property that is available within a quarter block of the area. With the two parcels of the property we bought, one of the City's obligations under that project to be able to get bidders is going to be to find additional parking area within a quarter block of that project. We've looked at properties all around that project to see what property would be available for sale and what environmental issues would be associated with it. The appraisals then tell us whether or not it's one we want to make an offer on. Mr. Koven: We've had properties appraised to see whether we could buy them or not? Mayor Brainard: Yes. Mr. Koven: I don't recall ever having that come before this Commission. You said that was a commitment we had for this project? Mayor. Brainard: It was in the original description when I brought that project to the Commission and introduced it for the first time and Ron moved that we go ahead and pursue it. One of the things I said we'd have to do is provide some surface parking at some point nearby. This is parking to facilitate the retail. The City has a parking lotin the Old Town area over on the east side and that's worked out very well for those merchants. We need something on the west side of Rangeline.if we're going to have successful retail in that area. Mayor Brainard continued: I told you at the last meeting we had a list of outstanding contracts. (List distributed and explanation followed.] This is, we.believe, every outstanding obligation and it.brings the total to around 584,000 (not counting the 595,000 due to CSO which will be paid after the AMLI closing). It lists Old Town Phase I, the area around.the two blocks we purchased. Old Town Phase H includes the expenses in connection with the charitable remainder trust we talked about at a previous meeting. Old Town Phase III would be the area directly to the north of the two blocks we bought. Now we've stopped everything based on the instructions from the CRC of everything except Phase I. Then you go down to the AMLI project. There is various work to keep that project moving, such as the wetlands mitigation. On the $95,000 invoice to CSO, that would be a reimbursable amount from a future bond issue for the performing arts center. The Cripe Engineering Design should actually be under Old Town Phase I. Then the rest is legal. Mr. Staehler noted the only thing not listed would be the demolition costs in Old Town and all of those are in-house except for the dumpsters. Mayor Brainard noted this list is only for items now obligated; it does not include future items. We will continue to incur legal fees to get the wetlands completed. Mr. Carter: It appears the bike shop has some retail selling season time constraints. That's probably the only thing on the list that really has some hard and fast deadlines set up right now besides AIvILI. 10 Mayor Brainard: With some caution, I think, because we don't want to get in a position if we had a problem with AMLI and it gets drawn out we end up with a cash flow problem. We are close to being able to offer for bid the owner-occupied townhome section and the office building section. Plus we probably need to continue on, the bike shop. So those may be three exceptions, still with caution. But hypothetically only, say it was going to be six months before we close on AMLI, we might end up selling the townhome parcel, getting it bid and getting money in before we close on AMLI because there's no wetlands issue there. So that might be something we want to continue on, those core pieces of the City Center that can produce some income. Mr. Olds: We have mapped on the draft the RFP for Parcel 2 and Parcel 6. At the next meeting, we'd like to bring in the draft and update the commission on the status of all the pieces, the engineering, where things are, the design aspects so you have a complete understanding because there are some 30-40 small parts that are ongoing and are being taken care of. We'll bring you the draft for Parcel 2 and Parcel 6 so we can go through it and determine what is being proposed. The only blank that will be filled in is the sale price for the land. We've had several different real estate people give us some numbers of what the market is paying for ground and we will present those numbers to the commission and say, "This is the minimum offering price that we think we should be asking for the ground." We've tried updating and being coherent with what the market is paying and the prices have been going up lately. We will go through the draft and get your input. On one side we ask from the developer and on the other side we tell the developer what the City would provide as their part of the public/private partnership. There's been a great deal of interest from the private sector on the for sale townhouses. We get calls on a regular basis. A number of developers have also expressed interest in the office sites. Mr. Koven asked that the draft RFPS be sent to the commission in advance of the next meeting. Mr. Olds agreed. Mr. Olds: The survey work for the bike shop has already been taken care of. We did it and paid for it so the schedule would stay on track. [This is the $5,700. noted on the Obligation List distributed earlier.] That was a result of the road construction. When they built the road we had there was overbuilding of the sid3 and embankments because of the erosion. As we defined the bike shop area we were able to modify that to put more ground into the bike shop area and less ground into the right-of-way. Mr. Carter moved the two invoices for appraisals [Susan Neal Appraisal Service for $3500 and Robert Bommer Appraisal Service for 535001 be approved. Following a second by Ms. Boldt, the motion was approved with four in favor and Mr. Koven opposed. Next Meetine will be May 10, 6 p.m.in DOCS Conference Room. [Caucus rooms not available.] 11 Other New Business Mr. Koveri:,Ijust wanted'to make everyone on the commission aware thatwithout having talked to us ahead of time, the"Mayor prepared an ordinance that,came,'to the City Council meeting last Monday night calling for the vacation of the "street between the trio parcels that,we now. own.,Lsaid in our_couiicil meeting the other night (and I want to say it here because I think the Commission should take some action), I think`it's,appropriale for us to vacate thafstraet once we;actually,,have a deal for,someone-.to buy those; two pieces-of property. but I think it's totally inappropriate foi us to do it prior to ihatpoint because if in fact,we do not geta, successful ,bid'derwho's willing to purchase that, property ' and we decide thatpropertyy inay or may, notfly we mayhave to sell that again as two separate parcels°of property and;now all of a sudden we have a.-street between thcm,that.we own as a ,commission. And,we have to,go'back,and approve to,get'thc street put back. Pd.like to ask that the Corrimission-at least-take a vote to take back to the Council,to-say, we don't have a.problem-vacating the street but let's wait until we,know that we actually have these two parcels,sold andbefore we end up with a parcel.and it's so big we can`t.get rid Wit. Ms: Boldt: Does the'streetnot go anywhere? How. cap,you vacate a portion of a street? Mr.`Koven: The street goes from Main Street to the.old lumberyard. Mayor, Brainard: First of all,"people are always looking for a bigger,parcel instead ofa smaller one- That, notwithstanding, I think our bid pri ce will'be better if that one step of the process has already been completed prior to the,bA For instance, in the case of AMI_I we had to get-zoningiapproval and get wetlands improvements. Mr. Koven: The only reason we.got zoning approval late isEbecause you said°we didn't need a, zoning;,change., Mayor Brainard': We didn'tthink we did and we don't need it to wristruct.` hey'need it for,their mortgage company, but... Mr. Koven: Iftakes only two meetings to abandon;a street`or we can.waive•the rules and do it in one, Mayor Brainard. But f still think,'it,makes sense if the potential developer cansay; "Wait a minute, that's a step Edon't have'to wait on. I•can get,started right"away:" I think it 'adds value to the property-if there are,the fewest number of things,to,get in their way.- Mr. , Haas: Minsfact.you did'vacate;the street; put the property up for bid and the project doesn't work, there's nothing that would stop you from rededieating-the;street. Discussion followed. Mr.,Koven:- I think there's a whole issue here for the. Redevelopment Commission;to be concerned about in the firstplacc. We were convenedas a City Center project and.now 12 all of a sudden the Old Town has taken precedence over everything else this Commission was put together to do. And if you look.down through where the money's being spent, that's where it's all going to go. We're going to end up with a downtown project and we're still going to have no money to go forward with City Center unless we do a bond issue and I don't see that happening any time in the near future. Mayor Brainard: We should be able to do. everything the original City Center bond project anticipated, under the initial ten and a half million dollars. The initial bond issue never anticipated that we'd build the performing arts center or the museum' building. It anticipated that we'd do everything else. According to the financials we still have a half million dollars or so of contingency money in the pro forma that I passed out at the last meeting. We should be able to do absolutely everything that the initial bond issue anticipated, plus the Old Town project. Mr. Koven: We've spent a million dollars downtown that we could already be working on doing some demolition work if we'd gotten the people out. We're spending more money on downtown projects that weren't even on our radar screen eight months ago and all of a sudden it became our first priority. Discussion followed. Mayor Brainard: The CRC already approved the overall concept when they approved the plans which showed the street being gone. Mr. Haas: Technically the CRC doesn't have to do anything to authorize the vacation because you don't have any jurisdiction over the streets: And it's also.not required that you ask to have a street vacated. What you would have a right to do is object to a vacation as an adjoining owner. But on it's own the Board of Public Works could initiate a vacation of a street and then since the only adjoining owner is the CRC, the CRC could say, "No, I don't like this." Technically, the item that you might want to have discussed is whether or not you wanted to object to the vacation or support the vacation, but it doesn't require commission, action to initiate the vacation. Mr. Carter suggested Mr. Koven make a motion and see where it goes. Mr. Koven said he didn't want to make a motion, he only brought the topic up for discussion. Adjournment Ms. Boldt moved the meeting be adjourned. Following a second by Mr. Koven, the motion was unanimously approved. 13