Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRC-12-11-02CRC Meeting, December 11, 2002 1 CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Meeting Wednesday, December 11, 2002 The meeting was called to order by President Rick Roesch at 7:02 p.m. Commission members present were Luci Snyder, Ron Carter and John Koven constituting a quorum. Also present were Karl Haas, Les Olds, Steve Engelking, Laurence Lillig, Kelli Lawrence, Mike McBride, Wayne Wilson, Sherry Mielke, Brian Shapiro, Tony Meeks from the Clay Township Assessor’s office and Jim Higgins, from London Witte Group. Phyllis Morrissey as support staff. Bid Opening There were no bids to open. Mr. Olds said bidders had reported there were new designs and materials available and they asked for an extension. In the meantime Mr. Olds will review the alternatives. The bids will now be due at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the CRC. It will not have to be advertised again because Mr. Olds is notifying all the potential bidders. Approval of Minutes Ms. Snyder moved the minutes of the November 13, 2002, meeting be approved. Following a second by Mr. Koven, the motion was unanimously approved. No Mayor’s Report due to his absence. Report from Director Mr. Engelking reported the north pile of dirt (all topsoil) was completely moved to another part of City Center by employees of the Street Department. CRC will be billed for rental of the equipment. The dirt pile on the south side is still an issue. Mr. Engelking reported he received a letter from Jim Thomas, AMLI, about a problem on the Old Town site. Time Warner Cable has not moved their cable lines from the middle of the Old Town site. Mr. Thomas was informed that the cable company just ordered the material required for the replacement line in spite of the fact they were informed this past summer of the need to have the lines moved. This delay is very costly to AMLI, in both money and time lost. In his letter, Mr. Thomas stated, “Further delays are wholly untenable, as it will ensure that we will be unable to meet our retail occupancy commitments.” Brief discussion followed. The CRC members felt the fault lies fully with Time Warner. Mr. Haas pointed out Time Warner was there as a sublicensee under Cinergy. CRC Meeting, December 11, 2002 2 Ms. Snyder made a motion the CRC cooperate and assist AMLI in pursuing claims against Time Warner or the applicable cable company with respect to delays caused by failure of the cable company to remove their cable lines. Following a second by Mr. Carter, the motion was unanimously approved. Report from DOCS Ms. Lawrence has not received revised plans for the Tunnel Express sign. Ms. Lawrence has advised Mr. McComas of the revised dates for Shapiro’s Phase II project. AMLI Old Town sign criteria has been reviewed. The only change the Department requests is that the awnings not move in the breeze. Mr. Thomas agreed. Each sign, as long as it conforms to the criteria, would only need to apply for a sign permit which would eliminate the need for ADLS approval for each one. Ms. Snyder moved the CRC approve the sign criteria manual. Following a second by Mr. Carter, the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Thomas submitted a revised development plan for the Old Town project. The primary amendment is the addition of the parcel east of the Lumber Yard Mall property to be used for parking. This addition has allowed for the elimination of the middle curb cut along 1st Avenue S.W. Ms. Lawrence noted this improves the traffic flow and the Department is very pleased with the changes. An official hearing will be held after CRC approval of the revised plan. Ms. Snyder moved the CRC approve the revised development plan including the Shell property. Following a second by Mr. Carter, the motion was unanimously approved. Ms. Lawrence announced this will be her last CRC meeting since she is changing jobs. She was complimented for her work and best wishes were extended. Financial Report Ms. Mielke announced the balance as of November 30, 2002, was $241,611.00. Mr. Roesch, Mr. Burke, Mr. Engelking have met with Ms. Mielke to try to get the financial projections as accurate as possible. Mr. Haas and Mr. Olds have also worked with her on the report. Mr. Roesch asked everyone to look the report over carefully and bring any questions to the next meeting. Mr. Haas said since the leases are to be signed on Friday, December 20, he has scheduled the Pedcor closing that day, with the draw happening on Monday, December 23. It was noted that even if something came up at the last moment, they would probably close in escrow. CRC Meeting, December 11, 2002 3 Approval of Invoices Ms. Mielke distributed a revised list of invoices. The total submitted for payment is $164,588.28. In addition three invoices were submitted for approval, two of which are toward Brian Shapiro credit (one to Gillette General Contractors for $18,455 and the other to Brian Shapiro for $93,369) and the third is to Fifth Third Bank for $83,066.67 which will be paid from Duke Realty bond proceeds. These three will not come out of CRC funds but do need CRC approval. On the Fifth Third payment, the bond documents state that if the TIF funds are not available those payments are a direct obligation of Duke’s, not CRC’s. Mr. Koven questioned why purchase orders were not being used on all contracts, despite the fact the CRC adopted a resolution requiring this some time ago. He was concerned because “we are not paying these contracts against specific contracted amounts. That troubles me that we’re not setting money aside when we’re entering into a contract. We entered into a contract without having the money on hand and which is not proper in the State of Indiana.” Mr. Roesch: I don’t believe that is true for Redevelopment Commissions. Mr. Koven: There still should be a contract amount out there on a ledger sheet and every time we pay against it we should be subtracting it because how do we know if we end up paying more than we were supposed to in the first place if we never had an appropriation set aside for it. Mr. Koven said the CRC should also know going into a project which entity is going to pay for it, for example, the road by the Fire Department, not waiting until the project is done and then saying, “We owe $150,000. Where are we going to find it?” Further discussion followed at length. Mr. Engelking reminded the Commission that in June a listing of the various “scopes” of work was distributed which gave the estimated costs and assigned responsibility for the different projects for Shapiro’s Phase I. Discussion continued about different methods of paying for the new Fire Department street. Brief discussion about the drainage problem by the Police Department and the Fire Department. Mr. Roesch acknowledged that Mr. Koven had a valid point and the CRC should try to follow his suggestion for future projects. He noted the importance of getting more definite costs prior to starting projects. It was noted that Ms. Mielke actually tracks each contract, checking the amount which was approved in the minutes. CRC Meeting, December 11, 2002 4 Mr. Carter moved the invoices in the amount of $164,588.28 be approved. Following a second by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved. Ms. Snyder moved the CRC approve credits toward Gillette General Contractors and Brian Shapiro in the amount of $111,824. Following a second by Mr. Koven, the motion was unanimously approved. Ms. Snyder moved the CRC approve the Fifth Third invoice in the amount of $83,066.67 to be paid by Duke Realty. Following a second by Mr. Carter the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Koven asked why the Wabash Scientific invoice was withdrawn per Ed Burke. Mr. Roesch said Mr. Burke wanted to review it prior to payment. TIF Report Mr. Roesch said CRC received a detailed report which Mr. Burke would like to review. Mr. Higgins, from London Witte, was present at the meeting. Their study has determined that the legislative change in the TIF will have a negative impact of about $200,000. They are recommending that the CRC proceed with a special levy, working through the Clerk Treasurer’s office to file part one of a worksheet that is prescribed by the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, and provide them with a calculation on the estimated impact of $200,000. This would become part of a levy. It also is important because the contractual obligations of the CRC state that we would try to maximize the amount of TIF for the developers with whom we have the agreements. Mr. Higgins: In last year’s legislation the general assembly granted property tax relief to homeowners by increasing the property tax replacement credit against the school general fund and took that from 20% to 60%, in effect reducing everybody’s property taxes. Within the TIF districts there’s no provision to make up those dollars, so where people have bonded for debt, based on the projections that there were going to be increments, the largest component of any municipal total tax rate is made up by the schools. So it’s taken away a large chunk of TIF revenue. When this was brought to the legislators’ attention they weren’t enamored with the fact that we’re going to support with additional property tax replacement credit, those TIF districts. They said if you want to replace those funds then we’ll allow you to establish a levy so that, in Carmel’s instance, the general reassessment hasn’t been determined yet, but the general fund levy for the schools is a little less than a dollar. The forty percent credit will be roughly 36 cents in savings so your property tax bill will be reduced by 36 cents a hundred all things being equal. If these levies go into play instead of getting a 36 cent reduction, it will capture about 1.25 cents back. Of the seven areas that have been established, four are generating some type of revenue today: the amended 126th Street area, Parkwood, Merchants Square and Merchants Pointe. Those three all have developer backed guarantees. The legislation CRC Meeting, December 11, 2002 5 is very poorly written and poorly timed. This was passed in a special session and the legislation instructed the state initially that this was to be resolved by July 15 in the normal course of the budgeting process. The Department of Local Government Finance didn’t get around to developing the worksheets and understanding the import of the legislation until just the middle of November. So they circulated these worksheets for this initial year and said, “These are the tests that we want to have taken. The Redevelopment Commissions will notify us of the existence of all these districts.” So the first step is to acknowledge that the districts exist and what the potential impact is in an estimate of lost revenues and to do that by December 31. Mr. Higgins continued: That levy is automatically put into place just by the existence of the TIF district prior to the year end. The decision whether to keep the levy or reduce the levy is made by the legislative branch of the government (the City Council). That action they want to have take place by January 15 but I don’t think they’ll be as hard and fast with that deadline this initial year. Ms. Snyder: So we are going to recommend to our City Council a course of action and ask them to take it? Mr. Roesch: It’s my understanding that we don’t recommend this to the City Council. Mr. Higgins: Most communities’ Redevelopment Commissions have put the levy in place, by accepting the numbers and filing the requisite forms. [TIF] Districts created after January 1 [2003] do not have the ability to get this levy. The levy becomes automatic every year and then it’s up to the City Council to eliminate or reduce it. It’s always going to be in play unless there’s action taken. Mr. Roesch: But if we recommend to the Council that we don’t need it, then it’s done, right? Mr. Higgins: No, you can come back two years from now and change it because the district was established prior to the end of this year. Most communities that I’ve talked to, because of reassessment and the unknown nature of how it’s going to change, I’ve encouraged people to take the levy in the first year. If they find out they don’t need it, they can reduce the rate in the second year, because it’s much easier to reduce somebody’s tax rate rather than come back next year and add it in. Mr. Koven moved the CRC take the recommendations and proceed with the levy. Following a second by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Higgins will follow through with Sherry Mielke by sending signed forms to her. Attorney’s Report and Architect’s Report Mr. Haas said he only had one item, which was a common item with Les. CRC Meeting, December 11, 2002 6 Mr. Olds: I sent Karl a letter outlining my questions and my concerns regarding Shapiro’s Phase II worksite. [Break from 8:15 until 8:21, Mr. Koven out till 8:26.] Mr. Olds: At the last meeting when Shapiro’s presented their design concept and basically got approval for doing the work, the following day I received a call from Brian Shapiro asking when we were going to get started with the site infrastructure work. And the second question from Brian was that his site engineer will no longer work for him or work in Carmel so he asked me to help with his site engineering. Mr. Olds checked on the scopes of work required and then wrote a letter to Karl on November 25, referencing Shapiro’s site work, based on his understanding of everything that had to be done and included a color document with everything marked. “If Shapiro’s Phase II work is to be carried out, all the work on my diagram has to be done for his project to clearly work. As I looked at it, I was unclear who was responsible paying for what. I indicated on the diagram the estimated costs.” Demolition of the existing building: $50,000 Building of Monon Green and getting it carried through: $250,000 Streetscape Monon Green and Veterans Way: $75,000 Streetscape along Range Line Road: $85,000 Surface Parking Area: $285,000 Mr. Olds said Mr. Shapiro thinks this [surface parking area] is to be paid for by the CRC. The property would remain in CRC’s hands and be paid for by them. The estimated cost is based on contaminated ground. Mr. Olds acknowledged there is some confusion about this area. “But now the site has been cleaned up and in June 2003 we should be getting a letter stating that the site is clean.” Mr. Olds continued: I’m not saying who pays for what, but all this work here has to be done for Shapiro’s Phase II. Total cost is $745,000. The cost to Shapiro’s for site work on their actual site should be approximately $140,000. Mr. Haas: If you look at the project agreement and break this down into components, most are addressed. The streetscape on Range Line Road of $85,000 is an obligation for Shapiro’s to complete with a credit against the cost of the Phase II purchase price. [$325,000/acre for .8 acres ?] [inaudible] Mr. Haas: Monon Green and the streetscape for Monon Green from Range Line Road back past the curb cut are also an obligation of Shapiro’s to complete and get a credit. So those items are addressed. So that leaves Monon Green on west and Veterans Way, the extension there, which are not addressed by the project agreement. We are not contractually required to provide those for Shapiro at this point or for anyone else. Brian’s response at the meeting was that he didn’t too much care whether that work was CRC Meeting, December 11, 2002 7 done. So long as he had access from Fire Station Road and also from Monon Green Road he was satisfied. Mr. Olds: All of the work needs to be done now for a couple reasons. We told the fire Department that extension of Veterans Way would allow them a route to get out and that there was consideration of a traffic signal at Monon Green. Mr. Haas: Then we have to consider whether Monon Green and Veterans Way are CRC items or City items. Discussion followed. It was noted Mr. Shapiro is not buying the surface parking area; he has a parking easement there. CRC can do something else with the property as long as they relocate his parking spaces. Mr. Olds said the costs are estimates at this time. When the grades are set and the exact amount of fill is known the costs will be more accurate. Further engineering work is needed before the grades can be determined. Further discussion followed. Mr. Koven expressed concern about the overhead power lines on site holding up future work, noting the length of time it takes for those to be moved. Mr. Olds explained the plans Cinergy has for burying the lines along Veterans Way. Mr. Olds: The first thing we need to define is what Mr. Shapiro will be doing. Mr. Haas has said Mr. Shapiro is responsible for the streetscape on Range Line Road, the first part of Monon Green and be responsible for it, and the site engineering for the piece of ground his building sits on as well as the site engineering for the surface parking area. The engineering for his site and for the parking lot is not a credit. If the cost of his work exceeds his total purchase price he doesn’t have any recourse to come back to the Commission for reimbursement for payment. Mr. Haas: The last issue with Mr. Shapiro is who pays to pave the parking lot and when. Mr. Olds clarified one issue on the parking lot: Mr. Shapiro does not need that parking for the bank building, but he does need it to build the retail Phase II building. Ms. Snyder: When he needs it he can pave it. We’ve got the land, happy to let him have it. When he needs it for parking, he can pave it and he’s got it. If in the future this entire complex is so wildly popular we, the CRC, may have to build a structured parking garage, but that’s our land to do it on. Mr. Roesch: I think we’ll have to do that. And we might look around for a Brownfields grant. Ms. Snyder: Good idea and there’s a lot of that money going around. CRC Meeting, December 11, 2002 8 Mr. Koven asked if Mr. Shapiro was going to build both buildings right away. The understanding is that he will build both right away. The second building [middle one] is a spec building. Mr. Carter: I think Shapiro needs more parking right now. He’s using some of the staging area north of Muldoon’s. Mr. Haas: I think what Mr. Shapiro means is he is under no obligation to provide that extra parking to Flagstar. He would not be in breech of any his obligations to Flagstar if there weren’t any parking back there. Mr. Haas continued and answered questions: The CRC has no obligation to construct a Phase II parking lot. Our discussions with Mr. Shapiro and his counsel were that we understood he would never have to build on contaminated property and we gave him an easement to park here. What’s happened is that the property is no longer contaminated. Shapiro is not obligated to purchase the expanded uncontaminated area. He has an easement to park there. We have a right to do something else with the property and relocate the parking spaces he loses, so that way we have the right to build if we wanted structured parking there. We could even have offices or whatever along Monon Green Road. To comply with Shapiro at this point, all we have to do is demolish the building and extend the drainage to the legal drain. Mr. Olds: It would be anticipated, if you did the site engineering for the entire site and the roads you would then be including all the stormwater drainage system and how it’s picked up and routed to a temporary detention area until the main detention area is built and then hooked into that. So you’ve got a stormwater issue that you’ve got to deal with. I think the issue here is that Mr. Shapiro is expecting that you’re going to authorize the full engineering work to be done for that entire quadrant and that he’s going to pay a portion of that. Mr. Haas: There is not any action you have to take tonight. We can wait until after the Pedcor closing. Mr. Roesch asked the members to take a good look at the projections presented by Ms. Mielke and Mr. Burke. Reflecting Pond Mr. Olds: The new motors are supposed to be here by the end of the week. The new electrical panel is supposed to be here. They claim they will even work on the weekend to get them installed. The goal is to have them energized by the middle of next week depending on the weather. The contractor has replaced the project manager and the superintendent based on what happened which he realized basically was their fault in terms of damage with the storm. CRC Meeting, December 11, 2002 9 The contractor has contacted his insurance carrier because he knows he’s facing some issues. Based on last month’s meeting we have also met with the fountain supplier to have him give us an outline and estimate to relocate the fountain from the skating area to the main pond area or add a third fountain. At the same time, someone needs to talk to Jim Thomas to let him know we’re thinking about doing this. [Ms. Snyder volunteered to talk him.] Options to protect the people skating around the fountain area: snow fence around it for $500; or build a demountable system of wood panels that goes around it so people can actually slam into it like they would at an rink for $8,000; plastic equine fence for about $2500. It was decided not to have skating on the pond this season. Landscaping around Pond Mr. Olds said Mr. Thomas doesn’t like the design which has been submitted so Mr. Olds is trying to schedule a meeting with his project manager and ours to come up with an agreement he’s happy with. Transformers on Pedcor Site Mr. Olds suggested the transformers have landscaping placed around them. He noted the location of the transformers saved the developers a lot of money. Running their power from the south property line would have cost them $300,000. Mr. Engelking said Pedcor has called the Mayor and asked that the transformer be buried. He asked Ms. Weese to talk to Cinergy to get a cost for this. It was not known who would pay for this. Mr. Roesch said, “Let’s not make it a closing issue.” Dirt on Parcel #2 The north pile is completely gone, per Pedcor’s request. The south pile still needs to be removed. Lift Station Screening Wall The sketch has been sent to Mr. Cordingly and they were asked if they wanted to participate in the cost and use some of it as a signboard. Mr. Cordingly said they were interested and wanted to have some time to review it and may want to make some changes. He will get back to Mr. Olds in two weeks. Estimated cost including the sign, landscaping, and streetscape with pavement is $75,000-$80,000. Mr. Koven said he thought there should be some sort of large sign on the southeast intersection of City center Drive and Third Avenue SW identifying City Center as well as on the southwest side. He then went on to say the signs would be even more ideal at Range Line Road and City Center Drive, so he could see multiples of them. We’re putting this one there to cover up the transformer, but I’m not sure the nomenclature “Carmel City Center” should be on it. CRC Meeting, December 11, 2002 10 If developers want to use the sign to identify their property, they will have to help pay for it. General agreement. Parcel #5, Tracts of Land Along the Monon Mr. Haas is getting appraisals on the two tracts of ground before RFPs are sent out. Reports from CRC Members Mr. Koven asked at what point in time when we’re developing these areas, do we say we’re done with them, for example, the reflecting pond. This Commission should not be burdened with the ongoing maintenance and operating costs once it’s done. The other issue that’s come back to us is Rotary Plaza, with regard to maintenance, security issues, etc. If the land next to it is in our name, do we need to deed it to somebody else when we’re done with it? At what point in time do we transfer ownership? And if we transfer ownership what do we do if those people say they don’t want it? Ms. Snyder: At some point we [CRC] are not going to exist. Mr. Roesch said this would be a good topic for the next strategic planning session. He also noted a transfer might be a joint one, where the City or the Parks Department is transferred the land, but another department is responsible for maintenance. A transfer might be phased in also, to allow for budget planning. Mr. Koven said he did not think any department in the City had budgeted for maintenance of the reflecting pool. Mr. Engelking said this coming year his department was paying the electric bill and the maintenance which was estimated for budget purposes. He said if the pond has to be drained because of debris, it takes 1,600,000 gallons to refill it. Mr. Koven said he felt the CRC’s responsibility was redevelopment, not ongoing maintenance. Mr. Haas: The reflecting pool has complicated this. There is in place a declaration of covenants and easements over the entire City Center so that it is treated as a unified development. There’s a declarant under that declaration of who’s responsible for maintenance and upkeep. Right now that’s the Redevelopment Commission, but you have the ability to pass that along to another owner. As I recall, it’s the owner with the greatest number of acres in the City Center. At that point that party becomes responsible for maintenance. Common facilities on any parcel, like promenade sidewalks, for instance, each owner is responsible for maintenance of that portion which is on his parcel. And then whatever the declarant has to maintain, the declarant then charges back to the other owners in the City Center on a pro rata basis, generally acreage. It’s not contemplated that the declarant would pick up the responsibility for public streets, or what you would traditionally think of as parks. At the time when the reflecting pool was actually a detention pond and people were really going to drain into it, the plan was to CRC Meeting, December 11, 2002 11 sell to say, Pedcor and Kosene, property to the middle of that pond. And then the two of them would have to figure out how to maintain it with the right to charge back to all the parties that drain into it. Rotary Plaza was discussed. Parks is now maintaining it. Mr. Carter said Parks was doing this reluctantly and that the turnover was not smooth. He agreed with Mr. Koven that a procedure needed to be put in place for future transfers of ownership and responsibility. Mr. Koven speculated that all the owners should participate in maintenance of common areas, sort of like a condominium association. Mr. Haas said that was already in place, the only difference is that owners pay only for the things that benefit them. For example, if there is a large underground detention area like at the end of the pond, and Kosene is draining into it and Pedcor is draining into it and maybe somebody else. The cost to maintain that underground detention area is then borne by the people that use it. Mr. Koven: But who’s going to own it? Ms. Snyder: Probably the City. Mr. Haas: Yes. Mr. Koven: Shouldn’t we have a City Center Capital Improvements Board or something like that with the ability to levy that? If we see ourselves at some point being phased out, there needs to be a follow on organization without the name “redevelopment” attached to it as a management entity in place. And we should already set that up and as parcels are sold then they are assigned to that board and maybe we have two or three members of this board who are really running that board for the time being but with the long term goal that we’re out of it. Mr. Haas: That’s consistent with what’s in place. Mr. Wilson: That makes more sense than the assumption that the Parks Board, for instance, is going to take over the pond. With the performing arts center or the museum if these things are going to be built, you certainly should decide who’s going to own them and maintain them before you build them. Mr. Roesch again stated this should be addressed in the next strategic planning session, which will probably occur in February 2003. Old Business Mr. Roesch: We received a letter from Wabash Scientific dated November 22, stating there is a need for a tax impact statement for the Old Meridian and North Illinois economic development areas. CRC Meeting, December 11, 2002 12 Mr. Roesch continued. The Declaratory Resolution was done by Matt Price. We were waiting until these areas had actually been annexed and that has now occurred. The tax impact statement from Wabash Scientific would cost us $3,000. And we’d also have to have another meeting before year end to get to the Confirmatory Resolution. Ms. Lawrence: Those annexations (C-210) are not effective until February 2003. They are to be recorded by February 5, 2003. Mr. Roesch: Since the annexation isn’t complete at this time, I don’t see any reason to spend the money right now. Mr. Haas recommended the CRC move to place on the agenda at the February 12, 2003, CRC meeting following the recording of the C-210 annexation, consideration of authorizing the tax impact statement and proceeding with the Confirmatory Resolution. Mr. Roesch: I’d entertain a motion to place on the agenda the approval of a tax impact statement and the intent to proceed with a Confirmatory Resolution in the CRC February meeting, for the C-210 annexation, for North Illinois Street Economic Development Area and Old Meridian Street Economic Development Area, pending completion of the annexation. So moved by Mr. Koven. Following a second by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved. New Business A letter of intent was received from First Indiana Bank for Parcel #4. Mr. Roesch: I’d entertain a motion to proceed to negotiate and “fine tune” the letter of intent from First Indiana for the purchase of the northwest corner of City Center Drive and Range Line Road. So moved by Ms. Snyder. Following a second by Mr. Koven, the motion was unanimously approved. Next Meeting The next meeting date was changed from January 8 to Tuesday, January 14, with the Executive Session beginning at 6:30 p.m., regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. Adjournment Moved to adjourn by Ms. Snyder. Following a second by Mr. Koven, the motion was unanimously approved and the meeting adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Z:redevcomm\2002 Dec 11minutes.doc