HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRC-12-20-00CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Wednesday, December 20, 2000
Council Chambers, Carmel City Hall
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes from November 8, 2000, November 8 Executive Session, 2000,
November 13, 2000, and November 20, 2000, meetings.
3. Report from Mayor
4. Report from Director
5. Financial Report
6. Report from Attorney
7. Report from Architect
8. Reports from CRC Members
9: Approval of Invoices (Included in packet)
10. Old Business
11. New Business
12. Signing of Documents (if any)
13. Schedule Next Meeting (January 10, 7 p.m., Caucus Room)
14. Adjournment
ZAredevcomm\2000 Dec 20 Agenda
CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Meeting, Wednesday, December 20,
2000
President Rick Roesch called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Commission members
Luci Snyder and John R. Koven were present constituting a quorum.
Also present were Joe Staehler, Sherry Mielke, Les Olds from CSO, Lisa Lee from ice
Miller, Karl Haas, Bob Falk, Peter Miller, Chris Seger, Duke-Weeks, Phil Dunlap, Pam
Lambert, Mark Ratterman. Phyllis Morrissey present as support staff.
Minutes
Mr. Koven made a motion the minutes from the last four meetings (November 8, Regular
V
and Executive Session, November 13, and November 20) be approved as mailed.
Following a secondby.Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved.
Report from Mayor
In the absence of Mayor Brainard there was no report.
C
v
Report from Director
Mr. Staehler reported the CRC needs to appoint a_purchasing agent and that name is to be
submitted to the Clerk-Treasurer's office. Mr. Roesch suggested it-be Mr. Staehler. So
moved by Ms. Snyder. Following a second by Mr. Koven the motion was unanimously
approved.
Mr. Staehler reported it would appropriate for the CRC to appoint a person who can give
approval for change orders on projects. Mr. Staehler recommended Ms. Roesch be given
authority to approve change orders up to 5%0 of the contract and anything above 5% of
the contract amount would require full board approval.
Mr, Roesch asked if that would be in the aggregate. Mr. Staehler said there are usually
limits on the amount of change orders which can occur in a contract and that limit is
normally 20%. "1 would suggest 5% of the initial contract. If it goes above 5% in
aggregate, then it should be at the entire Commission's authority."
Mr. Koven made a motion that change orders up to 5%o in the aggregate can be approved
by Mr. Roesch, and that anything beyond that would require approval by the Commission
at a meeting (or special meeting so it could be taken care of right away). Following a
second.by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved.
Financial Report
Copies of the report were distributed to CRC members earlier. Mr. Staehler said they
were trying to determine what the projected income would be from the TIF [approved
earlier this year].
Mr. Roesch noted everything on this projection is in City Center. Mr. Staehler said it.
includes parcel 98 also.
LBSeI'rChC
!JAN 11 1008
City of Carmel
Mr. Staehler said the interest figures are estimates.
The figures will have to be revised after tonight's invoices. Projections will change from
month to month.
Mr. Koven asked if these figures were being reconciled with the Clerk-Treasurer's
figures. He asked why the 5200,000 [from AMLI] sitting in escrow does not show up on
the report even though it's been in the Redevelopment fund since the day it was deposited
several months ago. Discussion followed. Mr. Staehler will check on it.
Mr. Koven asked that the Financial Report be included in the advance packets every
month. Mr. Staehler said it would be.
Attorney Report
Mr. Haas reported he had only one action item: On the Old Town project. Jim Thomas
from AMLI is reviewing his counsel's comments to the Project Agreement. Mr. Haas
said he expected to have the Project Agreement ready for approval at the January CRC
meeting.
Mr. Staehler noted we need to get an arrangement formalized with Cripe so they can
proceed. This is for engineering related items on Parcel 98. Mr. Haas noted that will be
ready for the January meeting also.
Mr. Koven said the CRC needs to have a contract with Mr. Haas also. This had been
requested earlier and has not been completed. Mr: Haas said it would be available for
review prior to the next meeting.
Mr. Haas said the litigation on Sherwin Williams is proceeding apace; which means
we'.re still in the same situation as before. "At any time the CRC could deposit the funds
and SW would have to leave the premises. Or we could hold tight and my guess is it will
be a number of months before this actually comes to trial."
Mr. Roesch reminded Mr. Haas that any dollar figures being discussed should be saved
for the Executive Session.
Mr. Haas continued: "Conversations with counsel for Huffer, which is for the Goodyear
premises, haven't produced any dollar figures to report.
At the next meeting we'll be ready with the CSO contract.
The only action item for tonight is the Ryland Letter of Intent extension. I received the
Letter of Intent. I did not receive their check for $25,000. 1 think that was just an
oversight. The basic terms of the extension of the Letter of Intent is that we would extend
until January 26`h their"period for exclusive negotiations. We would expect to have a
Project Agreement ready with them for approval at the next Commission meeting.
In.exchange for extending the period of exclusive negotiations, Ryland will deposit a
check for $25,000 earnest money and agree that their due diligence period has already
commenced and will end on January 26'h. I would recommend that the CRC authorize
Mr. Roesch to execute the extension of the Letter of Intent and that we hold it until we
get the check from Ryland for $25,000."
Mr. Haas thinks we will have a contract from them by the next meeting (January 10) or
the one following that.
Mr. Koven moved Mr. Roesch be given authority to execute the extension on the Letter
of Intent from Ryland. Following a second by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously
approved.
Mr. Haas estimates we will have funds from Ryland in March.
Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Haas if he was aware of any agreement with First Indiana Bank
about a swap of any property. Mr. Haas said he did not believe there was an agreement
although there were discussions about a swap. There were contracts drafted, but none
executed.
Report from Architect
Mr. Roesch said he had asked Mr. Olds what the infrastructure improvements were on the
Duke project.
Mr. Olds said he'd like to cover a couple of other items first.
Mr. Olds reported the bidding for the Parcel #3 infrastructure work which was scheduled
for December 10. Since the amount was estimated to be-more than 5150,000 we had to
have wage rates. The City worked hard to get the individuals set up to get the wage rates
and got it all done. Unfortunately we had to post a notice two weeks prior and we did not
have enough time. We then extended the bid date to January 10. We had discussions with
Mr. Kestner and there appeared to be no problems on his part since he does not plan to
start construction till later in the year.
Mr. Olds continued: We have been supplying Ryland Homes with information regarding
Parcel 96. We have a board which outlines their plan and the amount of property they are
wanting to buy minus the wetland area defined in Parcel #6 and minus the commercial
space located on the comer. They've made some, modifications to their•site plan. That's
in progress at this point. We will have to have legal descriptions rewritten for the site
outlining all the separate parcels as part of the project agreement. This will probably be
$250 to get a legal done for each of the sites. There will probably be three to four
separate descriptions because of the way the ground's going to be broken up.
Mr. Koven asked why the CRC was doing that. "Are we selling them a lot at a time or are
we selling the entire thing and they're going to divide it?"
Mr. Olds: One of the issues that came up was the fact that the Redevelopment
Commission will still own the wetlands area. So we're going to have to cut out the
wetlands area and define that which also will include extending it to the right of way line
for City Center Drive and then carrying it over to the right of way line on Autumn Drive.
Mr. Olds showed the site plan to the Commission.
Mr. Haas pointed out that the wetlands covers areas both north and south of City Center
Drive so it would be difficult to convey part of those wetlands because it may require that
the permit be divided and a portion of the permit be assigned and assumed by someone
else. "My guess is a developer would be disinclined to assume obligations under that
wetlands permit because they involve performance by the Commission offsite [Because
of the mitigation]."
Mr. Koven: Is there any reason we're just finding this out tonight? I assumed when they
were buying that parcel to develop that the wetlands was going with it. There was never
anything brought up that we weren't going to be transferring the wetlands..
Mr. Roesch: We didn't bring that up but when we talked with them, Karl did bring up
some of these problems. It is tied into the whole mitigation which includes Strawtown
and ultimately can't we give this to the City? Or don't they want it either?
Mr. Haas: It would be preferable if we could convey to someone else the title to these
wetlands.
Mr. Roesch: Why don't we investigate the possibilities before the next meeting?
Mr. Koven: I just think there comes a time in the history of this Commission. that this
Commission wants to walk away from the entire project and we don't want to be strapped
to a wetland for how long? I don't want to have that liability out there.
Mr. Roesch: At some point in time our work is going to be done.
Mr. Olds: The last piece we.have is the review of the technical portions of Duke-Weeks'
package that was put together for the TIF district and the infrastructure work at 96`h
Street. We requested.to review the technical side of it and try to get it into a more concise
format so the members of the CRC could look through it quickly and get a grasp of what
was going on. A folder document assembled by Duke was given to each member of the
CRC which outlines the various elements. CSO sent a cover letter to the CRC members
of CSO's-review of the technical side of it only in terms of what Duke was doing, the
amount of money they were spending and the scope of work. In reviewing the
documents, the design and everything they're doing, the concept of the road
improvements are in accordance with the traffic studies that were prepared. The work
extends from the map, primarily going from the east side of the intersection of Meridian
Street, moving west along the edge over to the adjacent Springmill Road. In terms of the
4
cost of the S6.9 million, we feel that it.is more than adequate to do the work they propose.
We agree on the, breakdown of the costs for roadway improvements, the utilities, the
landscaping, design services. The only issue we cannot address is the cost of the right of
way.
One. of the issues they are doing which we feel is extremely important, they are working
with IPALCO to remove all the overhead lines along 96'h Street and bury them
underground.
However, one of the key elements in our talks we've had with them, is that Duke Weeks
is requesting that the CRC allow them to act as the "construction manager". It's their
belief that they can get the job done for less money than the $6.9 million by working with
a series of contractors and people they've worked with before.
They are also concerned with the timing because of the questions that have been raised
and how long will it take for this work to be done. Everyone is asking when the work will
start and when it will be completed, which is a critical piece. If this work is carried out by
the Department of Public Works, it would go through a long drawn out process because
we would have to go by the rules and regulations on each phase of the work. That's an
important thing that the CRC needs to resolve, whether or not Duke Weeks could act as
the "construction manager/design/build contractor".
Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Olds if the inspections and so forth are still subject to all the
approval of the City Engineer.
Mr. Olds: They have selected a group of engineers which has been doing work for the
City on a regular basis, top flight people who have reputations to uphold. I imagine the
Department of Public Works would still carry on their normal inspection process as
they've been doing on most of the projects that we've been involved with. They hire a
separate inspector to observe and make sure everything is being carried out according to
the contract documents.
Mr. Staehler: I think it needs to start before inspection. There needs to be a thorough
design review of what they propose and that needs to be done by the City. There's more
to projects than just inspections.
Mr. Roesch: Is it common to do this?
Mr. Olds: Yes, it's done quite often. The City of Indianapolis does it on a regular basis.
Mr. Roesch: Is it your recommendation, Les, that we consider that?
Mr. Olds: It is my recommendation that you strongly consider that, considering the
timing schedule and the amount of disruption that could occur. It would be our
recommendation in terms of the cost savings and speeding up the schedule.
Mr. Roesch: Are all of these items offsite items?
Mr. Olds: If you look at the map all the infrastructure work occurs within the green area.
It's the road system itself and adjacencies to it. Most everything is being done on the
right of way. If you'll notice there is no additional right of way being taken on the south
side of 96`h Street, with all the new right of way and all the majority of the work being
carried on on the north side of 96`h Street especially from Meridian over to Springmill.
Mr. Staehler: If this is such a good deal, then Duke Weeks ought to be willing to pay the
costs of in-house design review and also our inspection costs.
Mr. Koven: I think any costs related to this are going to be theirs. It's their project.
They've identified the specifications. They've identified the plans. They've asked us to
approve and give them special consideration as a TIF district.
Mr. Olds: These improvements are needed based on the future anticipated traffic that's
going to be occurring. This is an opportunity for the City to get the work done at no
additional taxpayer cost since Duke is putting up all the costs including the bond interest
should the project not move forward and they are guaranteeing it.
Mr. Koven: That's partially true, but not completely true because the taxpayers are going
to be paying part of this. Because in fact the amount of money that we derive from the
TIF up and above its tax rate at this point in time is money that would normally be going
to the City but will be going to retire bonds. The amount of money that's being spent in
this TIF district for infrastructure, for such things as landscaping, which is solely for the
benefit of their building and the people that are occupying their building. And their
ability to lease their building should not be borne by the taxpayers of the City of Carmel.
There's other things on here I'd like to get into a little deeper, but I didn't think we
wanted to do that tonight, but roadway improvements and some of these are in on their
property, not out on 96`h Street. And I don't think the taxpayers of the City of Carmel
should be burdened with the lost revenue from that additional tax money to be retiring
bonds that are strictly for the benefit of Duke Weeks and this Parkwood development. So
there is a cost to the taxpayers.
Mr. Olds:I stand corrected
Mr. Roesch: The TIF revenue probably will grow well beyond what it is initially but we
don't know that for sure.
Ms. Snyder: How long is this projected to be? How can it be extended, if the project isn't
cash flowing? How many extensions could there possibly be until we begin getting tax.
revenue back here?
Ms. Lee: There are two questions. Number one, the TIF area could be in effect for a
maximum of thirty years by statute. As far.as the term of the bonds, that would be the
financial advisor and the Commission's decision based on how much tax increment is
available, how much the projects cost.
Mr. Olds: These are the needs that are going to occur in the future.
Reports from CRC Members
Mr. Koven: This is the first TIF I'm going through as a member of the Redevelopment
Commission and as a member of the City Council. We've already had a couple of things
that are going to come to bear on the Council and are going to come to bear on the
Redevelopment Commission later this evening on our, invoices for approval. Somebody
needs to tell us if this is legal or not... I think from here on out, when we get involved in
a situation where we have somebody who is petitioning us to setup a TIF district, I think
we ought to enter into some kind of agreement with them on the front end that they
absorb any and all costs related to that and they actually put a deposit down at the time
like earnest money to cover their costs in advance. Because we're looking at invoices
which we're being asked to pay here for a project in which they have assured us they're
going to pay all the costs. My approach to a TIF district is if you want that TIF revenue,
you are going to pay those costs. It's not going to be an expense to the City or to the
Redevelopment Commission. I don't think Duke Weeks is going to walk away from this,
but I don't want to be paying that money and I think there should be some sort of deposit
toward expenses. At the time when they first approach us with this we enter into a.
contract and it says what that money is to be used for and we use their money to pay the
bills, not our money. Is that something we can legally do? If so, I'd like to have that
policy put in place, subject to.the approval of the rest of the Commission.
Mr. Roesch: We did. setthat precedent with Duke Weeks. Perhaps we need to adopt that
as standard procedure.
Mr. Staehler: I think we need clearer definition of the rules because it's going to be awful
difficult for us to figure out what bills are paid by whom. We've got some tonight that
will be questioned and I don't understand based on what I've heard here tonight who's
really responsible.
Mr. Roesch: We are paying for past sins when we had various City departments getting
these things started before we'were even aware of them. I know it's confusing but we've
got to work through it. We are establishing some of these procedures. With the agreement
that was signed with Duke Weeks that did set a precedent that we haven't done before.
Mr. Koven: What I'm getting at is all of the expenses, even the ones we expend on our
behalf through Karl or through Les should all be part and parcel of the expenses and not
expenses of this Commission.
Mr. Staehler: Perhaps Karl would like to comment on that.
Mr. Haas: The agreement we have in place with Duke is that they will pay for the special
consultants that the Commission hires and that would include sub-consultants of those
P
consultants, so it was Wabash Scientific, Umbaugh, and Ice Miller. I've recommended
that Les work as a sub-consultant to Umbaugh and the agreement then would cover those
expenses. At the meeting when the idea was brought up requiring Duke to post an earnest
money deposit and it didn't come to motion, but that is not part of the agreement. On a
going forth basis, it's a good idea. There's no reason we can't do that. All of these
expenses, presuming the bonds are issued, would be reimbursable to Duke Weeks out of
the bond proceeds. So there would still be a cost to the taxpayer in that way and this was
also discussed at that meeting.
Mr. Koven: I just don't think a TIF should have a cost to the taxpayer period. The land's
fine as it is, if you want to build something there. You want us to take the steps of getting
involved in bonds and everything else. I mean I have to come and volunteer my time and
sit through a meeting and deal with it. I don't get paid for it. But I don't think it should be
an expense to our taxpayers out there. I think anything relating to those TIFs.should be
paid for by those people.
Mr. Koven continued: These expenses that are coming in, we had a couple of major ones
on the City Council docket Monday night. We just said, "We aren't paying them." And
how they're going to be paid when they're billed to the City of Carmel, I don't know.
There's not a process in place that I know about to do that. I don't think earnest money is
the right term because we're going to spend that money. We're going to pay all the bills
related to that out of that fund. They're going to geta full accounting and all the invoices
of where it's going. We need to be able to pay them as they come due.
Mr. Haas: I understand what you're proposing is the idea of a TIF retainer and you could
apply that to paying the costs. There shouldn't be any reason why these bills are coming
to the City of Carmel. They all ought to be coming to the Commission.
Mr. Koven: I think some of them are from Barnes and Thornburg, legal expense, which
carne through the Mayor's office. The billable on those invoices related to discussions
through the Mayor's office, not through the Redevelopment Commission. We should
clearly identify with somebody when they're dealing with them that it should be set up as
a separate invoice which has been done this time. You've already got a whole bunch of
invoices related to the TIF district on.tonight's claims for us which I'm not going to pay.
Mr. Roesch: I would differ a little bit about it, being the taxpayers that pay for it if it gets
done. I think what we're doing with these projects is creating additional revenues which
we wouldn't have.
Mr. Koven: Today, but they're not the only ones that could buy or develop that parcel of
land. There's a lot of bare property sitting around in Carmel that somebody is going to
build on and they may or may not seek TIF financing to do it. If they do, it should be
under a specific guideline that is set out by the CRC of how we're going to proceed. so
we're not treating anyone differently from another. It should be a set policy and that's the
way we handle it. But right now we don't have a TIF policy in this city.
Mr. Roesch agreed.
Mr. Koven said to Mr. Haas, "There's your marching orders."
Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Koven if he and Mr. Haas would like to get together and propose
some procedures for the CRC to adopt.
Mr. Koven: I think the appropriate thing would be for us to adopt a resolution and put it
on the record and from here on out that would be the policy.
Mr. Haas said he would have a resolution prepared for the next meeting, working with
Mr. Koven.
Ms. Snyder: When all is said and done, and a project shakes out, we have to prove to the
taxpayers that we had a dam good reason for allowing a TIF to be created and that we
have added value for them and eventually they will get increased tax revenues. And we
depend upon our bond counsel to be able to prove that to us. Quite frankly, if the land
ought to remain fallow then that may be the answer to some-projects. Hopefully, not this
one.
Approval of Invoices
Mr. Koven noted the new invoices received almost doubled from last week's total.
Ms. Snyder asked if the CRC was expected to pay the two Umbaugh invoices for
Merchants Square TLF or would those be paid by Linder.
Mr. Roesch, noting he had talked with Loren Matthes about the invoices, said these were
items that they were asked to do in connection with the Merchants Square TIF. They
were told there was probably going to be another TIF and that they should just put these
invoices in the next TIF. "I did not think that was appropriate since they were not
working on the next TIF anyway. Besides, it's inappropriate to shuffle things from one
pocket to another. They need to be placed so the world knows what the expenses were
incurred for." Loren asked me about those things and I said, "You obviously did the
work, you should get paid." I asked her to submit these bills. In looking at the detail, I see
some of them were for the Merchants Square TIF. Some of them were before we "put the
skids on all expenditures" by everybody authorizing contracts. Some of these things were
for another project across the street, potentially, Merchants Pointe. However, they were
done before we established the procedure to look at these things. They were done
supposedly on our behalf. I do think they should be paid.
Mr. Roesch continued: I also noticed the same thing happened on Juday Appraisal
Services. There was some work done before apparently we passed a resolution saying
don't do anything without our approval. Then they were told to stop at some point in
time.
Mr. Koven: I have some real questions about the Juday Appraisal Services invoice. Why
is that a Redevelopment Commission expense, not the Mayor's office. I believe it was the
Mayor's wild idea to conceive of these appraisals. The CRC to the best of my knowledge,
was never consulted or brought into the loop that we were going to go out and appraise
these properties at all.
Mr. Staehler: It is my understanding that there was a resolution that authorized some
research or looking at some of the areas downtown. This involved the block north of
Parcel 48 and another parcel at Rangeline and Main Street; the southeast quadrant there.
Mr. Roesch: I'm not aware of any resolution that was passed. [Mr. Koven agreed.]. This
goes back to the time, I guess the excuse that was given was "we talked about it in the
minutes, we're looking at this" and that's the excuse used for the authorization. The bad
thing in some of these cases (and I hope at one of these meetings we're going to see the
end of these things) is that people did perform work.
Mr. Koven: I don't think there's any question that somebody did.perform work and
somebody's due to be paid. The big question is which pocket does it come out of? I did
talk to Mr. Juday this morning about this since I've known him for 25 years. I asked him
who initiated the contact and he did share with me that it was Joe Staehler. I guess I need
to put Joe on the spot and ask, "Where did that authorization come to you (because you
were not our director at that point in time)?" I suspect I know, but I'm going to ask.
Mr. Staehler. From the Mayor
Mr. Koven: That's what I thought
Mr. Staehler: But Mr. Juday was also told to stop immediately upon finding out that you
all weren't wanting to proceed along that road.
Mr. Koven: I guess this goes back to the situation where the Mayor thought our funds
were his funds. While I don't deny that we probably do owe Jeff Juday these fees for
these partial appraisals, which, is, for the record $4,925.00 for partial payment on two
invoices, neither one were completed. One of them was to have been $8,000. The other
one was to be $8,500. So we're going to pay $4,925 toward two appraisals for which
contracts were issued, by the way, by the City, not by the Redevelopment Commission, in
the amount of $16,500. Well, that maybe fine, but the Redevelopment Commission is a
legally separate body and I suspect that these were approved by the Board of Public
Works. I say we don't pay it and we send them back to BPW and let them figure out how
to pay it. That's my motion.
Following a second by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved.
Mr..Koven: For the record, the next invoice, actually three separate invoices in the
amount of $1500 apiece, which we are being ordered to pay the Clerk of Hamilton
County Superior Court are for the court ordered appraisal services on the Sherwin
10
Williams property. Just so everybody out there knows, we're paying $4,500 of our money
to three different people on.the Sherwin Williams lease, of which only one of those
people is a certified appraiser, by the way.
Mr. Roesch: I think they are appraisers, but I don't think they are certified commercial
appraisers. They're not MIAs. Lthink two of them, are residential.
[Inaudible.]
Mr. Koven: Moving down to the second invoice we have from Wallack, Somers & Haas,
Invoice 95703 in the amount of $2,906.25 is professional services as it relates.to this TIF
district that we're talking about this evening. And I would make the claim that I don't
think that's ours to have to pay.
Mr. Haas: I'll be glad to defer that until the bonds are issued.
Mr. Koven: Okay. That works. The next one I have a concern about is to Wallack,
Somers & Haas in the amount of $14,596.20, Invoice 45704. I have a problem with it
because of the reference on down through there with regard to luncheons, meeting
preparation and sending of emails. If it's,going to cost me to have emails sent to me
(which I don't want.to read in the first place), I would just as soon save the expense and
not receive email. There's an awful lot of that down through here and there's a number of
meetings that were conducted over luncheons. Looking at his fee and I'm assuming
becausewe don't have a contract, that any time I see a one hour and a $225, I assume
that's our hourly rate.
Mr. Haas: That's correct.
Mr. Koven: On November 8th it cost us $337.50 for him to prepare to attend a
Commission meeting. I spend that much time, too, but I do it for free. I don't expect him
to do it for free, but there's an awful lot of preparation time on these invoices. That's why
I think we need to have a contract that spells out.exactly what we're going to pay for and
what we're not going to pay for.
Mr. Roesch: I. agree, John, but I think there is a lot of preparation that has to be done
before these meetings. I frankly do call Karl periodically before these meetings and say,
"I'd like you to be prepared to talk about this or that."
Mr. Koven: Okay. Well, I read through them. I didn't have a problem with the whole
thing but there's an awful lot of repetitious stuff that jumps out at you. The next one I
have is also with Wallack, Somers and Haas, Invoice 45711, and I found it very
disturbing to me but we're being asked to pay $5,812.50 as it relates to the CRC dealing
with our contract with CSO. So we're paying you $5800 to help us negotiate our contract
with him [Les Olds] so he can turn around and charge us for somewhere in the
neighborhood of,S23,000 in invoices. I would suggest that those expenses for you to deal
11
with his contract, if he's asked you to do that, they ought to be his expenses much like I
expect the TIF expenses to be the TIT applicant's expenses.
Mr. Roesch: We did ask him to look into a contract with CSO.
Mr. Haas: John, there are also a number of other contractural items on that bill.
Mr. Koven: I don't question that there are a number of other items, but CSO jumps out in
capital letters in every other line though here. There's a signifcant amount on this that
deals with your dealing with contract obligations with CSO. When we originally talked
about having these contracts, we asked CSO to bring us a contract. We still don't have a
contract with CSO. So we've got a bill for $5,812 and we.still don't even have what we
want. And had I known it was going to cost us $5,000 to do that I would have said to Les,
"You go get the contract." I don't see why we're spending any of our money to deal with
contracts that already have been negotiated with BPW and we're just really saying if you
want to do business with us, bring that contract here.
Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Haas if this is difficult to unwind, switching the contract from one
entity to the other.
Mr. Haas: The contract was with BPW and needs to be divided into two portions. So the
work was on the contract that was not being performed for the Commission and work
being performed for.the Commission. So the terms of the contract itself had to be
divided, too, as did the work to be performed under that contract..so you end up in effect
with turning one contract into two, each contract covering the correct work to be
performed for the different entities.
Mr. Koven: I have no question about that. That's exactly what we wanted done, but I
don't know why it should be my expense as a CRC member to bear the expense to
separate those two. I didn't create that problem. I merely said to him, "If you want to get
paid by us, you need to bring us a contract or we're not going to pay you." I didn't
authorize us to spend $6,000 to get it done. It's a business decision that should.be made
by CSO Architects, not by the Cannel Redevelopment Commission. I don't know how
we're going to go about doing this because I've got sotne of these claims I want to vote
for and some I want to vote against.
Mr. Roesch: From my point of view we're unwinding and it's a darn shame.
Ms. Snyder: It was a mess that was created for us by the Mayor. On the other hand,
we've asked for contracts and don't have them yet. So I think we should suspend
payment until we get a contract. And I bet we'll have them by the next meeting.
Mr. Koven: For the record here, we are faced with invoices, had we met last week on
December 13`h, we were presented with maybe ten or twelve invoices, of which all but
one were from legal firms, the total amount of the claims was $87,371.37, of which
$61,733.70 was billed by Wallack, Somers and Haas; our own legal counsel. We had
12
$14,200.61 by Baker and Daniels as. it related to the wetlands-And that's not all of the
cost of the wetlands. You never know with law firms. They could still be billing us six
months from now for wetlands stuff that keeps showing up. We havea bill for Ice Miller
Donadio and Ryan for $2,012.06 so to make it real brief, out of $87,371, $77,946 is going
to attorneys. We had this.discussion at our Council meeting Monday night, but everybody
seems to think that Carmel is just awash with money and we just pay exorbitant amounts
of monies to consultants and attorneys. And it is just absolutely appalling when we're
trying to develop a City center project over here that we have these kind of expenses that
we can't use for development and improvements of the land to get these projects going.
Now that we've finally closed with AMLI and we're wealthy again, except all that
money is committed. If we keep whittling away this money the way we're doing it, we're
not going to be able to complete some of the projects that we've already made
commitments to complete because these guys are getting in line first. And I don't fault
them for that because they've been holding invoices. But we as a Commission have no
idea how many other invoices are still out there. I was informed today by Jeff Juday, just
kind of an FYI from him to me, that there is another appraiser who was actually going
down the same path he was, so that we were going to get two sets of appraisals on this
and he has yet to bill us. Where he is in the mix, I don't really know. There comes a point
in time you want to say, "Stop! I want to know who I owe money to." And we don't
know. We still don't have a firm handle on our financial situation as a Commission. And
I find this just absolutely appalling and I'm considering that I'm not going to be here on
this Commission next year unless we get our hands on it. Ijust don't want to be a part of
this.
Mr. Roesch: I think that's what we're all trying to do, John, is get control
Mr. Koven: But we're not doing it. We've asked for contracts. We don't have them.
We're still paying bills. We were supposed to issue purchase orders for everything we're.
doing. We have yet to even order them.
Mr. Koven continued: The add on claims, we've already talked about the invoices from
H J. Umbaugh and Associates. My question with regard to those was shouldn't they be
paid for by the recipient or the benefactor of the old TIP But I guess the answer to that is
no. But I would suggest that whatever agreement you [indicating Mr. Haas] bring to me,
it's from the time that the bonds are issued until the bonds are retired, any expenses
related to that TIF are going to be theirs. We're squandering $78,000 on a TlT that closed
four or five years ago and we're still paying and I'm sure we haven't received any
revenue from it yet. So we're going deeper in the hole. We're still sliding.
Mr. Roesch: I think that's why they were asked to put it somewhere else.
Mr. Koven: Now I'll pick on our other vendor who has found this opportunity to pounce
on us tonight and I don't regret it, that's CSO Architects. Their invoice 918377, dated
9/8/2000 on project #11. We have an invoice where we're being asked to pay $3,000 for
fees as it relates to an underground garage. I don't know that we've ever authorized
anybody to spend any money to do design work or anything else for an underground
13
garage that conceptually may be part of City Center if we ever geta group of developers
who want to start developing it, but in the meantime we have a bill here toward it.
Mr. Roesch: I believe that was authorized a long time ago.
Mr. Olds: That included updating the master plan which included Parcel 47, which was
the retail area. It was also to establish the garage. elevations with regard to the drainage
that was part of the master plan drainage program that was being carried on and how we
were going to handle the drainage and the piping. We had to establish certain levels and
elevations that we needed for part of the elevation work. If you look at the original
contract there was approximately $20,000 authorized for the study of the garage area and
updating of the master plan.
Mr. Koven: I don't question your expenditure. I question the timing of it. We've never
seen those contracts. They're not with the Redevelopment Commission. Maybe this
ought to be one that goes back to BPW and let them pay it, too.
Mr. Roesch: I think when we look at CSO's contracts at the next meeting, that's going to
lay it all out for us.
Mr. Koven: I sure hope so.
Ms. Snyder: Again, I really think that we have two consultants with whom we do not
have a contract. Do we have a contract with Wabash Scientific? [Affirmative.] So we can
pay that and obviously the utility bills.
Mr. Koven: But Wabash Scientific shouldn't be ours, because that was a TIF expenditure
Ms. Snyder: So that will go back to Duke. I think we should go through these and decide
which ones we're going to pay, which ones we're going to send elsewhere, and which
ones we will suspend until the next meeting when we have a contract.
Mr. Koven: Well, let me have my last comment. The next invoice is from CSO
Architects, also, their invoice # 18378, dated 9/18/2000, for $36,400 on Project 22 which
is a performing arts center. I am absolutely outside of my skin over this. We aren't going
to build that damn thing and if we do, it will be the last thing we build and how can we be
incurring, and I know what's it's for, it's when we brought these acoustical people in here
to do that, which was a dog ahead of its leash, too, but for the record, we're paying
536,400 of our money towards the conceptual acoustical marketing plan of a performing
arts center. It was authorized by the Mayor. It was not authorized by the Commission. A
presentation was made to this Commission, but had I known we were going to spend
536,000 to have this presentation made, it never, ever, ever would have happened, nor
would I have been here to see it. We've got some serious problems here, folks. We are
out of control and this needs to be hammered down now.
Mr. Roesch: This isn't just for the presentation
14
Mr. Koven: Oh, yes, it is.
Mr. Olds: This was for the work in terms of the original programming to establish the
overall size and scope for the project. It included them coming to town and spending a
week here meeting with all the anticipated users to develop the program. CSO has paid
that invoice to those people.
Mr. Koven: I'm well aware of that. Your copies are included here. It was to Artec
Consultants, 640 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York. These people are so sophisticated
you can't send them a check. You have to remit wire funds. The total due on the first
invoice they have submitted to us is $36,800 which is continuing professional services,
including a programming report. Then they had other expenses for print reproduction,
long distance postage for $270.22. That's all the performing arts center and it has to do
with that presentation that night. There's nothing in here about anything else having been
performed by CSO Architects as it relates to that. It is reimbursement to CSO for
expenses that they incurred for Artec.
Ms. Snyder: Is this part of the $260,000 contract for the performing arts center?
[Affirmative] The contract that was approved through the Board of Public Works?
[Affirmative] We had mentioned two or three months ago when we were setting up our
own system here that we're not going to honor that contract. I was at this meeting
because most of the Council was here listening to this Artec presentation. And the Mayor
got them in and often when people come in to see if there's business for them, they tell us
who they are, we think about whether we're going to use them and either we do or we
don't. But no mention was made, "By the way, folks, we're going to come in and we're
going to tell you what we can do for you and we're going to charge you $36,000 for the
privilege to do that" because they had talked about taking surveys and talked about the
general area of the greater community and we all nodded our heads about this and they
went on their way. And suddenly we've got a bill that you had to pay on our behalf
because somebody authorized it.
Mr. Koven: And that somebody was?
Mr. Olds: The Mayor.
Ms. Snyder: The Mayor.
Mr. Koven: That's where it's going.
Mr. Olds: The ongoing bills that you have before you are for the site engineering and
ongoing engineering work that's going on for the various parcels.
Mr. Koven: I might spell out here for the record, the invoice we're talking about here is
Project #22, identified in CSO's contract with the Board of Public Works, is for the
Carmel,City Performing Arts Center. It was a $260,000 contract and with the inclusion of
15
this invoice, we have paid out 54% of the contract, and I'm assuming everybody in this
room knows where this ground is. We will have expended $140,400 on a performing arts
center that still probably could classify as a wetland if we didn't mow the weeds that
were over there. We spent $140,000 out of a $260,000 contract and all we have is a sign
in the yard. I rest my case.
Mr. Roesch: You're really talking about the one invoice on CSO?
Mr.`Koven: Yes, number 18378.
Ms. Snyder: We recommend that go back to the Mayor. And the Juday appraisal invoice
goes to the Board of Public Works. And the balance of the CSO and the Wallack, Somers
& Haas be suspended until we get a contract in place.
Mr. Roesch: I would rather see them get paid. [Mr. Koven agreed.]
Ms. Snyder: In the spirit of the season?
Mr. Roesch: No, I really think they have served our interests. I think they were receiving
some bad signals and so forth. I don't think they should suffer because of that.
Ms. Snyder: Okay, so we'll pay them. And Wabash Scientific's contract? Bill amount of
$8,500.
Mr. Koven: I would defer to legal counsel? How are we handling those? I don't want to
spend it and then get reimbursed.
Mr. Haas: I think that should be paid out of the bond closing proceeds or paid by Duke in
the event there isn't a bond closing.
Ms. Snyder: And the same with the lee Miller bill?
Mr. Haas: That's correct.
Mr. Roesch: You think we should go ahead and pay those at this point?
Mr. Haas: No, I think those should be deferred.
Mr. Koven: But are we being fair to the vendor? Did Wabash Scientific enter into an
agreement with this understanding he wouldn't be paid till sometime down the road?
That's why I think we should have a TIF retainer. So we can pay these people in a proper
and orderly manner.
Mr. Roesch: I think you pointed out the need for that, John. This is evidence of that.
Wabash Scientific has done most of their work obviously.
16
Ms. Lee: With respect to our bill in there, my understanding is that has to do with an
arbitrage rebate calculation on some old outstanding bonds. It is not involving this
particular TIF issue. Any bills from us involving this TIF issue would be billed to the
bond proceeds.
Mr. Roesch: As a matter of fact, I'm not so sure this bill was not already paid. Joe, you
might want to check info the Ice Miller bill. I believe that's one we,authorized to be paid
several meetings ago. I believe it was paid, but I believe the City Attorney at one point in
time was questioning that.
Mr. Koven: And let's say if it's not paid, we'll include it to be paid. I don't want to delay
it. So we're stating that the invoice for Juday appraisal services in the amount of $4,925
be sent back to BPW from where it originated. The CSO invoice #18378 in the amount of
$36,400 be sent back to the Mayor. Aside from that I would make a motion that we pay
the rest of the claims.
Following a second from Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved after Mr.
Koven clarified that the Wabash Scientific invoice would also be included in the invoices
not be paid.by CRC.
Mr. Koven: I want to ask Les and Karl: Are you still holding anything else?
Mr. Haas: For my part, I believe the bills are current through November 15`h.
Mr. Koven: What I'm trying to determine is, who do we still owe money to that we don't
know about. And so I'd like the minutes of our meeting to reflect that we are current with
CSO and we are current with Wallack, Somers & Haas. There's no outstanding invoices
being held or anything like that.
Mr, Haas: I think [ours are current] through the 151h. So far as I'm aware the invoices.if
these are paid.would be paid current.
Mr. Roesch: It's important to get Les's contract in'because we're going to have to have
some discussions about this contract that started quite, some time ago with the Board of
Public Works, is really a Redevelopment Commission project. However I don't think we
realized how far it had gone. In Les's case this contract originated three years ago and so
this is a problem we're going to have to unwind and it points out the importance of that
contract.
Old Business
Mr. Roesch: Lisa Lee is here tonight to talk about the Duke Weeks schedule and answer
questions for us about.how the process on this particular TIF will work.
Time tables from Ice Miller were distributed.
17
Ms. Lee: I was asked to briefly go through the process that the Commission would have
to go through in order to create an economic development area, otherwise known as a T3F
district and talk about the different entities or different parts of government that have to
approve certain portions of the area.
Ms. Lee continued: The first step really is to establish the base assessment date for the
TIF area which is the date by which the assessed value is abase or frozen if you want to
think of it that way. So each subsequent March I st when that land or those improvements
are assessed, the assessed value is higher in subsequent assessments. And that increase in
the assessed value is multiplied by your tax rate and that becomes tax increment revenue.
So that's where TIF revenue comes from. So it's important that we establish that first
base assessment date and in order to do that, the Redevelopment Commission has to
adopt what is called a Declaratory Resolution. That Declaratory Resolution has attached
to it an economic development plan that sets forth the Redevelopment Commission's
plans for that area. It also sets forth a factual report to support the statutory findings that
the Commission has to be able to make in order to create a TIF area.
Once you adopt that, that is the time that sets your base assessment date. So you have to
adopt that by February 28, 2001, in order to have a base assessment date for this
particular area of March 1, 2000. So the March 1, 2000, assessment would be the base.
All subsequent assessments would be increment or an increase in that assessed value. So
that is the number one date.
Once that resolution and plan are adopted by the Redevelopment Commission it goes to
the Carmel Clay Plan Commission. The Plan Commission looks at the plan and the
resolution and determines whether it conforms to the overall Comprehensive Plan for the
City. If they adopt an order to that effect, it then goes to the Common Council and the
Council adopts a resolution approving the Plan Commission order.
At that point, we get into what we would consider more of the public notice, public
hearing stage. The Redevelopment Commission has to publish notice of a public hearing
to be held in front of the Redevelopment Commission. That notice has to be published at
least ten days prior to the public hearing and at the same time, a tax impact statement has
to be filed with all the underlying taxing units that would be affected by this area and that
is something that is provided by the financial advisor. That also has to be provided to
those units at least ten days prior to the public hearing. You then hold.a public hearing in
front of the Redevelopment Commission. At that time following the public hearing the
Redevelopment Commission can either adopt a resolution that either modifies the
original Declaratory Resolution, confirms it as it stands, or rescinds it. So the area, even
though you have established the base assessment date with your first action, the area is
not created until the final public hearing is held and the Redevelopment Commission
adopts the Confirmatory Resolution and then there is one more step in an area of this
type. it goes back to the Common Council to approve creation of the overall area.
18
So there are a number of steps in this process in front of the public where the public has
an opportunity for input. And different governmental bodies of the City also have input
into the process.
That is in general a quick overview of the creation of the area process. It is my
understanding at this point it is premature to discuss any kind of financing structure
because there are a number of issues that are outstanding. There have been no
negotiations. Those are things that need to be discussed and undertaken in the future.
Questions?
Mr. Roesch: Actually there will be negotiations going on through this process. If we
would adopt the Declaratory Resolution on January 10, we still are not past the point of
no return actually as a Commission. And it also has some hurdles after that with the
Common Council. [Ms. Lee: That is correct.] But we're not past the point of no return
until after March 5 when we would adopt the Confirmatory Resolution. That is the point
when any remonstrations would come into play.
Ms. Lee: Correct.
Mr. Koven: Back on your January I Oth date with the Redevelopment Commission
adopting a Declaratory Resolution, that March I" date, does that talk about determining
the base assessment as of that date? Does that mean the assessor has the right to go out
and assess it on the 281h and change the assessment prior to that or would that be the
assessment that's been in effect.for the last year? Once they realize that the value of the
land's going up, they can certainly go out and change their assessment.
Ms. Lee: They can certainly.do that, but per statute and per regulations of the State Board
of Tax Commissioners, as long as you have adopted a Declaratory Resolution, prior to
the next March l assessment, then your base assessment date reverts back to the previous
March 1 assessment.
Ms. Lee continued: You have plenty of time as far as this process goes. Now that's not to
take in the process that they're under or the time schedule that they're looking for. But as
far as getting your base assessment date, as long as you do it by February 28, you're
okay.
Mr. Roesch asked Peter Miller, counsel for Duke Weeks, if they had seen the schedule.
Mr. Miller: We had a chance to review it briefly. I had two questions. One of them was
whether the Council will be likely to' follow the process of referral to a Committee. I
didn't see that on the schedule and I didn't want to lose time because of a process which
we need to account for.
Mr. Koven: I can address that. It's automatic. Our Ordinance does not allow us, unless
we suspend the rules, which requires unanimous approval of the Council, which we've
not been very lucky at trying to achieve. I think we probably need to allow for the fact
19
that this will go to a Council Committee. It could go to Land Use/Annexation and
Financing, maybe a joint committee meeting.
Ms. Snyder: Or even Economic Development. They could all meet. They could call a
special session. If there was a time crunch it would not be unlikely that although the
Council would automatically refer it to committee or joint committees, that they could
call a special session to address it. And I wouldn't see a:problem in doing that just to
make sure that we hit all the dates.
Ms. Lee: As far as what the Council has to do in this process, it's by resolution. It's not
by an ordinance, so statutorily it doesn't have to go into two meetings with suspension of
the rules. It's a purely local decision on how that's handled. I didn't want you to confuse
a resolution with an ordinance. They wouldn't have to suspend the rules to adopt a
resolution in one meeting.
Mr. Miller: That sounds like something that can be addressed when we come to it. For
my second question, I'll yield the microphone.to Chris Seger, Duke Weeks, to talk about
the questions he has regarding the timing of this.
Mr. Seger: This schedule works for us. There's been a lot of comment about what can
and cannot be-included in the infrastructure budget and it's really a business decision
with Duke Weeks and also with the City of Carmel. We'd like to see those conversations
happen sooner rather than later. We've mentioned our contract contingencies for the TIF.
We have big economic consequences. The cost of development of this site is substantially
higher than any other site anywhere we've dealt with. So we would propose to have that
sooner rather than later because we're not into wasting anybody's time. We wouldn't
want to go through this whole process and then sometime in late January or early
February come to the understanding that the amount of money that's available for the
project doesn't work for us and doesn't work for you. And we don't think that's
appropriate.
Mr. Roesch: I hear you, Chris, and we probably will be discussing these things at the
January 10`h meeting and prior to that, items or questions that may come up from
Commission members and'we'll certainly get them to you. We'll be discussing them
publicly, of course, on January I0`h. Part of this also is going to be financially driven, too.
It becomes an issue how much TIF is available. [Mr. Roesch asked Loren Matthes for her
input.]
Ms. Matthes: We had a meeting yesterday with Duke Weeks to go over some.of the
square footage numbers and get clarification on the parking structure and things like that.
So we are revising the numbers that we already ran preliminarily. We actually have
several financing options but we will need to be discussing those with the Redevelopment
Commission because there are different options.we can choose. And I don't know when
or how you'd like to do that... if you want to do that in an Executive Session or just share
information gradually? We had talked about some small briefings.
20
Brief discussion followed
Mr. Haas: At this point, we ought to agree, at least for this evening, that information
would be directed through Ice Miller and then distributed to you under the attorney/client
work privilege.
Mr. Seger: What exactly will happen on the 10`h?
Mr. Roesch: That actually would get everything going and set the stage so we can. capture
that TIF by March I".
W. Seger: So it would be your intent to have conversations about what would be
included in the TIF after that point in time and not at that particular meeting. I think that's
what I heard, but I want to make sure.
Mr. Roesch: I would really like to discuss at that particular meeting as much as possible
what could be included in that TIF so that we all know... it's not,absolutely necessary,
Ms. Lee, that we do, but something of this size, if we can focus on this thing and reach
agreement, then I think sooner better than later.
Mr. Seger: One thing I should mention to you, given the magnitude of this, I do not have
the complete authority and so if it gets into the 10`h and it's substantially different than
what we anticipated, this is something that does require board of director approval from
Duke Weeks. I just want to make sure everybody's aware of that.up front.
Mr. Roesch: I don't think that is a problem. As I said earlier we're not passing the point
of no return until we get actually to the March 5`h meeting. I would say by March 5`h you
should have your board together.
Mr. Seger: We anticipate, based upon the IO'h, finding out what are the thoughts of. the
Redevelopment Commission, determining if it can or cannot work and making a very
quick decision if we want to continue to proceed.
Mr. Roesch: Good. I think we're.together on that. Any other discussion on the Duke
Weeks project or any other questions for the vendors?
Miscellaneous Old Business
Mr. Roesch: Joe, you were going to check on the rent payments from the City for the
yellow building.
Mr. Staehler: Yes, it is the understanding of the Utilities Department and the Street
Department that they would not be paying any rent after the building was purchased.
They were doing this on an interim basis to. secure the deal.
New Business
21
Mr. Roesch: Amy asked me to ask who the Carmel Civic Square Building Corporation
was.
Mr. Staehler: I sent her the list of board members. They are strictly a Commission that
administers the mortgage and lease of this building. That has nothing to do with the CRC.
There being no other new business, Mr. Koven moved the meeting be adjourned.
Following a second by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved and the
meeting was adjourned at 9 p.m.
z\redevcomm\2000.Dec 20 Minutes.doc
22