Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRC-12-11-01CRC Minutes, December 12, 2001 1 CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Meeting, Wednesday, December 12, 2001 President Rick Roesch called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Commission Members present were Ron Carter, Ed Burke, Luci Snyder, constituting a quorum. John Koven arrived at 7:08 p.m. Also present were City Councilor Wayne Wilson, Les Olds, Steve Engelking, Karl Haas, Kelli Hahn, Stu Hirsch from the Indianapolis Star, James Bryan, David Valinetz and Gregg Romaine from SESCO, A. Skandarajah, from Paul I Cripe, Inc., Paul Reis, Jim Thomas from AMLI, Kimberlie Babbitt, North American Construction Company, Inc., Ronald Renkin, The Village Cleaner. Phyllis Morrissey present as support staff. Agenda Order Changed Ms. Snyder moved the agenda order be changed because of the interest in the awarding of bids. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the motion was unanimously approved. Demolition Bids Mr. Olds reminded the Commission that bids were opened at the last meeting and taken under advisement by CSO. He also noted the complications due to the large amount of insurance coverage required. Mr. Olds talked to a number of people about the insurance requirement, including the insurance provider for the apparent low bidder. He was assured that the insurance is provided as required. North American’s insurance agent had misquoted the cost, thinking it was required for a whole year, not just a single project. This did not impact their bid on Parcel 5, but it did on Parcel 8. Mr. Olds continued: After reviewing the bids, it is our recommendation that the bid for Parcel 5, which includes all of the Kroger, the B shops, the Herrigan property, the pavement, the asphalt, and taking the property when it’s all cleaned off back to hydro- seeded surface be awarded to Brandenburg. There are a few conditions on the bid we should be aware of. This bid is based on the fact that they would mobilize, arrive to the site with all their equipment, start at one end and be gone in approximately four-five weeks. That is a wonderful thing to be done. Unfortunately, we do have a problem with the B shops and the existing lease for the paint store. Karl tells us we cannot knock it down until it’s resolved, hopefully in January. Which means we would be asking this contractor to tear it down in February. We also would be asking them on the Herrigan property to help Shapiro by coming in the very first thing and tear out the very front parking area fronting on Range Line back leaving just enough space for one row of parking at the dry cleaners. Ms. Snyder: They’re still going to be operating? Mr. Olds: I don’t know that. We would also be asking them to tear the Herrigan building down and then stop, allowing SESCO to come in and drill through the floor of the dry cleaners to do some more verification, so they could in turn determine how much they’re going to have to dig out around the building and haul away to a qualified dumpsite by CRC Minutes, December 12, 2001 2 qualified contractors. So it’s not quite as easy as we thought. It is our hope that you would award the bid to Brandenburg and allow the executive director and me to sit and negotiate with Brandenburg a reasonable schedule. Be aware there would probably be some additional cost if we force them to mobilize, demobilize and things like that, but hopefully we can work it out and report back to the Commission. Ms. Snyder moved the CRC award the bid to Brandenburg. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the motion was unanimously approved. Parcel #8 Mr. Skandarajah, from Paul I. Cripe, Inc., reported they were recommending that North American be awarded the bid for demolition of Parcel 8, noting they project completion within one month. Mr. Engelking noted there were two other communications regarding this parcel. One had to do with the relocation of overhead electrical lines, which included an estimate from Cinergy of the cost to convert the overhead lines to underground lines within a fifteen foot easement on that property. This does not include other lines that might be present that have fiber optics or cable tv or telephone lines. The estimate is $107,247 + 30%. They haven’t refined it until they see the scope of the plan. This will end up being an additional cost but it is not part of the demolition. Mr. Engelking continued. We also received a communication from AMLI noting they are interested in salvaging a truck scale in one of the buildings on Parcel 8. Brief discussion followed. Mr. Engelking noted for the record. “I was advised by Mr. Don Currise, the engineer from Paul I. Cripe, Inc., working on putting together the demolition plan that they proposed and put out for bid, that he had coordinated with representatives of AMLI, and in fact at one point it was one of the things characterized to me that was holding up their process, because it was being reviewed. And I believe I reported that at a previous CRC meeting.” Discussion continued. Ms. Kimberlie Babbitt, from North American Construction Company, Inc., was present and told Mr. Thomas, from AMLI, they could have the scale. Ms. Snyder moved the CRC award the bid to North American Construction Company, Inc., for the demolition of Parcel 8. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the motion was approved by a vote of four in favor. Mr. Carter expressed disappointment in Cinergy’s apparent unwillingness to cooperate with moving the lines, noting they have been less than helpful whenever we’ve tried to work with them. There was general agreement from the Commission members. Discussion followed. It was decided the President of the Commission along with the CRC Minutes, December 12, 2001 3 President of the City Council should meet with Cinergy executives to discuss this. Mr. Engelking will let Cinergy know a meeting is wanted. Approval of Minutes Ms. Snyder moved the CRC approve the minutes of the November 14, 2001, meeting. Following a second by Mr. Carter, the motion was unanimously approved. Ms. Snyder moved the CRC approve the minutes of the November 1, 2001, meeting. Following a second by Mr. Carter, the motion was unanimously approved. Mayor’s Report No Report from Mayor due to his absence. Director’s Report Mr. Engelking received a call from Mark Schubach referencing a hearing before the Alcoholic Beverage Commission on January 8, 2002, at the Hamilton County Judicial Center in the Commissioners’ room. A notice (which Mr. Engelking received in the mail) has to be posted in the window of the Kroger building tomorrow [December 13]. Mr. Roesch and Mr. Engelking were both asked by Mr. Schubach to attend the meeting. Financial Report Mr. Engelking reminded the CRC that Ms. Mielke is out of the office until mid January. He noted a cash flow report was included with the invoices in the packets. Projected balance at the end of the year is $2,042,428. “I believe the revenue figure there may be understated. I don’t think Ms. Mielke included the $600,000 we have previously anticipated receiving from the AMLI escrow. I believe it was omitted. If that were added to it, your cash flow at the end of the year would be $2,600,000+.” Discussion followed. Mr. Burke said he is trying to confirm what the TIF revenues will be. Mr. Roesch said Mayor Brainard has confirmed that President Bush signed the bill which will include a $1,300,000 grant to Carmel which will be used for the reflecting pond. Attorney’s Report Mr. Haas distributed an outline of the project agreement with AMLI. This was just finalized so there was no time to include it in the packets. Your choices are postponing approval for a month (which postpones the receipt of the $600,000 in escrow) or approving an outline and authorizing Rick [Roesch] to sign a project agreement which is consistent with the outline. Of the members who responded, two of them were in favor of approving an outline and I’d be glad to review for you what the transaction is. As you’ll recall, the CRC has about a million two in the acquisition of the property and it was the goal of the CRC to recoup that money from the redevelopment project. At the CRC Minutes, December 12, 2001 4 same time we had encountered some difficulties with the wetlands on AMLI’s City Center project and there were some delay damages. Which I must say, editorially, I thought AMLI was very cooperative in working through with us. Part of that was that AMLI agreed to redevelop the Old Town property, to make a $600,000 up front cash payment and then make ground lease payments in amount which, when brought back to that present value would be $600,000. In exchange for that, AMLI wanted to have a preference of $500,000 so that they were able to recoup the amount of delay damages that they had incurred on the City Center project. So this is all a very complicated way of providing for the following: You lease the property to AMLI, you do some site work comprised of building demolition, relocation of utility lines primarily, AMLI pays $600,000. AMLI builds the project and from the net cash flow or the proceeds of capitol events, the Redevelopment Commission shares, and that way recoups the remaining $600,000 after AMLI has recouped its $500,000. Mr. Roesch: I really see very little that’s different from what we originally voted on. It’s just that the details have been hammered out. Mr. Haas: I think that’s completely correct. Mr. Roesch: I was wondering why you think we need to approve this again. Is it because so much time has elapsed? Mr. Haas: No. It’s because of the way we left it. That you would have the opportunity to approve the final project agreement which is what we normally would have done. Had we had everything worked out a week ago, I would have provided everyone with copies of the project agreement and asked for your blessing tonight. Mr. Roesch: I got a voice mail from Jim Thomas today stating that his last time for cutting checks this year is the 17th. Mr. Haas: My personal preference is to get that money in escrow by the 17th. The other alternative is to call a special meeting to approve the final project agreement. Further discussion followed. It was noted that earnest money was posted. Mr. Haas said the $600,000 will go into escrow in December and come out of escrow in January or February. Mr. Thomas: The money cannot be released until CRC has completed their obligations on the project (site work and vacation of internal rights-of-way). It was noted a Phase One needed to be done on the Old Town site as soon as possible. Ms. Snyder moved the CRC approve the AMLI purchase agreement in concept and it can be executed in particular and move on. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the motion was unanimously approved. CRC Minutes, December 12, 2001 5 Mr. Roesch asked that everyone let him know what needs to be done. He said a checklist would be used to help vendors move along as quickly as possible. Mr. Roesch asked what the status of the Lumberyard area was. Mr. Thomas: It’s all connected. That’s why we’re frustrated… the inability to move this thing forward. You [CRC} are sharing the income from the Lumberyard tract along with the rest of the project. Discussion followed. Mr. Thomas described the units and retail areas. Discussion about the demolition of Parcel #8. Mr. Wilson noted the Street Department has rented another building for their equipment. Mr. Carter said it is important that the demolition be completed by the end of February because of the usage of the Monon Trail. Ms. Snyder asked about the street vacation listed as CRC obligations in the agreement. “Is that something the Council has to do?” She noted there would be time problems with this. Discussion followed and it was decided it has already been done and now needs to be activated. Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Haas to call City Attorney Doug Haney to see what the CRC needs to do about the completion of the vacation. Mr. Koven: I want to make a comment. We have been sitting here for a year looking at $600,000 and we’ve moved it a couple of times. This thing [financial Report] is as useless as a piece of toilet paper if somebody is not staying on top of this and keeping us abreast of what’s going on. I don’t know why I had in mind it had already gone into escrow. Normally, when you close a deal or you accept a deal, somebody enters into something. And why their money wasn’t sitting in escrow already, waiting for somebody to get stuff done, I have no idea. But somebody sure knew that last month we weren’t going to have $600,000 in December and for the same reason Ed just gave, we need to know how much COIT is going to be. This stuff is worthless. I don’t want to be sitting here making decisions on spending money for teardowns based on money I think we have in the bank and it’s going to be sixty days before it’s in the bank. You can’t run a business like this.” Mr. Roesch: That’s why it’s unfortunate that Sherry [Mielke] is out, but I think the financial report is a very important part of this meeting. We all need to go over it, ask questions. Ed’s doing some things to further refine, make sure that input’s in there. If any of us see anything that should be moved, or any vendors see anything on these cash flow projections, bring it up so we can get it in the right category. On a spreadsheet this changes… Mr. Koven [interrupting]: I understand that and it’s not Sherry’s fault at all. I might point a finger at Karl. This could have been done six months ago. Tell me, what’s different here than what we accepted back in March? Why did it take this long for us to vote on this? I thought we’d already done this. That’s why I thought we already had money in escrow. CRC Minutes, December 12, 2001 6 Mr. Haas: That’s not entirely consistent with the [inaudible]. It is consistent with the last presentation that was made. Mr. Koven: But you’ve sat at every one of these meetings. And you, for one, probably the only one, who knew we weren’t going to have $600,000 in December. I see it as your responsibility to point that out to us. Mr. Haas: Which I’d be willing to undertake, but I don’t receive in advance, and generally don’t have at the meeting, copies of the financial report. Discussion continued. Financial reports will be sent to Karl along with the rest of the packets at the same time they are mailed to the CRC members. Mr. Olds will receive one, too. Mr. Olds recommended the demolition bids be broken down by parcel number in the financial reports to avoid confusion. It was agreed that Ms. Mielke will need some guidance on this. Mr. Roesch said he had been contemplating if the CRC should hire a professional outside firm to handle our finances on an ongoing basis. Mr. Carter said, “As much as we discuss our finances and as important as our cash flow is to us, we have probably sold ourselves short by excluding Ms. Mielke from these meetings. There’s so much goes on, back and forth, that Sherry would benefit from by hearing firsthand. There are questions that we ask every meeting that she could probably answer right away. We ought to say she should be back in the meetings. Our cash flow is very crucial.” Mr. Roesch: We were trying to address the expense of having Sherry at these meetings. Mr. Carter: The expense of having Sherry at these meetings if we had that $600,000 into our cash flow a month or two ago would more than likely have been covered for the next year and a half through the interest we might have gained. Mr. Roesch: That’s a good point. Is there any way of adjusting Sherry’s schedule so she can attend this without incurring overtime during the day? Mr. Engelking: That would be up to the Mayor to decide whether he wants to not have her during the day on the other projects that she does. This is not the only thing she works on for him. I’ll talk to him about that. Whether she has to attend special meetings would be predicted by whether or not you’re going to talk about cash flow. Architect’s Report Mr. Olds: I included in your packets a listing of what we’re currently working on. CRC Minutes, December 12, 2001 7 At the last meeting we discussed making revisions to the reflecting pond. We also requested those City workers who would be responsible for maintenance of the pond take a look at the documents and offer input. Mr. Engelking then set up a meeting. In terms of looking at our documents they had a series of recommendations, most of which were easy to have done, except for the last item. The request from them was that they wanted to see all the water in the reflecting pond filtered. This was never our intent. It was to collect surface rain water, act as a partial retention, and drain off the excess from the storm water system. Due to the very size of the pond and its depth, the volume of water to be filtered was almost insurmountable. It could be done, but it would require a lot of changes. They then came back and made the suggestion that the whole pond just be two feet deep. Mr. Olds: We dug the pond out to get fill material to fill the balance of the site. They asked that we just go back and fill it in. Ms. Weese said there would be a lot of free fill dirt available in the spring. So we looked at it. The cost of bringing in the fill, putting a concrete bottom across it, and putting in a filtration system in, which means around the entire perimeter, we’d have drains to clean, would add about $300,000 to the project. Plus the ongoing maintenance of the sand filtering system. Mr. Olds: After much discussion, we decided we would offer to take in an alternate bid. Discussion [by CRC members] followed at length. The aesthetic differences between this reflecting pond and the pond south of City Hall were discussed. It was estimated that the cost for chemicals for the ten foot version would be approximately $10,000 per year. Mr. Olds said there was another option: changing the depth and putting additional concrete in place of the rubber. The upcharge for this is estimated at $100,000. Question was asked about whether it would need to be fenced for safety reasons. No definite answer was given, but it was noted it is a retention pond, not a swimming pool. Mr. Olds: The bids have to be “out on the street” no later than the first of next week in order to have the bids opened at the January 9 meeting. We have the documents ready to go, including with alternates. It was decided the bids would be put out with the alternatives. The ice skating option is still included. Financial comparison for maintenance needs to be available for the different reflecting pond proposals. Mr. Engelking will gather that information. The maintenance info will be sent out ahead of the January meeting to give everyone time to study it and ask questions. Discussion continued. CRC Minutes, December 12, 2001 8 Mr. Olds noted they will have a pre-bid conference and be able to talk to potential bidders, giving them updated information. We can also issue an addendum during the process. Carmel Rotary Plaza The top rail was delivered but was built incorrectly so will have to be redone. The plaques are made but have not yet been shipped. Master Plan CSO is in the process of updating the master plan, at the Commission’s direction., and defining the perimeter boundaries. We’ve had initial meetings with Mike Hollibaugh and Kelli Hahn [Department of Community Services] regarding the limits. Working together we will develop a new map that will have the boundary line limits that the Commission controls and will be responsible for, their “area of influence”. Mr. Roesch: And we may want to turn that into zoning. Mr. Olds: We are working on that and will be reporting back as it develops. Pylon Sign Mr. Olds had different proposals for the size of the sign. Mr. Olds would like to meet with Mr. Thomas to have him review the ideas and then report back to the Commission at the next meeting with AMLI’s comments and let the Commission make a decision based on that information. Shapiro’s Drainage Mr. Olds met with Ms. Weese, City Engineer, along with SESCO representatives to review the drainage on the Shapiro parcel. The design by Rowland is collecting the storm water on the site with underground piping and piping over to the northwest corner of the property where it was anticipated they would tie into an existing 36” stormwater line that runs east to west. Mr. Weese’s concern was they are having some flooding on the other side of the fire department drive adjacent to the bank. She’s concerned the system is somewhat overloaded and that the taking of Shapiro’s water also will add to the problem. Mr. Olds continued: We pointed out that in the master drainage plan it was the intent to have on Parcel #5, adjacent to the area of the Monon Trail, the underground storm water detention system. It would be put in once Parcel #5 was sold to take care of that parcel’s surface drainage and also some of the public land, where the museum building and performing arts center would be located. We had originally had an estimate for that of $300,000-$350,000. It was our thought that Shapiro’s drainage could be brought over put in a depression we dug in the area then take a pipe from that depression and run it off back to the 36” line. There are a number of issues raised by Shapiro’s engineer and Ms. Weese: the depth of the depression area, possibility of having some underground storm CRC Minutes, December 12, 2001 9 water detention placed on Shapiro’s property along the fire department drive. The thought being that if Shapiro’s detention was in that area, the detention we proposed would be reduced in size. That detention area is estimated to cost $75,000 to $100,000. If that is approved, it would be done by Shapiro’s contractors, not the CRC under the public bidding rule. These different options will be presented at the Technical Advisory Meeting [on December 19]. For clarification, Mr. Olds noted the master plan calls for the detention area to be under where the Kroger building sits. Costs for this were discussed. It was noted the costs were considerably less if Shapiro’s did it, rather than the CRC. This detention area would also serve to relieve the problems near the Fire Department, Police Department and the bank. Mr. Koven and Ms. Snyder both wanted to know why this is a CRC problem and not a City problem. Ms. Snyder noted the Police have had a major claim against an insurance company and it was denied, so the issue needs to be addressed, because it will happen again. Mr. Koven: I don’t see it being a CRC problem since it was there prior to the CRC. Mr. Roesch: It’s hard to delineate; we have to do it for Shapiro’s, but essentially in the whole thing we have to take that water, too. Mr. Olds: A lot of that water was flowing on the grass area and being absorbed in the ground. Mr. Roesch: We probably should ask the City to bear the part of the costs. I’m not sure even what amount to ask for. Mr. Olds: We should know that amount in about a week. Shapiro’s engineer and the City Engineer will be running some calculations. Mr. Roesch asked for CRC permission to spend up to $100,000 for this module so we can prepare for this TAC and seek reimbursement for part of it from the City. Mr. Koven: Who missed this in the first place? How much more of this is there going to be? Now all of a sudden we’ve got another problem. This water problem didn’t just happen. Mr. Roesch: We’ve always been aware we were going to create water and the solution in one fell swoop was $300,000. Mr. Koven: But isn’t that a problem that the City already had? CRC Minutes, December 12, 2001 10 Mr. Olds: We were not even aware of that problem till this morning. Mr. Roesch: What I’m saying is from a cash flow standpoint it makes sense to do it modularly. Then as we sell something else we can add on to it with this type of technology. Mr. Olds: The way we looked at it when it first became an issue, it was always the feeling of CSO, drain you water to that point and then cut a ditch as a temporary storm water drainage. That could be done for pennies, insignificant. But it was a temporary solution. To us we understood the money problem. If we had thought that would not be acceptable then we would have said you need to start the building of the major storm water retention underground system for Parcel #5. It was never our intent to start that at this point. It was only meant to start that once all of Parcel #5 was sold and there were adequate funds to take care of it. But even if all of Parcel #5 was sold, maybe we didn’t need that much. Maybe we store some of that water on the roofs and meter the runoff. There are a number of other options that could occur and we were just holding back as long as we could. The digging of the hole is still an option, not really liked by the City Engineer, but still an option. Mr. Roesch: I think her feeling is if you do it on a modular basis, it’s a better final solution. Mr. Olds: And it also solves the existing City’s problem. The pit doesn’t address those problems. Mr. Carter: If the City kicks in, let’s say half of it, our cash flow might be enhanced by $50,000. Discussion continued about what portion the City should pay. Ms. Hahn: For TAC purposes, it is not necessary for you to decide how much money you will be spending, or how the “partnership” might work. They can approve it contingent on solving any drainage problems. It was decided to relook at this at the January 9, 2002, meeting in hopes of having better numbers. Ms. Snyder and Mr. Burke are meeting with Rowland Design tomorrow [December 13]. Approval of Invoices Copies of the invoices were distributed with the packets. Mr. Burke asked for clarification on the Eden Enterprises invoice. Mr. Olds said it was for Rotary Plaza and they will have one more payment due after the work is all completed satisfactorily. Mr. Roesch noted some of that money will be reimbursed by the Carmel Rotary. They have been invoiced. CRC Minutes, December 12, 2001 11 The Barnes & Thornburg invoice was discussed. This appears to be an invoice they tried to submit earlier this year. CRC did not approve Barnes & Thornburg to work on the Duke Weeks project. We are to approve any invoices prior to submitting them to Duke Weeks so we protect their interest. The Commission members were all in agreement that CRC was not responsible for this invoice nor is Duke Weeks. Ms. Snyder moved to approve the invoices excluding the Barnes & Thornburg invoice of $4,160.50, leaving a total of $115,484.68. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the motion was unanimously approved. Old Business Mr. Roesch: SESCO will be meeting with IDEM tomorrow, having preliminary discussions for approval of the mediation plan. I’ve also asked for a budget from them. Mr. Bryan: Our meeting tomorrow is an initial meeting to present to them the addendum phase of the delineation project that’s been completed. Final copies were given to Rick. This gives us the foundation to begin to work with them, to get their approval of the site characterization and to allow us to move on and put together a work plan that they would approve. Once that’s done, then we can design the system and we can have costs assigned to it. Without completion of this document there’s no value in meeting with them. Mr. Roesch: Tomorrow is the beginning of the process. We are obligated to do this with them by December 24th. Mr. Bryan: There is no plan yet. Until IDEM accepts our site characterization, we can’t prepare a plan. It would be a waste of our time and your money. Without a doubt those folks are going to come back and want to look at some other areas. Mr. Haas: What you’re saying is, you have to agree with IDEM on what the problem is. The second step is agreeing on what the solution is. Mr. Bryan agreed and said they would be pushing them because it has become obvious of the urgency because of the construction and sale of property. The person assigned to it now has been very cooperative and responsive. It was noted that the contamination goes over into the Muldoon’s area also. Mr. Bryan said SESCO had enough now to go to IDEM and find out how much further they wanted us to go. Mr. Romaine indicated IDEM would probably want further tests conducted, noting it is advantageous that the CRC controls all this property. Discussion followed about the size of the plume. A temporary fence will set aside the “clean” area for Shapiro’s building site. CRC Minutes, December 12, 2001 12 Mr. Bryan: In November you approved us looking at a larger area. We have completed that report. Copies are available. There is an area behind Sherwin Williams of a recorded hazardous waste creation where they filed and got a record number. This was followed up on because it was information needed given the pending lawsuit. Mr. Koven asked what the date of the incident was. Mr. Bryan said it was August 14, 1998. Mr. Koven noted it was after we owned it and then asked if we were notified of the incident. “Wouldn’t they have an obligation to notify us as the landlord? And they didn’t?” This was confirmed by Mr. Haas. Mr. Bryan: There was a fuel oil spill, rather a large one, by the Kroger dock area, in 1991, prior to your purchase. It does appear in the Phase I. Mr. Romaine: It was reported as it should have been. Our concern with the Sherwin Williams incident is that they lost about 220 pounds or maybe a little bit less of product. Normally, any time you lose 100 pounds of product or more on the ground, it should have been reported. It did not turn up anywhere in the state’s spill reports, but it did appear on the federal hazardous waste notification. So there’s a real disparity and we don’t know why that occurred. Mr. Bryan: There was another dry cleaners between the Kroger dock and the Sherwin Williams area. We have no reason to believe that there was any issue. It’s just a matter we wanted to make you aware it was there. It was a plant, not just a store front. (This was confirmed by Mr. Wilson.) Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Haas: Do we need to take samples at the Sherwin Williams spill site? Mr. Haas: Yes, trial will be in January. As far as the samples, that depends on what SESCO finds about the spill arena. Mr. Romaine: There is nothing else to be found in the Sherwin Williams area. The trail is a dead end. So you can turn to your tenant and say, “Produce for us.” or you can do a further search in the soil. It would take a week to further test the area, which would entail all three areas, Kroger dock, dry cleaners and Sherwin Williams because it’s such a concentrated area. The dock needs to be cleaned out. Mr. Haas recommended SESCO goes ahead and takes samples. At the same time, we demand from Sherwin Williams information about what they’ve done. The second course of action is we make that demand and see what SW comes back with which gives SESCO some additional information or not. Then decide whether to proceed with the samples. CRC Minutes, December 12, 2001 13 Mr. Bryan said it would be $14,000-15,000 to take the samples and test them. It would be recoverable if anything appears. The compounds would be identifiable depending on what products the businesses handled. Mr. Carter asked about making a motion. [Restated below.] Further discussion followed. Mr. Engelking will coordinate the removal of the debris from the Kroger dock asap. Mr. Koven: I agree with Ron, but what’s our probability of any recovery? Do we have a recourse to Kroger even after all this time. Mr. Haas: Yes. And with regard to Sherwin Williams we have double recourse. Mr. Carter restated his motion. He moved the CRC approved up to $15,000 for the further testing at the three sites (Kroger, Sherwin Williams, and Crown Cleaners) and simultaneously have Mr. Haas send a letter to Sherwin Williams demanding any information regarding the contamination of the site and have Mr. Haas also find out who the corporate ownership of Crown Cleaners was. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Bryan brought up another concern. There are barrels of unmarked fluid behind the Goodyear building which should be investigated sometime before it is bought or sold. A Phase II should be done. Mr. Bryan submitted SESCO’s proposed budget to Mr. Engelking, stating there are two fee scenarios, the difference being the type of insurance recovery process. It’s all recoverable in our opinion. Basically the issue at hand is the timing of the recoverability so you can plan your cash flow. You shouldn’t be out of pocket unless there are issues we are not aware of. Under one scenario you would be reimbursed as your expenses occur. Mr. Bryan explained further details of the budget. Mr. Romaine: Scenario A entails that the CRC would actually be an insured and has the direct rights to proceed on the policy. Mr. Haas is researching, trying to determine if the CRC, as landlord, would be named as insured as any landlord would normally be. That is they would have the right to go against the insurance policy and have its costs covered immediately. It is wholly dependent on who’s named as insured under Mr. Renken’s policy or he could assign his interests. Mr. Carter: Does SESCO hire the legal representation rather than Karl choosing the representation? Mr. Romaine: There’s nothing sacred about that. This is a person we’ve worked with and we trust. His name is Matthew Cockrell. He works out of Chicago and has Indiana roots. You’ve not been charged any attorney fees at this point. CRC Minutes, December 12, 2001 14 Mr. Haas: No one has been retained yet. Discussion continued. Mr. Bryan noted there is also an option of arranging bridging financing through the State of Indiana in which there is a 20% forgiveness portion. Mr. Koven: Have we now seen an insurance policy? Isn’t there a maximum limit to a policy like this.? Mr. Haas: We have demanded to see a policy at the end of last week, with a deadline of ten days. The possibility of going after Herrigans was mentioned. Mr. Snyder said, “Their attorney will contend we waived our rights [when we didn’t require a Phase I at the time of purchase].” Adjournment Ms. Snyder moved the meeting be adjourned. Following a second by Mr. Carter, the motion was unanimously approved.