Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRC-04-11-011 CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Meeting, Wednesday, April 11, 2001. President Rick Roesch called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Commission members present were Ron Carter, Luci Snyder and John Koven constituting a quorum. Also present were Mayor Brainard, Les Olds, Steve Engelking, Councilor Wayne Wilson and Gerald M. Hughes from Carmel Rotary Club. Phyllis Morrissey and Sherry Mielke present as support staff. Karl Haas arrived at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Carter made a motion the order of the agenda be changed to allow Gerald M. Hughes, President of the Carmel Rotary Club speak first. Following a second by Ms. Snyder the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Hughes brought a proposal to the CRC that the Carmel Rotary Club will pledge funds of $35,000 or one half the cost, whichever is less, to defray the costs of designing and constructing the plaza and its improvements at the corner of City Center Drive and the Monon Trail. Mr. Hughes explained details of the proposal. Brief discussion followed. Ms. Snyder thanked Mr. Carter for all his work on this project. Mr. Carter moved the CRC accept the proposal as outlined with the correction noted that the plaza will be on the northwest corner of City Center Drive and the Monon Trail. Following a second by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Hughes was thanked for the proposal and asked to convey the thanks of the Commission to the Rotary Club. Minutes Approval of the minutes of the February 26, 2001, meeting was tabled until the next meeting. Minutes from the March 14, 2001 meeting/public hearing are not yet transcribed. Election of Officers Due the resignation of Amy Boldt from the Commission, a new vice president needs to be elected. Mr. Koven nominated Mr. Carter. Ms. Snyder seconded the nomination. The motion was unanimously approved. Mayor’s Report Mayor Brainard reported he has appointed Edmund (Ed) Burke as a replacement for Ms. Boldt on the CRC. Mr. Burke is a CPA with KPMG. 2 Mayor Brainard reported he has had several meetings with people interested in various sites in City Center, including the northern half of the office parcel. He also has a lead on a successful privately owned theater company which has expressed an interest. Mayor Brainard has been invited to attend the Mayor’s Institute on City Design next week at the University of Virginia, at no cost to the City. Two times per year, six mayors are invited to attend and they are put together with fifteen design professionals who review and critique the project proposals brought by the mayors. Mayor Brainard will be taking our City Center project to get their input and ideas. Mr. Roesch asked if the Mayor will be able to report on that at the next meeting. The Mayor agreed. Mr. Roesch asked what the price of the northern part of the parcel would be. Mr. Olds responded the asking price would be $1, 250,000 because the site is a little more prominent than the southern portion of the parcel. Director’s Report Mr. Engelking reported the work on the site problem with Parcel #1 is finished. AMLI will break ground on April 23 on time, so there will be no penalties. Ms. Weese, City Engineer, will be calculating the cost of the dirt and the work effort involved. The principals have already agreed to a settlement on this. In response to a question from Mr. Roesch, Mr. Olds said Ms. Weese could have the claim for damages originate from her office since it is not being contested. Mr. Haas agreed, noting the other element of the claim would be if AMLI had some delay costs. Mr. Koven cautioned that the cost calculations should take into consideration the timing on when the dirt at the borrowed site would need to be replaced. Mr. Olds said this was being done. Mr. Engelking then reported on the updated pricing for the two surveys considered for the proposed performing arts center. He spoke with Mr. Brans from Artec. Their initial cost was $50,000 total; $30,000 - $35,000 fee exclusive of expenses, plus $15,000 for the fundraising feasibility study. The timing of the survey would have to be rescheduled. Mr. Engelking also contacted Dr. Vargas about the IUPUI survey. There would be a 10% increase, raising the cost to $14,000. Timing would be decided when the Commission is closer to engaging them. Mr. Roesch noted the scope of the two studies seems to overlap in some areas. This should be looked at. He also noted there is a possibility the Parks Department is doing a community center at the central park site. 3 Ms. Snyder said the Parks’ facility could be a multi purpose center, but noted we would not want to overlap usage. She has invited Mr. Auler, Parks Director, to come to a Council committee to explain what they are planning. Mr. Carter said this probably won’t be known until after the Parks Department has had their master planning process for the central park site. Discussion followed about the potential of the buildings at the proposed Street Department facility on 116th Street. Mr. Carter said he thought the only way the CRC was going to get a feeling for the performing arts center was to look at what that product might be ourselves. “We’ve got to formulate that product and say to people, ‘Is this what you’re looking for?’ and go from there, accept, reject, modify, whatever you might want to do to it as a community.” Ms. Snyder: But the thing that is of interest is if someone says to you, ‘Do you want this?’ You have to say what else is available. The performing arts center is something we’re thinking about. Maybe we’ll get answers back such as we want a public use building there that is multi-purpose, that might include a performing arts center, might include some museum capabilities for traveling exhibits, might include some sort of senior center. But in order to answer that question, the people who are being asked need to know there are other facilities being considered. Right now the City has nothing. It appears that we’ve got three “somethings”, possibly a performing arts center, certainly something major at Central Park. I don’t know how you can formulate questions that give people an idea of our options when we don’t even know what they are ourselves. Mr. Roesch: In the Artec presentation they were talking about their study at Lansing, Michigan, where they started out with a philharmonic center but ended up with a multi- use building. As I recall it ended up costing more, but was more financially feasible. That would preclude us doing a multi-purpose building if Parks is going to do a community center. Mayor Brainard: I think you asked a good question about the overlap of what Mr. Vargas and Artec are suggesting. I think it would make sense for Steve [Engelking] and I to take a look at that and try to home in on any overlap there might be before our next meeting and come back to you with those issues worked out. At the same time it will give some time for Randy Auler and the Parks Department to at least explain what they are doing and the time frame. That would give us a better understanding of what Artec and Mr. Vargas need to do now, if anything. Mr. Roesch: I think you might want to look at this overlap and see what the cost would be. Mayor Brainard: That’s what I was saying at the very beginning. Take a look at it and see if we can avoid the overlap by redoing those contracts, the scope of services. 4 Financial Report Ms. Mielke distributed the report. The beginning April balance is $3,781,815. She noted she has updated the interest figures to be more realistic. “We’re also looking at additional TIF figures. Hopefully next month we’ll be able to give you a better figure there, too.” Mayor Brainard: What we’ll have is the assessed value from the Assessor, assessed 2000, payable in 2001. We have some estimates and then we also have from Mr. Hollibaugh, a listing of the permits issued in the TIF area. We are double checking those numbers and should have that for you next time. Ms. Mielke said they hoped to have annual projections for three years ahead by next month. Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Haas if April was realistic for the closing date for Old Town. Mr. Haas replied he thought the money would go into escrow in May and come out in June. It was decided money should go into the cash flow projections on the month it comes out of escrow. Mr. Koven asked if the balance stated match the Clerk Treasurer’s records. Ms. Mielke said yes. Attorney’s Report Mr. Haas: Some of these items may confirm what’s on the cash flow projections. The Kestner closing should occur this month. Ryland has committed to a closing in June so that will be $525,000. “I have not heard anything more from the Hamilton Group. On the last communication, they wanted to check with Mr. Olds on the acreage on that corner piece to see whether they could justify paying $250,000.” Mr. Olds: No one has contacted me. In response to a question from Ms. Snyder, Mr. Olds stated the acreage is about 28,000 square feet of buildable [inaudible]. “We’ve got the survey, the legal descriptions, including all the changes to the right of way. Everything has been calculated. What we’re going to need to do is have the Board of Public Works acknowledge the right of way change and transfer the ground back to the Redevelopment Commission. Ms. Weese is trying to figure out the process to get it done.” Mr. Roesch: I will be seeing Tom Lazzara tomorrow night and I’ll tell him we will get the survey to him. I will tell him if they want to do this now that they have the survey that they should move. 5 Mr. Haas: On the Sherwin Williams litigation I think today was filed a motion for summary judgement. The motion is that under the SW lease, the lease was terminated on the day of the taking. The day of the taking was the day on which the filing was made, that predates the time on which SW attempted to extend their lease. I think we’ve got a decent chance, less than 50/50, to prevail on that motion. If we do prevail on that motion, the SW lease will have been terminated effective as of the time the suit was filed. They have been there on a month to month basis terminable by us on a 30 day notice and I think they’d have no damages at all for the take. Because their lease runs out in June and presuming that they stayed till the end of June, major damages would be the value of the leasehold that they had, that was taken over the value of where they have to go, and since they would have stayed in the same place there is no difference. Mr. Engelking: We did find that request for lease extension that was sent to us in January. I sent a copy to Mr. Zubeck today and have a copy for you. Mr. Haas: The last item I have is we’re still struggling through the Huffer negotiations. I can’t tell you much progress has been made. We have to approve the amount to be paid for appraisals. Ms. Snyder made a motion to pay up to $5,000 for appraisals on the Huffer property. Mr. Carter reluctantly seconded the motion. Motion was approved with three in favor and Mr. Koven opposed. Brief discussion followed. Architect’s Report Mr. Olds reported that on Parcel #3 the sitework fill is basically complete. They will be starting work on the foundations for the retaining wall this week. The project is moving along. We should reasonably be on schedule. We may miss the May 1st start date a little bit but since it’s the same contractor there shouldn’t be a problem. That leaves the other part. We need to approve Mr. Kestner’s plans/documents. The CRC needs to have their hearing through Mike Hollibaugh [scheduled for Tuesday, April 17]. That’s the key piece that we need. Mr. Olds asked if they were going to do Ryland at that time. Mr. Roesch replied he hadn’t heard anything about Ryland. Mr. Olds: That is a critical piece which we need to get approved. Ryland can’t close without that approval. They’re working diligently to get their engineering complete and everything done. But I’m not sure whether we should look towards a special one in May…? Mr. Roesch: We’d better. We’d like to have that money in June. 6 Mr. Engelking: There is a bit of a difficulty on the Ryland piece. It has to do with the C1 ordinance and the restrictions on numbers of square feet. There needs to be a clarification to the ordinance. If that has to go through a process to allow them to move forward with their project, that’s going to delay them some. If they are wanting to seek a variance to that, that also takes them through the Board of Zoning Appeals, which would be a sixty day process with notifications and everything. They are aware of that as far as I know. I think Mike [Hollibaugh] has had conversations with them. Their building pads don’t meet the number of square foot requirements for the size of the buildings as depicted in the original C1 zoning. Mr. Roesch: It was that specific? We got that specific? Mayor Brainard: There were two sections and the section we thought applied, there was another section, that’s why I said clarification. It’s right in one place and could be interpreted as incorrect when you get to another. We need to change it to be proper. We anticipated them doing exactly what they propose doing and it was missed. The key is to fix it as quickly as possible, probably through a variance. Probably the City should waive the fee for it, too, because we told them the zoning was in place. Mr. Roesch: It’s going to take sixty days to do the variance? Mr. Engelking: There’s a forty-five day notice period that it has to meet. We could call a special meeting of the BZA on the forty-sixth day just to approve one agenda item. I will talk with Mike tomorrow morning. Mayor Brainard: Make sure that moves immediately. Mr. Roesch: So you can get a special meeting scheduled? Mr. Engelking: They’ll have to come in with their application and then the process will start from there. I’ll get him to help prepare the application. Mr. Roesch: Sometime we’re going to be looking at the Kroger Center [demolition]. Discussion followed. It was thought the center could be torn down after Sherwin Williams moves out, hopefully later this summer. Mr. Carter to Mr. Olds: Are you and Nick pretty much in agreement on his plans? Mr. Olds: Yes, it’s basically the signage portion, what needs to be added, we need to get details for the signs, get with a contractor and have him give us a price for the sign on the wall and the plaques [for the Rotary portion]. We need to get a diagram. Brief discussion followed. Mr. Olds: There is Rotary artwork available for the plaque for the plaza. 7 Mr. Olds: On Kestner’s building, we insisted the parking lot lights and the bracket lights had to be the acorns like the rest of the City Center lights. This is the same thing we insisted from AMLI. Mr. Carter: Are you all together on landscaping? Mr. Olds: We’re close. We’re trying to explain to Mr. Kestner that there are Carmel restrictions on landscaping and that the caliper of trees is important as opposed to the quantity. We’re past the ground cover issues. Mr. Carter: I have one other item I wanted to ask about. I’m still a little uncomfortable with a decision we made last meeting about the multi-use pathways along City Center Drive on the AMLI property. The more I’ve thought about it, the more concerned I am about (1) tearing that up and (2) setting a precedent to other developers that they don’t have to do what we’ve said on the perimeter of developments that we’d like to see multi- use paths [of a certain width]. Discussion followed at length. Mr. Olds suggested an alternative: start at the curb, create a two course brick band, then put in a seven foot wide sidewalk with another two course brick band on the other side. It would meet the agreement with AMLI, which stated a five foot sidewalk with brick details (not specified). Trees would be in tree wells. Mr. Olds said he would have to figure the cost. Mr. Olds continued: We have another issue we are faced with. Our agreement with AMLI is that we start at the west end of AMLI’s property and carry the sidewalk down to the edge of AMLI’s property. Technically we could stop it; we don’t have to continue it on across Parcel 1 and 2 partly because if we did it, we might have to tear up that same sidewalk to do curb cuts for Parcel 1 and 2. Or the user of Parcel 1 or 2 may have a different agenda. We were hoping that we could hold off on AMLI’s property as long as possible before we do the work. We know we have to put the curb cut in but we were trying to hold back and not do that until the end. That sidewalk needs to be in place when they open up their project. It wouldn’t take long to do to meet their criteria of what they want. We also wanted to award that work with the reflecting pond or something. We wanted to package as many things together to hopefully reduce the overall price. Construction traffic will enter off Third Street at the back end of Parcel 2. Poindexter, off his contract, does the median cut. Mr. Koven stated he felt when the multi use paths were in place that the people using the street instead of the paths should be ticketed. Brief discussion followed. 8 Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Olds to get the cost of the proposed sidewalk to the CRC. Mr. Carter: About the Rotary clock, the placement of it at some place where it would get more exposure can be decided at a later date. They have asked to move it from Old Town because there is a clock nearby at the bank. Ms. Mielke asked in response to a phone call she received if the City had any concerns about or any way to notify walkers to clean up after their dogs when using the trails. Mayor Brainard said we could put it in the City newsletter again. Mr. Carter said the rules need to be enforced. Further discussion followed. Reports from CRC Members Mr. Koven pointed out the article from the IBJ March 15 issue about the cleanup cost at a dry cleaners. He asked if anyone checked the status of the dry cleaners the City purchased. “Did we get a Phase One environmental study done?” Mayor Brainard: We bought that property four or five years ago before dry cleaners were as much of an issue as they are today with the EPA. I can’t honestly remember if we did a Phase One. I think we did, but I wouldn’t swear to it. Mayor Brainard continued: If they didn’t dump their chemicals out the back door we should be fine. Councilor Wilson: The Kroger Center also had a cleaners in it. Mr. Koven: We don’t have any contingency held back to pay for a cleanup when we start tearing these buildings down. In the article it says most of these spills occurred in the building when they spilled chemicals and they penetrated through cracks in the floor and leakage from floor drainpipes following spills in the building. And they had two spills in the parking lot during deliveries where the perchlorethelene contaminated the White River and got into the distribution center. Mayor Brainard: “I’ll check [to see if there was a Phase One] before the next meeting.” He thought if a concrete parking deck were built on top of it, it would not be an issue even if it was contaminated. Mr. Roesch: Even if we had a Phase One and it says nothing appears to be there, you can always have something happen. 9 Approval of Invoices Ms. Mielke asked if a last minute invoice for $1,405.10 received from National City for trustee fees could be added. Clerk Treasurer Cordray asked that it be presented tonight rather than wait till next meeting. It was noted it is required under the bond documents. Discussion followed about the invoice for $8,359.36 from CSO. Mr. Roesch said he had it placed on the agenda. It was sent back to the City but it could not be paid by the City because there was not an appropriation. Mr. Roesch: I think this is a mistake and should not have been handled that way. I feel like the work was performed by CSO and I like to see that people get paid for the work they do. Even though this a bill that went to the BPW, that was work that initially was to have been done for the Commission. I’m the one that brought it back. Ms. Snyder: I have a question on something Les was kind enough to give us: a schedule of work. It mentions this invoice and it’s a contract, and the balance of this contract is $119,600. The contract was not with us; it was with the Board of Public Works. Are you intending to bill us for $119,600 further down the line? Mr. Olds: No, there was no intention to bill for that unless the Commission authorized the work to be carried on. Mr. Roesch: We’re taking that contract from BPW. Mr. Haas: This is on here as an alternate. What this means is Les has given you the right to say go ahead and proceed and do the other 46% of the work. Ms. Snyder: I understand Les did the work. I really don’t like to see anyone not get paid who does the work. Nevertheless, it was not a contract with us. We sent it back to the BPW and they are unable to pay it all. I don’t think I want to pay the balance. I just don’t want to do it. I don’t think it’s right. I think that we’re asked to do this time and time again and we’re always asked to make these stretches and I simply am not for it. Mayor Brainard: When was it sent to the Finance Committee, Luci? Ms. Snyder: When was it sent? I don’t know. I don’t sit on the Finance Committee. Mayor Brainard: Do you know the Finance Committee’s reason, John, for not submitting it to the Council for a vote? Mr. Koven: Not submitting it to the Council for a vote? I’m not on the Finance Committee this year either. 10 Councilor Wilson: I am. I can’t remember other than the, we obviously felt real strongly… oh, the $8,300 was charged against cum cap improvements or development, something that could not be paid out of that fund. Ms. Mielke: What happened, in December an encumbrance was submitted at the end of the year, December 27th, on BPW, was encumbered for $28,000 and then $8,000 was submitted on Kate Weese’s request under CCI (cum cap fund improvements). We were not aware that that was, at that point in time, all other money that was available was spent for other bills. We thought that money was available. When we were notified after the first of the year, at that point in time all other funds had been used up, and Kate was surprised and has since argued that she felt it belonged under CCI. Now I understand Cindy [Sheeks from Clerk Treasurer’s Office] has explained it to me that they feel that doesn’t belong there. That’s for architectural and engineering fees. She doesn’t see it as… Mayor Brainard [interrupting]: And this was what? Ms. Mielke: [Unintelligible] When we looked at it, she still feels it should be there. Mayor Brainard: CCI is the cumulative capital improvement money. You can use it for the same purposes as a CCD fund. They are the same. The names are different only because the source of the funds comes from different areas. Councilor Wilson: Unless I have this confused with some other thing that was tried to be paid from that. We researched, in fact may even have legal opinion that it could not be paid from that fund. Mayor Brainard: I don’t think so, Wayne, because that fund is used to build things and… Councilor Wilson: An acoustical study has to be on an existing building. There was no building… Mayor Brainard [interrupting]: We use studies all the time , where roads are going to go, and design roads that aren’t there yet. In this case we’re designing a building that’s not there yet. I don’t understand the difference. Ms. Mielke: That’s what her [Kate’s] thought was as well. Mr. Koven: Well, the bottom line of the whole thing is, when the contract was entered into, the money should have been appropriated and set aside in the first place. There obviously wasn’t an appropriation for a contract that was entered into. Mayor Brainard: Yes, there was. There was an appropriation. [Ms. Mielke agreed.] Mr. Koven: Then where is it? [Unintelligible] 11 Mayor Brainard: At that point, cum cap improvements account for 2000 was under budget at the end of the year. There was money available. There was more money appropriated than what was spent. Money was available and it was appropriated. Finance Committee refused to send it to the Council for a vote. Mr. Koven: If the money had been set aside at the point the contract was entered into, there’d never be an issue… Mayor Brainard [interrupting]: We didn’t have a requirement to set it aside at that point… Mr. Koven [interrupting]: State law requires it. Mayor Brainard [interrupting]: But there was money available. Mr. Koven: You’re talking about our purchase order system. Our purchase order system is nothing more than a follow up to a state law that’s existed since the beginning of accounting in the State of Indiana. Mayor Brainard: There was money available in the account at the end of the year? Ms. Mielke: I believe there was. Mayor Brainard: Yeah, it was there. Ms. Mielke: We ended up because Kate felt that it should… Councilor Wilson [interrupting]: Well, I don’t think there was because after all, we allowed the $28,000 or whatever where there was an encumbrance and it rolled over to cover that, but because there wasn’t for this. I’d have to research it again, but Kevin Kirby, who’s president of the Council, was in on that meeting and I know there was a legal opinion written on that thing. I think it’s a combination, (1) I don’t think there was an encumbrance for those funds, or there weren’t any funds left so therefore there couldn’t be an encumbrance… Ms. Mielke [interrupting]: We didn’t have notification until after our encumbrance period ended. We encumbered the money in December and then didn’t find out… Mayor Brainard [interrupting]: The money was appropriated for 2000. It was available in 2000. Our office wasn’t notified it was turned down until after the deadline had passed for encumbering funds. Ms. Mielke: I think that system [unintelligible]. Mr. Koven: It’s a state law. I mean, I’m sorry, but it’s a state law. 12 Councilor Wilson: I really can’t say one way or the other what the…, I just don’t believe that we would have arbitrarily tossed this back, whether we agreed with it or not, I mean, if there had been funds there to pay it from. I’m just thinking myself, okay, then I would have brought up the argument, “Hey, we may not agree with it, but we’re not here to micromanage the City.” So I really don’t believe, I can’t remember what the exact scenario was, but I do remember that we did ask McHale, Cook and Welch for an opinion on it because of the cum cap improvement fund. And it’s very limited what that money can be used, there’s only three or four things I remember that money can be used for and the determination was that this was not one of them because it was not an existing building. Mr. Roesch: That’s going to be decided outside this Commission, I believe. I would entertain a motion first to approve all the invoices except the controversial one for $8,359.36 and then after that I’ll entertain a motion to approve or address that invoice. After clarification from Mr. Koven, Mr. Roesch asked for a motion to add the National City invoice to the agenda to be paid. So moved by Ms. Snyder. Following a second by Mr. Carter the motion was approved with three in favor, Mr. Koven voting no “only because it’s an add on item”. Ms. Snyder made a motion to approve the invoices including the National City one for $1,405.10 and excluding #18378 for $8,359.36 be paid. Mr. Carter seconded the motion and it was approved with three in favor, Mr. Koven voting no. Mr. Carter made a motion to approve for payment invoice #18378 for $8,359.36. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Wilson asked Sherry to redirect that to the Finance Committee. New Business None Next Meeting May 9, 2001, in the Caucus Rooms Adjournment Ms. Snyder moved the meeting be adjourned. Following a second by Mr. Koven, the motion was unanimously approved and the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.