Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRC-12-07-01CRC Minutes, December 7, 2001 1 CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Meeting, Friday, December 7, 2001 President Rick Roesch called the meeting to order at 2:35 p.m. Other Commission members present were Ron Carter, Luci Snyder, and Ed Burke constituting a quorum. Also present were Mayor Brainard, Les Olds, Karl Haas, Wayne Wilson, Brian Shapiro, Chris McComas, Matt Price and Loren Matthes. Kelli Hahn present as support staff. Shapiro Purchase Offer Mr. Roesch noted there are several things on the agenda to be addressed. The first thing is the offer from Shapiro for Parcel #5. Mr. Carter moved the CRC approve the Shapiro offer as distributed by Karl Haas. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burke and approved unanimously. Huffer Purchase Offer Mr. Roesch: It has been recommended that we make an offer of $700,000 (which is the appraised value) for the Huffer building. The offer of $700,000 would be minus any environmental cleanup we might have on the site. So moved by Mr. Carter. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the motion was unanimously approved. Sherwin Williams Mr. Roesch: We have also been discussing the Sherwin Williams lease condemnation and it has been noted that there is a spill on file with IDEM. That could possibly affect our negotiations with Sherwin Williams. There’s no evidence that spill was remediated in the file. So I would recommend we hire our environmental firm, SESCO, to do a sampling of the spill area to see what we have there. So moved by Ms. Snyder. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the motion was unanimously approved. Architectural Review Committee for Shapiro’s A review committee of two CRC members is needed for the Shapiro project before the Technical Advisory Committee meeting. Ms. Snyder volunteered noting she has been looking at their plans and meeting with their landscaper already. Mr. Burke volunteered also. Merchants’ Pointe Bond Resolution Mr. Price gave some background for the resolution, stating they first got a term sheet the last week of August from McDonald Investments. “We put together the initial bond resolution approving the transaction for the September meeting of the Redevelopment Commission and at that meeting the Commission approved Resolution 13-2001 which was an approval of the financing for the acquisition of the public improvements which will benefit Merchants’ Pointe economic development and the adjoining areas. That particular bond resolution was very detailed in that it established the parameters for the variable rate of interest which the bonds will hold as well as set forth the detailed instructions for the disbursement of project funds. It also included some terms that provided for a taxpayer agreement to be entered into by the owner of the Merchants’ CRC Minutes, December 7, 2001 2 Pointe property as well as a letter of credit. Both of those mechanisms were going to provide security for the repayment of the bonds. At the time it was thought that the letter of credit would be a standby letter of credit, meaning that if for some reason the tax increment generated from this area was not sufficient to pay the debt service on the bonds, we’d have this letter of credit standing by to make up that shortfall. As it turned out, that was not the exact structure at all that McDonald was actually proposing. What they actually had in mind was what is called a direct pay letter of credit, meaning that the primary source of security for the bonds will be a letter of credit issued by Bank One and any disbursements that are made pursuant to that letter of credit are going to be guaranteed by the developer or entities related to or affiliated with the developer. But the primary source of security for the repayment of the bonds will be this letter of credit. The Redevelopment Commission’s obligations under the transactions don’t change at all, meaning that the only obligation that the CRC has with respect to this bond issuance is the pledge of a tax increment, whatever it turns out to be, from that individual economic development area. In that bond resolution we had granted broad authority to the President of the Commission to approve other related documentation to allow the transaction to go forward. We’ve taken advantage of those provisions that were in that initial resolution. I believe, though, for people coming after us, it was worth our while to approve this resolution that sets forth the proper terms of those related documents and the fact there is no taxpayer agreement as the original resolution contemplated. So it’s not necessarily a change in the ultimate structure for the transaction but it’s more in the nature of a clarification. That’s why I characterize this as an amendment and restatement of that resolution. Mr. Roesch: One thing that it does do, if there is not enough TIF, it will go directly to that letter of credit. We do not have to call upon the letter of credit from Bank One. Mr. Price confirmed this. Mr. Roesch: So it seems to me our risk is a little bit less. I was concerned initially when the assessment dates were going to be, etc. I don’t think we have to worry about this at this point. Discussion followed about the interest rates at this time. Mayor Brainard: [I want it noted that if there is] bankruptcy of the developer, no insurance, buildings burn to the ground, the City has no liability… for the record. Mr. Price: That is correct. The City’s obligation is non-recourse. The only thing the City has pledged in this regard is whatever TIF is generated from this one allocation area goes towards the repayment of these obligations. CRC Minutes, December 7, 2001 3 Mr. Carter: For the record, also, I’m uncomfortable with getting this material handed out in a meeting without having an opportunity to read it ahead of the meeting. We try not to operate in this fashion and it has led us into some problematic areas. I’d really not want to see this happen again. Mr. Roesch and Ms. Snyder agreed. Mr. Roesch: In this case, we had a conference call and a lot of work had been done by you guys [Price and Matthes] and it was basically completed. McDonald guys just totally changed everything. I was not real happy. Discussion continued, some of which was inaudible. Question was asked whether if three Commission members attended the Technical Advisory Committee meeting at the same time, it that would have to be “noticed”. Mr. Haas replied it did not as long as they did not “meet” to discuss anything. Mr. Burke moved the CRC approve Resolution 15-2001, amending and restating the previously approved Resolution 13-2001. Following a second by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Burke noted he has two copies of the Merchants’ Pointe ROW to return to Phyllis [Morrissey]. One copy of the appraisal goes into the CRC file in DOCS. The other will go with the closing documents in the Clerk-Treasurer’s office. Mr. Price gave Mr. Roesch the disbursement request for signature, noting the invoices attached were all the professional fees associated with the closing. Mr. Roesch said these will be submitted to the Trustee for payment at closing. The total is $151,599.20. Mr. Engelking made copies for the Commission. Other Business Public Notice Question Ms. Hahn had a question about the public notices which would need to be sent out. Mr. Haas: In the AMLI project agreement, the CRC is committed to handling the public notices. He said as of this date, this is the only project for which this commitment was made. If any other purchase agreements make this commitment on behalf of the CRC, Mr. Haas will let the Kelli Hahn, of the Department of Community Services, know since staff members would be doing this for the CRC. Additional Survey Mr. Olds: I’d like to ask the Commission to authorize a survey for the remainder of Parcel #5. So moved by Mr. Burke. Following a second by Mr. Carter, the motion was approved by a vote of four to zero. The motion was amended to include surveying for Parcel #4 and Parcel #7. Mr. Burke made the amended motion. Following a second by Mr. Carter, the amended motion was unanimously approved. CRC Minutes, December 7, 2001 4 Adjournment There being no further business before the Commission, Mr. Burke moved the meeting be adjourned. Following a second by Mr. Carter, the motion was unanimously approved and the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. z\redevcom\2001 Dec 7 min.doc