Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRC-05-09-011 CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Meeting, Wednesday, May 9, 2001 President Rick Roesch called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Members present were Luci Snyder, John Koven and Ron Carter constituting a quorum. Also present were Councilor Wayne Wilson, Steve Engelking, Karl Haas, Les Olds, Tom Crowley and Spencer Knotts from Gershman Brown, Blair Carmosino from Duke Weeks, Ernie Reno from Avatar Communications, and Pete Miller and Sue Beesley from McHale, Cook & Welch. Phyllis Morrissey and Sherry Mielke present as support staff. Approval of Minutes from the meetings of February 26, 2001, March 26, 2001, April 10, 2001 Executive Session, April 11, 2001 meetings, and May 1, 2001 meetings. Ms. Snyder moved the minutes be approved. Following a second by Mr. Carter, the motion was unanimously approved. The minutes from the March 14, 2001, meeting are not yet complete transcribed. Report from the Mayor None in his absence. Report from the Director Mr. Engelking reported he had received the Phase One environmental facts for the piece of Kestner’s property on Range Line. The other facts for Parcel Three will be faxed to him tomorrow morning. He was told there were no appreciable problems found in any of the Phase One which would prevent the closing. Mr. Engelking: “The ordinance being sponsored by Ms. Snyder, vacating the rights-of- way for the Kestner project and the Ryland project, will be on the Council’s May 21 agenda. Mr. Engelking received a check for $1,202,217 for the Kestner closing. On the Kroger complex, Mr. Engelking reported he has not yet determined if Phase One environmental studies were done at the time we purchased it. Also there were no formal estimates for the demolition of the complex. One informal estimate was for $350,000. Mr. Olds said his company estimated the demolition at $550,000. Ms. Mielke said there was $500,000 on the financial report for the demolition. On the property at 215 N. Main, concerning the removal and replacement underground utilities, the road removal and the demolition at that location, there are no existing estimates available. Mr. Roesch asked if the variance for the closing on the Ryland property was progressing. Mr. Engelking said the change in the ordinance was at the City Council; the variance would be a BZA item. It may be at the BZA the end of May. The requirements for notice 2 of a public hearing are 45 days prior to the hearing. “I don’t know whether they made that hurdle for the meeting.” Mr. Roesch: That would hold up our Ryland closing. Councilor Wilson: The ordinance is on the Council agenda for a second reading on May 21st. Mr. Engelking: The ordinance change fixes it for the future but the variance they’re going to require has nothing to do with the ordinance change. It has to do with platting. They have to replat the property or get a variance. Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Haas to give them a call. At last month’s meeting, Mr. Engelking offered to help them with the application. Mr. Engelking: I will coordinate with Mr. Hollibaugh and we’ll make sure the thing gets through and gets processed as rapidly as possible. The other possibility is the BZA can have a special meeting. On the AMLI project, everything is on track and they plan to start construction soon. We are still working on settlement on the issues of how much money will have to be spent for the changes that have been made and where they might obtain the extra dirt. They have had an offer of some dirt from Merchants Pointe at a good price. On the liming stabilization that had to occur for the AMLI project; $91,912 was allowed for this. It came in at $74,482. Remaining work items: drive for a lift station off Third Avenue SW and the remainder of the dirt that will be placed on the property just east of the AMLI site (which doesn’t affect the AMLI ongoing current activity). Financial Report Ms. Mielke said the projected May 1 balance is $3,704,101. The interest is not known at this time because of the maternity leave absence of Cindy Sheeks in the Clerk Treasurer’s office. Ms. Mielke reported she talked to the State Board of Accounts and as of January 1, these accounts matched to the dollar. Everything is good up through the end of March. Interest numbers will be plugged in as soon as they are available. CRC had to pay $8,404.98 in taxes on CRC properties and also had some drainage assessments of $80.58. Discussion followed about whether the properties would come off the tax rolls once they are purchased by the CRC. Ms. Mielke said this happened after one year. The exact 3 properties were not known since the actual addresses weren’t on the tax bills. These will be verified. It was noted that when the CRC purchases property the tax status should be changed as soon as possible in the future. A notice was received this afternoon from Fifth Third Bank requesting they be able to close the account and issue a check for $574 because it is costing them more to keep the account open. The question was raised as whether this could be done because of the bond indenture. The Trustee should know this. Mr. Haas asked Ms. Mielke to call him to see. Mr. Roesch asked Ms. Mielke to list the estimated cost to tear down the Kroger building. and also add the estimated cost to demolish the Printsley Building at the time of closing. Mr. Haas noted this will come out of the closing proceeds. Attorney’s Report Mr. Haas reported AMLI is moving apace. Negotiations and discussions are proceeding on the Huffer property. Mr. Haas reported the closing on Ryland should occur next month. “I will confirm that and make sure they are on schedule.” Mr. Engelking asked that Mr. Haas let him know as soon as he has a definite date. Mr. Haas continued: Kestner, which was scheduled to close tomorrow, has been delayed until Monday at Mr. Kestner’s request. As plans were being finalized, Mr. Kestner had some concern about certain items were being included in work to be done by the CRC. One of the documents Mr. Roesch will be signing is a confirmation that these items of work being done by the CRC are included. The total amount for those items is about $13,000. Mr. Olds explained the changes on the foundation wall and the responsibilities of the CRC, as well as the access on the site for Mr. Kestner’s contractor, Dart Construction. The only retaining wall right now is that section currently being constructed that is the backdrop to the plaza which we needed to do because of the height of the street. Mr. Olds continued: The contractor has come close to “over excavating” near the sidewalk. This will be monitored closely to see that the sidewalk and the street are protected. All is being documented with measurements and photos because City Engineer Weese is concerned about the area once the backfill is completed. This can all be checked with this data at the end of the warranty period. Extended warranties or guarantees may be requested from the contractor. Mr. Olds had nothing further to report. Reports from CRC Members 4 Ms. Snyder reported she spoke with Paul Reis about Mr. Schull who owns property near the Lumberyard Mall. Earlier she and Ms. Boldt had told Mr. Schull the City (CRC) would like to buy the property for a parking lot. Mr. Reis told her Mr. Schull is not interested in selling at this time, but if he decides to sell he will sell to a person who owns a car repair business next door. He does not want to sell to the City. Discussion followed at length. Mr. Haas suggested the CRC expand the area, encompassing more property by Mr. Schull’s and then set about direct negotiations under threat of condemnation. Mr. Haas [in response to a question from Mr. Carter]: AMLI is committed to a project which would not include either [Mr. Schull’s property] or the Lumberyard Mall but they think they can do a better project, both economically and with the design, if they are able to shift parking from inside the courtyard to these adjacent areas. Mr. Carter: Do we really want them to shift the parking rather than being inside the project as it was originally conceived? Mr. Roesch: I think it benefits the whole downtown area if there is more parking. Mr. Haas: The plan would call for additional residential units, too. Mr. Koven: I have a concern. We’ve approved the project as it was presented earlier. They’ve decided they want to change the plan. If they want to buy the Lumberyard Mall and did that on their own, that’s fine. I don’t want to be involved in condemning a single house for the benefit of a developer as someone representing the City here or on the Council. If we want to go and do that we need to extend beyond one single house. Mr. Roesch: One of the things we hoped for is that it would be an impetus for developers to do these things. So it’s done with their money ultimately . Once things take some momentum like in Old Town it’s my hope they can all be done privately. But maybe that’s a matter of special zoning. Mr. Haas: Uses that are existing are “grandfathered”. They wouldn’t be changed if the zoning changed. Mr. Haas: I’m not saying I disagree with you, John, but one of the reasons for eminent domain is for improvements. Mr. Koven: I disagree with singling out one person for the convenience of one developer to condemn a property of someone who just doesn’t want to sell it to them. Further discussion followed. 5 Mr. Roesch suggested the commission members review the AMLI downtown plan before the next regular meeting and update it and then continue the discussion. General agreement. Mr. Roesch: Before the meeting tonight I reread Mr. Silver’s deposition and I urge you all to read those and I can tell you his comments about conversations with me are all lies. They are all lies. Those conversations did not take place. The conversation was about delay of the meeting and threats that were made. And that was it. It really goes against my grain to see a practicing member of the bar lie in a deposition like that and get away with it. So I urge you all to read those and then we can talk about what kind of action we might take. I for one would not be very sympathetic nor would I trust Mr. Silver to even appear before this commission and make any statements in the future about anything. Mr. Carter: At this point after having read the material, what would you like to see happen? Mr. Roesch: I think we need to take some action before the ethics board. I don’t think people should be able to try to bully public officials. I don’t think they should lie. I don’t think we should have to deal with that. Mr. Koven: I hope you’re not implying that the Commission do that because I don’t feel I’ve been bullied at all, as a Councilman or as a Commission member. I’ve never even talked to Greg Silver. Mr. Roesch: My point is, John, that the threats were made and they included you, they included the Commission, the Council, categorically everybody that had anything to do with the process. There were also other lies in this deposition about me speaking with him earlier in the year about this thing. I didn’t talk with him. I didn’t talk to him at all. He goes on and on about it. Didn’t ever happen. Mr. Koven: It would all be hearsay. Mr. Haas: The lying under oath would be very serious. Mr. Koven: But you can’t prove it. Mr. Roesch: There is one thing. On the threats, he did admit that to Mike Wukmer in voice mail and that’s been transcribed. Mr. Haas: A complaint could be filed with a disciplinary commission and they would investigate. It wouldn’t be necessary for the [Redevelopment] Commission or any of the members to prosecute the action, so to speak. You may be right, John, it may come down to “he said, she said” but the Disciplinary Commission would be investigating and making an initial determination. I think that making threats is a serious matter but from the perspective of “professional responsibility” though, I think the lying under oath might be sufficient grounds for disbarring an attorney. 6 Mr. Carter: I don’t have a problem with the threats. We’ve had people do that for years. I don’t get upset about that. On the other hand, if it is a case of lying under oath, then we may well have a duty to pursue that. Mr. Roesch: That’s what I think. Should somebody be allowed to use these types of techniques in practice? I don’t think so. It’s wrong. Mr. Roesch asked the other members to think about it. Mr. Carter: Did you have any report on the fill dirt situation? Mr. Roesch: We can’t clarify that, but apparently Poindexter as part of his contract had to come up with so much dirt and they got it from Conseco because they had an excess. Mr. Olds confirmed this. Mr. Roesch noted some of the dirt on the site is topsoil and can’t be used to build on because it doesn’t compact properly. Approval of Invoices There were no questions on the invoices. Mr. Carter moved the invoices be paid as presented. Following a second by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved. Old Business Marketing Studies and Surveys Mr. Engelking reported the studies/surveys appear to be two different market survey type of opportunities. They look at two different kinds of potential users of the facility. The Artec one is a much more technically sophisticated and technology driven instrument that not only looks at the uses of the facilities but the technology necessary to create the facilities and acoustics and so forth, sources of funding that might be gotten. They look at users of the facility from the perspective of musicians or artists in the community or the local area that would then provide an event that would draw from the community paying customers to visit that facility. Mr. Engelking continued: On the other hand, the IUPUI survey, in my judgement, goes from the perspective of trying to determine who in your community is willing to pay the dollars for the ticket to come to an event at that facility. I don’t think the Artec study approaches that direction of survey. I think the two would work hand in hand together to come to some sense of assurance to the community. Mr. Roesch: Have we contacted Artec to see what the price is now? 7 Mr. Engelking said Artec’s price had not changed since their original presentation. The only difference in the IUPUI is that their hourly rate increased over last year, so theirs has gone up $1200 on an overall cost of $12,000. Both would have to be rescheduled if the decision is made to engage them. Mr. Roesch: I’m still concerned that the Artec one is orientated toward a “symphony hall” and not so much a multi use facility. Ms. Snyder: I stated my piece last month. I still feel there are too many options in play at the moment. We are too tight on money and have too many unexpected expenses. Mr. Roesch: Along with the unexpected expenses we need to investigate what it’s going to cost for moving the power underground at City Center. Mr. Koven: I think both of those studies probably need to be done. I just think we’re too far away from breaking ground to contemplate building something like that. If we did this two years from now our study’s going to be 20% out of date [because of so many people moving away]. A year from now we may have 13,000 more people [because of annexation]. Mr. Carter: As usual I disagree on the approach to these things. We looked at this as being one of the cornerstones of the City Center. I don’t see the particular reasoning behind why this can’t get done sooner than later. If we continue to look for reasons why it might not get done, then no matter how much you indicate you like this, it’s never going to get done. I think one of the things we have to do as elected officials and as members of this commission is move ahead boldly on doing things for the community. There’s no reason not to look at how this could get done sooner than later. There’s no reason why the people out in the Township couldn’t get surveyed at the same time. We can put together a product that people can be asked, “Do you want to buy into this? Do you want this to be done? How soon do you want it to be done? Do you want to provide dollars for it?” There are enough dollars in this community that if we move boldly ahead with this it’s probably going to get funded, sooner than later. If we’re not ready to start this now, when will we be ready? What’s going to change? If we’re not going to vote on this tonight, I move we table it until we get the full commission here. The motion died for lack of a second. Old Business (continued) Item C: Confirmatory Resolution for Merchants Pointe Mr. Roesch noted the Confirmatory Resolution was delayed because an impact statement did not get mailed ten days in advance of the meeting to the affected entities so that will have to be rescheduled. “I am told those numbers probably are going to be out on Monday. With a ten day notification that would mean we would have to have a meeting somewhere around May 24th to get this back on schedule.” 8 Discussion followed about availability of members. May 24th was selected as the tentative date. New Business Preliminary discussion about a new proposed TIF: College Hills. Mr. Miller: I’m here on behalf of Gershwin Brown, the lead developer in a partnership of two, with respect to about twenty acres located in the northeast quadrant of 96th Street and College. The proposal will be to explore, with the Commission, tax increment financing for an office building project. There are a number of people here tonight in support of that. Tom Crowley, from Gershwin Brown, one of the principals has been one of the point persons involved. Duke Weeks is going to be the party who finds the tenants and develops the buildings. One of the preliminary points is we’re pretty early. There’s an annexation which is underway. That has to be approved and then take affect before the Redevelopment Commission could even be asked to take some formal action. But we wanted to start this process early so you would have a chance to conduct investigation, to be aware and hit the ground running when we are in a position to ask you to take some action. Part of the reason is there will be a timing crunch as this project proceeds and as it gets towards approval, when the annexation gets towards taking affect. There are thirty-eight different parcels Gershwin Brown has pulled together under contract. Thirty-eight different families who own those parcels are trying to figure out when and where they’re moving. I have advised my clients some of your policies and procedures. One of them being with respect to payment and reimbursement of fees of consultants. Tom has already agreed to work out a payment and reimbursement agreement that satisfies the Commission. That’s an important preliminary. We understand that will be needed. Mr. Crowley: The project really started about a year and a half ago. Over the last five years the people who live there’s quality of life has started to deteriorate because of the Interstate becoming busier, the apartment development that’s happened, a lot of the properties are rentals now, the stuff on College is not that nice anymore. All that has played into this. The biggest problem we have is holding all those people together. We basically have until the end of this year to buy this property. We have to run the annexation, the plat vacation and the zoning all at the same time in order to make it by November. We don’t want to be presumptuous in thinking that we have the zoning but we did want to get to you early and explain it so as we come before the Council there are no surprises. In terms of benefits, the project is going to be 420,000 square feet office space. That will create between 1,000 and 1,200 jobs, average salaries would be upwards of $13 an hour. The property today generates, I think, close to $30,000 per year. At completion we estimate it to be close to a half million dollars, so it’s a considerable change. 9 One of the problems with this is aggregating all these various parcels into one so that’s where we’re going to need some help. There are a lot of health and safety issues, old wells, utilities. We have that included. I can give you details if you like. Questions? Mr. Carter: Do you have a tenant for this? Mr. Crowley: No. The real thing that’s happened is they have been absorbing about 170,000 feet a year in Parkwood for a number of years, so Parkwood is 98-99% leased and there is a tremendous demand for that office corridor there. There are a number of tenants Duke’s been talking to but it’s a different price point. It’s much easier to build a spec building if it is smaller. Mr. Carter: The reason I asked that is we’re not particularly used to seeing projected income levels for the workers in hourly fashion, so it made me wonder if you were talking about a call center or something of that nature. Discussion followed about potential clients of the property. Mr. Crowley noted it could take several years to build out. “The plan would be to close this year, go under construction. I’ve told all the property owners that if we close in November, we’re not going to say ‘Get out of your house before the holidays.’” Mr. Koven: If I understand correctly, the annexation issue is subject to all of your approvals. If we could go through this whole process, we don’t necessarily end up with an annexation anyway. Mr. Crowley: Right. And the reason is they were all very concerned that they don’t want us going and doing something that if we don’t buy the property, it will cost them more money [in taxes]. Mr. Carter: We don’t at all. I’m frankly tired of hearing those people down there talk about that. …I’m tired of hearing those people down there say, “We don’t want to be part of the City of Carmel,” when they’ve got failing septics, and they’ve got other infrastructure problems. Mr. Crowley: I think listening to them, they kind of view themselves as kind of a “no man’s land” down there. They really have not ever been part of Carmel, but yet they’ve been affected by what’s happened across the line there and they don’t feel that they’ve been represented properly. Further discussion followed about demographics of the area. Mr. Crowley said he felt this truly is redevelopment. Mr. Crowley has been to the Nora Community Council so they would be aware of the proposal. 10 Ms. Snyder: The people from that area were here one night with their little signs. They knew I was on the Council and they asked how I was going to vote. I said that if 100% of the people in an area want something, it’s our job to listen attentively to what they said. What you just said was occasionally when highways are built or something has to go in and a neighborhood becomes cut off and slowly it dies an excruciating death, and the people who didn’t get out early are faced with diminishing values in their homes. If something can come along that we think is acceptable that buys them all out (and it’s amazing to get 100% of anybody to agree on any thing), it is redevelopment for their sake, and for our sakes, too. It increases our tax base and obviously you make a profit, but it does get them out of a situation that is yearly getting worse. Mr. Crowley agreed. “It’s not a blighted neighborhood. It’s just changing. And it’s going to continue to change because these people, I think, don’t want to make the investment that some of them need to make on their property to keep it up. You’ve seen it all before.” Mr. Crowley continued: We’ve put a very preliminary budget in there. We’ve tried to be responsible though about what we’re asking you to help us with. It will not work if we don’t have the help. We are trying to solve some problems with 96th Street that exist there today whether we build this thing or not. There is a problem there. Ms. Snyder: I thought it was interesting and something I’ve not seen before. But you have your traffic study and then you have a review of your traffic study. Mr. Crowley: Because we had to risk the kind of money we’re risking, I wanted someone independent to come in and say “this makes sense or it doesn’t make sense.” That’s the reason. Mr. Roesch said Mr. Miller had questioned the possibility of expanding the economic development area the CRC just approved, Parkwood West. Mr. Miller: I had a chance to take a brief look at it. I don’t have the survey work. But there is one option that might be available to the Commission and that would a rule that allows you to expand an existing allocation area, a little streamlined procedure. It requires approval and a public hearing by the Redevelopment Commission and then the approval of the Council, but you avoid having to bounce to the Plan Commission and Council in the middle of that like a usual allocation area requires. It would save a little time and make it a little easier. You can also rely on some of your factual findings and the background developed for the original allocation area so your required findings are a little bit different and a little simpler. It may be available and certainly worth exploring. Mr. Crowley: We’ve done those before. That saves a lot of fees because you’re not actually setting up a new district. I know you’re all sensitive to that so that might be something to look at. 11 Mr. Miller: The material that we submitted has a lot of background there and I just want to make sure it becomes part of the public record. Mr. Roesch: Is there anything different between what you brought and what was distributed? Mr. Miller: It’s exactly the same. Mr. Roesch: It would be my suggestion in the interest of time if they’re willing to cover our costs as they did on the last project, looking at what we had to deal with in the Parkwood West project, I would suggest that somebody make a motion tonight that we get the same team that we did in the last process to move this forward to the resolution stage. Ms. Snyder: You mean bond counsel, financial advisor, etc.? Mr. Roesch: Yes. Ms. Snyder: Since we have a settlement on this Heartland thing and since Ruth Hayes was part of Heartland, if we attach this to the other TIF, does that prevent her from objecting, remonstrating, showing her face? Mr. Miller: We’d certainly like to have that result. I don’t know that we can guarantee it. Mr. Carter: If we expand the boundaries of Parkwood West, does that then nullify the requirement that they have to stay “hands off”? Mr. Haas: Under the settlement… I’ll find that out. Ms. Snyder: Other than that, I wouldn’t have an objection. I think that if we have a problem we have a team that’s already been dealing with these people and they know how to reach them, they know how to press their buttons. I don’t want to trigger something either. On the other hand, it may prevent something. Why don’t we check it out? Mr. Roesch: I don’t think that would preclude us from picking the team to move this forward though. Mr. Koven moved the CRC select the same team for the College Hills project that was used on the Parkwood West project. Following a second by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Roesch thanked everyone for coming, noting Mr. Haas will be in coutact with them to sign a reimbursement agreement. 12 Mr. Koven asked if the $3,850,000 which was requested to be included in the TIF is non- negotiable. Mr. Crowley: No, nothing is ever non-negotiable as far as I’m concerned. Mr. Roesch: This is different though. There are special problems here with utilities… Mr. Crowley: I think the biggest perception problem is the aggregation of the parcels has the appearance, you’re doing something for the developer. It’s on the property; you’re not building a road. But it’s very important, so we’re going to have to deal with that. Discussion followed about the possibility of tying the property to the Monon trail. Old Business (continued) Mr. Olds: The issue of the power lines. That is a monumental issue that needs to be addressed. There have been several discussions with Cinergy by the Mayor’s office years ago about these things. Cinergy is basically stonewalling it as much as they can. We have run some economic forecasts of what this entire development will generate in terms of income for Cinergy to try to get their attention. They seem to be unwilling or there are other things on their agenda. Every time we talk to them they want $3,000,000 to relocate the lines, hoping to scare you off. I would suggest the CRC put together a subcommittee headed by one of the City Council members to start dealing with Cinergy. CSO Engineers will provide a very experienced senior electrical engineer for the committee to help cut through the malarkey from Cinergy and hopefully we can start to address what this is all going to be, how much it’s going to be and how long it’s going to take. I offer this only as a suggestion. Ms. Snyder: These are Cinergy’s lines. We always have to deal with Cinergy. There is no way around them to someone else? Mr. Olds: Not really. I suppose the Utility Regulatory Commission, but I believe the power of the City Council… Cinergy has constant needs for various things. The City Council representative could go a long way towards getting their attention. Mr. Olds expressed concern about the delay in construction if lines had to be relocated after properties were sold. “Some of those lines are really old. You’re carrying some money [$1,000,000] in your budget for relocation of those lines.” Mr. Roesch: But the figure they’re throwing at us is $3,000,000. Mr. Haas: I think the committee that’s being formed should meet in Cinergy’s corporate offices with their corporate officers. Mr. Olds: There are two departments: engineering and marketing. We’ve tried dealing with the engineering department and we get nowhere. They are old line, “This is what it is. We are in control here. We are the power here. You do what we say.” And marketing 13 tries to soft pedal it a little bit, and tries to help but we need somebody above marketing and engineering that says, “Get it done.” Mr. Roesch: Do they have a PR person? Mr. Koven: They have a chairman of the board. That’s where you start. Mr. Haas: That’s right. Discussion followed about where the lines might be located. Mr. Carter: Why are we needing to do this? Shouldn’t the Mayor be doing this? Mr. Olds: The Mayor has started doing this, but I think it needs almost a committee that reports or deals with it on a regular basis. Cinergy always says, “Give us the timeline. When do you want it done? When is this going to happen?” And that’s been a little difficult to program. Now you’ve got the apartments going, you’ve got things starting to happen. Mr. Roesch: We could have a developer though who wants to buy something and really insists that this be done. How are we going to negotiate with him if we don’t know if it’s going to be $1,000,000 or $3,000,000? That is really critical. Discussion followed about who would be on the proposed committee. Mr. Carter suggested “we have a second parallel committee to look at whether or not we want to have our own municipal power company and buy and resell. Whether we do it or not, it certainly would get their attention.” Ms. Snyder: One of the reasons for doing it is revenue uses, but also as a development tool. Not only can they offer property tax relief incentives, but they can also offer reduced power rates because they have their own utility out there. For economic reasons it would be good for us to be looking at this. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Olds: Cinergy has told the big customers along Meridian Street they can no longer guarantee them uninterruptible power. That’s why we are coming back to the Carmel Plan Commission for standby generators, not emergency generators, but standby generators which are being installed and set up so that at 10 o’clock in the morning if Cinergy calls and says, “Turn on your generator at 10 and run it will 4.” We’re starting to suffer. Mr. Roesch: We don’t want to let that happen here because one of the companies we’re talking with on the offices is looking here instead of California because of the power. 14 Ms. Snyder: I was talking to Bill Petronoff, from economic development for Cinergy, last year and it was the beginning of the summer and he said, “I’ve been going around to companies asking about this voluntary program because we’re going to have brownout here this summer if we have a hot summer.” Mercifully last year was probably the most pleasant summer we’ve had in years and that never occurred. But this year it may. Mr. Koven and Ms. Snyder agreed to discuss working together on the proposed committee to meet with Cinergy. Discussion continued. Mr. Olds noted that communities are moving forward with telling them [developers] from this point on everything goes underground. They don’t like that but it makes for a better, cleaner project and down the road less maintenance. Mr. Carter: Should we set a timetable as part of this now and determine how we’d like to see that laid out with the help of CSO senior electrical people? Is that something we should do on a formal basis and actually adopt as a plan? [Tape interruption.] Old Business (continued) Ms. Beesley: As noted earlier by Mr. Roesch, the notices were published for the Confirmatory Resolution for Merchants Pointe tonight, but the tax impact statements did not get sent to the taxing units. Ms. Beesley confirmed the public hearing will be rescheduled for Thursday, May 24. They will get the notices republished. Scheduling the Next Meeting Mr. Carter asked that the meeting night be changed during the summer months to allow commission members to attend the Wednesday evening concerts at the gazebo. The meetings will be changed to Tuesday evening preceding the date as scheduled. [June 5, July 10, August 7] Adjournment Mr. Koven moved the meeting be adjourned. Following a second by Mr. Carter the motion was unanimously approved and the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The Executive Session was cancelled.