Loading...
1998-City Center Redevelopment Plan Carmel Redevelopment Commission Carmel, Indiana et eve t -en, ,1 11. t r 6 t f x January 9, 1998 Michael R. Shaver, President 4742 Bluffwood North Drive Indianapolis, IN 46228 (voice) 317/299 -9529 (fax) 317/329 -9885 (e -mail) wabsci @aol.com Table of Contents The Redevelopment Plan Strategy 1 Overview 1 Definition of the Redevelopment Area 1 Conformity with Previous Plans 3 The Old Town Economic Development Area 3 The 126 Street Corridor Economic Development Area 3 Statutory Context of the Redevelopment Plan 4 Establishing the Statutory Parameters of the Project 4 Blighting Influences: Findings of Fact 5 1. Lack of Development 5 2. Cessation of Growth 6 3. Deterioration of Improvements 6 4. Age 7 5. Obsolescence 8 6. Substandard Buildings 8 7. Other Factors 9 Conclusions Regarding Findings of Blight (IC36- 7 -1 -3) 9 Statutory Tests of a Redevelopment Area (IC36- 7- 14 -15) 10 Designating a Redevelopment Area 11 Possible Amendments to the District 11 Tax Increment Financing 12 Determining the "Base Assessed Value" 12 Recommended Projects 12 Thoroughfare Improvement Rehabilitation 12 Infrastructure Redevelopment 13 Acquisition Demolition 13 Relocation of Existing Businesses 14 Parking Facilities 14 Conclusions Recommendations 14 l Conclusions 14 Recommendations 15 List of Property to be Acquired 16 Estimated Cost of the Projects 17 11444 5 meci isiiii Iowa_ 1 I 4 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 i mar 1 irj L---- 1 gl. gig 11 11CIDED IWO e 4 4, ;IL g I 111.101 Da. 5 g 1 I Li /..crry CENTER 1 ix i f r I. v i :;i 1 REDEva_oPmENT=6REA 4 comsrus,-7 AMENDED 126 th STREET: 4 1 CORRIDOR ECONONIIC i 1 DEVELOPMENT AREA 1 6 4 111 0 1 4.." 11 D VAANDIS it iVen l ife l s'll :::::•40,1••••••••• j 1••••••••• 4 11•••••••••• •111:NA •CA 0••••••••••••-••••••••• A i 49,_ 111.••••••••••• -1 i 1111,11••••••••10 VIC 1 .01'7 r. ..a..a., 199/: 4k.■ 4,..1/ C lt. 1 I i ee 0:44 to:4 6 Tha•ratt I 7 .i 11 i I r ip...•:-.• 3 WON= CA .44..4- 2..44. -•41,4••• 1 :•:•:•41•41 1 I I L •,....4,4••4" 1 I r _i_ I 1 ewe. euru 41 00°... CCU= WM s 1 _I 1 1 _1 1 1 1 1 ...1 'r c 71 —.out 10 I t HI I I 1 k oi. sur noes slur L_______, r 1 ?IOW STOW 1 I i I "loglig I 1 1 1 CITY CENTER REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND AMENDED 126 th STREET CORRIDOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA 1 I MAP No. 1 WABASH SCIENTIFIC, INC 1 r r L p 4 t 1 G� ac 2 CA t E::: G=0 i 11 i ..og 13 1 i 0 1 40 or MI 1111 sr 1_4 El ir .0 4 .....4 .4 „u„ .11 n 1 tea a glib ...1 1 1 i i ;1 EA .1 c j .(1 if. 4., 0 to' F.. D T gi fib 0 $4 7. j 1 I ii ,ii. I it :1. p.... r I. 1; 1 II y -Y3i vd i s. s ;'ri_— ti t f' _GIIy 1.--4 war wee a,diAlis 4 i ewes di I f 1 1 ):4WALL 1 1 1 1 w .a. s di .i:.. s .p um w ct, 3 l It i 1 r I O i R t w s. up y All O 1 7 e ,z .1.44.. r� S 'erg L a c�.� l J l M1 v••.±...: o t l J 1 ma .b it x t r 1._. .1 a i �'1 1 al •.:i rn i D 4 r �c,:�mo n Z N X I. i o n y o r C VI 1 r r y i CI z Z I I rrr.. X Q a i 1 t C�7 i I ice 0 11 T T 0 1 1 1i w MAP NO. 2 Dt Carmel City Center 1 ii Site Plan f The Redevelopment Plan Strategy Overview The City Center project was conceived and presented to the public in the summer of 1997. During the next 6 months, the community was encouraged to informally consider the benefits which the City Center can bring to the City of Carmel. In that time, much of the community's leadership has confirmed that the creation of a major retail center in the heart of the city would at once define and join the City's historic center with its business center. The City Center project effectively provides a planned and integrated architectural core which physically and architecturally links the historic Old Town area with the modem commercial areas of Carmel Drive, 116 Street and the Science Technology Park. Map #1 depicts the proposed Redevelopment Area. The architectural plan for the City Center was developed by CSO architects and is included as Map 42. The complex is designed around a major entertainment center including facilities for both live and media performances, with office and retail space surrounding the entertainment complex. Despite its upscale and successful development, Carmel currently lacks a major theater and entertainment complex. By providing a major entertainment facility whose scale is unmatched in the community, the City Center provides a location where the community can come together. This major entertainment center is coupled with the center of the city's government to create an area which will become the focal point of the community. In order to execute that vision, a small portion of the Rangeline Road Corridor on the west side of the corridor, between the Government Complex and 126 Street, must be redeveloped,. This area contains some of the city's older retail parcels, but it is primarily (about 70 composed of unimproved land. The city has already moved to purchase an old grocery store complex which had apparently been repossessed by the lender (about 8 acres). Definition of the Redevelopment Area The proposed Redevelopment Area is south of 126 Street and west of Rangeline Road and includes approximately 85 acres of retail, public and unimproved land. According to the records in the Hamilton County Auditor's office, there are 9 parcels in the proposed Redevelopment Area, including two parcels containing the Government Complex (about 11 acres), one consisting of the old Monon Railroad, a dilapidated shopping center which had been re- possessed by the lender (containing about 8 acres and recently purchased by the City), two older retail parcels (consisting of about 3 acres), and over 61 acres of unimproved land. The Redevelopment Area is more specifically described as follows, based on the aerial plat maps on file at the Hamilton County Auditor's office (1974 aerial photos): Beginning at the northeast comer of parcel 005, as shown on Map #09 -36-00, and continuing Ctty Center Redevelopment Plan 1 1 eastward along the north property line of said parcel to the northwest comer of said parcel as shown on said map, then tuming southward along the west property line of said parcel to the southwest comer of said parcel, then tuming eastward along the south property line of said parcel to the point of intersection with the west right of way line of the old Monon railroad corridor (shown as being owned by the CSX Transportation, Inc.), then southward along the west right of way line of said parcel to a point directly west of the south property line of parcel #015, as shown on Map #09 -36-00, then crossing the railroad right of way in an easterly direction to the south property line of parcel #015 (containing the Carmel City Hall), and eastward along the south property line of Parcel #015 to the point of intersection with the west property line of Parcel #026.001, then northward along the west property lines of Parcels 025.001, #024, #023, #022, #021, #020, #019, #018, #017 and #016, then crossing the street right of way to the south property line of Parcel #008.001 (Police Station), then eastward along the south property line of said parcel, to the southeast corner of said parcel, then northward eastward along the east property line of said parcel to the point of intersection with the west right of way line of Rangeline Road, then northward along the west right of way line of Rangeline Road to the point of beginning. According to the Auditor's maps, the following table of parcels and areas is offered as a complete list of al parcels contained in the proposed Redevelopment Area (note: parcel numbers are listed as shown on Auditor's Map Number 09- 36-00, based on 1994 aerial photo): i Parcel (Auditor's Acreage Owner of Record Acreage to be Map #09 -36 -00) Acquired 005 60.651 Mueller, Helen Moffit 60.651 005.101 7.993 City of Carmel 005.001 0.956 Huffer, James E. Trust Betty J. 0.956 009 1.754 Kestner, E. Nicholas 1.754 010 0.88 Harrington Enterprises, Inc. 0.88 011 0.88 City of Carrnel 008 3.770 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 015 7.440 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 008.001 1.370 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 070 (partial) 9.030 CSX Transportation, Inc. (partial) 9.030 Rights -of -way 5.000 City of Carmel (estimated) totals 99.724 Property to be Acquired 73.271 2 City of Carmel, Indiana 1 Conformity with Previous Plans This Redevelopment Plan is developed and presented as an integral and coordinated part of the overall Economic Development Plan for the central area of Carmel. This Redevelopment Plan is specifically developed in close coordination with two Economic Development Plans which were unanimously approved and funded in 1997 by the Plan Commission and City Council: the Old Town Economic Development Area and the 126 Street Corridor Economic Development Area. THE OLD TOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA: The Old Town Economic Development Area was presented to and approved by the Plan Commission and City Council during the early summer, 1997. The creation of this Economic Development Area enabled the City to pursue COIT bond funding for infrastructure improvements to the original town center of Carmel, installing various street furniture and other amenities to create viable pedestrian access within the area. The overall effort to improve the Old Town area will be undertaken in phases, several of which have already been completed. The City Center project includes as one of its elements the improvement of the Monon Trail Corridor which provides a pedestrian link to the entire north side of Indianapolis, including the Broad Ripple historic area and the Nora retail area. The Monon Trail will provide an effective recreational link between the historic area of Old Town Carmel and similar recreational facilities covering approximately 5 miles. This pedestrian linkage element of the overall design of these projects has been an important element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city for many years. For these reasons, the City Center Redevelopment Plan and the Old Town Economic Development Plan are closely integrated and coordinated to compliment and augment one another in pursuit of greater overall development in the center of Carmel. THE 126 7 STREET CORRIDOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA: This Redevelopment Area has been amended out of the 126th Street Corridor Economic Development Area which was developed and approved during the summer of 1997. At that time, the concept of the City center was not yet fully developed and had not been presented to the public for scrutiny. Since that time, the Mayor and City Council have worked cooperatively to acquire the old Kroger center in a negotiated purchase, thus beginning the overall redevelopment effort in support of the City Center concept. The primary purpose of the 126th Street Corridor Economic Development Area is to support the implementation of the 126 Street road extension from Rangeline Road to Adams Street. This road corridor had been planned by the City for some time, but by creating the Economic Development Area, the City was able to finance the roadway through the use of COIT bonds which were approved and sold during the summer of 1997. Engineering design documents are now in the final stages of preparation for construction in 1998. The I26* Street extension will reduce traffic loading on 116 Street, linking Carmel's east and west sides across the Old Monon corridor as well as Rangeline Road. This linkage is important City Center Redevelopment Plan 3 I I to the community at large, even without the City Center. However, the additional traffic access will most certainly benefit the City Center development, providing access from all parts of the City to its government and entertainment center. As such, the 126 Street Corridor Economic Development Plan will directly benefit and ampify the success of the City Center project. Statutory Context of the Redevelopment Plan The effort to redevelop the geographic and business heart of Carmel will require a great deal of public and private cooperation. Generally speaking, it is the responsibility of the City to develop design standards and parameters for the overall project, and then to assemble the real estate for redevelopment. After the real estate is assembled, it is then divided into "packages" containing various elements of the project. In the case of the Carmel City Center, for example, the entertainment complex may be developed separately from other elements, and the retail and office space offered for private development in one or more packages. These redevelopment "packages" can then be coupled with various economic development incentives, depending upon the nature of the end use and the need for new investment. Any investment of economic development incentives would be based on the need for the incentive in order to achieve the ultimate upscale goal of the City Center project. As such, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) could be an important redevelopment tool for the property within the Redevelopment Area. The primary purpose of this Redevelopment Plan is to determine whether the specific attributes of the proposed Redevelopment Area meet the statutory requirement for such designation. Establishing the Statutory Parameters of the Project Indiana law (IC36- 7- 14 -15) sets forth the terms and conditions under which a Redevelopment Area can be established. The three tests are: 1. IC36- 7- 14-15(a) Whenever the redevelopment commission finds that an area...has become blighted to an extent that cannot be corrected by regulatory processes or the ordinary operations of private enterprise without resort to this chapter, and 2. that the public health and welfare will be benefitted by the acquisition and redevelopment of the area, and 3. IC36- 7- 15(b)...the blighted area is a menace to the social and economic Interest of the (city) and its inhabitants, and that It will be of public utility and benefit to acquire and redevelop (the area).... The discussion which follows represents a review of the conditions within the proposed Redevelopment Area and the extent to which they meet, or fail to meet, the statutory tests cited above. l r Obviously, each of the three tests cited in IC36- 7 -14 -15 are rooted in the determination that an 4 City of Carmel, Indiana i area is "blighted." As such, it is also necessary to establish a statutory definition of "blight" and then determine whether the details of the Plan project and its strategy meet the specific terms of the definition. IC36 -7 -1 -3 cites eight criteria for determining a "Blighted Area," as follows: 1. Lack of development; 2. Cessation of growth; 3. Deterioration of improvements; 4. Character of Occupancy; 5. Age; 6. Obsolescence; 7. Substandard Buildings; 8. Other factors that impair values or prevent a normal use or development of property. Based on this section of the statute, it is clear that the situation surrounding the redevelopment of the City Center area complies with several of the definitions of "blight" as defined in the statute. In short, much of the area remains undeveloped, despite a thriving real estate market in the area, it has experienced a cessation of growth, the existing retail facilities are older and becoming obsolete in relation to newer development occurring nearby, the existing developments are having an increasing difficulty in functioning competitively in the modern marketplace, the buildings no longer meet current development standards for the area, and beyond these considerations, there are other factors which prevent modern use of the site. A detailed explanation of these considerations is set forth below. Please note that although the blighting influences cited above appear as separate arguments, they are, in fact, interwoven. Therefore, the blight findings discussed below will contain some redundancy of data, information and conclusions, from one blight finding to another. Blighting Influences: Findings of Fact 1. LACK OF DEVELOPMENT: The lack of development within the proposed Redevelopment Area is its most glaring and undeniable evidence of blight. According to the Auditor's aerial plat maps, a single parcel composing the entire north end of the Redevelopment Area (parcel 09 -36 -00 -005 containing 60.651 acres) remains undeveloped despite substantial growth all around it. In addition, a second parcel, (parcel 09 -36 -00 -011, less than one acre) located just north of the police station also remains vacant. When combined, these two unimproved parcels account for over 70% of the land within the proposed Redevelopment Area. The fact that these parcels remain totally unimproved is important considering the overall development of the City of Carmel. Two of Carmel's oldest retail areas are located adjacent to these parcels, suggesting that development pressure has been prevalent for decades and the owners are non responsive. Coupling this private sector development pressure with the consideration that the new City Government Complex was constructed, including a new city City Center Redevelopment Plan 5 Hall, Police Headquarters, and Central Fire Station immediately to the south, shows implicitly that there is ample opportunity for development of the highest order, yet not a single improvement has been implemented on either of these parcels. Construction of the 126`" Street extension will substantially enhance transportation access to the area and development pressure will again increase. It is imperative to the quality of the development of the City that these parcels be developed to their fullest and highest potential. These considerations meet the statutory definition of blight as "lack of development." 2. CESSATION OF GROWTH: A review of the Redevelopment Area and the commercial areas existing there shows that the area is not thriving economically. The parcels within the Redevelopment Area have been experiencing difficulty in competing in the broader economic market of the community, and a substantial amount of retail vacancy has befallen the existing commercial areas along Rangeline Road, particularly the Kroger center. In fact, it is that cessation of growth and reinvestment that enabled the City to negotiate the purchase of the Kroger Center from American United Life, which had re- possessed the property as the primary lender. Despite ample new development around and within the Redevelopment Area, there has been only the most modest efforts to reinvest in the existing retail development along the corridor, and it has not occurred even while new buildings were developed and occupied at greater cost, and while the existing retail buildings became increasingly obsolete and economically irrelevant. Two parcels located immediately north of the Police Station are in substantial need of reinvestment. While the businesses located within these parcels would probably be viable in newer surroundings, the landlord of these facilities has not provided a substantial and visible effort to remodel and upgrade the buildings in a manner commensurate with other development in the area. As a result, the combination of these two buildings with the vacancies of the Kroger center creates a distinct negative image for the area. The Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of "cessation of growth." Over 70% of the area remains totally unimproved despite immense investment all around the area, both in private and public sector activity. In addition, the developed parcels containing retail establishments have suffered from vacancies and disinvestment despite their prime location in a thriving local economy. These facilities need improvement and re- modeling in order to become economically viable and competitive. For these reasons, the Redevelopment Area is found to meet the statutory definition of blight through "cessation of growth." 1 3. DETERIORA770N OF IMPROVEMENTS: 1 As noted above, over 70% of the Redevelopment Area is totally unimproved and vacant. In addition to these parcels, approximately 11 acres have received substantial reinvestment by the 6 City of Carmel, Indiana City in the form of a new Government Complex, including a new City Hall, Police Headquarters and Central Fire Station completed in the early 1990's. Three of the remaining parcels contain developed retail space which has substantially deteriorated in recent years due to lack of reinvestment. These buildings, however, appear to contain viable businesses which could be preserved through creative redevelopment. The Kroger center is perhaps the most obvious example of deterioration. The center has experienced substantial vacancy and was recently purchased (through negotiated purchase) by the City in pursuit of the City Center project. This purchase serves as a sign of the cooperative efforts between the City Administration and City Council in pursuit of the City Center. Without substantial deterioration in the Kroger center it is unlikely that the building would have been offered for sale under these conditions. The two retail properties immediately south of the Kroger center are also in need of rehabilitation and reinvestment, but they do not have the level of vacancy of the Kroger center. The businesses located in these two retail buildings appear to have viable niches in the local retail marketplace, and could thrive even more greatly with appropriate reinvestment in the overall facility. Even the most cursory review of these properties, however, would suggest that they are tired and lack the type of reinvestment needed to keep pace with the new developments which virtually surround the area, as well as the extremely high level of public investment which has occurred in the form of the City Government Complex. While it would not be accurate to say that these facilities have degenerated to the extreme, it is clear that they have not kept economic pace with the surrounding property. For these reasons, it is the conclusion of this Redevelopment Plan that the Area meets the statutory definition of blight in terms of "deterioration of improvements." 4. AGE: The retail development in the proposed Redevelopment Area is 40 50 years old. While this is not old in an absolute sense, it is important that a substantial amount of competing space has been developed during the intervening period and has been maintained to a higher and more economically competitive standard. The "age factor," in itself, is not an absolute blighting condition in this case, because it is feasible that the existing development can be remodeled through reinvestment to meet the higher standards of competing space in the immediate area. The fact that such reinvestment has not occurred constitutes evidence that the landlords may not be as responsive to the changing marketplace as may be required in this particular local market. Carmel represents one of the most upscale retail markets in the State of Indiana. If retail developments remain competitive in such markets, they can be incredibly successful, however, in order for those developments to remain competitive, they must be periodically renewed through significant reinvestment in order to remain relevant to such a market. As the income of the customer increases, they become increasingly intolerant of inconveniences and more demanding City Center Redevelopment Plan 7 I I i of amenities. The retail development within the Redevelopment Area has been non responsive to these customer changes. For these reasons, it is the conclusion of this Redevelopment Plan that the Area meets the statutory definition of blight in terms of "age." 5. OBSOLESCENCE The issue of obsolescence is only relevant in this case with regard to the need for reinvestment. In the case of the Redevelopment Area, the retail buildings are not obsolete in developmental terms, but are in need of substantial reinvestment in order to respond to market realities. As such, obsolescence is considered a blighting factor in that the retail buildings will require substantial reinvestment, even to the point of possibly demolishing some buildings and removing retail development from the mix through acquisition/redevelopment and re- configuring the developmental patterns, properties and amenities of the area to increase operational efficiencies such as ingress/egress, parking, visual/street appeal, landscaping, and architectural updating and improvements. Such improvements are a part of the proposed City center project. In this manner, it is concluded that the Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of blight in terms of "obsolescence." 6. SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS The issue of substandard buildings is similar to the issue of obsolescence, in this case. While the buildings are not substandard in terms of sanitation, health or safety factors, the buildings (especially the retail buildings) are not developed to a standard sufficient to enable them to attract new clientele from growth markets. As stated previously, new retail investment is needed to serve this market, and if the existing retail space within the proposed Redevelopment Area is not reconfigured and remodeled, it will become increasingly irrelevant to the local market, similar to what has happened in the Old Town retail area, located just north of the Redevelopment Area. In the case of Old Town, the original retail spaces /developments of the `old town' of Carmel lacked sufficient reinvestment and reconfiguration and, with time, the retail area became economically irrelevant to the growing city. A similar "devolution" could occur within the Redevelopment Area unless reinvestment occurs. Using this factor as the basis for consideration of this blighting influence, the retail buildings within the proposed Redevelopment Area are found to be "substandard" for purposes of attracting a viable share of a growth market which is vital to the continued economic viability of the area. These considerations suggest that properties within the proposed Redevelopment Area meet the statutory definition of blight in terms of "substandard buildings." 8 Ctty of Carmel, Indiana 7. OTHER FACTORS The redevelopment statutes in Indiana also allow for something referred to as "other factors" which could contribute to blight in a particular area. In the case of the proposed Redevelopment Area, the prominent "other factor" is the development of the City Center project plan. The City Center project proposes a massive reinvestment in the Redevelopment Area to create a viable retail area centered upon entertainment and community activity. The City Center Redevelopment Area will also include the government complex and will be physically linked to the rest of the community (and southward, into Indianapolis) by the Monon Trail corridor, initially acquired and developed by the City of Indianapolis, and which has become a highly popular and well acclaimed public improvement for the north side of Marion County. The City Center Plan includes the creation of a major theater complex (which is generally lacking in the Carmel area), an amphitheater for outdoor performances, a performing arts center, a community center, and a substantial amount of private sector commercial and retail space. All of these developmental elements are architecturally interwoven in order to optimize the parking facilities and traffic control which are designed into the overall plan. The City Center project, as proposed, will provide an overall development pattern for the Redevelopment Area which includes full development of the area to its highest and best use for the benefit of the community at large. These considerations suggest that the Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of blight in terms of "other factors," as provided by the statute. Conclusions Regarding Findings of Blight (1C36- 7 -1 -3) The discussion presented above clearly indicates that the proposed Redevelopment Area is suffering from blighting influences on the community. The statute cites eight possible criteria for a blighting influence (including "other and the proposed Redevelopment Area suffers from seven of those influences, as presented above. The facilities were once the center of the Carmel economy, but competition from new retail development and the lack of timely reinvestment and/or investment in undeveloped property ended up becoming functional liabilities. Without substantial reinvestment and reconfiguration of the retail and service market within the proposed Redevelopment Area, the area cannot remain economically viable. Based on these considerations, it is clear that the proposed Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of blight in accordance with IC36- 7 -1 -3, and that redevelopment of the area will be necessary in order to deal with that blighting influence. Ctty Center Redevelopment Plan 9 Statutory Tests of a Redevelopment Area (IC36- 7- 14 -15) As noted in the chapter entitled, "Establishing the Statutory Parameters of the Project, there are three statutory tests under IC36- 7- 14 -15. The first test, contained in IC36- 7- 14- 15(a), states that the Redevelopment Commission must find that the area has become "blighted to an extent that cannot be corrected by regulatory processes or the ordinary operation of private enterprise without resort to IC36 -7 -14. In the case of the proposed Redevelopment Area, it is clear that the ordinary operation of private enterprise has been either unwilling or unable to direct investment in the properties within the Redevelopment Area so as to create viable market function. As noted above, more than 70% of the land is totally unimproved, despite a lucrative local marketplace, and another 15% of the area has received significant public investment to create the city government center. When these two fundamental land uses are combined with the fact that the City Council recently purchased the Kroger Center through negotiated purchase (another 8 acres), the total amount of undeveloped and public land in the area is over 93% of the Redevelopment Area (not counting the Monon Trail). It is clear from this ratio that the remaining retail development within the Redevelopment Area covers only a minor portion of the area. Although the businesses located within the Redevelopment Area appear to be viable and competitive in the local economy, it would appear that they, too would benefit from a commitment by the landlord to reinvest in the property, however, that reinvestment has not occurred in proportion to the investment in adjacent properties. Considering these factors, there appears to be no feasible means of applying the regulatory process to this area in order to induce the level of reinvestment necessary to bring the existing retail development up to the level present in adjacent areas. As such, these findings conclude that the proposed Redevelopment Area has met the statutory definition that "the area has become blighted to an extent that cannot be corrected by regulatory processes or the ordinary operation of private enterprise without resort to 1C36- 7 -14." The second statutory test for establishment of a Redevelopment Area is that the Redevelopment Commission must find that the acquisition and redevelopment of the area will "benefit the public health and welfare." The discussion above clearly points out that the City has developed a plan for establishing the City Center project which will make the Redevelopment Area the predominant entertainment complex in the region, including an outdoor amphitheater, a movie theater complex, a performing arts center, a community center, substantial retail development and coordinated and integrated parking and traffic facilities which will be enhanced by the advent of the 126 Street extension project (previously approved for COIT funding). Considering that the area has remained essentially undeveloped despite the market pressure in the area, it would appear that the economic welfare of the community will be directly benefitted by the implementation of the City Center project. Therefore, it is the specific conclusion of this Redevelopment Plan that the implementation of the City Center project will have a definite benefit to the health and welfare of the community, thus meeting the statutory requirement that "the public health and welfare will be benefitted by the acquisition and redevelopment of the area." 10 City of Carmel, Indiana 1 The third statutory test is that the blighted area is a menace to the social and economic interest of the city and its inhabitants and that acquisition and redevelopment of the area will be of 'public utility and benefit." The Redevelopment Plan clearly that the proposed Redevelopment Area is suffering from a lack of appropriate investment and/or reinvestment, with more than 70% of the land completely unimproved and another 13% of the land developed as public space. If the existing retail area were returned to viability, and the unimproved land developed in an appropriate fashion, the overall investment would provide a tremendous boost to the local economy, and would thus be a significant public utility to the community and its inhabitants. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this Redevelopment Plan that "the blighted area is a menace to the social and economic interest of the (city)," and that establishing the proposed Redevelopment Area and pursuing a range of recommended redevelopment activities within "will be of public utility and benefit" These considerations, in conjunction with the discussions and analyses presented in this Redevelopment Plan, lead to the finding that the proposed Redevelopment Area meets the statutory tests of IC36- 7 -14 -15 with regard to establishing a Redevelopment Area. Designating a Redevelopment Area Having determined that the Proposed Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of blight as defined by statute, this Redevelopment Plan recommends the boundaries of a "Redevelopment Area" within which redevelopment economic incentives can accrue to encourage public and private entities to undertake redevelopment projects which would eliminate the blighting factors, through eminent domain and other activities. In this case, the Study Area for the project included the Proposed Redevelopment Area which closely follows the proposed boundaries of the City Center project, but does not include the entirety of that site. Given these factors, it is recommended that the City of Carmel designate the Proposed Redevelopment Area as the "City Center Redevelopment Area." The area the contains a mixture of retail, office (service), and undeveloped real estate. Map 41 shows the area recommended for designation as the "City Center Redevelopment Area" (hereafter, the "Area Possible Amendments to the District Indiana statute includes provisions for amending a Redevelopment Area. While there is no current reason for including property outside of the proposed Redevelopment Area within the District, it may become prudent at some future date, based on some future development proposal, to amend the boundaries of the District to include additional property. If and when this happens, the Redevelopment Commission can consider such proposals on a case by case basis and can amend the boundaries of the Area accordingly. Depending upon the size of the area, it may be necessary to also amend this Redevelopment Plan in order to comply with statutory requirements. City Center Redevelopment Plan 11 Tax Increment Financing Designation of the proposed Redevelopment Area carries with it a number of possible redevelopment incentives. The incentive with the greatest potential fiscal impact on redevelopment activity is that of Tax Increment Financing, commonly referred to as "TIF." TIF is a redevelopment tool where the future increases in property revenues generated by private investment are used to fund improvements within the Area. The maximum statutory life of a TIF Allocation Area is 30 years, however, the term of financing for any TIF -based debt issue is generally shorter than the full life of the area. DETERMINING THE "BASE ASSESSED VALUE:" When a Tax Allocation Area is established, the County Auditor determines the "Base Assessed Value" of all property within the Allocation Area. This "Base Assessed Value" is established as the fiscal baseline for the Allocation Area. The intent is that the community, including all taxing entities, continue to receive property tax revenues based on the assessed value as of the date of origination of the Allocation Area, which is called the "Base Assessed Value." Recommended Projects The Redevelopment Commission has the authority to implement a broad range of projects in an effort to redevelop an area. The statutory procedure for project and funding approval assures that the project is considered and approved on several levels before it can be implemented. After following that procedure, the Redevelopment Commission has a great deal of authority. The Redevelopment Commission has the power to acquire and assemble parcels of land under single ownership in order to promote new development. In order to implement projects, however, the Redevelopment Commission must include the projects in the Redevelopment Plan. This Redevelopment Plan, therefore, recommends that the Redevelopment Commission (RDC) consider the following projects: THOROUGHFARE IMPROVEMENT REHABILITATION: There are two major thoroughfares of the city which directly serve the Redevelopment Area: f Rangeline Road and 126 Street. Improvements to either of these corridors would deliver traffic more efficiently to the Redevelopment Area and would enhance the overall performance of the local thoroughfare system. While it is not proposed that Rangeline Road be improved immediately, minor improvements to the corridor in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area could occur, such as landscaping improvements to increase the visual appeal of the corridor. The 126' Street Corridor project was approved for funding using a 1997 COIT bond issue. The proposed project is currently in the final phases of design for 1998 construction, and includes f 12 City of Carmel, Indiana completion of the corridor from Rangeline Road to Adams Street. The alignment of the proposed roadway is along the far northern boundary of the Redevelopment Area, connecting the existing intersection alignment of Rangeline Road and Mohawk Avenue westward, past the Monon Trail corridor and continuing westward past 3' Avenue Southwest, then turning southwesterly to connect with the Adams Street corridor which currently extends northeasterly f from Carmel Drive. The completion of this thoroughfare corridor has been contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan for the community for many years. Once completed, transportation access to the Redevelopment Area will be dramatically improved, and the economic competitiveness of the redeveloped real estate will also be enhanced. INFRASTRUCTURE REDEVELOPMENT: Along with the proposal to improve transportation corridors serving the Redevelopment Area, it is suggested that improvements to other infrastructure systems in the area may also be appropriate. Such improvements may be sought for the water system, natural gas, electric power, drainage, or sewer service to the Redevelopment Area, as well as other infrastructure improvements which would enhance the opportunities to redevelop the real estate in the Redevelopment Area. At this time, there are no specific plans for such improvements, but in considering various forms of redevelopment activities which may be required, it is logical to foresee the need for improvements to these infrastructure systems, when more specific information becomes available. ACQUISITION DEMOLITION: The Redevelopment Commission should also carefully consider acquiring property in an effort to improve retail activity and re- direct development in the area. As noted earlier in this Redevelopment Plan, as well as in the 1997 Economic Development Plan, there are several parcels which contain what appear to be viable businesses, however, the properties have not received appropriate levels of reinvestment to keep pace with surrounding retail areas. The Redevelopment Commission has the ability to acquire land within the Redevelopment Area. This land can then be reconfigured and sold back into the private marketplace. For example, a parcel can be reconfigured in several ways, including but not limited to: 1. The property purchased and its boundaries re- defined allowing wider rights of way for proposed road improvements. In some cases, such acquisition will facilitate road improvement projects by reducing the difficulty of right of way acquisition. 2. The property purchased and assembled with adjoining properties for redevelopment en masse. This technique was used for retail redevelopment projects such as Circle Center Mall in downtown Indianapolis. 3. The property purchased and structures demolished to enable the land use to be changed on a wholesale basis. For example, acquisition and demolition of several buildings to create permanent office or retail development 4. The property purchased and redeveloped to provide adequate parking, landscaping and other ancillary requirements of current zoning for that Land use. City Center Redevelopment Plan 13 The net result of such redevelopment activities is to generate reinvestment in the property which would allow it to reflect current market realities, including implementation of the City Center project. In fact, acquisition and demolition may, in some cases, be the only means of enabling a particular site to be redeveloped to meet the demands of the current market. RELOCATION OF EXISTING BUSINESSES: Also noted in the analysis above was the indication that some of the retail buildings contain viable businesses which might benefit from relocation into the new retail space proposed for the City Center. It would be good public policy for businesses which are currently located in the Redevelopment Area but whose buildings might be acquired and demolished to be offered space within the new retail complex. Such a policy would enable those businesses to remain within their geographic and market niches during the redevelopment process. PARKING FACILITIES: It is also common for public funds to be used to create parking facilities to serve an integrated complex such as is proposed for the City Center. In general private sector development, each parcel or development is responsible for generating parking to serve its own development. In highly integrated and coordinated projects such as this, however, which encourage pedestrian interaction, it is common for certain areas to develop more intense parking facilities than could otherwise be supported by the individual development. In this case, parking for the amphitheater and/or other public buildings within the City Center complex will likely be required. As such, parking facilities would be an appropriate use of public funds for the redevelopment effort. Conclusions Recommendations The Redevelopment Plan contains an analysis of the statutory definition of blight as well as the fording that the real estate within the Redevelopment Area is blighted in accordance with Indiana law. Based on those findings, the following conclusions and Recommendations are offered for the consideration of the Redevelopment Commission. Conclusions The total body of analysis contained in the redevelopment Plan leads to a series of fairly succinct conclusions, which are listed as follows: 1. The area recommended for declaration as the 'City Center Redevelopment Area under Indiana statute was originally contained within the Economic Development Area established as the 126th Street Corridor Economic Development Area. 14 City of Carmel, Indiana f 2. The 126th Street Corridor Economic Development Area is being amended to delete the area recommended for declaration as the "City Center Redevelopment Area." 3. The area recommended for declaration as the "City Center Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of blight. 4. The City Center Redevelopment Plan (this Plan) identifies and outlines a series of projects which can be undertaken to address the blighting influences which currently afflict the area. 5. The primary project which can be undertaken to address the blighting influences which currently afflict the area Is the implementation of the City Center project which was publicly announced during the summer of 1997 and Includes the creation of the city's major entertainment complex, as well as new retail space and improvements to the city's public spaces and thoroughfares. 6. The City Center project will directly benefit from improvements to the Rangeline Road corridor, as well as the 126 Street Extension project which was approved for COLT financing in 1997. 7. The City of Carmel should be prepared to acquire some or all of the real estate within the Redevelopment Area In accordance with the List of property to be acquired, as contained in the "Recommendations" section of this Redevelopment Plan. Recommendations I The Redevelopment Plan represents an analysis of the parcels within the proposed "City Center P P Y P P P tY Redevelopment Area" and has concluded that the area meets the statutory definition of blight as defined in Indiana law. Based on this analysis and the information provided in the Redevelopment Plan, above, the following recommendations are offered for the consideration of the Redevelopment Commission: 1. That the Redevelopment Commission should move to amend the 126th Street Corridor Economic Development Area to exclude the area Identified as the proposed 'City Center Redevelopment Area." 2. That the Redevelopment Commission should establish the "City Center Redevelopment Area in accordance with the information presented and findings of blight contained in this Redevelopment Plan. 3. That the Redevelopment Commission should approve the list of projects contained in this Redevelopment Plan as a strategy for addressing the blighting conditions found in the 'City Center Redevelopment Area.' 4. That the Redevelopment Commission should approve the list of properties recommended for possible acquisition in implementation of the City Center project. City Center Redevelopment Plan 15 5. That the Redevelopment Commission should also move to establish the City Center Redevelopment Area as an Allocation Area for the purpose of affording Tax Increment Financing for projects undertaken to combat blighting conditions in the City Center Redevelopment Area. 6. That the Redevelopment Commission should initiate the statutory approval process for the Redevelopment Plan, including presentation to the Plan Commission and City Council for confirmation of the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained herein. List of Property to be Acquired The following table shows a list of the parcels within the Redevelopment Area, as well as those parcels which will be acquired as part of the redevelopment strategy for the area. (note: parcel numbers are listed as shown on Auditor's Map Number 09- 36 -00, based on 1994 aerial photo): I... i Parcel (Auditor's Acreage Owner of Record Acreage to be Map #09 -36 -00) Acquired 005 60.651 Mueller, Helen Moffit 60.651 005.101 7.993 City of Carmel 005.001 0.956 Huffer, James E. Trust Betty J. 0.956 009 1.754 Kestner, E. Nicholas 1.754 010 0.88 Harrington Enterprises, Inc. 0.88 011 0.88 City of Carrnel 008 3.770 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 015 7.440 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 008.001 1.370 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 070 (partial) 9.030 CSX Transportation, Inc. (partial) 9.030 Rights -of -way 5.000 City of Carmel (estimated) totals 99.724 Property to be Acquired 73.271 1 16 C of Carmel, Ind iana diana 1 J i Estimated Cost of the Projects The following costs are presented as an estimate of the cost of acquisition and redevelopment recommended in the Redevelopment Plan for the purpose of addressing the blighting conditions and influences in the City Center Redevelopment Area. Land Acquisition $8,100,000 Demolition $500,000 Utility /Infrastructure Relocation $400,000 Parking Facilities $1,500,000 Totals $10,500,000 /crrdpfin City Center Redevelopment Plan 17 RESOLUTION NO. 3 8 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DECLARING AN AREA IN THE CITY OF CARMEL A REDEVELOPMENT AREA, APPROVING A PLAN FOR THE AREA, DECLARING THE AREA AN ALLOCATION AREA, AND TAKING OTHER ACTIONS RELATED THERETO WHEREAS, the City of Carmel Redevelopment Commission (the "Commission the governing body of the City of Carmel Department of Redevelopment (the "Department pursuant to Indiana Code 36 -7 -14, as amended (the "Act has thoroughly studied that area of the City of Carmel, Indiana (the "City described on 5xhibit A attached hereto and designated as the "City Center Redevelopment Area" (the "Area and WHEREAS Sections 15,16 and 17 of the Act permit the Commission to declare certain areas blighted areas, and the Act provides that the Commission may exercise certain rights, powers, privileges and immunities with respect to such blighted areas; and WHEREAS, there has been presented to this meeting for consideration and approval of the Commission a plan (the "Plan") for the Area, entitled "City Center Redevelopment Plan Strategy and WHEREAS, the Commission has caused to be prepared: (a) maps and plats showing the boundaries of the Area, the location of the various parcels of property, streets, alleys and other I features affecting the acquisition, clearance, replatting, replanning, rezoning or redevelopment of the Area, indicating any parcels of property to be excluded from the acquisition, and showing the parts of the Area acquired that are to be devoted to public ways, levees, sewerages, parks, playgrounds and other public purposes under the Plan; (b) lists of the owners of the various parcels of property to be acquired; and (c) an estimate of the cost of acquisition and redevelopment; and WHEREAS, the Plan and supporting data were reviewed and considered at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the Commission has given consideration to transitional and permanent provisions for adequate housing for any residents of the Area who will be displaced by the project contemplated by the Plan; and WHEREAS, Section 39 of the Act permits the creation of "allocation areas" to provide for the allocation and distribution of property taxes for the purposes and in the manner provided in said section; L NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Carmel Redevelopment Commission, the governing body of City of Carmel Department of Redevelopment, as follows: 1 1. The Commission hereby finds that the Area is an area in which normal development and occupancy are undesirable or impossible because of lack of development, cessation of growth, deterioration of improvements, age, obsolescence, substandard buildings and other factors that impair values or prevent a normal use or development of property. Based upon such findings, the Commission hereby determines, designates and declares that the Area is a "blighted area" within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Commission hereby finds that the Area has become blighted to an extent that cannot be corrected by regulatory processes or the ordinary operations of private enterprise without resort to the Act, and that the public health and welfare will be benefited by the acquisition and redevelopment of the Area under the Act. 3. The Commission hereby finds that the Plan for the Area conforms to other development and redevelopment plans for the City. 4. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 through 3 hereof, the Commission hereby declares that the Area is a menace to the social and economic interest of the City and its inhabitants and that it will be of public utility and benefit to acquire the Area and redevelop it under the Act. 5. In support of the findings, determinations, designations and declarations set forth in Sections 1 through 4 hereof, the Commission hereby adopts the specific findings set forth in the Plan, including any reports, studies and plans incorporated therein by reference. 6. The general boundaries of the Area are those set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, and the Department proposes to acquire all of the interests in the land within the boundaries of the Area, except those not listed in the Plan as to be acquired. 7. The Plan is hereby in all respects approved and adopted, and the secretary of the Commission is hereby directed to file a certified copy of the Plan with the minutes of this meeting. 8. The Area is hereby designated as an "allocation area" pursuant to Section 39 of the Act for purposes of the allocation and distribution of property taxes for the purposes and in the manner provided by said Section 39. Any real property taxes subsequently levied by or for the benefit of any public body entitled to a distribution of property taxes on taxable property in said allocation area shall be allocated and distributed as follows: Except as otherwise provided in said Section 39, the proceeds of taxes attributable to the lesser of (a) the assessed value of the property for the assessment date with respect to which the allocation and distribution is made or (b) the base assessed value shall be allocated to and, when collected, paid into the funds of the respective taxing units. Except as otherwise provided in said Section 39, property tax proceeds in excess of those described in the previous sentence shall be allocated to the redevelopment district and, when collected, paid into an allocation fund for said 2 allocation area that may be used by the redevelopment district to do one or more of the things specified in Section 39(b)(2) of the Act, as the same may be amended from time to time. Said allocation fund may not be used for operating expenses of the Commission. Except as otherwise provided in the Act, before July 15 of each year, the Commission shall take the actions set forth in Section 39(b)(3) of the Act. 9. The foregoing allocation provision shall apply to all of the Area and shall expire on the date that is thirty (30) years after the effective date of this Resolution. I0. Said allocation area is hereby designated as the "City Center Redevelopment Allocation Area" and said allocation fund is hereby designated as the "City Center Redevelopment Allocation Area Fund." 1 1 Each officer of the Commission is hereby authorized and directed to make any and all required filings with the Indiana State Board of Tax Commissioners and the Hamilton County Auditor in connection with the creation of the allocation area. 12. The provisions of this Resolution shall be subject in all respects to the Act and any amendments thereto. 13. This Resolution, together with any supporting data, including the Plan, shall be submitted to the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission (the "Plan Commission and the Common Council of the City (the "Common Council as provided in the Act, and, if approved by the Plan Commission and the Common Council, shall be submitted to a public hearing and remonstrance as provided by the Act, after public notice as required by the Act. 14. Each officer of the Commission is hereby authorized and directed, for and on behalf of the Commission, to take any action determined by such officer to be necessary or appropriate to effect this Resolution, such determination to be conclusively evidenced by such officer's having taken such action, and any such action heretofore taken is hereby ratified and approved. 15. This Resolution shall be effective upon its adoption. 3 Adopted this 15th day of January, 1998. CITY OF CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION President Vice President Se etary k\, emi ember iNDSOi T'W'S 239211 4 Exhibit A DESCRIPTION OF CITY CENTER REDEVELOPMENT AREA I INDS01 NWS 239211 7 w•••••....ams. :J., -.....4 1 1 1 i 1. Li i 1 i 1 1 gi. !L i 1141 11,..IN 1 -Tiy ...sa. 1 sae =a W= 004 t. d II. li SUM OR Al.• 7 1 1 /:CrTY CENTER i/ ••••4 REDEVELOPMENTEI1/4 la p 11 00.. I 121,2.. lc ir7- i I. as a z ii olutinAT r AMEND 126 th STREET .....i7 d CORRIDOR ECONOMIC I lust Num .....A. P4r• DEVELOPMENT ARS4 i -.*•••••%•••••...••te:•:-:- 1 C••••••••••••••••••••••••••••: 1 .••••••••••••••••••••41 II EMU -CR .1. -z .41A.•_•_••■•_,Mr.d.d_lot dr; 11 4 d VIC Zil -••••••••••.F... e9// I. I CR •••••••••11, A 4 if• 4 1 c 1 1 7.-- .S 4 1 t I 1 A II I i I 11***•• i s taw :Tarr .4.- 1 Vo ilAgiOW 103420E Clit. I I i I 4 .4 0.* 'V AP* I 1 I I 1 ,,.41u1■••• .1 t 1 1 1, I 1 N 1 7 1' ati yommensu vac. cunt 1 i I 44.......1 1 I 1 t to:: :_l• 1 sfre. f- F 1 1 ammisr II 1 I I 1 1 t rix t--• A-- A__. _SiZZ vilW NKr new PROST i -----.1r I I :1 I 1 1 rtOR STOW 1 .!1 A v CITY CENTER REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND AMENDED 126 th STREET CORRIDOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA MAP No. 1 se WABASH SCIENTIFIC INC. 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Carmel Redevelopment Commission FROM: Mike Shaver, President DATE: August 6, 2003 RE: City Center Redevelopment Plan Amendments The amendments to the City Center RD Plan are being presented to you in a different manner than the amendments to the (2003) Integrated Economic Development Plan. As you can see, the Amendments to the Integrated Plan are made within the document in order to easily see the changes from the previous version. The alternative of presenting the amendments in a simplified report form is equally valid from a legal standpoint, however, it is somewhat less expensive than the other alternative. Since the CRC will be amending approximately 7 Economic Development Areas, we felt it was appropriate to offer the CRC members an alternative for the method of presentation. 0),YA i THE NA I NDir" L,1S l ti 5 ►[\C LLii�LL B 1 Amendments to the City Center Redevelopment Plan (August 5, 2003) The City Center RD Area and RD Plan were approved in January, 1998. A copy of the original RD Plan is attached hereto for reference purposes. The following amendments are offered in support of the proposed actions by the CRC. Amendment to the Boundaries of the RD Area The following describes the area to be deleted from the Old Town ED Area which will then become a part of the City Center RD Area: Beginning at the point of intersection of the west right of way line of Rangeline Road with the south right of way line of Mohawk Drive (a.k.a. City Center Drive), which is within the designated boundaries of the City Center Redevelopment Area, then proceeding northward along the west right of way line of Rangeline Road, to the point of intersection with the south right of way line of 3` Street SW, then proceeding westward, along the south right of way line of 3 Street SW, to the point of intersection with the east right of way line of 1st Avenue SW, then proceeding northward, along the east right of way line of 1 Avenue SW, to the point of intersection with the southwest corner of parcel 16- 09- 25- 16 -03- 001 -000, then proceeding eastward, along the south property line of parcels 16- 09- 25- 16 -03- 001 -000 and 16 -09- 25-16-03- 002 -000, to the southwest corner of parcel 16- 09- 25- 16 -03- 003 -000, then proceeding northward, along the west boundary of parcel 16- 09- 25- 16 -03- 003 -000, to the point of intersection with the south right of way line of 1 Street SW, then proceeding eastward, along the south right of way line of 1 Street SW, to the point of intersection with the west right of way line of Rangeline Road, then proceeding northward, along the west right of way line of Rangeline Road to the point of intersection with the south right of way line of Main Street, then proceeding northward, across the right of way of Main Street to the north right of way line of Main Street, then proceeding eastward, along the north right of way line of Main Street, to the point of intersection with the east right of way line of 1 Avenue SE, then proceeding southward, along the east right of way line of 1 Avenue SE, to the point of intersection with the north right of way line of 1 Street SE, then proceeding westward, along the north right of way line of 1 Street SE, to the southeast corner of parcel number 16- 10- 30- 03 -01- 030 -000, then proceeding northward, along the eastern boundary of parcel numbers 16- 10- 30- 03 -01- 030 -000 and 16- 10- 30- 03 -01- 031 -000, to the northeast corner of parcel number 16- 10- 30- 03 -01- 031 -000, then proceeding westward, along the northern boundary of parcel 16- 10- 30 -03 -01 -031 -000, to the point of intersection with the east right of way line of Rangeline Road, then proceeding southward, along the east right of way line of Rangeline Road, to a point directly eastward of the south right of way line of Civic Square Drive, then proceeding westward, across the right of way of Rangeline Road, to the point of intersection with the south right of way line of Civic Square Drive and the west right of way line of Rangeline Road, which is within the designated boundaries of the City Center Redevelopment Area. Amendment to Overview This amendment to the RD Area is proposed for the purposes of continuing and completing the projects and the vision outlined in the original RD Plan, dated January, 1998. In the ensuing 5 year period, the CRC has accomplished many of its original projects, as well as generating significant economic growth in the City Center area in the form of new housing, commercial and retail development.. Amendment to Blighting Influences: Findings of Blight The additional area being added to the RD Area is determined to meet the statutory findings of blight, largely as originally presented in the RD Plan. The parcels included in the amended area meet the statutory definition of blight. Many of the parcels proposed for addition are old facilities which are being re -used or which are located in such a manner that the operations cannot meet modern standards of development. Since these parcels are generally located along the prime access routes to the City Center, it is important that the CRC carefully consider their impact on the overall development of the area for the long term. It is expected that the CRC will consider further additions to the RD Area for the purpose of accomplishing specific projects in the overall redevelopment vision for the area. However, it should be fully understood that the long -term intent of the CRC is to achieve the highest possible form of re development in the RD Area, and as such, projects proposed for individual developmental nodes within the overall neighborhood of the RD Area will be considered by the CRC from time to time. In addition, it is the intent of the CRC, in some cases, to assemble a number of small parcels into a single, larger parcel for redevelopment purposes in order to achieve higher intensity of use, as well as to achieve new development which meets modern development standards, including such things as parking, landscaping and aesthetic design. It is the position of the CRC that the public health and welfare will be benefitted by the acquisition and redevelopment of these areas, and that the social and economic interests of the City will also be served by the redevelopment project. Amendment to Recommended Projects: The areas being added to the City Center RD Area will have generally the same projects as originally intended, along with the following new projects with estimated costs, which are hereby amended into the RD Plan: Storage /restroom building on Monon Trail $300,000 $500,000 Veteran's Memorial $75,000 $125,000 Parcel to be deleted from to be added to City to be Included In the the boundaries of Center Redevelopment RD Plan on the list of Old Town ED Area percale to be acquired P4 NtL►I Area Area 1 Rangeline Main 16 -10- 30.03-01- 001.000 x x x ..16 -10-30 -03.01- 002.000 x x x -16-10-30-03-01-003.000 x x x 16- 1040 -03 -01 -003.001 x x x 16- 10-30- 03-01 004000 x x x 16-10. 30-03-01 -005.000 x x x 16.10 -30 -03-01- 006.000 x X x 16 -1040 -03.01 -007.000 x x x 16 -10- 30-03-01 -006.000 x x x Area 3 -1 St to 3' St SW 16- 09-25- 16-03- 005.000 x x x 46- 09-25- 16-03- 006.000 x x x 16 -09- 25 -16 -03 -007.000 x x x 16 -09-25 -16-03- 008.000 x x x 16 -09.25- 16-03- 009.000 x x x 16 -09-25- 16-03-010.000 x x x i 16. 09-25- 16-03 -013.000 x x x 16-09 -25 -16-03 -014.000 x x x 16 -09- 25 -16 -03 -015.000 x x x 46- 09-25- 16-03- 018.000 x x x 16- 09 -25- 16-03- 017.000 x x x 16-09-25-18-63-018.000 x x x 16-09 -25 -16-03 -019.000 x x x Carmel Redevelopment Commission Carmel, Indiana City Center Redevelopment PIan Strategy January 9, 1998 Wf/ III Z ©kn afk ouB ©o Michael R. Shaver, President 4742 Bluffwood North Drive Indianapolis, IN 46228 (voice) 317/299 -9529 (fax) 317/329 -9885 (e -mail) wabsci @aol.com Table of Contents The Redevelopment Plan Strategy 1 Overview 1 Definition of the Redevelopment Area 1 Conformity with Previous Plans 3 The Old Town Economic Development Area 3 The 126 Street Corridor Economic Development Area 3 Statutory Context of the Redevelopment Plan 4 Establishing the Statutory Parameters of the Project 4 Blighting Influences: Findings of Fact 5 1. Lack of Development 5 2. Cessation of Growth 6 3. Deterioration of Improvements 6 4. Age 7 5. Obsolescence 8 6. Substandard Buildings 8 7. Other Factors 9 Conclusions Regarding Findings of Blight (IC36- 7 -1 -3) 9 Statutory Tests of a Redevelopment Area (IC36- 7- 14 -15) 10 Designating a Redevelopment Area 11 Possible Amendments to the District 11 Tax Increment Financing 12 Determining the "Base Assessed Value" 12 Recommended Projects 12 Thoroughfare Improvement Rehabilitation 12 Infrastructure Redevelopment 13 Acquisition Demolition 13 Relocation of Existing Businesses 14 Parking Facilities 14 Conclusions Recommendations 14 Conclusions 14 Recommendations 15 List of Property to be Acquired 16 Estimated Cost of the Projects 17 The Redevelopment Plan Strategy Overview The City Center project was conceived and presented to the public in the summer of 1997. During the next 6 months, the community was encouraged to informally consider the benefits which the City Center can bring to the City of Carmel. In that time, much of the community's leadership has confirmed that the creation of a major retail center in the heart of the city would at once define and join the City's historic center with its business center. The City Center project effectively provides a planned and integrated architectural core which physically and architecturally links the historic Old Town area with the modern commercial areas of Carmel Drive, 116t Street and the Science Technology Park. Map #1 depicts the proposed Redevelopment Area. The architectural plan for the City Center was developed by CSO architects and is included as Map #2. The complex is designed around a major entertainment center including facilities for both live and media performances, with office and retail space surrounding the entertainment complex. Despite its upscale and successful development, Carmel currently lacks a major theater and entertainment complex. By providing a major entertainment facility whose scale is unmatched in the community, the City Center provides a location where the community can come together. This major entertainment center is coupled with the center of the city's government to create an area which will become the focal point of the community. In order to execute that vision, a small portion of the Rangeline Road Corridor on the west side of the corridor, between the Government Complex and 126t Street, must be redeveloped,. This area contains some of the city's older retail parcels, but it is primarily (about 70 composed of unimproved land. The city has already moved to purchase an old grocery store complex which had apparently been repossessed by the lender (about 8 acres). Definition of the Redevelopment Area The proposed Redevelopment Area is south of 126t Street and west of Rangeline Road and includes approximately 85 acres of retail, public and unimproved land. According to the records in the Hamilton County Auditor's office, there are 9 parcels in the proposed Redevelopment Area, including two parcels containing the Government Complex (about 11 acres), one consisting of the old Monon Railroad, a dilapidated shopping center which had been re- possessed by the lender (containing about 8 acres and recently purchased by the City), two older retail parcels (consisting of about 3 acres), and over 61 acres of unimproved land. The Redevelopment Area is more specifically described as follows, based on the aerial plat maps on file at the Hamilton County Auditor's office (1974 aerial photos): City Center Redevelopment Plan 1 Beginning at the northeast corner of parcel 005, as shown on Map #09- 36 -00, and continuing eastward along the north property line of said parcel to the northwest corner of said parcel as shown on said map, then turning southward along the west property line of said parcel to the southwest corner of said parcel, then turning eastward along the south property line of said parcel to the point of intersection with the west right of way line of the old Monon railroad corridor (shown as being owned by the CSX Transportation, Inc.), then southward along the west right of way line of said parcel to a point directly west of the south property line of parcel #015, as shown on Map #09- 36 -00, then crossing the railroad right of way in an easterly direction to the south property line of parcel #015 (containing the Carmel City Hall), and eastward along the south property line of Parcel #015 to the point of intersection with the west property line of Parcel #026.001, then northward along the west property lines of Parcels 025.001, #024, #023, #022, #021, #020, #019, #018, #017 and #016, then crossing the street right of way to the south property line of Parcel #008.001 (Police Station), then eastward along the south property line of said parcel, to the southeast corner of said parcel, then northward eastward along the east property line of said parcel to the point of intersection with the west right of way line of Rangeline Road, then northward along the west right of way line of Rangeline Road to the point of beginning. According to the Auditor's maps, the following table of parcels and areas is offered as a complete list of al parcels contained in the proposed Redevelopment Area (note: parcel numbers are listed as shown on Auditor's Map Number 09- 36 -00, based on 1994 aerial photo): Parcel (Auditor's Acreage Owner of Record Acreage to be Map #09- 36 -00) Acquired 005 60.651 Mueller, Helen Moffit 60.651 005.101 7.993 City of Carmel 005.001 0.956 Huffer, James E. Trust Betty J. 0.956 009 1.754 Kestner, E. Nicholas 1.754 010 0.88 Harrington Enterprises, Inc. 0.88 011 0.88 City of Carmel 008 3.770 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 015 7.440 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 008.001 1.370 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 070 (partial) 9.030 CSX Transportation, Inc. (partial) 9.030 Rights -of -way 5.000 City of Carmel (estimated) totals 99.724 Property to be Acquired 73.271 City Center Redevelopment Plan 1 Conformity with Previous Plans This Redevelopment Plan is developed and presented as an integral and coordinated part of the overall Economic Development Plan for the central area of Carmel. This Redevelopment Plan is specifically developed in close coordination with two Economic Development Plans which were unanimously approved and funded in 1997 by the Plan Commission and City Council: the Old Town Economic Development Area and the 126t Street Corridor Economic Development Area. THE OLD TOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA: The Old Town Economic Development Area was presented to and approved by the Plan Commission and City Council during the early summer, 1997. The creation of this Economic Development Area enabled the City to pursue COIT bond funding for infrastructure improvements to the original town center of Carmel, installing various street furniture and other amenities to create viable pedestrian access within the area. The overall effort to improve the Old Town area will be undertaken in phases, several of which have already been completed. The City Center project includes as one of its elements the improvement of the Monon Trail Corridor which provides a pedestrian link to the entire north side of Indianapolis, including the Broad Ripple historic area and the Nora retail area. The Monon Trail will provide an effective recreational link between the historic area of Old Town Carmel and similar recreational facilities covering approximately 5 miles. This pedestrian linkage element of the overall design of these projects has been an important element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city for many years. For these reasons, the City Center Redevelopment Plan and the Old Town Economic Development Plan are closely integrated and coordinated to compliment and augment one another in pursuit of greater overall development in the center of Carmel. THE 126 STREET CORRIDOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA: This Redevelopment Area has been amended out of the 126th Street Corridor Economic Development Area which was developed and approved during the summer of 1997. At that time, the concept of the City center was not yet fully developed and had not been presented to the public for scrutiny. Since that time, the Mayor and City Council have worked cooperatively to acquire the old Kroger center in a negotiated purchase, thus beginning the overall redevelopment effort in support of the City Center concept. The primary purpose of the 126th Street Corridor Economic Development Area is to support the implementation of the 126t Street road extension from Rangeline Road to Adams Street. This road corridor had been planned by the City for some time, but by creating the Economic Development Area, the City was able to finance the roadway through the use of COIT bonds which were approved and sold during the summer of 1997. Engineering design documents are now in the final stages of preparation for construction in 1998. 4 City of Carmel, Indiana The 126t Street extension will reduce traffic loading on 116 Street, linking Carmel's east and west sides across the Old Monon corridor as well as Rangeline Road. This linkage is important to the community at large, even without the City Center. However, the additional traffic access will most certainly benefit the City Center development, providing access from all parts of the City to its government and entertainment center. As such, the 126t Street Corridor Economic Development Plan will directly benefit and ampify the success of the City Center project. Statutory Context of the Redevelopment Plan The effort to redevelop the geographic and business heart of Carmel will require a great deal of public and private cooperation. Generally speaking, it is the responsibility of the City to develop design standards and parameters for the overall project, and then to assemble the real estate for redevelopment. After the real estate is assembled, it is then divided into "packages" containing various elements of the project. In the case of the Carmel City Center, for example, the entertainment complex may be developed separately from other elements, and the retail and office space offered for private development in one or more packages. These redevelopment "packages" can then be coupled with various economic development incentives, depending upon the nature of the end use and the need for new investment. Any investment of economic development incentives would be based on the need for the incentive in order to achieve the ultimate upscale goal of the City Center project. As such, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) could be an important redevelopment tool for the property within the Redevelopment Area. The primary purpose of this Redevelopment Plan is to determine whether the specific attributes of the proposed Redevelopment Area meet the statutory requirement for such designation. Establishing the Statutory Parameters of the Project Indiana law (IC36- 7- 14 -15) sets forth the terms and conditions under which a Redevelopment Area can be established. The three tests are: 1. IC36- 7- 14 -15(a) Whenever the redevelopment commission finds that an area...has become blighted to an extent that cannot be corrected by regulatory processes or the ordinary operations of private enterprise without resort to this chapter, and 2. that the public health and welfare will be benefitted by the acquisition and redevelopment of the area, and 3. IC36- 7- 15(b)...the blighted area is a menace to the social and economic interest of the (city) and its inhabitants, and that it will be of public utility and benefit to acquire and redevelop (the area).... The discussion which follows represents a review of the conditions within the proposed Redevelopment City Center Redevelopment Plan 5 Area and the extent to which they meet, or fail to meet, the statutory tests cited above. Obviously, each of the three tests cited in IC36- 7 -14 -15 are rooted in the determination that an area is "blighted." As such, it is also necessary to establish a statutory definition of "blight" and then determine whether the details of the Plan project and its strategy meet the specific terms of the definition. IC36- 7-1-3 cites eight criteria for determining a "Blighted Area," as follows: 1. Lack of development; 2. Cessation of growth; 3. Deterioration of improvements; 4. Character of Occupancy; 5. Age; 6. Obsolescence; 7. Substandard Buildings; 8. Other factors that impair values or prevent a normal use or development of property. Based on this section of the statute, it is clear that the situation surrounding the redevelopment of the City Center area complies with several of the definitions of "blight" as defined in the statute. In short, much of the area remains undeveloped, despite a thriving real estate market in the area, it has experienced a cessation of growth, the existing retail facilities are older and becoming obsolete in relation to newer development occurring nearby, the existing developments are having an increasing difficulty in functioning competitively in the modern marketplace, the buildings no longer meet current development standards for the area, and beyond these considerations, there are other factors which prevent modern use of the site. A detailed explanation of these considerations is set forth below. Please note that although the blighting influences cited above appear as separate arguments, they are, in fact, interwoven. Therefore, the blight findings discussed below will contain some redundancy of data, information and conclusions, from one blight finding to another. Blighting Influences: Findings of Fact 1. LACK OF DEVELOPMENT: The lack of development within the proposed Redevelopment Area is its most glaring and undeniable evidence of blight. According to the Auditor's aerial plat maps, a single parcel composing the entire north end of the Redevelopment Area (parcel 09 -36 -00 -005 containing 60.651 acres) remains undeveloped despite substantial growth all around it. In addition, a second parcel, (parcel 09- 36 -00- 011, less than one acre) located just north of the police station also remains vacant. When combined, these two unimproved parcels account for over 70% of the land within the proposed Redevelopment Area. The fact that these parcels remain totally unimproved is important considering the overall development 6 City of Carmel, Indiana of the City of Carmel. Two of Carmel's oldest retail areas are located adjacent to these parcels, suggesting that development pressure has been prevalent for decades and the owners are non- responsive. Coupling this private sector development pressure with the consideration that the new City Government Complex was constructed, including a new city Hall, Police Headquarters, and Central Fire Station immediately to the south, shows implicitly that there is ample opportunity for development of the highest order, yet not a single improvement has been implemented on either of these parcels. Construction of the 126 Street extension will substantially enhance transportation access to the area and development pressure will again increase. It is imperative to the quality of the development of the City that these parcels be developed to their fullest and highest potential. These considerations meet the statutory definition of blight as "lack of development." 2. CESSATION OF GROWTH: A review of the Redevelopment Area and the commercial areas existing there shows that the area is not thriving economically. The parcels within the Redevelopment Area have been experiencing difficulty in competing in the broader economic market of the community, and a substantial amount of retail vacancy has befallen the existing commercial areas along Rangeline Road, particularly the Kroger center. In fact, it is that cessation of growth and reinvestment that enabled the City to negotiate the purchase of the Kroger Center from American United Life, which had re- possessed the property as the primary lender. Despite ample new development around and within the Redevelopment Area, there has been only the most modest efforts to reinvest in the existing retail development along the corridor, and it has not occurred even while new buildings were developed and occupied at greater cost, and while the existing retail buildings became increasingly obsolete and economically irrelevant. Two parcels located immediately north of the Police Station are in substantial need of reinvestment. While the businesses located within these parcels would probably be viable in newer surroundings, the landlord of these facilities has not provided a substantial and visible effort to remodel and upgrade the buildings in a manner commensurate with other development in the area. As a result, the combination of these two buildings with the vacancies of the Kroger center creates a distinct negative image for the area. The Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of "cessation of growth." Over 70% of the area remains totally unimproved despite immense investment all around the area, both in private and public sector activity. In addition, the developed parcels containing retail establishments have suffered from vacancies and disinvestment despite their prime location in a thriving local economy. These facilities need improvement and re- modeling in order to become economically viable and competitive. For these reasons, the Redevelopment Area is found to meet the statutory definition of blight through "cessation of growth." City Center Redevelopment Plan 7 3. DETERIORATION OF IMPROVEMENTS: As noted above, over 70% of the Redevelopment Area is totally unimproved and vacant. In addition to these parcels, approximately 11 acres have received substantial reinvestment by the City in the form of a new Government Complex, including a new City Hall, Police Headquarters and Central Fire Station completed in the early 1990's. Three of the remaining parcels contain developed retail space which has substantially deteriorated in recent years due to lack of reinvestment. These buildings, however, appear to contain viable businesses which could be preserved through creative redevelopment. The Kroger center is perhaps the most obvious example of deterioration. The center has experienced substantial vacancy and was recently purchased (through negotiated purchase) by the City in pursuit of the City Center project. This purchase serves as a sign of the cooperative efforts between the City Administration and City Council in pursuit of the City Center. Without substantial deterioration in the Kroger center it is unlikely that the building would have been offered for sale under these conditions. The two retail properties immediately south of the Kroger center are also in need of rehabilitation and reinvestment, but they do not have the level of vacancy of the Kroger center. The businesses located in these two retail buildings appear to have viable niches in the local retail marketplace, and could thrive even more greatly with appropriate reinvestment in the overall facility. Even the most cursory review of these properties, however, would suggest that they are tired and lack the type of reinvestment needed to keep pace with the new developments which virtually surround the area, as well as the extremely high level of public investment which has occurred in the form of the City Government Complex. While it would not be accurate to say that these facilities have degenerated to the extreme, it is clear that they have not kept economic pace with the surrounding property. For these reasons, it is the conclusion of this Redevelopment Plan that the Area meets the statutory definition of blight in terms of "deterioration of improvements." 4. AGE: The retail development in the proposed Redevelopment Area is 40 50 years old. While this is not old in an absolute sense, it is important that a substantial amount of competing space has been developed during the intervening period and has been maintained to a higher and more economically competitive standard. The "age factor," in itself, is not an absolute blighting condition in this case, because it is feasible that the existing development can be remodeled through reinvestment to meet the higher standards of competing space in the immediate area. The fact that such reinvestment has not occurred constitutes evidence that the landlords may not be as responsive to the changing marketplace as may be required in this particular local market. Carmel represents one of the most upscale retail markets in the State of Indiana. If retail developments 8 City of Carmel, Indiana remain competitive in such markets, they can be incredibly successful, however, in order for those developments to remain competitive, they must be periodically renewed through significant reinvestment in order to remain relevant to such a market. As the income of the customer increases, they become increasingly intolerant of inconveniences and more demanding of amenities. The retail development within the Redevelopment Area has been non responsive to these customer changes. For these reasons, it is the conclusion of this Redevelopment Plan that the Area meets the statutory definition of blight in terms of "age." S. OBSOLESCENCE The issue of obsolescence is only relevant in this case with regard to the need for reinvestment. In the case of the Redevelopment Area, the retail buildings are not obsolete in developmental terms, but are in need of substantial reinvestment in order to respond to market realities. As such, obsolescence is considered a blighting factor in that the retail buildings will require substantial reinvestment, even to the point of possibly demolishing some buildings and removing retail development from the mix through acquisition/redevelopment and re- configuring the developmental patterns, properties and amenities of the area to increase operational efficiencies such as ingress /egress, parking, visual /street appeal, landscaping, and architectural updating and improvements. Such improvements are a part of the proposed City center project. In this manner, it is concluded that the Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of blight in terms of "obsolescence." 6. SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS The issue of substandard buildings is similar to the issue of obsolescence, in this case. While the buildings are not substandard in terms of sanitation, health or safety factors, the buildings (especially the retail buildings) are not developed to a standard sufficient to enable them to attract new clientele from growth markets. As stated previously, new retail investment is needed to serve this market, and if the existing retail space within the proposed Redevelopment Area is not reconfigured and remodeled, it will become increasingly irrelevant to the local market, similar to what has happened in the Old Town retail area, located just north of the Redevelopment Area. In the case of Old Town, the original retail spaces /developments of the `old town' of Carmel lacked sufficient reinvestment and reconfiguration and, with time, the retail area became economically irrelevant to the growing city. A similar "devolution" could occur within the Redevelopment Area unless reinvestment occurs. Using this factor as the basis for consideration of this blighting influence, the retail buildings within the proposed Redevelopment Area are found to be "substandard" for purposes of attracting a viable share of a growth market which is vital to the continued economic viability of the area. City Center Redevelopment Plan 9 These considerations suggest that properties within the proposed Redevelopment Area meet the statutory definition of blight in terms of "substandard buildings." 7. OTHER FACTORS The redevelopment statutes in Indiana also allow for something referred to as "other factors" which could contribute to blight in a particular area. In the case of the proposed Redevelopment Area, the prominent "other factor" is the development of the City Center project plan. The City Center project proposes a massive reinvestment in the Redevelopment Area to create a viable retail area centered upon entertainment and community activity. The City Center Redevelopment Area will also include the government complex and will be physically linked to the rest of the community (and southward, into Indianapolis) by the Monon Trail corridor, initially acquired and developed by the City of Indianapolis, and which has become a highly popular and well acclaimed public improvement for the north side of Marion County. The City Center Plan includes the creation of a major theater complex (which is generally lacking in the Carmel area), an amphitheater for outdoor performances, a performing arts center, a community center, and a substantial amount of private sector commercial and retail space. All of these developmental elements are architecturally interwoven in order to optimize the parking facilities and traffic control which are designed into the overall plan. The City Center project, as proposed, will provide an overall development pattern for the Redevelopment Area which includes full development of the area to its highest and best use for the benefit of the community at large. These considerations suggest that the Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of blight in terms of "other factors," as provided by the statute. Conclusions Regarding Findings of Blight (IC36- 7 -1 -3) The discussion presented above clearly indicates that the proposed Redevelopment Area is suffering from blighting influences on the community. The statute cites eight possible criteria for a blighting influence (including "other and the proposed Redevelopment Area suffers from seven of those influences, as presented above. The facilities were once the center of the Carmel economy, but competition from new retail development and the lack of timely reinvestment and /or investment in undeveloped property ended up becoming functional liabilities. Without substantial reinvestment and reconfiguration of the retail and service market within the proposed Redevelopment Area, the area cannot remain economically viable. Based on these considerations, it is clear that the proposed Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of blight in accordance with 1C36-7-1-3, and that redevelopment of the area will be necessary in order to deal with that blighting influence. 10 City of Carmel, Indiana Statutory Tests of a Redevelopment Area (IC36- 7- 14 -15) As noted in the chapter entitled, "Establishing the Statutory Parameters ofthe Project," there are three statutory tests under IC36- 7- 14 -15. The first test, contained in IC36- 7- 14- 15(a), states that the Redevelopment Commission must find that the area has become "blighted to an extent that cannot be corrected by regulatory processes or the ordinary operation of private enterprise without resort to 1C36-7-14." In the case ofthe proposed Redevelopment Area, it is clear that the ordinary operation of private enterprise has been either unwilling or unable to direct investment in the properties within the Redevelopment Area so as to create viable market function. As noted above, more than 70% of the land is totally unimproved, despite a lucrative local marketplace, and another 15% of the area has received significant public investment to create the city government center. When these two fundamental land uses are combined with the fact that the City Council recently purchased the Kroger Center through negotiated purchase (another 8 acres), the total amount of undeveloped and public land in the area is over 93% ofthe Redevelopment Area (not counting the Monon Trail). It is clear from this ratio that the remaining retail development within the Redevelopment Area covers only a minor portion of the area. Although the businesses located within the Redevelopment Area appear to be viable and competitive in the local economy, it would appear that they, too would benefit from a commitment by the landlord to reinvest in the property, however, that reinvestment has not occurred in proportion to the investment in adjacent properties. Considering these factors, there appears to be no feasible means of applying the regulatory process to this area in order to induce the level of reinvestment necessary to bring the existing retail development up to the level present in adjacent areas. As such, these findings conclude that the proposed Redevelopment Area has met the statutory definition that "the area has become blighted to an extent that cannot be corrected by regulatory processes or the ordinary operation of private enterprise without resort to 1C36-7-14." The second statutory test for establishment of a Redevelopment Area is that the Redevelopment Commission must find that the acquisition and redevelopment of the area will "benefit the public health and welfare. The discussion above clearly points out that the City has developed a plan for establishing the City Center project which will make the Redevelopment Area the predominant entertainment complex in the region, including an outdoor amphitheater, a movie theater complex, a performing arts center, a community center, substantial retail development and coordinated and integrated parking and traffic facilities which will be enhanced by the advent ofthe 126 Street extension project (previously approved for COIT funding). Considering that the area has remained essentially undeveloped despite the market pressure in the area, it would appear that the economic welfare ofthe community will be directly benefitted by the implementation of the City Center project. Therefore, it is the specific conclusion of this Redevelopment Plan that the implementation of the City Center project will have a definite benefit to the health and welfare ofthe community, thus meeting the 12 City of Carmel, Indiana statutory requirement that "the public health and welfare will be benefitted by the acquisition and redevelopment of the area." The third statutory test is that the blighted area is a menace to the social and economic interest of the city and its inhabitants and that acquisition and redevelopment of the area will be of `public utility and benefit." The Redevelopment Plan clearly that the proposed Redevelopment Area is suffering from a lack of appropriate investment and/or reinvestment, with more than 70% of the land completely unimproved and another 13% of the land developed as public space. If the existing retail area were returned to viability, and the unimproved land developed in an appropriate fashion, the overall investment would provide a tremendous boost to the local economy, and would thus be a significant public utility to the community and its inhabitants. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this Redevelopment Plan that "the blighted area is a menace to the social and economic interest of the (city)," and that establishing the proposed Redevelopment Area and pursuing a range of recommended redevelopment activities within "will be of public utility and benefit." These considerations, in conjunction with the discussions and analyses presented in this Redevelopment Plan, lead to the finding that the proposed Redevelopment Area meets the statutory tests of IC36- 7 -14 -15 with regard to establishing a Redevelopment Area. Designating a Redevelopment Area Having determined that the Proposed Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of blight as defined by statute, this Redevelopment Plan recommends the boundaries of a "Redevelopment Area" within which redevelopment economic incentives can accrue to encourage public and private entities to undertake redevelopment projects which would eliminate the blighting factors, through eminent domain and other activities. In this case, the Study Area for the project included the Proposed Redevelopment Area which closely follows the proposed boundaries of the City Center project, but does not include the entirety of that site. Given these factors, it is recommended that the City of Carmel designate the Proposed Redevelopment Area as the "City Center Redevelopment Area." The area the contains a mixture of retail, office (service), and undeveloped real estate. Map #1 shows the area recommended for designation as the "City Center Redevelopment Area" (hereafter, the "Area Possible Amendments to the District Indiana statute includes provisions for amending a Redevelopment Area. While there is no current City Center Redevelopment Plan 13 reason for including property outside of the proposed Redevelopment Area within the District, it may become prudent at some future date, based on some future development proposal, to amend the boundaries of the District to include additional property. If and when this happens, the Redevelopment Commission can consider such proposals on a case by case basis and can amend the boundaries of the Area accordingly. Depending upon the size of the area, it may be necessary to also amend this Redevelopment Plan in order to comply with statutory requirements. Tax Increment Financing Designation of the proposed Redevelopment Area carries with it a number of possible redevelopment incentives. The incentive with the greatest potential fiscal impact on redevelopment activity is that of Tax Increment Financing, commonly referred to as "TIF." TIF is a redevelopment tool where the future increases in property revenues generated by private investment are used to fund improvements within the Area. The maximum statutory life of a TIF Allocation Area is 30 years, however, the term of financing for any TIF -based debt issue is generally shorter than the full life of the area. DETERMINING THE "BASE ASSESSED VALUE:" When a Tax Allocation Area is established, the County Auditor determines the "Base Assessed Value" of all property within the Allocation Area. This "Base Assessed Value" is established as the fiscal baseline for the Allocation Area. The intent is that the community, including all taxing entities, continue to receive property tax revenues based on the assessed value as of the date of origination of the Allocation Area, which is called the "Base Assessed Value." Recommended Projects The Redevelopment Commission has the authority to implement a broad range of projects in an effort to redevelop an area. The statutory procedure for project and funding approval assures that the project is considered and approved on several levels before it can be implemented. After following that procedure, the Redevelopment Commission has a great deal of authority. The Redevelopment Commission has the power to acquire and assemble parcels of land under single ownership in order to promote new development. In order to implement projects, however, the Redevelopment Commission must include the projects in the Redevelopment Plan. This Redevelopment Plan, therefore, recommends that the Redevelopment Commission (RDC) consider the following projects: THOROUGHFARE IMPROVEMENT REHABILITATION: 14 City of Carmel, Indiana There are two major thoroughfares of the city which directly serve the Redevelopment Area: Rangeline Road and 126t Street. Improvements to either of these corridors would deliver traffic more efficiently to the Redevelopment Area and would enhance the overall performance of the local thoroughfare system. While it is not proposed that Rangeline Road be improved immediately, minor improvements to the corridor in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area could occur, such as landscaping improvements to increase the visual appeal of the corridor. The 126t Street Corridor project was approved for funding using a 1997 COIT bond issue. The proposed project is currently in the final phases of design for 1998 construction, and includes completion of the corridor from Rangeline Road to Adams Street. The alignment of the proposed roadway is along the far northern boundary of the Redevelopment Area, connecting the existing intersection alignment of Rangeline Road and Mohawk Avenue westward, past the Monon Trail corridor and continuing westward past 3` Avenue Southwest, then turning southwesterly to connect with the Adams Street corridor which currently extends northeasterly from Carmel Drive. The completion of this thoroughfare corridor has been contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan for the community for many years. Once completed, transportation access to the Redevelopment Area will be dramatically improved, and the economic competitiveness of the redeveloped real estate will also be enhanced. INFRASTRUCTURE REDEVELOPMENT: Along with the proposal to improve transportation corridors serving the Redevelopment Area, it is suggested that improvements to other infrastructure systems in the area may also be appropriate. Such improvements may be sought for the water system, natural gas, electric power, drainage, or sewer service to the Redevelopment Area, as well as other infrastructure improvements which would enhance the opportunities to redevelop the real estate in the Redevelopment Area. At this time, there are no specific plans for such improvements, but in considering various forms of redevelopment activities which may be required, it is logical to foresee the need for improvements to these infrastructure systems, when more specific information becomes available. ACQUISITION &c DEMOLITION: The Redevelopment Commission should also carefully consider acquiring property in an effort to improve retail activity and re- direct development in the area. As noted earlier in this Redevelopment Plan, as well as in the 1997 Economic Development Plan, there are several parcels which contain what appear to be viable businesses, however, the properties have not received appropriate levels of reinvestment to keep pace with surrounding retail areas. The Redevelopment Commission has the ability to acquire land within the Redevelopment Area. This land can then be reconfigured and sold back into the private marketplace. For example, a parcel can be reconfigured in several ways, including but not limited to: City Center Redevelopment Plan 15 1. The property purchased and its boundaries re- defined allowing wider rights of way for proposed road improvements. In some cases, such acquisition will facilitate road improvement projects by reducing the difficulty of right of way acquisition. 2. The property purchased and assembled with adjoining properties for redevelopment en masse. This technique was used for retail redevelopment projects such as Circle Center Mall in downtown Indianapolis. 3. The property purchased and structures demolished to enable the land use to be changed on a wholesale basis. For example, acquisition and demolition of several buildings to create permanent office or retail development. 4. The property purchased and redeveloped to provide adequate parking, landscaping and other ancillary requirements of current zoning for that land use. The net result of such redevelopment activities is to generate reinvestment in the property which would allow it to reflect current market realities, including implementation of the City Center project. In fact, acquisition and demolition may, in some cases, be the only means of enabling a particular site to be redeveloped to meet the demands of the current market. RELOCATION OF EXISTING BUSINESSES: Also noted in the analysis above was the indication that some of the retail buildings contain viable businesses which might benefit from relocation into the new retail space proposed for the City Center. It would be good public policy for businesses which are currently located in the Redevelopment Area but whose buildings might be acquired and demolished to be offered space within the new retail complex. Such a policy would enable those businesses to remain within their geographic and market niches during the redevelopment process. PARKING FACILITIES: It is also common for public funds to be used to create parking facilities to serve an integrated complex such as is proposed for the City Center. In general private sector development, each parcel or development is responsible for generating parking to serve its own development. In highly integrated and coordinated projects such as this, however, which encourage pedestrian interaction, it is common for certain areas to develop more intense parking facilities than could otherwise be supported by the individual development. In this case, parking for the amphitheater and /or other public buildings within the City Center complex will likely be required. As such, parking facilities would be an appropriate use of public funds for the redevelopment effort. Conclusions Recommendations The Redevelopment Plan contains an analysis of the statutory definition of blight as well as the finding that the real estate within the Redevelopment Area is blighted in accordance with Indiana law. Based on those findings, the following conclusions and Recommendations are offered for the consideration of 16 City of Carmel, Indiana the Redevelopment Commission. Conclusions The total body of analysis contained in the redevelopment Plan leads to a series of fairly succinct conclusions, which are listed as follows: 1. The area recommended for declaration as the "City Center Redevelopment Area" under Indiana statute was originally contained within the Economic Development Area established as the 126th Street Corridor Economic Development Area. 2. The 126th Street Corridor Economic Development Area is being amended to delete the area recommended for declaration as the "City Center Redevelopment Area." 3. The area recommended for declaration as the "City Center Redevelopment Area" meets the statutory definition of blight. 4. The City Center Redevelopment Plan (this Plan) identifies and outlines a series of projects which can be undertaken to address the blighting influences which currently afflict the area. 5. The primary project which can be undertaken to address the blighting influences which currently afflict the area is the implementation of the City Center project which was publicly announced during the summer of 1997 and includes the creation of the city's major entertainment complex, as well as new retail space and improvements to the city's public spaces and thoroughfares. 6. The City Center project will directly benefit from improvements to the Rangeline Road corridor, as well as the 126 Street Extension project which was approved for COIT financing in 1997. 7. The City of Carmel should be prepared to acquire some or all of the real estate within the Redevelopment Area in accordance with the list of property to be acquired, as contained in the "Recommendations" section of this Redevelopment Plan. Recommendations The Redevelopment Plan represents an analysis of the parcels within the proposed "City Center Redevelopment Area" and has concluded that the area meets the statutory definition of blight as defined in Indiana law. Based on this analysis and the information provided in the Redevelopment Plan, above, the following recommendations are offered for the consideration of the Redevelopment Commission: 1. That the Redevelopment Commission should move to amend the 126th Street Corridor Economic Development Area to exclude the area identified as the proposed "City Center Redevelopment Area." City Center Redevelopment Plan 17 2. That the Redevelopment Commission should establish the "City Center Redevelopment Area" in accordance with the information presented and findings of blight contained in this Redevelopment Plan. 3. That the Redevelopment Commission should approve the list of projects contained in this Redevelopment Plan as a strategy for addressing the blighting conditions found in the "City Center Redevelopment Area." 4. That the Redevelopment Commission should approve the list of properties recommended for possible acquisition in implementation of the City Center project. 5. That the Redevelopment Commission should also move to establish the City Center Redevelopment Area as an Allocation Area for the purpose of affording Tax Increment Financing for projects undertaken to combat blighting conditions in the City Center Redevelopment Area. 6. That the Redevelopment Commission should initiate the statutory approval process for the Redevelopment Plan, including presentation to the Plan Commission and City Council for confirmation of the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained herein. List of Property to be Acquired The following table shows a list of the parcels within the Redevelopment Area, as well as those parcels which will be acquired as part of the redevelopment strategy for the area. (note: parcel numbers are listed as shown on Auditor's Map Number 09- 36 -00, based on 1994 aerial photo): Parcel (Auditor's Acreage Owner of Record Acreage to be Map #09- 36 -00) Acquired 005 60.651 Mueller, Helen Moffit 60.651 005.101 7.993 City of Carmel 005.001 0.956 Huffer, James E. Trust Betty J. 0.956 009 1.754 Kestner, E. Nicholas 1.754 010 0.88 Harrington Enterprises, Inc. 0.88 011 0.88 City of Carmel 008 3.770 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 015 7.440 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 008.001 1.370 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 18 City of Carmel, Indiana 070 (partial) 9.030 CSX Transportation, Inc. (partial) 9.030 Rights -of -way 5.000 City of Carmel (estimated) totals 99.724 Property to be Acquired 73.271 City Center Redevelopment Plan 19 Y Estimated Cost of the Projects The following costs are presented as an estimate of the cost of acquisition and redevelopment recommended in the Redevelopment Plan for the purpose of addressing the blighting conditions and influences in the City Center Redevelopment Area. Land Acquisition $8,100,000 Demolition $500,000 Utility /Infrastructure Relocation $400,000 Parking Facilities $1,500,000 Totals $10,500,000 /crrdpfin 20 City of Carmel, Indiana