Anderson Redevelopment Commission

MINUTES ANDERSON REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION September 2, 2014 The Commission agreed that the name should be PUBLIC MEETING changed to Wigwam Holdings LLC. 4:30 p.m. Conference Room #1 Mr. Sulc moved to approve the August 5, 2014, 120 East 8th Street minutes as submitted and the August 28, 2014, Anderson, IN 46016 minutes as amended. Mr. Orcutt seconded. Motion passed unanimously; 4 yes, 0 no. MEMBERS PRESENT Justin Puckett, President INVOICES Kevin Sulc, Secretary Mr. Sulc mentioned there was a mistake on the Ben Orcutt, Member report that needed corrected. The invoice to Hull & Joe Royer, Member Associates was for the environmental work at the former Plant 7 site, not Edgewood Plaza. MEMBERS ABSENT Carolyn Scott, Vice President Mr. Royer moved to amend the August 28, 2014, Roger Clark, Non-Voting Member claim report. Mr. Sulc seconded. Motion passed unanimously; 4 yes, 0 no. STAFF PRESENT Mr. Sulc moved to approve the invoices. Mr. Royer Greg Winkler, Director seconded. Motion passed unanimously; 4 yes, 0 Michael Frischkorn, Deputy Director no. April Phillips, Financial Specialist Gary McKinney, Environmental Specialist Karen Pettigrew, Small Business Specialist BUSINESS Supplemental Contract: Beam, Longest and OTHERS PRESENT Neff for 67th Street Mike Spyers, City Engineer The contract was sent to the Commissioners via Kurt Byanski, HydroTech email. Ken de la Bastide, Herald-Bulletin Tom Tijerina, Consultant to Community Mr. Spyers explained that Beam, Longest & Neff Development (BLN) is requesting an increase of $31,200 for Jason Fenwick, City Controller roadway design and the alternative design, if Tonya Turnley, Administrator for Community required by INDOT, for $10,500. They have done Development the geo-technical borings for the bridges and roadway. Peat was discovered, which is a poor ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF base. INDOT has required more borings to QUORUM establish the boundaries of the peat. The Mr. Puckett called the meeting to order at 4:32 alternative pavement design is a matrix which is p.m. and declared a quorum with four (4) members new to INDOT and may be required in looking at present. concrete versus asphalt for the roadway. MINUTES Mr. Sulc asked if the alternative estimate of Mr. Orcutt mentioned the August 28, 2014, minutes $10,500 is only if INDOT requires it. may need to be changed to reflect the legal name, Wigwam Holdings LLC. Mr. Spyers answered yes. It is a new matrix design. court or not. INDOT is looking at the cost benefits of concrete versus asphalt. Mr. Sulc moved to approve the supplemental contract. Mr. Orcutt seconded. Motion passed Mr. Sulc asked what the other change was. unanimously; 4 yes, 0 no. Mr. Spyers stated it was for the additional borings Supplemental Contract with GRW for the 59 th that are required. /60th Street Round-A-Bout Mr. Royer moved to approve the Supplemental The contract was sent to the Commissioners via contract with Beam, Longest & Neff for $31,200 email. and the $10,500 if the additional work is required. Mr. Sulc seconded. Motion passed unanimously; 4 Mr. Spyers explained the additional cost is due to yes, 0 no. the additional survey work, additional work for the water main design, the vault that was unknown at Supplemental Contract: Beam, Longest & the time construction was started, and the right of Neff for Construction Inspections for EDA way services. There were four additional parcels Project that needed to be acquired. The additional cost is The contract was sent to the Commissioners via $32,600. email. Mr. Winkler asked Mr. Spyers if he felt these Mr. Spyers explained Beam, Longest & Neff (BLN) is expenses were in line with the supplemental work. currently doing the construction inspections on the EDA project. The contractor is approximately two Mr. Spyers answered yes. months behind. The BLN contract was only through July 31, 2014. The contract amount is not to Mr. Puckett asked when the expected completion exceed $40,000 for the additional construction date is. inspections. Mr. Spyers stated most of the work would be done Mr. Winkler asked if the Commission will be this year; however, total completion would be in receiving liquidated damages. June or July 2015. Mr. Spyers stated he is currently reviewing the Mr. Winkler stated the start of construction would charges for the liquidated damages for going past be in about two weeks. the time frame. Mr. Royer moved to approve the supplemental Mr. Sulc asked what the cause of the extra $40,000 contract with GRW for the 59th/60th Street round-a- is. bout. Mr. Sulc seconded. Motion passed unanimously; 4 yes, 0 no. Mr. Spyers explained the contractor is running behind; therefore, there are more inspections Resolution #ARC17-14 Resolution of the City needed. of Anderson Commission Authorizing Participation in the Blight Elimination Mr. Sulc asked if liquidated damages would come Program and Execution of Various from the contractor? Documents The resolution was sent to the Commissioners via Mr. Spyers answered yes. Money would be email. received back from the contractor. Mr. Winkler explained this resolution enables the Mr. Sulc asked about the success rate in getting Commission to act as a program partner. Mr. liquidated damages from a contractor. Puckett and Mr. Sulc sat in on the explanation with the head of the Blight Elimination Program. She Mr. Spyers stated the Commission will get it. It will was very beneficial in helping everyone to just be up to the contractor if they want to go to understand the program. He understands the Anderson Redevelopment Commission: September 2, 2014 Page 2 Commission does not want to be put in the position of holding properties so one of the solutions is to Spec Building Discussion create a community development corporation that Mr. Winkler presented the Commission with a list of would take the properties from the Commission. projects that were missed out on and unable to Depending on how long it takes to negotiate the compete for because there was not an existing purchase of the properties, the Commission may building available. The majority of the projects not have to hold any of the properties. At this required a 100,000-200,000 sq. ft. building. He point, the Commission is needed to act as a believes there needs to be serious consideration program partner so there is some place to hold given to constructing a spec building. The these properties if the need arises. recommendation is that the Commission construct a building roughly 100,000 sq. ft. with a 32 ft. clear Mr. Sulc move to approve Resolution #ARC17-14. span, and the building be expandable to 200,000 Mr. Orcutt seconded. Motion passed unanimously; 4 sq. ft. This type of building would meet the yes, 0 no. majority of the needs of the projects on the list. To date, 35 projects were missed out on due to the fact we were unable to compete. We get a request about once per week regarding a building already in place. He believes that there could have been at least one or two wins the City could have had if there would have been a building available. He asked the Commission to consider adding the construction of a spec building to the Redevelopment Plan. The project should be broad enough that a location could be chosen at a later date. He thought this project could be done in a way that one of the construction partners would carry the majority of the costs from the beginning. He asked the Commission to give this some consideration. He will provide more information within the next month. The first step is adding this project to the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Royer asked about the approximate cost. Mr. Winkler stated for a 100,000 sq. ft. building on property the Commission already owns it would cost approximately $4,000,000-$5,000,000. Mr. Sulc asked if existing funds would be used or a bond? Mr. Winkler explained that if it were positioned correctly, then they may not have to do either. They may be able to enter into an agreement with a design-build firm that would put the building up with the understanding that the Commission would carry the note. The profit would be built-in at the end of the project. Mr. Orcutt asked if spec buildings were common practice. Anderson Redevelopment Commission: September 2, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Winkler answered that they were becoming Mr. Sulc asked if the $10,000,000 capital more common due to the fact companies want to improvement money would be placed be in the TIF be in production within a year after they decide account and be ready to spend. where to locate. It is hard to construct a building then install equipment within a year. Mr. Winkler stated there are funds in the account now, but there are capital improvement projects Mr. de la Bastide asked that if a spec building were pending, plus $2,400,000 in outstanding bonds. By constructed and it was immediately sold, would the taking all these out, the coverage would remain the Commission build another. same based on Mr. Krohn’s calculations. The Commission would maximum their flexibility. It Mr. Sulc answered yes, if the Commission were able may be the bond is smaller than $10,000,000. It to do it. would depend on what the Commission is comfortable with. He would encourage the Mr. Royer thought it would be prudent to do so. Commission that if they consider doing a tax exempt bond that the Commission do it in the last Mr. Winkler answered yes. quarter of this year as opposed to the first quarter of next year. TIF Bond Discussion Mr. Winkler explained he has spoken with Mr. Buzz Mr. Sulc asked Mr. Fenwick if he had any initial Krohn and David Umpleby about this. There are thoughts. two bonds, the 2004A Series bond at $1,600,000 with an interest rate of 5.5% and the Kroger Bond Mr. Fenwick agreed with what Mr. Winkler was at $800,000 with an interest rate of 6%. It has saying. There are some concerns that need been suggested that with current interest rates and addressed before they are in a position to sell the the bond market, as well as the way the TIF bonds, but generally what he is saying about legislation is trending, it would be prudent to interest rates he agrees with. There are some consider a tax exempt bond. The tax exempt bond other items that need addressed before he would would not only take out these two issues, but pay feel comfortable with it. for some of the capital improvements on the redevelopment plan list. Currently, there is about Mr. Sulc asked what a possible interest rate would $10,000,000 worth of projects on the list that will be. build out within the next two years and four months. There would be the capacity to bond and Mr. Winkler stated with an A- rating with Standard have the appropriate coverage to cover both of the & Poor the interest rate estimate would be between existing bonds as well as a portion of the capital 3.85 and 4.2 percent. improvement projects that are currently in process. The exact amount would need to be discussed and Mr. Fenwick stated they just sold a 10-year bond looked at with care. The concern is that interest about two months ago at a little under 2.5 percent. rates, he believes, are trending up. If the This bond would be longer than that, but interest Commission is going to sell a bond, now is the time rates are still pretty law. to sell it. Also, because of some of the changes the State legislature has made as it pertains to personal Mr. Winkler stated one of the recommendations of property, now would be the time to do it. The third financial counsel is that the Commission consider a issue is the sunset clause on the TIF. This would 25-year bond. If they do that, the annual payment address that particular issue. There are reasons to would be about $623,000 per year. This would do this besides the interest rate on the outstanding maximize the flexibility for a long period of time. money as well as enhancing the ability to remain flexible. He would encourage this because if there Mr. Sulc asked what the annual bond payments is an economic development project that comes were for the existing bonds. through the door it may or may not be a bondable project based on time, based on the company, etc. Mr. Winkler stated he would get the information to the Commission. Anderson Redevelopment Commission: September 2, 2014 Page 4 Mr. Sulc asked when the final payment date was for the 2004A Series and Kroger bonds. UPDATES Mr. Winkler did not know that, but they are both 60th Street callable at this time. Mr. Spyers explained the contractors are expected to begin Thursday. EPA: GM Properties Mr. McKinney stated he is still waiting on EPA as far as what their remediation proposal is going to be. EDA Project Mr. Spyers explained that everything is almost complete. The project is beginning to wind down. There will be some final clean up. Mr. Sulc asked if the 29th Street area was in the same stage. Mr. Spyers answered yes. Greater Edgewood Plaza Redevelopment Mr. McKinney explained that the grass seed had been planted. Trees will be planted sometime in the fall. The sidewalk bids were opened at the Board of Works meeting. He is anticipating the project being started within the next two to three weeks and finished in October. Mr. Spyers stated one bid was received in the amount of $98,577.50. The bid should be awarded at the next Board of Public Works meeting, and then bring the contract back to the Anderson Redevelopment Commission. Hy-Tech Machining Mr. Winkler stated a special meeting may be requested regarding this issue within the next week. Scatterfield Park Improvements Mr. Spyers stated the improvements have been completed. 67th Street/Enterprise Drive Mr. Spyers explained they are currently purchasing right of way. Five parcels are still outstanding. He hopes to have these acquired by the end of the month so the project can be let on schedule. If not, it may not be let until July of next year. Parking Garage Anderson Redevelopment Commission: September 2, 2014 Page 5 Mr. Spyers stated everything was going well. He asked about the possible change order on the LED lights. If this is of interest to the Commission, he would like it to be on the next agenda. 59th/60th Street Round-A-Bout Mr. Spyers explained he had a meeting last week about the right of way. They are trying to get all the right of way straightened out so they can do the property transfers and contracts. The roadway is staked. Fountain at 14th & Main Streets Mr. Spyers stated the project was re-bid. The low bidder was Pridemark out of Muncie in the amount of $86,200. KRM Architecture is running the project for the City and is getting all the bonds and insurance together. The fountain will need to be ordered so it will be awhile before it comes in. Jackson Street Beautification Project Mr. Spyers explained MK Betts has started in front of Walgreens. They have been saw cutting and excavating and will move north to 8th Street and then move to the other side of the street. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Spyers stated there is a wetland in the project area for 67th Street. They are discussing doing a wetland exchange with a wetland bank. The price would be $42,400. He does not know when the invoice will come in, but he would like approval to pre-pay it when it does. Mr. Sulc asked how this worked. Mr. Spyers stated instead of the City putting in a wetland someplace else, there are people who have set up banks. This one is located near the Ashton wetlands near SR 236 and I-69. Credits are traded for this. They get credit and then we pay them money for putting in the wetland. Mr. Sulc moved to approve the pre-pay request in the amount of $42,400 for the wetland exchange for the 67th Street project. Mr. Royer seconded. Motion passed unanimously; 4 yes, 0 no. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Royer moved to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 5:11 p.m. Anderson Redevelopment Commission: September 2, 2014 Page 6