MEETING - WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1997 @ 7:00 P.M.

M I N U T E S

Members present were Steve Belter, Chris Corrigan, Jim Fenn and Earle Nay. Also present were Mayor Sonya Margerum, City Attorney Bob Bauman, Clerk-Treasurer Judy Rhodes, council members Dick Bossung, Al Parker and Kathy Vernon, Development staff Josh Andrew, Allen Grady, Margy Deverall and Charlotte Martin, Michael Witteveen - Tecton, and members of the media and community.

Mr. Belter called for a motion to approve the November 12, 1997 minutes.

Mr. Corrigan so moved. Mr. Fenn seconded. Being no corrections, the minutes were approved unanimously 3-0.

Update - Sears Building: Mr. Belter stated the first gas bill was received for the Sears building. It was running approximately $100 a day. He suggested discussing whether they should turn off the gas, whether the building would be reused in its current configuration, and/or if it was reused if the current sprinkler system would be reused. Is it worth $40,000 to $50,000 a year to maintain?

Mr. Fenn moved to shut off the water and gas immediately. Mr. Corrigan seconded.

Mike Witteveen, Tecton, was present to give them some estimates for stabilizing the building and what the cost would be.

Mr. Witteveen handed out copies of a letter from Tecton (attached to minutes) which deals with the cost of closing down the Sears building. He reviewed the two options suggested:

1. Shut off the gas and cut off the water. Water should also be drained from the boiler

and the trap or the feed for the sprinkler system, and boarding up windows on the first floor. Boarding up the windows is an insurance requirement for vandalism.

This option would be used if they know they are not going to use the building again.

COST: $4,995.

2. Drain the boiler, drain plumbing lines, removing sprinkler heads to allow water to

drain from sprinkler system, board outside with plywood, and take extra steps to

try and drain and protect everything that holds water that could freeze and break.

These steps would be taken if they are going to use the building again. COST: $29,995.

This still will not guarantee anything, but this is the next step they can take.

These costs are prevailing wage quotes and have been verified that this work can be done at these costs. Discussion followed concerning prevailing wage and whether it would apply to this situation, if employees of the Street Department could possibly do some of the labor involved, and also the utility costs in relation to Resolution RC 7-97 where the Commission had decided to keep the utilities on.

Mr. Andrew suggested turning off the utilities now and saving the money.

Mr. Corrigan added that in Resolution RC 7-97 $107,500 was the estimate for taxes, utilities and repairs for 1998.

Mr. Andrew stated that this figure was based on the report that Tecton presented amortized over a 12-month period.

Mr. Witteveen stated that the $100 a day is in line with what the Commission was told, but it can also be higher. In the summer months it is going to be much less.

Mr. Fenn pointed out that if they chose Option 1 they are telling the community that they are not going to keep the building. The idea of keeping this heated for $100 a day plus the cost of doing this when there is a 90% chance that the building is going to come down seems ridiculous too.

Mr. Belter asked how many of the existing utilities would be use if the building were to be reused?

Mr. Bauman added that the issue is if they turn this off, they are not going to be able to work at any kind of interim reuse with the minimal investment.

Mr. Nay stated that he feels the only things salvageable are the frame, the shell and the slab. The water is not going to affect any of those. He does not see anyone reusing the boiler and he feels a new sprinkler would be absolutely essential if they were to use one permanently.

Mr. Bauman asked if a new ceiling system was put in would it involve replacing the sprinkler drops?

Mr. Witteveen stated that if the ceiling were to be replaced, it would not necessarily affect the sprinkler system.

Mr. Belter added that the ceilings are not the correct height for current retail. If the building was reused, and the roof was raised in the process of replacing it, this would affect the sprinkler system.

Mr. Nay stated that it makes more sense to reuse the office area of the building. Would it be possible to just drain this area alone?

Mr. Andrew and Mr. Witteveen stated that it is all part of the same system.

Mr. Nay stated he understood that, but couldn't there be a compromise between these two options?

-2-

Mr. Witteveen stated that they need to address how the entire system is intertwined, because it is one system. He explained how the system works.

Mr. Corrigan asked if they shut the system down on the $5,000 option, will anything be salvageable in the end?

Mr. Witteveen answered probably not. They would do the very minimal which would be draining the boiler and draining the water under the ground where the big valves are. This does not mean that the boiler for sure will be usable after this is done or that there will be significant damage to the sprinklers. These are just two issues that can be addressed.

Mr. Corrigan asked what other items are at risk besides the sprinklers and boiler?

Mr. Witteveen stated the entire plumbing system has water in it at some level and the entire sprinkler system which is a "wet" system. Everything that carries water and still has water in it will be damaged. The question is how badly will it be damaged.

Mr. Fenn added that due to the existing damage inside the configuration of the building would change so substantially that there would have to be a new sprinkler system. They are saying there would have to be a new boiler. New restrooms would probably be put in and possibly in a different location. There is nothing lost in his way of thinking of shutting it down as close as they can to zero.

Mr. Andrew stated that with the crawl space it would not be difficult to run new lines.

Mr. Corrigan is concerned that a month ago they passed a resolution to keep the building going, and now they don't want to do this.

Mr. Bauman stated that they needed to budget money for a worst case scenario. This does not preclude them from saving money if they don't think there is any great opportunity cost doing this.

Mr. Fenn asked if there was any savings in the cost if they do not drain the boiler with the intention of never using it again?

Mr. Witteveen stated yes there would be, but he does not have that figure.

Mr. Belter stated that Mr. Corrigan has a valid point in that they are showing no consistency in what they are doing, but the opposite is they are consistent to a fault in the face of new and better information. They need to conserve as much money as they can.

Mr. Corrigan asked why they did not think of this a month ago?

Mr. Bauman stated that a month ago they did not have all the information and they needed to provide for the worst case scenario for the option of interim use.

-3-

Mr. Parker asked what Sears had done over the past couple of years concerning the heat?

Mr. Andrew answered that they turned the heat on during the winter. Tecton and the City based their utility cost estimates on Sears' past utility bills.

Mr. Bossung asked what was being done concerning security of the building? Is the Police Department patrolling it on a daily basis? How is the City protecting itself from someone coming in and taking over this space?

Mr. Andrew stated he has talked with the Police Department. As of this week Sears will remove their alarm system. The Police will have to drive by and do a window check to make sure it is secure. He feels they will have to go in once a week to check for anyone going in.

Mr. Belter suggested Mr. Andrew making copies of the key for the building and giving them to the Police Department for emergencies.

Mr. Corrigan asked if this would result in their insurance going down or going up?

Mr. Andrew stated it would stay about the same. He added that the decision to keep the insurance was made because if something were to happen to the building, there is a provision to take down what is left.

Being no further discussion, Mr. Fenn moved to amend his motion on turning off the utilities at the Sears building to select Option 1 presented by Tecton in their letter of December 17, 1997. Mr. Corrigan seconded. Motion passed unanimously 3-0.

Mr. Belter added they should also cover the windows with plywood. He would also like to see the plywood painted.

Mr. Nay stated he would like to see the signs removed.

Mr. Belter suggested asking Sears to remove their signs along with their alarm system. Mr. Fenn agreed.

Mr. Andrew stated he would contact Sears with this suggestion.

Mr. Andrew continued with a summary of the first Citizens' Forum meeting to discuss development plans for Sears/Levee. Approximately 100 persons participated. Meetings are being scheduled with property owners and business people in the area. A summation of this first meeting will be presented at the second meeting on January 8, 1998. The challenge will be to develop the "flavor" of what came out of this first meeting and to have some agreement amongst everyone on the 8th as to yes, in fact, this is what we all heard. A few ideas for the area are amenities or civic space with a relationship to the river, a mix of retail/commercial, housing, the arts, restaurants, and theaters. Much of the history of this area from 1926-28 included some of these same ideas.

-4-

Mr. Belter asked Mr. Andrew to up-date them on the Arts Consortium.

Mr. Andrew stated they are doing their interview process. Browning, Day, Mullen, Deardorff and the Indianapolis University School of Public Policy will assist in these interviews. A retreat will be held on January 16 and January 17 to discuss what they as a group are looking for in terms of a site and configuration on a site. He and the mayor are on this committee.

Mr. Belter continued by reviewing future Redevelopment meeting dates. State law suggests that the Commission hold its first meeting of the year on the first business day that is not a holiday. State law also requires that they have a quorum. He suggested holding their first meeting of 1998 on Tuesday, January 6, 1998 at noon. He will personally be out of town on January 2 and January 5. Items of business will be the swearing in of Commission members, the election of officers, and the review of the annual report prepared by Mr. Andrew.

Thursday, January 8, 1998 at 6:30 will be the second meeting of the Sears Forum. Mr. Andrew asked if the West Lafayette High School Cafeteria was a workable space.

It was agreed that it was difficult to hear. Mr. Bossung suggested using the auditorium, which has an excellent sound system and portable microphones, if they were not going to have to break up into small groups. Mr. Andrew will check into this.

Mr. Belter asked everyone to reserve the third Wednesday of January (21st) as their regularly scheduled meeting time. He will get together with Commission members at the end of the January 8 forum to see if there is enough business for them to hold a meeting on the 21st. Their next normal meeting date would be February 18, which is also a Forum meeting date. They will assume that on Wednesday, February 18 at 6:30 p.m. they will be back at the high school.

Mrs. Vernon asked if they knew when the work of shutting the Sears building down will be done and who will be participating, what members of the Commission, in the meetings with the merchants?

Mr. Andrew stated that the work on the building will be started as soon as possible. Mr. Higbee and Mr. Andrew will be meeting with the merchants one on one which will work better with the merchants' schedules.

Mrs. Vernon asked if Mr. Andrew will be providing a report to the Commission on each individual meeting or will he be compling it and making it one large report?

Mr. Andrew stated he has not decided yet.

Mr. Belter stated that a summary would be helpful.

Mr. Parker asked what they had budgeted for the speakers at the Forum?

Mr. Andrew stated it was $3500 for Dr. Toft and Mr. Higbee's fee is coming out of a $15,000 existing contract. The city has also applied for a $10,000 grant from the IDOC to help with these costs.

-5-

Mr. Parker asked if they have the cost of utilities to date?

Mr. Andrew stated one invoice has been received for gas for 8 days. It was close to $800.00.

Mr. Parker asked that other than the cost of the bonds and the soft costs to produce the bonds, were there any other cost incurred at closing?

Mr. Bauman stated there may have been some recording fee expenses and they may have shared the escrow fee expense with the closing agent. This would have been minimal.

Mr. Belter stated there would have been the cost for Ice, Miller and Umbaugh, but he thinks they are under their budgeted amount.

Mr. Parker asked what these costs were.

Mr. Andrew stated they did not have these figures with them, but they can get them for him.

Mrs. Vernon asked what the exact amount of acreage when they closed?

Mr. Andrew answered 6.99 acres.

Mrs. Vernon asked if they had a clear title to the property?

Mr. Belter stated that they have a clear title and they also have title insurance.

Mr. Nay moved to adjourn. Mr. Corrigan seconded. Motion to adjourn passed unanimously 3-0.

Respectfully submitted:

Francis Earle Nay, Vice President*

Approved:

Stephen Belter, President

*Barbara Cook, Commission Secretary, was not present at this meeting.

bjm