MEETING - MARCH 4, 1998

MINUTES

Members present were: Steve Belter, Barbara Cook, Chris Corrigan, and Earle Nay. Also present were Nancy Hathaway from the City Attorney's office; Mayor Sonya Margerum;Clerk-Treasurer; Council members Al Parker, Barb Sparby, and Kathy Vernon; Department of Development staff Josh Andrew, Margy Deverall, and Charlotte Martin. There were also media present and citizens from the community.

Barbara Cook made a motion to approve the minutes and Chris Corrigan seconded.

Ms. Cook noted a change that page 3, paragraph 3 at the bottom should read Mr. White instead of Mr. Nay.

The minutes were approved as amended 3-0.

Mike Higbee reviewed changes made to the original draft of the Request For Proposal (RFP). They received a lot of feedback and input that they wanted to include in the RFP so that potential developers can see what the community has in mind for the Levee area.

Tim Monger distributed materials and aerial photos. He stated that they inserted community preferences into the RFP after the third public meeting and explained how they revised the document.

Mr. Monger then went on to review the aerial photos (pages 4, 5, 6) which will be included in the RFP. Page 7 gets into the development missions and objectives. One of the things that came out of the third public meeting was a focus on this public/private partnership and the need to join forces between the public sector and the private sector. They also incorporated a number of things that fell under the community preference section and put them under what were the original objectives. What they are trying to do is to point out the key objectives, which are: to look at the Levee area, not just the Sears site, to point out the need for high standards in terms of design and construction, and make it appealing to a broad range of people. The new development should link a number of key areas, such as downtown Lafayette, Purdue University campus, as well as the riverfront. The area should be pedestrian friendly. It should be noted that this is a long term process, that the Sears site is the first phase of what may be a number of phases to develop the entire Levee area, and this is something that the developer should pay attention to and that it consists of mixed use development.

Mr. Monger explained that Appendix A is a list of studies that have been done the late 1920's and early 1930's. They thought it would be good for the developer to get a feel for what had preceded this activity that is now going on as far as the public input.

Josh Andrew commented that the last paragraph on page 11 relates to the arts complex and that he would be meeting with the arts consortium representatives soon.

Mr. Monger went on to page 12 and explained that these were the results of the community preference survey. Page 13 is the site description and has not changed much from the original document, but has an updated map and ownership list.

Mr. Monger stated that one of the things discussed under the transportation section just before this meeting includes some information on what the proposed traffic counts are for the reconfiguration of the Levee area.

Mr. Monger went on to page 20, the community description, and stated that this is very similar to the document passed out at the public meeting. It highlights the growth of the West Lafayayette area under the general demographics as well as Tippecanoe County and the surrounding region. They think it's important for a developer to understand the potential of this area in terms of the eventual trade area that will be developed by including mixed use retail and other uses along the Levee area. He said that he thinks developers will probably commission a market analysis of their own to get a feel for what the trade area would support.

Barbara Cook raised a question as to an estimated property value that was in the original document. Josh Andrew answered that the figure was outdated and not accurate so it was deleted.

Steve Belter asked if the use of parking was mentioned in the RFP. Mr. Monger said that there was new information mentioned about the new level of activity in the area with the pedestrian bridge, Riehle Plaza, and Tapawingo Park. Steve thinks there should be an objective or goal to provide shared parking to be used for both development and people using Tapawingo Park and the pedestrian bridge. Steve thought it was important to include this in the missions and objectives. Mr. Higbee replied that it could be incorporated into number 5 or number 7.

Frank Ambrose brought up further environmental testing being mentioned in the RFP. Mr. Andrew said that the issue will be addressed and that the owner/purchaser will assume responsibility for what is or may be at the site. It must be carefully worded and explained as to the city's intent. Mr. Higbee explained that they would make it clear to the developer that they would have to bring a project to the Redevelopment Commission and community that shows that there is not any negative environmental issue associated with the project.

Earle Nay referred to the last line on page 2 of the RFP, "of" the Levee should be added.

Mr. Nay also noted that on the top line of page 3 should be modified as to punctuation. He further noted that on page 11, the arts complex being mentioned seems out of place or maybe not explained enough Mr. Andrew replied that this was intentional due to the fact that the arts commission is not sure of their needs. Mr. Nay then suggested putting it as a separate bullet such as potential uses. Mr Andrew replied that this could be done. Mr. Monger suggested putting it under design elements and features as indicated on the bottom of page 10.

Mr. Nay moved on to page 13. He said that this was very important information to "sell" the developer, as much as the developer needs to be sold. Short and concise comments about the amenities and what is available should include the Greater Lafayette Transportation Company and taxi service where Amtrak train and Greyhound are mentioned; intermodal transportation.

Mr. Nay went on to page 20 general demographics. He thinks it is important to pull Lafayette into this to a certain extent, as well as the county. Maybe just putting a sentence in about Lafayette demographics and then mention that the growth is strong in both West Lafayette, Lafayette, and Tippecanoe County. This project will impact Lafayette.

Mr. Nay had a concern with the survey on page 12 and wasn't sure if these design elements were as self-explanatory as they should be. He wondered if they would mislead anyone. Are they complete enough?

Mr. Monger thought maybe further explanation could be made.

Mr. Higbee said there could be more elaboration on it. He thought a developer might look at this and get the spirit of the community for the Levee as opposed to singling out any one item He thinks that the three public meetings have stressed the communities want for a certain "feel" in the Levee. Developers need to be aware of this and this needs to be made known in this RFP. As they go through the process of putting a development together, this process is going to engage the community. He said that they could put in a paragraph to articulate this in a few short sentences.

Mr. Nay commented that he liked the narrative on pages 10 and 11; that it captured all the work that had been done in the three public meetings. He said that if they were to get much more verbose, that it should be an appendix

Barbara Cook added that she thought it would lessen its importance.

Al Parker asked how many surveys were turned in. Steve Belter replied that there were 51 turned in. Mr. Parker said he thought it should be noted in this document.

Theodore Brown asked if on page 14 there was an intention to tear the Sears building down. Steve Belter replied that it would depend on the developer, but that would be their best guess. It would be unlikely that the building would remain.

Chris Corrigan referred to page 3 and asked if the City of West Lafayette and its Redevelopment Commission is prepared to enter into a partnership agreement. Is that an accurate statement of what the city is ready to do? Or is that something that the city council would have to pass?

Steve said that its the Redevelopment Commission that owns property and is representing the city at that point.

Mike Higbee said it would be the City of West Lafayette through its Redevelopment Commission.

Chris Corrigan then referred to page 2 in the offering section, commenting that it mentions leasing the property.

Mr. Belter said that the preference is to sell it. But if the developer needs financing help by having the city lease it, they might not rule that out.

Mr. Higbee said that this was done for flexibility. A developer might be able to do something more ambitious with the site if the city would, in effect, carry the paper on the site and get it paid off as the development unfolds. That's clearly an advantage to the developer to have this help in financing. He used as an example Merchants Plaza in downtown Indianapolis. That is a redevelopment property being leased to merchants. They have a fifty year lease and pay a significant amount of money each year. There is no liability to the city. He recommended that the Commission leave the door open for this type of option.

Chris Corrigan commented that leases can be constructed in many different ways.

Mr. Nay commented also that a lease could be advantageous to the city. He also mentioned splitting up the parking lot and leasing parking spots.

Mr. Higbee said the city could use its discretion as to leasing as opposed to selling. That decision can be made when the opportunity arises.

Barbara Sparby raised the question as to the statement about the lease. Wasn't that a contradiction of things said earlier when talking about purchasing the property last fall? She thought the intention was to sell the property.

Mr. Belter said that he didn't see it as a contradiction from the standpoint that the goal is to get their money back from the property. The preference would be a sale, but if they could make money from a lease, it might be considered.

Mr. Belter commented on the pictures of the Sears building and wondered if there would be any advantage of making a fourth picture of the Levee area for more detail.

Mr. Andrew said that they have a base sheet of the site and Levee area made to scale for developers and a legal survey that shows among other things utilities, light poles, streets, green areas, etc. It's what a developer would want to work from.

Mr. Higbee said that interested developers would gather a great deal of supplemental information.

Barbara Cook referred to page 20 and thought it strange that it was stated that Purdue University was a part of the Big Ten Athletic Conference, rather that just Big Ten Conference.

Chris Corrigan asked if they needed an appendix or something to tell where all the statistics on page 21 came from. Mike said that it would be highly unusual to do that in an RFP. He said that interested developers would do more research on their own. Most RFP's don't go into a lot of detail.

Mr. Andrew asked for any comments to be forwarded to him by March 14 or March 15. Mr. Belter said if it's going to be approved by March 18, they comments should probably be returned by March 10. The final document should be ready March 13.

Ms. Vernon requested that the final document also be distributed to City Council members.

Mr. Belter said the visioning should not have a capital V on page 10; on page 11 focal point should have a small p; and the last sentence in the second paragraph on page 14 should not be in bold.

Steve pointed out that on page 20 it might be added that this area has the highest density (people per square mile) in Indiana and one of the 5 or 6 most dense populations in the country according to American Demographics.

Theodore Brown thought that "diverse" should be added instead of attractive mixed use. Mr. Higbee said that 80 or 90 people at the public meeting suggested "attractive".

Ms. Cook said that attractive and mixed use referred to the type of use, not people.

It was stated that mixed use is a common real estate term; that it consists of a mixture of uses, not all retail or residential.

Mr. Higbee then moved on to the Submission Process. Some people pointed out that the annual conventions developers go to for marketing retailers is coming up in mid May. Mr. Higbee wanted the RFP to go out as soon as possible since the shopping center retail conference in Las Vegas will be in May. Developers will try to market their projects to the retail community.

Mr. Higbee said this proposal should be ready to send out officially to developers March 19. It will probably go out to approximately 40 developers around the country. There will be advertising in the Indianapolis Star newspaper and publications around the midwest, and it will be put on the Internet.

Mr. Higbee reported that during late March and early April, they are assuming that Josh will be available to meet with developers as they request his time. Meetings can be scheduled to hear a presentation from city staff.

Proposals will be due in April 24, 1998. Five days later, the Redevelopment Commission would determine which developers they would like to interview. If two or three proposals are received, they would probably want to interview all of them, assuming that they look like they meet requirements that are in the RFP. If you get more than five or six, then they will probably want to screen them to see if they all meet all criteria, and establish a "short list"

Mr. Higbee said that a meeting will be held with developers allowing them to make a presentation.

Mr. Higbee said that probably the only work that will get done in 1998 would be site improvement to prepare for a start in spring of 1999. Development should be able to be started in 1999. Mr. Higbee said he thinks there are now developers prepared to follow the suggested schedule.

Barbara Cook asked if it was reasonable to assume that most developers who might be interested would be in the midwest? Mr. Higbee said that probably most would come from the midwest, possibly one from Texas. He said that very likely from Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan.

Chris Corrigan asked if there was any standard time line. Mr. Higbee said it was being collapsed about 60 days of what would be typical for a project like this. Mr. Higbee said that they had solicited developers, and that this had gotten a lot of attention. Many of the developers that would be inclined to respond to this have been contacted already which is unusual. In some ways you have taken care of this problem (of a short response time) by the fact that the preparation of the RFP has taken longer than it normally takes.

Mr. Andrew said that they have had a minimum of five developers at the retreats.

Tim Monger commented that through the public meetings, they provided feedback from the public to developers.

Ms. Cook asked if it was likely that they would go through this whole process and possibly not get any developer interested. Mr. Higbee stated that this project, the site, the area, the community, is extremely attractive for development. What was not attractive is that you are asking a developer to come in without good "site control" . The developers are being asked to go to property owners and negotiate to get site control to get the development done. That is a bit of a problem. Mr. Higbee said that he thinks there is going to be two or three proposals, possibly more.

Mr. Nay asked what risk there might be with this collapsed process for introducing errors in the proposal process by the developers if they hurry themselves too much, since they don't have to go through any permit process to submit a proposal. Mr. Higbee replied that since they're not asking for details in regard to financing or final plans, that the most difficult part of this proposal is for the developer to figure out a Phase I project and take advantage of this 6.9 acres plus some contiguous property and what contiguous property they might want to include and talk conceptually about what development they want to do.

Kathy Vernon stated that she is very concerned with the timetable set. Since it is a huge project, one that the City of West Lafayette and Redevelopment have never undertaken before, she feels that collapsing the time table by thirty days is risky, and should be reconsidered. Mr. Andrew commented that he thought she was a little naive on this. Mr. Andrew said that as Mike pointed out, someone needs to go to the developers convention in Las Vegas in an attempt to attract developers, and that thirty days was not detrimental.

Mr. Monger said that it is a real advantage to have all those retailers in one spot to talk about all the great things about this spot.

Ms. Vernon didn't understand why the deadline being after the Las Vegas convention would really make a difference. If there were 4 or 5 developers interested, they might come back from the convention with ideas from contacts they made there.

Mr. Higbee explained that this fast timetable and the Las Vegas Convention kind of work against each other. It has taken the city quite some time getting to this point and a lot of input has been received from the community. It would be May 1999 to again get all the retailers under roof and contact them before they make commitments for the following year or two. It does collapse the time table for the developer as far as getting their development package put together. They have to go out and make individual calls to these retailers. There needs to be as many proposals as possible.

Chris Corrigan asked if the benefit far outweighs the risks by setting this time table. Mr. Higbee replied that it does. He said he could not overstate the importance of this Las Vegas Convention.

Mr. Corrigan said that if they got to the second week of April and things were not going well, could they change this and go to a more traditional time table? Mr. Higbee said they could change if needed.

Mr. Higbee commented that they already know of 3 or 4 developers who are highly interested in this project.

Earle Nay said that he was also concerned about the timeline concerning the selection process. These dates can be pushed back if early May comes along and they are overwhelmed with all the materials received. He does not want to exclude anyone interested. The companies they want to talk to are likely to be those that 30 days isn't that significant because they have the resources to get it done.

Mr. Nay asked if they had until March 10 to agree on this timetable.

Mr. Belter said that a paragraph immediately after the heading "Timeline" that explains this is a rapid schedule and disclaims that this is a wired process. It should say that the specific reason for having a short response time of 30 days is because of the Developers' Convention in Las Vegas in May. It should state that they want to set it up in such a way that the chosen developer could be looking for tenants at the May convention.

Mr. Belter said that advertisements placed in appropriate journals should state the schedule and explain the reasons for the accelerated schedule. He thought they should go out March 5. He was skeptical they could advertise in this time span with good results. He liked the idea of a meeting with developers in late March or early April. Mr. Belter would like to change the May 6 date for the Redevelopment Commission's decision due to a personal conflict.

Discussion ensued and the consensus was to try this collapsed timetable and if more time is needed, they will consider expanding it. It was thought to expand it by 5-6 days between the public forum for developers and the commission's decision date.

Mr. Higbee said that in their agreement, the Redevelopment Commission will have the right to reject all proposals.

Ms. Cook asked if it was typical to find diverse developers working together on a project like this. Mr. Higbee stated that the Phase I developer might have 2 or 3 other people working with them on different aspects.

Frank Ambrose asked that when they do get a proposal back from developers, when do they find out when or if more environmental testing would be done. Mr. Higbee replied that it would probably be done by the developer and also by those financing the project. Mr. Ambrose then asked if results from any such testing would be made public. Mr. Higbee replied not necessarily. He would guess that if they move forward, they would probably be made public, and if not, they probably wouldn't be made public.

Mr. Higbee briefly discussed changes to pages 25 through page 27.

Mayor Margerum posed a question as to the financial responsibility of doing background checks on developers. Mr. Higbee answered that they would be more than happy to do that. Other information needed might be other firms they work with, such as architects or engineering firm and experience they might have.

Mr. Higbee said that by having several proposals to look at will give them a perspective as to what is feasible and what is not feasible in the Levee area and what types of mixed development might work in a Phase I project.

Mr. Higbee commented that a plan or strategy for working with Levee property owners might be added.

Mr. Nay asked how they evaluate, guarantee, and assure themselves when a developer comes in with a plan, that they are reliable enough to stick with their plan. Mr. Higbee replied that you look at their track record and can question former clients and communities. It can be stated very clearly in the agreement that changes would have to be approved by the Redevelopment Commission. You can also link future actions to future development if they should purchase more property in the area later on.

Charlotte Martin asked why they were going with Central time. Mr. Higbee agreed it should be Eastern Standard time.

Mr. Belter then asked for comments on the evaluation criteria on page 27.

Mr. Belter suggested that on the first line of page 27 scratch Levee area.

Mr. Belter reiterated that all comments should be received by Mr. Higbee by March 10 and he should have the revised document delivered to city hall by 2:00 p.m. March 13 and Redevelopment Commission members should make arrangements to get the document that day so they can review it with the goal of adopting it at the meeting on Wednesday, March 18, 1998 at 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Belter reiterated that a revised page 24 be incorporated into a letter to go out to developers this week.

Mr. Andrew then asked for signatures to the 1997 Annual report.

Mr. Andrew then said that under Indiana Code they were required to do a Disposition Appraisal. Two appraisers from Indianapolis have been hired to do the required appraisals. They might be done prior to the RFP going out. However, if they are not, it will be noted in the RFP and sent out as an addendum.

Ms. Vernon asked how much the appraisals cost. Mr. Andrew replied that Mr. Baer is doing one for $3,300 and Mr. Nichols is doing one for $3,400.

Mr. Nay asked what the appraisals cost the first time. Mr. Andrew answered $800. He said that this appraisal was different and more involved. The Indiana Code has a specific way it has to be done and worded. The previous ones were done by brokers.

Mr. Belter asked for public comments.

There being no further business, Ms. Cook made a motion to adjourn the meeting with Mr. Nay seconding the motion. Motion passed 3-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________________

Approved: Francis Earle Nay, Secretary

_________________________________

Stephen Belter, President

skb