IBJNews

Carmel panel refuses to back Midtown redevelopment plan

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A $100 million proposal to reinvent an old industrial area in downtown Carmel hit a snag Tuesday when a City Council committee decided not to pursue a state tax credit that could help fund the project.

Developer Pedcor Cos. is working on plans for the so-called Midtown site, located between the Monon Trail and 3rd Avenue SW near a city water tower. Details have yet to take shape, but CEO Bruce Cordingley said the project likely will include a mix of upscale housing and offices.

But committee members balked at backing the venture, saying Carmel simply cannot afford to support additional development.

“Maintenance and ongoing care of the rest of the city has been ignored to a certain extent so we can put up pretty buildings,” said Eric Seidensticker, who chairs the council’s Land Use, Annexation and Economic Development Committee. He cited repeated flooding problems and roads in need of repaving. “Why don’t we focus our financial energy on our existing assets?”

Pedcor isn’t requesting financial assistance—yet. The Carmel-based developer, which has worked with the city on several downtown projects, only asked the council for permission to jointly apply for an industrial recovery tax credit.

After peppering Cordingley and a city attorney with questions about whether such an application would commit Carmel to the project, the land use panel voted 3-1 to  recommend the council deny Pedcor’s request. Seidensticker said the seven-member city council is likely to accept the decision.

Councilor Kevin “Woody” Rider, who cast the lone vote in favor of the tax-credit application, said he fails to see a downside to participating in project planning.

“All we are committed to is a discussion,” he said. “Then we can decide if the project scope makes sense for the city. … We can complicate this if we want to, but that’s all it does.”

Cordingley said securing the $25 million tax credit would help Pedcor line up a private investor, but he admitted the project also likely would need tax-increment financing to ensure it meets the high architectural standards set by earlier downtown redevelopment.

“Could we do the project without TIF? Yes,” he told the committee. “We don’t want to.”

And that’s the problem.

The city late last year agreed to take on $184 million in debt incurred by the Carmel Redevelopment Commission when it was in danger of running short of TIF revenue to pay its bills. As part of the deal, the City Council gained oversight of future CRC expenditures.

Finance Committee leader Luci Snyder, who also serves on the land use panel, is keeping a firm hand on the checkbook, saying she would like the city to pay down the debt before incurring more. A majority of council members agree, Seidensticker said.

“Right now, we are spread pretty thin financially and have a large number of obligations,” he said. “We’ve invested lot of taxpayer money in infrastructure, design and development [downtown]. … At some point in time, if we have done our job right, developers should want to come in.”

Pedcor also has a stake in the city’s redevelopment, Cordingley said, citing its involvement in Carmel City Center and the Indiana Design Center, among other projects.

He said remaking Midtown—where the city also owns property—would benefit the community by eliminating an eyesore in the shuttered Woods Wire manufacturing facility and providing a crucial connection between Main Street and City Center.

“We believe it is in our mutual best interests,” Cordingley said.

Pedcor may apply for the tax credit on its own, he said, but city support would improve its chances.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Broke
    Carmel deferred any principal payments on the recent refinancing of $119M of Redevelopment Commission debt until 2025. What does that tell you?
  • Why?
    Why is Pedcor the only developer that is involved in projects like these in Carmel?
  • Carmel = Broke
    Daddy took any Jimbo's credit card.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT