Westfield council will wait to decide on landmark towers

July 14, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Westfield City Council is delaying a decision on a $3 million plan to erect two concrete-and-steel towers at a prominent U.S. 31 intersection.

As IBJ reported last month, the proposal is the result of two years of work by the appointed Grand Junction Task Group, which set out to differentiate downtown Westfield’s State Road 32 interchange from other exits along the highway.

U.S. 31 landmarks, WestfieldClick to enlarge. (Rendering courtesy of RQAW Inc.)

The council heard from supporters and opponents at a June public hearing and urged others to share their thoughts via email.

Proponents said the so-called placemaking initiative will drive economic development and tie together two major city projects: the massive Grand Park Sports Complex west of U.S. 31 and the ambitious Grand Junction downtown redevelopment plan.

Detractors questioned the cost and scale of the project, which a number of speakers said is too grand for a community founded by the low-key Quakers. Others suggested the money—which will come from the proceeds of the city’s recent utility sale—would be better spent on something else.

Council members could have voted on the expenditure tonight, but the measure has been tabled so they can collect more input, said city spokeswoman Erin Verplank.

“They want to make sure they’re making the right decision,” she said of elected officials including Mayor Andy Cook.

It’s not clear yet when the proposal will resurface.

Organizers told the council last month that a decision needs to be made soon, since the Indiana Department of Transportation is working on the interchange as part its massive U.S. 31 overhaul.


Post a comment to this blog

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
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing