Finance committee recommends Proscenium 3 after debate over TIF split and parking

The Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee voted to send two ordinances concerning the Proscenium 3 development back to the full City Council with a positive recommendation following a presentation and extended questioning about project scope, parking and tax-increment financing on May 13.

Henry Mestetzky, Carmel redevelopment director, told the committee that the project’s office component has increased to about 100,000 square feet from roughly 63,000 previously shown, while the multifamily portion is set at 154 units (counted as 221 beds for parking calculations). “The TIF bond amount is the same,” Mestetzky said, “but the TIF split goes from 95 5, developer city, to 100%.” He framed the change as a response to a state law lowering multifamily assessed value (a reduction he cited as about 36% through 2031) and to the need to fill a funding gap for a costly below‑grade garage.

Developer Tony Burkla described the hotel component as a 125‑room Hilton Tapestry with a spa, conference space and a 5,000‑square‑foot restaurant. “It’s a true 5 star hotel,” Burkla said, and he emphasized that sharing amenities between the hotel and the multifamily units is a distinguishing feature intended to boost nighttime foot traffic for downtown businesses.

Committee members focused most discussion on parking. Mestetzky reviewed the project’s parking chart and peak‑period assumptions, saying the garage will provide 372 underground spaces plus 68 deck spaces for a total of 440, with 20 additional spaces planned to provide capacity for city vehicles. For the busiest hours (10 a.m.–2 p.m.) staff used bed‑based and use‑based occupancy assumptions — for example, counting apartment parking per bed and assuming 85% of office users would be present during that window. “In all, this parking garage is sufficient to park this project,” Mestetzky said, while acknowledging the calculations use conservative assumptions in some places.

Several councilors pressed for more independent validation of parking ratios and wayfinding. Councilor Taylor suggested hiring a third‑party parking consultant to vet assumptions; Mestetzky responded that his team has routinely used industry‑standard counts and that previous work was vetted by LVR (a parking consultant), but he did not oppose a case‑by‑case outside review if councilors want it. Councilor Rowe asked for a dollar estimate of what the move from a 95% to a 100% TIF split would represent; Mestetzky and Burkla said they would follow up with a precise figure, noting the shift helps cover an estimated $15–17 million garage shortfall.

The redevelopment component includes a city parcel contribution and a recorded option/clawback so the city can reclaim land if the project does not proceed. Mestetzky said bond counsel (Barnes & Thornburg) confirmed the maximum bond amount in the ordinance remains about $19,000,000 and that the developer will monetize TIF as allowed within that cap. Overall project cost was presented as approximately $123,000,000.

On public‑space questions, Mestetzky and Burkla described two podium‑level public spaces over the garage facing Veterans Way that would be funded with park impact fees under an existing BPW agreement; they said the design will include ADA‑accessible circulation and programming to encourage use. Councilors urged clearer wayfinding and programming to avoid underused or indistinct park areas like those seen on earlier nearby projects.

After roughly an hour of presentations and questions, Councilor Green moved to send ordinance D‑28‑15‑26 and ordinance D‑28‑16‑26 to the full council with a positive recommendation; Councilor Menard seconded. The motion passed unanimously, with three votes recorded (one member was absent). The committee adjourned at 6:42 p.m.

What’s next: the ordinances will be considered by the full City Council; staff pledged to provide the precise dollar impact of the TIF split change and additional parking‑validation details ahead of that meeting.