Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting — October 11, 2011 <br />Mr. Gilot noted that Phase 1B moves Ignition <br />Park forward with the infrastructure beyond <br />the first tenant. We need to analyze the park <br />in three dimensions. The X and Y <br />coordinates of where the various <br />infrastructures will go, but also the Z, the <br />vertical, so we don't paint ourselves into a <br />corner with utility conflicts. We need to lay <br />out an orderly plan for delivering all the <br />utilities so that we don't have design faults <br />down the road that cost us money. There are <br />some progressive elements of this design to <br />be an ecosystem and we want to keep that <br />concept in this design with an eye toward our <br />pocketbook so it's done cost effectively, but <br />we will not pull the trigger on those elements <br />until it makes economic sense. <br />Mr. Varner said that he's not sure the high <br />cost of designing these "progressive <br />elements" would be worth it if the tech park <br />isn't successful, if it turns into a simple <br />industrial park. He thinks there's a good <br />chance that will be the outcome. <br />Mr. Gilot responded that water is always an <br />issue on any site, especially one of this <br />magnitude. We could carry the storm water <br />away to the river. He's computed the cost to <br />be in excess of $2.9 million to do that. <br />Another possibility would be to percolate the <br />water into the ground. Unfortunately, we <br />have some environmental issues: we're not <br />going to drink the shallow ground water, <br />we're not going to spread it around for <br />irrigation, and we don't want to concentrate <br />it in a retention basin. We have designed an <br />ecosystem, a sustainable system, partly in <br />recognition that this is not a greenfield site. It <br />is a Brownfield site. It wouldn't be a <br />problem for industrial development, but we <br />11 <br />