RM 09-19-75 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd Mr. Dan Caesar, WSBT -TV Reporter, asked how their firm was introduced to South Bend on Block 6, and Mr. Flock advised it was through Mr. Cressy. Mrs. Janet S. Allen said that suddenly we have three very interesting proposals for Block 6, but that Block 6 is not the only land we have available downtown, and why couldn't we, in some way, arrange these three proposals to spread out all the rest of the 'empty ' land and not lose any of the developers. She suggested to have something on the north side as there is plenty of ground there for development. We don't really have to have just all parks on that north end. She suggested the three groups get together and spread this thing out over the whole downtown and to get something done from one end to the other. Mr. Brownell said he did explain to the representatives of SSPF that we did not have a set date and that he couldn't assure them of any particular date, and they understood that. He advised that he did not bind the Commission in any way. Ms. Jeanne Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter, brought up the matter that there was a bidding day, and if we do want to accept a bid proposal from these gentlemen, what would we have to go through? That the bid from the St. Joseph River Bend Development group has neither been accepted or rejected, and it gets a little confusing just where we are at. If that bid is accepted from the River Bend group, or if it is rejected, don't we have to go through another bidding process? Mr. Kevin J. Butler, Commission Legal Counsel, advised, as has been explained, many times, when the Commission does not receive an acceptable bid - -the bids are called for by advertisement - -that the Commission then is in.a position where they can negotiate with a prospective developer and new bidding is not required, unless the land use is to be changed in some way. In reference to the St. Joseph River Bend Development group, it has been stated that it is an unacceptable bid, and it was so stated in first meeting. The Chair suggested a motion is in order to receive the above pro- posal from SSPF, Inc. and place it on file. Said motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Cira and carried. Mr. Edward F. Soltesz, Local No. 9, U.A.W. representative, raised the following questions, to clear a point he has: 1) The gentlemen that just got through with their proposal, would this be an acceptable bid? Would its context have been an acceptable bid if it had been presented at time of advertisement? Mr. Brownell advised, at this why SSPF said they would need complete putting together what acceptable bid. - 7 - time, it is not. That is from two to four weeks to they considered to be an