Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend qedevelopment Commission <br />Regular Mee ing — December 4, 1981 <br />5. COMMUNISATIONS (continued) <br />talked et some length with Trisco people and they have agreed <br />that, ir 90 days, if the roof flashings are properly repaired, <br />that there should not be anymore damage than has already been <br />inflict d upon the building which could not be remedied until <br />the spring. They do not believe that any irrepairable damage <br />has beer done, if it can be stopped now. I have talked with <br />Mr. Mo6 from All Weather Interiors, the people who a couple <br />of years ago did some $1,400 worth of temporary repairs up <br />there, and he has indicated to me that he believes an adequate <br />job of repairing the roof and the flashings could be done for <br />not to Exceed $5,000. I have it in my notes here suggested <br />that thE Commission authorize not to exceed $10,000, in view <br />of the fact that several times that much money had been spent <br />on studies with Borger Jones, the real estate people in Chi- <br />cago, a d so forth, and I don't think that a minimum of $5,000 <br />certainly should be. Very importantly if you give us an oppor- <br />tunity to bring back our proposal, now that we have rather <br />belatedly, about three years belatedly, an outline of the <br />evaluation criteria we will speak directly to this evaluation <br />criteri , but we want to have the Commission to bring in some <br />so call Ed outside experts, if you will, that the Commission <br />would a ree upon and we would agree upon. We think someone <br />in fina ce and someone in construction, and I don't see that <br />that wo ld be a problem, and we will be willing to agree to <br />the decision made by these outside people. If we cannot satis- <br />fy them then we would be willing to completely withdraw. We <br />would e pect, however, that the Commission would say likewise <br />that if we can satisfy people who are recognized as authorities <br />in the areas of construction and financing that we should be <br />given t is opportunity. In terms of the $200,000 that was <br />committ d by the City, we would ask that that be held on a <br />stand-b) basis with the understanding that if our financing <br />plan dic not require it we would not ask for it, but if it <br />did, we would, with a clear understanding that it would be <br />paid back in a timely manner. Finally, in order to try to <br />start t e ball rolling to show how the tax incremental financ- <br />ing could work, and to show in our view as a demonstration <br />what thE City should be doing in conjunction with private <br />develop rs, we would ask that the City agree that the rebuild- <br />ing of the sidewalks, the public sidewalks and the public land- <br />scaping and street furniture, if you will, that would be agreed <br />upon by us and our architects and by the City should be handled <br />by the ity. It would be a rather token amount, but I think it <br />would give us an opportunity to show how the new tax incremental <br />financi g, which has just now been approved by the Indiana Su- <br />preme Curt, could function. Finally, I am not going to read <br />all this, but this was in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. <br />14 <br />