My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 09-25-87
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
RM 09-25-87
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2012 2:58:21 PM
Creation date
10/4/2012 9:41:10 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
South Bend edevelopment Commission <br />Regular Me ting - September 25, 1987 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS (font.) <br />d. Conitinued... <br />.Upcn <br />a motion by Mr. Combs, seconded by <br />COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION <br />Mr. <br />Piasecki and carried, the Commission <br />NO. 813 AUTHORIZING REIMBURSEMENT <br />approved <br />Resolution No. 813, authorizing <br />TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND FOR <br />reimbursement <br />to the City of South Bend <br />EXPENDITURES MADE WITHIN THE RUM <br />for <br />expenditures made within the Rum <br />VILLAGE INDUSTRIAL PARK <br />Village <br />Industrial Park. <br />e. Commission <br />approval requested for First <br />Amendment <br />to Lease with Osco Drug, Inc. <br />Mr. <br />Hunt explained that as, permitted in <br />the <br />Lease Agreement with Osco Drug passed <br />in <br />April 1985, Osco is requesting the <br />exercise <br />of their first option to extend <br />their <br />lease for one year, from September <br />1987 <br />to September 1988. They are also <br />requesting <br />approval from the Commission <br />to <br />xpend an additional $53,000 for the <br />rec <br />nstruction of the roof on the <br />building. <br />In addition, they are asking <br />for <br />two additional option years to be <br />add <br />ad to their lease. <br />Mr. Hunt explained that in the original <br />lease we indicated to them that we wanted <br />to step away from certain obligations <br />that we had to them in terms of <br />relocation and costs associated with <br />rel cation. We suggested a substitute <br />mec anism which would allow us to have a <br />was of costs. They would do $250,000 of <br />imp ovements, which would be reimbursed <br />to em based upon a depreciation <br />sch Jule if we should terminate the lease <br />wi in five years. In turn, they would <br />wai e all relocation benefits which would <br />hav otherwise been due them. <br />MOM <br />amendment would allow them to (1) <br />end an additional $53,000 of their <br />�y to make improvements to our <br />Lding; (2) have an additional two <br />-s of option to lease; and (3) <br />-cise the first year's option under <br />original agreement. <br />-13- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.