Laserfiche WebLink
April 1990, Page 9 <br />• etc. from underground tanks and other devices remaining <br />from the old Studebaker plant buildings. Mr. Pocius <br />remarked that the federal government can move rather <br />slowly at times. Ms. Kolata added that some tests have <br />been done already. The state EPA will do a "walk <br />through", but will not do detailed testing. The <br />testing is up to the city. <br />• <br />• <br />Mr. Jenson suggested that the city water department be <br />assigned the duty of testing properties for <br />contamination. Ms. Kolata agreed that that would be a <br />possibility worth looking into. <br />Mr. Johnson suggested that the city replace the windows <br />in the Transwestern Building prior to marketing it. <br />Ms. Kolata pointed out that the cost of window <br />replacement is large. Also, the city would still have <br />a four-story building when businesses seem to be <br />interested in only the first floor. <br />Mr. Werts pointed out that developers do not need to <br />figure the entire cost of renovation at the onset, but <br />rather could renovate the exterior and take care of the <br />necessities for operating their business first. Ms. <br />Kolata agreed, but stated that the majority of the <br />renovation cost is in the exterior and in bringing the <br />building up to code. <br />According to Ms. Kolata, one of the problems with <br />keeping the Transwestern Building while developing the <br />adjacent areas is that if someone wanted to buy the <br />property across from the Transwestern Building and they <br />were told by the city that the city did not know the <br />fate of the Transwestern Building, the interested buyer <br />would not want the property in the neighborhood. The <br />goal is to revitalize the entire area, and leaving the <br />Transwestern Building standing without an interested <br />developer would possibly impede the process. <br />Mrs. Petrass asked if the monies currently budgeted for <br />demolition of the Transwestern Building ($1.3 million) <br />could not be used for the rehabilitation of the <br />building. Ms. Kolata stated that this was possible, <br />but whether it could be used by a private individual or <br />corporation to renovate (versus use by the city) is <br />still in question. That would be offering a subsidy tc <br />renovators. Mrs. Sporleder stated that demolition of <br />the structure by the city to clear the site for a <br />developer would be a subsidy to new construction. Mr. <br />Johnson pointed out that renovation is generally less <br />costly than new construction. <br />March 19, 1990, page 5 <br />