|
And again, we did submit to you the detailed and what we think is a reasonably thorough building
<br />conditions study prepared by Mekus that as you know: When you get to the back of it you will find
<br />that they estimated the costs of rehabilitation to be cost prohibitive i.e., $1.8 million. The study is
<br />also supported by a separate roofing estimate. Alone, just the one line item within the Mekus study
<br />was a roof replacement; and we have, we're distributing to you now, or Pat is, an independent roof
<br />replacement estimate from Bennett and Brosseau Roofing, Inc., of Champaign, Illinois, I think their
<br />located in three cities in Illinois, dated January 8d', 2004. You'll note that that roofing estimate to -
<br />replace that roof, and I presume it's with a not the real slate roof,.but the - what do you call it - plastic
<br />slate roof, or the look-alike slate roof. In any event, their estimate, it's interesting, their estimate is -
<br />187,000 plus. The estimate of Mekus study, in their study, ah they had estimated $200,000. So I .
<br />think their figures may be a little on the high side, I would yield to that suggestion. They are after all
<br />a Chicago architecture firm. I presume they're familiar with their cost in Chicago. I would suggest
<br />and wouldn't doubt if someone could show me that those estimates may be a little on the high side
<br />because in fact they're based on Chicago prices, and I presume South Bend prices wouldn't be as
<br />high. We would again ask that that roofing estimate that's being routed to you be made a part of the
<br />Commission's record. And again, we don't think it varies significantly from the roof replacement
<br />figure used in the Mekus study. The Mekus study in our opinion is self-explanatory. It, as you might
<br />except, so I'm not going to go into detail on it, other than to state that virtually every system in the
<br />building, and I did have the opportunity to tour the building personally with Mr. Diedrich and Mr.
<br />Huddleston, and I think you can't help but walk through the building, and I'm sure even Mr. Zeiger
<br />would agree with this, virtually every system in the building has to be replaced. The complete HVAC
<br />has to be replaced; the electrical has to be replaced; the roof has to be replaced; the plumbing has to
<br />be replaced; the windows and doors I think even have to, some of them have to be replaced, maybe
<br />not all of them, but most of the ones we looked at we thought needed to be replaced. And, even if we
<br />assume arguendo that the building could be rehabilitated for less than the $1.8 million, the building
<br />still has to be economically viable and I would submit to you that it has to be economically viable as
<br />determined be a qualified appraiser. And that's the state standard, you're standard doesn't vary from
<br />that much. You don't talk about as determined by a state appraiser or certified appraiser, but I think
<br />it's implicit in your standards that you have to have some*evidence of economic viability. You can't
<br />just arbitrarily say, "No, it's economically viable," and then move ori. You have to have evidence of
<br />that. With reference to that, we have had the building inspected, examined closely and appraised, by
<br />not one but two local respected real estate appraisers, Mr. Diedrich and Mr. Huddleston, and at this
<br />time I would, before they get into their testimony or comments concerning the thing, I would like to
<br />present to you a copy of their, a tablet ... of their respective resumes again for the record and for no
<br />other reason. Many of you may even know Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Diedrich.
<br />Again, inasmuch as they've now not only inspected the property but appraised it, at this time, I would
<br />like to offer Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Diedrich's testimony or comments. I'm not sure whether you
<br />take formal testimony or whether you just solicit commentary.
<br />Shawn Peterson: We do take testimony, although we do tend to limit presenters to 15 minutes or so.
<br />John Peddycord: That's fine. I don't think that will be a problem from what I understand.
<br />Catherine Hostetler: Shawn, it's five. It's been forty minutes.
<br />Shawn Peterson: Yes, it's five for members of the public...
<br />John Peddycord: It's my understanding that -their position is that the rehabilitation of the building is
<br />not realistically feasible and is cost prohibitive. At this time then, I would like to invite either one of
<br />you gentlemen to speak and...
<br />23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version]
<br />7
<br />
|