My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-30-81 Human Resources & Economic Development
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Committee Meeting Minutes
>
1981
>
11-30-81 Human Resources & Economic Development
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2013 1:39:27 PM
Creation date
1/16/2013 1:39:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
position taken by every individual we have negotiated with. Those <br /> types of agreements were made with Mr. Kalman stating that if we <br /> would agree to convey the building, providing that he could meet <br /> certain statutory agreements such as those we had laid out by <br /> Housing & Urban Development for the Redevelopment Commission. <br /> There was a four or five month span and then Mr. Kalman came in <br /> May of that year and withdrew his proposal. I am uncertain as to <br /> what those reasons were, whether they were financial , etc. This <br /> occurred in May of 1980. We then recontacted people who submitted <br /> proposals and asked them if they were interested in negotiating <br /> with us further and how could we improve some of the things that <br /> you have been struggling with? There was a problem with the <br /> natural treatment of the building that a number of them addressed. <br /> Some of them said that they didn't want to destroy the terra <br /> cotta, and some of them said that they wanted to put a new face <br /> on the building. Everyone stated, including Mr. Brademas, that <br /> if the building were declared historical , prior to the renovation <br /> taking place, that the exterior of the building could not be <br /> saved because of the high cost of fixing terra cotta, and that <br /> you can't go in and fix the joints because of treating the joints <br /> under this historical preservation idea. <br /> He confirmed that the terra cotta had to be done with the original <br /> stuff and it would be very expensive, and that those numbers did <br /> not mean anything if that be the case. Number two, if the building <br /> was not acted on this fall, we were probably going to see at <br /> least somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 ,000. 00 to $160 ,000. 00 <br /> to fix the terra cotta next year because they expected that much <br /> damage to occur due to freeze and thaw conditions during the <br /> weeks we have bad weather here. We told them that we had some <br /> people who were interested and were talking with us right now so <br /> could you share this information with us and share this information <br /> with Mr. Robert Raker? They agreed to this. We also sat down <br /> with the Mayor and told him that the Odd Fellows Building is at <br /> this point, andthat it was deteriorating very rapidly, and if we <br /> were going to do anything at this point in saving the building, <br /> we are going to have to do it this fall. Are we in a point to <br /> spend $180,000. 00 not knowing if it can be renovated? The response <br /> internally between the Mayor and the staff with our recommendation <br /> to the Commission is that "no" we are not going to put any money <br /> into the building unless we know someone who is going to go ahead <br /> with it. Mr. Raker came back to us shortly after he received the <br /> information, and at that point he said he had run into problems. <br /> He was not certain on how to put his package together but he does <br /> have management who would help him with their expertise and would <br /> manage the building. ESCI was identified as the partner (leading) <br /> in his group. He stated that because of the terra cotta situation <br /> he would like to have the building before he could start going <br /> ahead with the project. I told him it was a problem. He stated <br /> that TRISCO would take a lien on the building, and we told him <br /> "no" we were not going to get into a situation whereby someone <br /> was going to have a lien on the building. It would cost us another <br /> $80 ,000.00 to demolish the building with the lien. We attempted <br /> to resolve the lien situation with him on repairing the terra <br /> cotta, and found out that in reviewing his proposal that what <br /> they intended to do was repair more than the terra cotta. It was <br /> the first of the year before they could even tell us if they <br /> would be able to repair the whole building. The most optiman <br /> pursuit in this proposal would not be known until January 1 , and <br /> he would have financial costs in the building with a lien against <br /> it. This was not what he told us before. We really questioned <br /> him on this and told him that if he could meet the equity requirements <br /> that he had in the proposal, that we wouldn' t even question the <br /> timetable, interest rates, etc. that he had in his proposal. Mr. <br /> Raker felt that he could do this in hours and wondered whether <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.