Laserfiche WebLink
He also pointed out that the city would not be paid back the <br /> money. His proposal which had 95% occupancy would not have paid <br /> back that loan, only perhaps about twenty years from now and he <br /> did not point that out to the commission. He smiled at us and <br /> said that well , I had some intentions of discussing a grant. <br /> Because of that and a number of other aspects of the packet, it <br /> was not as sound as other packets presented to the Commission. <br /> Mr. Voorde: First of all are you saying that if we would delay <br /> this further , the City would incur substantial costs at this <br /> point in keeping the building safe and keeping it potentially <br /> ready for rennovation with no guarantee that it would ever be <br /> done by Mr. Brademas or anyone else? <br /> Mr. McMahon: We felt that we had reached that point this fall' . <br /> The cost of repairing the terra cotta would cost about $80 ,000. 00 . <br /> That cost may double more than once because of the rate at which <br /> the terra cotta is deteriorating. <br /> Mr . Voorde: So we are at that point in time where if we delay <br /> the rennovation this spring, the City may incur as much as $150 ,000. 00 <br /> in work on the terra cotta? <br /> Mr. McMahon: Mr. Voorde, I am not versed in terra cotta, but I <br /> relied on TRISCO in this regard. <br /> Mr. Brademas: We had budgeted $140 ,000.00 for the building because <br /> we were aware that through the negligence of the Redevelopment <br /> Department and commission in not doing the basic things that <br /> should have kept that building in a reasonable shape that there <br /> has been a substantial deterioration of it. No developer in his <br /> right mind puts his own money into a development for any extended <br /> period of time. This constant harping by Ms. Auburn and others <br /> on the commission I tried to be charitable because they are not <br /> aware of the development business. On November 26 , 1979 I received <br /> a letter from the redevelopment department which said that "please <br /> be advised that we will contact you shortly to begin a negotiation <br /> process". Thereafter the newspapers reported that the redevelopment <br /> people had gone out to San Francisco, California to talk with Mr. <br /> Sam Kalman. There was someone who thought four proposals were no <br /> good, and I am trying to find out who made that decision. Who is <br /> it who says that these proposals are not feasible? I went back <br /> and took a look at Mr . Kalman' s proposal to see just why the <br /> Mayor and others went to San Francisco to check out this man' s <br /> proposal, evidently, it must have been a substantial proposal. <br /> From that point, I went to Redevelopment and talked to Mrs. Kolata <br /> and asked her if I could review Mr. Kalman' s proposal , at which <br /> time she stated that they did not have a proposal. I told her <br /> that under the law they had to have submitted a packet. I will <br /> make a statement that the Redevelopment Commission entered into <br /> an agreement to convey the Odd Fellows Building to an out of town <br /> developer who did not meet any requirements fo the law. <br /> Mr. Butler : Mr. Brademas, Redevelopment did not enter into an <br /> agreement with an out of town developer to convey the building. <br /> Mr. Brademas: Mrs. Kolata acknowledged that you did have that <br /> information. <br /> Mrs. Kolata: I am not sure that I did acknowledge that . <br /> Mr. Brademas: I am telling you that it is in the newspaper and <br /> it says that Mrs. Kolata acknowledged that you did not have that <br /> information but that you would soon secure it. Apparently, you <br /> never did secure it because about five or six months later I <br />