Laserfiche WebLink
• SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY <br />REGULAR MEETING <br />June 7, 2006 1308 County-City Building <br />1:30 p.m. 227 West Jefferson Boulevard <br />Presiding: Carolyn Pfotenhauer South Bend, IN 46601 <br />The, 2006 Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Authority was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by <br />Carolyn Pfotenhauer. There was a quorum present. <br />1. ROLL CALL <br />Members Present: Ms. Carolyn V. Pfotenhauer, President <br />Mr. Jose Alvarez, Secretary <br />Redevelopment Staff: Mr. Donald Inks, Director of Economic Development <br />Mr. Shawn Peterson, Legal Counsel <br />Mrs. Jenny Hullinger, Recording Secretary <br />2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES <br />a. Approval of the minutes of May 3, 2006 <br />• Upon a motion by Jose Alvarez, seconded by Carolyn Pfotenhauer, and unanimously <br />carried, the Authority approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 3, 2006. <br />3. NEW BUSINESS <br />a. Authority approval requested for Final Marathon Settlement Agreement and <br />Release and accompanying documents. <br />Mr. Shawn Peterson said the Settlement Agreement was approved at the last <br />meeting as well as the changes. Marathon has signed the documents and sent them <br />back, and they should be arriving soon. This motion will put a copy of the final <br />documents in the minutes, and approves and ratifies the Authority's signatures <br />and the changes that were made individually. The most substantial change was <br />going from four documents to three per Marathon's request, as well as they <br />wanted some additional indemnification language. Ms. Pfotenhauer asked what <br />that meant. Mr. Peterson said it means that Marathon wanted to create an <br />ambiguity to allow for the indemnities to apply to the particular area subject to the <br />easements. We were not willing to concede as much but settled on the language <br />creating the ambiguity. Mr. Peterson noted that the three easements in question <br />cover the northern part of the golf course only. The other significant change was <br />that under the original documents, all of the agreements, including the easement <br />amendments, would be deemed void if the current developer did not proceed with <br />the Project. Also, under the final documents, Marathon acknowledged and the <br />document states that the rights run with the land so a future developer could <br />construct similar improvements on the same parcel. Mr. Alvarez asked who <br />