Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-20-01 Redevelopment Commission MinutesSOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 20, 2001 10:00 a.m. Presiding: Robert W. Hunt, President 1. ROLL CALL Members Present: Member Absent: Legal Counsel: 227 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana Mr. Robert W. Hunt, President Ms. Marcia Jones, Vice - President Mr. Philip J. Faccenda, Secretary Mr. Matt Kahn Mr. James Caldwell Ms. Cheryl Greene Redevelopment Staff: Mr. Donald Inks, Director Mrs. Lorraine Mauk, Recording Secretary Mr. Owen Rock, Assistant Director Mr. Mike Beitzinger, Assistant Director Mr. Robert Mathia, Economic Development Specialist Mr. Robert Case, Economic Development Specialist Mr. Tim Williams, Economic Development Specialist Ms. Ann Kolata, Senior Economic Development Specialist Mr. Marco Mariani, Community Development Mr. Terry O'Brien, Loan Officer Mrs. Cheryl Phipps, Administrative Assistant Others Present: Mr. Dean Uminski, Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP Mr. Chuck Fulmer, Miami Auto Glass, Inc. Mr. Steve Ellison, The Stone Group Mr. Jim Masters, Attorney -At -Law Rev. Verlie M. Manns, Grace Christian Church Mr. Terry Wozniak, Attorney -At -Law Mr. Ty Putrich, South Bend Lathe Mr. Gary V. Lovisa Mr. James Pittman Mr. Gene Dylewski Mr. Leonard Clay Ms. Barb Dylewski Mrs. Geneva Clay Mr. Norman Dotson Ms. Sarah Manning Mr. John Brenneman Ms. Mendora Trotter Mr. Norbert Toubes Mr. Bill Watterud Ms. Evelyn Neal Mr. Dick K. Jones Ms. Patty Neal Mr. Bruce Ford Mr. Butch Neal Mr. Eric Manns 1 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Commission approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 6, 2001. Upon a motion by Ms. Jones, seconded by Mr. Kahn and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 6, 2001. 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS COMMISSION APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 6,200 1. Redevelopment Commission Claims submitted July 20, 2001 for approval. 212 CDBG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Federal Express South Bend Tribune Tri- County News, Inc. Boise Gene's Camera Store 324 FUND DLZ Baker & Daniels Department of Public Works J.F. New & Associates, Inc. City Awning Shamrock Network Design 414 SAMPLE -EWING FUND American Electric Power 424 TIF SBCDA- BUILDING OPERATIONS AEP Kinko's NIPSCO South Bend Water Works Michiana Lock & Key CB Richard Ellis 2 $38.88 $106.32 $110.43 $71.40 $41.70 $26,840.00 $6,234.84 $415,261.62 $380.00 $14,415.00 $150.00 $6,333.00 $1,023.26 $48.95 $6.07 $170.38 $123.28 $1,807.07 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (CONT.) Upon a motion by Mr. Faccenda, seconded by Mr. Kahn and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the Claims submitted July 20, 2001, and ordered the checks to be released. 4. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications. 5. OLD BUSINESS There was no Old Business. 6. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Inks requested that items 6.c. and 6.e. be addressed first. There was no objection and the items were expedited. c. Commission approval requested for Resolution No. 1841, an application for real property tax abatement for property located at 330 East Jefferson Blvd. in the South Bend Central Development Area. (Crowe, Chizek and Company, LLP) Mr. Beitzinger reported that the petitioner provides innovative business solutions for assurance, consulting, e- business, financial and human capital, outsourcing, tax, and technology on a national and global basis. Crowe, Chizek and Company has thirteen offices which employ over 1,600 people worldwide with the South Bend office as its headquarters. To accommodate future growth of the South Bend office, the company will construct a new 50,000 sft. building adjacent to its current main building. 3 COMMISSION APPROVED THE CLAIMS SUBMITTED JULY 20,200 1, AND ORDERED THE CHECKS TO BE RELEASED. THERE WERE NO COMMUNICATIONS. THERE WAS NO OLD BUSINESS. South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) c. (Continued...) Per the petition, it is estimated that this project will create eighteen new permanent jobs within the first year, representing a new annual payroll of $1,067,600 (an average salary of $59,311 per position). This project will also maintain 381 existing permanent full time jobs and 52 part time jobs representing an annual payroll of $28,200,000 (an average salary of $69,287 per position). In addition to the above new job creation figures, the petitioner is projecting to create a total of 150 new jobs over the next six years. A review of the tax abatements previously granted found that the petitioner was granted one previous ten year real property tax abatement in 1984. The petitioner was in compliance with all of the reporting requirements during that abatement, which has expired. The property is located in the South Bend Central Development Area, which is a Tax Incremental Allocation Area; therefore, the petition for real property tax abatement must first be approved by the South Bend Redevelopment Commission. The petitioner does not fully meet the requirements for the requested ten year abatement under the Tax Abatement Ordinance. Although the petitioner's property is located in a Tax Abatement Impact Area, that only qualifies the company for a three year abatement. First, the petitioner is a long time South Bend - based company started in 1942 by Clete Chizek M South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) c. (Continued...) and Fred Crowe, Sr. Today, South Bend is the international headquarters for this Top 10 U.S. Accounting and Consulting Firm which employs over 1,600 people in 13 offices worldwide. Second, the South Bend office is the firm's training center. Crowe Chizek offers dozens of training seminars annually and had over 11,000 people attend various training events last year. Many of these individuals stay at local motels and hotels and help fuel our local economy. This project will enable the company to vastly expand its training capabilities, bringing even more people to our community. Last, is the tremendous cost of this project. The building construction is estimated at over $7.8 million and the total project is estimated at over $10.8 million. Based upon the above, the petitioner is respectfully requesting consideration for a special exception ten year real property tax abatement. Based on a projected project cost of $7,776,190 the total estimated taxes on the project for three years, without abatement, would be approximately $1,244,473 . With abatement the taxes would be approximately $414,824. Therefore, the cost of the three year abatement would be approximately $829,649. Based on a projected project cost of $7,776,190 the total estimated taxes on the project for six 5 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) c. (Continued...) years, without abatement, would be approximately $2,488,946. With abatement the taxes would be approximately $1,025,999. Therefore, the cost of the six year abatement would be approximately $1,462,947. Based on a projected project cost of $7,776,190 the total estimated taxes on the project for ten years, without abatement, would be approximately $4,148,243 . With abatement the taxes would be approximately $2,094,86324. Therefore, the cost of the ten year abatement would be approximately $2,053,380. Mr. Uminski, Crowe, Chizek and Company, said that this current expansion is one of several expected for the future. They currently employ 430 people in their South Bend office and are projecting to create an addition 150 new jobs over the next six years. This office is the only location where they own their facilities, they lease all their other offices. Upon a motion by Mr. Kahn, seconded by Mr. Faccenda and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 1841, an application for a ten year real property tax abatement for property located at 330 East Jefferson Blvd. in the South Bend Central Development Area. (Crowe, Chizek and Company, LLP) e. Staff report on disposition of property at 916 South Michigan street in the Sample -Ewing Development Area. (Parcel 33) (Miami Auto Glass) R COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 1841, AN APPLICATION FOR A TEN YEAR REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 330 EAST JEFFERSON BLVD. IN THE SOUTH BEND CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT AREA. (CROWE, CHIZEK AND COMPANY, LLP) South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) e. (Continued...) The staff report stated that Miami Auto Glass is a family owned multi - generational business involved in auto glass replacement, repair, and related services, operating in a 1,144 square foot facility at 1430 Mishawaka Avenue in the River Park area. They have experienced consistent growth of their business, especially during the last five years. The combination of this growth and the pending sale of their property to the adjoining business, Time Systems, Inc., has resulted in their plans for the construction of a 2400 square foot facility at 916 South Michigan Street on the northeast corner of Michigan and Ohio Streets. The proposed purchase price for the property is $5,000 for approximately 12,064 sft (.28 acres) of property. The required faithful performance guaranty of 10% of the purchase price ($500) has been submitted by the developer. The projected cost of the new facility and related equipment is in the range of $155,000 to $170,000. The project is scheduled to have all site improvements completed by the end of the 2001 construction season. The development time line for this project is accelerated due to the need to be relocated to this facility before the fall and winter business season. The site will be landscaped and have a monument sign on the southwest side. The staff recommends accepting the proposal from Miami Auto Glass. Upon a motion by Mr. Kahn, seconded by Ms. COMMISSION APPROVED THE DISPOSITION OF Jones and unanimously carried, the Commission PARCEL33 (916 SOUTH MICHIGAN STREET) IN approved the disposition of Parcel 33 (916 THE SAMPLE -EWING DEVELOPMENT AREA TO MIAMI AUTO GLASS. South Michigan Street) in the Sample -Ewing Development Area to Miami Auto Glass. YA South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. Public Hearing on Resolution No. 1839 amending the Sample -Ewing Development Area Development Plan. Mr. Inks noted that the Public Hearing file includes all the necessary items, including: 1) an original of the "Notice of Hearing of the Amendment to the Sample -Ewing Development Area Development Plan"; 2) an affidavit from Carol Smith, Advertising Manager of the South Bend Tribune, that the Notice of Hearing was published in that daily newspaper on July 6, 2001; 3) an affidavit from Richard J. Andrysiak, Classified Manager of the Tri- County News, that the Notice of Hearing was published in that weekly newspaper on July 6, 2001; 4) a copy of Resolution No. 1839, which is the subject of the public hearing; 5) a memo from Ann E. Kolata that on July 6, 2001, copies of the Notice of Public Hearing were sent to the affected property owners and registered neighborhood associations; 6) as of 10:00 a.m. EST on July 20, 2001, 2 written remonstrances were received, one from Attorney Terrance F. Wozniak, representing The Art Mosaic & Tile Co., Inc., and the other from Attorney James A. Masters representing TIMM, Inc. d/b /a South Bend Lathe. The two remonstrances are attached hereto and incorporated by reference into the minutes as Exhibits A & B. Mr. Mariani explained that Resolution No. 1839 adds 55 properties in the Sample -Ewing Development Area to the acquisition list of the Sample -Ewing Development Area Development Plan. These properties are part of five small project areas. South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) The first is in the Studebaker Corridor area near the corner of Sample Street and Prairie Avenue, including South Bend Lathe and Underground Pipe and Valve. The second is the Broadway project area between Marietta Street and Michigan Street, which includes six residential properties and six vacant lots. The third is the Lincolnway - Sample project area, which includes a mix of commercial and residential properties and vacant lots. The fourth is the South Michigan project area. This is in the 1100 block of South Michigan street in the South Gateway Commercial Corridor. The fifth is the East Sample project area on East Sample between Carroll Street and Fellows Street. This is an area near New Hope Full Gospel Church and includes vacant lots. Mr. Hunt opened the Public Hearing for PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION NO. 1839 whomever wished to speak. Due to technical problems, with the recording equipment, remarks in the public hearing are inaudible andlor there are brief gaps in the recording of the following portion of the public hearing. 6 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) Mr. John Brenneman, owns property on East Broadway. He asked what the timetable is for this particular area. He wanted to know why his property was not purchased in the original acquisition. Code Enforcement has required him to make improvements in the interim. Mr. Mariani responded that it would depend on the budget, but he expected it to be in about two to three years. Mr. James Pittman said that he would like to know the timetable also. Mr. James Masters stated that he has filed a written remonstrance with the Commission on behalf of his client TIMM, Inc. His client is leasing the property at 400 West Sample and has an option to purchase the property. His client has plans for the property. Without a timetable for acquisition, his client will not be able to develop his property and he will be unable to get a mortgage. Mr. Bill Watterud also wanted to know the time frame for acquisition along Lincolnway. Mr. Mariani said that there was no definite time frame, as yet but, they expect to be working on these areas within the next two to three years, acquiring the properties closer to Sample St. first. The technical problems are corrected and at this point, the public hearing is reported in the minutes verbatim. 10 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MR. MASTERS: We'd simply like you to leave it off the acquisition list, leave him [tenant] alone, and let him [tenant] go on with his own [tenant] plans to develop his [tenant] own property. Thank you. MR. HUNT: Do you [Ms. Greene] care to comment on that? MS. GREENE: Mr. Masters has filed a written remonstrance and it was, indeed, timely. As part of the process for adding [property] to the [acquisition list in the] plan, the property owner receiving notice does have the opportunity to file written remonstrances. At this point in time the Commission has now heard Mr. Masters' remonstrance on behalf of his client. Essentially the Commission is required to make some kind of finding on that remonstrance— whether or not to sustain it, or to go forward with the acquisition. MR. HUNT: Going forward with the acquisition or going forward with the placement on the acquisition list? MS. GREENE: With placement on the acquisition list. MR. HUNT: Do we damage in any way his client's ability to develop his own property by placing them on the acquisition list? MS. GREENE: The statutory scheme set forth by the legislature contemplates that as part of a redevelopment project you have to add properties to an acquisition list before you can 11 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MS. GREENE (Continued...) go forward in any kind of development project. The statute contemplates that the damages to a property owner occur at the point and time that the Commission would step in to actually acquire that property. At which point in time, you [the Commission] would have the obligation to tender an offer to purchase the property based upon independent appraisals. At that time, the property owner would have an additional opportunity to file an objection to that. Then, going forward further if you do get to that level, then the question of damages is settled ultimately at a trial on the issue of value of the property that the Commission seeks to acquire. However at this stage, again, you are simply adding the property to an acquisition list. Based on my reading of the law I don't feel that there is a damage issue that you [the Commission] need to address at this point. It is up to the Commission to make a determination. MR. MASTERS: Special consideration is a practical matter. You cannot get a mortgage for property that's on an active acquisition list. You cannot rent property that's on an active acquisition list. That's where the harm is. Now if you had a specific plan to do something with this property, that would be one thing, but, to hear you say that there is no timetable and there is no specific plan simply means that you are going to impose a burden on my client by putting this property on an active acquisition list with no benefit to him because there is no proposal to move 12 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MR. MASTERS (Continued...) forward by this Commission for acquisition or for development in the area. I think that you could just leave us off the list and should you ever get a plan, and think you really need this building, then you could talk about putting it on an active acquisition list. But, for the time being, it serves no purpose to put it on an acquisition list when you don't have a plan to move forward to develop the area. MR. HUNT: Not to be argumentative, however, there is an extensive plan for development of the former Studebaker /Oliver Plow Works. That plan has been enacted and it is hopefully moving forward. As a matter of fact, one piece of property in that area has already been acquired. Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? MRS. KOLATA: If I could just elaborate on that. The plan you are referring to is the Studebaker /Oliver Plow Redevelopment Strategy that was adopted by the Redevelopment Commission and also adopted by the City Council. It calls for the acquisition of all of that area, including where South Bend Lathe is. It also includes the acquisition of Oliver Plow Works. That plan addresses the fact that we do indeed have a strategy for acquisition of that property. The owners of South Bend Lathe were involved in the development of that strategy and have been aware of that strategy. 13 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MRS. KOLATA (Continued...) The question, I think, is timing, and that is one particular area that is not 100% clear, at this point. The two properties that are being proposed from the Studebaker Corridor area to be added to the list are 1) South Bend Lathe and 2) Underground Pipe and Valve. This action will complete the adding to the acquisition list all of those properties in the area south of Sample as outlined in the strategy. We have already added the Allied Products, Oliver /Plow Works, and Huckins Tool and Die properties. This would complete the amending of the Redevelopment Plan to add to the acquisition list all the properties specified in the adopted strategy. MR. HUNT: Is there anyone else from the public wishing to speak, either for or against this proposal? MR. DOTSON: You pointed to an area where you were starting first, what area is that? Sample -Ewing or Lincolnway and Sample? MR. MARIANI: Could you rephrase your question for me? MR. DOTSON: What area is that? MR. MARIANI: You mean in terms of timing? MR. DOTSON: Yes, timing. I'm asking the same thing he asked, what are you going to do with the area that I'm in? 14 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MR. MARIANI: I think that this area right now is designated for future recreational use, in combination with some retail and commercial development. In terms of a time frame on that area, I think that it would be a two to three year time frame in which we would be making acquisition on those properties. MRS. PHIPPS: Marco, I think his question was also the boundaries. He seemed to want to know whether he was within that area. MR. MARIANI: The area is bounded on the north by Sample Street, on the east by High Street, the railroad viaduct on the south, and it also includes a portion of George Street near the cloverleaf. MR. DOTSON: I'm in that area. By the railroad tracks. MR. MARIANI: Yes. MS. GREENE: What's your name sir, for the record? MR. DOTSON: Norman Dotson. You say two to three years? MR. MARIANI: Yes. MR. HUNT: Are there any other questions from the public? MR. FORD: Yes, I'm Bruce Ford. I own a house at 126 East Broadway. I'd like to know when it's going to be purchased. 15 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MR. HUNT: I don't think we can specifically answer that question. MR. MARIANI: With respect to the properties along Broadway Street, we'd be able to move a little faster. That has been a targeted acquisition effort for some time now, working on new housing development, and even developing some vacant lots. In terms of priorities, we'll probably move fast, within the next year, possibly even this year, on those properties along Broadway Street. MR. WATTERUD: 721 East Sample. I talked to somebody earlier, and they said they weren't looking at anything North of Sample. Is Antique World North of Sample? MR. MARIANI: Yes, that is on the list, that's right here. [Pointing to the map of the Lincolnway- Sample Project Area Map] MR. WATTERUD: Why all the properties? MR. MARIANI: That is on the list, as well as the residential properties along George Street. MR. ERIC MANNS: Eric Manns, 1253 East Corby, member of Grace Christian Church, on the corner there. I guess I have the same question that everyone has, as far as the timing. You are basically going to be tying up properties so they can't sell, etc. Even if a person wanted to do something for the exterior of the property, the future is uncertain, because of situations like this. The time frame, the 16 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) Mr. MANNS (Continued...) timing of it all, is what most people are concerned with in their particular areas. MR. MARIANI: Again, as I mentioned earlier, this area over the next two to three years can anticipate some acquisition offers and beginning negotiations. In terms of the approach, we would probably approach the churches, and the commercial property owners first, prior to working with the residential owners. I can't say that absolutely yet. MR. ERIC MANNS: There has been some development already. MR. MARIANI: You mean south of the viaduct? MR. ERIC MANNS: Exactly. It seems to be approaching the place where you would be. So, that's why I'm asking. Is this a matter of a weekly, monthly, or yearly thing? You talk about a couple years. The whole project could certainly take that long a time to complete. I guess what we're talking about is the acquisition process itself, that's what we're most concerned with. MR. MARIANI: As I said, mid next year, end of next year, into the following year, you can anticipate some written offers and some additional contact with us. Prior to this year, we'll be able to provide you even more detailed information. So much of this is contingent upon the amount of funding that we have available each year to actually complete the acquisitions. 17 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MR. MARIANI (Continued...) It is unknown as to exactly how much money we're going to have each year in order to complete the acquisitions. That's a big factor in trying to make a plan. MR. ERIC MANNS: Is the fact that you would honestly be in a suspended state, as a homeowner or property owner, taken into account with the pricing? Because we can't really do anything. MR. MARIANI: That's essentially what we are trying to prevent. MS. GREENE: At this point what we're doing is we're adding property to the acquisition list, which ultimately means that potentially the property would be acquired. Based on my discussions with title companies, they don't view this as a cloud on the title. As a property owner, even if you would sell your property tomorrow to someone else, they would have notice of the fact that this property is on an acquisition list. As the property is appraised potentially that becomes a factor for discussion, but it is not filed on the title of the property. I'm not sure that I answered your question exactly. Ultimately, you are compensated through the process. Whether it's by way of a negotiated purchase from the City, or in the event that you do not get to a point that you agree on the price and it goes to a later stage in eminent domain action, then you also have the opportunity to argue over the value of the property. That's how the law sets it up. So, you 18 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MS. GREENE (Continued...) are able to either negotiate a price with the City that you believe is acceptable to you, or you have the opportunity to present evidence at a trial in order to get the compensation you feel you are entitled to. MR. ERIC MANNS: Yes, that answers the question. I know that the time frame in there is not going to be productive for anyone. Obviously the property owner wouldn't want to make any improvements to a property. I can't really see enhancing the value, it is a certain area that you are developing. You already have different plans in mind for the people and what you are trying to do with the properties. The property or business owners have a different approach. MS. GREENE: Again, it's a procedure set forth by the legislature that we have to follow. I guess I don't have a good answer for you. MR. ERIC MANNS: That was pretty good, I understood it, thank you. MR. WATTERUD: Was it you [Mr. Mariani] I talked to earlier? Once this week I talked to a gentleman at a number. I didn't bring that paper with me, so I wasn't prepared to even ask these questions. So, excuse me. They had told me that my building wasn't part of the acquisition. So, I'm going to steal some free legal advice from over here in this corner. [pointing at Mr. Masters]. I presently rent that property out. How is this going to effect me in that? I do rent that out and I also had plans for improvements. wt South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MR. WATTERUD (Continued That property can't be rented, purchased or otherwise if it is under acquisition status. I can't rent it. How is that going to effect me in renting that property? MS. GREENE: Again, I would refer you to your own attorney. What I can say to you, is that anyone who has an interest in the property would receive notice prior to the Commission actually taking an action to acquire the property. Right now, it's simply added to a list for potential acquisition. In the future if the Commission does determine to actually acquire that property, they have to send notice to the property owner and anyone with a leasehold interest at that point. So, there's nothing really that's stopping you from leasing your property at this point in time. A tenant would ultimately have notice and as an interest there are certain aspects of the Relocation Act that come into play with moving people around. MR. WATTERUD: After my phone call to whomever I spoke with, that I mentioned, I wasn't prepared to see what my rights were or weren't. I don't know how comfortable I am, at 721 East Sample, with it being acquired until I do seek some kind of legal advice. I just came here to see what was happening across the street. Then I noticed that I'm in [the area on the map that is] blue. 20 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MR. ERIC MANNS: If you have a scenario, like the young man is talking about, at the time when the acquisition process moves forward, what compensation can the tenant expect, when he has, say six months left on his lease? MS. GREENE: What ultimately happens when the Commission does undertake to acquire a property, is that they have to get appraisals for the property. They will then tender an offer to the property owner to purchase the property. The notice of a potential acquisition is to be given to anyone who has an interest in the property. That would include a leasehold interest. At that point in time, for the tenants, rw generally there is a relocation procedure. For the property owner, it's acquisition of the property plus relocation, as well. That aspect of relocation depends on the type of property involved whether it's a residence or a commercial establishment. So, I am unable to give you a definitive answer, and I certainly don't want to give you legal advice about your own situation. I can just, again, point every one to the Redevelopment Statutes that govern this. That is found in the Indiana Code at 36 -7 -14. Mr. Marian may be able to answer some more detailed questions on a one on one basis, not certainly of a legal nature, but with respect with how your particular property is situated. MR. WATTERUD: In closing, I'd like to say that for the record, I'd like to object for my property, 721 East Sample, at this time. Just for 21 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MR. WATTERUD (Continued...) the record, until I can find out what my rights are. I am totally unprepared. MS. GREENE: Just so that you are aware that the Statute contemplates that as part of the notice that you received in the mail and the notice that was published in the papers, that if you are objecting you need to file a written remonstrance. Just so that you are aware. MR. WATTERUD: Ok. I'd like to say that I was told that my property wasn't part of the project. MR. MARIANI: Do you own any other property along Sample? MR. WATTERUD: There's actually one between Miller Street. There are two phone numbers and I left the paper in the car. MR. MARIANI: [What] I'm asking, is 721 [Sample Street] the only property along Sample that you own.? MR. WATTERUD: I also own the vacant lot on the other side of Miller Court. There's the Antique World, Miller Court, then there's that vacant lot. I also own that vacant lot. There are just the two pieces of property. MR. HUNT: I would suggest you file a written remonstrance. 22 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MR. WATTERUD: I will do that Mr. Hunt. MR. HUNT: Are there any other questions from the public? MS. GREENE: Before you finish, I just want to recap, OK? MR. HUNT: We just don't want to lose our quorum. MS. GREENE: I understand, but we do have two written remonstrances, that have come in. One of them is from Mr. Masters. Mr. Masters has written a letter of remonstrance on behalf of Timm, Inc., which is doing business as South Bend Lathe. Timm, Inc., is a tenant of that property, not the property owner. The basis of the remonstrance is that the property, according to Mr. Masters, is not blighted. He is also objecting on the basis that the acquisition of the property —is attacking the public purpose of the acquisition. The Commission does need to make a decision on that remonstrance. On those two elements. Second, there is a written remonstrance that came in from Art Mosaic Tile and Company. It was filed by Terrance Wozniak, on behalf of Art Mosaic Tile and Company. It appears that the basis of this remonstrance is that any taking of this company would cause a serious economic strain on the client and jeopardize their ability to continue to provide services to the community. 23 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MS. GREENE (Continued...) This constitutes a remonstrance that the Commission needs to deal with. The Commission needs to take action on those two remonstrances that are filed today. MR. HUNT: Did you wish to add something Mr. Wozniak? MR. WOZNIAK: Your Honor, in consultation with my client, we will withdraw our remonstrance on this matter at this time. MR. HUNT: Thank you. Then [to Ms. Greene] we don't need to deal with this remonstrance at this time. MS. GREENE: That's right, you don't need to deal with that one. MR. HUNT: Is there anyone else from the public wishing to speak to this matter? If not, we'll close the public portion of the hearing and open the Commission portion. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Masters does your client have specific development plans for that property? MR. MASTERS: He has. First of all, to supplement what Ms. Greene said, his lease on the property gives him the option to purchase. 24 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MR. MASTERS (Continued...) There are several interested parties, to lease space in the property. The point I was making earlier is that you cannot lease space long term if you've got property that is on an active acquisition list. Nor can you obtain financing on a long term basis to renovate the building, when it is on an active acquisition list. That's really the basis of our objection here. Without any specific plans and any specific need to take this property, you are interfering with my client's plans to develop that property. MR. HUNT: Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? Then we have to go back to the attorney. We need to deal with this [South Bend Lathe] remonstrance. MS. GREENE: Right, you have two different issues that are raised in the written remonstrance. Number one is the argument that the property is not blighted. The finding of blight does not go to the individual property, it goes to the area. If the Commission is comfortable with the findings of blight with respect to that area, then that is the decision of the Commission. Second, is the issue of whether or not this property will potentially be acquired for a public purpose. The Statute specifically states that redevelopment of a blighted area is a public purpose. The Commission needs to make a ruling on this 25 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MS. GREENE (Continued...) remonstrance. Your action is then recorded and it is final and conclusive. If the property owner is unhappy or dissatisfied with your opinion then, they have the right to file an appeal of your opinion. MR. HUNT: What we are looking for is a motion to either reject or accept the first part of the remonstrance. We need a motion. MS. JONES: I'll move. MR. HUNT: To accept the first part of the remonstrance or reject it? How are you moving? MS. JONES: To reject the first part of the remonstrance. MR. HUNT: Is there a second to that motion? MR. KAHN: Second. MR. HUNT: We have a second to reject the first part of the remonstrance. All in favor say Aye'. Upon a motion by Ms. Jones, seconded by Mr. Kahn and unanimously carried, the Commission rejected the first part of the remonstrance, that being the issue of blight. You certainly are welcome to file an appeal. 26 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) a. (Continued...) MR. HUNT (Continued...) We ask the Commissioners to respond relative to the issue of the public purpose. MR. CALDWELL: Move to reject the public purpose issue within the remonstrance. MR. KAHN: Second. MR. HUNT: All in favor say "Aye ". Upon a motion by Mr. Caldwell, seconded by Mr. Kahn and unanimously carried, the Commission rejected the second part of the remonstrance, that being the issue of the public purpose. Mr. Hunt closed the public hearing for whatever action the Commisison wished to take. b. Commission approval requested for Resolution No. 1839 amending the Sample - Ewing Development Area Development Plan. Upon a motion by Mr. Kahn, seconded by Mr. COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION No. 1839 Faccenda and unanimously carried, the AMENDING THE SAMPLE -EWING DEVELOPMENT Commission approved Resolution No. 1839 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN. amending the Sample -Ewing Development Area Development Plan. d. Commission approval requested for professional services in the Airport Economic Development Area. (Topographic survey for Lot #1 in the Blackthorn Corporate Office Park) Mr. Rock explained that this is a topographic survey of approximately nine acres of wetland South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) d. Continued... area in the Blackthorn Corporate Office Park. Two proposals were submitted. The first was from The Abonmarche Group, for $3,500 to $4,000. The second was from Wightman Petrie, Inc., for $2,400. The staff recommended the Commission accept the proposal from Wightman Petrie, Inc., for a topographic survey of the wetland area for a fee of $2,400. Upon a motion by Mr. Kahn, seconded by Ms. Jones and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the request for professional services in the Airport Economic Development Area. (Topographic survey for Lot #1 in the Blackthorn Corporate Office Park) f. Commission approval requested for Satisfaction of Obligations and Release of Mortgage for property located at 908 - 908'/2 South Bend Avenue. The document states that the owner, Neighborhood Housing Services of South Bend, Inc., has met all the obligations under the Federal Rental Rehabilitation Program and is entitled to the release of mortgage. Upon a motion by Mr. Kahn, seconded by Ms. Jones and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the Satisfaction of Obligations and Release of Mortgage for property located at 908 -908 1/2 South Bend Avenue. g. Commission approval requested for proposal for professional services in the Sample -Ewing Development Area. (Curb and sidewalk replacement, 113 -115 Broadway) (Orlando Schmucker) 28 COMMISSION APPROVED THE REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN THE AIRPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA. (TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR LOT # 1 IN THE BLACKTHORN CORPORATE OFFICE PARK) COMMISSION APPROVED THE SATISFACTION OF OBLIGATIONS AND RELEASE OF MORTGAGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 908 - 908'/2 SOUTH BEND AVENUE. South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) g. Continued... Mr. Mariani said that as part of the Commission's ongoing partnership with American Home Dreams, this is an effort to complete new curb and sidewalks at 113- 115 East Broadway. There were two proposals submitted. The first was from Orlando Schmucker in the amount of $4,676. The other was from Grade -Rite Excavating, Inc., in the amount of $8,200. The staff recommends that the Commission accept the proposal from Orlando Schmucker for $4,676. Upon a motion by Ms. Jones, seconded by Mr. Kahn and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the proposal from Orlando Schmucker in the amount of $4,676 for professional services in the Sample -Ewing Development Area. (Curb and sidewalk replacement, 113 -115 Broadway) h. Commission approval requested for Loan and Grant in accordance with the Affordable Loan Program for property located at 115 N. Sadie Street. (Charles Orgain) Mr. Rock noted that the loan is for $11,350 to be repaid upon sale of property with an interest rate of 0 %. The grant is for $7,500. COMMISSION APPROVED THE PROPOSAL FROM ORLANDO SCHMUCKER IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,676 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN THE SAMPLE -EWING DEVELOPMENT AREA. (CURB AND SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT, 113-115 BROADWAY) Upon a motion by Ms. Jones, seconded by Mr. COMMISSION APPROVED THE LOAN AND GRANT Kahn and unanimously carried, the Commission IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AFFORDABLE LOAN approved the Loan and Grant in accordance with PROGRAM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 115N. the Affordable Loan Program for property SADIE STREET. (CHARLES ORGAIN) located at 115 N. Sadie Street. (Charles Orgain) 29 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) i. Commission authorization requested to sign Certificate regarding Annual Financial Information Disclosure. Mrs. Kolata explained that under the bond rules, the City of South Bend must disclose financial information annually. It's required, and must go to a repository in the United States. NSMSIR is the National Repository of Municipal Information. Ms. Greene noted that she had not reviewed the document and asked that it be approved subject to legal review. Upon a motion by Ms. Jones, seconded by Mr. Kahn and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the signing of the Certificate regarding Annual Financial Information Disclosure, subject to legal approval. j. Commission approval requested for Resolution No. 1842 approving the transfer of real property at 138 East Broadway to the City of South Bend. (American Home Dreams Lot # 28A) Ms. Greene explained that the Commission conveyed Lot 28 to the City of South Bend for further conveyance to American Home Dreams. An error in the replat didn't pick this portion up as part of lot 28, though it should have been included. Resolution No. 1842 corrects the error and conveys the remaining portion. Upon a motion by Mr. Kahn, seconded by Ms. Jones and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 1842 for the transfer of real property at 138 East Broadway to the City of South Bend. (American Home Dreams Lot # 28A) 30 COMMISSION APPROVED THE SIGNING OF THE CERTIFICATE REGARDING ANNUAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION DISCLOSURE, SUBJECT TO LEGAL APPROVAL. COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 1842 FOR THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AT 138 EAST BROADWAY TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND. (AMERICAN HOME DREAMS LOT #28A) South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 7. PROGRESS REPORTS Mr. Rock welcomed Mr. Tim Williams to the staff. PROGRESS REPORTS Mr. Williams is going to be the property manager for Redevelopment owned property. He will be working with our project managers in all the redevelopment areas. Mr. Rock reported that roads are being constructed. The Haley property is just about completed. Global Motor Sports is almost completed. They put their walls up, they've got their steel in, and they should be ready to open soon. We received an e -mail from Abro Industries: they will be moving into their new offices in the Corporate Office Park in three weeks. There will be a grand opening celebration. Mrs. Kolata reported that the water tower on the building by the railroad tracks is coming down. The owner has notified the contractor that they can proceed at any time. He was hoping it would be down by August 1, 2001. Mr. Mathia reported that the contractor for the City Chapel building found a pipe in the wall with three feet of asbestos. The contractor said it would not be a problem; he will just build that additional cost into his proposal. It means that we can move forward with the bids for demolition. Mr. Hunt complemented the Moody Group for a very lovely grand opening. Ms. Sarah Manning, who owns the property at 622 East Sample Street asked if it was too late to make a remonstrance because she is not interested in selling her property. 31 c South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 7. PROGRESS REPORTS (CONT.) Ms. Greene responded that the public hearing is over and the Commission has taken action on Resolution No. 1839. Once the Commission makes an offer to purchase her property she will receive notice and will still have opportunity to object. 8. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING The next Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Commission is scheduled for Friday August 3, 2001 at 10:00 a.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT NEXT COMMISSION MEETING There being no further business to come before the ADJOURNMENT Redevelopment Commission, Ms. Jones made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Kahn seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m. Robert W. Hunt, President 32 xLdz j,� Donald E. Inks, Director