Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRM 11-15-74Nove ber 15, 1974 10:3 A. M. Presiding Officer: 1. I ROLL CALL SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MFETING Mr. F. Jay Nimtz President 1200 County -City Building 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 Present: Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, President Mr. B. L. Wade, Assistant Secretary Mr. Donald A. Wiggins, Member Absent: Mr. John E. Chenney, Vice President Rev. Willie V. Williams, Secretary Legal Counsel: Mr. Kevin J. Butler News Media: Ms. Jeanne Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter Mr. David W. Anderson, WNDU -TV Reporter Mr. Dan Caesar, WSBT -TV Reporter Mr. Larry Ford, WSJV -TV Reporter Mr. Les Howard, WSJV -TV Photographer Others Present: Mr. Fred J. Helmen, former President, Redevelopment Commission Mrs. Janet S. Allen, Interested Citizen Mr. Edwin R. Bauer, Bureau of Buildings Mr. Conrad Damian, Southeast Side PAC Mr. Gene Evans, South Bend Civic Planning Assn. Mr. Hubert Getzinger, President, Downtown South Bend Council Mr. Kenneth P. Herceg, Clyde E. Williams & Associates, Inc. Mrs. Barbara Jones, Interested Citizen Mr. John R. Kagel, Executive Director, Downtown South Bend Council Ms. Mary Kay Kelly, Interested Citizen Mr. Karl King, Chairman, River Bend Plaza Advisory Committee Dr. John Mooney, Sculptor, "CONTINUOUS YOU" Mr. Brett S. Morse, President, Morse Electric Co. Mr. Thomas A. Oesterling, Clyde E. Williams & Associates, Inc. Rev. Frank C. Senns, Chairman, Southeast Neighbor - hood Development Program, Project E -7 Mr. Bill E. Slabaugh, Dept. of Public Works Mr. Edward F. Soltesz, Member, River Bend Plaza Advisory Committee Mrs. Gwen Stiver, Member, River Bend Plaza Advisory Committee 1. 0 3. ROLL CALL (Cont'd) LPA Staff: Mr. L. Kent Wilcox Ms. Helen S. King Ms. Marzy Bauer APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. C. Wayne Brownell Mr. Louis N. Wilcox On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Wade and unani- MINUTES APPROVED mously carried, the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 1, 1974, were approved as received. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Wade and unani- CLAIMS APPROVED mously carried, the claims -- totalling $140,708.88 - -were allowed and ordered to be paid. The authorized claims are: PROJECT EXPENDITURES ACCOUNT FUND R -57 Abstract Co. of St. Joseph County $ 129.00 Roemer, Sweeney, Butler & Simeri 635.50 South Bend Exterminating Co. 30.00 South Bend Exterminating Co. 30.00 Total $! 824.50 PROJECT EXPENDITURES ACCOUNT FUND R -66 Real Estate Purchase W: Joseph Doran, Clerk, St. Joseph County, #20 -2 $ 87,000.00 Abstract Co. of St. Joseph County 50.00 Auditor, St. Joseph County 3.50 W. Joseph Doran, Clerk, St. Joseph County 900.00 Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. 1,744.72 Real Estate Research Corp. 3,155.03 Roemer, Sweeney, Butler & Simeri 1,608.94 South Bend Exterminating Co. 30.00 Total 94,492.19 BUREAU OF HOUSING'E -7 Business Systems, Inc. $ 16.94 R. E. Carlton, Inc. 157.94 Orra S. Frame & Son, Inc. 350.25 Project RENEW, Inca & Bureau of Housing, City of South Bend 5,000.00 Roemer, Sweeney, Butler & Simeri 311.50 South Bend Hardware Co. 4.47 Postmaster 10.00 Weisberger Brothers, Inc. 33.77 Total 5,884.87 - 2 - 3 APPROVAL OF "CLAIMS'(Cont'd) NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM A -10 Real Estate Purchase Louis L. & Ruby Anderson, #76 -20, (SE #1) $ 1,200.00 Sobieski Federal Savings & Loan Assn., #66 -8, (SE #1) 114.00 Roemer, Sweeney, Butler & Simeri 933.50 Total $ 2,247.50 MERRY AVENUE PROJECT Roemer, Sweeney, Butler & Simeri $ 16.50 Total 16.50 REDEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND Payroll: November 1 through 15, 1974 $ 9,228.59 Ault's Camera Shop, Inc. 18.34 Ault's Camera Shop, Inc. 4.58 The Bobbs Merrill Co., Inc. 44.80 Comet Car Wash 12.00 Community Development 3,704.75 I.B.M. Corp. 1,122.19 Indiana Club 29.38 Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. 98.86 Manpower 181.36 City of South Bend - Parking Dept. 50.00 Postmaster 48.61 Singer General Tire, Inc. 45.52 Continental Assurance Company 714.00 MODEL CITIES EXTENDED SERVICE Goodwill Industries, Inc. (Alie Boykin) 36.72 Lois Harper (Replacement Housing Payment) 15,000.00 Lois Harper (Moving Allowance) 300.00 St. Vincent de Paul (Furniture Purchase) 87.85 Hubert M. Weaver - Appraisal 25.00 Total 30,752.55 DISTRICT CAPITAL FUND Home Plumbing & Heating Supply, R -57 Complaints $ 22.42 C. E. Lee Company, R -57 Complaints 187.80 Al Spromberg & Son, R -57 Complaints 130.00 Total 340.22 mm 3. LI APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Cont'd) DISTRICT CAPITAL'FUND OF 1972 Burke's Audio Visual $ 602 '.20 Colip Brothers, Inc. 825.00 Direct Mail Letter Service, Inc. 79.55 Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. 63.53 Indiana Safety, Inc 7.00 South Bend Awning Co. 402.20 South Bend Pool Co., Inc. 17.74 Louis N. Wilcox 833.33 Total 2,830.55 URBAN REDEVELOPMENT FUND Relocation Claims Katheryn Cogdell (Security Deposit) Katheryn Cogdell (Moving Expense) Katheryn Cogdell (Dislocation Allowa Phillip B. Shapiro & Ruth M. Shapiro Phillip B. Shapiro & Ruth M. Shapiro Phillip B. Shapiro & Ruth M. Shapiro REIMBURSEMENT TO REVOLVING FUND $ 135.00 125.00 ice) 200.00 (Moving Claim) 160.00 (Replacement Housing) 2,500.00 (Dislocation Allowance) 200.00 Total 3,320.00 GRAND TOTAL $ 140,708.88 Reimbursement for October, R -57 $ 984.22 Reimbursement for October, R -66 15,857.38 Reimbursement for October, E -6 1,783.32 Reimbursement for October, A -10 6,412.91 Reimbursement fc.r October, Urban 11,026.35 Total 26,064.18 COMMUNICATIONS EXTENSION GRANTED a. HUD letter dated November 1, 1974: This letter, over TO JUNE 20, 1975, the signature of Miss Fredi Beth Rolsky, Acting Program FOR LASALLE PARK Manager, advises authorization for time extension to PROJECT, R -57 June 20, 1975, for the LaSalle Park Urban Renewal Project, Indiana R -57, due to existing problems. R -57 is scheduled to close out May 1, 1975. The pooling of credits from Indiana R -66, as there is a deficiency of non -cash credits for Indiana R -57, still remains a viable option. However, with the advent of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, it may be possible to use those funds for the same purpose. This decision is left to the locality. Mr. Wilcox advised this is an extension of time only and there is no money involved. - 4 - 4. COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd) b. HUD letter dated November'l, 1974: This letter, over the signature of Mr. Thomas P. McNally, Area Counsel, advises in regard to Sanfaye, Inc.'s wage violations, that the city is responsible for determining to what extent the contractor has met his responsibilities, and, by implication, if he has not met his responsi- bilities, what the remedies of the city are. Mr. Wilcox advised this matter is being handled by our attorney at this point. c. HUD letter dated November 4; 1974: This letter, over the signature of Mr. James E. Armstrong, Director, advises Assistant Secretary Meeker has authorized the Area Office, at their discretion, to permit "time only" extensions for NDP's. This extension would be to allow for the completion of approved activities and to accommodate refinancing of notes in the private market. Although they are authorized to approve "time only" extensions, they advise they are not authorized to- undertake new activities with the "old" funds. Mr. Wilcox advised that we have asked for time extension to June 20,.1975, for one reason and that, basically, is that some of the properties in the A -10 Project are still under condemnation, and we can't legally transfer the property to the: City at this point. SANFAYE, INC. WAGE VIOLATIONS, E -6 EXTENSION REQUEST. ED TO JUNE 20, 1975, N.D.P. A -10 d. HUD letter dated November 12, 1974: This letter, over PROCLAIMER the signature of Mr. Daniel B. Bowman, Acting Director, CERTIFICATE Operations Division, advises receipt of our Proclaimer NO. 8, PARCEL Certificate No. 8, relative to the establishment of 6 -1, RECEIVED, fair reuse value of Parcel No. 6 -1, R -66. R -66 Block 6 was discussed at length by Mr. Kevin J. Butler, Commission Legal Counsel, in the previous session with the public presert. e. Real Estate Research Corporation letter dated November BLOCK 6 MASTER 5; 1974: This letter is over the signature of Mr. Nich- PLAN CONCEPT, olas C. Jannotta. As our consultants, they are recommend -R -66 ing that thf! total Block 6 planning be established prior to disposition of any portion of the property. They advise to assure the best possible overall results from our planning /coordination efforts, that it is im- perative that major land usage and related developers are firmly committed to our master plan concept. Once this has been accomplished, smaller portions. of the site, as appropriate and /or available, maybe designated and conveyed to other developers for their controlled use. - 5 - 4. 5. COMMUNI:CATIONs (COnt'd) They also stated that until such time as the major proposed developers of Block 6 display development intent and activity, it is critical to keep the tract whole. Premature subdivision may weli reduce future site potential for significant uses. On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mrs Wade and unani- mously carried, the above communications are to be re- ceived and placed on file. PUBLIC HEARING a. on two previous occasions, the Commission has been asked to adopt program guidelines for this project (Commission Meetings of June 21 and September 20, 1974). The guide - lines for non - profit groups was adopted in Commission meeting of October 18, 1974. The Commission is being asked, in effect, to re -adopt the entire guidelines for the Program upon the recommenda- tion of the Advisory Committee. Ms. Marzy Bauer advised what we are basically changing from the original guidelines is that we had anticipated that our program would be primarily a loan and grant combination program for the people in the area, and a sliding scale was based on family size and income for the percentages. We have not found any feasible way to administer a 3% loan program over ten (10) years and wP cannot really commit ourselves to have a staff administer the loans over a ten -year period. We first thought we would be able to contract with a bank to handle the loans, but no banks are interested in 3% loans at this point. We do not want to strike the loan provisions from the guide- lines totally, because we feel that in the future we may be able to work somethinc out. We don't want to hold up a program because we can't work these loans out, so for the first phase of this project, at least, we are re- commending making all the rehabilitation monies available on a grant basis. The only thing we have done on the guidelines is to take out the sliding scale, but the Advisory Committee still would have the right to work out a loan program in the future if we can do that. Ms. Bauer said the Commission is being asked to re -adopt these guidelines and the other changes in the guidelines are just really incorporating these other guidelines and the amendments already adopted. President Nimtz asked if any of the Commissioners have any comments or questions, Legal Counsel? PUBLIC HEARING, SOUTHEAST NEIGH- BORHOOD DEVELOP- MENT PROGRAM GUIDELINES RE- ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENTS,E -7 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd) Mr. Kevin J. Butler, Commission Legal Counsel, asked Ms. Bauer on her above comments for clarification that previously the grants would have been limited to $5,000. Ms. Bauer explained that they still will be; but that previously, any sum of money for a giver house would have been limited to $5,000 but that it could have been a loan and grant application- -the grant depending on the income - -with the combined total for $5,000. Mr. Kent Wilcox advised the City Council has delegated authority to the Commission to adopt the guidelines. So far, from the experience of the Advisory Committee, very few of the applications for the rehabilitation loans and grants would require any type of a loan. Ms. Bauer advised they have come-.across some people who have stated they would like to fix up their homes but are not willing to undertake the financial commitment of a loan but do not now qualify for a full grant. We do not want people to drop out of the program because they are unable to pay for a loan. By elimination of the sliding scale, this will give a greater freedom in grants. Rev. Senns, Chairman of the Advisory Committee, advised he was appointed by the Mayor to this Committee to repre- sent the Southeast Neighborhood. He advised the Southeast Neighborhood PAC, who participated in the drafting of the guidelines, is not in favor of dropping the loan part of the program, as they want to prove they are capable of repaying, etc., and not have it just as a giveaway from the government. The problem the Committee has encountered is that they -don't see any feasible way to administer a loan program. He said he has personally dealt with some financial officers of various lending institutions in the City of South Bend. We also have Mr. Forrest Miller on our Committee from the First Bank and Trust Company. The lending institutions are not interested in taking up a loan program, at 3% interest, over a ten -year period, as they wouldn't even break even on it. The City doesn't have any facilities set up to handle it as yet; conse- quently, the Advisory Committee doesn't see any alternative except to simply drop the sliding scale. The Committee would not make any loans in this first phase; it would only make grants. He believes the value of doing it this way is that the possibility of going ahead with a loan program can be instituted at such time as the City has a facility to handle it. As Chairman of the Advisory Committee for the E -7 Program, RE:V. Senns said he is recommending that the Commission adopt their proposed change in the basic guideline to re- move the sliding scale. Mr. Butler asked when the loan program would be re- instituted, when it is feasible, if that then would require an amendment or revision of the guidelines back to the original provisions? - 7_ 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd) Ms. Bauer advised that it would not, because the guidelines still allow a loan program, and it.would mean that the Advisory Committee would have the authority to institute whatever loan program is wanted. They may not want to go with that exact sliding scale. Rev. Senns felt that by putting an exact sliding scale into the basic guidelines would make it rather limited. He believes that if this kind of program is to continue- - not only for the Southeast side, but for other sections of the City (whatever citizens' Advisory Committee the City may have), we should have more flexibility in esta- blishing sliding scales for the communities, because they will differ from one area to another and it would be best not to put the scale into the basic guidelines, but allow it to be the kind of Committee guidelines they can work with.. Mr. Conrad Damian, frcm the Southeast Side Neighborhood PAC Committee, said he just wanted to reiterate what: Rev. Senns said that we do feel the loan program is an important component of the E -7 Program. One of the things he didn't mention is that they think it would be very helpful if the money coming back into the program, so that eventually and especially if this was expended into the neighborhood, that there would be revolving funds that could be used to continue this kind of work. ThC PAC feels very strongly that every effort that can be made to develop a loan program in the future should be donee They, too, think this program must move ahead, and there doesn't seem to be any way to move ahead with a loan program, but want to emphasize that every - one should try to find a way to salvage a loan program as part of this type of rehabilitation process. President Nimtz advised as he understands it, the loan pro- vision is inoperative because of the interest situation, but there is a possibility that it may become operative in the future. Ms. Batter answered that this is correct, or if the City could work something out with the banks for the difference in the interest rates. On other comments requested by the Chair from the public, Mr. Gene Evans, with the South. Bend Civic Planning Associa- tion, commented that the attempt to set up a loan repayment ten years from now, that there may not even be any kind of a program similar to this, and to collect funds, someone has to dispose of them, make use of them, and administer the program. He can understand the difficulty in administering a loan program, as desirable as it might be, would be most difficult. The concept is to have the people understand that they are also helping themselves through their own efforts. 5. 91 7. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd) President Nimtz requested if there are any further comments, and there being none, the Chair declared the public hearing closed, and -the Commission take whatever appropriate action they desire. On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Wade and unani- mously carried, the revision of the Southeast Neighborhood Development Program guidelines, for Project Indiana E -7, was adopted, as recommended and presented by the Advisory Committee. HONORARY CHAIRMAN President Nimtz requested the record show the Honorable Fred J. Helmen, the Honorary Chairman of this Commission, arrived and welcome extended on his behalf. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS a. Replat of Project Indiana R -66 and execution of Deed REPLAT AND of Dedication and Owner's Certification: These are EXECUTION OF original tracings and seven (_7T copies of subject OF DEED OF replat for Redevelopment Commission signatures on Pages DEDICATION & 1 and 3, "Deed of Dedication" and "Oviner's Certification° OWNER'S CERTI- prepared by Clyde E. Williams & Associates, Inc., per FICATION APPROVED; agreement dated December 5, 1969, as engineering con R -66 sultants. The original and five prints, per the consultants, should be sent to the Area Plan Commission for approval accompanied by a fee of Five ($5.00) Dollars ar,d checks payable to the County Auditor and County Recorder seven (7) days prior to the Area Planning Commission meeting at which the replat is to be considered. This has not been reviewed by Commission Legal Counsel and motion was requested, subject to his approval. On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Wade and unani- mously carried, the Commissioners were authorized to execute the above documents as noted, subject to Legal. Counsel approval. _. ... .._ ------- - -- -- -............ -- ---- - -_... - - - -- - - b. Change Order No: l0 to Phase Th -C; R =66: Authorization - CHANGE ORDER NO. for this Change Order, with Howell Construction Company, 10 TO PHASE II -C Inc., was requested, which is for a decrease in contract APPROVED, R -66 amount of $32,292.94, Project Indiana R -66. This was discussed in the Executive Session prior. Mr. Thomas Oesterling, with. Clyde E. Williams & Associates, Inc., had advised this is paperwork to reflect the "as - 9 - NEW-BUSINESS (Cont'd) built" warted so that the project is, decreased i,n the cost amount of.$32,292.94, The detail is notEd in the change order and the items and overruns are ex- plained. Per Legal Counsel's question, Mr.. Oesterling advised there are no outstanding claims or liens. These have all been checked out. On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Wade and unani- mously carried, Change Order No. 10 to Phase II -C, for a decrease in contract amount of.$32,292.94, was approved, with. a "vote of thanks" to our consultant engineer for getting the decrease. .......... .... c. Change Order No.'2 to_Phase'II =D; R -66: Authorization CHANGE ORDER NO. for this Change Order, with Morse Electric Company, 2 TO PHASE II -D Inc., was requested, for an increase in contract amount APPROVED, R -66 of $24,375.55, Project Indiana R -66. This item also was discussed in the earlier session. Mr.Tom Oesteriing had advised this is our Signaliza.- tion Contract with Morse Electric that was started in June of 1972, and was written with the understanding the contractor would do his work with other phases of the downtown urban renewal. Thcre were many changes- - one a change in the over -all concept of the superblock plan, changing Jefferson Boulevard to a two -way from one -way construction, causing signal changes to amend the situation. Mr. Ken Herceg, presently with Clyde E. Williams (prior with City Engineer's office), advised that $17,000 out of the above amount is the difference in the superblock concept -- making the major difference. These are for the basic changes for the cables and allowances to change to the other system are the major overruns - -some were due to delays. On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Wade and unani- mously carried, Change Order No. 2 to Phase II-D, for an increase in contract amount of $24,375.55, was approved subject to Legal Counsel and HUD approval. _.._._.. _. ... ._. ................ ... I.... d. Project RENEW; Inc. Contract: Commission approval was PROJECT RENEW, requested to enter into contract with Project RENEW, INC. INC. CONTRACT to rehabilitate the home on 1408 South Rush Street, APPROVED, E -7 Project Tndiana E -7, Project RENEW, Inc. has applied for and been awarded a grant by the: Department of Redevelopment under its E -7 Neighborhood Development Program. This is in accordance with the "Guidelines for Non- Profit Groups" established by this Commission. - 10 - NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd) This is recommended by staff, approved by Advisory Committee, and Commission approval is required to enter into any contract with a non - profit orgariza- tion, in accordance with the guidelines. On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Wade and unanimously carried, the Corrmi'ssi-on President and Assistant Secretary were authorized to enter into this contract, subject to Legal Counsel approval. e. Resolution No: 507: This Resolution is for the acqui RESOLUTION NO. sition of property by condemnation, for Parcel No. 507 ADOPTED, 76 -21, owner: Trustees of First Brethren Church, for A -10, SE #1 concurred -in acquisition price of $750.00, in Project- Indiana A -10, SE #1, On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Wade and unanimously carried, Resolution No. 507 was adopted. f. Resclution No. 508: This Resolution is for the RESOLUTION NO. execution of the Redevelopment Agreement for the 508 ADOPTED, Disposition of Land and the Execution of Quit -Claim R -57 Deed for the transfer of title thereto in connection with land to be disposed of in the LaSalle Park Project Indiana R -57, for Parcel North one -half of 31 -6, to Flora Elzey, in amount of $68.50. On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Wade and unanimously carried, Resolution No. 508 was adopted. g. Certificate of Completion: Authorization was re CERTIFICATE OF quested for the Certificate of Completion conveyed COMPLETION to Johnnie Snelling, for the south one half of Parcel AUTHORIZED, FOR No. 30 -23, Project Indiana R -57. JOHNNIE SHELLING, R -57 On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Wade and unanimously carried, the President and Secretary were authorized to execute the above Certificate of Com- pletion. h. Certificate of Completion: Authorization was re- CERTIFICATE OF quested for the Certificate of Completion conveyed COMPLETION to Walczak Construction Company, for 66 feet of AUTHORIZED, FOR Parcel No. 13 -5, Project Indiana R -57. WALCZAK CONSTRUC- TION CO., R -57 On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Wade and unanimously carried, the President and Secretary were authorized to execute the above Certificate.of Com- pletion. - 11 - a NEW BUSINESS (Coht d) i. Redevelopment :Commission Meeting: Motion was requested COMMISSION for the record to waive th.e :s:cheduling of the Commission MEETING: FRIDAY, meetings for the lst and..'3rd Friday's for the months of DECEMBER 13, 1974 December, and in lieu thereof, have one meeting for December Friday, the 13th.. The 20th is the beginning of the weekend of Christmas and all the claims would have to bE: in on the 17th, at the latest, prior to the holiday. On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Wade and unani- mously carried, the Regular Commission Meeting of the 6th of December will be continued until the,13th, and the meeting of the 20th of December will be cancelled. - - -- -- ........... - - -- _ .-- - - - - -- - - -. _ - -- j. treatment, River`Bend'Plaza, Project n iana.' - : This item was discussed at great length in the Executive Session of the Commission meet- ing with the public present. Mr. L. Kent Wilcox, Acting Executive Director, had explained this packet of information had been received yesterday afternoon, November 14, 1974, from Mr. Bill Slabaugh, Department of Public Works, and staff and Legal Counsel have not had a chance to review the con- tents. Mr. Slabaugh recommended the purchase of the following essential supplies offered by Wayne Chemical, Inc.: A. (1) 55 gal. drum soaking cleaner, WC -200 $ 247.50 (1) 55 gal. drum heavy duty cleaner, WC -500 145.20 (1) 260 gal. Polyethylene tank for soaking parts 406.00 (6) 55 gal. drums scale inhibitor, WC -2040 1,614.62 (4 month supply) (1) Test Kit, Model 1583 (controls feed of WC -2040) 15.00 750 lbs. Pitchlor (chlorine donor) kills algae and slime, purifies and deodorizes water (6 months supply) 1,012.50 (1) Chlorine test kit 34.25 (1) Chloride test kit (to control dissolved solids) 25:00 A. Sub Total 3,500.07 Alternate equipment which may be essential: B. Automatic, continuous feed of scale inhibi :tor to Pool Z at Morris: Civic: (1) Precision Pump $- 307.40 (2) Flow Meter .. 328;00 B. Sub Total .635.40 C. Anti -Foam (we have enough) C. - 12 Sub Total _.0 WIM FOUNTAIN CLEAN -UP AND WATER TREAT- MENT APPROVED, SUBJECT TO LEGAL COUNSEL APPROVAL, R -66 91 __ ----- ---- .............. ..... NEW BUS TRESS' (Con V d) To expedite this, Mr. Wilcox advised we are requesting Commission approval, subject to the. Urban Design Review Committee and the Sign Commi'ttee.. PROGRESS REPORTS _......._ .._ . -- - -- ... .......... - - -- - ............ a. Central Downtown 'Urban Renewal'Pr °oject,'R -66: _... - -- -- - - -- ...... ... ._.... . 1) River Bend Plaza Conttructi:on- Reoort. The was RIVER BEND PLAZA discussed previously in the Executive Session CONSTRUCTION with the public present grouped under various REPORT, R -66 items for the project. 2) River'Bend Plaza Schedule Report: Mr. Louis RIVER BEND PLAZA N. Wilcox, Director, of the River Bend Plaza, SCHEDULE REPORT, advised of the official lighting ceremoney, R -66 at 6:00 p.m., this evening, November 15, 1974, of the Christmas decor, in front of the Dainty Maid Bake Shop,.,by Mayor Miller and his two daughters. An invitation was extended to the Commissioners and all public resent, including the news media. 3) Block 61 Indiana Project R -66: Mr. Kevin J. Butler, BLOCK 6 REPORT, Commission Legal Counsel, gave a full report on R -66 this subject in the Executive Session meeting with the public to bring everyone up to date. This item was brought up again in this part of the meeting concerning the Real Estate Research Corporation letter dated November 5, 1974, discussed prior, under "Communications" 4e. This was further explained and noted this was an advisory letter from our consultant, Real Estate Research Corpora- tion. Mr. Butler reported they appeared before the City Council on Monday night, seeking to have Block 6 removed from the Fire District No. 1 requi remE'nts . This basically involves the marketing programs with the builders in respect to Block 6 ard the marketing of property, especially a parcel of that size and the conditions of urban renewal are quite complex. We develop a master plan for all of our urban renewal properties . that we will be selling for Redevelopment. In the initial development, the master plan for Block 6 was approved, which states the types of build- ings for the particular property. We had initially planned for a housing complex.for Block 6, that was revised. We were advised year and half ago when HUD stopped th.e low -cost housing. The master plan was ap- proved by the Commission and Common Council, and the Common Council and this Commission developed and ulti- mately approved a master plan for that block - -one we are operating under now. - 14 - E:i ....... .._ ........- NEW BUSINESS (Cbht`d) D. High pressure washer to clean the brown; muddy looking scale off the masonry: (1) Portable "Whisper High Pressure Washer " D. Sub Total ... ....... ­ SUMMARY: A. Essential to clean and maintain B. Automation of Morris Civic pool C. Anti foam D. Masonry cleanup of scale Freight $1;500.00 1,500.00 $3,500.07 635.40 1;500:00 Total 5,635.47 247.00 Estimated cost of plumbing work - 150.00 Estimated cost of electrical work 50:00 Total Program (for six months) $6,082.47 Mr. Slabaugh had advised that the reason for the delay in getting this report was that the UNI -CHEM Corporation was requested to make the test through an Analog Computer and their salesman had quit the firm. As they couldn't pro- duce what they had proposed, Mr. Slabaugh said he asked Wayne Chemical, Inc. to give us a proposal. They took the tests and the recommendations had been noted. The figures submitted above are for a six -month basis, per Mr. Slabaugh. On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Wade and unani- mously carried, the proposal submitted by Mr. Slabaugh in memorandum dated November 15, 1974- -noted above- -was authorized, subject to Commission Legal Counsel approval. k. Proposed St. Joseph Plaza Kiosk: Commission authoriza- ST. JOSEPH tion was requested for a proposed directory to be located PLAZA KIOSK on the St. Joseph Bank Plaza between the two existing plant - APPROVED, SUB - ers on line with the center of the Plaza Place Building and JECT TO URBAN approximately 18" south of the northern most edge of the DESIGN REVIEW brick Plaza. The kiosk would - -be a three -sided structure COMMITTEE & of masonry block construction, with each of the three elev- SIGN COMMITTEE, ations to be identical with each side containing a building R -66 directory for each. of the three St. Joseph Bank Plaza Office Buildings. The exterior finish would be Desco-tone- crete and marble of the same color as that of the Plaza Place Building. The kiosk recommended would be 6` in height, 5` 6 in width. at the widest point. The structure is to be permenentaly mounted on three steel dowels set in concrete. The overall design is intended to complement and harmonize with the architectural theme of the Plaza Place Building. - 13 - a PROGRESS REPORTS (Cont'd) Mr. Wayne Brownell further explained that HUD, in January, 1973, had stopped the low -cost hous- ing, which the plan had called for. We had an update from Real Estate Research, Chicago, as our consultants, on the original LUM study. The update disclosed the need for additional office space in that block so the use was changed to Service Commercial /Residential use--limited to no more than 200 units of residential apartments and other office buildings and parking. This was reviewed by City Council. The present plan is to have a Service Commercial/ Residential use. The difficulty in that plan was that when the appraisers appraised the property they came back and said it had to be fire -proof apartments. This gives a negative land value. Mr. Butler advised that it is not practical to build under that type of construction. The effect of Fire District No. 1 requirements for housing, is virtually disastrous to any developer involved in the building costs to meet the higher standards. Multi - housing in South Bend is not built in that fashion for Fire District No. 1 re- quirements. Relative to the question, "What established Fire District No. 1 as opposed to Fire District No. 2 ?" Mr. Butler advised high buildings in highly - congested areas, as defined and adopted by Common Council, are established to be in Fire District No. 1, as opposed to Fire District No. 2. Mr. Butler advised they did discuss this with the Building Department, with the insurance underwriters for the City, and basically the determination was that the development plan for Block 6 is not highly congested development, and, therefore, accepted his definition of Fire District No. 1 and appropriate not to require that type of construction in the dis- trict. This territory has always been Fire Code No. 1-- Lincoln- way East cutting through Block 6, with Slick's Laundry, several businesses and residences, that were a part of the downtown area. Now we are discussing the 16 -acre site. Basically talking about how fast the fire trucks can get to the site. That is the reason in highly - congested area for the difference in time for the fire trucks to operate. Steel, concrete reinforcements, etc., are required for the code. Everything there was in violation when the Department of Redevelopment took it over. - 15 - a 10. PROGRESS REPORTS (Cont'd) Mr. Butler said that we will be meeting with the Common Council again. They are asking for more information which we will provide them. We are hoping that at the next meeting, the Common Council will approve removing Parcel No. 6 -1 (16 acre tract) from Fire District No. 1. b. Letter of Resignation: This letter is from Mr. LETTER OF William C. Ellison; Assistant Director, Operations RESIGNATION, Division, submitting his resignation effective WILLIAM C. November 16, 1974. ELLISON Mr. L. Kent Wilcox, Acting Executive Director, advised that Mr. Ellison has been hired by the Housing Allow- ance Office, Inc., with Mr. Charles F. Lennon, Jr., the former Executive Director of this Depertment. President Nimtz advised that Mr. Bill Ellison has done an excellent job in his employment with us, and, therefore, in accepting his letter of resigna- tion, we extend our appreciation of the fine work he has done. Mr. Kevin J. Butler, Commission Legal Counsel, also stated that it has been great working with Bill Ellison. On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Wade and unanimously carried, the letter of resignation was accepted with regret and a letter of commendation is to be written to Mr. Ellison, particularly in the field of realistics, and that he be so advised. OTHER COMMENTS Former President of the Redevelopment Commission, the OTHER COMMENTS Honorable Fred J. Helmen said he was pleased to see that things are moving along in great shape. Mr. Gene Evans, with the South Bend Civic Planning Association, commented that the Block 6 is of real concern to Common Council as to what will happen to it. Mr. Kevin Butler is working on this and was also complimented by the President of the Commission for his work as Counsel for the Commission. On Block 6, Mr. Butler said, "To Mr. Karl King and the Downtown Council, and to anyone interested in that propErty, work closely with Mr. Wayne Brownell on it. This is ultimately the Commission's responsibility, and, in the meantime, Mr. Brownell can answer any ques- tions anyone may have and give input, if there are others interested in this property as a result of the publicity. =VIE 11.E STAFF REPORTS a. Business Relocation Re06rt,'R46: Mr. John A. Kotzenmach.er, Director, Business Relocation Division, in his written report, advised there were no Business Relocati +on Claims paid during the month of October, 1974. b Property Management Report: Mr. John A. Kotzen- macker, Director, Property Management Division, in his written report, advised the following: R -66 Project: The total receipts collected during the month. of September, 1974, were: $3,489.75. A =10 Project, SE #1: No tenants at this time. R -57 Project: No tenants at this time. 12.1 NEXT MEETING BUSINESS RELOCATION REPORT, R -66 PROPERTY MANAGE- MENT REPORT The next meeting of the Redevelopment Commission will NEXT MEETING, be at 10:30 a.m., Friday, December 13, 1974, in the DECEMBER 13, Office of the Department of Redevelopment, per action 1974 noted above, under "New Business, 8i." 13.1 ADJOURNMENT On motion duly made and passed by Mr. Wiggins, the meet ADJOURNMENT ing adjourned at 11:45 a.m. (SEAL) - 17 -