Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRM 04-18-75April 18, 1975 10:00 - M. Presid ng Officer: 1. ROUL CALL Coi ss ion ers Pr sent: Ledal Counsel: SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 1200 County -City Building Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard President South Bend, IN 46601 Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, President Mr. John E. Chenney, Vice President Mr. Donald A. Wiggins, Secretary Mr. B. L. Wade, Assistant Secretary Mr. A. Peter Donaldson, Member Mr. Kevin J. Butler Media: Ms. Jeanne Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter Mr. Dan Caesar, WSBT -TV Reporter Mr. Steve Neher, WSBT -TV Photographer Mr. Larry Ford, WSJV -TV Reporter Mr. Les Howard, WSJV -TV Photographer Otters Present: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. LP Staff: Mr. Ms. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Tom Gibson, Interested Citizen John R. Kagel, Executive Director, Downtown South Bend Council Karl King, Chairman, River Bend Plaza Dan R. Lawson, Lawson Associates Terry S. Miller, Common Council Edward F. Soltesz, Chairman, Governmental Coordination Committee of River Bend Plaza Advisory Committee C. Wayne Brownell Mr. Keith P. Crighton Helen S. King Mr. Louis N. Wilcox Motion was made by Mr. Donaldson to approve the Minutes MINUTES APPROVED of the Regular Meeting of April 4, 1975, as distributed, seconded by Mr. Wiggins and carried. 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson anc carried, that the claims, as submitted, be allowed and or ered to be paid, totalling: $38,352.42. The claims, as authorized, are: -1- 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Cont'd P. .A. R -57 So th Bend Exterminating Co. Sw eney, Butler & Simeri VI 1 Lawson Associates James A. McCarthy So th Bend Exterminating Co. The South Bend Tribune Sweeney, Butler & Simeri Tr'- County News Warner & Sons, Inc. W. Joseph Doran, Clerk )EVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND Payroll: March 22, 1975 through April 4, 1975 The Bobbs Merrill Co., Inc. Bu iness Systems, Inc. Bu iness Systems, Inc. City Controller of the City of South Bend Comet Car Wash Continental Assurance Company Indiana Bell Telephone Company In iana & Michigan Electric Company International Business Machines Corp. In liana Truck Wash, Inc. Ja k's Conoco Service South Bend Water Works N. .P. A -10 Sweeney, Butler & Simeri P. .A. Merry Avenue Project Sweeney, Butler & Simeri BUREAU OF HOUSING - E -7 PROJECT Acme Pest Control Brittain Plumbing Sweeney, Butler & Simeri - 2 - $ 30.00 669.61 Total $ 699.61 $ 420.00 190.00 30.00 52.31 3,041.50 51.35 4,582.58 14,500.00 Total 22,867.74 $ 7,799.37 22.50 89.32 20.99 722.17 16.50 127.00 763.24 65.01 431.76 5.50 190.80 15.65 Total 10,269.81 $ 114.50 Total 114.50 $ 10.50 Total 10.50 $ 10.00 8.20 290.50 Total $308.70 3. AF 4. VAL OF CLAIMS (Cont'd DISTRICT CAPITAL FUND Barnes Electric Company $ 40.00 Al Batcho 2,516.00 Circle Lumber, Inc. 47.67 Jack Frost Company, Inc. 72.00 Mrs. Reba Phillips: 68.70 Al Spromberg & Son 136.00 Total $ 2,880.37 DISTRICT CAPITAL BONDS OF 1972 B & B Trash Removal $ 32.00 Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc. 48.10 Sears, Roebuck & Co. 72.92 South Bend Hardware 77.87 Wayne Chemical, Inc. 970.30 Total 1,201.19 GRAND TOTAL $ 38,352.42 REJIMBURSEMENT - REVOLVING FUND a. mbursement for March, 1975 - R -57 mbursement for March, 1975 - R -66 mbursement for March, 1975 - E -6 mbursement for March, 1975 - A -10 MMUNICATIONS $ 2,227.10 12,939.95 4,790.72 4,681.48 Total X4,639.25 HUD letter dated April 7, 1975: This letter, over the CONTRACT NO. signature of Mr. Richard A. Kaiser, Assistant Regional IND. R- 57(LG) Administrator for Community Planning and Development, advises Requisition No. 11 for Project Capital Grant Progress Payment has been approved in the amount of $620,590. Requisition No.10 for Relocation Grant Payment has been approved in the amount of $52,151. Requisition No. 9 for Rehabilitation Grant Payment has been approved in the amount of $28,408. The enclosed Standard Form 1096 indicated setoffs for outstanding direct temporary loans plus interest which have been made against the approved payments. The loan balance outstanding September 7, 1973 was $1,337,971.80, credit for interest accrued 9/7/73 - 4/7/75 of $137,545.36, less payment applied 4/7/75 of $563,603.64, leaving a loan balance outstanding 4/7/75: $774,368.16, for Contract No. Indiana R- 57(LG). - 3 - 4. COIMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd b. Ritschard Bros., Inc., letter dated April 7, 1975: This RITSCHARD BROS., letter, over the signature of Mr. Carmelo Ritschard, to INC. Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, President of the Redevelopment Commis - sion, gives thanks to Mr. Nimtz for his complimentary letter of April 3, 1975, and for his efforts in conjunc- tion with President Ford's visit to South Bend. They were happy to cooperate in the matter and are glad that everything proceeded as well as it did without any apparent major problems. Mr. Nimtz was complimented on his efforts and interven- tion, and the letter stated that we need more public relations people such as Mr. Nimtz and many problems could be avoided. c. HUD letter dated April 8, 1975: This letter, over the signature of Mr. Stephen J. Havens, Acting Director, Community Planning and Development, advises Change Order No. 1 to Demolition & Site Clearance Contract No. 38, with Warner and Sons, is approved for an increase in contract amount of $1,711.18, or a grand total of: $12,261.18, Project Indiana R -66. d. HUD letter dated April 10, 1975: This letter, over the signature of Mr. Daniel B. Bowman, Acting Director, Housing Production & Mortgage Credit Division, advises the current Wage Rate Decision published in the Federal Register by the Department of Labor is No. IN75 -2028 and includes Modification No. 1, dated March 7, 1975. This was requested for the Plaza Park contracts, R -66. e. International Constructors Company letter dated April 10, 1975: This letter, over the signature of Mr. Gordon E. Medlock, Sr., is addressed to the Honorable Jerry J. Miller, Mayor, City of South Bend, thanking him for his time and interest when their President, Mr. Jim McCutcheon, visited South Bend, last Tuesday. In discussing the South Bend project with their Board of Directors, he is authorized to advise that International Constructors is interested in purchasing the entire urban renewal area, designated as Block 6, and are prepared to bid at least the minimum designated amount. If it would be desirable, they are prepared to deposit the full pur- chase price in a South Bend bank anytime we indicate it would be desirable. They would like to have the land use redesignated to ac- commodate their intended development, which would include: !ice CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO DEMOLITION & SITE CLEARANCE CONTRACT NO. 38 APPROVED, R -66 WAGE RATE DECISION IN75 -2028, PLAZA PARK CONTRACTS, R -66 POTENTIAL DEVELOP- ERS FOR BLOCK 6, R -66 4. COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd 1) A 150 unit luxury Motor Inn with a prestige restaurant. 2) A 150 to 200 unit garden -type apartments and townhouses, along the river bank. 3) A 150 to 200 unit high -rise for the elderly (contingent upon being selected by HUD, in Indianapolis). They would reserve this location for the elderly project and utilize it for other housing or commercial only if they do not receive the contract. 4) The remaining area would be used to meet the needs of the South Bend business community. They would expect to begin the development promptly after re- ceiving title to the property. They would want to have the Motor Inn and restaurant in operation in time to take advan- tage of the opening of the Century Center. A time table for the other projects could be established by the time the proper - ty is up for bid. This will greatly enhance the downtown area of South Bend and very nicely complement the Century Center. A copy of this letter was also directed to Mr. C. Wayne Brownell, Executive Director, Department of Redevelopment, by International Constructors Company. f.1 International Constructors Company letter dated April 14, 1975: BLOCK 6, This letter, over the signature of Mr. Gordon E. Medlock, Sr., R -66 is addressed to Mr. C. Wayne Brownell, Executive Director, De- partment of Redevelopment, is almost identical to the above letter to the Mayor, confirming their discussion regarding the interest expressed by International Constructors in purchasing the urban renewal area Block 6. They are requesting the Redevelopment Commission's cooperation in obtaining a redesignation of the land use to accommodate their intended development. They have received a request from the Chamber of Commerce and may receive other requests from the South Bend business com- munity regarding specific space requirements that would fit into the commercial and office building portion of this pro- ject. They are anxious to work with any interested parties within the limits of the most economic use of the land and the total concept that will enhance the redevelopment of down- town South Bend. Mr. Brownell advised subsequent to the letter, they had a meeting and he will report on the subject later in this Commission meeting. - 5 - 4. COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd M h. HUD letter dated April 14, 1975: This letter, over the signature of Mr. Daniel B. Bowman, Acting Director, Housing Production & Mortgage Credit Division, advises the current Wage Rate Decision published in the Federal Register by the Department of Labor is No. IN75 -2028 and includes Modifica- tion No. 1, dated March 7, 1975. The updated wage rate was requested for the Demolition & Site Clearance Contract No. 37, Project R -66, and the copy was enclosed. HUD letter dated April 14, 1975: This letter, over the signature of Mr. Daniel B. Bowman, Acting Director, Housing Production & Mortgage Credit Division, advises the current Wage Rate Decision published in the Federal Register by the Department of Labor is No. IN75 -2028 and includes Modifica- tion No. 1, dated March 7, 1975. This was per our request for the updated wage rate for the Colfax /Pier Park Dredging and Rip -Rap Contract, R -66, per HUD regulation to request same ten days prior to the opening of the bids or final contract sales or award. ion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Chenney and ried, to have the above letters received and placed on fill e. 5. OLD BUSINESS a. Preliminary Schematic for Continuation of River Bend Plaza, R -66: Authorization was requested to increase the amount of $7,000 (approved by Commission on November 1, 1975) to amount not to exceed $11,500 to include the addi- tional work requested from Joint Venture (Clyde E. Williams & Associates, Inc. and Environmental Planning and Design) in preparing the Preliminary Schematic for the continuation of the River Bend Plaza, Project Indiana R -66. Mr. Brownell advised this request is to change the amount which was authorized for the additional work we requested. The additional work so far and projected includes the re- quested studies for Blocks 8, 9 and 10 plus the current re -study of Blocks 7 and 8 based on a budget of $400,000 instead of $700,000 as originally established. Therefore, the $7,000 originally authorized should be increased to $11,500 not to exceed figure. In reference to the news media's question on the block area designations, Mr. Brownell advised Blocks 7 and 8 would be between Jefferson and Washington- -those two blocks. The Joint Venture on their schematics refer to them as Blocks 7, 8, 9 and 10. Their block designations are different than our disposition block numbers. WAGE RATE DECI- SION IN75 -2028, DEMOLITION & SITE CLEARANCE CONTRACT NO. 37, R -66 WAGE RATE DECI- SION IN75 -2028, COLFAX /PIER PARK DREDGING & RIP - RAP CONTRACT, R -66 PRELIMINARY SCHEMATIC COST INCREASE APPROVED FOR ADDITIONAL WORK REQUEST, RIVER BEND PLAZA, R -66 5. OLD BUSINESS (Cont'd On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Chenney and carried, the authorization by the Commission in meeting of November 1, 1974, for the preparation of the Preliminary Schematic in amount not to exceed $7,000 is authorized to be amended to payment approval not to exceed amount of $11,500 to cover additional work requested from the Joint. Venture Consultants, Clyde E. Williams & Associates, Inc. and Environmental Plan - ning and Design. 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Report of Bids received on Plaza Park, Contract No. 1 and 3, BID REPORT Project Indiana R -66: Mr. C. Wayne Brownell advised Contract ON PLAZA PARK 1 is the contract that was bid before, and Contract 3 is the CONTRACT NO. electrical part of it. In the packets were copies of the 1 & 3, R -66 summaries of the bids that were received. The bid opening was on April 11, 1975, at 10 :00 a.m., in the office of the Department of Redevelopment, at which time bids were re- ceived on Plaza Park Contracts, Nos. 1 and 3, and the Colfax/ Pier Park Dredging & Rip -Rap Contract No. 1. We received bids from four (4) firms on Contract No. 1; also, four (4) firms bid on Contract No. 3. Mr. Brownell advised that he has talked with the Engineers, with the City Park Department Superintendent, and with the City Engineer's Office, and at this time we need the recommend - ation and compilation from the engineers which has not as yet been completed. We will have the report for the next commis- sion meeting, at which time the contracts can be awarded. By Commission consent, the awarding of the above contracts is tabled for the next meeting. b. Report of Bids received on Colfax /Pier Park Dredging and BID REPORT Rip -Rap Contract No. 1, Project Indiana R -66: Mr. Brownell ON COLFAX /PIER advised the summary of the bid tabulation on this Contract DREDGING & RIP - is also in their packet. Four (4) firms also bid on this RAP CONTRACT Contract. We have a base bid and two alternates for NO. 1, R -66 this Contract, Colfax /Pier Dredging & Rip -Rap. We have the same condition as above, and by Commission consent, the awarding of this contract is also tabled for the next meeting. c. Certificate of Completion for Disposition Parcel Nos. 4 -70 CERTIFICATE OF and 4 -72, R -66: Mr. Brownell submitted a written recommenda -, COMPLETION tion from Mr. Edwin R. Bauer, Bureau of Buildings, which re- APPROVED FOR commends Commission approval for the issuance of a Certifi- DISPOSITION cate of Completion for the J.M.S. Annex, on Parcel No. 4 -70, PARCEL NOS. at 123 West Washington Street, and on Parcel No. 4 -72, at 4 -70 & 4 -72, 110 North Woodward Court. R -66 - 7 - 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd The Certificate is evidence of satisfaction of the provisions and covenants of the Deed and Contracts with respect to the obligations of the Grantee and the Redevelopers' Contract, and their successors, to construct the required improvements provided for in said Contracts and within the terms and condi- tions therein specified and contained. All other terms, pro- visions, covenants, conditions, and resolutions contained in said Deed shall remain in full force and effect. Mr. Brownell advised the title is incomplete until the Certi- ficate of Completion is issued. The area involves a status report on 21,300 square feet, with the tenant areas shown, the type of construction, the interior improvements, with a cost of construction to date of $430,000.00, tenant improvements estimated at $120,000.00 (fixtures, equip- ment, etc.), and work to be completed estimates at $200,000.00 for unleased spaces to be improved based upon average tenant re- quirements. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and carried, to accept the final inspection report and to authorize the President and Secretary to execute the Certificate of Com- pletion, prepared by Commission Legal Counsel, for Disposition Parcel Nos. 4 -70 and 4 -72. d. Change Order No. 2 to Demolition & Site Clearance Contract No. 38, R -66: Approval was requested of Change Order No. 2 to Demolition & Site Clearance Contract No. 38, with Warner & Sons, for a reduction in contract amount of $295.00. This is for a reduction of 100 feet of posts and fence that Warner & Sons had included in their original bid price of $1,450.00 for the fence work. 100 feet more fence was estimated than what was actually needed, and this change order will reduce the contract by the sum of $295.00. Contract No. 38 was awarded in bid amount of $10,550.00, plus Change Order No. 1, for an increase in contract amount of $1,711.18 (shown above under 4c with HUD concurrence), less Change Order No. 2, for a decrease in contract amount of $295.00, or a net contract amount of $11,966.18. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and carried, for approval of Change Order No. 2 to Demolition & Site Clearance Contract No. 38, for a decrease in contract amount of $295.00, as stated above. e. Change Order No. 1 to Rehabilitation Contract No. 1, Project E -7: Approval was requested of this Change Order for line item changes, increasing the contract with Area Services, Inc., MEM CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO DEMOLITION & SITE CLEARANCI CONTRACT NO. 38, R -66 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO RE- HABILITATION CONTRACT NO. 1, APPROVED, E -7 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd in amount of $819.00. The amended contract total is: $6,210.48. Mr. Brownell read the letter from Mr. Mark S. Davis, Chief Inspector, for the E -7 Project, to Mr. Keith P. Crighton, Director, Bureau of Housing, explaining the additional charges for the rehabilitation work on the residence at 416 East Keasey Street. Over this past winter, a substan- tial amount of additional damage occurred to the structure due to a severe roof leak. The roof overhang has rotted in several spots and must be replaced. The kitchen ceiling is in danger of collapsing on the occupants, with the deteri- oration resulting due to the severe roof leak. The kitchen ceiling is an eminent health and safety hazard to the occu- pants. In addition, the roof will require 17 squares of 3 -in -1 seal -down roofing, instead of the 11 squares listed on the inspection to complete the job in a workmanlike manner. The labor and material to remove the existing ceiling and in- stall new plasterboard ceiling, tape and mud plasterboard, and paint the ceiling with two coats, is quoted at a total installed price of $350.00. The request for the specifica- tion to be changed from 11 squares to 17 -1/2, with original price quoted at $670.00, new quote for this work at $990.00, plus 15% markup of $149.00, or additional increase for the roofing at $469.00, or a grand total of $819.00 for the in- crease in contract price. The Common Council originally ap- proved the contract awarded at $5,391.48. With the change order increase of $819.00, the contract total is: $6,210.48. Commissioner Wiggins asked on the damage that occurred, whether it couldn't have been determined at the time of inspection that the roof was leaking? Mr. Crighton advised the water would run down the roofing rafters to the edge, and the water would run down between the walls, so there would be no physical evidence from the exterior or the interior as to the severity of the damage, or as to whether or not that damage existed. The physical evidence is not visible at times due to the conceal- ment of the walls, etc. Commissioner Chenney asked whether between the time the contract was bid and the time the work was started, if this work is in- spected? Mr. Crighton said the initial inspection was made and we knew what the problems were at the time of the process of the work; however, this damage apparently occurred afterwards. Commissioner Wade asked if the inspector really looked at it and Mr. Crighton said it is impossible to see the roof leaking from the outside. Commissioner Wade stated he did not want the bidders to be getting all the extras after the contracts are awarded. A lengthy discussion followed on inspections, and, in this particular case, why only a portion of the roof was replaced. 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd Mr. Crighton said this was a built -up roof and that it was not included in the original specifications as it is structurally considered part of the roof proper of the home. The 5 -1/2 square is on the built -up section. On additional conversations, plus Commissioner Wades concern of the original bids and then getting extras on change orders that amount to more, Mr. Crighton advised that it is his exper- ience that rehabilitation work and reconstruction work is the most difficult type of home repair, as many things are unfore- seen and are not noticeable on inspection and cannot be seen until the work is started. It takes a unique contractor to do this type of work. Damages of this type are hidden damages. Under the guidelines for emergency work we can legally make the changes for the required work. We have to relate to the safety of the occupants. We are doing emergency repairs in this case. This particular item did not constitute an immediate health hazard initially, but it does now. The physical evidence is now apparent. Mr. Edward F. Soltesz, Chairman of the Governmental Coordination Committee of the River Bend Plaza Advisory Committee, offered the following construction suggestion for the rehabilitation of these homes: When we have a roof repair, include the roof in its entirety when rehabilitation is needed for the roof, and not just take a section of it, which would eliminate any added damaged to it, as the discussion here is on the added roof that was not on the original bid. President Nimtz answered they thought this part was not damaged, but when they looked into it, it was. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, to approve Change Order No. 1 to with Area Services, Inc., for an of $819.00, for a total contrac 7. PROGRESS REPORTS tseconded by Mr. Wade and carried, Rehabilitation Contract No. 1, increase in contract amount amount of $6,210.48. a. River Bend Plaza Schedule of Activities, R -66: Mr. Louis N. RIVER BEND Wilcox, Director, River Bend Plaza, distributed the Plaza acti- PLAZA ACTIV vity schedule, and a part of the packets, from April 26 through SCHEDULE, September 13, 1975. R -66 b. Fire Plug Award Presentation: Commissioner Wiggins presented a miniature Fire Plug (Sparkyy to Commissioner L. Peter Donaldson, as he was on vacation and absent from the last Commission meeting of April 4, 1975, when the presentations were made to the other Commissioners. Presented to: "Our fellow Commissioner, Mr. Donaldson, on behalf of the South Bend Beautification Foundation. You now are the proud possessor of your own fire plug." =Ulm FIRE PLUG AWARD PRE SENTATION 7. P c. ESS REPORTS (Cont'd) Commissioner Wiggins said he had also commented at the time that he felt it would be very appropriate on the part of the South Bend Beautification Foundation if similar awards of these miniature Fire Plugs were made to other very deserving gentlemen - -Ed Soltesz and John Kagel - -and a Board Meeting was held last evening and the Board concurred. When these miniature Fire Plugs are painted and ready, you (Ed Soltesz and John Kagel) will be presented your own Fire Plugs. Potential Developer, Block 6, R -66: This is in further re- ference to 4e and 4f above. Mr. C. Wayne Brownell,Executive Director, shows the pictures he received from Mr. Gordon E. Medlock, Sr., International Constructors Company, on a motel they already have in exis- tence, the Midway- Hoffman House, in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, which is similar to what they are contemplating building in the Block 6 area. 8. NEST COMMISSION MEETING Pr sident Nimtz advised that we may not have a quorum for the ne t Commission meeting that would normally be scheduled for Friday, May 2, 1975, by our By -Laws, and also there is a possi- bility that Mr. Brownell will be out of town. In order to be safe and rather than call the meeting off at the last minute, it is suggested that we meet May 9, 1975. The Commissioners were in agreement and the motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Wade and carried, that the next R development Commission meeting be Friday, May 9, 1975, at I :00 a.m., in the Office of the Department of Redevelopment. T{e May 9, 1975 meeting will be a Special Commission Meeting, i lieu of the Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Commission. 9. COMMISSION MEETING FOR MAY 18, 1975 CHANGED TO: Friday, May 23 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, BLOCK 6, R -66 NEXT COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 9, 1975, IN LIEU OF REGULAR MEET- ING OF MAY 2, 1975 Motion was made by Mr. Chenney, seconded by Mr. Wiggins and REGULAR COMMIS- carried, that the Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Commis- SION MEETING sion which would normally be scheduled for Friday, May 18, be OF MAY 18, 1.975 changed and held on Friday, May 23, 1975, as a Special Commis- CHANGED TO: sion Meeting, in lieu of the Regular Meeting of the Redevelop- MAY 23, 1975 melnt Commission. - 11 - 10. BLOCK 6 DEVELOPMENT, R -66: Mr. Terry S. Miller, Common Council representative, inquired about tie Block 6 project, and said what he didn't quite understand is t at the proposed developer is suggesting building a motel and hous- i g. However, when Chuck Lennon came to the Common Council, he said the area had a negative value of "some beautiful amount" if it was used for housing, so we rezoned it for the necessary Service C mmercial /Residential involving the fire code and everything. How d es the new appraisal differ from the initial appraisal? Mr. Brownell a vised the last time we were before the Common Council was to .change tie fire district building code from Fire District No. 1, as basically tie determination was that the development plan for Block 6 is not a highly congested development and it is appropriate not to require t at type of construction in the district. The reason for the nega- tive value is that the Fire District No. 1 code required fireproof c nstruction and that type of construction is so much more expensive t at the land became negative value for housing purposes. Fire Code N). 1 has stringent requirements for construction and this makes development very expensive. The less the cost is, the easier it is t develop. Mr. Miller further asked about the original use and the change that was made, as at the time we thought we had two prospective developers w o wanted to build office spaces and a limited amount of housing on Block 6 -1. Our consultants made an updated LUM Study and found the n ed for new office space in South Bend. It was recommended that we c ange from the old use of not less than 20 -story building on the n rth end of this parcel and 1,000 housing units. This included the 230 units of low -cost elderly housing. It was recommended to the R development Commission to have the land -use changed to Service C mmercial /Residential -- limited to no more than 200 units of resi- d ntial apartments and other office buildings and parking. This was a proved by the Common Council, Area Plan Commission, and the Re- d velopment Commission, and was also approved by HUD. The potential d velopment did not materialize into actuality. The land was not put ulp for bid as no one was ready to bid. esident Nimtz said in order to permit these developers to build, need to request a change in land use. HUD would need to agree at it is a minor plan change, and it would then be before the mission with a public hearing. If the Common Council approves , we then would need approval from the Area Plan Commission and COG, and then it is submitted to HUD. C mmissioner Wiggins advised the developers have not completely finalized their plans at this time for the property. Mr. Brownell said they had agreed Wednesday in the meeting, and it will take the developers about four months to complete their plans. We will need a proximately this amount of time to make the land -use change. The developers will be given copies of the restrictions for the use of tie property. - 12 - 10. BOCK 6 DEVELOPMENT, R -66 (Cont'd) Mr. Miller referred to the original plan for the suggested 1,000 r sidential units and a high -rise office building, and inquired w y we need to have an updated appraisal, when the other appraisal w2 had was for 1,000 units and a motel. He did not believe the c ange from a 20 -story office building and a motel would warrant a other appraisal for a minor change. Mr. Brownell said that when w2 change the land use it is required by HUD regulations to have tie land re- appraised per square footage value. There is 123,404 s uare feet on the north end of this parcel, which was set aside f r a 20 -story office building, at $6.75 per square foot. On the b lance of this appraisal was $1.80 per square foot for 1,000 units o housing with 200 units of low -cost elderly housing. Ii January of 1973, we received a telegram from HUD that there was a freeze on low -cost housing, which the plan had called for. There w re no more subsidies for elderly housing. When it became apparent tie freeze would not be lifted we had an updated LUM Study made from R al Estate Research, in Chicago. The update disclosed the need for a ditional office space in that block so the use was changed to S rvice Commercial /Residential use -- limited to no more than 200 units of residential apartments and other office buildings and parking. Wien the land use was changed to Service Commercial /Residential, the a praised value was $.90 -1/2 per square foot. Also, Mr. Miller said he is a little concerned about the total cost. A he understands it, the City has approximately $7 Million of land d wntown to sell. He is concerned about selling this land and also c ncerned about the appraisal price. We need to get the value of tie land and to get the proportionate share to cover that $7 Million, or the City will be short. Mr. Brownell advised under HUD regulations, w cannot change the price. Two independent appraisers appraise the property and they give the reuse valuation per square foot, which is tie minimum .price we can sell the land for. Anyone can bid higher t an the reuse value, but not lower. We have a lower selling price n w on this parcel, and any re- appraisal would increase the price of this land, so he welcomes this interest in these developers. Com- missioner Wiggins said they were concerned on the current price in- crease, as it might change the feeling about the whole thing. Mr. Brownell said that this question was asked by a member of the Press d ring the developers meeting, and that they anticipated a reasonable c ange in price. C mmissioner Wiggins said the Commission wants the best use of the pro- party so that it has construction on the property which has a very de- finite reflection on the interest, plus other dimentional use would b2 involved in the creation of employment, etc., depending on what i done. All of these are factors. M . Miller referred to the $7 Million approximately in land value d wntown, and asked how much it would cost to re- appraise all the property we have, so that we could have some good idea and have some p tential of selling that property for $7 Million. Mr. Brownell said ft would be expensive to go out and appraise each and every parcel. A 1 the parcels were appraised in January, 1969. - 13 - 10. BOCK 6 DEVELOPMENT, R_66 (Cont'd) Mr. Miller asked if Mr. Brownell can furnish thE: Common Council with a list of those? Mr. Brownell advised that we can; it is always Ii re. The appraisals are confidential and are not open to the p blic. We have had parcels re- appraised as the need has arisen. C mmissioner Wade said he wants to make sure that information is kept c nfidential so that someone is not taking advantage of us, and he is t ying to protect the public. Mr. Brownell emphasized the reuse appraisal value is determined by the a praisers and that we do not have the power to change the price. Com- missioner Wiggins said that you may sell the property for less than you a--quire it for, but the creation of the value that results from the d velopment more than makes up for it. The times make the incentives f r what you make of the property. Mr. Miller said the Common Council has to "plan for that. The City still has to pay the Notes off, if there is a deficit on the land. Tie E -5 Project,.the Northeast and R -57, are projects the City owes y u fellows for. We must figure out where we will have to get the m ney. There is $1 -1/2 Million we have to come up with and will have to float more new Notes. We may be able to get it out of the Com- m nity Development Funds, but we do not know if we can at this time." President Nimtz said that Wayne Brownell and the Mayor have been working oi that problem. Mr. Brownell said that earlier in the meeting and listed on the Agenda, under Communications 4a, we had talked about the 1 tter from HUD and the grants they allowed which are credited against tie R -57 Project, which decreases our loan balance for that project. Mr. Miller inquired on Block 6 if it is contingent to the developers p rchasing this land, that they be successful in the subsidy award f om HUD on the 200 units? Mr. Brownell said that we have not set u any conditions as yet. The developers have set that up as a c ndition. Mr. Miller said, as he understands it, the City is backing another proposal. Mr. Brownell said that is on Section 8 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. This Commission has nothing to do with it and is not under the jurisdiction of this Commission. Mr. Miller said they were backing another site, to which Mr. Brownell a vised that this had been announced in the Press and that Mr. Medlock t ought they had a better chance on land downtown than people in the r sidential area, and thought that HUD would favor the elderly hous- i g downtown. Mr. Miller said the 200 units would not have to go to the same person; if it was split up 100 could go to each developer. Mr. Brownell said he thought that they were trying to get HUD to assign more units to this area but that he did not think they had succeeded. Mr. Miller said that the land price was not a major factor as Mr. Brownell had indicated. Mr. Brownell said the developer only made a formal bid, and that all we have is the letter and the conversation we had with them in the meeting. President Nimtz said that this is - 14 - 10. K 6 DEVELOPMENT, R -66 (Cont'd at a very formative stage. Commissioner Wiggins added that we are vary happy to hear of this developers interest. Mr. Miller stated t at we have had other developers express interest earlier and other p ogle were interested, and that if they did not need full plans a ead of time, they could go ahead with one project now and go ahead with others in the future. Commissioner Wiggins stated that HUD is "sticky" on that. They may allow it on some types of evaluation, bit that it would be minor. Mr. Brownell said that we want that d veloped by one group. By several groups would be disadvantageous a part of the parcel might never be sold. Mr. Miller said that there have been many developers that have ex- p essed interest that they have known 'about. Mr. Brownell said this i one of the few developers who wanted the entire 16 acres. Mr. K gel, Executive Director, Downtown South Bend Council, said our C )uncilman mentioned other developers in that area, and that if t ey have talked to any of the developers and have not talked with tie Redevelopment Commission, he is asking them to step forward and t meet privately with them if they wish. If these other people are interested, the Agency they should talk to would be the Re- d velopment Commission. Mr. Miller advised that Mr. Brownell has a ready talked to them. Mr. Brownell said that it was recommended by the consultants that wa have one developer. Ms. Derbeck, reporter for The South Bend Tribune, said they suggested a walkway under the bridge, and if a walkway or underpass was in our plans? Mr. Brownell advised that w2 do not have an underpass plan under the bridge, or an overpass, at Jefferson at this time. Mr. Miller said it is only in the River- front Study. Mr. Brownell said that we hope in the future we will ba able to have an underpass under the Jefferson Bridge. Commis- sioner Wiggins said it would tie the motel into the Century Center. Ms. Jeanne Derbeck said in the last Commission meeting, it was m ntioned that the Associates Letter of Credit expires April 30, aid if this will be acted on, as the Commissioners in this meeting said they will not be meeting on the 2nd of May for a Commission m eting. President Nimtz said if we have a problem, we will have a other meeting. We have no further news on that. 11. ADJOURNMENT ere being no further business to discuss, motion was duly made by . Wade for adjournment, at 11:02 a.m. , txecutiv EAL) - 15 -