Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRM 10-03-75October 10:00 P Presidi 1. R SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 3, 1975 M. ig Officer: Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, President CALL Commissioners Present: Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, President Mr. John E. Chenney, Vice President Mr. Donald A. Wiggins, Secretary Mr. A. Peter Donaldson, Assistant Secretary 1200 County -City Building 217 West Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 Co issioner Ab ent: Mr. Robert J. Cira, Member Lelal Counsel: Mr. Kevin J. Butler Media: Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Others Present: nity opment LPA Staff: Jeanne Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter David W. Anderson, WNDU -TV Reporter James L. Marchelewicz, WNDU -TV Photographer Dan Caesar, WSBT -TV Reporter Frank Vellner, WSBT -TV Photographer Larry Ford, WSJV -TV Reporter Les Howard, WSJV -TV Photographer Mr. John Slafkosky, Republican Nominee for Mayor Mr. Jack L. Smith, Chairman, Republican City Committee of South Bend Mr. Conrad Damian, Interested Citizen Mr. Hubert Getzinger, Chairman, Downtown South Bend Council Mr. John R. Kagel, Executive Director, Downtown South Bend Council Mr. Terry S. Miller, Common Council Mr. Allen E. Schrager, Interested Citizen Mr. Bill E. Slabaugh, Dept. of Public Works Mr. Edward F. Soltesz, Local No. 9, U.A.W. Representative Mr. Lloyd S. Taylor, Spokesman, St. Joseph River Bend Development Corporation Mr. Keith P. Crighton Mr. James L. Johnson, Jr. Mr. C. Wayne Brownell Ms. Helen S. King - 1 - Ms. Joan Ragland Mr. Kenneth J. Schaller 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and MINUTES carried, for the approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting APPROVED of September 19, 1975, as mailed. 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Chenney and CLAIMS carried, for the approval of the claims, as submitted, and that APPROVED they be allowed and ordered to be paid, totalling: $60,027.86. The authorized claims are: P.E.A. R -57 Abstract & Title Corporation Abstract & Title Corporation Abstract Co. of St. Joseph County Curley's Mower Service X es R. Meehan & Associates czak Construction Company P.E.A. R -66 Abstract Co. of St. Joseph County Abstract Co. of St. Joseph County Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. Nautilus Construction Company Rde E. Williams & Associates, Inc. de E. Williams & Associates, Inc. N.ID.P. A -10 Treasurer of St. Joseph County OJECT TEMPORARY LOAN R -66 Project Temporary Loan R -57 REDEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND Payroll: September 6 to September 19, 1975 Ault Camera Shop, Inc. Gates Chevrolet Corporation International Business Machines Jack's Conoco Service Postmaster - 2 - $ 52.00 52.00 52.00 80.20 10.39 62.50 Total 309.09 $ 200.00 77.50 22.94 23,147.49 99.83 671.40 Total 24,219.16 $ 14.85 Total $ $ 1.46 Total $i 1.46 $ 5,285.44 47.09 167.90 85.00 171.97 17.75 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Cont'd S eney, Butler & Simeri $ 200.00 Fi her Bros. Paper Co. 275.00 Total $ 6,250.15 OF HOUSING, E -7 Barany Heating Co., Rehabilitation Contract #43 $ 3,600.00 Barany Heating Co., Rehabilitation Contract #21 3,800.00 Ted Combs Decorating &Construction, Rehabilitation Contract #19 6,141.31 Ted Combs Decorating & Construction, Rehabilitation Contract #41 4,752.90 Ted Combs Decorating & Construction, Rehabilitation Contract #37 1,174.41 Ted Combs Decorating & Construction, Rehabilitation Contract #34 3,736.77 Indiana Terminix Company, Rehabilitation Contract #31 10.00 Orkin Exterminating Co., Rehabilitation Contract #3 96.00 Mary H. Moore, Relocation Payment 5,000.00 Total 28,311.39 REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CAPITAL FUND Lumber Company $ 5.12 Circle Factory Tile, Inc., R -57, (Coleman) 456.50 Total 461.62 REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BONDS OF 1972 ive Sales & Service $ 19.50 Ak B & B Trash Removal 32.00 Indiana Bell Telephone Co. 110.48 Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. 24.03 Sears, Roebuck & Company 19.66 Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. 209.22 South Bend Hardware 45.25 Total 460.14 GRAND TOTAL $ 60,027.86 4. PARKING PROPOSAL The Chair formally recognized Mr. John Slafkosky, Republican candidate PARKING for Mayor. PROPOSAL REFERRED Mr. Slafkosky distributed copies of his proposal to the Redevelopment. TO LEGAL Commission in regard to the parking problem in the downtown area for COUNSEL consideration and approval by the Department of Redevelopment. Mr. Slafkosky proposed that the Department of Redevelopment take the. two lots they are currently leasing to private for profit parking lot operators for surface parking, and lease these two lots to a 'n t- for - profit corporation.' This organization would be created by the downtown landlords and business owners in the downtown area, and they, in turn, could provide free parking - -up to two or three ho rs - -on these parcels of property which would help alleviate some of the parking problems that we have in the downtown area. His pro- 3 4. .KING PROPOSAL (font' d po al is that the burden for parking be borne by those who benefit most from it, as it is borne by all the other commercial enterprises in the City. He would like to see that the burden on the taxpayer not be spread out throughout the entire community. The cost of rent- ing these lots should be borne by all the downtown tenants who benefit directly from the parking convenience for their customers and clients. Th se would include retail merchants, banks, doctors, lawyers, and of er professional people. The two lots in question that are leased by the Department of Re- development for surface parking are at the southeast corner of Wa ne Street and River Bend Plaza, and at the southwest corner of Washington and River Bend Plaza. They are leased on a 30 -day basis, at a total cost of $2,675.00 per month. In addition, Mr. Slafkosky advised they would ask.that the people who cu rently park in these areas park in the existing parking facilities, su h as the downtown parking garages, which would add income to the re emption of the bond issue and to support these parking garages. Mr. Slafkosky stated he feels this program can be implemented. Ap- pr )ximately 90% of the people who shop in various retail outlets throughout the City have available to them free parking, provided through those merchants, and that he feels that if we can set up a on- profit corporation of the downtown business merchants and the to ants and landlords, that we can provide 350 free parking spaces for the people of South Bend, and that this would be a good way to en ourage people to come into the downtown area. We could hire, through the office of CETA, two, three, or four people (whatever is needed) to man these facilities and to institigate the two- to three - ho r limit of free parking. One other area is that 99% of all down- town merchants and office buildings would be within 600 feet of one of the lots. They are strategically located and would be of benefit to the people of this community. Mr. Slafkosky requested the Redevelopment Commission take his pro - po al under advisement. Pr sident Nimtz advised this parking situation is a very complicated legal situation, because of the existing bond issue. Mr. Kevin J. Butler, Commission Legal Counsel, has made a lengthy study of this at the Chair's direction some months ago, and the Chair is now refer - ri g this proposal to Mr. Butler for consultation with the City At orney who has the main responsibility concerning the outstanding bo d issue on the City parking garages, and to submit their report to the Redevelopment Commission. Th it being no objections from the Commissioners concerning the re- fe ral, the Chair referred the proposal to Legal Counsel for requested action. - 4 - 5. COMMUNICATIONS a. HUD Regional Office letter dated September 10, 1975: This PROJECT letter, over the signature of Mr. Richard A. Kaiser, Assistant CAPITAL Regional Administrator for Community Planning and Development, GRANT advises Requisition No. 3 for Project Capital Grant Progress PROGRESS Payment, for Contract No. Indiana A -10 (LG), which was trans- PAYMENT mitted by our office, has been approved in the amount of APPROVED, $13,822.00. NDP A -10 S.F. 1096 indicates setoffs for outstanding direct temporary loan balance, 5/7/75, $117,954.11, plus interest of $2,828.07, with payment applied of $10,993.93, leaving a balance of: $106,960.18, as of 9/10/75. b. HUD Regional Office letter dated September 23, 1975: This PROJECT letter, over the signature of Mr. Richard A. Kaiser, Assistant CAPITAL Regional Administrator for Community Planning and Development, GRANT advises Requisition No. 3 for Project Capital Grant Progress PROGRESS Payment, for Contract No. Indiana A -10 (LG), which was trans- PAYMENT mitted with our letter of September 17, has been approved in APPROVED, the amount of $27,004.00. NDP A -10 Mr. C. Wayne Brownell, Executive Director, Department of Re- development, advised that both of the requisitions submitted were credited to our loan balance. The actual loan balance with this latter credit is now: $83,078.33. c. HUD Area Office letter dated September 19, 1975: This letter, ST. JOSEPH over the signature of Mr. Stephen J. Havens, Acting Director, RIVER BEND Community Planning and Development, advises they have reviewed DEVELOPMENT the redeveloper's statement, St. Joseph River Bend Development CORP. AP- Corporation, and find no objection to this Corporation as re- PROVED BY developer of Disposition Parcel No. 6 -1, Project Indiana R -66. HUD, AS RE- DEVELOPER Mr. Brownell advised this is the letter HUD had previously OF DISPOSI- advised by phone would be forthcoming, as their approval of TION PARCEL the redeveloper. NO. 6 -1, R -66 d. International Constructors Company letter dated September 26, SECTION 8, 1975: This letter, over the signature of Mr. Gordon E. Med- ELDERLY lock, Sr., is in acknowledgement of HUD's letter of September HOUSING, 12th, regarding their firm's proposal for Section 8 new con- R -66 struction, and is address to Mr. James E. Armstrong. Mr. Brownell advised they are trying to renew their request for the acceptance of their bid for the Section 8 housing for the elderly. They point out that they have an option arrange- ment on this proposal with the St. Joseph River Bend Develop- ment Corporation. tion was made by Mr. Donaldson, seconded by Mr. Wiggins and carried, receive the above letters and place them on file. - 5 - 6. OLD BUSINESS a. Report on p� Development ess of contract with the St. ration, ws on Parce oseph River Bend o. 6 -1, Project Indiana R -66: Mr. Brownell advised that Mr. Kevin J. Butler, Commission Legal Counsel, has prepared a proposed contract with the St. Joseph River Bend Development Corporation, which has been submitted to Mr. Lloyd S. Taylor,,spokesman for the group, who is present to report on the contract. Mr. Taylor advised they received the contract from Mr.. Butler's office last Wednesday, and that he spent approximately three hours yesterday with their investor group. The contract is now in the hands of their attorney for his review. They plan a meeting again late next week to go over the details of their attorney's review and their investor group, and then will get back with Mr. Butler and Mr. Brownell. Mr. Taylor said he sees no reason why we would not be able to conclude this con- tract negotiation by the next Commission meeting. b. St. Joseph River Corridor Study: Commission authorization was requested to re -order 25 brochures of the St. Joseph River Corridor Study, @ $4.25 each, through Lawson Associates who made the original study. Mr. Brownell advised the firm is having some of these brochures printed for their own use and the costs are much less for the reprinting than originally. They will combine the orders with theirs, and we would be ordering 25 copies, Community Develop- ment 75 copies, or a total of 100 brochures for our use. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and carried, to re -order 25 brochures of the St. Joseph River Corridor Study, @ $4.25 each, for the Department of Redevelop- ment. c. River Bend Plaza Benches: Authorization was requested to purchase two demonstration benches on the River Bend Plaza, @ cost amounts of $280.00 and $246.00, respectively, as noted on the bid work sheet submitted by Mr. Robert C. Goodrich, Department of Public Recreation, and recommended by Mr. Doug Simpson, Director of the Plaza Office, Project Indiana R -66. Mr. Brownell advised the two last summer and were used on stand up. They have advised list price on the one is $35, us at their cost of $280.00, and costs $246.00. benches were the Plaza to Doug Simpson ).00 and that and the othe delivered as samples see how they will by phone that the they will sell it to r lists at $308.00 Commissioner Wiggins said that he had talked to Doug and one of the men in the Park Department on this and the firm had left the two benches for a period of time. We delayed buying them and now we can buy the benches at the firm's cost. We do need all the seating we can get on the Plaza. 19:i0 PROGRESS REPORT ON CONTRACT WITH ST. JOSEPH RIVER BEND DEVELOPMENT GROUP, R -66 BROCHURES, ST. JOSEPH RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY TWO PLAZA BENCHES AUTHORIZED FOR PURCHASE WITH STIPU- LATION, R -66 6. OLD BUSINESS (Cont'd Mr. Edward F. Soltesz, Local No. 9, U.A.W. Representative, brought up the past discussions that have been made on the benches: "When these benches were presented to the Advisory Committee and the former Director of the River Bend Plaza, and I believe there was a notation sent to this office as to what we had recommended. The manufacturers of the benches were there, and there were some things they had to do in order for us to even consider purchasing them, and that was to put the bolting through the benches to hold them together, because of the experiences we have had on the Plaza with the previous benches there now. So, the only thing that I ask, and I don't think it is a bargain of any kind, is that until such time as those things are taken care of and the manufacturer has agreed that they can do these items- -even if we are getting a discount price on these - -it is not worth it. Buying it at a discount price may look good on paper, but is not worth it when it will not hold up. The use of these particular items and the recommenda- tions have gone through a whole Committee meeting and presenta- tion, and a notation was sent up here. Mr. Brownell was there at that meeting as to what was suggested and the manufacturer agreed, at that time, that 'yes' they could do the things that was requested by the Committee. Mr. Brownell asked Mr. Soltesz to explain the bolts he is re- commending. Mr. Soltesz said the bolts would go through to hold the boards together so that they don't expand as they have on the other seating pieces we have on the Plaza and putting a dowel on the end of the bolts to hold it in. That is all they had to do to it and we recommended highly the bolted bench as it was sent out to us, but yet the ones with the defect in them are up before this Commission to buy. "I recommend we not buy them, as they are." The Chair said that Doug Simpson is recommending we go ahead and purchase these and apparently is not aware of the problem which should be brought to his attention. As to question if the problem can be remedied by us, Mr. Soltesz said that anything can be remedied by us-- grates, water fountains and everything else- - but that isn't the idea. We are purchasing something again that was recommended before they even left the benches here. Commissioner Donaldson asked if that is a problem we have with the benches on the Plaza, and Mr. Soltesz advised it is still a problem with the benches we have on the Plaza. Two of the manufacturer's representa- tives were present when the discussion took place and know exactly what the request was of the two new benches and the verification of Mr. Brownell to the firm will be sufficient. Mr. Wiggins made the motion we approve the purchase of the benches with the provision that they be required to bolt them together, seconded by Mr. Donaldson. Mr. Chenney stated he wants a letter from the firm stating that they will do it; they can say they will do it and never do it. And if you pay them, how are you going to get them to do it. Mr. Wiggins emphasized the provision he made is that we buy them, IF they bolt them together, and if they don't bolt them together, we do not buy them. He stated he doesn't want a letter; he wants the firm to do it. - 7 - 6. 04D BUSINESS (Cont'd Mr. Chenney objected to the wording of the motion that we buy ahem if they agree to bolt them together, and, consequently, the motion is amended and the Chair emphasized, "No bolts, no money: Mr. Wiggins amended his motion that the firm is to bolt the benches together, then payment is authorized for the two benches at the above noted cost figures, and that if they don't bolt them together, we do not buy them. Mr. Donaldson seconded the amended motion, Mr. Chenney agreed to the amended version, along with Mr. Nimtz, and motion was carried. 7. NOW BUSINESS a. Audit NDP A -10 Project: Authorization was requested to enter into a contract with Goodson - Tyler & Associates, to audit NDP A -10 Project, for close -out, in amount not to exceed $1,810.00, subject to HUD approval. The following accounting firms were contacted by mail to submit bids for the audit, and the bids received were: 1) Price Waterhouse & Company .................... $ 3,500.00 2) Goodson -Tyler & Associates .................... 1,810.00 3) Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company ............. 4,535.00 4) Crowe, Chizek and Company ..................... 2,285.00 The low bid received was from Goodson -Tyler & Associates, in bid amount of $1,810.00. This firm was previously approved by HUD for our audit of the Indiana R -66 project. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Chenney and carried, for the contract to be awarded to the low bidder, Goodson -Tyler & Associates, to audit the NDP A -10 Project, for close -out, in amount of $1,810.00, and the President and Secretary authorized to enter into said contract, subject to Legal Counsel and HUD approval.. b. Amendments to the Community Development Housing Rehabilitation Assistance Guidelines, E -7: The E -7 Advisory Committee suggested the following amendments to the Community development Housing Rehabilitation Assistance Gudielines: 1) That a limit of $8,000 be established for all applications for assistance. This limit would apply to the LPA's cost estimate and would serve as a feasibility cut -off for all structures in our program. Those applicants re- quiring more than an estimated $8,000 repair to their home would be rejected by the E -7 Committee and notified of their right to appeal this rejection. NDP A -10 PROJECT AUDIT, AWARDED TO: 000DSON- TYLER & ASSOCIATES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOUSING REHABILITA- TION ASSIS- TANCE GUIDE- LINES AMENDED, E -7 7. NSW BUSINESS (Cont'd 2) It has further been suggested that the residency require- ment of twelve (12) months be lowered to six (6) months' occupancy. The Advisory Committee feels that our present twelve (12) months' residency requirement would not promote new homeownership for residents. Mr. Keith P. Crighton, Director, Bureau of Housing, advised the above guidelines will establish a limit from the beginning on referrals on our cost estimate. When the estimate for the cost of repairs would be in excess of $8,000.00, it would be brought to the attention of the Committee and would be rejected on the basis of limitation. This would not, however, apply to a con- tractor which would be approved by both the Commission and the Council that would be over $5,000.00 and it would not affect the change orders for additional needed repairs. Commissioner Wiggins pointed out that the applicants would have the right to appeal the'rejection to the E -7 Committee for re- review. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Chenney and carried, for the adoption of the above amended guidelines, as noted. c. Change Orders to Rehabilitation Contracts, E -7: Commission CHANGE approval was requested of the following Change Orders to ORDERS Rehabilitation Contracts, Project E -7, Bureau of Housing: APPROVED 1) C.O. #1 to Contract #7, with Barany Heating and Sheet Metal, C.O. #1 for an increase in contract amount of $175.00 [Contract: TO CONTRACT $6,200.00], for an amended contract total of: $6,375.00, 7, E -7 for rehabilitation work at: 217 East Keasy Street. Mr. James L. Johnson, Jr., Chief Inspector, Southeast Bureau of Housing, in his written memorandum substanti- ating the change order, advises the contractor states that the 100,000 BTU furnace called for in the specifi- cations is too small for the structure and could possibly burn out within two to three years. The contractor, there- fore, recommends 140,000 BTU furnace to adequately heat the structure. The cost of the 140,000 BTU, including eight hot air ducts and six cold air ducts, in accordance with the South Bend code is: $1,225.00, deletion of the 100,000 BTU @ $1,050.00, or an increase in contract amount of $175.00, with total amended contract of $6,375.00, with no change in contract time. Commissioner Wiggins' question on who established the 100,000 BTU in the first place, was answered by Mr. Crighton that it was by our original staff who are no longer with us. The heating is determined by the square footage of the house and this is also checked with the Building Department. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and carried for the approval of the above change order, as noted. 7. NqW BUSINESS (Cont'd 2) C.0.41 to Contract #16, with Ted Combs Decorating and C.O. #1 Construction, for an increase in contract amount of $290.00 TO CONTRACT [Contract: $6,668.391, for an amended contract total of: 16, E -7 $6,958.39, for rehabilitation work at: 1121 South Carroll Street. The contract time is unchanged. Mr. James L. Johnson, Jr., in his written memorandum sub - stantiating this change order, advised the specifications called for the installation of new fixtures on the bath- room tub. Since the time of the initial inspection on August 26, 1974, the tub has begun to leak. Asked whether the replacement tub was cast iron or steel, Mr. Crighton advised he believed it would be a steel tub and porcelain, as a cast iron would be much more expensive. Commissioner Chenney said in those old homes the original tubs are all cast iron as it is the only type made in those days. In those days, there certainly weren't any porcelain tubs, and that a cast iron tub can only be broken by a sledge hammer, as he raised the question he would like to know how or where the tub sprung a leak. Mr. Crighton said the plumber did not specify. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and carried, for the approval of the above change order, as noted. 3) C.O. #1 to Contract #36, with Ted Combs Decorating and Con- C.O. #1 struction, with no change in contract amount of: $4,869.60, TO CONTRACT but changes in the rehabilitation items that the homeowner 36, E -7 will do herself and substitute other repair items to her home to qualify for the HAO Program. The rehabilitation work is at: 622 East Pennsylvania Street. Mr. James L. Johnson, Jr., in his written memorandum sub- stantiating this change order, advised the homeowner re- quested the change as the homeowner is unable to repair or replace them herself and the changes are needed to qualify her for the HAO Program, whereas the deleted items are ones that she will be able to care for under regular home mainte- nance. There will be no change in the price of the contract or the contract time, and the recommendation is that the changes be made. The deletions are for painting the basement door,.kitchen window, kitchen cabinet, bathroom ceiling and door, bedroom door, and the sanding, sealing and staining of the living room floor, at a total cost of: $218.00. Mr. Crighton advised the homeowner has applied to HAO for monthly subsidy, and there were some items that had to be repaired to bring the home up to code to have her qualify. On many of the homes, Mr. Crighton advised, they do not attempt to take care of 100% of the code violations. There - 10 - 7. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd were a few that the homeowner could not do herself on the HAO specifications, and we added them to our contract and deleted some items that we felt the homeowner could do and she felt she could do herself. The work added was rescreen- ing five screens, installing paneling in hall offset, patch- ing in front bedroom, replacing light glass in southwest bed- room, and replacing lower window sash complete, for a total of $218.00. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and carried, for the approval of the above change order, as noted. 4) C.O. #2 to Contract #39, with Barany Heating and Sheet Metal, C.O. #2 for an increase in contract amount of $1,445.00 from pre TO CONTRACT vious amended contract total of $5,455.00, to amended contract 39, E -7 amount of: $6,900.00, for rehabilitation work at: 718 East Ohio Street. Mr. James L. Johnson, Jr., in his written memorandum sub- stantiating this change order, advised the specifications called for the replacement of 16' x 20' flat roof only. Since the time of the initial inspection, further deter- ioration of the main roof and the flat section has caused most of the kitchen ceiling to fall. The contractor pro- poses to cover the main section of the roof and to tear out the drywall, seal, tape and paint the kitchen ceiling in two coats. To cover the main section of the roof with 3 -in -1 seal down asphalt shingles, 240 lbs. per square, including metal edge is $1,050.00, plus the repair of the kitchen ceiling at $395.00, or a total increase to the contract of: $1,445.00. Mr. Keith P. Crighton passed out photographs showing the ceiling damage and advised the original specifications called for the replacement of the flat roof only. The major portion of the roof was not on the.specification and we are adding those. The damage is caused by the leak. Commissioner Donaldson questioned the expensiveness of the flat roof at $1,050.00 for a 16' x 20 Mr. Edward F. Soltesz brought up the comments Commissioner Wiggins had made about the roofs some time ago, and now suggested if the staff shouldn't possibly be re- evaluating all of these and should first check the roofs, and then go to other re- pairs, and then we could eliminate some of these expensive items, and that he felt Commissioner Wiggins' question was appropriately made. Commissioner Wiggins said he thinks it would be a very good idea, and that on any of these roofs, - 11 - 7. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd) a temporary patching could, until they could get on the job, save an awful lot of additional work. It wouldn't be an expensive thing. All it requires is some 'Uisqueen.' Mr. Crighton said their problem is that they don't know about it and by the time it is brought to their attention, it is too late. As to showing up in the original inspection, he said the original inspection requested replacement of the flat section of the roof only. No statement was made on the major portion and the original inspectors are no longer on the staff. Commissioner Wiggins suggested that we cannot back up and undo the past, but if we keep repeating our mistakes we are stupid, and what means do we have now? Mr. Crighton advised as far as roofing is concerned, we are now no longer partially replacing the roofing. If any section of the house needs reroofing, we now replace the entire roof. If a portion is deteriorating, then it is an indication that the rest of the roofing is deteriorating. The only thing we have problems with now is the sheathing. Commissioner Wiggins also asked, "Are we in a position to re- commend, if the intial inspection shows a damaged or leaking roof -- either recommend or do- -some kind of temporary measure to forestall further damage ?" Mr. Crighton advised, "Yes. If we have a roof that has been damaged so severely that it has actual water running in, we have, by means of the City -Wide Emergency Program, that we can make a temporary correction, and after our contract is in force, the Emergency Repair Program would be reimbursed. That way, the homeowner is not getting two grants. That would be within our guidelines, but that is the only mechanism that we have right now to take care of it, and that seems to be feasible." Mr. Soltesz asked what the appropriation is for the emergency repair, in dollars and cents, on the individual structure. Mr. Crighton advised the appropriation is $100,000 city -wide; individual structure is $2,000 maximum. As to how much we would all.ow for temporary repairs, Mr. Crighton advised approximately $200 an item, maxi- mum. Commissioner Chenney questioned on the main roof, why the change order doesn't show what the contractor is doing- -that it only says 240 lbs. per square - -it doesn't say how many square shingles they are putting on that roof or anything, just 240 lbs. Mr. Crighton confirmed that it does not say so; that it is 17 squares, however it is shown in their specifications. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and carried, for the approval of the above change order, as noted. - 12 - 7. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd 5) C.O. #1 to Contract #41, with Ted Combs Decorating and C.O. #1 Construction, for change in contract specifications for TO CONTRACT for rehabilitation, with no change in contract amount, 41,'-E-7 which is: $4,752.90, for rehabilitation work at: 307 East Ohio Street. On this C.O., Mr. James L. Johnson, Jr., in his written memorandum substantiating the request, advised the speci- fications called for the installation of a new gas conver- sion unit in the present furnance. That has already been installed by the homeowner. The contract itemized cost for the conversion unit was $350.00. Presently, there are no gutters or downspouts on this structure, and the dining room walls and ceiling are in need of repair and painting, which were not included on the original specifications. The contractor is requesting permission to install 192 feet of gutters, 40 feet of downspouts, and wire brush and paint the dining room walls and ceiling in exchange for the $350.00 which would have to be deducted from the original contract amount. Since this contract completion date is September 21, 1975 Mr. Johnson has issued a Chief Inspector's Proceed Order for the above work, and is recommending this change order be approved. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and carried, for the approval of the above change order, as noted. 6) C.O. #1 to Contract #42, with Barany Heating and Sheet C.O. #1 Metal, for an increase in contract amount of $160.00 TO CONTRACT [Contract: $4,500.00], for an amended contract total of: 42, E -7 $4,660.00, for rehabilitation work at: 221 East Penn- sylvania Avenue. Mr. James L. Johnson, Jr., in his written memorandum sub- stantiating this change order, advised the specifications called for rolled roofing on the rear flat section of the roof, and that the contractor had informed him that rolled roofing cannot be installed properly and that a built -up roof is required. The work involved is to install three -ply hot tar built -up roof on rear flat portion. Replace 15 square feet of shingles on east side at cost of $245.00. The dele- tion is for seal leak over kitchen with roll roofing on back stairs 300 square feet, and the replacement of the 15 square feet of shingles on east side at $85.00, which is included in the $245.00 amount, leaving an increase in contract amount of $160.00. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and carried, for the approval of the above change order, as noted. - 13 - 7. BUSINESS (Cont'd d. Force Account, Phase III -B: Authorization was requested to FORCE establish a Force Account between the Department of Redevelop- ACCOUNT ment and the South Bend Water Works, for Phase III -B, with a APPROVED, total cost estimate of $10,850.00, Project Indiana R -66, per PHASE III -B, letter dated September 19, 1975, from Mr. William P. Dillon, R -66 Project Engineer, Water Works. The water work to be done is summarized as service line and fire hydrant relocations, new required service lines and hydrants, replacement of aged service lines, and demolition of unused service lines. The expenditure is not to exceed the following, unless specific change orders are issued by our department: . Phase II -B Cost Estimate: Replace 17 services with 1" copper line @ $550 = $ 9,350.00 Replace 1 service with 2" copper line @ $750 = 750.00 Replace 1 manhole with roadway box @ $150 = 150.00 Demolish 8 unused service lines @ 75 = 600.00 Total $10,850.00 Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Chenney and carried, to establish the above Force Account, between the Department of Redevelopment and the South Bend Water Works, for Phase III -B, with an amount not to exceed $10,850.00, Project Indiana R -66. GRESS REPORTS a. Project E -7, Bureau of Housing Report: Mr. Kenneth J. Schaller, BUREAU OF Project Director, submitted the following: As of September 30th, HOUSING the statistics of the program reveal that sixty -six (66) homes REPORT, are on contract. Thirty -five (35) Notices to Proceed have been E -7 issued and twenty -one (21) homes have been completed. Progress inspections are being conducted early during the construction phases of each structure. b.1 Southeast Project Report (Community Development): This written SOUTHEAST report was also submitted by Mr. Kenneth J. Schaller, Project PROJECT Director: In summarizing the monthly report, there have been REPORT thirty -two (32) applicants to the Housing Rehabilitation Assis- (C.D.) tance Program; nine (9) applicants have been approved and two (2) rejected. The nine approved applicants have been placed on contract set one presently being advertised for bids. Bid opening date is October 2. Other qualified applicants are being prepared for inclusion into contract set two which will be ready to be ad- vertised shortly. Copy of the report, consisting of seven pages, have been re- ceived and placed on file. - 14 - 8. PROGRESS REPORTS (Cont'd C M Non - Profit Group Report: The written report was submitted by Mr. Kenneth J. Schaller, Project Director: As of September 30, there has been $10,000.00 allocated for the purchase and rehabilitation of two homes. Two grants were approved and awarded by the Redevelopment Commission in their last meeting, under the Housing Rehabili- tation Assistance Program: One to RENEW, Inc., for property at 138 East Pennsylvania Avenue, and the second to RENEW, Inc., Spanish Division, for property at 617 East Haney Street. Both groups are working on the rehabilitation of the structures. The contractural services budget remaining is: $40,000.00. Original allocation was: $50,000.00. Relocation Progress Report: The written report was submitted by the Relocation Staff: City -Wide: Remains same as previous report. Southeast N.D.P. A -10: Workload is four families, two individuals. All residents have been contacted and are presently in process of looking for re- placement housing in Southeast area. Model Cities Extended Services: The one family remaining on workload is expected to move within next three weeks. E -7 Neighborhood Development Program: Workload is one family, two individuals,and staff is presently working with residents. Model Cities Sewer Separation: All residents have moved as of September 25, 1975. COMMISSION MEETING NON- PROFIT GROUP RE- PORT RELOCATION PROGRESS REPORT The next Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Commission will be at NEXT 10:00 a.m., Friday, October 17, 1975, in the Office of the Depart- COMMISSION me 6t of Redevelopment. MEETING 10. QU�STIONS ON PARKING Ms Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter, asked who is leasing the tw lots from us that Mr. Slafkosky referred to? Di: the 1 e< ;cussion followed on the parking lots. Mr. Brownell stated that South Bend Parking Company continued to pay the amount of the ise they had with the owner from whom we acquired the property. - 15 - 10. IONS ON PARKING (Cont'd Mr. Soltesz asked if the Redevelopment Department in its present authority is in the parking lot business if necessary, as they are in the development business if necessary, are they not, for a given area? Commissioner_ Wiggins advised not necessarily. We can use some of the property we acquire on a temporary basis for surface parking. Mr. Soltesz then suggested we eliminate the parking problem by utilizing the ground that we have already purchased in our parking lots and for- get about the private entity, and let's get it back to the public entity, which it really is. Commissioner Wiggins added at the most part, we ar not in the parking business- -the Department of ,Redevelopment is not ani does not operate lots. The area used for parking, other than those th t may be leased to the South Bend Parking Company, are leased to th2 City for nominal fee; e.g., $1.00 a year. This is by the City Pa king Authority and is used to supplement the garage income so the bonds may be met. As an example, the area next to the Water Works that we cleared out is on a monthly parking basis and is handled by the City Parking Authority. The property belongs to the Department of Redevelop- ment and is leased to the City for $1.00 a year and they collect the fees and apply it against the bonds for the city parking garages. We have done this with other properties. Mr. Lloyd S. Taylor added that there are two different situations: One is where the Department leases it to a private entity, and the other is where they lease it to the City. The responsibility of the Department of Redevelopment, Mr. Soltesz said as he sees it and stands to be corrected, is that we have lots that are leased to the private operator. Now, we have lost the building on the tax role; we have leveled it down and made it a level piece of property that no longer comes back in the 'coffers' of the City and the County- - either one - -or the state. The public then supplies additional monies to take care of a buy running a business down here, for whatever amount he is paying back to the Department of Redevelopment, and we are getting nothing back for it and we have a problem in parking. It would seem simple if we took that same piece of property that we have given out to the public for no use and brought it back to public use, and on that same basis we would be money ahead because the taxpayers are paying for the loss of the properties on the ground not being used. Commis - si ner Wiggins again emphasized that the places where we tore the buildings down, that has been leased to the city to operate as a parking lot - -if it is in fact operated as a parking lot - -so that it is in public use. Now, the one exception is the one on Washington Street, but the deal there is that the people who are operating it have surfaced that parking lot, and our agreement with them was to allow them to continue until they got their money back. Further lengthy conversations followed on the same subject. Mr. Kevin J. Butler, Commission Legal Counsel, said that there is a great deal of difference of opinion as to what the property is and what is the best way to operate the parking and to fulfill the parking needs. In reference to further questions by Mr. Soltesz, Commissioner Wiggins added the particular lot referred to was formerly operated as a parking lot, we bought the property from them, they continued to operate it as 16 Itil QUESTIONS ON PARKING (Cont'd) a parking lot. They pay us the same amount that they paid in rent to the previous owner. - Now, this Department is a public department that is operated out of tax money,-right? Mr. Soltesz agreed. Commissioner Wiggins added, if this same money were not being applied in this depart- ment, that same amount of money would be made up out of taxes. The money collected for the parking lots goes into the operation of this Department. So that the same amount of money that the owner previously paid in taxes out of the rent that he collected all comes in here. It all accrues to the benefit of the public. The fact remains that the same amount of money that goes to operate this is not coming out of some taxpayers' po ket because it is coming out of there. Mr. Soltesz said we are talking of developing the downtown area for parking anJ yet we have physical means in which to give this parking back to people if we are talking about the development of downtown. Mr. 'Brownell asked hiin if he is suggesting the parking be free on those lots, and Mr. Soltesz said he is suggesting anything to make the downtown work, which is also a ossibility under the R -66. He suggested we go into the parking lot b iness, period! Mr. Brownell said we are not allowed to do that, because HU will not permit us to run a parking lot. Mr. Lloyd S. Taylor commented as everyone knows, he has been in all three of the situations, and up in the Board of Public Works. He said he did have an opportunity to review Mr. Slafkosky's proposal before it came in here, and thought that some of the leases were probably reviewed also, and, of course, there may be some commitments were were not reviewed, but "I think the real merit of Mr. Slafkosky's proposal is that it does not affect the City's integrity relative to the parking garage bond issue. It does not take one nickel away from the Department of Redevelopment. It really puts parking downtown on exactly the same foundation that parking is provided out in the shopping centers, and that is that the shopping center building owner pays it and passes it on to his tenants. He not only pays for the parking lot but he pays for it being swept, pays for the snow removal on it, pays for the lighting on it, and pays for any security that may be required on it. Now, the downtown merchant, although he pays much, much higher taxes, and this is the problem that needs to be straightened out, the downtown shopping area still gets its security basically free, be ause we do provide walking patrolmen in the downtown area. He gets his street lighting free. He pays for it on the tax base, yes, but everybody supposedly is on the same tax base. Unfortunately, that is not true, but that can be straightened out. I think in paying the Department of Re evelopment, until there is a higher and better use for that land, and then furnishing to his customer free parking- -and that is for a limited period of time - -you have accomplished all of the things that we are talking about. No %, this might not be acceptable to the downtown building owners, or the do ntown merchants, I don't know. Undoubtedly we will hear about that in the next few days, but it seems to me if you really analyze that proposal that it answers all of those questions that have been raised previously. The only person that loses in that proposal is the present operator, if he is making a profit - -if he is making a profit!" Ms. Derbeck's question if that proposal means a validation,.Mr. Taylor said, "No. It simply would mean putting a large sign up on those two lots, saying free two hour, or three hour parking, courtesy of your down- 17 10. QUESTIONS ON PARKING (Cont'd town merchants association, or whatever. A lot of people come downtown who don't shop and they go in and visit an accountant, attorney, doctor, etc., and could park there. Basically, I would say, the percentage of all day pa kers would be forced out. This is true, because if you look at those lots at 8:00 a.m., or 8:30 a.m., they are pretty well filled up, and your sh ppers certainly are not down here at 8:30 in the morning. The parking situation is not a simple problem. There really is not a lack of parking sp ces in the downtown area; there are adequate spaces available. Commissioner Wiggins said if the people are willing to pay to park, there are available spaces to park. Mr. Hubert Getzinger, Chairman, Downtown South Bend Council, said he knows the parking situation is quite a problem, and he just happened to scan over this proposal by Mr. Slafkosky, and "I think it is something interesting and we would want to present this to the Parking Committee .and let them make some decisions. There are conflicting points of view here. I think that possibly these things have to be worked out because if we provide all the space that is now being paid for and provide it on a free basis, I believe it will affect the income on the City parking garages. This will be another point that will have to be studied, and I think that the program is very well put and it is a very good idea. I would want to turn it over to the Parking Committee." Mr. Brownell said that was his point in bring up the fact that a proposal was submitted to the Mayor yesterday and that both of these proposals sh uld be put together and studied out by the same people and come up with a recommendation. Commissioners agreed. Mr. Getzinger said they are looking for ideas. The Parking Committee wants all the information that they can get to try to come up with some solution. As Lloyd says, that is a problem that is not easily solved. It takes a lot of work and we hope that we will be able to do something about it. Mr. Butler advised in reference to Mr. Soltesz comments that he would suggest or submit that really the Commission is not the body that should make the overall policy determination as to parking. "I think that we should comply and work with the Board of Public Works, or whomever in the City administration is going to assume that responsibility. The deci- silons cannot and should not be made here." Commissioner Wiggins said some of the people have a lack of total informa- tion of what has happened and they see the fact that there were once buildings on the properties that are now gone and they see that and feel that the property did pay some taxes and it did, and it is now on the public rollsand tax exempt, but they fail to take into account the fact that the assessable value of the downtown area has more than doubled as a result of the redevelopment activities, and that were it not for the redevelopment activities, most of these things would not have happened, and so that on the net balance there has been a tremendous improvement here. Mr. Soltesz said, "Your membership and mine is not knocking this at all; we both come from the same membership. What they are knocking is th fact that when they come downtown, as Jeanne said, when the people 10. Q ESTIONS ON PARKING (Cont'd) c me downtown, they don't necessarily come down to shop, and may go some - w ere else. The grouping we come from also feels that they contribute e ough money into the City because of the tax rate as it is." 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, motion was duly made by Mr. ADJOURN- Donaldson for adjournment, at 11:05 a.m. MENT rownell, Execut (SEAL) - 19 - mtz, PIesiden