Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRM 02-20-76Februa 20, 1976 10:00 M. Presiding Officer: 1. ROLL CALL SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, President 1200 County -City Building 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 issioners Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, President ent: Mr. Donald A. Wiggins, Vice President Mr. A. Peter Donaldson, Secretary Mr. Robert J. Cira, Assistant Secretary Mr. Lloyd E. Robinson, Sr., Member Ledal Counsel: News Media: Others Present: Mr. George T. Patton Ms. Jeanne Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter Mr. Dave Anderson, WNDU -TV Reporter Mr. James L. Marchelewicz, WNDU -TV Photographer Mr. Dan Caesar, WSBT -TV Reporter Mr. Roy Roth, WSBT -TV Photographer Mr. Larry Ford, WSJV -TV Reporter Mr. Les Howard, WSJV -TV Photographer Mr. John R. Kagel, Executive Director, Downtown South Bend Council Mr. John V. Lindstaedt, Fair Tax Association Mr. Harrison Miller, Interested Citizen Mr. Irene Mutzl, Fair Tax Association Mr. Bill E. Slabaugh, Dept. of Public Works Community De elo ment Mr. Keith P. Crighton St ff: LPA Staff: Mr. C. Wayne Brownell Ms. Helen S. King 2. APOROVAL OF MINUTES Mo ion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Cira and MINUTES ca ried, for the approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting APPROVED of February 6, 1976, as mailed and /or distributed. 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS OnE of the claims before the Commission was the final pay esti- CLAIMS mate, in amount of $12,264.15, for work performed by Exterior APPROVED Designing, Inc., for Contract No. 2, Phase III, the Pedestrian Wa , per letter from Clyde E. Williams & Associates, Inc., dated Fe ruary 12, 1976. 3. APPI a rel: OVAL OF CLAIMS (Cont'd) on was made by Mr..Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Robinson and carried, the claims be approved, as submitted, and they be allowed and red to be paid -- totalling $26,718.08. The authorized claims ECT EXPENDITURES ACCOUNT R -57 ract & Title Corporation $ 50.00 Total T 50.00 PROJECT EXPENDITURES ACCOUNT R -66 Kevin Lou Clyde REDEVELOPMENT J. Butler -Ann Country Mart E. Williams & Associates and Environmental and Design (Joint Venture) REVOLVING FUND Payroll: January 24 to February 6, 1976 Planning Total $ 1,296.72 1,000.00 1,077.34 X3,374.06 $ 5,763.98 Bas ey Ford of South Bend For 588.38 Business Systems, Inc. For 11.20 Quonset Brake & Front End, Inc. 27.30 E. D. Poe & Associates 240.00 Total 6,630.86 BUREAU OF HOUSING E -7 Pest Control - Rehabilitation Contract No. 19 10.00 Acme A.B.C. Plumbing & Heating Co. - Rehabilitation Contract No. 35 4,258.40 Kevin J. Butler 98.00 Total $ 4,366.40 DISTRICT CAPITAL BONDS OF 1972 Exterior Designing, Inc. South Bend Water Works Total GRAND TOTAL REIMBURSEMENT TO REVOLVING FUND For the month of January, 1976: R -57 For the month of January, 1976: R -66 Total - 2 - $ 12,264.15 32.61 � 12,296.76 $ 26,718.08 $ 1,934.77 8,358.38 10,293.15 4. COMMUNICATIONS a. HUD Area Office letter dated February 4, 1976: This letter is STATUS over the signature of Mr. Stephen J. Havens, Director, Community AND CLOSE - Planning and Development Division, Department of Housing and OUT OF Urban Development, Indianapolis Area'Office. PROJECTS A-10, Mr. C. Wayne Brownell, Executive Director, Department of Redevelop- R -66 & ment, read the letter in its entirety in the Commission meeting. R -57 In summary, Mr. Brownell advised the letter of February 4, 1976, purports to document conclusions reached in a meeting with Ms. Jeanne Meggs and Ms. Peggy Hudgens on January 20, 1976, regarding the status and close -out of Project A -10, which is scheduled for close -out on March 31, 1976; requesting a financial plan be sub- mitted in connection with Project R -66 by February 20, 1976; and a status report on Project Indiana R -57 by May 1, 1976. A financial plan was presented to the Commission in their packets along with a copy of the February 4th letter. Mri Brownell advised this financial plan for Project Indiana R -66 has been submitted to to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, attention of Mr. Steven J. Havens, Director, Community Planning and Development Division. The Chair advised that he and Mr. Brownell worked on this financial plan last Friday and last Monday, and essentially there is no way that we can meet HUD's deadline to close out this Project: 1) Because we have some lawsuits pending that need to be settled, and 2) I believe we need the approval of the City Council in regard to this plan. The Chair further stated that if we do sell the land, we are not going to get the full amount of money to pay off the project, and that the overall original plan called for five (5) parking garages, which, of course, have not come about, and additional parking garages is something we do not need right now. He said the reason this whole thing has come up at this time is that HUD is requesting we close out these particular projects, which the Chair said'he felt cannot be done at this time -- mainly because we have some lawsuits pending. The Chair called on Commissioner Wiggins to comment, being the senior member of the Commission, whose response was: "Well, obviously, our crystal ball was cloudy as to what was to be expected in the begin- ning on this, and we have not been able to market a good bit of the deal. There are several other factors: The part of the City's share on this was predicated upon the building of parking garages- -five in number - -two of which have been constructed--the others have not, and until disposition is made of the land - -as Jay said -- there really is not the need existing for the parking garages. There is also the additional fact that in part of this, there has been some City cash money which has not been paid, and this also tends to complicate and cloud the issue. It would seem to me that the request for close -out, - 3 - 4. at this point, is unrealistic, in view of the amount of land that we have to dispose of yet, in addition to the lawsuits and other factors." "There is also the additional situation that we need to face, and that is, in all probability, we will not be able to market the land at the price at which it was originally contemplated we would be able to get for it. I would suspect that in order to accomplish the kind of efforts that we would like to see in the downtown area, it will be necessary to make a number of con- cessions. We have to be realistic and understand that this is all a competitive kind of thing, and that if it is the desire of the people to have the downtown be a large retail market area, then the conditions that are necessary to provide this kind of activity are going to at least have to be on a par which can be accomplished elsewhere. We can't expect retailers to pay a premium to be in the downtown area at the current time, and, if we hold that kind of view, we are going to be looking at a lot of vacant land for a long time." "Whether you like things or not, you have to accept the facts of realism as it is, and you have to deal with the kind of world situation that you have, and I think that is what we are looking at here. How it will all come out, it is difficult to say. One thing about this whole process that I have certainly noted over the years is that we do not have control of the whole operation. The way the thing philosophically is put together is that we try to create a climate that will encourage the private sector to move in and actually do all the developing. We are not developers. All that we can do is create the situation that will allow the development to take place. Well, this has to happen first, really, and we have operated according to a plan that would accommodate all the essential elements that would make this development possible and favorable. Unfortunately, the time table was such- -and the economic situation that developed was such - -that many of the things that were anticipated to happen didn't happen. Whether they would have happened under other circumstances is moot; there's no way you can handle that. What we have to do is deal with what we have now, and that, essentially, is what.we are looking at." The Chair asked Mr. Brownell if he had any further comments to add or to report on any comments made by the City Council on the pro- posed plan, and Mr. Brownell advised that it was agreeable with the Mayor and the seven (7) members of the City Council present in Caucus, to go ahead the submit the plan to HUD, which he said he did as requested. Regarding further questions by the news media, the Chair advised the financial plan for Project R -66 that Mr. Brownell has worked out through June, 1980, can be met if the City Council approves it, but there is no way that we can meet the close -out date of August 10, 1976. - 4 - 4. COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd Ms. Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter, noted that the sale of land, as shown in the financial plan are unsold parcels, but as they are included, if that is speculation of land sale? Mr. Brownell advised that the sale of Block 6 is shown in the finan- cial plan; the Plaza Park land, Disposition Parcel No. 6 -2, that will be sold to the City and is 'Item 6a on today's Agenda; and we also are estimating the possibility of other land sales in Project Indiana R -66. The Chair added that under HUD regulations, our appraisals are old, and we have asked Real Estate Research Corporation of Chicago for re- appraisals, which are in process at this time, and it would be his presumption that some of these land'values will go up, but others may go down. We don't know; this is where you get the experts from the real estate field on just what land is worth. Mr. Dan Caesar, WSBT -TV reporter, asked, "In other words, you are not abandoning the Project? You will continue to go through with it and fulfill your obligation ?" The Chair replied, "AMEN! Yes." Ms. Derbeck said, then the interpretation of the word 'close -out' is to close the books, rather than closing out the Project, and Mr. Brownell advised that it might be the close - out of the books perhaps, but the financial plan goes on. Ms. Derbeck further asked if there is a close -out in August, or whenever the time would be set, how would that affect our plans to do more construc- tion of the Plaza, or does that mean we couldn't do it any more? Mr. Brownell advised the Plaza doesn't have anything to do with that; it is not part of the Federal project, other than just part of the plan. In other words, the money for the Plaza doesn't come out of Federal funds. We always do ask for HUD approval, but that it is more of a courtesy than anything. Mrs. Irene Mutzl, Fair Tax Association, asked what the lawsuits are that President Nimtz referred to previously. Mr. Brownell reported on the Columbia Warehouse lawsuits due to the fire, and that we settled one at the last meeting for $1,000; prior to that we settled one for $14,500 of our money, plus the insurance company's money that comes from the insurance company for the City. We were not insured and are not supposed to be under HUD rules. We still have cases pending against us in that regard that are not settled and have not been tried as yet. The Chair added there's another one; e.g., the question of priority of funds to pay the Barrett Law obligations- -which has the priority? When the money is in the till, does the Barrett Law obligations come first, second, or third, etc. Mr. Brownell said the title to real estate is in- volved in that. The question is, does the welfare lien, or Barrett Law lien come first? Does the tax lien or Barrett Law lien have precedence? See the confusion? It's a matter when we get into it; there is not enough money to go around to the title of all the people who have interest in the property, so that has to be settled. - 5 - 4. COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd Ms. Derbeck referred to the prior statement made by Commissioner Wiggins, in regard to the City cash money that has not yet been paid to Redevelopment and that is one of the issues. Mr. Brownell said it's a fact the City hasn't paid some overruns in public improvements, and that they haven't paid some matching funds. Commissioner Wiggins said these are the matching funds that the City Council ignored, he believed, as they haven't come up with the funds and this has to be a part of any kind of final settle- ment. Mr. John V. L-indstaedt, Fair Tax Association, asked, "Do you be- lieve, Sir, that it is realistic at this time to think the Down- town area at this point in time has a retail center rather than a service - oriented center in the community as there are develop- ments of malls in other areas of the City?- I see a reluctance on the part of retailers to move into this area due to the fact of parking and a good many other minus's, etc., that kind of things that come into the area in shopping centers in the malls. Com- missioner Wiggins answered that is a good question, and "actually, this is kind of up for grabs sort of thing. It's true that the trend, for a long period of time now has been to create shopping areas in the outer fringes of the community where land is cheap and where they can put it all together in a' package without a great deal of effort. It takes a lot more effort to make space available in a downtown built -up section than it is out in the corn- field somewhere in the edge of town. However, there have been some moves in this other direction, and I would venture to say that this energy situation is going to change this picture; it isn't going to change it right away, but it will change it, because the energy crisis is real. This thing has gotten involved in a lot of politics and a lot of emotions, but if you sort it all out, it's factual and given 10 years period of time, there's going to be a tremendous amount of incentive for people to use public transportation which gives you back the idea of building a city in the first place- -where you concentrate things in the center. Now, the things that aren't going to go away from downtown are all of the service /commercial kinds of things that are here already- -the legal community; banking com- munity; many of the professional services that are concentrated down- town. The whole purpose of this thing and what made it tick in the first place was that the downtown was central to everything. Now, when transportation and the use of energy becomes a real problem, then these things come back into focus, so I think that time runs in our direction. That is one reason that I said this is not going to happen overnight, but I think that it will happen; and I think we ought to be aware of these things, and that we ought to be working toward this end because it seems logical and sensible." Mr. Lindstaedt further added that the transportation situation was one point he was trying to make and that the transportation situa- tion is very important- -the availability to the community and not only the service /oriented. One of the big problems to bring people in is transportation. As far as the labor market- -the labor climate- - we have everything, except one thing, and that is airline connections. �:i! 4. COMMUNICATIONS.(Cont'd We have a very viable city- -the City of South Bend - -we have all the commodities -- especially in the labor market. All these things tie in together. When you send your people out to sell your community, you have to give them something to sell. Commissioner Cira reported on his recent visit to Cleveland, Ohio, and one would have to see it to believe it= they have a large mammoth parking garage in Cleveland -- right down in the heart of town--with a very nice restaurant, and on the third floor of the garage they had a super market. The super market had 12,000 square feet and has been operating since last August and doing approximately $3,000 business a week. It's unbelievable. The Chair called on Mr. John R. Kagel, Executive Director, Downtown South Bend Council: Mr. Kagel said he believes today proves a point- - "that you gentlemen are'sort of isolated in fighting this battle from the citizens of the community. We all recognize the importance of the downtown area as a tax base to the city. We all recognize the importance of the city as a tax base to the 'county, and as I sit here listening to this comment, I am reminded that probably the Mishawaka people, their downtown urban renewal program is 'faced with some of the same problems. It would appear that as our communities of South Bend and Mishawaka have worked together so well these many years that maybe the day has arrived that perhaps you can share some of your learnings with the Mishawaka people, and the Mishawaka people can share some of their learnings with you gentlemen, but, most especially, I think that we have arrived at a point where you volun- teer people- -lay people -- perhaps should sit down, and I know that the Mayor- -that this is a mandate on the part of the Mayor of the City- - but I think that there has to be an understanding - -a mutual under- standing of the problem, the possible solutions, the importance of these problems and the solving of these problems to the tax base of the community. I think the time has arrived that it would be bene- ficial for not only the cities of Mishawaka and South Bend to sit down, but to sit down with the respective City Council, with the County Council, with the County Commissioners, with the Area Plan Commission, with the Board of Zoning Appeals of these two cities, and to discuss this as to where are we going with these two cities. Do we revert to the cornfield problem--and I am sure that some of these people are aware of that- -but these are all.intermingled. Someway there is going to have to be enough people to sit down around these tables to discuss this problem -- especially as it relates to the tax base of our two communities. You are doing a good job. I have empathy for the problems that you have; you have the bureaucracy on top of you; the Federal people that are breathing down your neck. I just wish the rest of the people in the community were aware of how you are trying to resolve these problems." Mrs. Mutzl asked, "Mr. Nimtz, do I understand correctly- -had we built three more parking garages, the debt that you now owe to the Federal Government would be smaller by that amount ?" President Nimtz said, "By matching funds, yes." Mrs. Mutzl further asked, ` "But the City could be in debt for these garages; so you are in 'debt one way or another. Mr. Brownell said they would be worse off really. Mr. Caesar added, "They wouldn't owe the Government; they would owe the bank." - 7 - 4. COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd 5. OLD Mr. Larry Ford, WSJV -TV Reporter, said: "Part of this financial plan calls for - -or assumes that you are going to receive the Urgent Needs Funds that have been requested from HUD- -but, in the speech to the Rotary Club, the Mayor said he was not very optimistic at all about receiving those funds. What are you going to do if that money doesn't come in ?" Mr. Brownell replied that he wrote that plan and his thought was that HUD encouraged us to apply for Urgent Needs Funds. Those funds have been appropriated by Congress; they are available to HUD. It is just a question of which cities get the 'funds, and "as long as HUD wanted us to approach a close -out problem and submit a financial plan, I thought we should put that problem right back to HUD, and say, well, are you going to give us the funds that are provided for in the regulations, been pro - vided by Congress or not. We need them in order to do what you want us to do." The Chair added, "That was my comment - -we urgently need them to do what you want." The Chair asked Mr. Brownell if we will receive some answer from the Mayor and City Council concerning this plan, and whether this plan has been submitted to HUD? Mr. Brownell advised they had just met and talked orally; there was no written communication either way; and the plan has been submitted to HUD. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and unani- mously carried, to receive the HUD Area Office letter dated February 4, 1976, and place the letter on file. BUSINESS a. Robert Foegley Landscape Design and Contracting, Inc.,Extension of Contract No. 7 Award, Phase III, R -66: Mr. Brownell read this letter, in its entirety, from Mr. Foegley received yesterday afternoon, in which the contractor agrees to the extension of the bid award.for the Pedestrian Way, (Contract No. 7, Lawns and Planting Work), through June 15, 1976, Phase III, Project Indiana R -66. The beginning of construction and completion dates would also be delayed. Mr. Brownell advised the last time the Commission extended the time for making the award until the 29th of February', because that was the letter date that Mr. Foegley had. Hickey's letter had an extension date of March 15. We extended the time for Hickey and Foegley, in the Commission meeting, to February 29. Now, Mr. Foegley is agreeing to the extension to June 15th, but ae can extend both of them until March 15 or we can extend Foegley's until June if the Commission wishes', but Hickey's can only be ex- tended to March 15 at this time. he Chair asked for a motion to approve this. Mr. Wiggins made he motion, I'll so move. Seconded by Mr. Cira. The Chair asked f there were any further questions, to which Commissioner Rohinson esponded, "I'have a question- -what are you talking about now - -are ou going to extend them both to the same date? °I am asking for a larification of the motion ?" The Chair asked if the motion is or the date extension to June 15, with Mr. Cira's response: "To une15. _8_ ROBERT FOEGLEY LANDSCAPE DESIGN & CONTRACTING, INC. LETTER RE EXTENSION TO AWARD CONTRACT 7, MALL EXTEN- SION, R -66 5. OLDIBUSINESS (Cont'd L Mr. Brownell said that motion can be made on Foegley's extension, but that on Hickey's, it can only be extended to March 15. Votes were taken for the award of Contract No. 7, for Lawns and Planting Work, to the low bidder, Robert Foegley Landscape Design and Contracting, Inc., to be extended through June 15, 1976, for Phase III, Project Indiana R -66, with the beginning of construc- tion and completion dates also delayed. 'The "Ayes" were unani- mous for the June 15 extension and motion was carried. The Hickey Company, Inc., Extension of Contract No. 10 Award, Phase III, R-66: On the Hickey contract, Mr. Brownell advised' we had received a letter from them prior in which they agreed to extend the time to March 15, 1976, and in the Commission meeting of January 16, both Hickey's and Foegley`"s contracts were extended until February 29th. Commissioner Wiggins said to make sure that we are covered until the time of our next meeting`, he is making the motion to accept Hickey's request for extension to March 15th, because in Hickey's letter dated January 15, 1976, they had offered to extend to that date. Motion was seconded by Mr. Robinson and unanimously carried. Various questions were raised by This letter was not on the Agenda in the packets. It was presented ary 16. the news media on this item. in answer to "it not being in Commission meeting of Janu- Foegley received yesterday afternoon, which states that because of the delay in awarding of the Pedestrian Way contract, they would like to have their bid bond for this project released, as this bonding power is needed for bids on current projects. They state they agree to provide all bonds necessary within ten (10) days of the actual award date. It was recommended their bid bond be released. The motion was made by Mr. Wiggins that we receive Mr. Robert Foegley's request and comply with it. Motion was seconded by Mr. Donaldson and unanimously carried. c. Contract with Legal Counsel, George T. Patton, for Professional Services: The Chair advised that at the last Commission meeting he had recommended to the Commission that the legal work be divided between Kevin J. Butler and George T. Patton- -that Mr. Patton would handle the courtroom work, lawsuits and things like that, and that Mr. Butler would be the negotiator and at- tend our Commission meetings. Mr. Butler isn't here today be- cause he is away on business, but this contract for Mr. Patton is the same format as authorized by HUD, and at the same rates as for Mr. Butler. -9- THE HICKEY CO., INC. LETTER RE EXTENSION TO AWARD CONTRACT 10, MALL EXTEN- SION, R -66 ROBERT FOEGLEY LANDSCAPE DESIGN & CONTRACTING, INC. LETTER RE BID BOND RELEASE, CONTRACT 7, MALL EXTEN- SION, R -66 CONTRACT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, GEORGE T. PATTON 5. OLD BUSINESS (Cont'd . Dan Caesar requested a brief breakdown of the rates and costs, ich the Chair supplied. tion was made by Mr. Donaldson, seconded by Mr. Wiggins and unani- usly carried, for the authorization to enter into a contract with . George T. Patton, for professional services as noted above, and e President and Secretary `be` authorized to execute said contract. r. George T. Patton's contract is dated the 20th day,of February, 976, with an effective date of February 6, 1976, and the limita- ion of fees are as noted in the contract, unless amended by mutual greement of the parties hereto. 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Contract for Sale of Land for Redevelopment, Disposition Parcel No. 6 -2, R -66: This contract is by and between the City of South Bend, Department of Redevelopment, and the City of South Bend for the use and benefit of its Board of Park Commissioners, for purchase amount of $160,000.00, Disposition Parcel No. 6-2, Project Indiana R -66. This is the Plaza Park - -four (4) acre strip along the St. Joseph River, from Jefferson Bridge to Monroe, in- cluding the bridge which is being converted from a railroad bridge to pedestrian bridge across the St. Joseph River. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and unani- mously carried, for the approval of the Contract for Sale of Land for Redevelopment, Disposition Parcel No. 6 -2, Project Indiana R -66, for purchase amount of $160,000.00, and the President and Secretary be authorized to execute said contract. a Sign at Toby's, River Bend Plaza, R -66: Commission approval was requested of the Sign Committee's recommendation for double face projecting sign, (orange raised letters on blue background), with projection of 24 ", non - illuminated, at Toby's, River Bend Plaza, 120 -A South Michigan Street, with sign to be mounted above line of proposed sidewalk canopy, Project Indiana R -66. Mr. Brownell advised the City of South Bend does have an ordinance on signs and we could not approve the permanent sign that he wanted, but we are working out a plan here to give Toby's a temporary sign which he will make himself, of the dimensions noted above. Com- missioner Wiggins added that we are trying to accommodate this temporary situation and the Commission would have been perfectly willing to accommodate the situation at any time had a request been made. Maybe this is one of the better functions of the Press that it gets all these things out that something happens -- reference to` Ms. Derbeck's article in The South Bend Tribune, on Toby's, "Plaza Venture Loses Glow." Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Cira and unani- mously carried, for the approval of the above sign as recommended by the Sign Committee. - 10 - CONTRACT FOR SALE OF LAND FOR RE- DEVELOPMENT, PARCEL 6 -2, R -66 SIGN AP -. PROVED, TOBY'S, RIVER BEND PLAZA, R -66 6. NEWIBUSINESS (Cont'd c. Certificates of Completion of Redevelopment, R -57: Commission CERTIFICATES authorization was requested for the approval of the following OF COMPLETION Certificates of Completion of Redevelopment, and the Commission OF REDEVELOP - President and Secretary to be authorized to execute, which are MENT APPROVED, conveyed to each of the following, in the LaSalle Park Project, PARCELS 6 -22, R -57: 28 -18 & 34 -1, R -57 1) Parcel No. 6 -22: Ernest Lark and Naomi Lark 2) Parcel No. 28 -18: Jessie Griffin and Corine Griffin 3) Parcel No. 34 -1: Robert L. Campbell and Ethel Campbell Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and unanimously carried, for the approval of the above - listed Certi- ficates of Completion of Redevelopment, R =57, and the President and Secretary authorized to execute. d. Change Order No. 2 to. Plaza Park Contract No. :l, R -66: Com- CHANGE ORDER mission approval was requested of this change order, with NO. 2 TO Nautilus Construction Corporation, for an increase in contract PLAZA PARK amount of $1,200.00, to relocate existing 80 units of railroad CONTRACT NO.1 ties @ $15.00 per unit, for an adjusted contract price of APPROVED, $199,758.50, with an increase of sixty (60) calendar days, or R -66 contract completion date to May 15, 1976, Project Indiana R -66. This is a new item number to the Contract to allow the con - tractor to use on -site materials to give uniform load bearing to the pedestrian bridge built on existing railroad trestle. This is an improvement which will give longer, safe life to the pedestrian brige. New ties cost $50.00 each and every time we can use an existing tie at a cost of $15.00 `to relocate the tie, we save $35.00. The new ties are used for all bearing ties and the existing ties are relocated to be used alongside the bearing ties. Commissioner Robinson asked if the ties are really pressure treated, or are they dipped? Mr. Bill Slabaugh, Project Engineer, said they are pressure treated; it is not creosote because creosote is sticky and this is the pedestrian way. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Cira and unani- mously carried, to approve Change Order No. 2 to Plaza Park Contract No. 1, with Nautilus Construction Corporation, for an increase in contract amount of $1,200.00, for an adjusted contract price of $199,758.50, with an increase of sixty (60) calendar days, or contract completion date to May 15, 1976, Project Indiana R -66, subject to HUD concurrence. - 11 - 6. NEW BUSINESS:(Cont'd e. of Housing, 1) to Lahey, Attorney at proposed agreement. between Dept. of Redevelopment and Newbill y SECD: Mr. Brownell read Mr. Keith P. dated February 19, 1976, Director, Bureau Redevelopment Commission, and 2) to Mr. Charles Law, representing Mr. Newbill, outlining a Due to a misunderstanding concerning performance bond requirements, the Newbill firm is unable to provide bonds for contracts #11, #12, #15 and #18, simultaneously. They have, however, been able to provide bonding for contract #15, for work at 721 East Broadway, in the Southeast Project. Rather than forfeiting $1,022.40 (10% of the bid amounts for #11, #12 and #18), it has been suggested that the LPA retain $250.00 and shorten the work completion time per contract to two weeks. The letter to Mr. Lahey verifies telephone conversation of Feb. 19, 1976, concerning Newbill Construction Company's acceptance of a proposed contract procedure agreement. The plan to be accepted: A: The Dept. of Redevelopment will retain $250.00 to be forfeited for contract default. B: Work on contract #15, at 721 East Broadway, must be completed within ten (10) working days from the date of issuance of the notice to proceed. C: Upon certification of final inspection, Mr. Newbill has 72 hours in which to provide bond on the second unit. All four structures must be completed within their respective ten (10) working day periods, or the retainer will be kept by the LPA. As soon as the Newbill Company provides us with a certified check for $250.00, we will return the original bid check in the amount of $1,478.50. It must be understood that this procedure does not set precedent for any contracts in the future, and that this is a singular situation that will not be repeated. PROPOSED AGREEMENT APPROVED, NEWBILL CONSTRUCTION SOUTHEAST CD PROJECT Commissioner Wiggins asked Mr. Crighton to refresh his memory- - if this is the firm that was quite low in their bid and was a new firm that we weren't sure would be able to hack it in the first place? Mr. Crighton advised, "Yes, that is true. The Commission 'conditionally awarded' contracts #11, #12, #15 and #18, to Newbill Construction Company, in Commission meeting of January 2, 1976. The firm had ten days to provide a performance bond and couldn't come up with that at that time and they requested an extension which was granted him. As of February 10th, he had provided the singular bond on the one contract. At that time, Mr. Crighton said he notified the contractor that he was subject to forfeiture of $1,022.40 on his contracts that he did not provide bonds on. The contractor con- tacted his attorney, his attorney contacted Mr. Butler, and the outlined agreement was negotiated. 12 - 6. NEW BOSINESS (Cont'd Commissioner Wiggins said this, now, in essence, will give the contractor an opportunity to get established as a contractor in this area. Mr. Crighton advised the firm has never had to supply bonds before and it is not unusual for a bonding company to restrict b nding to one contract only. The bonding companies want an exper- i nce record. Tie Chair asked Mr. Crighton what his experience has been with tie contractor's work, and if it has been all right ?' Mr. Crighton a vised Newbill Construction Company has worked in our E -6 Project aid has had three or four contracts, and that each contract consisted of six homes in that Project. The E -6 Approval Committee has been s tisfied with the contractor's work and has awarded him additional c ntracts. C )mmissioner Robinson asked how many contractors bid on this Project b sides this concern -- the contracts on the Southeast CD.Program? M * Crighton said he believed there were four (4) other bidders on tat. Commissioner Robinson further asked, "'Isn't this' taking un- fair advantage of the other bidders if you allow this to happen f r this one contract? Mr. Crighton said he really can't say; he is not in position to make a statement on that. The Commissioner a ded, "He knew the rules for the ball game, so I can't see why there s ould be preferential treatment." Mr. Crighton advised apparently what had happened as far as the word isunderstanding' in his letter is that earlier on the Revenue Shar- i g Project, we had no contract at that time, and many of the smaller firms weren't able to get bond. We had allowed singular performance b nds in commitment - -as long as they had a commitment letter from their b nding company that they would issue additional bonding with two of o r contractors, but this procedure had been stopped under Community D velopment, because of the Commission's concern primarily with getting w rk done within a reasonable period of time,and apparently Mr. Newbill f It the old procedure was still in force. The Chair added, that be- f re the contractor put up a bond issue before he started each contract. C mmissioner Robinson said if he had to put it all up in one chunk, it would cost him more money, and to me, this is unfair to the other P ogle who bid. Mr. Lindstaedt asked if there is a standing bonding that is used toward t ese projects, or is it that everybody bids and takes a chance on ether or not they will receive bonding or not? This is a rather hap- hazard sort of way of going about a business. This is my thought; maybe I'm wrong. Commissioner Wiggins responded that the procedure on the part of the bonding company might be in this regard, and he supposed there is a certain amount of gamble here, because it is quite possible they wouldn't know in advance whether or not they were going to get the bid and the bonding company might not be willing to put up the.bond until after they have, in fact, the bid. Mr. Dan Caesar, WSBT -TV re- porter asked, "When was the last time the Commission ever revoked that rule and actually collected the money ?" Mr. Crighton and Mr. Brownell both responded that they didn't believe we ever have done that. Mr. Caesar added, "It doesn't look like you will ever do it in the future hen either ?" - 13 - 6. NEW BI JSINESS (Cont'd Mr. Crighton further added that the idea here is that this will not set precedence. Mr. Lindstaedt further stated "I'f you come along with another contract, you will have the same.thing thrown at you fast and furious. I have seen.this happen many, many times. Well, actually here, Commissioner Wiggins stated,.the contractor is pro - viding bond, but he is providing bond on each job as he does the job, rather than on the four jobs at-one 'wack' and the only reason is tat he can't get a bonding company to do it. r Mr. Lindstaedt, in r peating his former question', asked, "My 'question 'is:' Do you have a hard set rule on the bonding, or is it haphazard - -a hit and miss d al ?" Mr. Brownell advised, "Actually, bonding is new. We have n ver had any bonding on this kind of work until' recently. Like on tie E -6 Program, there was no performance bond. This is something t at we have instituted- -both the bonding on the bidding and on the p rformance. Now, in this case, this agreement that Mrs Crighton his worked out will accomplish the thing that "we are after, I believe, b cause the thing we are after is to get the rehabilitation work done q ickly - -as quickly as we can - -and so this man has shortened the time ol which he will do the work on each job under this agreement to ten w )rking days which will get all four houses done more quickly than it w uld if we rejected the bids and went back and started rebidding w ich would take a great delay." Mr. Caesar asked how much money w uld the Commission be realizing in savings in letting the contractor finish the Southeast contracts - -would it be a substantial amount be- tween this bidder and the next low bidder? The Chair advised we would have to rebid; we just couldn't take the next bid. Mr. Crighton advised that on the conditional award that the Commission granted on the 2nd of January, he had requested the motion that if these contracts were r1escinded, that they would go to the next low bidder. e Chair advised that we have a time element and we can't keep the ntractors standing in line for six months with the next lowest dder,'and that the contractor could refuse if he so desires. Com- ssioner Wiggins added then we would go back to the rebidding process d that would cost more than it would be worth. "Actually, this is mply - -this doesn't change the actual thing that is happening here- - simply changes the way in which it happens, because each job would covered with a performance bond but it will be done individually as e job is completed or as the job is started, rather than all of them once. Now, in return for this kind of consideration, we are getting mething. We are getting a commitment on his part for far more rapid mpletion of the job than he otherwise would have had to offer, and looks like the net result is going to be advantageous - -I say to - -but actually to the people who are living in these houses, be- use they are going to have their house back in order a lot faster, d actually this is one of the big things that we are after. This one of the things we are concerned with in instituting performance nds. This puts a handle on it." . Lindstaedt's question, "I brought this up at the last meeting I tended about a month ago - -on this performance bond -- before they are leased- -who does the investigating ?" Commissioner Wiggins advised, . Crighton has been on top of this with his staff, and "I think we - 14 - 6. NEW 9USINESS (Cont'd) re in a good staff position now to where we can get a good objective iew. We got a lot of valuable experience out of the LaSalle Park -57 Project." Ir. John V. Lindstaedt, Fair Tax Association, stated "We are pending the public's money, and I must admit, gentlemen, it all omes out of the same pockets. it seems to me that sometimes ou have to take a hard long look at where this money is being pent, and how much you really get for the. dollar investment." e Chair asked if there were any further questions or discussion. ere being none, the Chair requested a motion. tion was made by Mr. Wiggins for the approval of the proposed reement between the Department of Redevelopment and Newbill Con- ruction Company (outlined in Item 6e, page 12), seconded by Mr. naldson. e Chair asked if there were any further questions. There being ,ne, he asked for their votes: All signify by saying, "Aye" - sponse on "Aye" votes was made by four (4) Commissioners: Messrs. ggins, Donaldson, Cira, Nimtz. Contrary "No" vote request: Com- ssioner Robinson cast a "No" vote. Motion was carried, with ur (4) "Ayes and one (1) "Naye" vote. Mr. Dan Caesar asked Mr. Robinson if he would state the reason he v ted "No" and Commissoner Robinson responsed, "Yes. Because I t ink it is unfair to the other contractors that bid on this p oject- -that this guy get preferential treatment. The rules of tie game are laid out before he ever bid on the Project, so why s ouldn't he have to live with the original rules ?" 7. PROGRESS REPORTS None. 8. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING The n xt Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Commission wi11 be at 10:00 a.m., Friday, March 5, 1976, in the Office of the Department of Re evelopment. 9. ADJOURNMENT Motion was duly made by Mr. Robinson, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and carri d, for adjournment, at 11:08 a.m. C. Wa (SEAL , Executive Direc NEXT COMMISSION MEETING: 3 -5 -76 ADJOURNMENT =H=