Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRM 05-21-76May 21, 1976 10:00 A. M. Presiding Officer, 1. ROLLI CALL SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 1200 County -City Building Mr. Donald A. Wiggins, 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard Vice President South Bend, Indiana 46601 Commissioners ssioner t: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Donald A. Wiggins, Vice President A. Peter Donaldson, Secretary Robert J. Cira, Assistant Secretary Lloyd E. Robinson, Sr., Member F. Jay Nimtz, President Present: Comm Abse Legal Counsel: Mr. Kevin J. Butler Mr. George T. Patton NewslMedia: Others Present: Commu it Development Staff LPA Staff: Ms. Jeanne Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter Mr. Dave Anderson, WNDU Reporter Mr. James L. Marchelewicz, WNDU -TV Photographer Mr. Dan Caesar, WSBT -TV Reporter Mr. Frank Vellner, WSBT -TV Photographer Mr. Larry Ford, WSJV -TV Reporter Mr. Les Howard, WSJV -TV Photographer Dr. George A. Wing, Chairman, Mayor's Downtown Development Committee Mr. Frank J. Alford, Director, E.E.O. Mrs. Janet S. Allen, Interested Citizen Mr. Joseph L. Amaral, Attorney Mr. Ron Bock, Chamber of Commerce, Inc. Mr. Gene Evans, Executive Secretary, Civic Planning Assn. Mr. Hubert Getzinger, Chairman, Downtown South Bend Council Mr. Richard B. Hunt, South Bend Public Transportation Corp. Mr. John R. Kagel, Executive Director, Downtown South Bend Council Mr. Bill E. Slabaugh, Dept. of Public Works Mr. Keith P. Crighton Mr. James L. Johnson, Jr. Mr. Kenneth J. Schaller Mr. C. Wayne Brownell Ms. Helen S. King Mr. Edwin R. Bauer - 1 - 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion by Mr. Robinson, seconded by Mr. Cira and carried, the MINUTES Minu es of the Regular Meeting of May 7, 1976, were approved as mailed APPROVED and/ r distributed. 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS On motion by Mr. Donaldson, seconded by Mr. Robinson and carried, the CLAIMS claims were approved, as submitted, and were allowed and ordered to APPROVED be paid--totalling $56,923.73. The authorized claims are: PROJECT EXPENDITURES ACCOUNT, INDIANA R -57 Bend Exterminating Company $ 30.00 South Total 30.00 PROJECT EXPENDITURES ACCOUNT, INDIANA R -66 J. Butler $ 628.00 Keviri Lakeshore Typographers, Inc. 87.70 Nautilus Construction Co. 14,615.78 Sout Bend Exterminating Company 30.00 Souti Bend Water Works 3.94 Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York 34,815.00 Total 50,180.42 REDE ELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND April 17 to April 30, 1976 $ 5,893.98 Payroll: C. Wayne Brownell 20.15 Bruning Division - Addressograph 35.27 Credit Bureau of South Bend- Mishawaka 5.00 Curl 's Mower Service 80.60 Dorothy Z. Deane - Petty Cash 47.67 International Business Machines 279.36 Musz nski Insurance Agency 143.00 Singer General Tire, Inc. 14.45 Standard Oil Division, American Oil Company 45.83 Total 6,565.31 BUREAP OF HOUSING E -7 Aacme Arrow Bosel Osceo Pest Control Pest Control (Contract No. 28) 1 Pest Control (Contract No. 53) la Sewer Cleaning (Contract No. 50) - 2 - Total GRAND TOTAL $ 10.00 48.00 45.00 45.00 148.00 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Cont'd REIMOURSEMENT TO REVOLVING FUND For the month of April, 1976 - P.E.A. R -57 $ 2,575.10 For the month of April, 1976 - P.E.A. R -66 7,433.78 Total 10,008.88 4. CORRESPONDENCE a. HUD Regional Office letter dated May 10, 1976: This letter, over REQ. NO. 8 he signature of Mr. Richard A. Kaiser, Assistant Regional Adminis- APPROVED, rator, Community Planning and Development Office, advises our RELOCATION equisition No. 8 for Relocation Grant Payment, on Contract No. GRANT PAYMENT ndiana R- 66(LG), has been approved in the amount of $34,815.00. CONTRACT IND. R- 66(LG) r. C. Wayne Brownell, Executive Director, Department of Redevelop - ent, advised that we have received this check drawn on the Treasury f the United States to be recorded as a receipt in the Project emporary Loan Repayment Fund. A claim has been signed this morn ng that the Commission has approved payable to Morgan Guaranty Trust ompany of New York on the Project Notes. b. HUD Area Office letter dated May 10, 1976: This letter, over the AUDIT FIND - ignature of Mr. James E. Armstrong, Area Director, advises the INGS CLEARED, ocumentation submitted in our letter of April 27, 1976, clears 1, 2, 3 & 5, udit Findings 1, 2, 3 and 5, and that Audit Finding No. 4 was PROJECT IND. cleared in their April 8th letter. A -10 r. Brownell advised per telephone conversation HUD has advised nother letter will be forthcoming from them clearing Audit Find - ng No. 6, that was omitted, and they are closing out Project ndiana A -10. n motion by Mr. Donaldson, seconded by Mr. Cira and carried, the bove letters were to be received and placed on file. 5. PUBLIC HEARING a. Public Hearing of the Central Downtown Urban Renewal Project, Indiana R -66, and for the making of certain changes to the Urban Renewal Plan: Presiding Officer, Mr. Donald A. Wiggins, Vice resident of the South Bend Redevelopment Commission, advised Resolution No. 522 was adopted by the Commission in our meeting f May 7, 1976, with Attachment "B" of the plan changes attached. he Notice of Public Hearing of the Central Downtown Urban Renewal roject Indiana R -66 is being advertised in the Tri- County News under dates of May 14 and 21, 1976, and in The South Bend Tribune on May 14, 15 and 22, 1976. The Chair and Mr. Brownell requested if anyone wished the Resolution or the Public Notice read, there eing none, Mr. Brownell advised copies were available to anyone fishing same. Copies of the Notice of Public Hearing were also osted on the Bulletin Board in the County -City Building, Munici- al Services Building, County Court House, and in the Department f Redevelopment. 3 PUBLIC HEARING, CENTRAL DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT, IND. R -66, TO BE CONTINUED 5- 21 -76, 10:00 A.M., E.S.T. 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont',d) Mr. Brownell explained the three (3) pages being changed, designated as Attachment "B" of the Urban Renewal Plan, (Pages 9, 15 and 23 of Item R -213): Page 9: d. Service Commercial /Residential "This category is identical to 'Service Commercial' in C.2.b above with the following two exceptions: 1. Not permitted are auto - oriented uses and activities; and hotels, motor hotels or other transient housing 2. Residential use is permitted provided that the total number of dwelling units shall not exceed 200. CHANGE: Page 9. "1. Not permitted a&e auto- o&ievited u/se/s and act ivitie/s; bu t ' hotel ; maton h6t n . a en tkdks, ent ho using taco 2dtc u a&e pe&m,i tie . "2. Residentiat use' peAmitted etovided that the total numb e& ci4 ng unttz s t not exceed 350. age 15: AREA E (East Jefferson - Western Avenue, Monroe- Lincolnwa , New Street and -the St. Joseph River a. Basic Objective The basic objective to be achieved in Area E is the de- velopment of a substantial office complex for major business service firms, with a secondary objective being the inclusion of compatible residential facilities not to exceed a total of 200 dwelling units. b. Land Use As indicated above, the major use of Area E is intended for a substantial office complex with compatible residential facilities resulting in a total development blending into and complementing the adjacent areas. gENOED CHANGE: page 15. "a. Bays is O b e6tiv e The basic obje.c i0e to be ackieved rn Atiea E iz the de- ve,2a�meV►t a6 an 64 jice com�2ex otc maj6k buzTness zenvtce � vrm3 , an a 1h6totc h6ta'With an any _ aeTc t a � corFpte- �.,, -1.,L-1..,t',&4WLy LV -YLL(, IL. M_ 13V-CUY1ia1c.y va_fec;uve znau oe xne - 4 - 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd "b. Land Ups e Ass .indicated above, the majotc use o�j Atcea E is .intended Aon an oAAice cometex with com ati to tces7- entcat a - ttez and a mototc hoteZ tezutting in a total eveeo ment HendiRq into and cFm temevi t;c nq tea iacent arceaz . age 23: SUMMARY OF CONTROLS AND RESTRICTIONS AREA F.A.R. (1) OFF STREET PARKING(2) E (Residential Use) 1 -1/2 spaces for each dwelling unit F7 0J4AAIrF "E 1.0 (Service Commercial l space for each 400 sq. ft. Use ) of floor area. Page 23. (Re6ident"iat U/se) 1 -112 space6 6otc each dweU ng unit except jots etdeAty hows.ing. 1.0 (Setcvice Commetciat 1 space �otc each 400 zq. 6t. U.s e) o f �tootc area 1.0 1 '.space jot each hotel on motet tcoom." r. Brownell asked if there were any questions? . Derbeck: Does this mean then that if...suppose that the developer would have a restaurant, that a restaurant would be permitted? Brownell: The restaurant is already permitted under the use. Any other questions? . Allen: I would assume that you have parking spaces for all the people employed in that area, in these restrictions, along with one parking space for each hotel or motel room? Wiggins: The parking requirement hasn't been changed for the Commercial usage. s..Allen: And it stands, at one (1) parking space for each 400 square feet of usage of floor area? . Brownell: Now, that is for either employees or anybody else. . Amaral: When, and at whose insistence, did the Commission decide to make these revisions in the site plan? Brownell: Well, we made the resolution on May 7th, in our last meeting. . Amaral: That's—When was the decision? Brownell: As to when, you asked, "When ?" didn't you? - 5 - 5. PUU IC HEARING (Cont'd) r. Amaral: Yes. r. Brownell: That was requested by the developer who has been awarded an award by HUD to build some elderly housing which was the first requested. He had a... r. Butler: That was an increase to 350 units. . Brownell: He had the problem of 191 units and he needed the units for the people who are handicapped - -the 10 % - -so he added 19; that made.it 211, for that elderly housing, and in the dis- cussions that followed, the Commission decided to change the limit on dwelling units from 200 to 350. That was a change on limitations. Wiggins: As a point of order, will all people who have questions in this Public Hearing, identify themselves for the record. May I have your name, sir? . Amaral: Certainly. My name is Joseph Amaral. I am an attorney. I practice at Suite 501, of the Lafayette Building, in South Bend. . Wiggins: Thank you. Brownell: Did we answer your questions? . Amaral: Yes. . Brownell: Is there any other question? . Amaral: Now, again, basically the same question: About when was the decision, and how, and at whose insistence, to put up a hotel? To allow a motel or hotel complex? Brownell: Well, the Commission made that decision. . Wiggins: I think probably what you are asking, in part, is how did the change come about, or what prompted it? In part, this is a result of the developers' activities; in part, it's a result of the activities of a Committee that has been established by the Mayor seeking additional business and business firms into the downtown area. The actual necessity for change is demanded by the change in space requirements. Inasmuch as there has been evident interest in luxury housing, it was deemed advisable to expand the possibilities of addi- tional housing, rather than go for 211 units which are imme- diately required from the 200 that we had projected into the plan, to 350, to accommodate whatever may develop. Now, this does not necessarily mean that there will be 350 units built, you understand. As long as the changes were being made, it was the feeling of both this Committee, and the developer of the property - 6 - 5. PUBILIC HEARING (Cont'd) Hr. Wiggins: that there might well be a demand in the future for transient (Cont'd) housing occasioned by the Century Center. Now, this is a ways down the line; it may or may not happen, but the change is projected here to accommodate it, should it happen, so that this could be brought about without going through this same process at a later time. So, we are incorporating not only the changes that are required, but the changes that prudence dictates may possibly be expected. 4r. Amaral: Didn't prudence dictate the expectation of transient housing when this project first was developed and when the bid speci- fications were issued? Wiggins: It did, and there was a problem, at that time, that a part of the HUD requirements are that a survey must be made esta- blishing a need. The survey was made; the survey did not establish the need at that time. Consequently, we would have not been in the position..,we possibly could have gotten a change... but we could not have awarded, and possibly, even today, we could not award the change to actually construct such a unit. However, some things have happened in the interim period: 1) The LaSalle Motor Hotel, which was in existence as a motor hotel at that time, no longer is a motor hotel, which substantially changes the amount of avail- able transient housing units in the downtown area. The other thing that will affect it, and couldn't be a part of it, was that, at that time, the Civic Center was a projected kind of thing, and, to this degree, it is still under the process of construction, but when the Civic Center is finally completed and is in operation, then it will create a substantial demand. This is the future. . Amaral: I understand. Is the proposed revision based on a new Study, as required by HUD? . Brownell: No. The Study... Wiggins: No, the Study... go ahead. Brownell: The fact is that, at any time that we sell land acquired with money from HUD, we have to have a Feasibility Study if the land is being sold for a hotel, motel, or a'motor hotel. Now, we had a Feasibility Study that came out negative, and so we could not sell it today for that use without a new Study. Amaral: One other question: At the time the bid was awarded, wasn't it common knowledge that the LaSalle was going under? Brownell: I don't know whether it was common knowledge, or not. I ... can't answer it; I don't know. M�. Wiggins: Well, it was common knowledge, I guess, that the National Bank had acquired a majority interest as a result of, -I guess, a - 7 - 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd r. Wiggins: foreclosure, but the hotel was operating, and what the bank (Cont'd) proposed to do with it, was the bank's knowledge, and was not public knowledge. r. Brownell: (Yes, in response, to Mrs. Allen's hand to speak). s. Allen: I just feel that this is rather evasive. The Century Center was planned, and it was a going operation; and when the first proposition was offered for Block 6, all of these facts were known, and it was stated that we didn't need more space for convention people. I don't feel that, at this late date, we should say that we didn't know any of these things. I, myself, had projected the very fact that, with the Con- vention Center operating, we would need more room, and, at that time, the LaSalle was not going down hill- -the Charis- matic Renewal people, and all these things were known. Let's not go back. We are just changing it now -- something that could have been done about three or four months ago. Brownell: The fact is that the Feasibility Study came out negative that time. . Allen: But that was based on the same Study that you had before, when the LaSalle was operating and so forth, and even after that when it was going, it was said they didn't need any more room. It made sense that with the Convention Center, that you expect to get the conventions, you needed more room. . Butler: The Feasibility Study, I believe, was undertaken 10 months ago, not three or four months ago. That was 10 months ago when this issue was decided. s. Allen: Well, then, perhaps all this could have been done 10 months ago. . Butler: Well, it very possibly, as Don pointed out, this doesn't permit the Commission to authorize the construction of a hotel, motel, or motor hotel, on that property. Before... if that is contemplated by the developer, the developer has not indi- cated that. If that is contemplated at any time by the de- veloper, the developer is going to have to get approval from the Commission. The Commission, in order to give approval, would again have to have a Feasibility Study - -a positive Feasibility Study undertaken. Brownell: If there is no other question, I think we should make clear that we will have a Public Hearing on June 4th, at our meeting here, at 10:00 a.m. , this year. Wiggins: This Public Hearing will be continued until our next meeting which is June 4th. This is to meet the requirements and will provide any additional opportunity for anyone who has any further questions. - 8 - 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd . Derbeck: I would Tike to ask a question: Well, okay, but you have already passed a Resolution. . Brownell: That's the strange part of the procedure. Derbeck: How can a Public Hearing affect the Resolution? . Butler: That has to be reconfirmed, Jeanne. . Brownell: That's the strange part of the procedure; you must pass the Resolution, approving it first, and then go through these Hearings, and then have a Public Hearing and reconfirm it. . Wiggins: This also might be, in part, an answer to some of your other questions. We have to abide by the Federal regulations in this, which at times seem rather strange. . Caesar: At the next Public Hearing, will final action be taken on this? . Wiggins: That's right. . Caesar: It will be decided one way or the other? r. Wiggins: That will conclude the Public Hearing, at our following meet - ing. This will be continued until that point. Brownell: I might mention that this matter has been approved by the Area Plan Commission at their Hearing, and will be going before the City Council at their next meeting. Butler: Has MACOG acted yet? . Brownell: They have considered it favorably, but their actual approval hasn't been issued yet. Derbeck: Well, will the next City Council meeting be before your report? . Brownell: Yes. The Council meeting has to be before our Public Hearing. It will be the 24th. Derbeck: Then, if they pass it, isn't that...? . Brownell: It's not conclusive on this Commission. . Derbeck: The person who has the contract for the Senior Citizen policy, is not that, International Constructors? . Brownell: I don't think they have a contract. They have been awarded a conditional award. . Derbeck: That is, Mr. Medlock's firm, right? . Brownell: International Constructors. I believe it is. . Wiggins: Let's proceed to the next order of business. - 9 - • 1 1 a. BUSINESS Contract SECD /19: Commission approval was requested to rescind CONTRACT Contract SECD /19 awarded to Slatile Roofing and Sheet Metal, in AWARD TO: January 2, 1976 Commission Meeting, (Item 6. d), per recommenda- SLATILE tions of the Southeast Advisory Committee. The rehabilitation ROOFING & work was to be on home at 409 East Paris Street, in award amount SHEET METAL, of $7,900.00. RESCINDED, Mr. Brownell advised the problem is that the bidder (contractor) SECD /19 made a mistake in his bid of approximately $2,000 and he doesn't want to eat that, so he has asked that his bid be withdrawn. We are trying to accomplish that by this action request. Mr. Keith P. Crighton, Director, Bureau of 'Housing, confirmed the statement. Mr. Kevin J. Butler, Commission Legal,Counsel, asked if there were other bids on this particular contract? Mr. Crighton advised there had been other bidders,'but that this was the only bid received that was under the $8,000 maximum. This is an actual contract and the contractor has a performance bond on it. In re- sponse to Commissioner Robinson's question, he advised the Notice to Proceed has not been issued. This contractor has been reliable, has been consistently for the past two years, and we have never had any complaints on his work, but on this contract he just made an error and left out some items that would cost the contractor $2,000 to perform. Commissioner Wiggins added that the only reason this contractor was under the $8,000 mark is that he left some things out. Mr. Crichton added that this rehabilitation work would have to be reinspected first, and recosted to cut the specifications down and eliminate some items from the inspection, as it sounds like a rather costly contract. It may be reduced to just the major health and safety violations. It could then be re- advertised for bids. Commissioner Cira said the way he looks at this and feels about it is that the contractor made a mistake and that he should eat it; that it could have went the other way too. Commissioner Robinson's opinion was that we have a complaint on one hand that the contractors about every time come in with a request for more money, and here we have a guy who made a blunder and is in business so should know what he is doing. What good is a contract if we are going to let them do anything they please? Commissioner Cira asked if it would be legal to come up with a compromise and split the difference, to which Commissioner Wiggins added he is just under the legal limita- tion. It was awarded for $7,900. Commissioner Robinson asked Mr. Crighton if he had any other sugges- tions other than the one presented to get the contractor from under his obligation, and Mr. Crighton advised that the suggestion was not his, but the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. Mr. Gene Evans, Executive Secretary, Civic Planning Association, asked what other alternatives do we have, and Mr. Brownell advised the Committee felt this contractor has been reasonably satisfactory, honest and doing a fairly decent job, that it would be better for us to act in good faith; that the contractor just made an honest mis- - 10 - 6. OLDIBUSINESS (Cont'd take and that it would be better to just rescind the contract. The other alternative would be to make the contractor live up to this contract, but by now the costs have gone up some more. If the con- tractor would forfeit his performance bond on file and fail to perform his contract, he could never get a bond again or any other contract. We can't give the contractor a change order because there is nothing undiscovered here. Commissioner Cira asked if the contractor bid on this job in January, why then is it just being brought up in May? Mr. Crighton advised we didn't get all the documentation- =the bonds and all others- -and have our Legal Counsel review it and have everything taken care of until probably the beginning of April. Then we had our meeting on this contract on either the last of April or beginning of May, and this is when it was brought before the Redevelopment Commission and follow the normal course of procedure. Commissioner Cira was concerned about the added costs because of the increase in costs. Mr. Crighton said we would reinspect it and reduce the costs by nature of eliminating some items; as the other bids re- ceived--other than Slatile's- -were over $8,000. If Slatile hadn't made the mistake all three bids would have been over $8,000 and would have been rejected. Nrs. Allen asked, "Doesn't someone check out these bids and the speci- fications to make sure everything is there, and whose responsibility is this to check and make sure that every item is covered ?" Mr. Crighton ind Commissioner Wiggins stated it is the contractor's responsibility, ind added it is the contractor's responsibility to make sure that his )id is in conformance with the list of things required to be done and It is certainly his responsibility to cost out the items. Mr. Crighton tdvised they try to check these. This is why this has come up, and :he Notice to Proceed hasn't been issued, as they discovered the error. le said they don't check the bids prior to the award; they spot check. 'hey just do not have the manpower to do that. :ommissioner Wiggins asked what happens if the house can't be brought ip to code requirements within the $8,000 limit, and Mr. Brownell ad- ,ised we would simply reject the application of the householder because .he cost is going over $8,000. Mr. Ken Schaller advised that they have of run into too many that is over the maximum for the basic code equirement work in health and safety. ith further discussions, Commissioner Robinson stated that we made an xception one other time and when we made that exception, then all of sudden we had to back off, and that he had mixed emotions and said e agreed with Commissioner Cira's comments. Also, good reputable ontractors are hard to come by on these rehabilitations. mmissioner Robinson made the motion to rescind the award of Contract CD /19, the Commission made to Slatile Roofing and Sheet Metal, in nuary 2, 1976, Commission meeting, as per Southeast Advisory Com- ttee's recommendations. Motion seconded by Mr. Donaldson and carried. - 11 - 6. OLDIBUSINESS (Cont'd b. Report'on Newbill Construction Company: Mr. Crighton was requested REPORT by Commissioners in May 7th meeting to report on this contractor ON NEWBILL at this meeting. CONSTRUC- TION CO. Mr. Crighton advised for the past two weeks, they have been investi- gating all claims for payment against Newbil'1 Construction Company by the subcontractors, and are in the process right now of verify- ing these claims by these subcontractors, materials, and supplying us with a listing of the homes that they have either supplied materials for or labor involved. These letters are being notarized that they are in fact true and correct copies. We have apprised Chuck Leone in the City Attorney's Office of the situation since these are Model Cities contracts and the City Attorney is involved. We are taking steps to see that the matter is corrected as soon as possible. The Presiding Officer, Commissioner Wiggins, stated, as he understands it, the reasons for the inquiry were to determine whether or not we should consider the prospect of seeking other contractors for the work that this contractor has been awarded -- further down the line- - work that he hasn't even started at this point. "Is it your feeling, as a result of the investigations, that there is any possibility of his getting himself in solid condition and being able to fulfill -the contract that we have ?" Mr. Crighton advised that he really didn't know; that the stated events that we have is not conclusive to any extent. Mr. Brownell asked, "I think it looks somewhat doubtful doesn't it, Mr. Crighton, that he will be able financially to go ahead with the other contracts ?" Mr. Crighton advised it depends on how many verified debts we can get. We have three or four statements from subcontractors- - actual verified statements where they can prove that they supplied materials or labor for a given contract. Those are the only types of items that we can go on; we can't just arbitrarily accept subcontrac- tor's word that somebody owes him money, if he doesn't have an invoice or a contract, or at least an address of the property that he worked on. So right now, we only have four, and he stated Chuck Leone had instructed him to withhold payments on this contract until we get the matter straightened out. The Chair asked Commission Legal Counsel at what point do we need to make a determination, and Mr. Butler advised, at a point when we decide on the work that was awarded to him. This is in line with the general problem we have had in getting the contractors on the job as quickly as possible after the initial inspection, so that initial problems don't arise and also to protect the contractor so that his contracts don't increase, and apparently he is (this contractor) the successful bidder on a number of homes in the Southeast area? Mr. Crighton advised the Redevelopment Commission awarded Newbill Construc- tion Company four (4) rehabilitation contracts as a "conditional award" on January 2, 1976, because of the problems he has had with his bonding and the arrangement that was made to withhold 10% of the first contract. Further questions raised by Mr. Butler, answered by Mr. Crighton were: The contracts have not been executed yet; he has not supplied us with the information that is required (Contracts 11 /SECD, 12 /SECD, 15 /SECD - 12 - 6. OLDIBUSINESS (Cont'd and 18 /SECD). On March 3rd, we requested he submit documents and the contractor has not completed these documents yet. There have been numerous times when we have requested the documents and Ken Schaller has the complete breakdown for Counsel to review if he wishes. Mr. Butler advised, that, frankly, everything that he has heard, over the past, since January, with the conditional award at that time, about this contractor would indicate that they are just simply not able to do the work and are not able to meet their contract commit- ments. Mr. Crighton further advised we still require the E.E.O. docu- ments before we can issue the Notice to Proceed, and that we have not received those from the contractor as yet. Mr. Butler stated that amounts to 2 -1/2 months involving our request for basic documents to get the contract completed. With the possibility that the longer we delay - -if he can't do the work- -then we are going to have to rebid and the costs are going to go up. Perhaps we won't have to rebid. depending on other bids that were received on the contracts. Commissioner Robinson asked several questions: Is the performance bond the contractor put up, is that for one dwelling and is it enough to take care of the financial irresponsibility on the part of the contractor with the subcontractors? Mr. Crighton advised, No. About the money that has been retained - -Yes. In the E -6 Project area now, we have enough money now. That is why we are withholding payment at the request of the City Attorney. The retainage will cover the subcontractors' bills and they are protected. We are withholding one check for $11,347 and he has additional work amounting to approxi- mately $10,000 that will be shortly owed to him that we will not make payment on until the matter with the subcontractors is straightened out. Commissioner Wiggins asked if it would be in line with, not only our responsibilities, but entitlements to advise the contractor at this point that unless all these things can be straightened out by our next Commission meeting that we will take action to remove him; that would be on June 4th. Mr. Butler advised that it certainly is in line. Mr. Gene Evans asked, "Is the money that is owed to the subcontractors as a result of their work on contracts that have been awarded by this Redevelopment Commission ?" Mr. Butler said it is not; this is in the E -6 Project area; that is not the Commission's jurisdiction. As to whether or not we are on good solid ground here withholding payment that someone else has contracted, Mr. Butler advised that 'we' are not withholding payments; again, it is not related to our contracts. Commissioner Wiggins added what we are trying to determine here is whether or not the man has sufficient responsibility that we can allow him to go ahead with this other package that he was awarded in our Southeast Community Development Program. Mr. Crighton advised Mr. Schaller just reminded him-of-an additional point, and that is we had an emergency situation on one of these contracts that the Commission awarded the contractor and a Proceed Order was issued on just the emergency item, with the agreement that we would pay him -- although the contract was not formally approved mm [:1 7. OLD BUSINESS (Cont'd hrough Mr. Butler's office yet. He didn't know what the situation onstitutes on the advance as he has not as yet responded. The otice to Proceed was issued to Newbill Construction on 9th of April o do some emergency work which included replacing a hot water heater hat was leaking and also some laboratory fixtures that were leaking. hese were part of the contract specifications, and checking with ewbill, he was assured on approximately April 20th (checking several imes before with them), that the work would be completed by April 1; and on April 22, Mr. Schaller said he went into the structure nd the work had not even been started. Mr. Butler asked if that was he one he had talked to him about and Mr. Schaller answered in the ffirmative. Mr. Butler said he had instructed Mr. Schaller to go head and give the contractor a specific deadline of a day or two, nd that if he didn't do it, to get somebody else to do it. That mount has now been deducted from his contract. Mr. Schaller advised hat has been done, and on another contractor the plumber was hired o do the work and that work has been accomplished -- within the same ay the plumber was contacted. he Chair's response was that we do have a record of nonperformance, nd it looks like the longer it goes, the worse it gets. ommissioner Robinson said he has one more question to ask and then e will mace a motion so we can move on: "If we would take action nd say, right now, today, and cancel out the contract Newbill thought e almost.had, would this make it twice as hard for you to get the oney for these other people who had done work for him in the past n this other contract, or do you still want that lever over his head or two weeks, hoping you can get the money out of him? Mr. Crighton dvised the only lever we are holding right now is this check for 11,347 and that it is his opinion that if the Commission takes action oday and would rescind those contracts, that there would be a Notice f Dispute filed, by the contractor. Mr. Butler advised he is aware f that. Further statements followed as to whether or not we could ebid these contracts or how long they could possibly be tied up. Mr. utler advised that would depend on whether he was able to obtain some ind of injunctive relief or not, and that his recommendation would be hat the Commission move to require Newbill Construction Company to ob- ain all documentation that has to be obtained in order to get the four 4) contracts executed by the next Commission meeting, and the performance ond, time payment bond, if not done by that time, the Commission will escind those contracts; withdraw the award of the bids on Rehabilitation ontracts ll /SECD, 12 /SECD, 15 /SECD and 18 /SECD. he motion, as recommended above by Commission Legal Counsel, Mr. Butler, as made by Mr. Robinson, seconded by Mr. Cira and unanimously carried. NEW BUSINESS Contract Set No. 4; for Rehabilitation Contract Nos: 30 through 37, BIDS a. n Southeast Communit Development Pro ram: Commission approval was REJECTED, 'equestea lo reject all i s received on Contract Set No. 4, for Re- CONTRACT abilitation Contract Nos. 30 through 37, per recommendations of the SET #4, outheast Advisory Committee as the bids received were in excess of # 30 THRU he acceptable bid limits on the work required. # 37, SE - 14 - CD PROGRA 7. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd 9r. Keith Crighton advised only one (1) contractor submitted bids )n this set of contracts; two other contractors picked up bid iocuments but did not have time to submit their bids. The bids ,eceived were from Slatile Roofing & Sheet Metal Company, and are :onsiderably over our cost estimates. Bids received are: CONTRACT SLATILE ROOFING & NO. ADDRESS SHEET METAL COMPANY 30 313 E. Calvert Street $ 6,872.00 31 630 E. Dayton Street 7,085.00 32 719 E. Haney Avenue 7,670.00 33 207 E. Ohio Street 7,285.00 34 1414 Marietta Street 6,385.00 35 911 Marietta Street 6,945.00 36 206 E. Pennsylvania Ave. 9,668.00 37 1015 Marietta Street 9,770.00 ** Less $1,400.00 Electrical, or total Bid Price of $8,370.00. otion was made by Mr. Robinson, seconded by Mr. Cira and unani- mously carried, to accept the recommendation of the Southeast Adv. Committee and reject the above bids received on Contract Set No. , for Rehabilitation Contract Nos. 30 through 37, in the South- east Community Development Program. b. Ome Order No. 1 to Rehabilitation Contract No. SECD /PR /CS -2/13, CHANGE In Southeast Community Development Program: Approval was request- ORDER NO.1 d of this change order, for an increase in contract amount of TO REHAB. 1,180.00, with Fleming Masonry Construction Company, (Contract: CONTRACT 4,605.00), or an amended contract total of $5,785.00, for rehabi- SECD /PR /CS- itation work at: 408 East Keasey Street, Southeast Community 2/13 APPROV evelopment Housing Program. er Mr. James L. Johnson, Jr., Chief Inspector, in his memorandum f May 18, the specifications called for front rear porch wooden ecks to be replaced and painted; the kitchen and bathroom walls ere to be painted; and asphalt shingles were to cover the front orch. Since the time of the initial inspection, both the front nd rear porch decks have almost collapsed, and the kitchen and athroom walls have deteriorated. r. Brownell advised the additions shown are in amount of $1,660.00, nd the deletions are in amount of $480.00, leaving a net increase f $1,180.00. r. Crighton advised the most costly item is the front porch. The riginal specifications called for just installing the tongue and roove on both the front and rear porches; but when the contractor tarted to tear it out, they found it to be severely deteriorated. he front porch instead is being replaced with 140 square feet of locks, 42 lineal feet concrete footings, and 120 square feet con - rete floor, and replace 130 square feet plywood sheathing on roof. he rear porch is being replaced with 5 ft. x 6 ft. platform, in- - 15 - 7. NEWIBUSINESS (Cont'd luding 76 lineal feet concrete footings, 36 square feet block, and 0 square feet concrete floor. r. Crighton also advised that even with the inclusion of this dollar mount request for the change order, we are still $385.20 under the ext highest bid that we originally received, which was: $6,170.20. ommissioner Wiggins, chairing the meeting, added that we are also oming up with concrete for the front and rear porches instead of he tongue qnd groove, which is a substantial improvement there. ommissioner Cira stated he felt the contractor is in line here, nd made the motion for the approval of Change Order No. l to Re- abilitation Contract No. SECD /PR /CS -2/13, for an increase in con - ract amount of $1,180.00, with Fleming Masonry Construction Company, ith an amended contract total of $5,785.00, in Community Develop - ent Housing Program. Motion seconded by Mr. Donaldson and unani- ously carried. c. First Series 1976 Project Notes: Mr. Brownell advised these Project otes, in amount of '6,951,000.00, were awarded to the low bidder, per our bid opening date of May 11, 1976, at 1:00 P.M., Eastern Daylight Savings Time, to: Bankers Trust Company Bank of America N.T. & S.A. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith By: Bankers Trust Company 16 Wall Street New York, N.Y. 10015 .t an interest rate of 2.84 %, with a Premium of $157.00, and maturity late of: September 17, 1976. ur Resolution No. 281 authorizes the sale, issuance and delivery of roject Notes, and the execution of requisition agreements in Project ndiana R -66. he Notice of Sale of the Project Notes appeared in The Daily Bond uyer on April 27, 1976; and also in The South Bend Tribune on pril 27, 1976. The notes have been presented and have been signed y the Mayor and submitted to the Regional Office in Chicago as re- uested by the Office of the Regional Counsel, Region V, Department f Housing and Urban Development, Chicago. Fhe other bids received were: (Bid Amount: $6,951,000) 3idder's Name and Address I Interest Rate Premium Fhe Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. 2.85% None Freasury Dept., Tax Exempt Note Division )ne Chase Manhattan Plaza, 35th Floor Jew York, New York 10015 FIRST SERIES 1976 PROJECT NOTES AWARDED 7. NEW N. . BUSINESS (Cont'd idder's Name and Address hemical Bank n Association with: . G. Becker & Co. unicipal Securities, Inc. By: Chemical Bank Municipal Bond Department 20 Pint Street (P.O. Box 5710) New York, N.Y. 10049 organ Guaranty Trust Company of N.Y. alomon Brothers 3 Wall Street ew York, N.Y. 10015 Ihterest'Rate Premium 2.88% $ 98.00 2.98% 187.00 s. Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter, inquired if these Notes hat were issued are to pay off the previous notes, and Mr. Brownell dvised that it is, but that actually we owed $6,745,000 in Project otes that become due on June 11, and the interest on that is $240,262.77. e are sending in the check for $34,815.00 that the Commission authorized oday so that we will have paid the paying agent $52.23 more than is owed, nd the Premium is $157.00, so they will be sending us a check back for 209.23. r. Brownell advised this is a matter of reporting rather than anything hat requires any Commission action at this point. Resolution No. 281 uthorizes the action taken. The new Project Notes will come due on: eptember 17, of this year- -1976. r. Brownell also advised that prior to September 17, we anticipate major ayments on the balance of the Notes. We expect to get $1,050,960 from UD in grant money; close to $800,000 in relocation money. Also, we ant to report that our Urgent Needs Funds request has been determined ligible for $2 -1/2 Million, and have been told, via phone, that we will eceive formal notice from HUD within the next week or week after, to et in our documentation to receive the $2 -1/2 Million. We are hopeful hat we can get that all done and get it received by September 17, so hat the balance of the Notes for September 17 be be down around $2 -1/2 illion. Mr. Butler asked if the $2 -1/2 Million in Urgent Needs Funds s all to be used to pay off the obligation, and Mr. Brownell advised t is all to be used for that. Also, that we just sold the portion f Disposition Parcel No. 6 -1, in amount of $44,427.34, and that amount ill go on the Notes too; so we will have in the neighborhood of 4 -1/2 Million to pay on these Notes by September, we hope, and that ill reduce the balance to around $2.5 Million dollars to be refinanced. ESS REPORTS The Center City News and the scheduled events for happenings in Downtown DOWNTOWN South Bend, for spring and summer of 1976, were distributed in the packets, SOUTH are being posted and distributed to anyone wishing copies. These are BEND printed through courtesy of the Downtown South Bend Council, with addi- COUNCIL ti o al copies available through the River Bend Plaza Office. REPORTS - 17 - 9. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING The Chair advised the next Commission meeting will be on Friday, NEXT June 4, 1976, at 10:00 a.m., E.S.T., and at that time we will continue COMMISSION the Public Hearing that began during the course of this meeting. The MEETING: next meeting will also be held in the Office of the Department of 6 -4 -76 Redevelopment, Room 1200, County -City Building. 10. ADJO RNMENT The hair opened the floor for discussion and /or any further questions, ADJOURNMENT ther being none, the Chair entertained a motion for adjournment. Said moti n was made by Mr. Donaldson, seconded by Mr. Robinson and carried. Meeting adjourned at: 10:56 a.m. aye,, wnell, Executive Director F. Jay 'mtz, President (SEAL) - 18 - RESOLUTION NO. 522 ESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT OMMISSION RE- DECLARING THE CENTRAL DOWNTOWN RENEWAL AREA TO BE BLIGHTED AND RE- APPROVING AN URBAN RENEWAL LAN AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH RELOCATION PAYMENTS ILL BE MADE FOR PROJECT NUMBER INDIANA R -66 AND FOR HE MAKING OF CERTAIN MINOR CHANGES TO THE URBAN ENEWAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of South Bend, Department of Redevelopment, pursuz nt to the Redevelopment of Cities and Towns Act of 1953, as am nded, conducted surveys and investigations and thoroughly s t u d i E d that area in the City of South Bend, County of St. Joseph, State of Indiana, designated as the Central Downtown Urban Renewal Area hich is more particularly described by a line drawn as follo s: Beginning at a point formed by the intersection of he north right -of -way line of LaSalle Avenue and he west right -of -way line of Main Street; thence south along,the west right -of -way line of Main Street to the north right -of -way line of Washington Street; hence west along the north right -of -way line of Washington Street to the west right -of -way line of Lafayette Boulevard; thence south along the west fight -of -way line of Lafayette Boulevard to the south fight -of -way line of Jefferson Boulevard; thence east long the south right -of -way line of Jefferson Boule- vard to the west right -of -way line of Main Street; hence south along the west right -of -way line of Main Street to the south right -of -way line of Monroe Street; hence east along the south right -of -way line of Monroe Street to the west right -of -way line of Fellows Street; hence south along the west right -of -way line of Fellows Street to the south right -of -way line of Monroe Street hence east along the south right -of -way line of Monroe Street and proceeding in a northeasterly direction along said right -of -way to the center of the St. Joseph River; thence proceeding in a northwesterly direction along the center of the St. Joseph River to the north right -of -way line of LaSalle Avenue; thence west along the north right- of -way line of LaSalle Avenue to the west right -of -way line of Main Street which is the point of beginning. WHEREA has be that t blight by the the pr 1953, health develo WHf R EA showin variou S,'upon such surveys, investigations and studies made, it en found by the'City of South Bend. Redevelopment Commission he above - described area is blighted to an extent that such ed conditions cannot be corrected by regulatory process, or ordinary operations of private enterprise without resort to ovisions of the Redevelopment of Cries and Towns Act of as amended, and it has been further found that the public and welfare would be benefited by the acquisition and re- pment of such area under the provisions of such Act; and the Commissioners have caused the boundaries of such blighted parcels of properties, streets to be prepared maps area, the location and alleys and other and plans of the features affecting the acquisition, clearance, replanning and redevelop- ment f such area., and indicating the parcels of property to be inclu ed in the acquisition and portions of the area acquired which are to be devoted to streets, parks, playground, and other public purposes under the redevelopment plan, and it has been found that certain parcels are not feasible for rehabilita- tion and should be added to the acquisition list and that certain. land ise provisions should be changed and updated to conform wi.th curre t conditions; and WHEREAS, in connection with an application of the City of South Bend, Department of Redevelopment to the Secretary of the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development for financial.assistance under Title I of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, the approval by the Governing Body of the City of South Bend, Department of Re- devel p,ment, of an Urban Renewal Plan for the project area invol.ved in such application is required by the Federal Government before it will enter into a contract for loan or grant with the City of South Bend, Department of Redevelopment, under Title I; and WHERE S, the rules and regulations prescribed by the Federal Govern- menu ursuant to Title I require that the conditions under which the City of South Bend, Department of Redevelopment, will make Re location Payments in connection with the Urban Renewal Project con - templ ted by the application be officially approved by the Govern- ing B dy'of the City of South Bend, Department of Redevelopment; and WHERE S, there was presented to this meeting of the Governing Body of th City of South Bend, Department of Redevelopment, for its consi eration and approval, a copy of the amended pages of the Urban Renew 1 Plan for the project area in the land use provisions, which plan s entitled, "URBAN RENEWAL PLAN CENTRAL DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL AREA PROJECT NO. IND. R -66 SOUTH BEND, INDIANA" andconsists of a typewritten document and a set of conditions under which the City of South Bend, Department of Redevelopment, will make Relocation Payments, which set of conditions is set forth in the Re- location Plan attached hereto and marked for the Urban Renewal con- templated by the application; and WHERE S, the Urban Renewal Plan and the proposed changes to said Plan and the conditions under which the Local Public Agency will make Re- location Payments were reviewed and considered at the meeting; and WHERE S, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the.regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development effectuating that title provide that no person shall, on the ground of race, color, sex, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benef is of, or be subjected to discrimination in the undertaking and carry ng out of urban renewal projects assisted under Title I of the Housi g Act of 1949, as amended: - 2 - NOW, DEVE BEND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Adopi Comm. 1200 Bend, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND RE- LOPMENT COMMISSION, GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH DEPARTMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT: That the Central Downtown Urban Renewal Area, which is described in the first "WHEREAS" clause hereof, is blighted and cons'titutes.a menace to the social and economic interest of the City of South Bend and its inhabitants and that it will be of public utility and benefit to acquire such area and redevelop the same under the provisions of the Redevelopment of Cities.and Towns Act of 1953, as amended. That the Department,of Redevelopment has acquired land and proposes to acquire land and the interests therein within aforementioned boundaries as designated in the Urban Renewal Plan, as amended, and under the conditions set out therein. That it is estimated that the cost of acquiring the properties in the area will be $13,375,220 which amount is based on the average of two independent fee appraisals. That the conditions under which the City of South Bend, Department of Redevelopment, will make the relocation payments are hereby, in all respects, approved. That the.Urban Renewal Plan, together with the proposed amendmen.ts thereto, is hereby in all respects approved and the Secretary is hereby directed to file a certified copy of said Urban Renewal Plan, with proposed amendments, with, the minutes of this meeting. That the United States of America and the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development be, and they hereby are, assured of full compliance by the City of South Bend, Department of Redevelopment, with regula- tions of the Department of Housing and Urban Development effectuating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ed at the Regular Meeting of the South Bend Redevelopment scion, held on May 7, 1976, at the Office of the Commission, County -City Building, 227 West Jefferson Boulevard, South Indiana 46601. . Pelter (SEAL onaiason, Secretary CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF'REDEVELOPMENT - 3 - Tres -i den �1 i ATTACHMENT "B" Wh lesaling without stock - typically, this group functions in effect to bypass merchant wholesalers. They include manufacturer's own ou lets or wholesale agents and brokers who act as middlemen. Such es ablishments require only display and office space. They do not ha dle or acquire title I to goods but only arrange sales between pr; ducers and retailers or wholesale merchants. Pr vate services these establishments are oriented to individuals and to specific firms and agencies. Among such services are those or ented to business firms (machines, blueprinting, advertising, etc.); repair of goods; personal and professional services; and commercial- recreational establishments. c. Public and Semipublic - This category is intended for Federal, State, County and City office buildings and facilities, and semipublic fa ili.ties and .utilities which are relatively open to the public although such uses may be either privately or publicly owned. Th se latter public uses can be termed public services and are pri- marily oriented to groups of people or to places where people assemble into groups. Among such services are: (1) education (public, private and commercial schools, libraries, 'art centers and museums), (2 health and welfare (medical and social clinics, hospitals), (3) passive recreational facilities (as opposed to active, individual participation) such as auditoriums, theaters, exhibition h-alls, (4) religious and social (church, lodge halls, fraternal organization), a d (5) protective (fire stations, police stations, courts and so forth). d. S rvice Commercial /Residential - "This cate or is identical to ".ervice Commercial" in C.2.b above with the following two excep- e. 1. 2, s: Not pe.rmitted are auto - oriented uses and activities; but hotels, motor hotels or other transient ousing facilities are permitted. Residential use is ermittod_rovided that the total number of dwelling units sha 1 not exceed 350. Parking This category includes parking space within buildings, uIlderneath buildings or areas on the surface of the ground other than a street or other public way, for the parking of automobiles aid available to the public whether for a fee or as an accommodation f r clients or customers. Surface parking areas, where provided, s all be suitably paved, drained and lighted, and shall be appro p iately screened. May 7, 196 -9- R -213 �. P I rkin Tile parking facilities to serve the needs of the cultural center wil be provided to limited degree within the area itself. Such par -king w 11 be for the employees of the various developments within the are or to meet the short term parking needs of the public. Longer term parking facilities to serve the area will be provided principally by tie parking structures to be located immediately to the west of the c ltural center area in Area C. d. P destrian.Circulation Pedestrian circulation within the area will be developed in such a manner as.to enhance the relationships of the buildings to one anoth a well as to take maximum advantage of the unique topography, the i land area, and the view of the St. Joseph River. Pedestrian flow from outside the area will be principally from the parking structurE located immediately to the west in Area C and from the pedestrian bridge to be developed to connect the Washington Street pedestrian mall and Area D. In addition, pedestrian flow into this area will t possible at a number of locations along Wayne Street to the South at at St. Joseph Street south of the Washington Street mall. e. Vehicular Access and Service Vehicular access and service to this area will be principally from St. Joseph Street with limited access from,Jefferson. =Wayne Street. AREA E (East Jefferson - Western Avenue, Monroe- Lincolnwa ,. New Street and the St. Joseph River Objective a. Basic he basic objective to be achieved in Area E is the development of n office complex for major business service .firms, and a. motor otel.with ancillar y facilities to complement the Century Center. secondary objective shall be the inclusion of compatible resident acilities not'to exceed a tot6i of 350 dwellin units. b. L.and Use As indicated above, the major use of Area E is in for an ffice complex with compatible residential facilities and a motor otel resul_tjn q in a total development blending into and comple menting the adjacent areas. -15- R -213 1 a er s e d al t " � F G H i Off Street part they sq. ft. pl fraction A require in length clearance .i..irnr.l r ArJh nr_C TD r TI(U►C F.A.R.(1) 5.0 Not applicable 10.0 Not .applicable (Residential Use) 1.0 (Service Commercial Use) l -0 4.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 Not applicable OFF STREET PARKING(2) 1 space for.each 400 sq. ft. of floor area for commercial or office use. l space for each hotel or motel room. [lot required to.be provided in area but; will be provided by public parking within 300 feet walking distance. Plot required to be provided in are�i but will be provided by public parking within 300 feet walking distance.' Hot required to be provided in area but will be provided by public parking within 300 feet walking distance. 1 -112 spaces for each dwelling unit excep or e er y ousing. 1 space for each 400 sq. ft, of floor area l space for each hotel or motel room. T space for each hotel or motel room. 1 space for each hotel or motel room. l space for each 400 sq. ft. of floor area. 1 ,pace for each 400 sq. ft, of floor area Not,applicable Loading: Off street loading.shall be provided for every building or of as follows: 1 space for a gross floor area of 5,000 to 20,000. us one additionil loading space for each 20,000 sq. ft. or major hereof in excess .of 20,000 sq. ft. loading herth .rill he at least lO feet in width and at least 25 feet exclusive of aisle and maneuvering space and will have a, vertical of at least 14 feet. -23- R -213 Di., COMB, NIMTZ & DU COMB ATTORNEYS AT LAW INCOME BUILDING 811 W. COLFAX AVENUE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601 S ATE OF INDIANA ) )SS: S . JOSEPH COUNTY) REMONSTRANCE TO RESOLUTION NO. 522 CITY OF SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION I. .Nelson L. Ault, Jr. and Virginia N. Ault, husband and wife, 11 uld represent and state to the Redevelopment Commission that they are t e fee title owners of the real estate situate and known as 127 South t ichigan Street, South Bend, Indiana, more particularly described as: "Sixteen (16) feet from and off of the South side of Lot numbered Twenty-Eight (28) and four (4) feet off of the North side of Lot Numbered Twenty -Nine (29), of the original plat of the City of South Bend. ". alt Camera Shop, Inca would represent and show to this Commission that hold .a long term lease on said above described real estate, and are rating a camera shop on the premises, named and styled "Ault Camera Shop 11 II. As joint remonstrators, from the description contained in the Public Notice establishing the Public Hearing on Resolution No. 522, b ing held this date, the undersigned's real estate is within the area s bject to urban renewal and the plans and conditions involved therein. S id proposed Resolution No. 522 prescribes that the above described real estate is blighted to an extent that such blighted conditions cannot be corrected by regulatory process or by the ordinary operations of private enterprise without resort to the provisions of the Redevelop- nt of Cities and Towns Act of 1953 as amended, and it has been further und, according to the proposed Resolution No. 522, that the public alth and welfare would be benefited by the acquisition and redevelopment such area under the provisions of such Act. It further provides that will be of public utility and benefit to acquire such area and redevelop e same under the findings set forth in the first and second "Whereas" lauses of said Resolution. III. Your remonstrators remonstrate against the language in R solution No.. 522 for the reason that there is no substantial or credible e idence of any kind that because of lack of development, cessation of g owth, deterioration of improvements, or character of occupancy, age, . o solescence, substandard building, or other factors which impair the value or values of the real estate herein described, or adjacent real estate w ich would prevent a normal development of the property, or use thereof, w ich under current conditions is undesireable for or creates an impossi- bility of normal development and occupancy. Your remonstrators would further represent and state to the C mmission that this Remonstrance is addressed sol'el'y to the real estate d scribed.in this Remonstrance, and that the proposed project, so far as it effects the real estate herein involved, will be of no public utility aid benefit. WHEREFORE, your remonstrators request that the Commission amend R solution No. 522 so as to change the findings set forth in said Resolu- tion, as it pertains to the real estate of the Remonstrance only, and r move any finding that Remonstrator's real estate is blighted and cannot b� corrected by regulatory process or by the ordinary operations of pri v to enterprise; and to further amend the Resolution so that the language and finding therein reflect that the "public health and welfare would not be benefited by the acquisition and redevelopment of remonstrators' re al estate." son L. Ault, Jr. irginla N. Ault DU .:OMB, NIMTZ &. DU COMB ATTORNEYS AT LAW INCOME BUILDING 511 W. COLFAX AVENUE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 48801 NELSON L. AULT JR. VIRGINIA N. AULT B r&Vy L, Robert J. DuCoOX Sr. Attorney and Agent for Nelson L. 6,4t Jr. and Virginia N. Ault AULT CAMERA SHOP, INC. An Indiana Corporation By Ne son illiam Ault, Vice President and Secretary. -2- 3 D. .FMB, NIMTZ & DU COMB ATTORNEYS AT LAW INCOME BUILDING 611 W. COLFAX AVENUE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601 t ATE OF INDIANA) )SS: . JOSEPH COUNTY) e 1976 REMONSTRANCE TO RESOLUTION NO. 522 CITY OF SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION I. Nelson L. Ault, Jr. and. Virginia N. Ault, husband and wife, )uld represent and state to the Redevelopment Commission that they are ie fee title owners of the real estate situate and known as 127 South Michigan Street, South Bend, Indiana, more particularly described as: ' IS i xteen (16) feet from and off of the South side of Lot numbered Twenty- Eight (28) and four (4) feet off of the North side of Lot Numbered Twenty -Nine (29), of the original plat of the City of South Bend. ". 401t Camera Shop, Inc. would represent and show to this Commission that they hold a long term lease on said above described real estate, and are o0erating a camera shop on the premises, named and styled "Ault Camera Num. II. As joint remonstrators, from the description contained iii the Public Notice establishing the Public Hearing on Resolution No. 522, ing held this date, the undersigned's real estate is within the area s4bject to urban renewal and the plans and conditions involved 'therein. id proposed Resolution No. 522 prescribes that the above described r al estate is blighted to an extent that such blighted conditions cannot be corrected by regulatory process or by the ordinary operations of private enterprise without resort to the provisions of the Redevelop - m nt of .Cities and Towns Act of 1953 as amended, and it has been further f und, according to the proposed Resolution No. 522, that the public h alth and welfare would be benefited by the acquisition and redevelopment of such area under the provisions of such Act. It further provides that it will be of public utility and benefit to acquire such area and redevelop the same under the findings set forth in the first and second "Whereas" cllauses of said Resolution. III. Your remonstrators remonstrate against the language in '0- solution. No. 522 for the reason that there is ho substantial or credible evidence of any kind that because of lack of development, cessation of growth, deterioration of improvements, or character of occupancy, age, obsolescence, substandard building, or other factors which impair the value or values of the real estate herein described, or adjacent reap estate which would prevent a normal development of the property, or use thereof, which under current conditions is undesireable for or creates an impossi- bility of normal development and occupancy. Your remonstrators would further represent and state to the Commission that this Remonstrance is addressed solely to the real estate d scribed in this Remonstrance, and that the proposed project, so far as it effects the real estate herein involved, will be of no public utility and benefit. WHEREFORE, your remonstrators request that the Commission amend solution No. 522 so as to change the findings set forth in said Resolu ion, as it pertains to the real estate of the Remonstrance only, and ove any finding that Remonstrator's real estate is blighted and cannot corrected by regulatory process or by the ordinary operations of pri- to enterprise; and to further amend the Resolution so that the language d finding therein.reflect that the "public health and welfare would of be benefited by the acquisition and redevelopment of remonstrators' eal estate." elson L. Ault, Jr. _ 6- . * irgini.a N. Ault D. .OMB, NIMTZ & DU COMB ATTORNEYS AT LAW INCOME BUILDING 511 W. COLFAX AVENUE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601 NELSON L. AULT JR. VIRGINIA N. AULT By Robert J. DuCo Sr. Attorney and Agent for Nelson L. 4dit Jr. and Virginia N. Ault AULT CAMERA SHOP, INC. An Indiana Corporation By Ne son illiam Ault, Vice President and Secretary. -2- Aq LAMM EC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY July 6, 1976 Mr. . Wayne Brownell Executive Director Department of Redevelopment 1200 County -City Building Sout Bend, Indiana 46601 Dear IMr. Brownell: Please be advised that City Development Company has no objection to thE., recommended amendments to the Land Use Plans, controls and restrictions for Area "E" of the Central Downtown Project Indiana R -66 ass t forth in Resolution No. 522 of the South Bend Development Commission and attachment B attached thereto. The 200, the i how AES /i iendments basically consist of removing the restriction of sidential units and establishing a restriction of 350 units and noval of the restriction of hotels, motor hotels or other transient ig facilities. Very truly yours, CIT DEVELOPMENT O ANY ( w .. I. f Allen E. Schrager Partner JMS Building, South Bend, Indi na 46601 • Phone (219) 234 -2116 J.M.S. BUILDING A. G. A. REALTY COMPANY OF SOUTH BEND Real Estate and Investments SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601 PHONE 219/234 -2116 July 6, 1976 Mr. D. Wayne Brownell Exec itive Director Department of Redevelopment 1200 County -City Building South Bend, Indiana 46601 Dear Mr. Brownell: Plea e be advised that A.G.A. Realty Company of South Bend has no objection to the recommended amendments to the Land Use Plans, controls and restrictions for Area "E" of the Central Downtown Project Indiana R -66 as set forth in Resolution No. 522 of the South Bend Development Commission and attachment B attached thereto. The amendments basically consist of removing the restriction of 200 residential units and establishing a restriction of 350 units and the remo al of•the restriction of hotels, motor hotels or other transient hous ng facilities Very truly yours, A.G.A. REALTY COJA7 OF SOUTH BEND OCR Allen E. Schrager Partner AES /�mk July 6, 1976 Department of Redevelopment 1200 County-City Building South Bend, Indiana 46601 Attention: Mr. C. Wayne Brownell, Executive Director Dear Ir. Brownell: lease be advised that the City Development Company the A.G.A. Realt Company of South Bend have.no objection to the recommended amend ents to the Land Use Plans, controls, and restrictions for Area 'E" of the Central Downtown Project Indiana R -66 as set forth in Re olutlon No. 522 of the South Bend Redevelopment Commission and attac ment B_ attached thereto. he amendments basically consist of removing the restriction of 200 residential units and establishing a restriction of 350 units and the removal of the restriction of hotels, motor hotels, or other trans ent housing facilities. Sincerely,