Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRM 01-18-80SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COWISSION REGULAR MEETING January 18, 1980 1200 County -City Bldg. 10:00 A.P. 227 W. Jefferson Blvd. Presiding Officer: Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, South Bend, IN. 46601 President 1. ROLL rs Present: Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, President Mr. Robert J. Cira, Assistant Secretary Ms. Paula N. Auburn, Member rs Absent: Mr. Lloyd E. Robinson, Sr., Vice President Mr. A. Peter Donaldson, Secretary Counsel: Mr. Kevin J. Butler Rede elopment Staff: Mr. Carl Ellison, Director Mrs. Ann Kolata, Deputy Director Mr. Kevin C. Horton, Real Estate Officer Ms. Ann Bathon, Acquisition Specialist Mr. Bill Fox, Relocation Specialist Mr. Paul Falduto, Administrative Assistant Mrs. Jane Zimmerman, Executive Secretary Ms. Denise Fleming, Secretary Community Development taff: Ms. Marzy Bauer, Director, Community Development Ms. Kathryn Baumgartner, Acting Director, Bureau of Housing News Media: Mr. J. Scott Brink, Photographer, WNDU -TV Mr. Dave Anderson, Reporter, WNDU -TV Mr. John McKnight, Reporter, WSBT -TV Mr. Steve Neher, Photographer, WSBT -TV Mr. Larry Ford, Reporter, WSJV -TV Mr. John Winey, Photographer, WSJV -TV Ms. Jeanne Derbeck, Reporter, South Bend Tribune Mr. Carlos Medley, Reporter, South Bend Tribune Guests: Honorable Roger 0. Parent, Mayor, City of South Bend Mr. Richard Hill, City Attorney Mrs. Janet Allen Ms. Glenda Rae Hernandez, President, S.E. PAC 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Cira made a motion to approve the N[inutes of the APPROVAL OF THE Regular Meeting of Friday, December 21, 1979, seconded MINUTES OF REGULAR by . Auburn, and the motion was unanimously MEETING OF carr'ed. - DECEMBER 21, 1979 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting January 18, 1980 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (continued) On motion by Ms. Auburn, seconded by Mr. Cira, and unanimously carried, the Minutes of the Annual Organizational Meeting of Wednesday, January 2, 1980, were approved. On motion by Mr. Cira, seconded by Ms. Auburn and unanimously carried, the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Wednesday, January 2, 1980 were approved. 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MINUTES OF ANNUAL ORGANI- ZATIONAL MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1980 APPROVED MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1980 WERE APPROVED CLAIMS APPROVED On motion by Ms. Auburn, seconded by Mr. Cira, and unanimously carried, the claims totalling $113,414.48 were allowed and ordered to be paid. The authorized claims are: RED LOPMENT REVOLVING FUND Payroll: 1 -01 -80 to 1-11 -80 $ 5,304.35 Kevir J. Butler 200.00 Business Systems, Inc. 115.48 InteTnational Business Machines Corp. 18.88 Jordan Motors Inc. 220.00 Maki lski Art Shop 31.70 Metrc Graphic Arts, Inc. 48.90 Pos tTr aster 97.84 Postmaster 99.21 South Bend Tribune 54.60 St. Joe Bank Travel Agency 404.00 St. Joe Bank Travel Agency 192.00 Amocc Oil Co. 42.68 Coffee Time Services 26.65 Gelcc Courier Services, Inc. 9.02 TOTAL $ 6,865.31 REDMELOPMENT DISTRICT CAPITAL. OF 1972 Grue Associates, Inc. $ 19,925.79 Project Expenditure Account Fund 1,150.00 Slid craft Laboratories Inc. 79.87 TOTAL $ 21,155.66 -2- South Be rd Redevelopment Commission $ 11.14 Regular Meeting - January 18, 1980 262474.13 3. APPRCVAL OF CLAIMS (continued) 262.24 P.E.A. - Monroe-Sample Area 2,408.55 The Abstract and Title Corp. $ 2,700.00 Lang Feeney & Associates 3,528.00 Lang Feeney & Associates 980.00 Lang Feeney & Associates 1,764.00 174.91 TOTAL $ 8.972.00 P.E.A. - East Bank Area Ralph D. Lauver $ 6,850.00 TOTAL $ 6,850.00 P.E.A. - Ind. R -66 Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. $ 11.14 Redevelopment Revolving Fund 262474.13 Ray Breden Dougl 262.24 Jordan's Mishawaka Transfer, Inc. 2,408.55 Irvin J. Manuszak, Clerk 6,750.00 Han Ken Lee d/b /a Fashion Wigs & S. Sheets 2,007.86 Jewelry 2,354.00 Han Ken Lee d/b /a Fashion Wigs & Lumber $ Charles Stewart 174.91 Jewelry 2,500.00 Clyde Howe, Appraiser 20.00 All Weather Exteriors, Inc. 13,450.00 69.68 Charles $ 421)230.06 312 LOANS Co. of St. Joseph County, Inc. $ 115.00 Abstract Campbell Electric & Willa Logan 217.96 Dougl as W. Way 627.83 Tri-State Home Improvement & Jeff Givney 525.00 Art Keil 244.98 Frederick S. Sheets 2,007.86 Big " " Lumber & John Bidlack 527.61 Wickes Lumber $ Charles Stewart 174.91 Campbell Electric.Co. & Charles & Movita Stewart 55.00 Mary iankins 69.68 Charles & Movita Stewart 65.00 Tri-State Home Improvement, Inc. & Mary Hankins 159.00 Bob's Furniture & Appliances, Inc. & Leona McCoy 290.37 Natio al Home Improvement & Laura Pettit 51800.00 Vinceint Klees 198.27 -3- South Beni Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - January 18, 1980 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (continued) 312 E ANS (continued) Richard Kazmierczak & Douglas Way $ Dan H rive Cyndi Van Wynsberghe Sears, Roebuck $ Co. $ Timothy Bottorf Robertson's Department Store & Harold Mullin D & L Carpet Center $ Aphrodite F Anna Pappas Belleville Electric & Heating & Ardenia Rodgers The Practical Answer c/o Herbert Herendeen & Thomas Nawrot L.L. Geans & Thomas Nawrot Statewide Construction, Inc. & Aphrodite Pappas F F F Electric & Hattie Jenkins F & F Electric & Ernest Gorza B.W. lectric Co. & Jeanne Welsh Jeanne Welsh Wicke3 Lumber $ Hardy Jones Bob Grant Construction & Jeanne Welsh McKin ey Lumber & Hardware Co. & Jeffrey Clark Aluma Products Co. & Jeffrey Clark Boyd rothers & Della White 1,996.75 1,426.61 8.00 247.26 636.48 1,802.00 200.00 1,017.52 300.00 256.80 1,876.00 1,065.00 895.00 383.15 102.26 2,236.00 391.16 572.29 850.10 TOTAL $ 27,341.45 GRAND TOTAL $113,414.48 The Chair recognized the Honorable Roger 0. Parent, Mayor, City of S uth Bend. (Disc ssions held concerning 6g - New Business on Agenda as follows): DISCUSSION OF AGREE - MENT WITH KIRCHNER 6g. ommission approval rec{uested for MOORE & CO. RELATED TO Fi arl Ellison, on behalf of e Redevelo ent TAX INCREMENTAL .rimmiec inn_ to PxPrute an aorreement with FINANCING t Commission in Dr Parent: I am here this morning mainly to ress my appreciation for the hard work that the evelopment Commission has done over the years. In ition to this I would like to tell you that we have a working hard on the projects the Commission has been Ling with for a long time --one of which is the Century M South Beno Redevelopment Commission Regular M eting - January 18, 1980 HonorablelMayor Roger 0. Parent (continues) Mall 3roject. Mr. Hill and I have gone down to Indianapolis this past week and this morning I would like to discuss a few matters concerning Tax Incremental Finan ing. I am also here to support the hiring of Kirchner Moore $ Company, financial consultants, who have lone some past work for the City. We have faith in tham and would like to have the Commission enter into a contract with them for the services that they ill provide for us. Essentially, they will be financial consultants for the City, for the Cmmission, and for the Century Mall Proje t, to assist us with the steps necessary to be able to use Tax Incremental Financing for C ntury Mall. Mr. Ellison will explain this to you. Mr. N' tz: Mayor, we appreciate your presence this morning and your kind words. This has not b en an easy job ... there are "brick bats along with the roses" that come with it; we have been able to withstand them. We try to do a orood job and we will try to do a good job under your administration. We pledge you our support and, as I have discussed with you previously, I used to meet with Mayor Miller and Mayor Nemeth periodically and I hope to cunt' ue that practice with you. We want you to feel free to come down anytime and give us your advice and counsel, as you will always be welcome. MayorlParent: Thank you. Mr. Ellison: The item on hand is 6g. of the agenda requesting commission approval to execute an agree- ment with Kirchner Moore F Company to act as finan ial advisor in connection with a proposed program of urban redevelopment financing. As Mayor Parent explained, Kirchner Moore & Company has a long history with the City. They were involved in the refinancing of the municipal parki g garage, which resulted in the elimination of parking meters from downtown South Bend. In addition, their experience with the City also includes assisting us with the bond process associated with the Century Center. Our experience with Kirchner Moore & Company has been that they are an excellent firm to work with and they are expert in the municipal finance business, particularly as it relates to bond issue financing. This agreement is essentially an "at risk" agreement. There will be no cost to us unless a successful bond issue -5- South Bead Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - January 18, 1980 Mr. Ellison continues... is floated through the Commission as a tax incremental bond issue. As the Commission may know, tax incremental bond financing has not yet been used in Indiana. There has been a statute on the books and last year effort to amend it met with a gubernatorial veto. Bond counsel is of the opinion that a favorable opinion could not be given on such an issue until the constitutionality of the statute is tested and, further, that the statute needs to be amended to clear up some technical problems. We have been working with Kirchner Moore & Company for several weeks now, as MaYOT Parent indicated, in conjunction with the current session of the legislature. Senator Hunt has introduced some amendments which Kirchner Moore & Company has assisted us in producing by working with Borge & Pitt from Chicago. Borge & Pitt, as you may recall, is the firm we hired to provide us with an opinion on the conveyance agreement related to the First Bank Project. In any event,, Kirchner Moore would continue to work with bond counsel to provide us with a variety of services. They will assist in the preparation of an urban renewal plan f or financing of the proposed redevelopment project. That is related to what we would have to do to have a tax incremental issue. They will advise us of the current bond market conditions; that is important, because it relates to the timing of the issuance of these bonds. In addition, they will assemble and transmit appropriate infor- mation and data to the attorneys for the prep- aration of necessary resolutions, ordinances, etc. They will also assist us in the prepar- ation and submission of necessary information to bond rating agencies. In summary then, they will provide us with comprehensive services at no cost to us unless a bond issue is floated. I think the Redevelopment Staff, and certainly the City Attorney and the Mayor, believe that we need the services of this firm to help us get through the very complicated process of working with the legislature and then taking those steps which would be necessary to cause an issue to be floated so that we can use it as a financing vehicle to help move Century Mall and possibly other projects along. South Bead Redevelopment Commission Regular Peeting - January 18, 1980 Mayo Parent: I would like Mr. Hill to summarize the discussions that we have had in I dianapolis, to bring the Commission up to date. The Chair} recognized Mr. Richard Hill, City Attorney. Mr. ill: As was indicated, we have been dealing with Kirchner Moore & Company for some weeks now mainly because some amendments necessary to make the bond incremental financing statute workable needed to be filed in the legislature after the first of the year. We did have an additional meeting this week with representatives from the State Board of Accounts and the Board of Tax Commissioners pertaining to some of the operational aspects of the statute as it would be amended. Additionally, present at that meeting was Joe Nagy of the Auditor's office. The consensus after that meeting was that from the viewpoint of the State Board of Accounts and the Tax Commissioners, tax incremental financing is workable. The allocation process can le handled. Thus, we think we have over- come some of the concerns that resulted in the gove or's veto last year. The present situation that we are in involves additional amencments to the amendment. We found that resulting from the meeting and the sugg stions of the State Board.of Accounts and Tax Commissioners we do need some additional amendments. There will be a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, prob bly Wednesday or Thursday of next week, which we plan to attend. Additionally, we have the concerns of trying to very quickly get a. court resolution of the statute. We would hope that we could have an emergency clause atta ed to the legislation, and within a year perh ps have the type of judicial declaration that would permit bond counsel to render an opinion that we are ready to proceed. I have been impressed with Kirchner Moore. We are very dependent upon their willingness to proceed at risk given the fact that we were in office only a few days and certainly could not draft the amendments that were necessary. That brings us up to date. We really feel that we have a chance of getting this through the legislature and having the Governor approve the amendments to the statute. We certainly will be the first coTmmmity in the State to benefit from the statute, given our present timetable. 7 South Ben Redevelopment Commission Regular Peeting - January 18, 1980 Mr. Nimtz: Thank you. Mr. lison: Mr. Butler has suggested a slig revision in the language of the Kir er Moore & Company contract. Mr. Butler: On the first full paragraph, on page two, "Kirchner Moore & Company providing that they will offer professional services as financial advisors and agree to perform the following duties and perform such other duties as in our judgement may be necessary or advis ble." I have suggested that we delete the p rase "in our judgement" and insert in lieu f that... "as we and the Commission deteTmine may be necessary or advisable" so that the Commission may be involved in it. Mr. N tz: Mr. Hill, do you have any objections to this change? Mr. Hh11: No. Mr. B tler: The only question concerns the procedure by which this change would be accomplished_. Do you think it would be best to ask them to revise the letter and send it back or, on our approval page, indicate that it is approved subject to amending that paragraph? Mr. Hill: I think that would be acceptable. I can s eak with Mr. John Goemans this afternoon about this revision. They have been very respo sive to other changes we had requested earlier. In the first paragraph we did request certain language pertaining to indemnification, if the Commission determines that they do not want to proceed with bond incremental financing, or if in fact, the statute is not amended. They are agreeing to indemnify us for any cost that you might incur up to that point in time. They were very willing to respond to that concern and a num er of other concerns, so I don't feel there will e a problem with this minor change. Mr. derson: Mr. Hill, knowing that few businesses take risks without wanting to obtain some money out of it, is Kirchner Moore's willingness to proceed at this with no risk an indication of their confidence of the feasibility, and are they optimistic about the f' anciniz? South Bead Redevelopment Commission Regular Teeting January 18, 1980 Mr. ill: I think it is, obviously Kirchner Moore is a not - for - profit group, and they are in it for the fiscal return to them. Yester- day in talking with Mr. Goemans he felt very positive about the outcome of our test liti- gation. It is their feeling that based on the amendments that have been introduced, the cutcome of the litigation will be very positive, so Kirchner Moore is feeling very positive about the prospect of being able to use the statute. Mayo,r Parent: I might add that there is a difference here between feeling positive about the statute and the process that we may have to go through. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Century Mall Project will occur. As you will know there are a number of decisions and pit- falls along the way, and I just want to add a note of caution. We are obviously proceeding under the assumption that every- thing will go very well and that in a year or so the financing capabilities will be completed. There are a lot of factors consi Bred in this project. This is a good iote as Mr. Hill suggested and we are very pleased with the results of the meeting that Senator Hunt called. We have a lot to thank him for; he has been very helpful in moving us along. Mr. derson: What you are trying to say here Ls that this is one hurdle which could have cilled this project before it even got off the ground. MayorlParent: That is correct. Mr. N tz: I think everyone understands that when we talk about a court suit we are talking about a friendly court suit. We get a friendly plaintiff to file an action contesting the validity of the statute and that is where you get a determination up through the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. This is a long process and we hope to get it done within a year, because there are no intentional road blocks; everybody cooperates in order to get the Court to make a decision. Ms. D rbeck: I take it then that this Court suit is going to be based on the Century Mall situation? ME South B Regular Redevelopment Commission ting - January 18, 1980 Mr. imtz: It will be based on the statute, which could cover a variety of items. Mayo Parent: Mr. Hill why don't you discuss the constitutional issues which have been raised as to why this issue has to go to Court. Mr. ill: Certainly. There is a need that it be a friendly lawsuit because I think the Commission would certainly have a concern that all cf the appropriate issues would be raised so that we don't have litigation that would be stretched out over a year. We have bond counsel saying that there are a couple of issues which remain unresolved, and they cannot yet render an opinion. There are questions related to the tax freeze statute. There is some question as to how this particular tax incremental statute, which provides for a new allocation procedure for taxes, would be considered in regards to that. There are also state consi utional provisions pertaining to fair and equal taxation. Those provisions need to be looked at and we need to have a court determine that there are no conflicts in t is matter. Ms. rbeck: Is the case going to be based simply on the issues, or is it going to be based on the issues pertaining to a particular situation: Mr. ill: It would be the general use of the statute and there would be no unique issues pertaining to Century Mall or that particular prod Mayor Parent: I might add that the amendments we seek are not amendments just for St. Joseph Coun . They are amendments that would affect all of the localities in the State of Indiana that nav want to use Tax Incremental Bond Mr. Hill: The case would be filed in one of the c unty courts and then proceed up to the Court of Appeals. There is some discussion as to whether the Court of Appeals could be by- passed and it could then be a direct appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court. -10- South Bead Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - January 18, 1980 Ms. rbeck: Could I also ask if, until this issue is settled in Court, that we are not going to proceed with Century Mall? Mayor Parent: There are a number of other mattes which have to be handled in relation to Ceritury Mall which we will be working on while this process is going on. Mr. Hill: Because of the process which is outli ed in the statute, if we were dealing with a new redevelopment parcel at the time of the declaration, we would need to submit an allocation plan which basically would be your Financing package. That allocation plan would show how you intend to use the tax increment to pay the interest which depends upon your bonds. That presumes that ou at least have to have a proposed finan ia1 package together because of the parcels involved here. Both the First Bank ind Marriott project, and the Century Mall project involve existing redevelopment parcels. We would be going through an amend tort' process that would include a propo ed allocation of the tax increment, and that would presume, we would have to have the o'-her pieces of the financial package toget er. I don't think a court suit would be ready to proceed until we have that knendment and the allocation plan togetlier. We do need to go ahead and put together the financial pieces. Ms. rbeck: You are saying that you would have to have your financial package together beforo a court case is filed don't you? Mr. Hill: We would have to begin the process of operating the benefits of the statute before it could be tested. Ms. D rbeck: I would presume that you are not going to start any building? Mr. Hill: That is correct. Mayor Parent: There are investors who are obviously interested in what is going to happen, they are not going to move ahead until we have public funding assured for the public facility and so what comes first is interesting, but we are mcrving ahead with this portion. -11- South Bead Redevelopment Commission Regular T[eeting - January 18, 1980 Mr. McKnight: I am talking about the timetable for acquisition and demolition, I assume that the timetable is going to be a ered to? Mayo Parent: What I was talking about here is moving ahead with the amendments, etc. Mr. cKnight: I understand that ... but will the timetable be adhered to for demolition? Mr. llison: For the parcels that we have acau red? Mr. McKnight: Yes. Mr. Ellison: We indicated previously that we had proposed to begin the demolition proc ss sometime in April, but we have not yet ent out our 90-day notices to vacate. Unle s tenants were to voluntarily move, we could not, at this juncture, meet that April date. That may mean that we may get around to being in a position of demolishing the buildings in May or June, but we have not yet made that determination. Mr. imtz: This has been a matter of discussion with the Commission and with.various tenants. The tenants have talked with us and we are cognizant of some of their desires and no decision has been made on that. Mr. McKnight: You mean that no decision has been made on when? Are we looking for a several month delay possible or is this just going to be delayed for several weeks? Air. Ellison: Mr. McKnight, part of the concern is that we obviously need to have another Ethnic Festival in South Bend, and we need to have it somewhere. There is concern about tearing down buildings around the time the festival is giong on. I would rather have the buildings vacated and remain there until after the festival is over, than to be in the position of having demolition taking place when we have a lot of people downtown. Just as a practical matter it may be that we will demolish the buildings later to accommodate othei downtown needs, or it could be that we will get things done before the festival. TherE is no foot dragging. it is just that -12- South Be 4d Redevelopment Commission Regular 1e eting - January 18, 1980 Mr. Ellison continues.... we h ve a number of items that we are jugg ing that have not yet been settled. Mr. McKnight: Obviously the amendments have to clear the legislature in the session for all of this to come to pass. What happens if it. doesn't? Mr. Ellison: Mr. McKnight, tax incremental financing is not the only financing vehicle we are looking at for Century Mall. We never indicated that it would be the only one. We might wind up doing a phased project that woul involve UDAG financing. We might even want to use other bonds that pass before the Commission. We may find that there are additional Federal resources we have not tried. Anything is possible. Mr. McKnight: In other words, if the legis- lature does fail to act, you will remain on schedule with the exception that you have just mentioned for demolition? Mr. Ellison: We are in a very vulnerable situation where things keep changing. Tax incremental financing is a very impor- tant tool to cities that want to be very aggr ssive in trying to assure that development that is good for the community takes place. I would think that the City would have an interest in continuing to provide some leadership statewide to assure that we do make possible tax incremental financing, even if that takes us four years. However, we have no reason to believe the legislature is not going to pass the amendment so as to allow the use of that method of financing. Mr. imtz: We have had discussions with the legislature in previous sessions on this matter. There are other cities interested in this besides us. We have good cooperation from some of the other citi s in the State. -13- South B Regular Redevelopment Commission ting - January 18, 1980 Mayo Parent: I might add that tax incremental . bond financing is the major source of the public funds for Century Mall. If my memory serves me correctly, we are looking for around $10 million in public funds. We do not know that there are other sources that can be provided for that kind of funding, but there are, as Mr. Ellison mentioned, other possibilities for smaller amounts of financing that may allow us t go ahead with some portions of the Century Mall complex. Ms. rbeck: Would this situation have any effe t on the First Bank project by the way of Mr. imtz: Unless there is an objection, the Chair will take this out of order on the agenda and 17 will ask Mr. Butler to propose the anpr nriate motion that should be made. Ms. Auburn made a motion to authorize the Executive Director to enter into an agreement with Kirchner Moore & Company to act as financial advisor in connection with a proposed program of urban redevelopment financing (tax incremental financing), and to execute the acceptance (with the amended changes on page 2 of the contract... that the Redevelopment Conmiission be included in the procedure), seco ded by Mr. Cira, and the motion was una mously carried. Mr. Nimt : Mayor, thank you for coming to the meeting. Mavo Parent: You are welcome. 4. CONVIONICATIONS a. Letter to Honorable ^John W.TMontgomery, Ju letter is as follows: -14- MOTION PASSED AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DEPT. OF REDEVELOPMENT TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH KIRCHNER MOORE & COMPANY TO ACT AS FINANCIAL ADVISOR IN CONNECTION WITH A PRO- POSED PROGRAM OR URBAN REDEVELOPMENT FINANCING (TAX INCREMENTAL FINANCING) COMMENTS MADE BY MR. F. JAY NIMIZ CONCERNING LETTER TO HONORABLE JUDGE JOHN W. MONTGOMERY RE: POS- SIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST - KEVIN J. BUTLER South Bead Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting January 18, 1980 4. C0 ICATIONS (continued) January 8, 1980 Hona able Jahn W. Montgometcy Judge, St. Joseph County Co wtt House South Bend, Indiana 46601 Dear lJudge Montgometcy: I am ceAtain that you have head the numerous atticte,s that have been in the newspapeti concerning the contAovmy as to whether thetce has been a conk tict of .intetcest concetcning Kevin J. Buttetc, the Attotney bar the Redevetopment Commission with his owning 13% aj the cap-i tat stock a4 the Mich iana Titte Cvnporation. As a tLe�s ut t o f the Mayor's ZetteiL o4 peeembetc 27, 1979, to me with its memo ndum, the Redevelopment Commission considered this matter at its meeting on Januatcy 2, 1980. you Witt note that the Mayor suggested that the Comm ,lion appoint ,independent eouws et to advise e the Commission as to whether there is a cons iet a j inteAe,st by its netent on of Kevin J. Butter as as attorney. The Commission discussed this matter alter I had read the tetter to the Commission and Commizzionen, Pauto Auburn then made a motion that the Commission appa "nt .independent eounse2 to advise the CommZszion, and she set up vatr ions cftitetr is can - cetz ng the appointment o j such eouns et. A copy a4 he& getter to the Commie zionetus is enctoz ed. Hen notion jaited jon a tacit o6 a second. I then .stated that atthough I did not think the appoint- ment a4 .independent counset was nece zany, I woutd not oppose such appointment and .i4 the Commi6zion dens ' ed to do Aso, I woutd t6uggat that the Judge o6 the St. Joseph UAcuit Court be &equated to ,setect quat i j ied, .independent eoun s et to advise the amm us stion on this matter. Commbstsionetz, Uoy B. Robinson made such a motion, and it pats�s d unanimousty. Thus, the ComnL6s.ion netspect4uUy requests that you ame qua.e j ied, independent eoun6 et to " adv e the Commission whether there has been a ca 4t.ict of .inte e.6t concerning Kevin J. Butter, and Pbs stock ownw lip in the M.ieh,iana Title Corp Cation, and whether there w.iU be a co wing eanitict a6 intetrest i4 the Commission net ns him as theit eouws et. -is- South Bed Redevelopment Commission Regular eeting -• January 18, 1980 4. COMMWNICATIONS Lett r to Judge Montgomery from Mr. Nimtz continues... The Commi6zion in its meeting on NovembeA 1 G, 1979, ducected that no 6uxdLeA 6utune ondetus joA title .inswiance woued be given to A4i.chi,ana Title CoApoAation as tong as Kevin J. Sutta is counset 4ot the Commtzzion. 14 you do Aso, 1 woutd pnesume the counset woutd want to meet with me and/o& the Comrruzz ion and the Commission staJ4 pA.io& to setting out on this aaz.i nmewt. Cage FP,Ptson, Duc.eeton of the Commi&sion, advised the Commis.6ion that thetce ate suj{ ie ient 4undts to p y joA the z env,iees o4 this ,independent eouws et. I hoe that you w.it2 be able to accept this assignment in ondeA to end this eontAovexs y. Re!spectjutty yoLm, S/ F. Jay N.imtz, PAesident Redevetopment Commizz ion Mr. Nimtz. Everyone has in their packet a copy of my letter to Judge Montgomery. I had one discussion with him, but we have had nor ply. I understand that he is working on such an appointment or recommendation. 5. OLD was no old business to present to the Sim. 6. NEW BUSINESS NO OLD BUSINESS WAS PRESENTED a. Commission approval requested for Change CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 der No. 3, wit Jurtin's Construction WITH JURTIN'S CON - O an , or an increase "in contract price STRUCTION COMPANY o f 243:60; for an amended contract total APPROVED FOR AN INCREASE I cf $22,002.30, at tli-e address "o 934 N. IN CONTRACT PRICE eter Street, as set forth in letter from 'n. Kathryn Baumgartner, Acting Director, ureau of HousinLy. -16- South B Regular 32 FP Redevelopment Commission ting - January 18, 1980 INESS (continued) rs. Baumgartner: The increase involves he addition of eighty-four (84) linear eet of gutter to be installed at the ome'of Louella Nicholson, 934 N. St. eter. The gutter has come to disrepair ince the time of the original contract ated November 2, 1979, and it is ecessary in order to bring the home p to standard. [r. Nimtz: As an interjection here, t is my understanding that the Mayor .irected there be a six week moritorium n any future procedures. These change rders are those that have preceded his rder? s. Baumgartner: That is correct. We -e trying to clean up what we do have w (all the existing contracts, all the isting loan contracts). I£ we are not le to clean it up in that six week ogram at least have a plan as to what can complete so that we can go ahead th new applications. . Cira made a motion to approve Change der No. 3, with Jurtin's Construction pang for an increase in contract price $243.60, at the address of 934 N. St. ter Street, seconded by Ms. Auburn, d the motion was unanimously carried. b. Gonnission approval requested for r er No. 1, with Jurtin s Constr Company, or an increase in contra of $232.00, or an amended contra, 22,698.70, at the address'of 807 cfs set forth in letter from Mrs. of eau of Housing. rs. Baumgartner: The increase involves the ddition of three (3) aluminum storm combination indows and a kitchen counter top which will e installed at the home of Raymond Williams, 07 E. Dubail. These items were omitted in the riginal contract dated November 2, 1979, and re necessary in order to bring the home up to tandard. -17- South Bed Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting January 18, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS b. continued... Auburn made a motion to approve Change Order No. 1, with Jurtin's Construction Company, for an increase in contract price of $232.00, at the dress of 807 E. Dubail, seconded by . Cira, and the motion was unanimously carried. c. Commission approval re uested for ah e Or er No. 11, wi,t 'Plaia C nstruction Company, for an increase i contract price o 1; 04; 0; or an en e contract total o 5;05 .0 , a th6'addtess of 1111 E. Soriri, as s t or -in letter rom s. Kathryn Baum arth6r Actin 0 d. C C 0 0 s. Baumgartner; The increase involves e` addition of aluminum storm combination ndows and doors which were omitted in the iginal contract dated August 3, 1979, d for items related to the removal of the ility room for the home of Winona Jones, 11 E. Sorin. The contract additions and rrections are necessary in order to bring e home up to standard. . Auburn made a motion to approve Change der No. 11, with Plaia Construction mpany, for an increase in contract price $1,404.00, at the address of 1111 E. rin, seconded by Mr. Cira, and the motion s unanimously carried. mission a roval requested for Change er No. 10., with Plai.a Construction an , for a decrease in contract price 432.00; for an amen ed contract total 53,650.00, at the address of 1120 rbY Street, as set forth in letter from -18- CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 WITH JURTIN'S CONSTRUCTION CO. APPROVED FOR AN INCREASE IN CONTRACT PRICE CHANGE ORDER NO. 11 WITH JURTIN'S CONSTRUCTION CO. APPROVED FOR AN INCREASE IN CONTRACT PRICE South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - January 18, 1980 6. NEKT BUSINESS d. continued.... Mrs. Baumgartner: The decrease involves a less extensive method of repairs to the basement walls, kitchen ceiling and walls, and porch at the home of Ocie Lou Farris, 1120 Corby Street. This determination was made after the time of the original contract dated August 3, 1979. The less expensive method of repair will bring the home up to standard. Mr. Cira made a motion to approve Change Order No. 10, with Rlaia Construction Company for a decrease in contract price of $432.00, at the address of 1120 Corby Street, seconded by Ms. Auburn, and the motion was unanimously carried. e. Commission approval requested for Change Order No. 2, with Jurtin's'Construction Company, for an increase in contract prii total of 23,758:70, at the address of 809 E. Ewing, as set ort in letter From Mrs. Kathryn Baumgartner, Acting Director. E Mrs. Baumgartner: The increase involves the addition of seven (7) aluminum storm combination windows, seven (7) window panes; installation of underlayment and tile in the dining room, lattice on the rear porch, steps and handrails leading to the rear steps, and the repair of the living room door including replacement of threshold and weather - stripping. These items were omitted in the original contract dated November 25, 1979, or have come to disrepair at the home of Patricia Henningsmith, 809 E. Ewing, and are necessary to bring the home up to standard. CHANGE ORDER NO. 10, WITH PIAIA CONSTRUCTION CO. APPROVED FOR A DECREASE IN CONTRACT PRICE Ms. Auburn made a motion to approve Change CHANGE ORDER NO. 2, Order No. 2, with Jurtin's Construction Company, WITH JURTIN'S CONSTRUC- for an increase in contract price of $1,060.00, TION COMPANY, APPROVED at the address of 809 E. Ewing, seconded by FOR AN INCREASE IN Mr. Cira, and the motion was unanimously carried. CONTRACT PRICE -19- South f. h. nd Redevelopment Commission Meeting - January 18, 1980 BUSINESS (continued) Commission approval requested for Change Order No. 4, with Justin's in contract price of $120.00, for an of�1217 S. Arnold Street as set forth in letter from Mrs. Kathryn Baumgartner, Acting Director, Bureau o Housing. Mrs. Baumgartner: The increase involves the replacement of the kitchen countertop at the home of Irene Hugyak, 1217 S. Arnold. The necessity to replace the countertop arose subsequent to the removal of the sink since the time of the original contract dated November 2, 1979, and is necessary in order to bring the home up to standard. Mr. Cira made a motion to approve Change Order No. 4, with Jurtin's Construction Company, for an increase in contract price of $120.00, at the address of 1217 S. Arnold, seconded by Ms. Auburn, and the motion was unanimously carried. (item covered in previous discussions) Commission approval requested for Resolution No. 600, authorizing the execution Redevelopment Agreement or is osition of land and the execution of quit -claim deed(s) f or the transfer o title thereto in connection with land to e, dispose disposeJ of in the LaSalle "Park Project, Indiana R -57. Parcel # Name Amount 17 -31 Shandy Warfield & $96.00 Eddie Warfield Ms. Auburn: Is this a follow up of the disposition of some of the properties that we have been handling? Mr. Ellison: This particular individual wants to acquire a lot, actually this is one of the lots that had been involved in a time sales arrangement for a period of time. -20 CHANGE ORDER NO. 41, . WITH JURTIN'S CONSTRUC- TION CO. APPROVED FOR AN INCREASE IN CONTRACT PRICE South. Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - January 18, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS h. continued... Mr. Ellison continues... We were unable to find a Commission Resolution authorizing the time payment sale, but the party wishes to buy the lot outright for its value. So, we want to correct the situation by virtue of this resolution. We are in the process of talking to all persons who are buying land from us on a time payment basis, and I am indicating to them our desire to get the 30 parcels either into a regular payment schedule so that we can time the point at which we will no longer have the land within our inventory, or to work out a method to reclaim total interest in the land so that we can implement a disposition plan. Mr. Cira: Are there any restrictions on that land? Mr. Ellison: Essentially, they have to comply with the renewal plan, but most of the land is muck land and used for gardens. Ms. Derbeck: Is the amount so small because it is only an installment or because the land is not worth anything? Mr. Ellison: No. This is the cost of this particular parcel. It is based on .02� a square foot. All of the land that we have sold out there since we executed the close- out agreement with HUD for LaSalle Park in 1977 has either sold at .05� a square foot if it were buildable, and .02� a square foot if it were muck land and not buildable. Ms. Auburn: Does the property go back on the tax roll as soon as this is executed? Mr. Ellison: That is correct. -21- South�Bend Redevelopment Comission Regul r Meeting - January 18, 1980 6. N N BUSINESS h. continued.... Mr. Cira made a motion to approve Resolution No. 600, authorizing the execution of the Redevelopment agreement for disposition of land and the execution of quit -claim deed(s) for the transfer of title thereto in connection with land to be disposed of in the LaSalle Park Project, Ind. R -57, (Parcel #17 -31, to Shandy Warfield & -Eddie Warfield, in the amount of $96.00), and that the President and Secretary be authorized to enter into that agreement, seconded by Ms. Auburn, and the motion was unanimously carried. 7. NOGRESS REPORTS MT. Ellison; Let me go back to the land in Ind. R -57. The staff has put some time into this and we have had some conversations with HUD. We were concerned with what steps would be necessary if the Commission wanted to take some action to try to dispose of this land more rapidly. It is currently our e erience that it cost us more to sell a lot than we receive in proceeds from it. for all practical purposes the land (the 130 parcels we own) has a negative value. The total value, assuming we calculate it at .02� a foot, is approximately $16,000.00 - $20,000.00 for the 130 parcels in question. Of the 130 parcels, 30 including the one that was just authorized to be sold, are involved in a time payment arrangement. Our experience indicates that typically the buyer does not necessarily make payments regularly and as a result, we then have to spend additional staff time to try to be sure that we are eventually able to dispose of those lots. We are in the process of talking to all the parties involved in the purchasing of the 30 parcels and have essentially indicated to them that we really would want to establish reasonable payments with a schedule so that we will know when we will no longer have the property on ouIr hands. -22- RESOLUTION #600, APPROVED FOR DIS- POSITION OF LAND IN LASALLE PARK - IND. R-57 DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING STEPS NECESSARY TO DIS- POSE OF REMAINING LAND IN IND. R -57 Southend Redevelopment Commission Regul Meeting. - January 18, 1980 7. PROGRESS REPORTS (continued) I Ellison continues.... If they are not interested in this, we would like to recapture total interest in the land so we are in a position to dispose of it along with the 100 parcels for which there are no buyers known to us at this point, and for which we are presuming there will be none in the future. In any event, our conversation with HUD indicated that the Commission may dispose of the remaining inventory for $1.00 per parcel if it so desires. In order to ac omplish that, a simple resolution with a disposition plan attached to it is ne essary. We therefore, intend to continue our effort to put together a disposition plan which would allow the sale of lots on a staged basis. First to adjoining owners for $1.00, secondly, to LaSalle Park residents for $1.00, and if any inventory remains, then to an one interested in owning land in that area. It is our feeling that this process will result in the land inventory being out of our hands during 1980. Upon developing the plan, and prior to bringing it to the Commission for approval, we intend to work through the LaSalle Park Council and request that they convene for us a meeting of residents either at the LaSalle Recreation Center or at the LaSalle Center on Western Avenue so that we might have an opportunity to talk to people in the area about the disposition plan and gain input that may be appropriate to shaping the plan. We wo ld then hope to come back to the Comission with a resolution and plan. The only problem that is foreseen is that sane persons who have purchased land over the years may be a little angry if the Commission elects now to sell lots for $1.00. It is the staff's feeling that buyers were willing to pay that amount of money because of needs on their part. However, the clear present public need is to get the land back on the tax rolls. And, it appears that the $1.00 sale arrangement is the only way this can be accomplished in thle foreseeable future. -23- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regu1 r Meeting January 18, 1980 7. PROGRESS REPORTS (continued) Mr. Ellison continues... Pursuant to the Commission instructions, w have managed to get all the windows c vered in the Odd Fellows Building. In ac.dition, we did have the parapet on the r of repaired and the cost came to $1,450.00. The work was done approxi- ma.tely two to four weeks ago, so we no 1 nger have leak problems as was called tc our attention by Mr. T. Brooks Brademas scme time ago. Nimtz: The Chair will state that . Ellison, Mrs. Kolata, and I had a eting with the Mayor and we are working the procedures for considering tax atement requests. The Mayor has ked us to work quickly on that issue, d we hope to have a tentative ocedure worked out very shortly to passed by the Redevelopment Commission d presented to the Common Council. MT. Ellison: That is correct. Essentially, the direction we are going in is that there are two things which will happen on tax abatement. One is at the Council would amend, by ordinance, its rules and procedures section to the municipal code to establish a procedure for tax abatement somewhat similarly to a rezone. We are contemplating proposing what the Council should actually do either on a petition by the person wishing tax abatement, by a member of the Common Council, by a citizen, or by the Redevelopment Commission. It would consider passing a resolution for the consideration of something called a "tax abatement district ". It would then refer to the Redevelopment Commission to do a study and make a recommendation as to whether that tax abatement district de ignation be given to certain areas. ThE�n, we are contemplating that in the event a 3etitioner who has property within that a a, and once the "tax abatement district" de ignation is given, that the petitioner wo d formally petition the Council for an acrtual tax abatement. -24- BOARDING UP OF THE ODD FELLOWS BUILDING WINDOWS PROGRESS ON PROCEDURES BEING ESTABLISHED FOR "TAX ABATEMENT" Sou* Bend Redevelopment Commission Regul r Meeting - January 18, 1980 7. PROGRESS REPORTS Mr. Ellison continues.... I would be at that juncture that the Council would give an urban development area designation to a specific parcel as is necessary to get the abatement. We are trying to find an area where abate- ments should reasonably occur, but not give the abatement until the secondary process, which would allow tz to be assured that the abatement was necessary to cause the development to happen. We are doing it a different way than Indianapolis, but a way that w 11 allow us to use abatement as a development tool and to be assured that we do not grant abatement in those s tuations' where it is not necessary to c use a development to happen. Mr. Nimtz: I might say that we have had a number of inquiries from people who had their buildings up and are not eligible to come under this procedure. . Janet Allen: I might make a suggestion t you offer the parcels at $1.00 a square t to the adjoining property owners in LaSalle Park area. Nimtz: That was our first category—that try to sell it to the adjoining property ner, secondly to anyone living in that neral area, and then to the general blic. . Janet Allen: More than likely they could to build on the muck land. 11 . Butler: The Building Department is well a are of this problem and they would not i sue a work permit. . Jeanne Derbeck: Are the Commissioners, Ellison and staff satisfied with the progress date on the construction of the First Bank rater? . Ellison: Yes, it is visible and I believe at the construction is moving along quite asonably. Approximately 3% of the total eject is completed. -25- DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING PROGRESS ON CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST BANK/MARRIOTT HOTEL PROJECT South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - January 18, 1980 7. PR GRESS REPORTS Ms. Derbeck: When is the projected completion date? Is it the summer of 1981? Mr. Ellison: No, it is for the summer of 1932. Ms Derbeck: Is there any word on the Odd Fellows Building yet? Mr. Nimtz: We have had several discussions with the Mayor, and there has been no further progress on the Odd Fellows Building. Ms Derbeck: Are you working on any of the Dr nosals? Mr. Ellison: Not very hard at this time. I have had discussions with the people who have submitted proposals. I am more interested in January 23, 1980 when the State Review Board meets on the application of the Historic Pr servation Commission for the addition of th se buildings to the West Washington Di trict. I have written a letter to them pursuant to the Commission resolution which wa3 passed in our December 7, 1979 meeting objecting to that and in addition, Ma or Parent has written a similar letter objecting. Ms Derbeck: The Mayor is objecting to the addition of the Odd Fellows Building being placed in the historic district of the West W hin -Qton area? Mr. Ellison: That is correct. The procedures require that the owner be consulted and also that the Chief Executive Officer of the City be consulted. The Commission's objections are more technical, but essentially held that thD application for the designation was de ective because it did not follow the re lations and procedures which were required for adding to the historical district, therefore, th application should not be considered. The State, nonetheless is going to consider it now. Ma or Parent's letter had to do with a more practical matter. He simply described progress to this point. The State will have both letters then as they review the matter on Ja uary 23, 1980. -26- DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING PROGRESS ON ODD FELLOWS BUILDING - (ANY DECISION MADE AS TO HISTORICAL DESIGNATION) Southend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - January 18, 1980 7. PROGRESS REPORTS (continued) Derbeck: Suppose the State Review rd says that the Odd Fellows lding does not belong in the historic trict, then that should be the.end of sideration of the Odd Fellows Building a historic building? MT. Nimtz: That is correct. We anticipate, OT we are hoping, that the State Review Board will make such a determination in light of the previous history of this consideration. Derbeck: If they decide against it as historic building, would that affect ur action to tear it down? Ellison: Please bear in mind that Mayor nt publicly stated that he wanted to three months to examine the issue very fully himself and work with the Commission. as a practical matter, Mayor Parent will of se continue to try to examine the ding, etc. He may not necessarily recommend we proceed with.demolition. Nimtz: Ms. Derbeck, from my point of W1 there are a number of factors which 1 be involved. One is the historic servation issue, and the State may resolve t. Another is the economic issue, and missioner Auburn noticed this along with Jannotta, that the proposals we received the renovation of the Odd Fellows Building, t the entrepreneurs had very little of it own money in the project. You have aesthetic angle as to how it fits into overall plan or proposal. The other ng is the engineering or construction renovating the building. I believe re are five or six elements to be s idered in our decision. One of which the historic, one of which is the Mayor's -27- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regul r Meeting - January 18, 1980 7. PROGRESS REPORTS . Janet Allen: You seem to be quite zerned about the economic or money situation ling with the building. DC . Ellison: Mrs. Allen, the fate of the b ilding is still uncertain, it could stay up, o it could be demolished; but we won't know for s veral months. . Auburn: Mr. President, I would like to make a brief report on a conference that I attended in Washington, D. C., because it does have some impact on who might move into Century Mall. . Nimtz: We would be pleased. Auburn: When we first started talking about the concept of Century Mall one of the s ipulations I talked about was the opportunity for locally owned businesses to start or to be housed in the Century Mall, and some skepticism was addressed at that time as to the financing capability or the economics of allowing local P ogle to move in to something like Century Mall. I made a statement that I thought the C mmissioners or some of us should look at ways tc deal with the issue of capital formation d financing of small locally owned enter- prises. Subsequently, I was appointed a a delegate to attend the White House Conference on Small Business and it has Wen the first and largest gathering of small business people in the country. We have formulated sixty (60) options, fifteen (1.5) of which will be given top priority and they were sent to the President of the United States and to Congress. Several of those issues deal with capital formation d capital retention, specifically for small, local owned businesses. Some of the other issues deal with setting up something called a Small Business venture opportunity to get capital financing for small businesses, and there is also an option which deals with direct tax credit for investment in small bisiness. I think, in summary, that the o tions in some of the discussions that t ok place at this conference have an i pact on the future of Century Mall and if -28- REPORT BY MS. AUBURN CONCERNING WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON SMALL BUSINESS SouthlBend Redevelopment Commission Regul r Meeting - January 18, 1980 7. PROGRESS REPORTS . Auburn continues..... e President and Congress move on some these issues, that we might look at ally a bright future for the downtown of uth Bend and filling up the mall when it ens. Nimtz: Thank you for your report. 8. N�XT COMMISSION MEETING a next regularly scheduled South Bend .evelopment Commission Meeting will be held February 1, 1980, at 10:00 A.M. ere being no further business to come fore the Commission, Mr. Cira made a motion at the meeting be adjourned, seconded by . Auburn, and the motion was unanimously rried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 M. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Z, Pre ident Carl Ellison, Executive Director -29-