The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRM 04-11-80April 11, 980 10:00 A.M. Presiding ffi 1. ROLL Legal Redeve SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 1200 County -City Bldg. 227 W. Jefferson Blvd. : Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, South Bend, Indiana 46601 President Present: W. F. Jay Nimtz, President Mr. Lloyd E. Robinson, Sr., Vice President Mr. A. Peter Donaldson, Secretary Ms. Paula N. Auburn, Member Absent: W. Robert J. Cira, Assistant Secretary unsel: Mr. Daniel Pfeifer .t Staff: Mr. Carl Ellison, Executive Director Mrs. Ann Kolata, Deputy Director W. Kevin Horton, Real Estate Officer Ms. Ann Bathon, Acquisition Specialist W. Bill Fox, Relocation Specialist Mr. Paul Falduto, Employment Targeting Assistant Mrs. Jane Zimmerman, Executive Secretary Mrs. Hedy Robinson, Secretary News Modia: Mr. Dave Anderson, Reporter, WNDU W. Les Howard, Photographer, WNDU Ms. Jeanne Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter Guests: W. John Kagel, Downtown Council Mrs. Janet Allen W. John Sinclair 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion by W. Robinson, seconded by MINUTES OF REGULAR Ms. Auburn, and unanimously carried, the MEETING OF MARCH 21, Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Friday, 1980 WERE APPROVED March 21, 1980 were approved. 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS On motion by Mr. Donaldson, seconded by CLAIMS APPROVED Ms. 'A urn, and unanimously carried, the claims totalling $119,988.60 were allowed and ordered to be baid. The authorized claims are: South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meting - April 11, 1980 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (continued) I: _ 1:► /. � DUI ►� : � � � Qf�i1►11 Payroll: 3 -08 -80 to 3 -21 -80 $ 5,572.15 Business Systems 44.97 Community Development - Petty Cash 15.52 Dorothy Z. Deane - Petty Cash 74.69 I.B.M. Corporation 28.80 I.B.M. Corporation 197.47 I.B.M. Corporation 18.88 Sears, Roebuck and Co. 14.16 Specialty Business Forms 161.77 Superintendent of Documents 9.75 Coffee Time Services 10.00 TOTAL $ 6,148.16 REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CAPITAL Community Development $ 1,331.59 Dorothy Z. Deane - Petty Cash 5.95 TOTAL $ 1,337.54 REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CAPITAL OF 1972 Gruen Associates, Inc. $ 1,934.00 TOTAL $ 1,934.00 P.E.A.I MONROE- SAMPLE AREA E. Nichols Associates, Inc. TOTAL P.E.A. EAST BANK AREA Abstract and Title Corporation P.E.A.I IND. R -66 Kevin J. Butler Comunity Development Dorothy Z. Deane Petty Cash Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. Redevelopment Revolving Fund TOTAL -2- $ 5,250.00 $ 5,250.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 2,941.48 4,589.75 2.50 22.80 15,487.21 South Ben4 Redevelopment Commission Regular eting - April 11, 1980 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS P.E.A� IND. R -66 (continued) Ronal E. Gettel $ 700.00 Ray B eden 116.00 Jordan's Mishawaka Transfer, Inc. 29,976.00 Parker, Brunner & Hamilton, Attorneys 1 1;255.00 TOTAL $ 55,090.74 312 Ray B ckaj & Eddie Metz, Jr. Douglas Way Hilda Boney & Ray Bockaj Paul Hayden Dan H rive Jeffe Clark Frank Banicki Doug Way & Cloud Brothers, Inc. Tri-State Home Improvement Co. & Gatson Mincy Tri-State Home Improvement Co. & Jeanne Frisz Frank Dixon & R. A. Stickler Harol Mullin, Jr. & Avon Tree Expert Gatson Mincy & R. A. Stickler, Plumbing Factoiy Tile, Inc. & Paul Hayden Evade an Jester & Charles R. Kuskye Eckle - Lahey Lumber, Inc. & Douglas Way Boyd Erothers Construction Co. & Della White Old Building Recycling Co. $ Dea Andrews South ld Heritage Foundation F T. George Podell Co. T. Ge rge Podell & Co. & Dea Andrews Law Plumbing & Heating Co. & Janice Surrat Old Building Recycling Co. $ Robert W. Friend, Jr. Greg WIler F Lawrence Day WilliE & Terry Smith & Color Tile Supermart, Inc. Edwin & Alice Janowiak Harry H: Verkler, Contractor, Inc. & Robert Caponigri Frank Banicki $ Williams Home'Center Wicke Lumber Co. & Charles & Movita Stewart Matti Valentine $ Midwest Aluminum Siding Co., Inc. TOTAL GRAND TOTAL -3- $ 395.00 476.68 2,414.50 66.59 343.19 1,207.17 14.20 948.22 1,942.60 5,575.00 6,324.00 165.00 722.00 781.04 1,366.00 182.66 2,755.58 2,808.00 918.00 380.00 260.57* 1,303.20 1,722.24 171.80 429.00 10,900.80 .540.73 79.19 4;78S.00 $ 499978.16 $119:988.60 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - April 11, 1980 4. COMMUNICATIONS There Ze no communications to present to the Commis n. 5. OLD BUSINESS There as no old business to present to the Commission. 6. NEW a. Commission 1. 4 -66 2. 4 -8 3. 8 -1 4. 4 -42 ted for execution end Parking Co., Call within Mr� Ellison pointed out these parcels on a ma to everyone present. Mr. Ellison: We have been in the process of evaluating their previous leases which go back to 1973. We had not provided for an increase in compensation based on those lease agreements, and we wanted to update those leases to provide fair market rentals to the depart- ment. In the process, we are asking Commission permission to execute the new leases which will cause us to receive an additional $1,100 per month from these lots or a total annual in rease in income of $13,339. Mr Nimtz: Have the lessee's tentatively ap roved these leases? Mrs Ellison: They have not. Mr Robinson: Is there a provision in the lease mating the tenant aware of the fact that these lots are under the jurisdiction if this Commission and that prevailing wages for all of the mechanics hired shall be paid in this area when they do any re ovation work to any part of that parking lot? M NO COMMUNICATIONS PRESENTED NO OLD BUSINESS PRESENTED COMMISSION APPROVAL GRANTED FOR EXECUTION OF NEW LEASES WITH SOUTH BEND PARKING CO., INC. South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 Gam►► i a. continued.... Mr. Ellison: There should be a provision But, Mr. Robinson, Quite frankly the previous leFLses did not contain that language, because some of the leases go back to a time prior to Mr. Butler's time. W1. Robinson: Thank you. Mr. Ellison: We have had conversations with So th Bend Parking for Quite some time with re pect to our desire to have new leases. We are not of the impression that they are going to have problems with this amount of increase. If they do have problems, it is our conclusion and Mr. Butler's that we cannot be in a position of having leases where we are not receiving fair market rentals. Mrs Dave Anderson: What were the previous an.jival figures? Mr. Ellison: The previous annual income wa $53,477.04. The new annual income will be $66,816.00. There is a 60 -day notice re uirement on the month -to -month leases for cancellation purposes except for the le se for the lot due east of the Odd Fe lows Building. That one has a 30 -day c cellation notice. Mr. Robinson made a motion to ratify and ap rove the new leases with South Bend Pa king Co.., Inc. for parcels in Ind. R -66 (#.1-66, 4 -8, 8 -1, and 4 -42), and that the President and Secretary be authorized to ex cute the agreements, seconded by Ms Auburn, and the motion was unanimously carried. b. Co�Eission approval reQuested for execution of Ce tificate of Completion for a. parcel of land in Ind. R -66, commonly referred to as Ch ze property within the Disposition -5- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS b. continued.... Mr. Ellison: You will notice that in your pa kets there is a letter from Mr. James E. Ch'lds & Associates, Inc. dated April 8, 1930. The letter reads as follows: WL Carne Ettis on Ex cuti.ve D,itc.eatotc pe aA tment o4 Redevelopment Co my -C.i ty Bu i eding So Ath Mend, Indiana Re: Existing Buitd.ing and Plan Review Ctcowe, Ch izek and Company 330 East Je44etuson Btvd. South Send, Indiana As nequetsted by youtc oJJice. on December 13, 1979 and on Apkit 1, 1980, I petusona ty visited the site and toured the buitding and gnounda. Adiiitionatty, I have petusonat ey &ev,iewed the ptitn,6 (Sheet Nos . C -1 thnu C-5, F -1 and F-2, S- th&u S-4.. LS -1 and LS-2, A -1 thtu A-32 and A -17A, M- thtcu M- 3, E -1 thtcu E-7) and s peci4 ication s Moe e I - Site Wot k and Foundations, Phase III - Me an.icae 8 Etec to i.cat , Phase TV - Akcki tectu kae ) 4at the subject 9 o b as ptcov,ided by yo utc o � 4ice ani as ptcepaud by Cote Engineetus /A&ch i tectts / P.e nnetus, titeed "Ctcowe, Chizek 9 Company 04jice Weding" with vatr ious dates tcanging {nom mid to 1978. My tceview o $ the plans and s peci4 ica Lions Aeveuted th Jottowing: The bwieding shown is a three stony, 4tat uo4, "L" shaped sttu dune toeated east o4 Je44etuson Boueevatcd and immed.iate.ey west o4 and on the St. Joseph Rivets. The ex tetuio,t is shown to be a mcus on&y and glass shin bu itding with a stnuatutcat system o4 st uetutcak steet. The bu,itding 4toon p Bans co nus Z6 t o4 genetcae o 44.ieets and wot k areas grouped atcound a thtcee sto&y attui.um/ etevatmAta t cone which extends the 4uU height o6 the b u i ed.ing . M South BendlRedevelopment.Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS b. co$tinued.... Th2. heating and eo of ing system shown is a wate t ty e utit iz,ing cabinet heateu and unit heate&s an.1 eoiZs with a ehiUvL and cooting toweA and du 4ue2 ( gas and oiZ) bo i eeA. The bu i ed ing e,E ctAiea2 s etv.ice is shown to enteA the me hawiea- Aoom thAough a 1200 amp "I" -Line s " chboaAd. Th site plan shows packing 4ot 185 caws and ,shyx,s a s eAv,ice access dtr ive at the south side o4 the zttuctute at the southwest comet. The ca .e ing toweA pit is shown at this same to eat i,o n. Th tandseape ptan shows the buitding main emftance (west side) and pekimeteA at 1e4�eu on B2 d. and Cotumb,ia StAeet to be heavily to ds eaped with thtcees and shAubs with a minimum o j sad being empto yed and the Remaining .yawn a&ea,s hydAomutched. DAing out site visit o4 Deeembet 13, 1979, we 6o nd the ma joA portions o f the buieding to be eomptete but .iwtetc i.oA 4in ush work was in ptocess and quite ineomptete. The buieding occupants wete in the ptoeess o4 moving .in. D g outs vise t o4 ApAit 1, 1980, the b i dng in tear ioA appeared eompt e to except 4o Aoom identi4.ieation sign.6 and the site wok appeated neatey eomptete with the by mueeh.ing and 6.ine gt ad.ing not having be n staAted. The plant mateAiat tand- ,scaping appeoAed 99% eompte to and was in pA eess on ApA - 1, 1980. My obs e Lvation o4 the wokk in p2aee Aeveated the jottowi,ng: TheAe appear to have been some m.inoA Aevis.ions in the site d,t ve /paAk ing layout but otheA than this , the pto j eet appeau to have been constructed pet the peans. The buieding contains a fine ptotecti.on sp,kinkee& system. In conetus.ion, it is out pto4ess.ionae opinion th the buitdi.ng is substantiae,2y eomptete an in substantiat- conjoRmanee with the ,injoA- m "on shown on the ptans and in the speei. ieations. -7- South Bendl Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - April 11, 1980 6. NEW BU INESS b. continued.... Thz obis etwatiows contained hetcein tune not intended to fudge the wo&k in any way with &e,,spect to the quality, eotvceetne/s/s o& ca jotcmance. with code. A copy o4 out tfr nsnibed notes 4nom out Jietd visits ha6 been )Leta fined in out Jitcis and can be made av bte i4 tLequi&ed. I J you have any questions on tcequ,itce 4uAthetc in'o,tmation, ptea/se caU outs o44ice. S/ Janes E. Chitd6 9 Associates, Inc. Ja es E. Chitds Mr. Ellison: The letter is evidence that Mr Childs has inspected the plans of the building, and that, in Mr. Child's opinion, the building is substantially constructed according to plan. There is also enclosed in your packets a Certificate of Completion for the property, which was prepared by Mr. Kevin Butler, and will be executed if the Commission authorizes the issuance of it. As you know, this is necessary in order that Crowe, Chizek may have clear title to the pr perty. Mr. Robinson made a motion to approve the conpletion of the existing building and plan review of Crowe, Chizek, F Company on 330 East Jefferson Boulevard, (in Ind. R -66) and that the President and Secretary be authorized and directed to execute the Certificate of Completion and deliver the same, seconded by Mr. Donaldson, and the motion was unanimously ca Tried. c. Commission approval requested for execution er. Mr. Ellison: In your packets there is another letter from Mr. James E. Childs & Associates, Inc. dated April 8, 1980, which reads as follows: COMMISSION APPROVAL GRANTED FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION TO CROWE, CHIZEK $ COMPANY (IND. R-66) South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 6. NEW BU$INESS c. comzinuea...... At. CaAt E. Et is on Executive D"t ucton De o tment o4 Redevelopment Ca y- City Buitding South Bend, Indiana 46601 Re: Existing Buitding and Ptan Review Hepten Covrst uction Equipment, Inc. 2222 West Washington Avenue South Bend, Indiana Carne As tcequested by Ann Kot to o4 yours o44ice, on ApAit 1, 1980, I penis amity visited the site and tomed the bu i,tding and gtcaunds . Ad .itiona ty, I have peuona ty nev.iewed the pt am (speci4icatioms .inetuded on ptans) jots the subject job as ptcepcviced by Van Ryn, Arc h tects, tdteed "Hepten. Con.6tuctt.on Equipment 04i.iee and Storage Buitding" and dated August 7, 1979. My nev.iew o4 the ptam tceveated the 4oteowing: The buitdt.ng shown is a 4tat fwoJ (stoped 4,atc dtcainage) tceetangu2atc s,ingte stoM stuctutce (160' - 5" + E1W x 60' - 0" + N/S x 24' -0" + highT with toad beaF&Z'nng st,tuctw a.2 canctcete "Double T" waM and a eteatc -span ztAuctutat conetcete "Double T" tcoo4 system. The main bu tding ent anee is shown 4tcom the no&th enten,ing thtLough a disptay a&ea. Anothetr, ent anee /ex-i t is shown at the west end o f the stAuctutce which entetvs a tcecept on atcea with o 64.iees and toil et 4acitit es shown noxth and south a/, the ucepti.an atcea. The eastern parrti.an o4 the st uetutce (120' -0" +) is shown to be "s otca fe with overhead doo&6 shown toeated at the east and south sides o6 the atcea. The ptan appeatr6 to show at2 6acd,P,% ies as tcequitced by code. The buitdi.ng extetri.otc Jinish appears to be the conc&ete "T" sut ace. -9- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Me Ling - April 11, 1980 NEW BUSINESS c. co cinueu... The o44ice /di-sptay poAtion o4 the buitding is shown to teeeive heating and coot i.ng via a ducted ,4otced a k system utiP,izing a gad -4ited hoA zowta.2 4utc.naee .located above the stoAage tock.et area and a too4 mounted 5 ton eon - denzing unit. The ",stoAage" heating system " shown as an in4taned gas 4i ed system. The eteet icat SeAvice to the sttcuatune is shown as 400 amps and is .located neate the southwest eotneA o4 the stotage area. The site plan shows poAi%ng 4ot 24 eatus on a paved area extending noA A and west o4 the sttuctutce. The batanee o6 the site is noted to tecedve cAushed stone and a peAimetet 4enee is shown ataund the entice pnopetrty. My obzetvation o4 the woAk in place neveated the 4ottowing: It was obisetved that an exteAivL eoneAete truck docklAamp has been added along the ,s o uch side o4 the .stnue tune neat the south- east cotneA and a coneAete apron had been added at the east end o4 the 6tnuctutce. Other than these two additions, the ptojeat appeatus to have been eonsttuated pen the ptaws. In conalu6ion, outs pu4eszional opinion is that the building is substantia ty complete and in ,stanti.at con4onmanee with the .in4onmati,on ,sh wn on the plans and in the speci4ications. The obsetcvations contained hete.in ate not intended to judge the work in any way with &e,spect to the quality, coAAeatness of con4ot- ma ce with code. We have tetained a copy o4 o ttucvus cA i.b ed note made duA ng the co utus e o4 out 4ield review and these notes can be made avaitab.le i� nequi d. -10- South Bend�Redevelopment Commission Regular Me Ling - April 11, 1980 6. NEW c. comzinuea... I4 you have any que.6tiows of tc.equ fte �uAtheA � n of ma ion, pteas e catt out o 44ice. JAMES E. CHILDS 9 ASSOCIATES, INC. -JaL S/ es E. Ch td6 Mr. Ellison: The letter from Mr. Childs indicates both an inspection of the building erected by Mr. Hepler and an indication that it was substantially constructed according to plan. There is also attached a Certificate of Completion prepared by Mr. Kevin Butler with respect to this trans- action. As you know, this Certificate of Completion is related to an antici- pated conveyance of two acres of this site to Mr. Robert Batteast. Mr Batteast has a lease.with the Urban League to construct a facility on the site. The staff has, at Mr Butler's instruction, received fr m Mr. Hepler and Mr. Batteast documents which indicate that Mr. Hepler will make money on the land in this transaction. In addition we have in the file a redevelopment qualification statement for Mr. Batteast which indicates his capacity to deliver on the anticipated building he intends to build on the site once the site is sold. The staff took these steps specifically at Mr Butler's instruction as these items ar necessary to permit the Commission to approve the Certificate of Completion. Mr. Donaldson made a motion to approve the Certificate of Completion (Merry Avenue Project) on the existing building and pl review of Hepler Construction Eq 'pment, Inc. located on 2222 West Washington Avenue, and that the President and Secretary be authorized and directed to execute the Certificate of Completion and deliver the same, with th further understanding that Mr. Hepler 11 COMMISSION APPROVAL GRANTED FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION TO HF.PLER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, INC. (MERRY AVENUE PROJECT) South BendlRedevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 6. NEW c. continued.... may sell and convey 2.14 acres of land to Mr. Robert Batteast under the HUD regulations that he not make any profit upon such sale, seconded by Mr. Robinson, and the motion was unanimously carried. d. Coinnission approval requested to execute an agreement for.j2rofessional services with Borger/Jones and Associates In connection Mr Ellison: In your packet is a proposal fr m Borger /Jones & Associates which reads as follows: De animent o4 Redevelopment 12 0 County City Building So h Bend, Indiana 46601 Commi.slsion MembeA6 : The 4ollowing pnoposal outeinets the /scope o4 pto4e.ssionat zeuice/s tequested by Ma oA Roge& PoAent and Di eeto& Cvit EUis on &egatcding tstandatcdts o4 ne ab-ititation 4oA the Odd Pettows Bu4eding, South Bend. The putcpos e o6 these s etcvicets its to ptr vide a gu ide2%ne 4otc ,Lenovation o4 za�d .6tAuc tuAe covls.ustent with the Ci ty'ts ti ent fonts z ho uQd the tsttcuctulLe in gac t be tetained. Any ptcospecti.ve deve2opeA de/si,ting to &enovate the bu itding mu.6t plc pose to woAk within the3e guc:deP.inets as stated. Howevetc, it is not the ti ent i on to develop such a tu.gid set o4 standatds that cheat i v e2.y upon the paA t o6 the devetopetc is hampetced. We ate meAety intending to impati t gene&at co cept/s as a 4&amewo&k within which the puspec ive devetopek w tt wo&k. Th above mentioned concepts and guide- U es wilt be documented in the 4ott owing ma .etc: -12- South BeO Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting ° April 11, 1980 6. NEW d. continued... 1. A 4utt co.toA AendeAing indicating the expected 4aeade tAeatment 4oA the buitding (ptobabty a view 4Aom the ,southwest showing one teAAa cotta 4ace and one b& i ck 4ace o4 the bu itd%ng) . 2. One 4iAst 4tooA p-Qa.n indicating its pgtentia e 4oA &eta t space. 3. One typ iea.2 o 4 4ice 4t ooA plan indicating its potentiae dev e o pment as o44ice space. Th above documents wiU be a tatcge sea.2e ,s able 4oA disp2tay and photogAaph.ie &ep&o- du2tion and Aeduetion as Aequited. The ab ve mentioned ptanvs w.iU take into eowsid etc on pu/sent day buii ding eode6 e�specia2ty as pntain to exit ways. atom ouA petuspeetive it goes without .6 aying that any deveto peA wZU be expected to bk ng the buitding up to eutvicent ti e za4ety code Aequ tements. Du to many dLveAz e �aetou AegaAd.ing the en,tiAe btock, we deem it .inappAop& ate at time to study the pact i cutaA manneA in which this building woued tie to the otheA pA parsed developments within its .immediate ,swftounding,s. HoweveA, we do eneounage the ca peAation and e44otrts o4 all eoneenned to maXimize the eompat b,i.t ty o4 this sttLuctutce " w n the devetopment area as a whote. We pto pops e to peA4o km the above mentioned wok on a time and mateAiats basis not to exceed $4,500.00 (FouA thousand 4.ive hu diced dottatus and 00 /100) . This 4ee .in ude/s the pAes entation mateA i,at .including the Aendetring but does not .include any ,s u ,s equent.2y de�s,itr.ed Aepto duetio n o4 said documents which can be pAov.ided ass a A "mbutusabte expense when neeetssaAy. ThLs matetu.a l wi te. be pAes en ied and expt a i ned to art inteAe/sted panties at a pAacA bed_ ti e at thew convenience. Any addctionat in otvement is deemed an additional scope o� seAviee/s. 13 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS d. co *tinued... TkL6 wo tk w,t U be compt eted by FA day, 18 Ap,,uU 1980. It is out u.ndeutandi,ng th4tt you wiU eventuate y desi to con - 3 c Lion cost estimates which we may ptc vide jots, you at a tateA dote once the co pe o4 wo tk o j the pu j eat iz ji .zed. 14 you ag&ee to the terms o4 this ptuw posat, pt ears e zign att co �.ees and tcetunn one to out o44 ice jo Duet 4ite�s . Y.- BO GER /JONES AND ASSOCIATES S/ Jo n W. Wetcntz Mr Ellison: Mayor Parent and I have talked with Borger /Jones & Associates with respect to the provision of guideline concepts for the rehabilitation of the Odd Fellows Building. Under this a angement Borger /Jones would provide a endering for our use for the purpose of establishing minimum exterior standards which we would dictate to any developer. In addition, a typical first floor layout and a typical office floor plan would be provided. The work is to be completed by April 18, 1980 as indicated in the proposal. The staff recommends approval of this agreement. Mr Nimtz: I might report to the Commission that I met with Mr. Ellison, Mrs. Kolata, and with Mr. Werntz; (of the Borger /Jones firm) and then, I had another meeting with Mr Werntz and the Mayor concerning this matter. It is the Chair's recommendation t t we proceed with this proposal in light of our trying to review the Odd Fellows situation as to what will happen to the building. Therefore, it is the Ch ir's recommendation that we approve an authorize the execution of this a2 eement. -14- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS d. coAtinued... Mr Robinson made a motion to approve an agreement between the Department of Redevelopment and Borger /Jones & Associates for professional services in connection with the Odd Fellows Building, se onded by Mr. Donaldson, and the motion wa unanimously carried. Ms. Auburn: These specifications are going to come back for our use in looking at the Kalman project when it comes back. He is no working directly with Sam Kalman at this point in time is he? Mr.1 Ellison: No, they are our clients. Ms. Auburn: Can you give me some background on Borger /Jones & Associates? Mr. Ellison: Mr. John Werntz, the lead architect, was the principle designer of the Crowe, Chizek Building on Block Six. Mr. Werntz is a South Bend native. Borger/ Jones is an Elkhart based firm that recently opened a South Bend office within the West Washington Historic District. In our exrerience with the Odd Fellows Building we have had a great number of firms comment or do some work on the building. Part of the difficulty with respect to the generation of materials for us was the desire to find a firm that had not been previously involved but also had some experience with downtowns anc with preservation. Borger /Jones answered this difficulty. e. Comlmission annroval reauested to rescind of xeaevelo Tent x eement for the als- position of land and the execution o quit -claim deeds for the transfer of ti le thereto in connection wit land to be disposed of in the LaSalle Park Proliect. Ind. R -57. -15- COMISSION APPROVAL GRANTED FOR AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH BORER /JONES & ASSOC. (IN CONNECTION WITH ODD ODD FELLOWS BUILDING) South Ben4 Redevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 6. NEW e. cohtinued... 17-16 19 -13 17-17 19 -14 17-18 19 -15 17-19 19 -16 17-21 19-7 19-8 19-9 19-10 19-11 19-12 Name Amount Belleville Church of Christ $2,315.00 Mr. Ellison: As you know the staff has been in the process of working on a disposition bl for LaSalle Park for some time. In this process we are finding a number of sales arrangements which are creating problems. Th resolutions today relative to LaSalle Park land are related to that process. Re arding the item at hand we are asking th t this resolution be rescinded. Through a ubsequent resolution, we will request' au horization to sell other LaSalle Park pa cels to the same church group under a di ferent name. Mr Robinson: What happened to the first de l? Mr Ellison: Basically, the first deal be omes item 6h on our agenda. Mr Robinson: Did they change the name of the church? Mr Ellison: Yes. Under the old. time sales arrangement, had we allowed them to continue to pay on time, we would be allowing them to continue to pay probably for the next ten years. What we are trying to accomplish here is not on y a switch of location but also an acceleration of the disposition period. -16- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 6. NEW BU INESS e. co tinued... Mr. Robinson: This being the case, why is there a difference in price? Mr. Ellison: I presume there is less land. Ms. Bathon: There is less land. Ms. Auburn: How are you delineating between individually owned properties that are on tax rolls and that which is being held by the church which is non - taxable? W. Ellison: With all of the property that we have been selling on the time sales arrangement, there is no execution of transferance of the property until after it is paid off. So, almost all of the land in question here is property that is theoretically not available to the public because somebody has been buying it, but it is land that we still own in the meantime. Therefore, the land is not taxed. I might say that the department is benefiting from the great deal of time and effort spent in this area because as you may have noticed over the last several meetings we have had quite a few LaSalle Park trans- actions. The reason we have a number of resolutions like this are because people have elected to buy land outright. I think it demonstrates that while time sales dispositions which were necessary to try to move the land back in 1976 or 1977, that method didn't work very well. Yet in response to ou indication of intent to seek Commission authorization to sell lots for a dollar, pe ple who really want to control land are no responding with outright purchases. Ms. Auburn: I guess as long as we know clearly whc we are selling land to and who is going to hold title to it there is no problem, but only if you are convinced who you are selling land to. -17- South Ben0edevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS e. co#itinued... Mr. Robinson made a motion to rescind Re olution #564 which authorized the ex cution of Redevelopment Agreement for tha disposition of land and the execution of quit -claim deed(s) for the transfer of title thereto in connection with land that was disposed in the LaSalle Park Project, Ind. R -57, those parcels being 17 16, 17 -17, 17 -18, 17 -19, 17 -21, 19 -7 19 8, 19 -9, 19 -10, 19 -11, 19 -12, 19 -13, 19-14J, 19 -15, and 19 -16 to the Belleville Ch rch of Christ in the amount of $2 315.00, seconded by Ms. Auburn, and th motion was unanimously carried. f. Commission Resolution of position qu title be Pr a #E Re evelo rr of I t -claim de theretc disposed c iect. Ind. C� uested to rescind zing the executio: ent for the is- (s) for tr n connecti in the Lai -57. ecution of transfer of with land to le � ark Parcel Number Name Amount 1S-7 thru 15 -13 Hardie & $1,764.00 Perlether Blake Mr Donaldson made a motion to rescind Resolution #547 which authorized the execution. of Redevelopment Agreement for the 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, those parcels being 1S--7 thru 15 -13 to Hardie & Perlether Blake, in the amount of $1,764.00, seconded by Mr. Robinson, and the motion was unanimously carried. Co*ission approval requested for Resolution #608 authorizing the execution of Redevelop- ment for the disposition of land and the execution of quit -claim deed(s) for the transfer of title thereto in connection with la d to be disposed of in the LaSalle Park Prefect. Ind. R -57. RESOLUTION #547 RESCINDED FOR THE DISPOSITION OF LAND IN LASALLE PARK IND. R -57 RESOLUTION #547 RESCINDED FOR THE DISPOSITION OF LAND IN LASALLE PARK IND. R -57 South BendlRedevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS g. continued.... 1 Number Name Amount 15 -9 James & Charlotte $96.00 Bridges Mr. Ellison: The parcel in question was previously involved in a time sales payment to Hardie Blake and in discussing this matter with Mr. Butler he indicated that we should secure from Mr. Blake a statement in which he relinquishes any claim or interest that he might have in tho property. The following letter was hand delivered to our office this morning. It reads as follows: 96. Ann Bathon Depattment o4 Redevetopment County-City Building South Bend, Indiana 46601 ASS. Bathon: As you Aeque�sted in ouA telephone can ensati.on a4 Aptrit 10, 1980, this ZetteA may be used as o44ic i.a2 no 4ication that the Akdmote- LaSzUe ChuAch o4 ChA i6t pna pn ty (p&z.viou,5ty puAcha6 ed undeA the nami ob BeUevit2e Chutcch o, ChAtst) wifT Aetinqu i6h alt tr i"ght6, c2a.ims and inteAezt in the pAeviousty coaAacted pAopeAty Located on Towd and Kentucky StAeet in the LaSatte PaAk oAea upon pAopeA tAan64elt o4 att pneviouz payment3 to the pupeAty Located on the Eazt and West zide o4 Dundee StA et in LaSaUe PaAk which -ins pte,sentty undeA cont act with Han "e Make. -19- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Me ting- April 11, 1980 6. NEW BU INESS g. continued... WL Make wiU abo uPinquish atE Aights, c2aim and peuonat ti eAest in the pupehty on Dundee to the Atcdmone- LaSatte Chu ch o4 chlurt. Ak B.Pake and the Andmo&e- La.SaUe Ch eh o4 Chtwst hays agreed to &eUnqui,sh aU xights, c2aim anI intene/st t0 1 (one) tot 40 x 129, .2o sa ted adjacent to 5 outhwels t ,sti e o4 pupekty owned by Mu. Ch otette Midges. Th4nk you. S/ Hatdie Btake Ev ngetist /ChaiAman Mr. Robinson made a motion to approve Re olution #608 authorizing the execution of Redevelopment Agreement for the disposition of land and the ex cution of quit claim deed(s) for th transfer of title thereto in connection with land to be disposed of in the LaSalle Park Project, Ind. R -57 (Parcel 15 -9 to James & Charlotte Br'dges in the amount of $96.00) seconded by Ms. Auburn, and the motion was unanimously carried. h. Conmission approval requested for Resolution #609 authorizing the execution of Re evelo Tent Agreement for the dis- position of land and the execution of quit-claim deed(s) f or the trans er of title thereto in connection with land to be dis-Dosed of in the LaSalle Park Project Parcel Number Name Amount 15-10 thru 15 -13 Ardmore- LaSalle $1,158.00 17-23 thru 17 -26 Church of Christ -20- RESOLUTION #608 APPROVED FOR THE SALE OF LAND IN IND. R -57 LASALLE PARK PROJECT 15 -9 TO JAMES $ CHARLOTTE BRIDGES South BendlRedevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 6. NEW 7. h. cofitinued... Mr. Robinson made a motion to approve Re olution. #609 authorizing the execution of Redevelopment Agreement for the dis po ition of land and the execution of quit- cl im deed(s) for the transfer of title thereto in connection with land to be di posed of in the LaSalle Park Project, Inc.. R -57 (Parcel 15 -10 thru 15 -13 an 17 -23 thru 17 -26 to Ardmore- LaSalle Ch rch of Christ for $1,158.00), seconded by Ms. Auburn, and the motion was un4nimously carried. i. Commission e Number 17427, 17 -29 for Resolution veto in 3nosed of in Project, Ind. R -57. Name Amount Irene West $256.80 Tyr. Donaldson made a motion to approve Re olution #610 authorizing, the execution of Redevelopment Agreement for the disposition of land and the execution of quit -claim de d(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 -27, 17 -29, to Irene West for $2E6.80), seconded by Ms. Auburn, and the motion was unanimously carried. REPORTS a. Update on rental of property within the Certury Mall Proiect Area. in . Kolata: As you are aware, we have cuted two leases for rental of properties the project area. -21- RESOLUTION #609 APPROVED FOR THE SALE OF LAND IN IND. R -57 LASALLE PARK PROJECT 15 -10 thru 15 -13 & 17 -23 thru 17 -26 TO ARDMORE- LASALLE CHURCH OF CHRIST RESOLUTION #610 APPROVED FOR THE SALE OF LAND IN IND. R -57 LASALLE PARK PROJECT 17 -27, 17 -29 TO IRENE WEST PROGRESS AND DISCUSSIONS ON RENTAL PROPERTY WITH- IN CENTURY MALL PROJECT AREA IND. R -66 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 7. PROGRE$S REPORTS (continued) a. Mrs. Kolata continues... We did this under the provisions that were authorized at the last meeting allowing us to take a telephone poll of the Commissioners if time was of the essence '. It was deemed that time was of the essence, therefore, we have entered into two leases. The first one is with Robertson's in the building which formerly housed Business Systems. This was not their first choice of properties. Their first choice was the old Family Bookstore bu the Department does not yet have the deed on the bookstore. Mr. Kevin Butler is presently working on it. So, as an in erim measure and because Robertson's wanted their Garden Shop to open on Ap it lst, we offered to rent them the Business Systems store, which was actually larger than they thought they would need. We have entered into a lease with them for a one month period at a cost of one dollar. We felt it was more important to have the building occupied at a nominal cost than it was to have a higher rental figure. I believe Mr. Butler felt that perhaps the Coirmissioners would want to reaffirm their ap roval of the leases at the meeting We also had approval of another lease with Pence, Dickens and Heeter Co., better known as "PD%P'. They have entered into a lease in the old "Ault Camera Shop" property, and have begun to do some interior work e ecting to open in about two weeks, perhaps the beginning of May. The terms of the lease were the same except that it was a month to month lease, and again, they were charged $1.00. Both of these leases require the tenants to provide insurance naming the Department of Redevelopment as co- insured and to pay all utilities; otherwise it is our standard lease. Mr . Derbeck: Is Pence, Dickens and Heeter pany going to sell office supplies, etc. there? , Ellison: Yes. -22- South Ben4 Redevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 7. PROGRESS REPORTS (continued) Ms. Auburn: What is Business Systems gong to say after we moved them out of their location into Washington Avenue and then turn around and rent for $1.00 a aext door location to PDH? Mr. Ellison: Well, Business Systems or Osco's or other parties that may have been displaced may initially react by saying "Why are they doing that ?" But it is our position that the Ca mission's objective which was stated at the last meeting was to try to lower our cost for operating those properties by occupying them and secondarily to t to assist downtown retail by pr moting some kind of retail mixed in rapid fashion. Those are the public interest objectives. I might add that while a $1.00 lease is insignificant, yo have to bear in mind that we pay no cost to assist Robertson's or anybody else we lease property to, to move into the building and to prepare it. Further, we do not provide any assistance to them to move from the property at an appropriate time. Therefore, their circumstances are entirely different from a business that has been displaced and then U ensated both for real estate and movement. Ms Auburn: Did we give Business Systems th option of staying where they were on a month-to-month and they then declined th t option? Mrs Horton: Yes they did. Mr. Ellison: Osco's is staying with us on a Inonth to month basis. Ms to Auburn: I would feel a bit more comfor- )le with the arrangement if Business ;terns had the option of staying on a month month basis, but I foresee some questions. -23- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 7. PROGRE S REPORTS continued Mr. Horton: Business Systems moved at that time because it coincided with the opening of the downtown store with the opening of their Grape Road office. Mr Ellison: I do think Ms. Auburn, to answer your point, if any business wants to gripe, it may be Osco's because we are still charging them to of purchase price as rent per month and will continue to do so. Mr Nimtz: When these stores were vacated, so e of the businesses had electrical terns, fixtures, some didn't etc. Mr r Horton, do you wish to say a few words? Mr Horton: Pence, Dickens $ Heeter, Co. is estimating up to $15,000 of money that they are going to have to put into the building; so they are incurring substantial cost. Some of the wiring has been pulled out, some of the walls have deteriorated, etc. Mr. Nimtz: It is just not a matter of moving into a store building, and then opening up the next day. When the old business moved out, they took with them everything they could. Mr. Ellison: We felt it would not be productive to fill the store and charge a fair market for the space with a 30 -day cancellation lease in which the lessee woidd also have to make substantial im rovements. It just wouldn't work. Ms Auburn: We had talked about that and I agree that obtaining the stores filled with some kind of business is important, but I think there is a problem with displacing onE type of business, and then bringing in a competitor. It may not be the mo �irect t political thing to do on our part. Mr. Ellison: Given the amount of services th t are growing downtown it is not our impression that an additional competitor will mean a loss of market to either, rather it would be an expansion of the market. -24- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 7. PROGRESS REPORTS (continued) Mrs. Kolata: I think PDH has a very definite interest in giving downtown a try. We have had other inquiries for stores moving in there and probably at the next Commission me ting we will have a few more leases to approve,, but they are interested as an interim measure whereas I think PDH is definitely saying—let's give it a try. Mr. Horton: I would like to mention as a matter of record Ms. Auburn, that we have not solicited any businesses. We are op rating on a first - served basis, and th refore, it is very difficult for us to be in a position to say no to this. Ms. Auburn: I understand that but I would feel more comfortable with the arrange- ment since Business Systems was offered the sane kind of business deal, in other words, a onth -to -month lease, and they have denied that. Mr. Robinson made a motion to ratify and confirm the arrangements made with Robertson's and Pence, Dickens & Heeter, Co., on a month-to- month basis for the locations occupied by th m, seconded by Mr. Donaldson, and the motion was unanimously carried. Mr. Nimtz: Do you wish to say anything about thE request for political space. Mr. Ellison: The status of the Brademas re uest is that in discussing this with our community planning and development representative felt that that kind of lease could not be executed. I asked her to give me a citation but she could not and she is pr sently in the process of discussing tM matter with HUD Area Counsel, Keith Lerch, with whom I have not yet conversed but have placed a few telephone calls. Mr. Butler is also researching the matter from a standpoint of trying to determine whether th re is a federal prohibition. We pr viously had the matter researched fr m the standpoint of state law last year and determined that there did not ap ear to be any state law prohibition. 1FAM MONTH TO MONTH LEASES WITH ROBERTSONS AND PDH APPROVED TO OCCUPY SPACE WITHIN THE CENTURY MALL - IND. R -66 DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING RENTAL OF SPACE IN CENTURY MALL FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES South BendlRedevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 7. PROGREOS REPORTS (continued) MrI. Ellison continues... In any event, the matter is up in the air as to whether or not it is permitted to lease a facility to a political entity, when that facility was acquired in part with federal funds. Mr. Nimtz: It is my guess that there would be a HUD regulation concerning this matter. Mr. Ellison: I have done some research on my own and I haven't been able to find any prophibition. I believe HUD's judgement is no ... the rationale will be something like this ... "you can't use community development dollars or federal dollars for po itical purposes ". They will reason that if you acquire property with those dollars no use connected with that property can be political in nature. The only problem I would have with that rationale is the question of intent. Ou intent was not to acquire property to lease it to a political entity. Rather, we clearly acquired the property to make way for the mall project. In effect, we are talking about interim uses because of the decision to delay the demolition of property. Thus, there can be no coimection between our intent when we started and the question at hand. Ho efully, by our next meeting, we will ha *e an answer. Mr Nimtz: Mr. Ellison I believe your ra lionale is correct in how HUD will re ct. MrJ Anderson: What property are you referring to in renting Brademas? Mr. Ellison: They had requested to lease either the Business Systems property or Gallenkamp from the Br demas campaign organization. -26- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 7. PROGRE$S REPORTS (continued) Mr. Nimtz: Mr. Anderson, one of the problems I foresaw in this matter is that if you honor one agreement someone else woiLld want to rent another, and if HUD woiLld allow this, we would have to - have - a 4rawing out of the hat or something as to who gets what location. Wouldn't you a.Q ee Mrs. Allen? . Allen: That is correct and I also feel t you should rent these properties to one else who is interested in renting it January because of the Christmas idays. Mr. Anderson: That would have been my second question as to whether or not this would clash with the intent to rent to retailers. Ptf Nimtz: Yes, it would. Mr. Nimtz: I would like to report to the Co fission that we had some sand blasting done to the building and the technical tein is ...it removed the epidermas of the brick. It makes it porous and I believe it will be a recommendation that sand blasting not be used to fix the brick wa 1 on the Odd Fellows Building, and I believe Borger /Jones & Associates will use an acid to clean it and that has not ben tested yet. Ms. Derbeck: I have a question about the Odd Fellows Building. What has happened with the developer from California (M,. Kalman), I understood he was in a hurry for an answer? Mr. Ellison: He is. What would you like to know about him? Ms Derbeck: Well, you don't even mention hio today. It seems to me that you are st lling. -27- DISCUSSIONS ON THE ODD FELLOWS BUILDING South BendlRedevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 7. PROGRESS REPORTS Mr Ellison: Ms. Derbeck, you may notice th t the work we are asking the architects to do was to be completed by next Friday. Obidously, that suggests some urgency so you should not presume hat.we are stalling. . Allen: When do we get to hear about it review? Mr Ellison: I presume we would schedule th t at our next meeting. There are no pl s to have a special meeting. Ms Derbeck: Is Mr. Kalman still in th picture? Mr. Ellison: Yes, very much so. We ar involved in the 30 -day negotiation period with the firm. We talked and have had several meetings with the local people and their attorneys are working with Mr. Butler and things are moving al n�y. Mr . Allen: Is this Borger /Jones connected with Mr. Kalman? Mr. Ellison: No, they are doing this as our clients. We have retained the firm to provide us with guidelines that are rather exact with respect to how that building can be done assuming the brick is saved, etc. We need to have a method for evaluating independent of what Kalman & Company may tell us, what the effect of that exterior treatment would be. In their proposal they also want to look at the relationship of this treatment of the building to the overall mall project. That is a secondary objective. Their instructions are that if they can do that within the timeframe, find. If they cannot, we advised them not to worry about it right now. They are working for us specifically to deliver a rendering showing the extent to which cleaning the brick and re airing the terra cotta can work and what it might look like. 28 South Ben4 Redevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 7. PROGRESS REPORTS (continued) Allen: Have you discussed this with developer from California? Ellison: Yes ... one of the partners, Bill Nelson is still in town and has several meetings with us. Ms� Derbeck: Yet, you are still using th term "feasible". Nimtz: I believe the Commission not been convinced that the proposal is feasible and can be done for that of money and rented for that space square foot. This is a question remains to be satisfied. Mr. Ellison: That is correct. You may recall our meeting quite some time ago with Mr. Nicholas Jannotta, where he made a number of recommendations. One of them is that we do something like this so that we have the best information on our side when we made a judgement. So, in a way, we are simply following through on Mr. Jannotta's recommendation. Ms Derbeck: I take it you are referring to any of the proposals and not just the pr posal with Mr. Kalman? Mr. Nimtz: That is correct, we are talking ab ut all proposals. Mrs. Allen: I have a question which follows that-did you study Crowe, Chizek's plans to .find out whether or not they could build the building for what they said, and rent their spaces? Mr Nimtz: The proposition was entirely di ferent with them in that we sold the land to the developers and then they made their deals wi the people who develop Block Six. . Allen: I should think we would be way t the feasibility stage of this game. If man has the money and has done work in er cities, I should think that we could -29- South Ben0edevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 7. PROGRESS REPORTS Mr. Ellison: We are moving as rapidly as po sible. Obviously, the Commission has an obligation, if it is going to dispose of the building, to have some assurances of what is go ng to happen to it. Clearly, what we are doing now is facilitating that process. As you may recall from the proposal presen- tations, no two people wanted to do the same thing to the building. That is the nature of rehab. It tends to be rather inexact, and tends to lend itself to a great deal of creativity. One of the problems that we have had in the past is trying to evaluate and. decide that one treatment was better or worse from an aesthetic point of view and from a structural one than another. Clearly, we have needed some additional guidance and this guidance at this stage is becoming rather detailed. We see it as simply a necessary step in th process. Nis. Derbeck: I take it when you are talking about feasibility anyway that you are not talking so much about the soundness of the structure but the economics? Mr. Nimtz: The economics, that is right, in the present day market. Mr. Ellison: There is much disagreement ov r what is economically feasible and what is not. Mr. Robinson: I don't believe they have convinced us that we are totally satisfied th t they are going to complete the project. In other words, if they start it, and they do 't have any success, we can see that it is gradually going to get worse and worse, an there will be no benefit whatsoever. Mrs. Allen: This was never done on the other projects that were done. Mr Robinson: That is totally different, you are talking about a new facility and you are talking about having new facilities all the way around in the existing structure which might be detrimental to the whole downtown renewal if they didn't co plete it. -30- South Beni. Redevelopment Commission Regular Meting - April 11, 1980 7. PROGRtSS REPORTS Mr. Ellison: I do want to make it clear that we are not disinterested in Mr. Kalman. He is, to the best of our information, a rather substantial d veloper. Certainly his credentials are good and he has the financial c pacity to do the building. Mayor Parent iE very interested in keeping this firm interested in this project, but the Commission does have an obligation tc make sure that we protect public i terest as it relates to requiring certain minimum information and certain assurances that whatever they say they will do can be done. The whole point of the 30 -day exclusive negotiation pTocess was to make sure that we obtained those details so that the Commissioners could be relatively s isfied if we agreed to sell. Ms. Derbeck: You said you wanted to use an architecture firm that had not been involved in the issue of the OdJ Fellows Building. (Borger /Jones Associates). Z. Nimtz: That is correct, Borger /Jones new to the project. 8. NEXT C01MISSION MEETING a The ne t regularly scheduled South Bend Redeve opment Commission Meeting will be held on April 25, 1980, at 10:00 A.M. There being no further business to come before the Commission, Mr. Donaldson made a motion that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Mr. Robinson, and the motion was unanimously carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:06 A.M. -31- NEXT COMM7ISSION MEETING Southend Redevelopment Corrmrission Regul Meeting - April 11, 1980 Carl Ellison, Executive Director -32-