Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRM 02-06-81SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 6, 1981 10:00 a.m. Presiding 0 ficer: Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, President 1. ROLL CA Members 1200 County -City Building 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 Present: Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, President Mr. Lloyd E. Robinson, Sr., Vice President Mr. A. Peter Donaldson, Secretary Mr. Robert Cira, Assistant Secretary Members) Absent: Legal Counsel: Redevelopment Staff: Community Development Staff: News Media: Guests: 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Paula N. Auburn, Member Mr. Kevin J. Butler Mr. Patrick M. McMahon, Executive Director Mrs. Ann Kolata, Deputy Director Mr. Kevin Horton, Deputy Director Mr. Jeff Rush, Targeting Jobs Coordinator Mr. Paul Falduto, Administrative Assistant Mrs. Angela Coar, Executive Secretary Mrs. Hedy Robinson, Secretary Mrs. Kathryn Baumgartner, Director, Bureau of Housing Ms. Jeanne Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Mrs. GlendaRae Hernandez Mr. John Hill Mr. J. L. Cronk On motion by Mr. Robinson, seconded by Mr. Cira and unanim usly carried, the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 16, 1981 were approved. On motion by Mr. Cira, seconded by Mr. Robinson and unanimously carried, the Minutes of the Special Meeting of February 2, 1981 were approved. 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MINUTES OF REGULAR MEET- ING OF JANUARY 16, 1981 WERE APPROVED MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEET- ING OF FEBRUARY 2, 1981 WERE APPROVED On motion by Mr. Cira, seconded by Mr. Robinson and CLAIMS APPROVED unanim usly carried, the claims totalling $86,575.75 were allowed and ordered to be paid. The authorized claims are: South Bend Commission Regular Mee�edevelopment ing - February 6, 1981 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (continued) REDEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND Payroll: 1 -10 -81 to 1 -23 -81 $ 6,261.39 A. B. Dick Products Company 503.48 Business Systems, Inc. 33.03 Dorothy Z. Deane, Petty Cash 49.57 Dictaphone Corporation 40.30 Irene Gammon 8.21 The Grantsmanship Center 13.80 Indiana Bell Telephone Company 330.08 Muszynski Insurance Agency, Inc. 30.00 Postmaster 143.28 The South Bend Tribune 64.22 Coffee Time Services 10.00 Gelco Courier Services, Inc. 8.78 TOTAL $ 7,496.14 REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CAPITAL Butler $ 707.05 Kevin J. Federal Express Corporation 61.13 Roger 0. Parent 26.43 Travelm re 297.00 Radisson South Hotel 132.26 TOTAL $ 1,223.87 REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CAPITAL Inc. OF 1972 $ 3,374.95 Gruen Associates, TOTAL $ 35374.95 P.E.A. MONROE- SAMPLE AREA Company of St. Joseph County, Inc. $ 7,340.00 Abstract Lang, Feeney & Associates, Inc. 1,201.00 TOTAL $ 8,541.00 P.E.A. � EAST BANK AREA Abstract & Title Corporation Abstract Company of St. Joseph County, Inc. Kevin J. Butler Dorothy Z. Deane - Petty Cash $ 25.00 70.00 242.70 TOTAL $ 369.20 E South Bend Commission Regular Mee �edevelopment ing — February 6, 1981 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (continued) P.E.A. I- IND. R -66 Kevin J. Butler Kevin J. Butler Dorothy Z. Deane - Bob Frame Plumbing Indiana & Michigan Redevelopment Revo P.E.A. 1- 312 LOANS $ 200.00 350.70 Petty Cash 6.40 & Heating, Inc. 112.25 Electric Company 55.57 lving Fund 17,057.32 TOTAL $17,782.24 Lawrence Dwyer $ 210.57 Joni Ladewski 199.03 Stephen Eddy 490.00 Art Keil 917.49 Big "C" Lumber & Jeanne Welsh 72.73 Vincent Klees 180.00 Jeanne Welsh 553.97 Christopher Costello 782.77 The Kissell Company 4,240.12 John Rudnicki 946.87 U. S. epartment of Housing and Urban Development 5.79 Riverb nd Electric, Inc. & Gerald Walsh 240.84 Paula Famirez 37.96 Richard Dobrzykowski 33.50 The Kissell Company 16.97 Circle Lumber, Inc. & Oleta Hayes 1,807.95 The Kissell Company 28.42 The Practical Answer & Southold Heritage Foundation 1,879.53 Wayne and Larry Gabbard & Georgia Kowlas 50.00 Jeanne Frisz & Cloud Brothers, Inc. 907.83 84 Lumber/Home Center & Linda Mason 110.98 The Ridge Company & Brenda or Richard Ferguson 302.80 Jack Frost Co., Inc. & Dennis Nolan 570.00 Color Tile & Oleta Hayes 821.27 Leona Fleming 133.15 R. A. Stickler Contracting & Donald Land 6,992.00 Tri-State Home Improvements &John Rudnicki 7,630.00 John R dnicki 110.61 Charle & Kelly Cunningham & Plaia Construc ti o 8,613.60 Jessie Richardson & Charles Brown Maintenance 8,901.60 TOTAL $47,788.35 GRAND TOTAL $86,575.75 3 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Me ting — February 6, 1981 4. COMMUNIICATIONS There ere no communications to present to the Commission. 5. OLD BUSIINESS Mr. McMahon: We have two items, the first pertains to the Resolution which was adopted last Monday with respect to Monroe-Sample. Inadvertently we have four (4) parcels that were not listed with the initial Resolution, and after discussing this with Mr. Butler I believe we have a motion that could be made today that would amend that Resolution. Is there a particular wording, Mr. Butler? Mr. Butler: Basically the motion will be to recall for reconsi eration Resolution No. 633. Mr. Nimtz: Do I hear a motion that we recall for recon- siderat'on Resolution No. 633? Mr. Robinson made a motion to recall for reconsideration Resolution No. 633. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cira and una imously carried. Mr. Butler: The next motion would be to amend the De- velopment Plan and the acquisition map to include the parcels identified on Page 13, parcels 8 -6, 8 -7, 8 -8, and 8-13. Mrs. Ko ata: What happened is that we put them in the "not to be acquired" list and they should have been in the "to be acquired" list. Mr. But' readopt ler: I think we can combine in that motion the ion of Resolution No. 633 as amended. Mr. Nimjtz: Do I hear such a motion? Mr. Robinson made a motion to amend the Development Plan and the acquisition map to include Parcels 8 -6, 8 -7, 8-8, and 8 -13, and for the readoption of Resolu- tion No 633 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cira and unanimously carried. Mr. McM hon: Next under old business I would like to request permission of the Commission to terminate an agreeme t which we have previously had in place with M THERE WERE NO COMMUNICA- TIONS TO PRESENT TO THE COMMISSION. RESOLUTION NO. 633, RE- GARDING MONROE- SAMPLE PROJECT WAS RECALLED FOR RECONSIDERATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ACQUISITION MAP FOR MONROE- SAMPLE PROJECT AMENDED, AND RESOLUTION NO. 633, AS AMENDED, READOPTED South Bend redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - February 6, 1981 5. OLD BUSINESS Mr. McM�hon continues... Hanifen Imhoff & Samford, Inc., who has been serving as financial advisor, assisting us with respect to the Tax Increment Issue. We have felt that it would be in the best interest of our efforts in pursuing the tax increment if we no longer continue utilizing that firm. lie are currently reviewing other firms in con- junctiop with providing us with assistance in develop- ing the Tax Incremental packet. As you know, their service have not resulted in any charges to the Com- mission at this point in time, they were simply to be extended some opportunities to underwrite the issue. We have talked to.John Goema:ns with that firm and they agree that it would be in our best interest to pursue this activity with someone else and, as a result, I would like permission from the Commission to terminate that relationship. Sometime in the near future I would hope we will be forthcoming with a similiir agreement with another firm involved. Mr. Nim z: I have discussed this informally with various Members of the Commission. You recall the main re son for picking this company was the one gentlem n we have been doing business with and he had changed companies, hadn't he? Mr. McM4hon: He changed once. Mr. Nim z: We moved with him, and from my understand- ing he .s perfectly agreeable to this being terminated. He is i Denver now, isn't that correct? Mr. Butner: That is correct. Mr. Nim z: I think the proper motion would be that the con ract with Hanifen, Imhoff & Samford, Inc. be termina ed. Do you think anything further needs to be said, K vin? Mr. But er: No. Mr. Nim z: Do I hear such a motion? Mr. Rob between velopme and it nson made a motion to terminate the contract Hanifen, Imhoff & Samford, Inc. and the Rede- it Department. Mr. Cira seconded the motion ias unanimously carried. 5 CONTRACT WITH HANIFEN, IMHOFF & SAMFORD, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SER- VICES RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT ISSUE WAS TERMINATED South Bend Commission Regular Mee�edevelopment ing — February 6, 1981 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Commission approval requested for a Non- Profit Rehabilitation Grant to Renew, Inc., in the amo nt of 7,963.00 for a`house located at 621 North Diamond Avenue. Mr. McMahon: Commission approval is requested for a Non-Profit Rehabilitation Grant to Renew, Inc., in the amount of $7,963.00 for a house located at 621 North Diamond Avenue. Mrs. Baumgartner is here with us this morning to explain this item. Mrs. Baumgartner: ,Actually, there are two grants to be approved this morning. Mr. John Hill, Ex- ecutive Director of Renew, Inc., is here on behalf of the organization. I would just like to say that Renew, Inc., has an excellent track record with the Non - Profit Grant Program, and has been very timely in their completion of projects. I would highly recommend the awarding of these two grants. Mr. Nimtz: To refresh everyone's recollection, this is the semi- religious non - profit organization. Mr. Hill: We had some religious orientations at the beginning, but we are not a religious orien- ted group. Mrs. Baumgartner: They are prime movers of the non - profit program. Mr. Nimtz: Do I hear a motion that this be approved? Mr. Cira made a motion to approve a Non - Profit Re- COMMISSION APPROVED A habilitation Grant in the amount of $7,963.00 for NON - PROFIT REHABILITATION Renew, Inc. The motion was seconded by Mr. Robinson GRANT FOR RENEW, INC. FOR and unanimously carried. 621 N. DIAMOND AVENUE Mr. Robinson: Do you have someone who is involved in the actual nuts and bolts of these projects? Someone who supervises the wage scales to make sure the contractors are paying the proper wage scales? Mr. Hill: Yes. Mr. Nimtz: I have never heard any criticisms or comments concerning them at all. Mr. Robinson: I am looking out for the working people. South Bend Commission Regular Mee �edevelopment ing - February 6, 1981 6. NEW BUSIINESS b. Com ission approval requested for a Non- Profit Rehabilitation Grant to Renew, Inc.; in the amo nt of $10,000.00 "for a house located at Mr. McMahon: Item (b) is a similar request for a Non Profit Rehabilitation Grant to Renew, Inc. This one is for 2009 West Sample Street, in the amount of $10,000.00. Mrs. Baumgartner: In this particular case the $10,000.00 is the limit available through the Non- Profit Grant Program. Mr. Hill has indicated i;n a letter to us that Renew, Inc. will absorb any costs over the $10,000.00. We have handled similar cases witi them and they have, in fact, done so in the past. Mr.lNimtz: Any further questions or comments? Mr. Robinson made a motion to approve a Non - Profit COMMISSION APPROVED A Rehabilitation Grant in the amount of $10,000.00 NON- PROFIT REHABILITATION for Renew, Inc. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cira GRANT FOR RENEW, INC. FOR and unanimously carried. 2009 WEST SAMPLE STREET c. Commission a the De artme Jr., for 10q al requested for an of R sere development and ces related t6 t Ject. greement between omas J. Brunner, development of Mr. McMahon: Item (c) is a request to approve a con- tra t between the Department of Redevelopment and Tho as J. Brunner, Jr., for legal services related to the development of the Century Mall Project. Mr. Brun- ner has been employed through the City Legal Department for a number of months now and his work has primarily beei involved with the Tax Incremental Package, which we are attempting to put together both for the market- ing and from a legal standpoint. That work is con - tin ing and will continue for some period of time until we successfully bring this to a bond sale. It is being requested by the City Administration that the Redevelop- ment Commissioners consider this contract and fund those services through Redevelopment in that the work is geared toward the Century Mall Project and the financial dealings involved in supporting that pro- ject. Mr. Butler has reviewed the contract and, I believe, may have made some changes. F South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting — February 6, 1981 6. NEW BUSIINESS c. conitinued... Mr. Butler: In Tom's draft, the term of the con- tract was renewable for six (6) months. I have made the term through December 31, 1981. Basically, we have to have a specific maximum amount as a cap, you don't have to decide that necessarily now if you don't know what that figure is. Mr. McMahon: I don't know what that figure is going to be. Mr. Nimtz: This has been discussed with me and I have discussed it with a number of Commissioners. It is my recommendation that this be approved. Mr. Brunner can.continue on with what he has been doing concerning the First Bank Center± Project and the Mall. I think that the proper motion would be that this contract be approved subject to further approval by our legal counsel. Is that right? Mr. Butler: Right. Mr. Donaldson made a motion to approve an Agreement between the Department of Redevelopment and Thomas J'. Brunner, Jr., for legal services related to the development of the Century Mall Project, subject to further legal counsel. The motion was seconded by Mr. Robinson and unanimously carried. 7. PROGRESS REPORTS Mr. McMahon: We have no progress reports per se other than I would like to bring to your attention that Mrs. Baumgartner has submitted to us a Cost Book that has been requested by the Commission for a while. The book identifies most of the costs that they are utilizing for the various elements in reviewing and putting to- gether their estimates for work that is done in con- junction with 312 Loans and other areas. Mr. Nim z: What I would suggest you do is make a copy for Messrs.iRobinson, Cira and Donaldson. Can you do that? Mr. McMahon: We can distribute it any way you want. NO APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH THOMAS J. BRUN- NER, JR., FOR LEGAL SERVICES RELATED TO CENTURY MALL PROJECT South Bend redevelopment Commission Regular Mee ing - February 6, 1981 7. PROGRESS REPORTS (continued) Mr. McMahon: Mr. President, we have a letter from Mrs. Baumgar ner to the Commission which states that the Section 8 Rehabilitation Standards have been compared with thE local codes. Those standards which are over and abo e our current local codes, the Basic Building Codes for 1978, have been identified and there are ten (10 of them. The Bureau of Housing has gone through these ten different items and has some re- commendations for us and is requesting that the Com- mission adopt certain standards, which are over and above t e basic housing code, and acknowledge that others lave been utilized by HUD which we may not wish to pursue just because of the hardship that we feel ma be placed upon those people who are utiliz- ing the 312 Loans. In the case of these different items, t is my understanding that they are somewhat discret ovary. They acknowledge that they are just recomme ded standards and they may not apply in all areas. The Bureau of Housing would simply like the Redevel pment Commission to take a position with respect to where these various items that are over and abo e the local codes stand. Perhaps it would be prop Er if I just ran down the ten of them very quickly and state what the disposition was. Mr. Nim z: Certainly. Mr. McMahon: Kathy, would you correct me if I over- look so ething? I am not going to read your entire letter. Mrs. Baumgartner: Yes. Mr. McMahon: One of the items pertains to hand rails that should be installed on all stairways. This is being r commended for adoption and is over and above what thE local code calls for. Another item recommended for adoption is that the general appearance of the outside of the structure and the lot, after rehabilitation, should be such that it makes a significant contribution to the gen- eral ap earance of the neighborhood. I don't know how one enforces that. Mrs. Baumgartner: Previously in our Grant Program we did Veau's hing to the exteriors and there was a move on the part this year to enhance the exterior. t, South Bend Commission Regular Mee �edevelopment ing - February 6, 1981 7. PROGRES� REPORTS (continued) Mr. McMa on: Will this allow certain work to be done that has not previously been allowed? Mrs. Bau gartner: Yes, we now cover fences, out build- ings, ga ages, etc., and things that really would help the neig borhood. Pair. McMahon: Item (d) deals with lead base paint. The dwelling unit shall be in compliance with HUD lead base paint regulations which, I believe, are more restrictive than the local code. It is encouraged that those three items be adopted by the Commission. The next item, the Bureau is suggesting that it not be adopted. All windows designed to be open should be operable and provided with screens. The Bureau of Housing is suggesting that that not be the case on porches or storage areas, but that it be the case on the balaInce of the dwelling. The next item states that each unit should be provided with at least 100 -amp service and a sufficient number of circuits to service present and anticipated future use of the dwelling. Mainly there should be separate circuits for air conditioners, furnaces, dryers and stoves, and there should be a separate 20 -amp circuit for the heavy workload in the kitchen and the main service box should be provided with circuit breakers. The exception to this that the Bureau of Housing wishes to take is that these items should be included and re- quired only if the service is to be increased to 100 amps. If there is already an existing 100 -amp service that meets the local code and the electrical code, they need no go in and make these modifications. Certainly someone may wish to have a fuse box as opposed to a circuit breaker, as an example. Mrs. Baumgartner: That's the primary reason we normally have. Ve will go to a house and if it meets standards except that they may have a fuse box as opposed to a circuit breaker, we would hate to have them go through the expense of putting circuit breakers in. Mr. McM hon: However, in the case where the service is not 100 amp and it is being brought up to that level, then th se Standards will be followed. Mrs. Baumgartner: Exactly. 10 South Bend Commission Regular Mee �edevelopment ing - February 6, 1981 7. PROGRES� REPORTS (continued) Mr. McMahon: The next item states that the attic should be insulated to a rating of R -30 with acceptable insula- tion ma erial,which is more than the local code calls for. The last item, dealing with smoke detectors, is recommended not to e followed. It states that each dwelling should have sm ke detectors, and the most reliable type of smoke detecto is a combination of electrical and battery opera- ted. I think anyone who has bought a smoke detector realize that the battery- operated one is probably a $25- $30:item. The electric smoke detector that is re- quired ias to be put on a circuit, and I think with another battery back -up, and is a great deal more ex- pensive It is better than $100, I believe. Mrs. Baumgartner: Yes. We have gotten estimates and they are a lot more expensive. We also have a recommenda- tion from HUD that they felt this was written in as a protection, but they will not necessarily require it. Mr. McMahon: The Bureau of Housing is basically asking that we establish a policy with respect to these items that are again over and above the basic code, and for the most part are requesting that they be adopted with a few exceptions - the windows on porches, the service that is already 100 -amp., and the electric smoke detec- tor. I it would please the Commission, I believe it would b proper to add this to the agenda and then take action n it. Mr. Nim z: Kevin, do we have a motion that this be added t the agenda or can we just go ahead and consider it. Mr. But er: We can go ahead and consider it. It does not hav to be on the agenda. Mr. Nim z: The Chair directs that this be considered as an item on the agenda, unless there is some objection. Hearing none, it is placed on the agenda. Mr. Robinson, you are the expert on this thing. I have had two loans where VA or FHA required these hand rails, and the buyers say they don't want hand rails. Mr. Ciro: Most houses have hand rails. 11 South Bend edevelopment Commission Regular Mee ing -- February 6, 1981 7. PROGRESS REPORTS (continued) Mr. Nim z: That is the difference in these old houses. You can t get furniture up and down the stairs becuase you hav a hand rail. Mr. Robinson: If they get in a problem where there is a perso al injury with a guest in their house, they've got a h ck of a problem if there is not a hand rail. Mr. Cir : You better believe-it. Mr. Donaldson: You even need hand rails going to the basement. Mr. McMahon: Any stairway with more than three steps usually has a hand rail. Mr. Nim z: Now, about the screens. I have had people who eit er have air conditioners or they have a storage room anJ they say, "I don't want screens on that room because we never use it and the windows are never opened." Mr. McMahon: According to this recommendation from HUD, it requires screens to be on all of them, the exception being s ggested by the Bureau of Housing would be porches and storage areas. Mr. Nim z: What if someone uses a bedroom as a storage area, t en what do you do? Mrs. Ba mgartner: I think if it is designed for a live- able space we would put the screens up. Mr. Nim z: You would? Even though the room is a storage room? Mrs. Ba mgartner: Yes. Pair. Cir : Why use lead base paint, period? Mr. McM hon: That is what the prohibited part of it is. The loc 1 code allows lead base paint in certain areas. In Section 8 HUD Regulations it is restricted completely. Mr. Robinson: Just one further comment as far as the recommendation about changing panels that have fuses in it and not circuit breakers. My personal opinion is that I would rather have the fuses. I have never seen a fuse sit there when it was overloaded and melt the panel d wn, but I have seen a circuit breaker melt. To me, the should have fuses. 12 t South Bend Commission Regular Mee �edevelopment ing - February 6, 1981 7. PROGRESS REPORTS (continued) Mr. Robinson made a motion to adopt the Section 8 Rehabilitation Standards as presented by the Bureau of Housing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cira and unanimo sly carried. 8. NEXT CO.1h1ISSION MEETING The next Regular Commission meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. February 20, 1981. 9. ADOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Mr. Cira made a motion that the meeting be adjo rned. The motion was seconded by Mr. Robinson and una imously carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:37 a.m. F. Jay tz, President 13 COMMISSION ADOPTED SEC- TION 8 REHABILITATION STANDARDS AS PRESENTED BY BUREAU OF HOUSING NEXT COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNMENT ck M. McMahon, Executive Director