Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRM 05-21-93!9 May 21, 1993 Presiding: Paula N. Auburn President 1. ROLL CALL Iggs);ygolugivell • I I • �W,AVAJIJ W.1 Z450 '1419 1 1308 County -City Building 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana Members Present: Ms. Paula N. Auburn, President Mr. Roman J. Piasecki, Vice- President Mr. Theo F. Sharp, Secretary Mr. Michael Donoho Members Absent: Mr. Philip Faccenda Legal Counsel: Ms. Jenny Pitts Manier Redevelopment Staff: Mrs. Ann Kolata, Director Mr. Jon R. Hunt, Executive Director Mrs. Cheryl Phipps, Office Manager Mr. Larry Magliozzi, Planner Mr. Tim Kabat, Planner Mr. Matt Carpenter, Economic Dev. Specialist Mr. Tom Eddington, Economic Dev. Specialist Ms. Cleo Hickey, Economic Dev. Specialist Media: Mr. Don Porter, South Bend Tribune Mr. Thom Howell, U -93 Mr. Mark Peterson, WNDU -TV Others: Ms. Karen Kiemnec, Historic Landmarks Foundation Mr. Fred Holycross, Historic Preservation Mr. Carter Wolf, Center City Associates Mr. Kevin Horton, Controller Mr. Bruce Collier Mr. Tom Brademas Mr. Tom Frederick Mr. Erwin Burke Mr. Dick Morrison Mr. Dennis Jordan Ms. JoAnn Blazek Mr. Robert Benko Mr. Roger Baele i' -1- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 1. ROLL CALL (Cont.) Others: continued... Ms. Jo Blacketor Mr. Dan Blacketor Ms. Helen Zemlyak 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Auvroval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Friday. May 7. 1993. Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecld, seconded by Mr. Donoho and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Friday, May 7, 1993. 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Aoft Claims Submitted May 21, 1993 for Approval ADMIN 1993 Federal Express Gene's Camera Shop Makielski Inc. South Bend Drafting St. Joseph County Recorder Clyde E. Williams & Associates, Inc. Equipment Services Corporate Staffmg Resources South Bend Tribune Commercial Office Products Center City Associates Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana Aspen Technologies ADN Computer Systems Petty Cash ARM Computing Kinko's The Copy Center James Riggs -2- COMMISSION APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1993 27.00 184.95 33.25 3.00 68.00 1,062.50 28.63 621.00 90.68 29.95 3,000.00 25.00 1,081.74 264.92 138.60 3,006.60 99.00 130.73 d .South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Cont.) ADMIN 1993 continued... Tri County News Equipment Services TOTAL ADMIN 1993 76.30 36.00 $ 10,367.85 S.B.C.D.A. TIF - GENERAL ACCOUNT York Title & Escrow, Inc. $ 200.00 TOTAL S.B.C.D.A. TIF - GENERAL ACCOUNT $ 200.00 BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE Gerard Hilferty & Associates The Troyer Group TOTAL BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE GRAND TOTAL Upon a motion by Mr. Donoho, seconded by Mr. Piasecki and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the Claims submitted May 21, 1993 for approval. HIMWGL-GA • 1• There were no Communications. There was no Old Business. a. Public Hearing on Resolution No. 1154 confirming Resolution No. 1151 designating the Sample - Ewing Development Area. declaring the Sample -Ewing Development Area to be blighted. aamndng a Development -3- $ 40,494.64 44.751.00 $ 85,245.64 $ 95 COMMISSION APPROVED CLAIMS SUBMITTED MAY 21, 1993 FOR APPROVAL THERE WERE NO COMMUNICATIONS THERE WAS NO OLD BUSINESS South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6_ NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... Plan and conditions under which Relocation payments will be made, and establishing an Allocation Area for lm=ses of Tax Incremental Financing. Mrs. Kolata asked to enter the following documents into the record: 1) An original of the "Notice of Hearing of the Sample -Ewing Development Area; 2) An affidavit of Carol Smith, Classified Manager of the South Bend Tribune, that the Notice of Hearing was published in that daily newspaper on May 7, 1993; 3) An affidavit of Lisa J. Andrysiak, Classified Manager of the Tri- County News, that the Notice of Hearing was published in that weekly newspaper on May 7, 1993; 4) A statement from Ann Kolata that a Statement to Taxing Units located within the Sample -Ewing Development Area was sent to the taxing jurisdictions on May 7, 1993; 5) A statement from Martha Lantz that on May 18, 1993, she delivered a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing to Kathy Orlowski at the South Bend Park Department, Juanita Winston at the Building Department and Board of Zoning Appeals, Sharon Roth at the Area Plan Commission and Sandra Parmerlee at the Board of Public Works; 6) An original copy of the Area Plan Commission's Resolution No. 117 which deals with the subject of the Public Hearing; 7) A certified copy of Resolution No. 2043 -93 of the Common Council of the City of South Bend relative to the subject of the Public Hearing; 8) A copy of Resolution No. 1151 of the Redevelopment Commission; 9) As of -4- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... 10:00 a.m. on May 21, 1993, 0 written remonstrances were received. Ms. Auburn asked if there was any objection to these items being entered into the record. There were no objections and they were so entered. Mr. Hunt highlighted a couple of differences in the Sample -Ewing Development Area (SERA) from our other redevelopment areas. One major difference is that we are proposing to use tax increment financing as the initial funding for the program, but are not recommending a TIF bond. The TIF will be spent as it is received. Another major difference is that the SEDA plan contains a strong neighborhood revitalization component in the Rum Village and Southeast areas, equal to the commercial and industrial components. Mr. Hunt noted that the Redevelopment Commission plays a significant role in the first five years of the plan, but in order for redevelopment to be successful in the long term, we need to bring in many more partners than we normally do, including neighborhood and business organizations, social and human service agencies, and the Business Assistance Division of the department, to carry forward the non - redevelopment portions of the plan. Therefore, the development plan establishes a general framework to approach more detailed planning of the various sub - areas. We are -5- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... very excited about the plan and look forward to working with these partners. Mr. Magliozzi explained the Sample -Ewing Development Plan. The new redevelopment area combines two existing redevelopment areas, the Studebaker Corridor Development Area and the Rum Village Industrial Park, with adjacent residential areas to their east to create the Sample -Ewing Development Area. The new development area is approximately 21400 acres. It is sub - divided into five sub- areas for planning purposes: the Rum Village Industrial District, the Studebaker Corridor, the Indiana - Sample Industrial Corridor, Rum Village Neighborhood, and the Southeast Neighborhood. Mr. Magliozzi pointed out that this area is in what was the historical industrial and residential heart of South Bend. The Southeast Neighborhood and the Rum Village Neighborhood are among the oldest neighborhoods in South Bend. They originally housed the employees of the businesses located in the large industrial areas. The commercial areas along Indiana Avenue and Main and Michigan Streets developed logically between the workers homes and their employment. With the demise of Oliver Chilled Plow, Studebaker, and White Farm, the neighborhoods declined dramatically, especially the Southeast Neighborhood. There has been a significant drop in the number of housing units as well as in the value of the housing. U q"' South Bend Redevelopment Commission �"'% Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... With the decline in the neighborhoods, the commercial area also declined. Where are many abandoned or under - utilized industrial buildings in the Studebaker Corridor and the Rum Village Industrial Park has never fully developed to its potential because of unstable soil conditions in the area. The transportation network in the area, consisting of the major arterials Michigan/Main Streets, Sample Street, Ewing, and State Road 23, is a unifying factor. It will be key to making this area attractive for redevelopment. There is also excellent railroad coverage in this area, although much of it has been abandoned. Mr. Magliozzi noted that there are several impediments to development in these areas: 1) Large vacant, abandoned buildings in the Studebaker Corridor which must be torn down; 2) the muck in the Rum Village Industrial Park which must be removed to make that land usable; 3) accelerated neighborhood decline in the Southeast Neighborhood; 4) the beginning of deterioration in the Rum Village Neighborhood which needs to be stopped; and 5) the deteriorated commercial areas along Indiana Avenue in particular. The development plan has a three -fold purpose: 1) to establish a vision and strategy for redevelopment, revitalization, improvement, and preservation of this area; 2) to merge two existing redevelopment areas and tax incremental allocation areas; and 3) to -7- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... establish a framework for a detailed planning program that involves the residents, the businesses, the civic and institutional partners for each of the sub -areas mentioned earlier. We have outlined several strategies for addressing the needs in this area. The public sector must provide investment to be the catalyst for redevelopment. Social, economic, physical, and organizational issues will be planned together. Public funds must be leveraged to encourage private development. There must be development of private sector leadership. IL The objectives of this project are: to increase the tax base, increase investment in this area, stabilize various sections of the area, revitalize various sections, strengthen two of the oldest neighborhoods in South Bend, create a public private organizational network that will help establish this area through time, establish strong, unifying and structural urban design guidelines, increase the level of private investment, retain and increase jobs, and generate funding sources. Activities have been divided into two types: fiscal and sociallfinancial. The fiscal activities include architectural, engineering, survey, appraisal, soil testing, acquisition and relocation, site clearance, site assemblage, rehab, disposition, and public works. The anticipated social/financial activities include housing rehab, homeowner assistance, business assistance, and job match assistance. -8- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSHMS (Cont.) a. continued... The five sub -areas have been subdivided into sectors for planning purposes. The primary goal for the north sector of the Southeast sub- area is general redevelopment. There are very few homes left and IVY Tech, Parkview Juvenile Center, the Family and Children's Center, and the park will dominate that sector. The goal for the central sector of the Southeast sub -area will be revitalization of the neighborhood. There is a high percentage of rental housing which is a major cause of the residential deterioration. The goal for the south sector will be improvement, concentrating on urban design. The South Bend Community School Corporation plans to build a new Riley High School in this sector. The goal for three sectors of the Studebaker Corridor /South Gateway sub -area will be redevelopment. In the fourth sector we will emphasize strengthening existing businesses. The goal for the Rum Village Industrial District sub -area will be demucking, environmental testing, capitalizing on railroad access and by -pass access to encourage development, and improving Olive Road and land use along Olive Road. The goal for the Sample- Indiana Industrial District will be to improve the edges where it abuts residential areas or the downtown through urban design and deal with the environmental contamination that is likely present there. 0 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... The goal for the Rum Village Neighborhood sub -area is to stabilize it. Although this is the better of the two neighborhoods, there are some pockets of deterioration that should be stopped before they spread. Mrs. Kolata explained that Resolution No. 1151 takes two existing redevelopment areas, each of which had already been expanded once, and merges them together with additional land to make a new redevelopment area, the Sample -Ewing Development Area. The Findings of Fact address each area separately and then the new area as a whole. Mrs. Kolata read into the record Attachment "A" to Resolution No. 1154, the Findings of Fact for the Sample -Ewing Development Area, dated May 21, 1993: The South Bend Redevelopment Commission has conducted a study of the Sample -Ewing Development Area (Area) and has found that the Area is blighted to an extent that cannot be corrected by regulatory processes or by the ordinary operations of private enterprise without resort to the Indiana Redevelopment Law, IC 36-7- -14-1, et. seq. , and that the public health and welfare would be benefitted by the acquisition and redevelopment of the Area. Blight is found in the Area based on the following facts: -10- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 219 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... A. In the portion of the Area previously designated as the Rum Village Industrial Park. 1. The portion of the Area designated as the Rum Village Industrial Park (Original) described at 11. A. of the second Whereas clause of Resolution No. 1151 is blighted due to the continued existence of unstable soil conditions. The high cost of removing and replacing the unstable soil has been a deterrent to private business operations that can not be overcome by the normal development process. 2. The portion of the Area designated as the Rum Village Industrial Park (Expansion Area), described at II. B. of the second Whereas clause of Resolution No. 1151 is blighted due to lack of development, cessation of growth, and obsolescence of industrial facilities. Currently, this portion of the Area contains a 360, 000 square foot manufacturing building that is not used for manufacturing and is only used for storage. Numerous railroad rights of way through the area create problems for future development because of &fflcult access to buildings and poor internal road circulation. Deterrents to development also include the unstable soils found in the Expansion Area. B. In the portion of the Area previously designated as the Studebaker Corridor Development Area, described at L C , of -11- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... the second Whereas clause of Resolution 1151: 1. Currently 44.0% of the total building floor area in the Studebaker Plant Complex is vacant. Of the remaining 56.0 % off lour area that is occupied, the majority is underutilized as storage and warehousing. Although the percentage of total building floor area that is vacant is less than the 48.6% found vacant in 1986, its significance is not reduced since large vacant structures such as the Transwestern and Avand Buildings have been demolished by the Redevelopment Commission since that time. 2. Since 1986 when the Studebaker Corridor Development Area was found to be blighted and declared a redevelopment area, over 40 structures have been demolished by the Redevelopment Commission. These demolitions have included such large buildings as the Transwestern and Avand Buildings. Significant costs were incurred in remediating environmental problems prior to demolition of these structures. These costs would have been prohibitive to most private sector redevelopment efforts. It is anticipated that additional environmental remediation activities and the associated costs will deter private redevelopment of this Area. 3. Over one - quarter (25.5%) of the 220 acres of land in the Studebaker Corridor -12- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6 NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... Redevelopment Area is vacant. In Sub Areas A, B, and C adjacent to the main plant complex (as designated in the Plan for the Studebaker Corridor Development Area), 37.1 % of the land is currently vacant. 4. As part of the ongoing efforts of redevelopment in the Studebaker Corridor Development Area, over 26 acres of land is available for new development. In preparing these sites for disposition, significant investment has been made by the Commission in this area through acquisition costs, relocation payments, environmental remediation activities, and demolition. Presently, five sites have been sold. Capital improvements such as sidewalks, curbs and streetlights are needed in the area in order to improve circulation and upgrade existing inadequate infrastructure. Due to the cost, the provision of such public improvements will not occur solely through the ordinary operations of private enterprise. C. In the portion of the Area designated as Expansion Area No. 1, and described at the fourth Whereas clause of Resolution No. 1151: 1. In the period 1980 -1990 the United States Bureau of Census data shows that Expansion Area No. 1 (including Census tracts 28, 29, 30, and most of 34), lost more than 292 housing units, or 7.1 % of the 1980 total. -13- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6 NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... 2. Notwithstanding the scale of the loss of housing units between 1980 and 1990, residential vacancies increased from 275 to 384, an increase of more than 39% in the census tracts comprising Expansion Area No. 1. 3. In the period 1980 -1990, the population in the census tracts comprising Expansion Area No. 1 declined 11 %, or more than one thousand persons. In 1980 the population was over 10,400; by 1990 the population had declined to under 9,300. 4. In 1980 the median value of owner occupied housing units within Expansion Area No. 1 was $16,500, or only 63.4% of the Oty -wide median of $26,000. In 1990 the Oty median value increased to $40,000, while the median value in Expansion Area No. I only increased to $26,000. 5. In 1991 a survey of the exterior condition of all housing in the City of South Bend was conducted. The survey classified housing on a four segment scale which ranged from "sound" (no apparent deficiencies or needing only minor repairs) to "substandard" (deteriorating or dilapidated). For the city as a whole, only about 1.5 % of all units were classified as substandard. In the census tracts comprising Expansion Area No. 1, however, 4.6% of the housing units were considered substandard, more than three -14- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6 NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... times greater than the city -wide percentage. With only 8.3% of the City's housing supply, the census tracts comprising Expansion Area No. 1 contain about one -third of the City's substandard structures. 6. Unstable soil conditions found in some portions of Expansion Area No. I are a deterrent to private business development. D. In the entire Area: 1. Of the approximately 2400 acres included in the Area, 592.8 acres, or 24.7% of the total land area is vacant. 2. Collectively, the Area shares several negative physical factors that hinder private redevelopment. These factors include: unsuitable soil for development in the Rum Village Industrial Park and portions of Expansion Area No. 1; obsolete industrial facilities in the Studebaker Corridor and Expansion Area No. 1; poor internal circulation in portions of Rum Village, Studebaker Corridor, and Expansion Area No. 1; potential environmental contamination in the Studebaker Corridor and portions of Expansion Area No. 1. 3. The majority of the area is within South Bend's Urban Enterprise Zone. A requirement of distressed conditions must -15- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... be met for designation as an Urban Enterprise Zone. 4. In addidon to the fact that almost 25 % of the 2400 acres of land within the entire Area is vacant, the findings within Paragraphs A through D inclusive, above, are all incorporated by reference as to blight within the entire Area, inasmuch as the Commission finds that blighting influences from one part of the Area have a substantial negative impact on other parts of the Area and that blight within any part of the Area is interrelated to a substantial degree with the remainder of the Area. Mrs. Kolata asked permission to enter the following other documents into the record: 1) a Soils Map from the Area Plan Commission of St. Joseph County showing the condition of soils in the Sample -Ewing Development Area; 2) a chart from Matt Carpenter showing building occupancy in the former Studebaker Complex as of May 1993; 3) a memo from Matt Carpenter showing the estimated land use in the Studebaker Corridor Development Area as of May 1993; 4) a summary of census information for census tracts 28, 29, 30, and 34 showing a loss of housing units and a decline in population between 1980 and 1990 in Expansion Area #1; 5) a report from the Mayor's Housing Forum on the City of South Bend 1991 "Windshield" Housing Survey; and 6) a memo from the Area Plan -16- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... Commission of St. Joseph County showing land use estimates for the Sample -Ewing Development Area as a whole. Ms. Auburn asked if there was any objection to entering these additional documents into the record. There was no objection and the items were so entered. Ms. Auburn opened the Public Hearing on Resolution No. 1154 for anyone who wished to be heard. MR. BRADEMAS: I'm Tom Brademas. I maintain my offices at 425 N. Michigan Street in the City of South Bend. I have a brief statement to share with the Commission this morning. Having been involved in the past in the acquisition and rehabilitation of over twenty residential strictures in the Southeast Neighborhood, (my comments are directed at only the Southeast Neighborhood) I believe I have a better than average understanding of the area —its problems and its potential. My comments are directed primarily at the Sample -Ewing Development Area. There have been statements made in the general development plan, which I was supplied a copy of, that I do not believe are factual. Specifically in reference to Riley High School, it is suggested that this facility no longer meets the needs of their students, faculty, administrators, or community. The fact of the matter is that Riley High School's performance, both academically and athletically, is superior to many schools in the -17- PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION NO. 1154 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... area, including in terms of SAT performance, Penn- Harris - Madison High School with its multi- million dollar educational palace. In terms of athletic competition, Riley students, particularly in the swimming, basketball, football, and related sports, rank at or near the top —not only in St. Joseph County, but in the state. I will be leaving with you the ...... taken from our CONNECT education survey, a statement on Riley and I'll just read a little bit of it: "Riley received performance -based grants for 1990 and 1991. The Riley Fine Arts program has won more gold keys than all other schools in Indiana. The Riley review of George H. Gallup high school newspaper and their journalism program rank among the top 15 in the nation... National award - winning video camera club .... Riley's public relations brochure ranked number one in Indiana. A half million dollars worth of scholarships and grants awarded in 1992, Seniors." Hardly a performance that would suggest, as you have in your report, that the school does not meet the standards, academically, as such. Indeed, detailed architectural analysis of the Riley building indicates that it can be completely renovated at a cost of $8,615,000. Now, this is a fairly closely guarded secret. But I'll leave with you.... This is from the actual report "South Bend Community School Corporation, Riley High School Feasibility Study" identified renovation needs at Riley, and this is backed up with some very -18- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... definitive reports. Riley renovations, exterior, interior, mechanical, electrical, asbestos —the whole bloody building brought up to standards —total cost: $8,615,000. Not $45,000,000. And not as proposed in terms of demolishing the building and building a new building: $117,000,000. I think that this is the proper forum to discuss this issue because, indeed, you have suggested in your report that you are cooperating with the School City to carry out this. In terms of the site size, your report also says that the School Corporation/City Government attempted to use park and other open space to enable the School Corporation to meet size standards for both Riley High School and Studebaker Elementary School. The fact of the matter is that there would never have been a problem securing a waiver from the State Board of Education. Indeed I was in attendance at the State Board of Education when they granted the waiver. I should tell you that Riley contains, now, about 1380 students. Mishawaka High School, 1550. Mishawaka High School is on a site of 17 acres. Not 25 acres. Now, with the addition of Studebaker Park, we have about 23 or more acres. That's absolutely, ABSOLUTELY, no reason for the acquisition of any property in order to meet the requirements of the State Department of Education in conjunction with Riley High School. -19- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... Turning again to your plans for the Southeast Neighborhood, a sub -area goal, study on page 24 of the general development plan. It suggested that the area between Sample, Broadway, High and Michigan Streets would be cleared for the new Indiana Vocational and Technical College and a new Parkview Juvenile and Justice Center, as well as the relocation of existing park and expanded Boys and Girls Club, with the balance of the area being used for light industrial purposes. This certainly is a sound plan and I have shown on the attached map that the area in blue would be cleared. That makes sense. I know the area like the back of my hand and you should certainly do that. The area on the map shown in green, between Broadway and Dubail is where I concentrated most of my efforts earlier. I have about 20 houses, which I rehabilitated earlier and subsequently turned over to the Housing Development Corporation. All those houses are still standing in the area. This would require some spot clearance and intensive rehabilitation. The final area, shown in yellow, between Dubail and Ewing Streets, which is the area containing the best residential structures in the entire neighborhood, is to be conserved. You do not conserve the neighborhood by tearing the guts out of it. These are pictures taken of some of the houses in that particular area. I hope that you've all been through that area, because to acquiesce to the idea of -20- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... demolishing these houses —you might just pass these around so you can see what they are —I think this doesn't make any sense at all. Now, I have a personal letter from the Mayor and he said the same thing at the School Board meeting, "I do not wish to give up the great inner -city recreation facility, Studebaker Golf Course. I do not wish to give up Studebaker Park." You don't give it up; it's still right there. "I do not wish to have any streets closed. I do not wish to have any residential structures acquired. " Now the Mayor is on record with a personal letter to me and several others. He's also on record at the School Board as saying the same thing. The plans of the School Corporation to acquire up to, at this time, 55 sound residential structures for the expansion of Riley High School is absolutely counter productive. And flies absolutely in the face of what you say in your plan you will do. You do not conserve and upgrade by coming in to it and tearing out absolutely the heart of it -55 houses right in the middle of it. And you can see what those houses look like. They are decent houses. It just doesn't make any sense. We tore down last year in South Bend through Code Enforcement over 50 houses. We're probably going to continue to keep that pace. Now, to double that pace, by acquiring another 55 houses when it's absolutely unnecessary, I think is not right. -21- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... Finally, I ask that the Redevelopment Commission be aware, that, while the architect's detailed estimates indicate that Riley can be renovated, both on the exterior and the interior, for $8,615,000, the estimated cost prior to the plans to acquire these over 55 houses, was $117,000,000. Now, you say, well, I've seen figures of $65,000,000. But that's a 20 -year bond issue and even at the very best rates that they've projected, somebody —you and I as taxpayers in the South Bend Community School Corporation —are going to have to pay for that. And by the time we're done paying for that, we'll have at least $117,000,000 out. When we could, from the Capital Fund, from the monies that are available to the School City right now, comprehensively rehabilitate Riley as proposed by the architects. So the idea that we need to tear down that beautiful building is just reprehensible. It doesn't make any sense and will do a great disservice to the neighborhood to acquire those 55 houses. I would ask that the approval of this plan as it relates to the area in question be withheld until such time as the State Tax Board gives approval to the floating of a bond issue to permit the demolition of the beautiful, existing Riley High School and the expenditure of over $117,000,000 of public taxpayers' funds. Now, I don't know that that would do any damage to your plan; just go ahead and approve it with the exception of that one section and just hold up approval of -22- 3 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... that section until such time as the State Tax Board gives their approval. Now, I can tell you that we are mounting a major offensive. We already have captains and lieutenants and soldiers prepared to fight this and we're trying to get across to the School Board that there's absolutely no need for this. We have a 55 acre site with a fine school on it— Jackson —that could easily be renovated just as they did with LaSalle School for about $10,000,000. We don't have to float any bond issues and, maybe some of you here are not burdened by the taxes that are imposed upon us, but I can tell you as a business person, that I am burdened; and I know many other people that are burdened. I do not object to it if the money is used properly. But I think, in terms of tearing down this beautiful building.... I should finally tell you that Mishawaka High School —and I invite all of you to come over and look at Mishawaka High School —a beautiful building. Built in 1927. We spent $8,500,000 making a major addition to it. Nobody in their right mind would think of tearing that down. You know when Riley High School was built? 1927! Same year. Same basic type of construction. So, I don't want to harangue you, but I do ask that you give some consideration to the idea of modifying your resolution to exclude, until such time as the State Tax Board approves the demolition of Riley and the building of a new building, do not give any aid and comfort to the enemy. And that's, indeed, what you will be doing. You'll be flying directly in the face of what you are -23- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... saying is your policy. That area is to be conserved and rehabilitated. You do not conserve and rehabilitate residential buildings by tearing them out. Thank you for listening to me. MS. AUBURN: I think I need to remind the public that this is not a hearing on Riley high School. It's a hearing on bringing together the five areas into one redevelopment area and tax incremental district. So, who else would like to speak. MR. BRADEMAS: I apologize to the President if I have been out of order. But I ` do think that since you have, in your plan, made specific reference to Riley High School, that it is a proper topic for discussion. And especially when you say in your plan you are proposing to adopt, that the treatment for this particular area is to be conservation and rehabilitation. These are generic terms that we planners use, but I assume Jon would agree it's to be conserved and rehabilitated rather than spot clearance here and complete clearance here. This is the best part of the neighborhood. You want to come in here and tear the heart out of it. It just doesn't make any sense at all. I just ask that you don't give any aid and comfort to the School Board in this effort. MS. AUBURN: You've had your say, Mr. Brademas. This is not a hearing on Riley High School. This is a hearing on the -24- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... redevelopment district. Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak. MR. BURKE: I'm Erwin Burke. I'm President of the South Gateway Improvement Association. I live at 3516 Woodmont Drive in South Bend. We started South Gateway about ten years ago. This is our tenth anniversary. Things are coming to a head on the south side of South Bend. We're very, very supportive of this resolution. So much is going to happen to revitalize South Gateway. Our territory is from Monroe Street out to the City limits, Michigan and Main, Miami Street, and we're broadening now. Our outlook has always been that, whatever happens to South Bend happens to South Gateway. We feel very strongly about that. We tape in Scottsdale Mall and the entire southeast section. We're supportive of all the effort that's going to go forward into this redevelopment area. On South Michigan we're going to see major, major changes in the next three years. The Area Plan Commission has come up with a three -year plan for us. We're already starting to see construction, very constructive constriction going on with Real Services and the Police Credit Union. We welcome the Juvenile Center, Juvenile Probate Court, we're supportive of Riley High School, we're supportive of a lot of changes going on in our section. Private money cannot do it alone. This is our solution to start bringing the south gateway to South Bend up to par. We're very supportive of your efforts. Thank you. -25- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... MS. BLA2EK: I'm Joann Blazer and I'm a city resident, living at 222 S. Greenlawn. I've come as a volunteer; I'm just from the community. I'd life to give my support to the revitalization. I'm aware of the area and I feel like the help of the City in revitalizing this area will be a benefit to the area. There are a lot of vacant lots, a lot of deterioration that I feel that these programs they are thinking about being developed will be a great help for the area. Thank you. MR. BAELE: I'm Roger Baele. I live at 1719 S. Taylor Street. I'm a member of the board of the Rum Village Neighborhood Association. We have been watching with dismay the blight beginning to move into our neighborhood, over which we seem to have no control. So we very much welcome any help we can get in this regard. Thank you. MR. JORDAN: Dennis Jordan, 53215 W. Oakmont. Lifelong resident of South Bend. I am also dismayed and would truly like to see the revitalization of the area. I have many relatives and friends who I would say are being forced out of the area because they see their home for their families deteriorating to a level that is unacceptable to them. I would like to see you do anything you can to redevelop the area, both commercially, economically, and also for the people who live in South Bend and who are the core of our future. Thank you. -26- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... MRS. BLACKETOR: My name is Jo Blacketor. I just have a couple of questions for the Redevelopment Commission. Just one question, really. If this is a partnership project, why didn't the School Corporation have the information about blighted information? They were only aware of tax incremental funding. The blighted designation was news to them. And, in fact, they did not have the packets that we're all privy to right now. If you review the development plan, it says the Riley High School issue is a key element to the entire project. I just wonder why that wasn't communicated and why there isn't a partnership here with the School Corporation? Thank you. And I don't support the resolution when the words blighted are there. We're talking about revitalization on one hand, and that's what the school corporation chose that location for —to revitalize the inner -city. On the other hand, in a different public agency, we're talking about blight. MRS. KOLATA: First of all, on the issue of objecting to the word "blight," that's a legal requirement in the state law: in order to be a redevelopment area, you must find that there is blight. That does not mean that every piece of property within the entire area is blighted, but that, overall, there are conditions that cannot be corrected by just the normal operations of the private enterprise system. It requires some activity on the part of the Redevelopment Commission in order to make private enterprise function as it would -27- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 a. continued... in the normal market place. The Redevelopment Commission could not declare this a redevelopment area if they did not find it to be blighted. They could not use tax increment financing —tax increment financing is tied to the finding of blight in the area. I know there is some negative connotation to the word blight. That does not mean that every stricture in the area is blighted or that every block in the area is blighted, but as a whole, the area has certain conditions that are present that keep it from operating as a normal, 100% healthy economic area would function. That is not something that is at the liberty of the Redevelopment Commission to not do. They could "not do it" but they could, then, not do it as a redevelopment area. MRS. BLACKETOR: I understood, according to Indiana Code, that you could use other descriptive words: "revitalization" rather than "blight." MR. HUNT: Who said we could use other descriptive terms? MRS. BLACKETOR: I was reading in 36- 12- ..Indiana Code. MS. MANIER: That's the wrong section of Indiana Code. The Redevelopment Commission operates under 36 -7 -14. As Ann said, in order for the Commission to operate in an area and to make tax increment available for activities in an area, the area has -28- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... to be found to be "blighted." That's a term of all that means a certain thing when it's used by the Redevelopment Commission; it's not a general black mark against the area. It means, as Ann has said, that business will not go into that area or normal development activities will not go in because some barrier exists. That's what Larry described to us; that's what Matt submitted information to the Commission concerning —the economic barriers that exist in the area. MRS. KOLATA: Yes, sometimes those barriers can be, as we've pointed out, unstable soil; it can be that you need to buy property from a number of different property owners and tear down obsolete buildings. There are all sorts of barriers that can exist, some of which are just that no one wants to go into the northern portion of the Southeast Neighborhood, in itself, would be a barrier because people don't want to go in there because of the deterioration that exists. MR. HUNT: To be fair to you, though, that is a generic question that has come up on every redevelopment project that we've ever had, from downtown, to East Bank, to Monroe Park. And it's a good question to ask. Everybody says, "Why do we have to have the designation of blight." And the latitude locally is this: zero. MS. BLACKETOR: We're investing $55,000,000 in what we're now calling a -29- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... blighted area. That's not a question that happens all the time. MR. HUNT: There is probably $150,000,000 in two other blighted areas, that is the downtown and Past Bank, over the last ten years. Private investment; counting ours. So that it is a legal, generic issue that, at the local level always raises some hackles in terms of getting that designation. It has nothing to do solely with this area, but with every area I've ever been involved in, that question either comes up from residents or business people that are in those areas. "Why do we need this designation ?" MS. AUBURN: We've had this same question among the Commissioners. We've asked the same question you have on just the term. It's just that there's some legal requirements we have to follow. MS. BLACKETOR: But there's also a contradiction in public agencies. MRS. KOLATA: I don't necessarily agree with that. In that, certainly Redevelopment is declaring it blighted, but Redevelopment (and other portions of our department and the community and the private business sector) are going to be working to correct that blight by expending public monies and private monies to turn that around. So I don't necessarily see the conflict. You had another question as to why we did not send a copy of the resolution and the plan to the School -30- CW South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... Board. The school administration has been aware of our planning for this area. By law, and this is a fairly recent change, we must notify other taxing jurisdictions who are located within this Sample -Ewing Development Area of the hearing and the fact that the Commission is considering taking action on a tax increment financing area. So we sent that notice of the hearing and a statement of benefits, which is required by law, to all of those taxing jurisdictions. And that is everything from the Portage Township Assessor to the St. Joseph County Auditor, the Commission, the South Bend City Council —I have the list here in front of me —the Library, the Airport Authority.... Anyone who has taxing power within this area had to be notified and the law requires that they get a copy of the statement of benefits and the Notice of Public Hearing. That was done and that was sent. I believe that either yesterday or the day before, we had a request from the School Board for copies of the plan. Those copies will be made available. They did not, necessarily, want them prior to this meeting. They did not make an issue of the plan —we are making copies for them. That's entirely up to the different taxing jurisdictions as to whether they want to ask for the information or not. The notice says that it's available and they did get copies of that notice. MS. AUBURN: I appreciate your questions. I'm glad that you asked them. -31- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. ' NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... MR. MORRISON: I'm Dick Morrison from Hawkins Court on the southeast side. Is there a precedent for tying closely into your redevelopment effort, the key delivery educational system of the community. Key institutions. Your plan, as I read it, thinks that the educational delivery system in that area is critical to the efforts that you are going to put forth there. I'm just wondering if there is a precedent where the educational system has assisted in stabilizing and revitalizing blighted or whatever we're going to call the area. MRS. KOLATA: I don't believe that we have had such a thing tied to our other areas at this point. One of the aspects of the plan is talking about making land available for a new campus for Indiana Vocational and Technical College. The closest analogy I have to that is that we see a need to do something, revitalizing that area and for new development to be there, it seems to be a good combination —we have land available that needs to be redeveloped and they have a need for a campus in a good central location in a visible location. It seems to be a good compliment that a semi -public or public institution invest and help support our activities in that area. In that respect we've probably done something similar to that over the years. But it wasn't necessarily an educational institution. MR. HUNT: I think it's important that we continue to remember that we are going out -32- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... asking for private investors to come into the central city and inner city to make investments all the time when we're trying to sell those areas. I think it would be detrimental to that marketing effort, in terms of trying to attract private investment, to have public investment flee the inner city— whether it's the IVY Tech campus or Riley, in whatever form, at that location. So we think it's critical that the public institutions step forward along with the private sector and say, "We're making an investment in the inner city." And that's the only connection in terms of the educational aspect. MR. MORRISON: I guess my point is whether that's a theory that's developed here locally: we don't have a precedent somewhere else? MRS. KOLATA: I think there probably is a precedent in another part of the country. I just am not familiar with. And certainly having public agencies invest in redevelopment areas, I can just tell you, without knowing specific examples, I am sure that has happened in numerous places. MR. HUNT: Most of them have been higher education— University of Marquette, Milwaukee. I think you find major public hospitals will end up being part of a redevelopment plan in a city. But not locally, no. This is a first. -33- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... MR. COLLIER: My name's Bruce Collier. I live at 318 E. Haney, which is in the Southeast Neighborhood. I have two questions, neither of which have to do with the Southeast Neighborhood. The fast one is a more general question. That is, I hear the term "unstable soils" or "muck soils ", particularly out in the Rum Village Industrial Area, and even in one of the more inner -city areas. My question is, "Isn't the best use of that muck land and those unstable soils as agricultural land, to grow crops ?" We have a trend across the country in which our agricultural land, much of the best of it, is disappearing at a very high rate. I don't know if you are aware, but supposedly the best agricultural land in the state of Michigan sits, right now, underneath the City of Detroit. And losing this land, how much of the land out there is good agricultural land, perhaps not the best tax use of it, but the best use of the land is agricultural land? And I have another question. MRS. KOLATA: All I can tell you is that that land has been zoned "Industrial" for years and years and years. It is not agriculturally zoned land. Most of it is zoned "Heavy Industrial." Certainly the Rum Village Industrial Park is zoned "E," which is the heaviest zoning that you can have. Along the Indiana - Sample Corridor I think it is either "D" or "E, "which is, again, industrially zoned. I'm not sure that it will revert to agriculture, no matter what. -34- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... MR. COLLIER: I guess my response to that is that you said that this development in that area was probably precluded, if not for public dollars being involved, so that makes me wonder whether it might revert to agricultural land. MRS. KOLATA: I think that's also unlikely given the presence of the railroads, chopping it up into large sectors that would probably make farming a portion of it very difficult because it's not like you have vast, open fields going on and on. You do have a lot of railroad going through there. So that's already set that way. MR. HUNT: That's a good question. I think a couple of things, outside this area, have happened in the community. I think the Area Plan Commission, several years ago, established a very aggressive policy on zoning and protecting agricultural land. They are working with that and doing a good job, trying to force, in a positive sense, urban development into urban areas. While we would be giving up some agricultural land (the muck soil is obviously good for agriculture), this area is already served by infrastructure, water, sewer and rail. I think it would be more beneficial, in the long term, for the community to try to get the urban development, the industrial development, closer in to where we already have related development and infrastructure—as opposed to having it hop - scotch out into the county -35- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... and then causing us to extend utilities farther and farther out. The other aspect of this is that in the last year, working with Project Future, Kevin Hughes has brought in probably four or five prospects — wanting from 50,000 square feet to 250,000 square feet for industrial warehouse distribution— prospects that we have not been able to satisfy because they have all wanted rail. This is one of the few places that is really, truly served by most of the rail. If you think through the county area, South Bend and Mishawaka, and look where rail is serving already zoned "E, Heavy Industrial" land, there aren't any places. I'm not saying we would have landed all of them, but I think we would have had a stronger shot at a couple of them if we could have provided them with some sites that had rail access immediately, that was already properly zoned, that was served by city infrastructure. So, you're right, there is that cost of giving up some of that land that has agricultural potential; but I think, all things considered (broader than just this redevelopment area) but looking at how Area Plan is trying to make development happen in a more concentrated fashion, protecting the outskirts and the farming areas farther out, I think this makes sense. MR. COLLIER: The second question, which is very specific, was, "Looking at the map, the Rum Village area between Indiana and the railroad, Larry didn't mention what the plans -36- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... were for that particular area. I realize he didn't have much time, but if you could spend just a minute or two on what will happen in that area. MRS. KOLATA: I think that's part of the planning process with the neighborhood. Very definitely. MR. HUNT: We need to spend time with the Rum Village Neighborhood Association. MR. COLLIER: You already designated those areas in the Southeast and I thought perhaps that had been designated there also. MR. HUNT: If you get out there and look, it's really chopped up. There are some residential pockets in there that are good, some that are bad. There are some that are commercial and heavy industrial. There are stub -end streets because they are crossed by the rail. It's going to be one of the tougher areas to develop a good plan for in terms of land use, so we need to get out with the neighborhood association. MRS. KOLATA: And there are a fair amount of vacant lots as well. There are, obviously, what once were housing units that have been torn down. But it's of a different character north of Indiana than it is in the main portion of the residential area south of Indiana. I think what we did in terms of designating that as a sector was to recognize that its character was different, but not say -37- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... exactly what will happen there because we don't know that yet. That's part of the planning process with the neighborhood. How does the neighborhood feel that should develop and what should we be working for? That's one of the things we want to work with the neighborhood on. One of the reasons we are more specific with the Southeast is simply that we've drawn a line, if you will, as to where we think the redevelopment activities should take place and south of that line, again, we don't have the specific plan of action because that's something we are going to be developing with the Southeast Neighborhood Association. I think the plan just addresses that we want it to be residential, we want it to be strengthened and enhanced, but it doesn't go into what programs we will be doing or how we will achieve that. Those are the types of planning efforts that need to be done with the Southeast Neighborhood Association. MR. COLLIER: So it's not set up to be residential or anything else? MRS. KOLATA: It's just recognizing that its current character differs from the remainder of the Rum Village area and it will have to be looked at as a separate unit. It could end up being residential and that could be what the neighborhood feels is its best use. We're not saying it won't be, but we're not saying that it will be. It's too early to determine that. -38- ++ South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... MS. OVERMEYER: My name is Judith Overmeyer. I live on Locust Road. I consider myself to be part of the Rum Village area. I apologize for not being properly prepared; however, I do drive through Rum Village to Knollwood almost every day. I work for a developer. And I see, absolutely, the need, driving up State Road 23, and across Sample, and up Eddy Street, and on the north side of 23 out into the Grape Road area, how pleasant it is. I particularly appreciate the demolition of the Studebaker Corridor buildings. It makes my drive a little more pleasant. However, it seems like we're just going about this in a somewhat backwards way. Because I also realize the amount of taxes that a new home can pay. I think that Mayor Kernan himself said at the South Gateway meeting, just at the beginning of the week at a breakfast, that the south side of town is basically the only area right now that has new residential housing. Now, residential housing usually produces families with children who go to school. I basically oppose this plan only because of what the plan has tried to do, and forced the educational system into doing, which I feel is absolutely detrimental to the students who are in the public schools on the south side of town. This location, which is not my assessment of the area, but in reading all the articles of that area, it is a blighted area, there is a very high incidence of crime, on the radio, just in the last two weeks, there have been over twelve IM ✓ South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... prostitutes who have been arrested in this area. I have swimmers who went to Riley before 5:30 a.m. It kind of concerns me that that's the kind of neighborhood that that high school is in now and will probably continue to be in. I find the area to be very unstable, the crime rate is something that I don't need to talk about: it speaks for itself. Yet, this Commission and the City are trying to force the educational system to pay more than it needs to pay, at least $14,000,000, to build a new high school in this blighted area. I do not see how a high school in a blighted, redevelopment area, is going to increase the city tax base; a high school in a safer area would be much more attractive to people who are buying homes, much more attractive to people who are going to build new homes, and, therefore, send their children to our schools. Just in the Hermitage subdivision alone, which is directly south of the Jackson Middle School, within the last year has been an explosion of new homes. Each one of those homes will pay $2500 to $3000 in new taxes. So, I guess my distress with this whole process has been that this organization and the City have forced the School Corporation and the members are all on record, to make a decision they do not feel is their best decision for the education of the children on the south side. The site is inadequate. There will never be a complete campus there. There will not be room for expansion unless we "tear down more of the safe neighborhood." It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. There will be -40- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... inadequate athletic facilities; there will be inadequate site for parking; and in order to provide a truly first class high school for the south side of South Bend, we'll just have to continue eating up that neighborhood. On top of that, what then happens to the elementary school which is a neighborhood elementary school, and just at the beginning of this week a very tragic thing happened —a child was killed crossing in front of a bus. Are we going to then make those kids, because we have to close their elementary because there are not enough kids in that school? Are we then going to put those kids on a bus and possibly put their lives in danger? That was a true accident. There was no malintent there. But accidents do happen. And even in the process of doing this, a major thoroughfare is going to be required to be closed. Now the City Council has not passed on that, but in the present plan before the School Board, they are asking to close Calvert Street. What impact does that have on this whole area? Where do those cars go when Calvert is closed? Up and around the elementary school. I definitely feel that this plan is a negative system on the south side of town. I do not think that they have taken into consideration when they put pressure on the School Board to make that decision. They did not take into consideration the true impact in that immediate neighborhood, on that neighborhood elementary school, and on that whole educational system on the south side of town. There will be no room there to expand for vocational kinds of programs which are -41- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... being mandated by the state. When the state mandates a program, it's got to go somewhere. So this group has been basically involved in that kind of pressure; therefore I strongly and adamantly oppose what has happened —the kind of pressure you have put on the School Board to make a decision which is not in the best interest of "the whole south side." MS. AUBURN: Is there anyone else that would like to speak? MR. HUNT: For the record, Paula, I would like to make clear that I think we were left with the impression that the department is going to be acquiring houses for the Riley High School expansion. That is not true. That is not part of the plan. Obviously the School Corporation is doing that. We've provided some technical assistance, but I want to make clear that we are not putting properties around Riley High School on our acquisition list ( #1) so that's not part of our plan and our action... MS. OVERMEYER: I realize you are not, but in the process, you are requiring the School Corporation to spend millions of dollars of educational monies to buy properties. That, to me, is wrong also. MR. HUNT: The second thing is that, quite frankly, this not a hearing on Riley High School. Obviously, opponents to the location have taken advantage, as they should in a -42- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued, .. public hearing, to fight their fight on Riley in front of the Commission. I, quite frankly, don't think that there has been a member of the Commission who has even talked to any of the School Board members and I think that you (the Commission) won't step forward and say that out of politeness, but I will. The idea that an elected School Board (and they are now elected, not appointed) will simply fold up when somebody, another elected official, talks to them, is just false. I mean they are elected officials, adults, they can make their own decisions. MS. AUBURN: Is there anyone else who wants to be heard? I would like to thank the members of the public that came to the meeting and spend some time with us. I know this is not always the most convenient time to take off from work and to participate in the process, but the Commissioners truly appreciate your time. Ms. Auburn closed the Public Hearing for whatever action the Commission desired to take. Mrs. Kolata noted that Resolution No. 1154 modifies and confirms Resolution No. 1151. The modifications are to the plan. It is not different in content. The changes were mostly typographical and grammatical. The content is identical. -43- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... Mr. Fiasecki noted that he doesn't like the work blight. But the word is mild compared to living with those conditions. Mr. Sharp noted that he has toured the area thoroughly on two occasions and has read the development plan describing deterioration and blight and agrees with the descriptive term "blight." He feels that we need to step in to correct that blight. On the other hand he was encouraged at the number of good things that he saw and the opportunities available in the industrial districts. We are fortunate to have the mechanism available for the City to become involved and improve the character of both neighborhoods and industrial districts so that they can prosper in the future. Mr. Sharp noted that he is new on the Commission and was not aware that we looked at the Riley High School location as a target activity in the area, feeling that is outside the Commission's prerogative. Mr. Hunt explained that the development plan was drafted after the Riley High School decision. The department feels that a major public investment speaks loudly of the faith of that public body that the area will turn around. But if the Riley High School issue had not surfaced whatsoever, it wouldn't have made any difference to the overall plan. We would still be recommending to the Commission that they move ahead on the plan. We are simply reflecting a public -44- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. C. continued... policy decision that had been made by a duly elected board. Mr. Hunt also noted that we have been looking at the possibility of moving some of the houses to be acquired by the School Corporation into the revitalization section of the Southeast Neighborhood. We will be working with the neighborhood association to determine if it is interested in us acquiring the houses for $1.00 and moving them for sale to would -be owner - occupants. Commission augroval requested for Resolution No. 1154. Upon a motion by Mr. Donoho, seconded by Mr. Piasecla and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 1154 modifying and confirming Resolution No. 1151 designating the Sample -Ewing Development Area, declaring the Sample - Ewing Development Area to be blighted, approving a Development Plan and conditions under which Relocation payments will be made, and establishing an Allocation Area for purposes of Tax Incremental Financing. 7..1 o�i Mrs. Kolata gave the staff report on the two proposals received for Parcel E3-1 in the South Bend Central Development Area at the March 19 meeting. Parcel E3-1 is commonly called the Opelika Building. -45- COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 1153 MODIFYING AND CONFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 1151 DESIGNATING THE SAMPLE —EWING DEVELOPMENT AREA TO BE BLIGHTED, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH RELOCATION PAYMENTS WILL BE MADE, AND ESTABLISHING AN ALLOCATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF TAX INCREMENTAL FINANCING South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) C. continued... Holladay East Bank Partners proposed to construct a 33,060 square foot office building on the cleared site. They bid $305,000 for the cleared site and required that Redevelopment be responsible for demolition of the building and clean -up of any environmental conditions. They also asked to have until January 1, 1994 to obtain financing for the project, making the proposal contingent upon being able to pre-lease a large portion of the building. They proposed to begin constriction in the spring of 1994 and complete construction ten months later. The total project cost was estimated to be $3,367,000. The Alexander Company, based in Madison, Wisconsin, proposed to renovate the existing building for 39 residential units. Their proposal included the use of low income housing tax credits and historic preservation tax credits. By using low income housing tax credits they would set aside approximately 45 % of the units for low or moderate income individuals. The constriction schedule assumed acquiring the building in May, starting construction in June, and completing the project in June 1994. The Alexander Company offered $1,000 for the site and requested a 0% interest, 20 -year, $200,000 loan from the City of South Bend and $225,000 of tax increment financing for site improvements, including excavation, asphalt paving, curb and gutter work, landscaping, etc. The total project cost was estimated at $3,195,000. -46- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) C. continued... Both bidders indicated that they would request tax abatement for the projects. Mrs. Kolata noted that we have talked extensively with both bidders since receiving the bids. The Alexander Company did not get the low income housing tax credits for the project this round, but have sent us a revised proposal indicating they will reduce the affordable housing set -aside from 45 % to 20%. That would still make them qualified for ten years of tax abatement. They have also reduced the amount of loan they would need to $175,000 and have reduced the amount of tax increment financing they need to $150,000. If their bid is accepted they will begin immediately applying for historic preservation tax credits and expect to begin construction by September 1993. Mrs. Kolata noted that the staff had a difficult time deciding between the two projects. Both are excellent proposals. However, based on 1) the residential use, 2) an investigation of the company's ability to perform and the quality of completed projects, and 3) their property management, the staff recommends accepting the proposal from The Alexander Company. The staff feels that there is a need for office development in the area and would like to encourage the Holladay Corporation to move their proposal to another location in the downtown area. Mr. Piasecki expressed concern that the renovated building would still look like a -47- 40, South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) C. continued... factory building. He asked Ms. Kiemnec what Historic Preservation's restrictions would be on changing the building's appearance. Ms. Kiemnec responded that that is one of the unique qualities of the building. A building that loops old, yet feels new, is appealing to many people. It will fit very well with the character of the East Bank which has a mix of old and new buildings. Ms. Kiemnec noted that Historic Landmarks Foundation favors the restoration of the building for residential use. Mr. Sharp expressed his preference for residential development on that site. Mrs. Kolata noted that one of The Alexander Company's projects she visited had a rooftop garden and community space. She asked if The Alexander Company planned to do that on this project. They said they did not make it part of the bid because they didn't know if the building was structurally able to support it. But if they found it was structurally possible, they would include an outdoor garden/picnic area on the roof. It was a very nice touch, given the limited space on the site at ground level. Mr. Donoho noted that since this project would require heavy subsidy by the City, he would like to require The Alexander Company to give the community an opportunity to be competitive in supplying -48- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) C. continued... labor and materials for construction of the project. Ms. Auburn noted that Joseph Walsh, President of the Last Bank Business Association sent the Commission a letter asking that they not act on either proposal. They favored a larger project. Ms. Auburn noted that she had always favored having an office building on that site and would like to have that site developed more than either proposal presently before them. Since there has been sufficient time for other proposals to come forward but there have been none, she does not think we should wait any longer. She has heard a lot of support for developing this site as residential. Upon a motion by Mr. Donoho, seconded by Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried,the Commission awarded Disposition Parcel E3 -1 to The Alexander Company for residential development with the stipulation that they use local labor and materials for construction of a large portion of the project. Mrs. Kolata noted that we have received a proposal for part of Disposition Parcel 9 in the Studebaker Corridor which is at the corner of Garst and Main streets. The proposal is from McClurg Leasing which is tied to Wheel and Rim Sales Company, -49- COMMISSION AWARDED DISPOSITION PARCEL E3 -1 TO THE ALEXANDER COMPANY FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THEY USE LOCAL LABOR AND MATERIALS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A LARGE PORTION OF THE PROJECT South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) d. continued... currently located at 1011 South Main Street, immediately adjacent to Parcel 9. They propose to buy approximately half an acre for $10,000. Their situation is somewhat unique. They have been at that location for 27 years. Their loading docks are on the west side of the building and they used a former railroad right -of -way for access to their loading docks along with a (now vacated) alley. They have only eight feet of right -of -way for their semi- trailers to use now that we have acquired the railroad right -of -way. Although they had a letter from the railroad giving them permission to use the right -of -way, there was nothing recorded, so we did not realize the logistics problem we were causing when we acquired it. Because of this, we feel the Commission should assist in the relocation of their docks from the west side of the building to the south side of the building. Another unique aspect of this situation is that when we demolished the North American Signs building, we left a shared wall in a very unsightly condition. Wheel and Rim has asked us to pay for repairs to this wall and we feel this would be appropriate. We have been meeting with Wheel and Rim for some time trying to find a solution to their problems that would allow them to remain in the Corridor. This proposal offers to buy a portion of Parcel 9 for $10,000 if we agree to relocate the loading docks and repair the wall. Wheel and Rim will make improvements to the parking lot and landscaping. Our cost -50- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) d. continued... would be approximately $38,000. We would like to apply the $10,000 purchase price as a credit toward our costs so that Redevelopment's cost would be $28,000. Wheel and Rim would then spend approximately $30,000 on the parking lot and the landscaping. This proposal would leave us with .6 acre on the corner of Garst and Lafayette. The staff recommends accepting this offer. Wheel and Rim has submitted an addendum to their proposal which includes a request that we indemnify them for environmental conditions and that we conduct a Phase II environmental assessment. We have provided them with a Phase I environmental assessment which shows no need for a Phase II assessment. They also asked for a Warranty Deed, but it is our policy to provide only a Quit Claim Deed. The staff recommends rejecting the request for environmental indemnification and the request for a Warranty Deed. Upon a motion by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Piasecki and unanimously carried, the Commission accepted the proposal from McClurg Leasing for Disposition Parcel 9 in the Studebaker Corridor in the amount of $10,000 to be applied toward Redevelopment's cost of relocating loading docks and repairing a wall. The Commission rejected the request for environmental indemnification, a Phase II environmental assessment, and a Warranty Deed. -51- COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE PROPOSAL FROM McCLURG LEASING FOR DISPOSITION PARCEL 9 IN THE STUDEBAKER CORRIDOR IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 TO BE APPLIED TOWARD REDEVELOPMENT'S COST OF RELOCATING LOADING DOCKS AND REPAIRING A WALL. THE COMMISSION REJECTED THE REQUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INDEMNIFICATION, A PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AND A WARRANTY DEED South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) e. Commission auuroval requested for Resollution No. 1155 seetng the Fair Market Value of Land for proggW in the Studebaker Corridor Development Area. Ms. Manier explained that Block 10 is bounded by Main, Broadway, Lafayette and Indiana streets. We are seeking to acquire the west half of the block. Western Avenue Iron and Metal owns the southern half of Block 10. Several other owners participate in various ways in the ownership of the remainder of the block. We filed for Condemnation proceedings approximately a year ago to acquire these pieces of land. Through a very difficult negotiation process, we have been trying to work out an agreement with American Medical Oxygen and Old Fort Building Supply who both wished to expand onto the same location. The agreement we have reached involves an acceptance of a counter offer (to be presented later) and acceptance of a disposition proposal from both American Medical Oxygen and Old Fort Building Supply. Therefore, it is necessary to set the Fair Market Value of the Disposition Parcels. Setting the Fair Market Value at this time (before owning the property) will assist in our negotiations by letting all parties know what the property is worth. Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecki, seconded by Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 1155 setting the Fair Market Value of Land for property in the Studebaker Corridor Development Area. -52- COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 1155 SETTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF LAND FOR PROPERTY IN THE STUDEBAKER CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT AREA AG South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) L Commission annroval requested to publish Notice of Intended Sale of Land in the Studebaker Corridor Development Area with publication dates to be May 28 and June 4. 1993 and receiut of bids to be June 18. 1993 mallIAI,1 11" Item 6.f. was deleted from the agenda. ITEM 6.F. WAS DELETED FROM THE AGENDA Mrs. Kolata asked permission to consider item 6.j. at this time. There was no objection. j. Commission aunroval requested for Parking Management Agreement with AMPCO Mr. Horton explained that the Controller's office has had oversight of the City's parking garages on Jefferson and Colfax since their construction in 1972 until about six months ago when they were turned over to the Park Department. They have been both a management and financial problem since 1972 because the City has no expertise in managing parking garages. Rather than going to the expense of developing that expertise, at additional cost, we have decided to turn the management over to a private company. AMPCO has managed several parking garages and parking lots in the community and has been interested in taking over management of the City's garages. They submitted a proposal to provide management for a cost of $1,000 per month which effectively cuts the City's expenses by $70,000 per year immediately. They will market and promote use of the garages and -53- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) j . continued... expect to make a profit on them. Their proposal also covers the St. Joseph/Wayne Garage which is controlled by the Commission. Ms. Manier explained that the term of the agreement with AMPCO would be five years with a fee based on a fixed component as well as a performance component, with the incentive fee (10% of the monthly gross) not to exceed the fixed fee. If they increase revenues, they participate in the profits. If revenues remain the same, they receive only the $12,000 per year management fee. Mr. Horton noted that have an entirely different perspective on garage management than the City does and will bring a more customer friendly approach to it. The garages will likely be open longer hours, etc. Ms. Manier noted that Catering by Billie will continue to be under the Commission's authority. Billie's present lease allows them six parking spaces in the Wayne Street garage and that will not change. Mr. Donoho asked if the St. Joseph/Wayne Street Garage wasn't making a profit and whether it need to be turned over to AMPCO. Mr. Horton responded that it wasn't losing money, but was not covering debt service. The bond on the St. Joseph/Wayne Street Garage requires that the accounting be kept separate and that will be done. -54- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) j. continued... Mrs. Kolata noted that the management agreement the Commission approves will be only the portion covering the St. Joseph/Wayne Street Garage. Our bond documents allow us to set aside money for ongoing maintenance. Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecki, seconded by COMMISSION APPROVED THE PARKING Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH Commission approved the Parking ANWO PARIaNG Management Agreement with AMPCO Parking. g. Commission aMmy-al requested for p=sal for auvraisal services in the Sample -Ewing Development Area.. Item 6.g. was deleted from the agenda. ITEM 6.G. WAS DENTED FROM THE AGENDA h. Commission approval requested for proposal for title services in the Sample -Ewing Development Area. Mrs. Kolata noted that we have asked for proposals for title and survey work in the new Sample -Ewing Development Area to begin the work necessary to acquire the parcels we designated in the Sample -Ewing Development Area. We supplied the companies with a map indicating which parcels needed title work and to be surveyed. The designated area is between Broadway, Michigan,Ohio and Fellows streets, a total of 269 parcels. We asked them to break that out into a bid for 79 parcels immediately with a notice to proceed -55- 01� South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) h. continued... on the remainder to be given at a later date. We need some done soon to get Parkview Juvenile Justice Center ready to go. The Common Council will consider an appropriation ordinance on May 28 to do the 79 parcels. York Title has proposed to do title work on the 79 parcels for $135 each for a 30-day turn - around and the remaining 190 parcels for $135 each for a 90 -day turn- around. St. Joseph Title provided a quote for certificates of title, but not for updates or final title policies in the future, so their proposal was not acceptable. Upon a motion by Mr. Donoho, seconded by Mr. Piasecki and unanimously carried, the Commission accepted the proposal from York Title for title services in the Sample -Ewing Development Area at the rate of $135 per parcel. i. Commission alroroval requested for pr=pl for survey services in the Sample -Ewing Devel ment Area. Mrs. Kolata noted that we received proposals from Peirce and Associates, Valley Engineering and Lang Feeney. Peirce and Associates is the low bidder, proposing to do the first 79 in 30 days for a price of $12,300. They would do the remaining 190 parcels on a 60-day turn- around at $112 each. -56- COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE PROPOSAL FROM YORK TITLE FOR 1TTLE SERVICES IN THE SAMPLE -EWING DEVELOPMENT AREA AT THE RATE OF $135 PER PARCEL South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) L continued... Upon a motion by Mr. Sharp, seconded by COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE PROPOSAL FROM PEIRCE AND Mr. Donoho and unanimously carried, the ASSOCIATES FOR SURVEY WORK IN Commission accepted the proposal from THE SAMPLE -EWING DEVELOPMENT Peirce and Associates for survey work in the AREA AT A COST OF $12,300 FOR THE Sample -Ewing Development Area at a cost of FIRST 79 PARCELS AND $112 EACH FOR $12,300 for the first 79 parcels and $112 each THE REMAINING PARCELS for the remaining parcels. k. Commission approval requested for use of the Morris Civic Plaza by the South Bend Regional Museum of Art and the City of South Bend Department of Community Affairs on &1y 2. 3, and 4. 1993. Mrs. Kolata explained that the South Bend Office of Community Affairs and the South Bend Regional Museum of Art both would like to use the Morris Civic Plaza July 2, 3, and 4 during the Ethnic Festival. The Ethnic Festival Committee is expanding into this area with a Jazz Blues entertainment stage and they will have continuous entertainment during the hours of the festival. In addition, the South Bend Regional Museum of Art will be hosting a program called the Un- gallery, featuring an open air art exhibition, hands on art projects, music, and performance. They have come to an agreement on sharing the area during this time and have submitted a joint letter requesting its use. The Ethnic Festival will provide security during festival hours, limited security during overnight hours, trash collection and pick -up, in addition to providing the performance stage. The performers from the Un -gallery will -57- '; ft,W-4 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) k. continued... perform on a second stage. The staff recommends approving this use of the plaza. Upon a motion by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Piasecki and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the use of the Morris Civic Plaza on July 2, 3, and 4, 1993 by the South Bend Regional Museum of Art and the City of South Bend Department of Community Affairs. There were no Progress Reports. 8. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING The next Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Commission is scheduled to be June 4, 1993 at 10:00 a.m. COMMISSION APPROVED THE USE OF THE MORRIS CIVIC PLAZA ON JULY 2, 3, AND 4 BY THE SOUTH BEND REGIONAL MUSEUM OF ART AND THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS NEXT COMMISSION MEETING There being no further business to come before the ADJOURNMENT Redevelopment Commission, Mr. Piasecki made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Donoho seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 12:37 p.m. k4 ti Paula N. Auburn, President -58- �7 Ann E. Kolata, Director