Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRM 02-04-94SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 4, 1994 10:00 a.m. Presiding: Paula N. Auburn President I. ROLL CALL 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 Mrs. Cheryl Phipps, Recording Secretary Mr. Jon Hunt, Executive Director Mr. Tom Eddington, Economic Dev. Specialist Mr. James Riggs, Economic Dev. Specialist Mr. John Stark, Economic Dev. Specialist Planning Staff: Mr. Larry Magliozzi, Assistant Director Business Assistance Staff: Mr. Donald Inks, Director Media: Mr. Thom Howell, U -93 Mr. Don Porter, South Bend Tribune Others: Mr. Carter Wolf, Center City Associates Ms. Jocelyn Polack Ms. Justine Polack Ms. Jacinta Wielgos Mr. James Masters Ms. Amanda Griffin Ms. Joyce Boaler Mr. Bob Wozny Ms. Jan Hyduk Ms. Mylinda Jones Mr. Andrew Bedford -1- - South Bend Redevelopment Commission Ugular Meeting - February 4, 1994 I. ROLL CALL (Cont.) Ms. F. M. Deka Mr. Brad Emberton Mr. Barry Burton Mr. Willis West Mr. Bennie Kirk Ms. Germaine Lee Ms. Auburn announced that the Executive Session would continue immediately following adjournment of the Regular Meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Friday, January 21, 1994. Upon a motion by Mr. Donoho, seconded by COMMISSION APPROVED THE MINUTES OF Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the THE REGULAR MEETING OF FRIDAY, Commission approved the Minutes of the JANUARY 21, 1994 kwl Regular Meeting of Friday, January 21, 1994. 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Redevelopment Commission Claims submitted February 4, 1994, for Approval. ADMIN 1994 (212) Engineering Department $ 126.99 Indiana Michigan Power Co. 6.59 Petty Cash 138.90 Tri County News 13.38 South Bend Tribune 147.81 Watterud Inc. 105.40 TOTAL $ 539.07 UDAG (410) The Troyer Group $ 3,170.50 TOTAL $ 3,170.50 clw*, South Bend Redevelopment Commission 'regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Cont.) SAMPLE -EWING DEVELOPMENT AREA (414) Foegley Landscape Indiana Michigan Power Co. Jerome E. Michaels Overhead Door South Bend Water Works Debra Chatman York Title & Escrow, Inc. Petty Cash Raymond Chatman TOTAL S.B.C.D.A. T.I.F. GENERAL ACCOUNT (4201 James Childs & Associates Northern Indiana Construction Co., Inc. Ken Herceg & Associates TOTAL BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE (437) Donna Lawrence Products Sculpture Basics Inc. The Troyer Group TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 4. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications. 5. OLD BUSINESS a. Commission approval requested to withdraw Resolution No. 1214 from consideration. (44, $ 588.00 68.22 5,550.00 223.78 20.00 6,200.00 2,300.00 500.00 550.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 2,330.06 56,541.37 63.43 $ 58,934.86 $ 92,717.16 19,250.00 8.515.00 $ 120,482.16 $ 142,585.22 THERE WERE NO COMMUNICATIONS IL South Bend Redevelopment Commission Cegular Meeting - February 4, 1994 5. OLD BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... Mrs. Kolata noted that Resolution No. 1214 was on the January 4 agenda and was tabled at that time. We want to withdraw it from consideration. Upon a motion by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Piasecki and unanimously carried, the Commission withdrew Resolution No. 1214 from consideration. b. Staff report on Proposal for Disposition Parcel B in the Studebaker Corridor portion of the Sample -Ewing Development Area. (Old Fort) Mrs. Kolata noted that on September 3, 1993 the Commission received a bid from Old Fort Building Supply for Parcel B in the Studebaker Corridor portion of the Sample - Ewing Development Area. Parcel B contains .69228 acres. Old Fort offered the minimum offering price of $12,750, but, as part of their bid, they offered to sell land in the block north of Broadway for $45,750 which was a counter offer to the Commission's offer of $26,000. Their bid also included an offer of $8,000 for property owned by the Commission located on the corner of Main and Broadway. They propose to consolidate their operation onto a single block while allowing for parking on the northwest corner of Main and Broadway. Subsequent to receipt of the bid the staff was made aware that the financing plan for Old Fort's consolidation had been revised. This L COMMISSION WITHDREW RESOLUTION NO. 1214 FROM CONSIDERATION IL South Bend Redevelopment Commission 'regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 5. OLD BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... caused us to meet with representatives of Old Fort on several occasions and we have received additional information concerning their proposed project. As the proposal now stands, Old Fort will move forward with the project on a slower schedule than earlier anticipated. They propose to construct the project beginning in April 1994 and would complete the first phase by the end of October 1994. This first phase would include construction of a storage building for sheet rock and new fencing on Parcel B. They would also pave the new parking lot on the corner of Main and Broadway, paint the three existing buildings facing Main Street, repaint or remove all lettering or signs on the existing buildings, and make improvements to the fencing and landscaping along Main Street. The additional storage buildings would be constructed on Parcel B in the future as Old Fort is able to finance them. Based on this revised proposal, the staff recommends that the Commission agree to the following: 1) accept the bid of $12,750 for Disposition Parcel B on Block 10; 2) agree to sell Parcels 9 -32 and 9 -33 for $5,750. This agreement would be subject to placing those parcels up for bid and not receiving an acceptable bid. 3) withdraw the offer previously made for parcel 9 -35; 4) agree to pay $31,000 for Parcels 9 -13, 9 -16, 9 -18, and 9 -20; 5) that the City construct new curbs and sidewalks on Block 10 in (w4r4w, -5- South Bend Redevelopment Commission regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 5. OLD BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... 1994, but not by March as proposed by Old Fort Building Supply; and 6) that we clear Parcel B of any shrubs, weeds, or fencing that may currently be on the lot. We believe that this revised proposal is a good one that will allow a long -time South Bend business to consolidate operations and improve its operations. Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecki, seconded by Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the Commission accepted the staff recommendation and approved the revised Proposal from Old Fort Building Supply for Disposition Parcel B in the Studebaker ko� Corridor portion of the Sample -Ewing Development Area. 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Public Hearing on Resolution No. 1216 a Supplemental Appropriation Resolution of the City of South Bend Redevelopment Commission (South Bend Central Development Area). Mrs. Kolata noted that we have affidavits showing that the Notices of Public Hearing were published in the Tri- County News and the South Bend Tribune on January 21, 1994. Ms. Auburn asked if there was any objection to entering the affidavits into the record. There was no objection and the items were so entered. COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVED THE REVISED PROPOSAL FROM OLD FORT BUILDING SUPPLY FOR DISPOSITION PARCEL B IN THE STUDEBAKER CORRIDOR PORTION OF THE SAMPLE -EWING DEVELOPMENT AREA South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 t 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) a. continued... Mrs. Kolata explained that the appropriation for the South Bend Central Development Area, in the amount of $400,000, includes the income to be generated by the Wayne Street Parking Garage and by the retail space in the Palais Royale, as well as money for public works improvements and other activities in the South Bend Central Development Area. The income from the parking garage and the Palais Royale retail space will be used for operational expenses for the facilities. Ms. Auburn opened the Public Hearing for PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION NO. 1216 anyone who wished to speak. There was no one who wished to speak. Ms. Auburn closed the Public Hearing. b. Commission approval reduested for Resolution No. 1216. Upon a motion by Mr. Donoho, seconded by Mr. Piasecki and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 1216 a Supplemental Appropriation Resolution of the City of South Bend Redevelopment Commission (South Bend Central Development Area) . c. Public Hearine on Resolution No. 1222 confirming Resolution No. 1207, 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 ti South Bend Redevelopment Commission 7egular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... establishing an allocation area for purposes of tax incremental financing. Mrs. Kolata asked to enter the following items into the record: 1) an original of the Notice of Public Hearing of the Sample - Ewing Development Area; 2) An affidavit of Carol Smith, Advertising Manager of the South Bend Tribune, that the Notice of Hearing was published in that daily newspaper on January 21, 1994; 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 January 21, 1994; 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 January 31, 1994; 5) A statement from Martha Lantz that on January 21, 1994, she delivered a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing to Kathy Orlowski at the South Bend Park Department, Becky Neese 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. 118 which deals with the subject of the Public Hearing; 7) A certified copy of Resolution No. 2089 -94 of the Common Council of the City of South Bend relative to the subject of the Public Hearing; 8) A copy of Resolution No. 1207 of the South Bend Redevelopment Commission; -8- South Bend Redevelopment Commission 7egular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... 9) As of 10:00 a.m. on February 4, 1994, 1 written remonstrance was received. Ms. Auburn asked if there were any objections to entering the items into the record of the Public Hearing on Resolution No. 1222. There were no objections and the items were so entered. Mr. Larry Magliozzi outlined the Development Plan for the Sample -Ewing Development Area. The plan is essentially the same as was considered previously, except that it incorporates at Exhibit B to the Sample -Ewing Development Plan a list of properties to be acquired in the Sample - Ewing Development Area. When the Redevelopment Commission previously considered the Plan, the acquisition list was considered at a later date as a proposed amendment to the 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 2,400 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. C„ -9- j South Bend Redevelopment Commission regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) continued... 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 kvoi Neighborhood. There has been a significant drop in the number of housing units as well as in the value of the housing. With the decline in the neighborhoods, the commercial area also declined. There 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. cvbw -10- South Bend Redevelopment Commission 'Jegular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... Another advantage for the area is its proximity to downtown South Bend. 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 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 I-, CU00i -11- Cj South Bend Redevelopment Commission qW `'pgular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... development. There must be development of private sector leadership. The objectives of this project are: to increase the tax base, to increase investment in this area, to strengthen two of the oldest neighborhoods in South Bend, to create a public private organizational network that will help establish this area through time, to establish strong, unifying and structural urban design guidelines, to increase the level of private investment, to retain and increase jobs, and to generate funding sources. Activities have been divided into two types: kw fiscal and social/financial. The physical 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. 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 relocated Dean Johnson Park will dominate that sector. There has been some acquisition in this area already and Appendix B of the Development Plan lists the properties presently targeted for acquisition. The goal for the central sector of the CW400i -12- South Bend Redevelopment Commission qW Regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... 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 Comdor /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. 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. -13- South Bend Redevelopment Commission C egular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... Mrs. Kolata presented for the record the following items concerning the evidence of blight in the Sample -Ewing Development Area: 1) the soils map from the Area Plan Commission of St. Joseph County showing the condition of soils in the Sample -Ewing Development Area, including the muck land in the Rum Village Industrial Park; 2) a chart showing building occupancy in the former Studebaker Complex as of May 1993 which indicated that approximately 44% of the building square footage was vacant. There has been no significant change since May 1993; 3) a May 1993 memo from Matthew Carpenter showing estimated land use in the Studebaker Corridor Development Area. Approximately 30 % was industrial, 25.5 % was vacant land, 19.8 was right -of -way, 15.3 % was commercial, 6.6 % public or semi - public, and 2.1 % residential. There has been no significant change since that time; 4) a summary of census information for census tracts 28, 29, 30, and 34 showing the loss of housing units and decline in population between 1980 and 1990; 5) a report from the Mayor's Housing Forum 1991 windshield housing survey showing housing conditions in the relevant census tracts; 6) a February 1993 memo from the Area Plan Commission showing land use estimates in the Sample - Ewing Development Area as a whole. Approximately 30% of the area is industrial, 24.7% is vacant land, 19.4% is residential, 17.8% is right -of -way, 4.0 % is public /semi- public, and 3.5 % commercial uses. The -14- IL South Bend Redevelopment Commission regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... nearly 25 % vacant land is significant and a clear evidence of blight. Mrs. Kolata also presented for the record copies of the Relocation Policy and the Policy of Management of Acquired Property which were approved by the Commission in May 1991, incorporated into the Sample - Ewing Development Plan by the resolutions which declare the area a redevelopment area. The Relocation Policy spells out how relocation assistance is to be paid (following the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970). The Policy of Management of Acquired Property spells out how the Commission will handle property that it acquires when tenants continue to live in the property for a period of time. Ms. Auburn accepted the items and documentation presented by Mrs. Kolata evidencing the existence of blight in the Sample -Ewing Development Area into the record. Mrs. Kolata explained that by approving Resolution No. 1222 the Commission resolves the following: 1. That after considering the evidence presented at its hearing February 4, 1994, the Commission confirms the blight found and declared by it in its Resolution No. 1207, within the Sample -Ewing Development Area, and adopts and confirms the Findings of Fact E -15- South Bend Redevelopment Commission if �tgular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... for that Area, Exhibit A, attached to this resolution and made a part hereof. Exhibit A to Resolution No. 1222 reads of follows: EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 1222 SAMPLE -EWING DEVELOPMENT AREA FINDING OF FACTS FEBRUARY 4, 1994 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: A. In the portion of the Area previously designated as the Rum Village Industrial Park: 1. The portion of the Area previously designated as the Rum Village Industrial Park (Original) described at II. A. of the second Whereas clause of Resolution No. 1207 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 -16- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Ugular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... 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. 1207 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 difficult 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 I.C. , of the second Whereas clause of Resolution No. 1207: Currently, 44.0% of the total building floor area in the Studebaker Corridor Plant Complex is vacant. Of the remaining 56.0% of floor area that is occupied, the majority is under utilized 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 -17- South Bend Redevelopment Commission a U egular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) continued... reduced since large vacant structures such as the Transwestern and Avanti 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 Avanti Buildings. Significant costs were incurred in 1;4�v 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. Over one - quarter (25.5 %) of the 220 acres of land in the Studebaker Corridor 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 C_4_�� -18- C, South Bend Redevelopment Commission if 'Egular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... 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. 1207: 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. 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. -19- ^ South Bend Redevelopment Commission !regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... 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 City -wide median of $26,000. In 1990 the City median value increased to $40,000, while the median value in Expansion Area No. 1 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 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. -20- South Bend Redevelopment Commission -7:egular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... 6. Unstable soil conditions found in some portions of the Expansion Area No. 1 are a deterrent to private business development. D. In the entire Area: 1. Of the approximately 2,400 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 be met for designation as an Urban Enterprise Zone. 4. In addition to the fact that almost 25 % of the 2,400 acres of land within the entire Area is vacant, the findings within Paragraphs A through D inclusive, above, C�W, -21- South Bend Redevelopment Commission t.:gular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... 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. (Continuing on with what is resolved by the Commission in approving Resolution No. 1222) Point number 2 of Resolution No. 1222 follows: 2. The Commission finds and determines that the Development Plan for the Sample -Ewing Development Area has as its purpose, and is structured to achieve, the elimination of blight, as evidenced by the Finds of Fact, in the Sample -Ewing Development Area. 3. The Commission finds and determines that the properties proposed to be acquired in the Sample -Ewing Development Area are needed for and will be useful in the implementation of the Development Plan and the elimination of blight in the Sample -Ewing Development Area. 4. The Commission finds and determines that it will be of public utility and benefit to proceed with the Development Plan for the Sample -Ewing Development Area, set C_�W -22- South Bend Redevelopment Commission fgular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... forth in Resolution No. 1207, adopted by the Commission on December 17, 1993, and that the public health and welfare will be benefitted by the acquisition and redevelopment of the Sample -Ewing Development Area, as contemplated by the Development Plan for the Sample - Ewing Development Area. 5. Resolution No. 1207 and the Sample - Ewing Development Plan are hereby confirmed. 6. This Resolution constitutes final action, pursuant to IC 36- 7- 14- 17(c), by the Commission determining the public utility and benefit of the proposed project and confirming Resolution No. 1207, pertaining to the Sample -Ewing Development Area. 7. The Secretary is directed to record this resolution pursuant to the requirements of IC 36- 7- 14- 17(c). Ms. Auburn opened the Public Hearing for whoever wished to speak. JAMES MASTERS: Attorney on behalf of Frank and Tina Polack who own property at 1010 S. Michigan Street, which is within the area you seek to acquire. This is Mrs. Polack here. These are her daughters, Jacinta, Tina, Jan, Andrea, and Jocelyn. Frank Polack is not here today. To be honest with you, Frank is so upset about your efforts -23- PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION NO. 1222 South Bend Redevelopment Commission CePlar Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... to take his house that, for reasons of health, the family advised him not to attend today. Before I talk about Mr. and Mrs. Polack's house, in particular, I want to make a few observations, having sat here and listened to today's presentation. I found it, first of all, curious that when Ms. Kolata went through her litany of public notices that they gave for this hearing, there's no indication that the property owners, whose homes are going to be in that area and who you seek to acquire, were ever notified by mail of this hearing. I know that my clients weren't notified by mail. In fact, I dare say none of them were ci6vi notified by mail. We were notified by mail because I've been in litigation with the City Attorney's office from your last resolution and I had demanded a notice for today's hearing. I dare say there'd be a few more people here today if they actually got personal notice of this hearing. I did also find it curious that, of course, all the public and government agencies got notices of your efforts to acquire property in the area. The other issue that struck me is this: as the Redevelopment Commission, your job is to hear evidence in this hearing, and to hear evidence from which you can make a determination that the area is to be targeted, and designated a redevelopment area, is blighted. And that it is needed to be taken for public utility and benefit. Now, you Cam; -24- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Iegular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... heard Mrs. Kolata go through a litany of recitations about housing and industry and business. We have a lengthy resolution that you are going to be asked to sign as Commissioners. I guess I ask you this bluntly: Do you feel comfortable that you know all of the factual findings that you are required to make today, that all of the factual findings that the Redevelopment staff has so carefully and so artfully put into this long resolution, are the facts here to support it? And can you justify making those decisions or are you being simply asked to rubber - stamp the Redevelopment staff's work in acquisition of this land? And I say that to you for this simple reason: we're here talking to you about Mr. and Mrs. Polack's home. The property at 1010 S. Michigan Street has been their home for some 20 years. It's also where Mr. Polack has had his insurance agency for the last 20 years. His daughter Jocelyn took over the agency in 1988. She continues to run the family business there. Mr. and Mrs. Polack still live in the home. Over the past 20 years that they've lived there, they've put in over $100,000 of improvements to the property. Just within the last 4 or 5 years, they took out a bank loan to put a new roof on the building, acquired an empty lot to the north, expanded their parking, knocked down a dilapidated old garage that was on that lot, took out some dead trees and bushes, expanded and landscaped it, and had it for -25- South Bend Redevelopment Commission 'regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... future expansion of the business office or perhaps for living quarters. This house is well maintained. It's unique. If you drive north on South Michigan Street you can't miss the Polack Agency home. There's a beautiful garden there. I've known Frank for some 15 years and Frank, it's one of his joys in life to maintain that garden. There's an American flag and a Polish flag that are proudly displayed on that building. There's a beautiful sign on that building. That house is unique. The interior of that house is unique. You could not replicate that house today at any reasonable cost. And yet you are being ci6wi asked today to take that house and bulldoze it. The question I have is why does the Redevelopment staff insist on targeting a growing, thriving business and take it for this plan? You don't need that house for the Sample -Ewing Development Plan. There are other businesses on South Michigan Street that have been excluded from the Plan. Even with this talk of IVY Tech and the juvenile facility, there are other properties along South Michigan Street that have been excluded. You don't need to take their house to develop that Plan. And that house does certainly not qualify as being blighted. We're here today to ask you that when you consider this proposed Resolution No. 1207, to exclude Mr. and Mrs. Polack's property at 1010 S. Michigan Street from the acquisition -26- co South Bend Redevelopment Commission �gular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... list. If you exclude their property from the list, it's not going to impede the development in the area. It will mean that you're not taking Mr. and Mrs. Polack's property against their will. And it will also mean that you will avoid any possible challenges to these proceedings, and the possibility of a condemnation suit, down the road. This is Mr. and Mrs. Polack's home. This is where they raised their children; this is where their grandchildren now come and play. This is where they've conducted their business. This is where their daughter now carries on the family business. If you were in their place and the government said they were going to take your house away, wouldn't you put up a fight? Mr. and Mrs. Polack strongly object to you taking their home. And on their behalf I ask you to consider excluding their property from the acquisition list. Thank you very much. LINDA PATTELL: I reside at 2806 Hickory Road, Mishawaka. I'd like to let everybody know that the Polack family did not ask me to speak at these proceedings today. I feel that I represent myself and my grandmother this morning. You see, at one time, in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and late 1960s, my grandmother and her sister owned as many as twelve apartment homes in the neighborhood, as well as their own residences. And my grandmother worked part time and was well known in the neighborhood. I have many fond childhood memories there and so it has been very disturbing to witness the rapid -27- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... deterioration of some of the neighborhood that has taken place in the last few years. I watched with great sadness the demolition of my grandmother's own home a few years ago. But along with my sadness came an understanding that it was the right thing to do at that time, for that home. The home had fallen into a sad state of disrepair and had become an eyesore. The Polack's home, however, is an entirely different story. The Polacks are true urban pioneers, in my opinion. They have braved the nightmare of urban decay in pursuit of their own American Dream. A dream that, at that time, was encouraged by cities all across our country. Cities were saying, "Come, refurbish homes in the inner city." And that is exactly what the Polacks did. What the Polacks have created, where they are, is a desert bloom: an oasis in the midst of what has become an urban desert. A non - existent neighborhood. A neighborhood I remember playing in as a child. And where is their reward for this. They have a slim hope of payment for the actual value of their home. And I have to wonder if compensation will also include compensation for the landscaping around the home. It is truly incredible. I can tell you that I know this because I've landscaped four homes of my own and two of friends of mine. I would say that an easy estimate is $10,000 that they have in the yard. And no one has even talked about that. -28- South Bend Redevelopment Commission 'legular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... The residence in question sits as the edge of the Parkview project and, if allowed to remain, would serve as an example to adolescents that you can accomplish almost anything if you are motivated and creative as the Polack family are. I personally salute the Polacks for grasping and preserving the last truly stately portion of a once thriving neighborhood that my 94 year old grandmother and I still fondly recall. Thank you. JOYCE BOALER: 1606 Hillsdale Road. I, too, come today without the invitation or request of the Polacks —in fact they were praying that I wouldn't come. Because when I come to speak at City meetings in favor of something, it's always voted down. It's inevitable. So I feel rather like a dark cloud hovering in this room. And I have not written anything down, today, to say, which is very unusual for me. That's the way I like to do things. However, I could not sit there and think of their beautiful home being destroyed without speaking out. This is a travesty. This is a sin to even consider destroying this home. And I listened to the gentleman's presentation about how you would bring businesses and residences into that area if the IVY Tech did not appear. Well, there you have a ready -made business and residence. He spoke about the infrastructure. The sidewalk in front of this home is absolutely excellent —it's in beautiful condition. Whereas, the person who owns -29- South Bend Redevelopment Commission '4egular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... the lot to the north of theirs has done nothing to that sidewalk. It has not been maintained, which I think is sad. And I understand that this person is a judge. I don't know the name. I don't know whether acting or past. But it seems to me that a person of that past or current responsibility should have known better than to have let that sidewalk fall into disrepair. In the fact that the Polacks have taken care of theirs so very well, is just another small example of their sense of civic pride. The outside of the house, in itself, is interesting, but the inside is exquisite. I have been into many, many beautiful homes in Europe. As you know I am English. Quite honestly, this is a bit of Americana that should not be destroyed. You should not make a decision on this gorgeous place until you go into it. It is breathtakingly elegant inside! It really is. The workmanship in the woodwork is just outstanding. And I urge you not to make any decision on this. I urge you to go, personally, and look to see it. I have been to the historic walks that they have in town and, really, there is nothing like it that I have seen in town. There really is not. This would not interfere with the juvenile detention home in the slightest! I really think that this is a property that should be saved, as Tippecanoe Place and others were saved. This is definitely well worth saving. Thank YOU. CW -30- South Bend Redevelopment Commission ''egular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... BOB WOZNY: 51500 Stratton Court, Granger. I am not here for the purpose of the Polack's residence, but as a tax payer, I'd just like to make two observations. One, I agree that it is a beautiful home and they have taken pride in maintaining it. The other thing is that I think we're sending the wrong message to people that want to put an investment in a community, in a residence, whether it's business or personal. If they take the effort financially, they put the sweat equity and dollars into a building, then we'll turn around and potentially destroy that investment. I think that's the wrong message to send. The other thing, we take selected facilities or businesses or homes in the area and decided not to raze them, then this is obviously one that should be given some consideration. JOCELYN POLACK: I'm now the owner of the two businesses that are run out of my mom and dad's home. My father has given me a few pointers on what he would like to have heard since he cannot be here with his health. Owning two family businesses, I remind myself of the most successful slogan ever coined: the customer is always right. In the situation as the one that is facing us today, I feel that we, as tax payers, have a right. Every company realizes that it must constantly invest in its own physical plant to remain healthy and grow. South Bend is that -31- South Bend Redevelopment Commission regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... plant. And we, the people who live here, are part of South Bend. We are all connected. What affects one does affect the others. I believe South Bend is worth fighting for, not just for my family, but five families and industry that live and continue to grow here in South Bend. The growing concentration of social service institutions on South Michigan, a registered, now, blighted area, as stated in recent title commitment, that is travelled daily as an artery on U.S. 31 South, into South Bend, is truly quite a welcome mat to this street of shame to a possible hall of fame. The juvenile detention center is not only a question of price, but also a question of the ability of pay. Confusing the tax payers with a blizzard of facts and figures has been a technique that our local government is at its best. The extreme excellence of your accomplishments will be the passing of the option tax. Numerous personnel in the administration making these plans to relocate us to not even live in the City. They have fled to the suburbs. You cannot run South Bend by the people who do not live here in the city. South Bend will not be saved by the people who feel too condemned to live here, who can hardly wait to move to Mishawaka. South Bend will be saved by people who like it here. The people who prefer the neighborhood stores, activities at the Morris Civic, to eat in nice restaurants and not worry about the education of their own children. -32- South Bend Redevelopment Commission if regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... Now, a well-timed letter, received over the Memorial Day weekend, stating that the City of South Bend Redevelopment Commission is interested in acquiring your property and they will begin surveying immediately. Not wanting to burden the laboring tax payers to underwrite the revitalization, no abatements or favors were solicited to preserve the character and dignity of my parents home. Why, when there are so many empty lots in this county, why our property? I, a tax payer, am paying you to take my business and my family's home away. Home ownership is good for all of us. It fosters a sense of caring, commitment, and responsibility toward a community. It enables families to build personal assets for the future. "In order for us to do a good job for you and your neighbors, you need to let us know how we're doing. So please call us. We want to hear from you. Working together we can make all of our neighborhoods a great place to live, work, and play." And that was written by your boss, Mayor Kernan. My parents' home, our family business, must not be torn down. If their home and all involved can not be resolved on agreeable terms, we will solicit and garner public support by all available means possible. We need your help. We're not denying that. But you also need us. We are your tax paying customers. And we are your future sitting here. Thank you. IL -33- South Bend Redevelopment Commission regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... TINA POLACK: 1010 S. Michigan. What I can't understand is, if you tell me that my area is blighted, what do you do? You go around and pick and choose who goes, who stays? You picked Transmission. They're staying. They've already reconstructed. The church, I'm sure, is staying. The Feed and Seed on Broadway and Michigan is staying. How did they get to stay? They're in the blighted area, aren't they? Or was there a fence put up between these places where they're not blighted? Can you explain that to me? Why do you want my property? Any of you. Tell me. If you were in my shoes and I was sitting behind that desk, you'd ci6so� wonder, too, I'm sure. Now you answer my questions. Tell me. Why? What's there about my property that you want? TINA DEKA: I'm here for two reasons. Because of my family. I, too, live on Michigan Street. 3404 S. Michigan Street. Further south of my parents. I was raised in this house at 1010 S. Michigan Street and never in my dreams did I think I would buy another house on South Michigan Street, but I ended up there. I love my home. It's a main artery into the city of South Bend. We get a lot of traffic down there, especially with the Notre Dame games and a lot of out of town people. But take a drive down South Michigan Street. This is supposed to be a great impression of South Bend. You go down a way and there's The Torch, the Kitty Kat, two 24 -hour porno shops, the homeless shelter, Ramona's, Hope Rescue Mission. -34- South Bend Redevelopment Commission 'tegular Meeting - February 4, 1994 Y 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... What kind of impression is this for people coming into our city? And here you want to build a detention center there. You know, I don't think it's very impressive at all. That's just my opinion. I plan to stay there, but seeing what's going up on Michigan Street, I don't like it. I hope to make a difference, to try to keep some of your future plans that you think are improving the city and they're not. It's chasing people away. I don't expect any more business... How can business be attracted to some of these things that are on Michigan Street and some of the future things you want to put up there? That's all I'd like to say. JACINTA WIELGOS: I'm another daughter of Justine and Frank. I'd like to add to something my sister brought up. I just think it would be interesting for you to know that on the Notre Dame weekends, the amount of traffic, are you even aware of the traffic that comes down that way? And the impression that they might have coming into this city what's already existing there? But isn't it something that when we are out in the back hanging clothes, working in the yard, that all of a sudden some car will stop along the way, in front of the house, taking pictures of our home and the flowers. People are actually standing on the side lot commenting on how beautiful it is and what a beautiful place it is on entering South Bend to see something like it. That there's still something left like it. And it's unusual that people take the time, I mean they really must -35- South Bend Redevelopment Commission 'Zegular Meeting - February 4, 1994 f 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... want to take the time to do this, to go out of their way. And to just enjoy it. You don't see that any more. And I think that's something you just need to know also. Come by the house, in the spring, in the fall. How well kept up it is. And what an honor it is to live there. And for you people.... We're keeping it up, we're making an impression, we're making a statement —we're proud to be there, we're proud of South Bend, and we're staying. And you're taking that away from us. Why? Why? As my sister mentioned, with these other businesses, how are they allowed to stay there? Is Real Services in the blighted area? Are they a blighted place then? How'd you come to pick and choose these places? There's plenty of area besides that section there that you can go around. Answer our questions. This is what it is all about. This is all we ask. Ms. Auburn asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard. There was no one else who wished to speak. Ms. Auburn closed the public hearing. Ms. Auburn recommended removing the Polack property from the acquisition list of the Development Plan in order that the plan could be reviewed, further, to see if the plan can move forward without the Polack property. She agreed that the Commission does not want to send the message that it is not worthwhile to invest in property and remain in South Bend. .. -36- South Bend Redevelopment Commission if regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... Mr. Sharp agreed that the Polacks are doing in the community exactly what the Commission likes to see families and businesses do— investing in property and remaining in the City of South Bend. Mrs. Kolata responded to some of the questions asked by the Polacks. The condition of the Polack's house was not the reason it was included on the acquisition list. The finding of blight is for the area as a whole. Not all properties in the blighted area are blighted. The purpose of the redevelopment plan is to redevelop the area as a whole. Mrs. Kolata responded to the question of why some businesses in the area were on the acquisition list and others were not. Properties were included on the list for the purpose of assembling developable land. Whe you are assembling land for developmeent, you do not leave "donut- holes". We only included properties where we want to assemble a parcel of land for development. We did not include any businesses on Sample Street. Nor are we taking any properties on the north side of Broadway. There are other viable businesses along Michigan Street which are on the acquisition list. Mrs. Kolata noted that if the Commission chooses to remove the Polack property from the acquisition list, it must consider the overall impact on the proposed projects for -37- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Ce,gular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... that site. We will have to see if the Parkview project can be accommodated without this property. Mrs. Kolata also responded to Mr. Masters' charge that property owners were not notified of the Public Hearing, but public agencies were notified. We followed the state law to the letter. There is no requirement to notify property owners in the area. Ms. Auburn noted that the interest of the juvenile center and the interest of IVY Tech fit well with the Commission's overall plan. The Commission will not guarantee that the Polack property will not be put on the agenda for acquisition at a later time. Mrs. Polack was concerned that this action was only putting them off temporarily. Ms. Auburn expressed the Commission's intent to act in good faith, but would not promise that the development and the plan could be achieved without the Polack property. If the Polack property was taken off the acquisition list today, any action to put the property back on the acquisition list would require an amendment to the Development Plan and another Public Hearing. Mr. Masters inquired how there could be any "plans" for development of this land when there are no signed contracts or deeds between the City of South Bend and St. Joseph County for this property. No South Bend Redevelopment Commission Cegular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) c. continued... Mrs. Kolata responded that the Plan is not specific to Parkview and IVY Tech. The Plan is specific to having a general concept for the area for institutional use and for the area's redevelopment. Jon Hunt, Director of Community & Economic Development for the City of South Bend, noted that the key to solving this dilemma is to ask Parkview to provide a site plan quickly that will show its proposed development of the area in question. What has been seen so far is conceptual plans. Ci All evidence and testimony entered of record at this public hearing can be found in the public hearing file labelled "Sample -Ewing Development Area Public Hearing February 4, 1994" (in the office of the Redevelopment Commission, 1200 County -City Building, South Bend, Indiana). d. Commission approval requested for Resolution No. 1222. Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecki, seconded by Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 1222, with the modification that Resolution No. 1207 and the Sample -Ewing Development Plan be modified by deleting from the acquisition list found at Exhibit B of the Sample -Ewing Development Plan, the properties owned by Justine and Frank Polack. -39- COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 1222, WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT RESOLUTION NO. 1207 BE MODIFIED BY DELETING FROM THE ACQUISITION LIST THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY JUSTINE AND FRANK POLACK South Bend Redevelopment Commission .egular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) The Commission recessed at 11:22 a.m. and reconvened at 11:46 a.m. Mrs. Kolata asked permission to consider item 6.j. at this time. There was no objection and item 6.j. was moved up on the agenda. j. Commission approval requested for Resolution No. 1226 =roving an application for real property tax deduction for property located at Lot #4, Crossroads Industrial Complex in the Airport Economic Development Area. (M /W Partnership) Mr. Inks read the staff report on the project. M/W Partnership (dba: Corporate Services, Inc.) is in the business of creating and printing mailing lists and labels, laser printing of letters, Certificates of Achievement, etc., and the ultimate fulfillment and mailing or shipping associated with same. Their project calls for the construction of a 20,000 square foot complex on 5.4 acres on Cleveland Road just west of phase 5 of the Airport Industrial Park. The building will allow the company to grow in both sales and employee base. The efficiencies gained by the new facility will enable the company to become more competitive in the marketplace. The total projected cost of the building is estimated to be $485,000. The petitioner has not been granted any previous tax abatement. The property is properly zoned for the proposed use. The property is not located in an area presently designated as a Tax Abatement Impact Area, „� -40- C South Bend Redevelopment Commission Cegular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) j . continued... but is located in the Airport Economic Development Area, a Tax Incremental Financing Allocation Area. The petitioner meets the qualifications for a six year real property tax abatement under the tax abatement ordinance. Based on a project cost of $485,000, without abatement, the amount of taxes to be paid is estimated to be $136,042 over the six year period. With abatement, the taxes are estimated to be $56,230. Therefore, the total amount to be abated over the six year period is estimate to be $79,811. Upon a motion by Mr. Donoho, seconded by Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 1226 approving an application for real property tax deduction for property located at Lot #4, Crossroads Industrial Complex, in the Airport Economic Development Area. (M /W Partnership) e. Commission approval requested for Resolution No. 1221 approving an application for real property tax deduction for property located at 210 South Michigan Street in the South Bend Central Development Area. (One Plaza Place Associates) Mr. Inks read the staff report on the project. One Plaza Place Associates is extensively renovating the 30,000 square foot Plaza Building. Renovations include mechanical and electrical improvements, Americans with -41- COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 1226 APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR REAL PROPERTY TAX DEDUCTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT #4, CROSSROADS INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, IN THE AIRPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA (M /W PARTNERSHIP) South Bend Redevelopment Commission 'iegular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) e. continued... Disabilities Act compliance, fire and building code compliance, and tenant improvements. The total project cost is estimated at $525,000. The project will not create any permanent new jobs, as a property management firm will be hired to manage the building. However, a series of construction related jobs will be created during the renovation process. Also, it is estimated that the businesses intending to lease space in this building have, combined, at least 30 permanent employees with annual payrolls in excess of $500,000. The petitioner has not been granted any previous tax abatement consideration. The property is properly zoned for the proposed use. The property is located in an area presently designated as a Tax Abatement Impact Area. The property is also located in the South Bend Central Development Area, which is a Tax Incremental Financing Allocation Area. The petitioner meets the qualifications for a ten year real property tax abatement under the tax abatement ordinance. Based on a project cost of $525,000, without abatement, the taxes on the project are estimated to be approximately $251,921 over the ten year period. With abatement, the taxes are estimated to be approximately $127,220. Therefore, the cost of the abatement is approximately $124,701 over the ten year period. -42- South Bend Redevelopment Commission °.egular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) e. continued... Upon a motion by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Donoho and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 1221 approving an application for real property tax deduction for property located at 210 South Michigan Street in the South Bend Central Development Area. (One Plaza Place Associates) f. Commission approval requested for Resolution No. 1223 relating �quisition of property within the Sample -Ewing Development Area by Eminent Domain. Mrs. Kolata explained that Resolution No. citwi 1223 sets the offering price for 35 properties in the Sample -Ewing Development Area. This would authorize the sending of purchase offers, with the right of eminent domain if agreement cannot be reached on a purchase price. Upon a motion by Mr. Donoho, seconded by Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 1223 relating to acquisition of property with the Sample -Ewing Development Area by Eminent Domain. g. Staff report on acquisition of property in the Sample -Ewing Development Area. Mrs. Kolata noted that we have received nine counter offers that the staff recommends accepting. The first is from Mabel Hall for a vacant lot located at 405 Wenger Street. The -43- COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 1221 APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR REAL PROPERTY TAX DEDUCTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 210 SOUTH MICHIGAN STREET IN THE SOUTH BEND CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT AREA (ONE PLAZA PLACE ASSOCIATES) COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 1223 RELATING TO ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WITH THE SAMPLE -EWING DEVELOPMENT AREA BY EMINENT DOMAIN South Bend Redevelopment Commission Cpgular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) g. continued... original purchase offer was for $1,038.00. The counter offer is in the amount of $1,401.00. The staff recommends accepting the counter offer. Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecki, seconded by COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE COUNTER Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the OFFER IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,401.00 FROM Commission accepted the counter offer in the MABEL HALL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT amount of $1,401.00 from Mabel Hall for 405 WENGER property located at 405 Wenger. The next is from Nancie Stokes for a single family residence located at 409 E. Paris. The original purchase offer was for $16,000.00. The counter offer is in the ci4w� amount of $18,000. The staff recommends accepting the counter offer. Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecki, seconded by COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE COUNTER Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the OFFER IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,000.00 FROM Commission accepted the counter offer in the NANCIE STOKES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED amount of $18,000.00 from Nancie Stokes AT 409 E. PARIS for property located at 409 E. Paris. The next is from Lenna De7arnett for a single family residence located at 401 E. Keasey. The original purchase offer was for $18,000.00. The counter offer is in the amount of $19,500. The staff recommends accepting the counter offer. Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecki, seconded by COMMISSION APPROVED THE COUNTER Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the OFFER IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,500.00 FROM Commission approved the counter offer in the LENNA DEJARNETT FOR PROPERTY amount of $19,500.00 from Lenna De7arnett LOCATED AT 401 E. KEASEY for property located at 401 E. Keasey. -44- South Bend Redevelopment Commission Le Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) g. continued... The next is from Frederick and Josephine Middleton for a single family residence located at 216 E. Keasey. The original purchase offer was for $16,250.00. The counter offer is in the amount of $18,500.00. The staff recommends accepting the counter offer. Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecki, seconded by Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the counter offer from Frederick and Josephine Middleton in the amount of $18,500.00 for property located at 216 E. Keasey. The next is from Opal Nesbitt for a vacant lot located at 114 E. Ohio Street. The original purchase offer was for $838.00. The counter offer is in the amount of $1,500.00. The staff recommends accepting the counter offer. COMMISSION APPROVED THE COUNTER OFFER FROM FREDERICK AND JOSEPHINE MIDDLETON IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,500.00 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 216 E. KEASEY Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecki, seconded by COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE COUNTER Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the OFFER FROM OPAL NESBITT IN THE Commission accepted the counter offer from AMOUNT OF $1,500.000 FOR PROPERTY Opal Nesbitt in the amount of $1,500.000 for LOCATED AT 114 E. OHIO STREET property located at 114 E. Ohio Street. The next is from Beatrice Jenkins for a single family residence located at 117 E. Pennsylvania. The original purchase offer was for $17,150.00. The counter offer is in the amount of $18,650.00. The staff recommends accepting the counter offer. -45- South Bend Redevelopment Commission AW °regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) g. continued... Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecki, seconded by COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE COUNTER Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the OFFER FROM BEATRICE JENKINS IN THE Commission accepted the counter offer from AMOUNT OF $18,650.00 FOR PROPERTY Beatrice Jenkins in the amount of $18,650.00 LOCATED AT 117 E. PENNSYLVANIA for property located at 117 E. Pennsylvania. The next is from Wilbur Lacy for a vacant lot located in the 1000 block of Carroll. The original purchase offer was for $200.00. The counter offer is in the amount of $500.00. The staff recommends accepting the counter offer. Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecki, seconded by COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE COUNTER Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the OFFER FROM WILBUR LACY IN THE Commission accepted the counter offer from AMOUNT OF $500.00 FOR PROPERTY Wilbur Lacy in the amount of $500.00 for LOCATED IN THE 1000 BLOCK OF CARROLL property located in the 1000 block of Carroll. The next is from Reginald Ruffin for a single family residence located at 311 E. Keasey Street. The original purchase offer was for $27,050. The counter offer is in the amount of $29,550.00. The staff recommends accepting the counter offer. Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecki, seconded by COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE COUNTER Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the OFFER FROM REGINALD RUFFIN IN THE Commission accepted the counter offer from AMOUNT OF $29,550.00 FOR PROPERTY Reginald Ruffin in the amount of $29,550.00 LOCATED AT 311 E. KEASEY STREET for property located at 311 E. Keasey Street. The last one is from S. E. Price for a rental occupied residence located at 139 E. Pennsylvania. The original purchase offer was for $6,000.00. The counter offer is in -46- South Bend Redevelopment Commission If regular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) g. continued... the amount of $9,000.00. The staff recommends accepting the counter offer. Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecki, seconded by COMMISSION APPROVED THE COUNTER Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the OFFER FROM S. E. PRICE IN THE AMOUNT Commission approved the counter offer from OF $9,000.00 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT S. E. Price in the amount of $9,000.00 for 139 E. PENNSYLVANIA property located at 139 E. Pennsylvania. h. Commission approval requested for Proposals for appraisal services in the Sample -Ewing Development Area. Item 6.h. was tabled. ITEM 6.H. WAS TABLED C%40111 i. Commission Mroval requested for Resolution No. 1224 determining to pay certain expenses incurred for local public improvements in or serving the Sample - Ewing Allocation Area (South Bend Allocation Area No. 8) from the Sample - Ewing Allocation Area (South Bend Allocation Area No. 8) Special Fund Mrs. Kolata explained that Resolution No. 1224 is a preliminary resolution setting a public hearing on February 18, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. to appropriate $750,000 of funds for the Sample -Ewing Allocation Area. When we put together the appropriation of $1,800,000 approved a few weeks ago, we had not received the December tax settlement. The tax settlement was larger than we had estimated. -47- South Bend Redevelopment Commission 7pgular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) continued... Upon a motion by Mr. Donoho, seconded by COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. Mr. Piasecki and unanimously carried, the 1224 DETERMINING TO PAY CERTAIN Commission approved Resolution No. 1224 EXPENSES INCURRED FOR LOCAL PUBLIC determining to pay certain expenses incurred IMPROVEMENTS IN OR SERVING THE SAMPLE -EWING ALLOCATION AREA for local public improvements in or serving (SOUTH BEND ALLOCATION AREA NO. 8) the Sample -Ewing Allocation Area (South FROM THE SAMPLE -EWING ALLOCATION Bend Allocation Area No. 8) from the AREA (SOUTH BEND ALLOCATION AREA Sample -Ewing Allocation Area (South Bend NO. 8) SPECIAL FUND Allocation Area No. 8) Special Fund. k. Commission ratification requested for Proposal from EIS Environmental Engineers for a Phase I Environmental Inspection of property located in the South Bend Central Development Area. Mrs. Kolata explained that at its January 21 meeting the Commission authorized sending a purchase offer to Design Packaging. That offer was conditioned on the environmental inspection. We contacted two environmental firms who each bid the same amount. We selected EIS for an inspection because there fee was an hourly rate not to exceed $1,500, while the other fee was a flat fee of $1, 500. EIS has begun the work and we would like the Commission to ratify their selection. Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecki, seconded by COMMISSION RATIFIED THE PROPOSAL Mr. Sharp and unanimously carried, the FROM EIS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS Commission ratified the Proposal from EIS FOR A PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental Engineers for a Phase I INSPECTION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 600 N. NILES AVENUE IN THE SOUTH BEND Environmental Inspection of property located CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT AREA at 600 N. Niles Avenue in the South Bend Central Development Area. 'W4 -48- South Bend Redevelopment Commission �egular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) Mrs. Kolata asked permission to add items 6.1., 6.m., and 6. n. to the agenda. There was no objection and the items were added. 1. Commission approval requested for the use of the St. Joseph/Wayne Street Parking Garage for the World's Largest Garage Sale on June 4. 1994. Mrs. Kolata explained that Community Affairs has asked to use the garage for setup on Friday, June 3 from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and then to hold the garage sale on June 4 from 5:00 a. m. to 5:00 p.m. They have worked with Ampco Parking and Ken Allen of the State Theater on details. Upon a motion by Mr. Piasecki, seconded by Mr. Donoho and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the use of the St. Joseph/Wayne Street Parking Garage by Community Affairs for the World's Largest Garage Sale on June 3 -4, 1994. m. Commission approval requested for Grant and Dedication for Public Use. ( Nimtz Parkway) Mrs. Kolata explained that a portion of Nimtz Parkway is on land that was donated by the Airport Authority. It needs to be donated as right -of -way. Upon a motion by Mr. Donoho, seconded by Mr. Piasecki and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the Grant and Dedication for Public Use. IC Ar NhWI -49- COMMISSION APPROVED THE USE OF THE ST. JOSEPH /WAYNE STREET PARKING GARAGE BY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THE WORLD'S LARGEST GARAGE SALE ON JUNE 3 -4, 1994 COMMISSION APPROVED THE GRANT AND DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC USE r South Bend Redevelopment Commission 'egular Meeting - February 4, 1994 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) n. Commission approval requested for Amendment to Contract for Sale of Land with Trammell Crow. Mrs. Kolata noted that under the terms of their proposal, Trammell Crow was to provide financing and pre - leasing information by dates in February and early March. They have sent a letter indicating that they are working with tenants, but leasing is going slower than expected. They still feel strongly about their time and resource commitment to this project and would like an additional six months to provide these pieces of information. Upon a motion by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Ic Mr. Piasecki and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the Amendment to Contract for Sale of Land with Trammell Crow. 7. PROGRESS REPORTS There were no Progress Reports. 8. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING The next Regular Meeting of the Commission is scheduled for February 18, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Redevelopment Commission, Mr. Donoho made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Piasecki seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. Awl ,� -50- COMMISSION APPROVED THE AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR SALE OF LAND WITH TRAMMEL CROW PROGRESS REPORTS NEXT COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNMENT South Bend Redevelopment Commission ";.l. Meeting - February 4, 1994 C ,L /t' ALAdl� Paula N. Auburn, President f -51- Ann E. Kolata, Director