Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 1974r PROSPECTUS SUBMITTED TO INDIANA COMMITTEE FOR THE HUMANITIES JUNE, 1974 TITLE: URBAN CONSERVATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY SPONSOR: Historical Preservation. Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County. GOAL -OF THE PROJECT: The,goal,of the project is to discuss historic preservation and architectural conservation with residents'in a neighborhood'setting. The dis- cussion "will be -aimed at'the humanistic considerations of maintaining'residences'and'businesses in older, urban- areas.. LOCATION: Two -specific older urban neighborhood areas have been chosen. -as the setting for the workshop/discussions These, two areas,.the West Washington Street area -and the old Chapin.Park'area, in terms of architectural and historical significance, qualify for preservation districting. The residents of..the area need to have some dialogue concerning the possible effects of preservation -districting. PLAN OF THE PROJECT:, -The dire_ctors'are.projecting two sessions"in. each area: Chapin Park'Area:-. about" mid-January and mid-February. West Washington Street. -Area:- about mid-March and mid-April. The first session'in each district would present information and encourage.discussiori of the history of`the-area,.both its people and its architectural heritage. Half the session would be devoted to discussion -by the residents of the area. The second session would define a preservation district and show the benefits and costs to the owners and residents: Discussion would follow. The sessions would be about three -hours in.length with a break in the middle. Neighborhoodsmight want to plan follow-up sessions for further discussion. In preparation -for the discussions a position paper with architectural drawings of structures in the areas would be -circulated to.each resident interested in. -participating in -the meetings. Each neighborhood has about 250 'constituents. ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE: 100 per meeting"or,400 total PERSONNEL AND:BUDGET Personnel: 1. Project Directors Mr. John'L.. Smith Historical.Preservation Commission, Chairman Ms. Deloris J..Davisson - Historical Preservation Com- mission, Treasurer 2. Historians:- West Washington and Chapin Park Areas: Ms. Joan.Romine - Southhold Restorations Dr. William I-. Davisson = University of Notre Dame 3. Photography - Mr. Clifford Ross,"'Mr: Richard Stevens, others. 4. Architectural Sketches and Development - Dr. Thomas S. Fern Artist and ,Art Historian, University of Notre Dame 5. Historical,Preservation:, What is it', how does.it work?- Ms. Mary Means: Midwestern Director National Trust,, for Historic Preservation -,.Chicago Mr., Paul Kusback, Lawyer., South Bend 6 Neighborhood involvement: Mr. Hollis Hughes, Director,. Model Cities" 7. Academic Humanists: Ms. Deloris J. Davisson ,Indiana University South Bend, Dept. of Fine Arts Dr. Thomas S-. Fern -.University of Notre Dame, Chairman, Department.of Art Budget: l.. Matching Funds: In Kind Donations: a. Project Directors: donated time per one month consulting: Mr.. Jack Smith $ 2,000.00 Ms. Deloris Davisson 1,200.00- Budget (Cont'd) b. Secretarial Historic Preserva7 $ tion Commission 500.00_ C. Services: Dr. W. Davisson mss. and' photography :.' 1,000.00 d.: Facilities County/City Bldg.' 200.00 e., Fire House Theatre 200.00- f.Services of one'Notre Dame intern 10 weeks 1,000.00 g. Area Plan. Commission, staff person 600.00- $ 6,700.00 .2.-. -Budget requested from Indiana. Committee for'Humanities .a. Honoraria: Ms. Mary Means two sessions. $ 200.00 Ms. J. Romine' 100.00 Mr. P. Kusback two sessions 200.00 - Mr., H. Hughes 100.00 b.: Photography expenses 600.00- c. Position paper/architectural sketches. Dr. -T. Fern 600.00- d.Travel 300.00 e. Pre -conference planning expense printing and distributing of position papers and consulting' 600.00: f. Publicity 500.00— g.. Refreshments for four meetings 100.00 $ -3:►:3:00:•:0.0 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION oil SOUTH BEND and ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA Minutes Special Meeting, Conference Room Tuesday, June 4, 1974 Area Plan Commission 7:30 P.M. Room 1123, County -City Building 1. Call to Order Chairman Smith called the Commission to order at 7:40 p.m. 2. Roll Call Chairman Smith introduced Mr. Alonzo Stivers, appointed to the Commission by the County Council to serve the unexpired two-year term of Mr. Baker who resigned because of poor health. Members Present: Mr. John Smith, Mr. A. E..Paszek, Mr. Alonzo Stivers, Mrs. William Davisson, Mr. John Oxian, Mrs. Donald Sporleder, Mr. Russell Rothermel Members Absent: Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, Mrs. George Woolridge Others Present: Mr. Richard Johnson, Mrs. Judy Studer, Mrs. Jean Derbeck 3. Budqet and Finance Committee Report a. Mr. Smith reported that the County Council approved an appropriation of $4,800 from Revenue Sharing Funds for the Commission's operation expenses for June 1, 1974, through December 31, 1974. Mr. Smith presented a budget proposed by the committee as follows: Budget Estimate, June 1 - December 31, 1974 Cost Item Estimate Contractual Services Postage $ 100.00 Travel 500.00 Books 50.00 Photography and Mapping 200.00 Stationery and Printing 400.00 Equipment Repair 35.00 Legal Services 1,565.00 Technical Assistance 1,000.00 Supplies General Office Supplies 100.00 Current Charges Dues and Subscriptions 150.00 Equipment Furniture 500.00 Office Machines 200.00 TOTAL $4,800.00 Minutes, June 4, 1974 Meeting &,a Mr. Smith moved the adoption of the interim budget estimates totaling $4,800 for operation expenses, June l to December 31, 1974. Motion seconded by Mr. Stivers. Motion carried. Mr. Smith and Mr. Johnson, Area Plan Commission Executive Director, dis- cussed with the Commission, the availability of a number of competent firms which could provide assistance in planning the county survey and its cost. The $1,000 line item, technical assistance, is for this purpose. Additional funds may be available from the Indiana Historic Landmarks Foundation to help finance the survey. b. The proposed budget for 1975 must be submitted by June 24, 1974. The Commission must have the professional assistance to plan the survey in order to make a realistic estimate of the cost of the survey which is to be included in the 1975 budget. Mrs. Davisson moved that Mr. Johnson, Executive_Director of the Area Plan Commission, be directed to invite three consulting firms to come to South Bend for interviews about providing technical assistance to formulate a budget for the county survey to be included in the 1975 budget. As much local expertise as possible should be strongly considered for employment where adequate and possible. Motion seconded by Mr. Paszek. Motion carried with one dissenting vote. 4. Historic Landmarks Committee Report Mr. Oxian reported on the Kresge Building. Mr. Nimtz is attempting to make contact with Mr. Goheen of the National Bank and Trust Company. Mr. Lennon has expressed his cooperation in keeping the H.P.C. informed of the Redevelopment Commissions plans for demolition of downtown buildings. Mrs. Sporleder and Mr. Oxi'an will attempt to gain access to thebuilding to assess its quality as a building to be preserved. 5. Historic Districts Committee Report It was reported that the'Catholic Social Services had purchased the house adjacent to its office building to provide additional parking space. This property is in the West Washington Street Historic Zone. A letter was received from the Housing Committee, Model Cities Program, seeking assistance from the H.P.C. to obtain a ninety day stay of demolition of the house at 116 South Taylor Street to provide time for the committee to help preserve the building, if indeed, it should be saved. Mrs. Sporleder has examined the building and recommends that it be preserved as a residence to help maintain the neighborhood as a residential area. Mr. Oxian moved that President Smith appear before the Housing Committee, Model Cities Program, to discuss with them its ideas about the preservation of the property at 126-128 South Taylor Street and further information about the 116 South Taylor Street property. Motion seconded by Mrs. Davisson. Motion carried. 6. Old Business a. The proposed bylaws are being reviewed by an attorney. Minutes, June 4, 1974 Meeting -3- b. Mr. Johnson suggested that the Commission consider employing a secretary to be present at the meetings to take notes for the minutes, prepare the minutes for distribution, and prepare necessary correspondence requested by the Commission. President Smith authorized Mr. Johnson to seek such assistance and _report to the Commission at the next meeting on who is available and the cost. C. The Secretary was instructed to send a letter of appreciation to Mr. Lennon for assistance in mailing costs thus far by the Department of Redevelopment. d. The Secretary was instructed to send a letter to the City Council informing it that we have accepted Revenue Sharing Funds in the amount of $4,800 from the County Council. 7. New Business a. Mr. Oxian's motion that we seek an appropriate letterhead design through open competition from interested citizens and that the winner be recognized in a fashion to be decided later, was lost for want of a second. President Smith was directed by the Commission to accept Mrs. Davisson's and Mr. Stiver's offer to come forth with a design. b. Mrs. Studer said she would call Mrs. Gwen Stiver to reschedule her appearance before the Commission at the regular July meeting. 8. Next Meetinq President Smith indicated there would have to be two more special meetings of the Commission before June 24. He will notify each member as soon as dates can be arranged to meet with invited consulting firms. 9. Adjournment at approximately 9:30 p.m. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION - OF SOUTH BEND AND ST.._JOSEPH COUNTY,.INDIANA M I N' U- T E S' Special Meeting Commissioners Conference Room Monday, June 17, 1974 4th floor, County -City Building 7:00 P.M.- South Bend, Indiana 1. Call to Order Chairman Smith called the=Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll -.Call Members Present:. Mr.' Jack Smith, Mrs. George-Woolridge, Mr. John Oxian, Mrs. William Davisson, Mr. F. Jay,Nimtz Members Absent: Mr. Russell Rothermel, Mr. A. -E. Paszek, Mrs. Donald Sporleder, Mr. Alonzo Stivers. Others Present: Mr. Richard Johnson, Mrs. Judy Studer, Mrs. Ruth Price, Mr. Richard Frank, Mr. Paul Sprague,' Mr. Dave Hermanson, Mr. Bill Kinst, Mr. Joe Matthews, Mr. Ery Purucker, Mr. Herk.Visnapuu, Mr. Brian Crumlish. 3. West Washington/Preservation-District'Master Plan Study.'- Application for -the National Register Mrs. Price informed the Commission -that in.regard to the West Washington Street -Area, the meeting of the State Review Board was earlier -today and that this is the first step toward being -put on the National Register. Mrs. Price then reported that she has the information -on the two-day meeting in regard to reuse of railroad stations, to be held on July 20,and 21, -.in Indianapolis... 4. Budget and Finance'Committee Mr. Smith apprised,the Finance Committee that he would like to have'a meeting with them on°,Wednesday of this week to put togethera proposed budget for -1975. The meeting was scheduled for Wednesday,;June 19,.1974,.at 9:00 a.m. in'the Area Plan-Commission.Conference-Room.' 5. Proposed County -Survey a. Johnson, Johnson,`and Roy:, Dick Frank Paul Sprague Mr. Frank informed the Commission,that he is an architect for Johnson, Johnson, and Roy. He said that Johnson, Johnson,. and Roy is a multi -discipline environmental planning firm and that historic preservation is -their specialty. He said.that they also do restoration, reconstruction,<adaptive use,.site development, and preservation planning for historic preservation districts. Mr. Frank.explained-their idea on how-to approach -a pre- servation plan as the following: - (1) Field work and evaluation survey developing field techniques inventory evaluation - visual -qualities, amenities (2) History.of the community historic research,.inventory. (3) Development of a plan analysis of field work, local history historical value development ofphilosophy establishment of historic districts legal tools relate.to other planning -activities establish new policies conceive a plan that is,realistic- - Mr. Frank noted some of the surveys that they have -done in. the past as being for Marshall, Michigan; St. Joseph, Missouri; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Racine, Wisconsin; and for the Kansas - City, Missouri Central Business District... Mr. Frank.said that there are four major aspects that they cover: history; architecture; -environment - link to�other buildings; and adaptability. —structural condition. He said that they make-an�,inventory and use data sheet -evaluations; relate planning history; and establish historic significance. - Dr. Sprague explained that, as a result of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, he coordinateda survey of the State of Illinois. He-said.that they.were mainly concerned with physical structures, such as buildings and'.monuments, in the Illinois Survey. 2.- Dr. Sprague said.that.initially the.idea.was that they -would serve rural areas,as well -He.said-that.in'large-areas,-they make up inventory,cards and collect basic information from the looks of,the buildings. He said that they would be looking for isolated buildings.which_,might be.of special signifieance'as well as -for linkages of.buildings for district control. Dr. Sprague'apprised the Commission.that the registering .of Historic --Districts consists ofdcompiling isolated structures and preserving -characteristics of.those.structures,-£. He said that the_next step would be -design control -suggestions for renovating or,restoring.buildings in the-area.of new construction. He -also talked about various means that exist through local.ordinances. Mrs. Davisson asked if Johnson, Johnson, and Roy would use local people in.the survey, and Mr. -Frank noted that they have done so in the.past, but that it would have.to be.worked out. He stressed that the Commission.`would want`a professional look. at.the survey also: Mr. Frank said that they would have to come in and get to know.the background of the community in order to do a sensible job. Mrs. Davisson asked if Johnson, Johnson, and Roy had done. any surveys in Indiana, and it -was noted that they have not.. They did work for -Fort Wayne, but-that.was a site.development project. - Mrs. Davisson-inquired-if Johnson,.Johnson, and Roy had ever had any court cases on.districts established, and.it was noted that they have,not,'..but that they have served as an expert witness in a case involving Michigan's first appointment to the National Register, and in that case, historic preservation was upheld. Mr. Smith asked_ if -they -thought the survey could be completed within one.year and Mr. Frank noted that he was -sure -it could. b. James Associates: Dave'Hermanson. Bill' Kinst Mr: Hermanson-informed the Commission that he is -a Professor of Architecture and Chairman of the Program of Architectural History at Ball State.- He is a graduate -of the University of - Illinois, where he did*his under -graduate -and graduate work`in architecture. He.said that he has taught for over twenty -years, has been a Director for,the:Historic American Building Survey- on.the Indianapolis Project, and.has been involved in a relatively large number�of surveys of a variety of -types in the State.. Mr: Bill Kinst apprised the Commission -that he 'is' also teaching at Ball State.University. He said that most -of his tom.= training has been in California. His specialty is systems and cost control. - 3 - Mr. Kinst said that they did an analysis on how the Morton. County Court House could -be. -restored and -the cost involved in, doing so. He -said that they also did the Beiger Mansion in Mishawaka, which -was an -analysis of.possible uses of the building. 1,1r. Kinst-said that -James Associates is a very large firm, with offices in Vincennes, a larger one'in Indianapolis, and a new one in Fort. Wayne. He noted that,,,,their work` is largely in. thearea of restoration. Mrs. Davisson-asked what -method they would use in.developing this type of-plan-and'it was noted that they would tryto do the most complete, accurate survey -possible. He.said,that`they-would make an effort. to establish,districts, and to save buildings,.not- just to complete the survey. He -said that they would try --to "experience" -as many examples of buildings as they could, as well as to -make an analysis of various phases of-our.heritage. Mr. Hermanson apprised the Commission that there were three major steps involved: to definedistricts; to define facilities - within district; and todefine isolated examples outside the' district. It was noted that another important'factor-.was,.to look at ethnic;;neighborhoods. Mrs. Davisson asked if' -they -would use local people and Mr. Hermanson-said'that they had contacts. --at Notre Dame, -and probably would-. Mr. Smith asked if they set up standards. It was -noted that they.do'and that they try to establish priorities for preservation on the basis of-a.cost/benefit analysis. He said that they could have.the study -completed within a,year. Mr. Hermanson.said that, do date, no county has completedi_; such a survey. He asked if the Commission would be`interested in three options or levels of penetration regarding price, and it was noted that we would. C. Matthews & Purucker: Joe Matthews - Ery Purucker Mr. Matthews noted'that-they have been in business.for about 20 years. He said that both he and Mr. Purucker are familiar with the area, -they have not Fgone a lot of historical survey work, -but they -feel that they. -have the qualifications for- - deciding which buildings qualify historically for -renovation. Mr. Purucker said that he thought'it.would take quite a while to complete the survey for the entire County. They would work, to coordinate the efforts of -local -people, particularly - architectural students. - 4 - Mr.;Matthews-stated"that he'thinks Mrs. Sporleder is too valuable to be on.the Commission, and suggested .that she should be. -the "extra." in the team selected for the survey.. He said that he -has discussed this with Mrs. Sporleder. Mr. Matthews said that she is the most''knowledgeable person for this County out of- town. experts included. Mr. --Matthews said that he`has tried•to get Mrs.-Sporleder- to join them as"a.team'and that she has not refused. He -said he would call her tomorrow to see if she has decided. ',He -said that -they are very interested in obtaining this -job. Mr. Matthews noted that -you -would have to take the urban,'populated areas first; and then the rural areas.. You would have to pinpoint interest points first and then verify the significance of interest points and rank'priorities. Mrs. Woolridge asked about public relations, and Mr. Purucker said that they would have -.local following': Mrs. Davisson-asked if, when speaking of Mrs. Sporleder, did" they suggest she --resign from the. Commission It -was noted that they did. Mrs. D'avisson said -that she considered Mrs. Sporleder. a very.valuable member of the Commission and would hate to lose her. Mr: Oxian�said that -it would-be better, he:thoughtf-for the Commission members, if Mrs. Sporleder would take a Leave.of Absence, since she"is also -valuable to the _Commission— d.- Gaede and-Visnapuu:, Herk Visnapuu Mr. Herk Visnapuu said that he has no"real knowledge of, historic preservation, that Mr. Gaede does, and he'would recommend him highly for any job.relating to historic pre- servation. Mrs. Davisson asked if"the firm did a state survey when he was the State Preservation Coordinator. Mr. Visnapuu said that he has worked many hours'on.historic preservation architectural preservation-.- e. Crumlish/Sporleder: Brian Crumlish Mr. Crumlish apprised the Commission that the building in which his office is.located-in- an.old building and may one day be used for historical purposes. He'said"that also the house he lives. in -is in an ol'd section of- town; on Riverside -Drive, and may one"day be-of.some signifieance also. Mr. Crumlish said that, in'his business; they do not spend -all -of their.time-in history. - 5 - Mr-. Crumlish said•that-he.had three:recommendations if they did the. -survey: there should be -no cut-off,date for,, survey in either -direction; -the' survey should not'limit- building-type-or site and should 'investigate industrial, residential,and commercial.areas;'-and the limits of -the survey should extend to the cities, towns. - Mr. Crumlish said that in.a survey, the work`,�that has to be done.is location,,identification,'and evaluation. The - depth of these depends on how refined the survey is. Mr. Crumlish said that the key.to the survey is evaluation - of the buildings. He.said,that when.you go to this amount of work, the survey -should be:published,for two reasons:- you can sell it to -schools, libraries, historic groups throughout the country; or you can publish it for the people of the County, such -as public -relations,. -public education,. and so,forth.. Mr. Crumlish-said that, if -they got.the-job,.since they have a small office, they would like to work with surveyors' or architectural students. He said that he called -Tom Slade,, with the National Trust in Washington,'and that he will serve- as'advisor on an informal basis,. Mr. Slade said that he.would like to_ recommend two architectural historians to assist -in. the survey, the"first being Russell -Wright, who.has been.in charge one-third of the time of the State Survey in Rhode Island'. The second person,�Mr. Slade recommended -is Tony Wren, who was formerly with the National Trust,•he is an authority on architectural surveys, has knowledge in real estate and districting. He-did,the plan for Alexandria, Virginia, and, he,also expressed interest in working with-Crumlish/Sporleder. Mr. Crumlish said that he.would be glad to amend his verbal proposal -to -incorporate another style or program. He said.that the survey could be completed within a year. 6. Adjournment at approximately 11:30 p.m.- HISTORIC PRESERVATION -COMMISSION OF SOUTH.BEND AND -ST. -JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA M T' . N U'_ T E. S Special Meeting Conference Room, Thursday, June 20,.1974 Area Flan -Commission 7:30 -p.m. - . Room', 1123- County -City Building - 1. Building- 1. Call- to, Order. The meeting.was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice - Chairman Oxian. . 2. Roll' Call Members Present: Mr. John.Oxian, Mrs. William Davisson, Mr. Al Stivers, Mr. Russell Rothermel, Mrs. George Woolridge Members Absent: Mr.-, Jack Smith-, Mr. Al Paszek, Mr. F. Jay.Nimtz Others Present: Mrs. Ruth Price; Mrs. Judy Studer, Mrs-. Jean Derbeck 3. Approval of -Minutes Mrs. Price noted that -the fact that Southhold had presented the. Commission withthe West-Washington/Preservation District Master -Plan Study developed'for.and,in conjunctionwith.Southhold by Crumlish/ Sporleder and,Associates had not:been included in the minutes of the June 17, 1974,meeting. With that addition, the minutes of both the June 4 and June 17 meetings were approved. 4. Committee, Reports _ Y a. Budget and Finance Committee_ Mrs.'Davisson apprised the Commission members that the items proposed for -the 1975 budget are essentially the same,as adopted for 1974, except that they have added -the personal services ofa Secretary, -and under Technical Assistance, the Commission will have to decide on a cost estimate for the.county-wide historical survey. Budget Estimate, 1975" June -December, -.-1974 1975 Item BUd'get` Cost Estimate Personal Services Salaries and Wages Administrative Secretary/ - Research Assistant (@$300.per mo) $ $ 3;600.00 Contractual Services Communication and Transportation Postage' 100.00 300.00• Traveling Expenses 500.00' 500.00 - Books 50.00 150.00 - Printing and Advertising Printing, -other than Office Supplies 400.00 Publication.of Legal Notices 50.00 Photography and Mapping 200.00 400.00 Stationery and Printing 400:00- 125.00 Repairs Equipment .35.00 50.00• r_ `"Other Contractual -Services, Legal Services 1.,565.00 .3,600.00 Technical Assistance 1,000.00-. 50,000.00 Supplies General 100.00 100.00 - Current Charges Dues. and Subscriptions w ,. ,150 .'00 . 1'50.00 59* 5'.0 0 It was noted that the budget estimate -for -legal services would-be used only -as -needed. Mrs. Studer noted -that the Commission did.receive-a-response. from each of.the five consultants that were interviewed Monday, June 17. She,suggested.that the Commission discuss each of the five proposals, referring to the consultants as A,.B, C, D, and E,. regarding their proposal, and not the:cost,.first. fit= Mrs. Studerexplained consultant A's proposal; which included three options. Option #1 - all in addition to Southhold's data Observation Definition.of the following districts: Residential_- 2 Ethnic neighborhoods' -. 2 Commercial _- 1 Industrial`6- 1 Minimum survey of 50 isolated examples Development of.standards No County -wide survey -as such Option #2 Definition of the following -districts: Major residential - 2 Minor residential - 2 Major .neighborhood - 2, Minor neighborhood-- 2 Major commercial - 1 Minor commercial - 1 Major industrial_- 1 Minor industrial (e.g. Marycrest) -3 Minimum survey of major districts and 200 isolated examples/mapping/district definitions Development of standards Medium survey of.100 isolated examples Option #3 Option #2 plus Minimum survey for all districts Minimum survey -of -200 isolated examples Medium survey -of 200 isolated examples Maximum survey of 50 isolated examples' Coder Minimum survey = check list descriptions' Medium =.check list descriptions' written observations (exterior and interior). - photographs Maximum = HABS survey (in addition to medium survey) detailed drawings Mrs. -Studer explained Consultant,B and their proposal as -being complete service-, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance.- Mrs Studer .re'ported' :that-- Consultant�.,C ._offered the following: -Analysis of existing resources (basic.data) Discussions with-'local.persons and agencies --(directions) Survey of the'area Single sites and buildings Historic districts' Mapping and.classifying Priorities Rating system zoning=Classification/Applcation- Protection and implementation Continuance of -Historic Preservation Commission Enhancement of protective capabilities National register designations Coordination with Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory Further programs and public education Future Funding Mrs. Studer explained that Consultant D would provide the - following: Field survey - utilizing.format of state.register.application,, supplemented by an evaluation rating system and photography for the Commission's authorized area and -assuming the West Washington Street material is -acceptable Mapping results of above Resurvey in detail those structures rated high in initial survey using more detailed inventory techniques Identify general areas for districts Prepare information in conformance with.standards-established, by local,,. state, and national agencies for,districts (6-,,, assumed) and single sites (30i -assumed) Communication. Publication Public presentations Mrs. -Studer gave the information for.the final proposal, Consultant E, as -the following: - Option #l. Inventory.of entire County Analysis• and recommendations (plan) Historic research - optional. Option#2 Inventory', Analysis -and recommendations 4 - Option #3 Inventory Analysis and recommendations On the basis.of the discussion.that followed, -the Commission members concluded that they -did not have.enough informationon the proposals to make a final -decision -at this time. On the basis of their interviews with the individual consultants, the Commission members who were in attendance -at -the June 17 meeting indicated their preferences in consulting firms. Mr. Oxian apprised' the.Commission that Mr. Smith's choice was Crumlish/Sporleder.on the basis that they gave the most complete discussion.. Mr: Oxian's_first choice was Crumlish/Sporleder and his second choice.was Johnson, Johnson, and -Roy. Mrs. Davisson's choice was Johnson,,Johnson, and, Roy. Mrs.Woolridge.'s first choice was Crumlish/Sporleder,.and her second choice was Johnson, Johnson., ..and Roy. . Mrs. -Studer then read off,the following.consultants and their prices in connection with their proposals: Consultant A.. -James -Associates Option #1 $7,500. #2 $25,000.. #3 $70,000. Consultant B. Matthews-Purucker-Anella; Inc. $28,000.- -Consultant 28,000. .Consultant C. Visnapuu, and >Gaede­; $24.000. Consultant -D., Crumlish/Sporleder.. $32,405. Consultant'E. Johnson, Johnson, -.arid Roy Option #1 $50,000. (plus additional $15,000. optional) #2 40,000. #3 35.000. NOTE:. Reductions are negotiable, but any reduction would also- mean- a- reduction in' detail'. It was the general consensus of the Commission that for -the consultant.for•the Proposed County -Survey, they would choose between Crumlish/Sporleder and Johnson, Johnson;'and Roy. It.was suggested that the Commission members might want to meet with the two final candidates to discuss their proposals in detail before making their - selection.. - 5 - Mrs. Davisson made'.+a motion to,use-a figure'of $50,000. as an estimate -of the cost of the proposed county -wide historical survey -in the-1975'budget.estimate. The motion was_ -seconded by Mr. Stivers and carried with a unanimous'vote. It was decided that,the Budget,and Finance Committee would arrange to meet with both the,County Commissioners and the City Council,to-discuss the Commission's -budgetary needs for 1975. C. Historic Landmarks Committee Mr. Oxian reported that -he -had personally inspected the Kresge Building with Mr. --Phil Hall, Manager of.Kresge's.. Mr. Oxian found the -building to be, -in his opinion, structurally sound. However,.a report.received-from the Bureau of Substandard Buildings states -that the building does.not-meet the requirements for --a #1 Fire District and that it -constitutes a'hazard to nearby buildings. Mr. Oxian plans to continue his investigation of the.building and will report' on his progress at the.next regular meeting of the .commission. 5. Old Business a. " ; By-laws' : The Commission decided to table the matter of by-laws until. the July -8 meeting. b. Indiana Committee on the Humanities Grant Application Mrs. Davisson reported that she has been informed by Martin Sullivan that the.Committee:will.not be awarding grants until fall. It will be early spring before the proposed neighborhood seminars could:`take place. a _c. _Letterhead Design Mrs.-Davisson and Mr ;JStivers'will present a "mock up" of their ideas s.t the. July 8 meeting. d. Invitation -to Mrs. Gwen.Stiver, The Commission decided to invite Mrs.Stiver to attend the July 8 -meeting to discuss -the bicentennial plans -and -how the Commission might tie into them. 6. Hearing of Visitors Mrs. Ruth'Price presented an idea -for Southhold and the Commission to mutually set.._up a cross -filing system to.catalogue:the slides that both organizations will be utilizing._ Southho-ld'has approximately - 500 slides: Mrs.-Davisson,said that she -personally has a collection of 250 slides and.that the Notre Dame School of Architecture and the Northern Indiana Historical Society might also have collections, -. 6 - which Southhold an&the Commission might wish to copy and add to the collection. it was noted that setting up such a -system would be,a technical job for.,a librarian or other such person trained or experienced in cataloguing. Mrs. Price will prep . are awritten proposal --to . present to the Commission at the July'8 meeting. Mrs-. Price further reported on a new federal -program which'- pilot provides for studies of residential neighborhoods.,.. She -,will report -on the program and how it might,kel'ate_to the Commission's work .in -greater detail at the Commission'6.next regular meeting.' 7. Adjournment at approximately,10:00 p.m. NEXT REGULAR MEETING:, MONDAY,'JULY 8, 1974 AREA PLAN -COMMISSION CONFERENCE ROQM ROOM`1123, COUNTY -CITY BUILDING 7:3b'p-.m.