Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-12 Redevelopment Commission Minutes.docx SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 25, 2012 9:30 a.m. 227 West Jefferson Boulevard Presiding: Marcia I. Jones, President South Bend, Indiana 1. ROLL CALL Members Present: Ms. Marcia Jones, President Dr. David Varner, Vice President Mr. Donald Alford Sr., Secretary Mr. Greg Downes Mr. Henry Davis Mr. John Stancati Legal Counsel: Ms. Andrea Beachkofsky Redevelopment Staff Mr. Don Inks, Director Mrs. Cheryl Phipps, Recording Secretary Mr. David Relos, Economic Development Specialist Mr. Jitin Kain, Economic Development Specialist Ms. Ann Kolata, Senior Economic Dev Specialist Ms. Debrah Jennings, Property Manager Others Present: Mr. Mike Schmuhl, Chief of Staff Mr. Scott Ford, Executive Director Ms. Beth Leonard Inks, Director Mr. Chris Dressel Ms. Elizabeth Maradik Mr. Michael Divita Mr. Richard Nussbaum Ms. Aladean DeRose Mr. Derrick Dieter Mr. Larry Fisher Ms. Jennifer Zarembka Ms. Margaret Romwalter Mr. Mark H. Foster Ms. Fran P. Clark Mr. Gary Zapalski Mr. Conrad Damian Mr. John Hagen Ms. Betty Martz Mr. Adam C. Detwiler Ms. Rojene Rosmarynowski 1 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 1. ROLL CALL (CONT.) Others Present: Mr. Frank Rozmarynowski Ms. Ann Hanover Mr. Matthew Hanover Mr. Rock Perri Ms. Anne Pilkington Mr. Matthew Dyer Mr. Jason Durr Ms. Georgann DeVolder Mr. Tim Firestone Ms. Lynne Bishop Mr. Matt Heckman Mr. Kevin Smith Mr. Brian Sequiera Ms. Kelli Stopczynski, WSBT Ms. Mary T. MacDonald Mr. David M. Hodges Mr. John Martz Ms. Maryann Sherman Mr. Eric Guenther Ms. GlendaRae Hernandez Mr. Greg Jones Mr. Michael Staszewski Ms. Sonia Flores Mr. Roy Hinton Ms. Stephanie Webster, Cooreman Realty Mr. Abe Marcus, Abe Marcus Realty 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Thursday, October 11, 2012 Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Alford and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Thursday, October 11, 2012. 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS 324 AIRPORT AREA Hull&Associates, Inc. $ 9,818.06 Ignition Park Hull&Associates, Inc. 4,125.00 GWS for VRP-Area A Hull&Associates, Inc. 180.00 Extended General Consulting Expert Witness Services/Cost Recovery/ Plews Shadley Racher&Braun LLP 19,933.47 Studebaker Shaffner Heaney Associates, Inc. 177,768.75 Lot 4 of Ignition Park Plews Shadley Racher&Braun LLP 234.00 ARG Corporation Litigation Heppenheimer&Korpal 394.92 2011 Tax Sale 1526 Catalpa Plews Shadley Racher&Braun LLP 16,723.60 Union Station/Bosch/Honeywell 2 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (CONT.) 324 AIRPORT AREA continued... Selge Construction Co.,Inc. 167,573.13 Ignition Pk Phase IA Heppenheimer&Korpal 1,125.00 Legal Services R. E. Pitts&Associates, Inc. 1,500.00 Appraisal Services Disposition Parcel Vac Abonmarche 5,670.00 Mayflower Bridge over Toll Road Ken Herceg&Associates Inc 2,059.00 Sheridan Ave&Lincoln Way West Design South Bend Water Works 105.67 Unity Gardens Ardmore Tr/Prast Blvd Jackson Service 19,000.00 802-812 South Lafayette Blvd Jackson Service 37,000.00 3 Parcels for Main St/Lafayette Blvd 420 FUND TIF DISTRICT-SBCDA GENERAL Ampco System Parking 1,143.84 225 Main St/St. Joseph St Surface Rose Pest Solution 206.00 LaSalle Hotel Pest Control C&E Excavating Inc. 53,192.87 ACS/VA Project Site Improvement South Bend Water Works 37.87 325 S Lafayette Blvd CB Richard Ellis 923.99 Management Fee LaSalle Hotel Christopher B. Burke Engineering 1,210.22 So. Bend 5 Points Utility Study 430 FUND SOUTH SIDE DEVELOPMENT TIF AREA#1 Christopher B. Burke Engineering 30,565.33 Fellow St. Improvements Ph 2 Lawson-Fisher Associates 29,322.39 S. Main to Lafayette Survey $579,813.11 Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Alford and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the Claims submitted October 25, 2012. 4. COMMUNICATIONS A. Communication from Adam C. Detwiler, 4212 Fellows Street regarding the Fellows Street project. From: Adam Detweiler Submitted on Tue, 10/09/2012 - 11:12am Select the Redevelopment Commission Members you wish to contact: -Marcia Jones, President -David Varner, Vice President -Donald Alford, Sr., Secretary - Gregory Downes, Member -Henry Davis, Jr., Member -John Stancati, Representative of School Board Subject:Fellows Street Corridor Project Comments: 3 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 4. COMMUNICATIONS (CONT.) A. continued... October 9, 2012 Adam C. Detwiler 4312 Fellows Street South Bend, Indiana 46614 Home: (574) 520-1719 Cell: (574) 339-8359 acdetwilerklive.com South Bend City Replanning Commission 227 West Jefferson Street South Bend, Indiana 46601 Dear Commissioners, I am one of the homeowners in the Fellows Street Corridor, where there are current proposals for redevelopment. I am writing this letter to you all today to respectfully inform you all that my household will no longer be cooperating with any plans of redevelopment in the Fellows Street Corridor in any way, shape or form. I am hoping that this letter will also enlighten you to the fractured nature of this project and the misuse of City funding that this project involves. Furthermore, I am wanting the Commission to see how the citizens in my neighborhood have been mistreated, misinformed, and misrepresented by Bill Schalliol and will seriously question his motives involved with this project. I do not wish to seem ungrateful in any way for the time and effort that the Commission has put into accommodating the needs of the citizens affected by this project. I do appreciate the tabling and revising of this project to stop the destruction of my home. The problem that I have now is that this project should have never even been proposed according to the clarification of the INDOT plans for US 31. I was under the assumption from both the maps I was shown, and the projected number of vehicles to travel down Fellows Street, that US 31 was to be cut off at the US 20 bypass. This would create a situation in which the only options that travelers would have would be to get onto the US 20 bypass or use this new access road that INDOT is building from Kern Road to Ireland Road via the new flyover. At this point, I truly believed that to do nothing at all would be irresponsible, but I didn't want to lose my home, nor have this new traffic driving down my street. Plan C seemed to fix this problem, but the newest Plan C would come at a great cost of convenience to my neighbors, the patrons of the O'Brien Center, and me. This also would take out two businesses on Ireland Road, creating a loss of tax revenue. On Wednesday, October 3, 2012, I was called to a meeting with Jason,from Burke Engineering, and Bill Schalliol, representing the City of South Bend. I went into the meeting with an open mind in hopes of a final, acceptable resolution. My mood changed drastically when I questioned if there would be local truck and semi traffic coming down the road. I was told no, except for the occasional lost truck. When I questioned where local delivery traffic would be routed instead, I was told that they would use US 31 to enter and 4 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 4. COMMUNICATIONS (CONT.) A. continued... exit the city. This confused me because I thought that the whole reason for this project was because US 31 was being made limited access and we needed an access route for local traffic. They then explained that by limited access, US 31 was just being closed off to side streets from the US 20 Bypass, south to Kern Road. At this point the meeting changed and I was upset. That told me that my home was in line to be destroyed so that we could make it more convenient for the one square mile of homes from the US 20 Bypass south to Kern Road, and from US 31 east to Miami Street! Not to mention being held in limbo for the last five months while more taxpayer money was spent on ridiculous convoluted plans that were just for show. Dr. Varner tried to explain to me last night, October 8, 2012, after the Common Council meeting that the New US 31 would effectively dead-end the soon-to-be Old US 31 and that the traffic would have nowhere to go but this new access road that INDOT is building. I was a little bit appeased with his explanation. Since then, I have researched and looked at the INDOT plan all morning and I find a flaw in Dr. Varner's explanation. There is clearly an access ramp onto and off the New US 31 at Kern Road that will give access to vehicles on Old US 31. I am not sure where the major influx of traffic is to come from now. I look at both the city's plan and INDOT's plan and I fail to see it. With this being said, this project should have never been presented, the 113 million dollars that has been spent should never have been spent, and the citizens should not have even been bothered with this project. Analyzing all this information brings me to one conclusion: The only responsible thing to do is to stop this project. I'm not saying, table it for later, re plan it yet another way, but throw this plan in the trash can and burn it! This is why my wife and I have decided that if this City pushes any part of this project through and it requires even one inch of my property to be used, you will now have to try and take it, and I will take you to court. Now, the next matter at hand is Mr. Bill Schalliol. I have been to the Replanning Commission meetings to see his presentations of the revisions of this Fellows Street Corridor project and I am frankly quite disturbed and in awe of his blatant deception. I truly wish I had known about the meeting in which this project was first presented as having the involved homeowners in unanimous favor of the project. I've been looking for the recording of that meeting online, and have not found it. The moment that we as homeowners took our disapproval of this project to the City Council, Mr. Schalliol should have been either asked to resign or fired. This project is too serious for the citizens to be misrepresented by someone WE pay. I've also found myself in these Replanning Commission meetings wondering who exactly the boss is and who the employee in this situation is. If I tried to push my boss around like Mr. Schalliol does the Commission, I again would not have a job. I have a signed petition with many of the homeowners along Fellows Street's names on it, stating that they will in no way sell their home or property to the City of South Bend Many of the names on that petition are names of people who now want to sell their property to the City for this project. I'm not saying that people can't change their minds, but I am questioning the ethics of the processes that have taken place with the citizens involved. 5 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 4. COMMUNICATIONS (CONT.) A. continued... There have been phone contact, meetings, letters of intent, and other miscellaneous, unrecorded, undocumented involvement of Bill Schalliol all of his own accord, not under request by the Commission. So what's in it for him? Why is it so important to him that this project continues with the original plan? Is there money to be made from Contractor kickbacks? Is there a future plan that hinges upon the development of a larger road down Fellows Street? Why do we even have someone in his position that's not even a citizen of our city? Can someone who lives in a neighboring city that competes with South Bend for jobs and revenue really have the best interest of our city in mind? This really needs to be investigated thoroughly. If this project does move forward, I will be requesting copies of all the bids and contract grants involved with this project, and I hope none of them will be traceable to Bill Schalliol in any way. There are many other issues that have crossed the desk of the Replanning Commission that I have found to be questionable, butt don't believe in speaking without all the facts, so I haven't raised any questions...yet. In regards to the Fellows Street Corridor Project, I feel you have the opportunity to end the misery that this project has brought the City on Thursday morning, October 11 th. I am asking one last time nicely to kill this project as a whole and let us repair the hurt feelings between neighbors that it has caused. Sincerely, Adam C. Detwiler B. Communication from Kala Heckman, Kala klh82ksbWlobal.net Wed 1012412012 8:32 a.m. Hello Please do not vote for option C in the upcoming meeting. I feel like this is a bad option for the local people. It will make it harder for us to get to the south side of town where the majority of us do our shopping. It will not make things easier. The city will be losing more money by taking out a gas station and will cost more to clean and get rid of the gas. Yes some people will have to move with option A, however those that want to move actually voted for that option. People who have to move want to. It will be harder for us to sell our houses now that the commission has delayed it. People have bought houses because we thought it was going through after EVERYONE ON THE CONIIIIISSION VOTED FOR IT, back in June. You should understand how upset and annoyed we are that it keeps getting changed and delayed. 6 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 4. COMMUNICATIONS (CONT.) B. continued... School buses are going to have be directed through more traffic,people getting to the south side will have to go through more traffic. And I believe that there once was a cul-de-sac on fellows street a long time ago, and it failed. Kala H. C. Communication from Matthew Heckman From:Matthew Heckman >mjh8002 @sbcglobal.net>; To: marciaj @southbendin.gov >marciaj @southbendin.gov>; davidv @southbendin.gov >davidv @southbendin.gov>; donalda @southbendin.gov >donalda @southbendin.gov>; gregd @southbendin.gov >gregd @souyhbendin.gov>; mayorpete @southbendin.gov Subject:Fellows St Sent: Thu, Oct 25, 2012 6:44:30 AM I don't know what kind of dirty, corrupt, back door deals Mr Davis Jr has pulled throughout this process but its obvious he will do ANYTHING to get his name out there. (look at what he did Monday night!!) I don't know where he got these new traffic numbers from but this road is CURRENTLY to BUSY, WE LIVE HERE!And no matter if you close it off or widen it it will destroy this south side neighborhood. I cannot believe that they are not recommending plan A. What did the new city engineer say he thought was best a few months ago??..OPTIONA!! This road NEEDS to be fixed and option A was the only one that did it right. The road is DANGEROUS, the rain water sewers don't work. The hills need to be leveled off, we don't have a sidewalk on most of the road. Its not safe for our kids to play on the sidewalk, nowhere to ride bikes or walk. The curve at Teri and Chippewa is a joke! The hill at Walter and Fellows is VERY DANGEROUS in the winter. WE LIVE HERE!!!!And a park and bike path next to the golf course would be a great addition to the growing south end of town. What about those of us that put our lives on hold the last SEVENMONTHS waiting for this decision. I put off refinancing my home, I put off a whole summers worth of improvements to my home. If I knew it was going to come to this ridiculous decision I would have already had it on the market!How can you do this to us?!?I cannot wait to get out of this CORRUPT CITY! We have been through so much stress and anxiety for what???? So Mr Davis could find some way to get his way and make a name for himse?!?And now he is out spouting off on social media how HE saved a neighborhood before a decision has been made. I wish you all would see the the overall and not just the neighborhood,plan A is best for the south side of town. I wish you would put Mr Davis in his place and vote against him. He is the most cocky, arrogant, self centered person I've ever met and does not need to be in public office. Please think about the overall picture for South Bends master plan. And all of us who have been 7 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 4. COMMUNICATIONS (CONT.) C. continued... planning this nearly a year and all of our headache and stress and to do a 180 and the last minute is wrong. thank you The Heckman's D. Communication from Fellows St. neighborhood resident Submitted on Fri, 1011212012 - 11:17am Select the Redevelopment Commission Members you wish to contact: -Marcia Jones, President -David Varner, Vice President -Donald Alford, Sr., Secretary - Gregory Downes, Member -Henry Davis, Jr., Member -John Stancati, Representative of School Board Subject: another delay?? Comments: Here are the facts as I have gathered from the Fellows St project: 1st survey goes out: 24 in favor of original plan (option A) and 5 oppose. 2nd survey goes out 34 in favor of original plan and 18 oppose. I am trying to understand why there is still a delay in the vote. Aren't you people supposed to vote based on the will of the people?? I believe the will of the people is clear. Why have you replaced Bill? He has done everything you have asked. Is it because it has not yielded the results you hoped for? I don't know what more there is to go over. Option A has even been revised so that those that want to stay can stay. A win/win right??? Let's get on with this. We have been ready to move since June. The last press release called for an end to this at the end of August. Now it is the end of October. Will it be resolved by the end of the year? Contact Information: mcclanalalam@gmail.com Mr. Inks requested that Items 6. C. (4), (5) and (6)be moved to this point on the agenda. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Alford and unanimously carried, the Commission moved Items 6. C. (4), (5) and (6)forward on the agenda to be considered now. 8 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) C. Airport Economic Development Area (4) Development Agreement with Union Station Properties, LP for the Renaissance District project. Mr. Inks noted that in March and April 2012 the Commission entered into a series of Memoranda of Understanding with the Union Station Technology Center team to create a framework for the Renaissance District project. After months of coordination between the city, Union Station Technology Center and a variety of other players, Union Station Technology Center and the City of South Bend are seeking to advance the relationship with the approval of these three additional documents. The Development Agreement is the centralizing document for all of the actions related to the Ivy Tower elements of the Renaissance District project and helps to bring finality to the roles of each party in the transaction. The Development Agreement is a normal progression from the Memorandum of Understanding for projects of this scope and magnitude and it helps to flesh out the terms that were conceptualized in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Mr. Inks outlined the main aspects of the Development Agreement. On the city's side the terms are essentially the same as in the MOU. For Union Station Technology Center (USTC)there are some new items regarding employment with local labor: • USTC has agreed to use local labor in all phases of development whenever reasonably possible. They are committing to certain actions to make that come true. • Timeline: USTC will provide the Commission with a plan of action for the project. • Nature of the improvements: The construction of improvements will be substantially the same in size and scope as specified in the plans that will be submitted. • Cost and expenses: USTC agrees to pay, or cause to be paid, all costs and expenses related to the project, exclusive of the $3.5M of improvements which the city shall pay for. • Progress reports will be submitted twice a year. • Insurance: USTC will purchase and maintain a comprehensive general liability insurance policy appropriate for the work that is being performed on the project. The Development Agreement also includes a personal guarantee of Kevin Smith that if USTC fails to make $3.5M of investment in the development in the first five years, the difference will be a personal obligation of Mr. Smith. Mr. Inks noted that the MOU had anticipated about $6,150,000 of costs related to this part of the project. There have been some additional environmental costs that have arisen, namely, consultation with Weaver Boos to clearly identify the remediation that needs to be done; some PCBs have been identified on the site; and we are also looking at the possibility of doing some cleanup of the environmental conditions to residential standards in order to facilitate residential development at the project, if that would be possible. 9 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) C. Airport Economic Development Area (4) continued... Mr. Davis asked how Mr. Smith would define "local labor"— regionally, county-wide? Mr. Smith responded that he expects at least 80% of the development jobs to be from South Bend, maybe as much as 100%. He intends to use his development to train more local workers in construction. He recently hired a local contractor for demolition. Expanding the local labor pool through training is a key component of his development plan. Mr. Davis noted that the Council has recently passed a diversity utilization ordinance for expanding the city's use of minority and women owned businesses. Mr. Smith responded that he is interested in cooperating with any efforts to expand the local labor pool. Mr. Davis will see that Mr. Smith gets the list of those certified businesses. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the Development Agreement with Union Station Properties, LP for the Renaissance District project. (5) Indemnification Agreement with the City of South Bend Board of Public Works and Ivy Tower Corporation. Mr. Inks noted that the Indemnification Agreement with Ivy Tower Corporation describes the relationship, roles and responsibilities related to environmental matters that the city, Union Station Properties and Ivy Tower have as part of the transaction. It indemnifies the owners of the Ivy Tower Corporation only against claims related to actions the city takes. It is the Commission's intent to try to recoup its remediation costs, and we may pursue insurance claims related to that. If those claims should somehow result in a claim against Ivy Tower Corporation, we are indemnifying them against that type of claim. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the Indemnification Agreement with the City of South Bend Board of Public Works and Ivy Tower Corporation. (6) Environmental Agreement with the City of South Bend Board of Public Works and Union Station Properties, LP regarding the Ivy Tower Building Mr. Inks noted that the Environmental Agreement describes all the roles and responsibilities related to the environmental matters which the city and Union Station properties have as a part of the transaction. This is a 35-year agreement, and is consistent with city policy that in the future environmental indemnifications would not exceed a term of 35 years. The Commission's typical indemnification agreement is for property we purchase, remediate and sell. Since the Commission has not been in the chain of title for Ivy Tower, there are provisions in this Agreement that the Commission's indemnification is 10 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) C. Airport Economic Development Area (4) continued... related to the development of this site. If the Development Agreement comes into default, the indemnity will terminate unless USTC makes additional investment in the property or pays liquidated damages under this provision. The provision states that if the Commission spends $8M on remediation of the site and USTC has invested less than that amount, then the difference would be the liquidated damages or the investment USTC would have to make to avoid termination of the Indemnification Agreement. Mr. Smith gave an update on the project. He admitted it has been an arduous task to get this project to this point. The Ivy Tower building has been one of the most challenging buildings in the city to bring to its full potential. With this public/private partnership that we've been able to establish, it will set the foundation for multiple years of development in the Renaissance District. He is also proud that the collaboration with the city on this development has set a foundation for future, similar public/private partnerships. He's proud of what he and the city have been able to accomplish. With these documents completed, he expects to finalize the plans within three or four months. He appreciates everyone's hard work. Because of this step, USTC will have two of the top biomedical companies in the state locating in his project. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the Environmental Agreement with the City of South Bend Board of Public Works and Union Station Properties, LP regarding the Ivy Tower Building. 5. OLD BUSINESS A. South Side Development Area (1) Staff recommendation on decision for Fellows Street project. Ms. Jones laid out the format for the presentation and discussion of this item. The staff will first make its presentation, followed by questions by the Commissioners, followed by one half hour of public comment, divided into fifteen minutes for those in favor and fifteen minutes for those opposed. Each speaker from the public will be limited to two minutes. Mr. Ford noted that the Fellows Street project has been moving forward for a long time, spanning two city administrations. When the new leadership of the Department of Community Investment came on board we realized there was insufficient communication on this project between various departments and with the neighbors of the area. Out of concern for neighbors, Commissioners, Council members, the Mayor and other groups we took a new, broader look at the project We began by looking at some additional alternatives to address the traffic concerns while reducing the number of home owners 11 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 5. OLD BUSINESS (CONT.) A. South Side Development Area (1) continued... affected. Further, we issued a survey to gather feedback from the residents. The survey indicated that there was widespread concern about the project, particularly from those who would NOT be relocated, but would remain in their properties, facing the expanded thoroughfare. In a process that Jitin Kain will explain, we looked anew at the original assumptions, particularly the traffic projections that actually suggest a more modest outcome. Based on that analysis the department is pleased to submit to the Commission a proposal that keeps the integrity of the neighborhood, allows the residents to maintain their homes, saves taxpayers of South Bend millions of dollars, and will provide infrastructure in the area for the free flow of emergency response vehicles. While it took some time to get to this point, we believe the end result is positive and that the Redevelopment Commission and neighbors can be confident that this is the best possible outcome for all sides. The city recognizes that at some point along this process a number of homes were in question for relocation. During this time some have moved on, ahead of a final recommendation from the city. While no formal assurances were made to these residents at that time, we realize that some have interpreted the city's message as otherwise, and it is important that they be made whole. We are committed to doing everything we can to mitigate the inconveniences of this project and will look forward to meeting with those residents whose properties were in question. Mr. Kain reiterated the need for the project, the U.S. 31 alignment, Commission alternatives, reviewed the data and his analysis of it, and made the staff recommendation. Mr. Kain reminded everyone that the state is upgrading U.S. 31 to a limited access highway. This will cutoff access to U.S. 31 for those living east of U.S. 31 between Kern Road and the bypass. There will be a Fellows Street bridge over U.S. 20, anticipated to be completed by June 2013. There will be some people from that otherwise stranded neighborhood who will want to take the Fellows Street bridge into South Bend. The Fellows Street overpass ends at Ireland Road. Several alternatives have been presented to date to address the additional traffic expected on Fellows: A, B and C, then A-1 and C-1. Option A-1 would expand Fellows to a three- lane street, curving along Chippewa to Michigan Street. That option would require twenty- six acquisitions at a cost of$5.9M. Option C-1 would create a cul-de-sac of Fellows on the north side of Ireland to prevent traffic from using Fellows as its route north. Option C-1 required seven acquisitions and a cost of$5.4M. Staff took a new look at the first projection of 8,000 additional cars per day over the Fellows St. overpass which could potentially use Fellows north of Ireland. A traffic count on U.S. 31 at the two points on either end of the affected neighborhood counted an increase of 4,800 vehicles between Kern and the bypass. That demonstrates that the neighborhood 12 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 5. OLD BUSINESS (CONT.) A. South Side Development Area (1) continued... that will be cut off only generates 4,800 cars per day, not 8,000 as estimated by the state. Mr. Kain said INDOT likely assumed some growth to the neighborhood, but that residential area is a mature neighborhood, not likely to have further growth. The staff conclusion is that INDOT's estimate was high. Mr. Kain also noted that residents of the Fellows Street neighborhood have said that the Fellows/Teri intersection is dangerous already. Over the last five years there have been only two accidents; but it is a confusing intersection and something should be done to address it. Fellows Street currently transports 3,800 vehicles per day north of Ireland Rd. Other two- lane streets in residential areas of the city accommodate as many as 6,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day. Local streets have the capacity to accommodate much more than Fellows currently does. Whether we want Fellows to handle more traffic is something that will be discussed in the staff recommendation. The criteria staff used to assess the various alternatives were as follows: • Maintain proper traffic flow through Fellows and Ireland. • Maintain the residential character of our neighborhoods • Provide a cost effective solution • Minimize property acquisition and loss of tax base • Maintain access north, south, east and west • Enhance pedestrian safety, especially at Teri and Fellows Staff now recommends a modified version of Option C-1 as follows: • Remove the cul-de-sac from Option C-1 • Pursue a modification of the Fellows/Ireland intersection by adding a left turn lane north of Ireland, similar to what the state is adding on the south side of Ireland • Install a three-way stop sign at Fellows and Teri • Establish sidewalk connectivity south of Walter Street • Install traffic monitoring devices on Fellows and Ireland; if the counts are high, then we could install speed bumps to slow it, further discouraging the use of Fellows by through-traffic. • Acquiring the property of those who have already purchased another home and meeting with others who were expecting to have their homes acquired to see what can be done to accommodate them. • Address the drainage concerns of the neighborhood separate from the street project. 13 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 5. OLD BUSINESS (CONT.) A. South Side Development Area (1) continued... Two properties will still be affected by the widened intersection, those of the Hodges and Unruhs. Installation of a stop sign at Fellows and Teri should slow traffic through Fellows, thereby encouraging traffic to use Ireland to travel to U.S. 31 to go north. In summary, Mr. Kain noted that staff believes this solution makes Fellows less desirable as a cut-through route and encourages the use of Ireland and Michigan for traffic headed to downtown. Staff believes that Fellows can handle some additional traffic if it needs to. The stop sign at Teri will make that intersection safer. Staff asked for Commission approval of a modified Option C-1, as described. Mr. Gilot, Board of Public Works, said that the Department of Engineering has reviewed the modified Option C-1 and supports it. He noted that his department had asked the state for the bridge at Fellows because of concerns about meeting the public safety needs of the neighborhood between Kern and the bypass. It was not their intent to transform Fellows into an arterial. Public input: Conrad Damian: 718 E. Broadway Street. I support this new proposal for all the reasons that were given by the staff The other proposals were unbelievably harmful to the neighborhood and, I think, to the entire city. This proposal does all the things that I was prepared to tell you that you need to do. I would comment that I also think the procedures need to be more transparent. The fact that people were contacted last year about selling their homes, but it really only became a public process this year for the rest of the city is not a good way to conduct business. So, I hope that you'll be more transparent at the very beginning of any process you follow. I would also add that no mention was made of the Marathon station. I assume that there is no need to take that away. As I explored how much space there is in that intersection, you can easily add one or two right turn lanes without taking out that business. So, I would hope the plan includes leaving the Marathon station in place. The last thing I would say is if you do need to slow traffic down further on Fellows, put a stop sign at Walter Street. I am pleased to speak in favor of this new proposal. Mary MacDonald: 3827 S. Fellows. Just five houses north of Chippewa. I was thinking of moving into a community restricted to people over 55 years of age until the value of my house suddenly went to $0, if you were going to turn all the traffic at Chippewa, because I thought outside my house I would probably have room for only a waste basket. The problem with putting in too many stop signs on Fellows is that we have Monroe School 14 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 5. OLD BUSINESS (CONT.) A. South Side Development Area (1) continued... north of Ireland, Donmoyer Ave. which takes a lot of traffic to Stanley Clark School, and thirteen blocks from my house there is Riley High School. There is a lot of school bus traffic coming down Fellows. There is no need for an additional stop sign at Walter. Derrick Preston: 4211 Fellows. I support anything that will slow traffic on Fellows. I really enjoyed the comments of the first gentleman. We really need to slow the traffic down. I have a four-year old daughter and a five-year old son that can't sleep at night because people are speeding up and down the road. Between Ireland and Teri it's almost like a drag strip at night. People come around that curve and then try to go as fast as they can. They either make it to the stop light or get to the curb. So, anything you can do to slow traffic down. I like the speed bump idea, more stop signs, whatever it takes. It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Rock Perri: 4024 Fellows. On the S-curve. Stop sign? I'm not going to live there and listen to that traffic stop and go all day, all night long. Bad idea. They already stop there without a stop sign. They get confused. That is a bad idea. I'm telling you. That curve could be straightened out if you put a retaining wall, and I would be willing to give a little bit of my property for that purpose, straighten that curve out a little bit, keep that traffic flowing. It's stop and go; it's already loud enough. That's not going to work, in my eyes. Speed bumps aren't going to work either. Stop and go. People have loud cars. Somebody's got to make a decision here. I'm getting tired of this. Larry Fisher: 59255 Locust Rd. I would like to say I support the proposal for all the reasons that were mentioned before. I do feel that the infrastructure of Ireland is such that it can handle the traffic. I realize that no solution is going to satisfy everyone, so I realize it's a tough decision. But I think you have to do what is best for the whole community involved. Thank you. John Hagan: Representing the board of the Community Forum for Economic Development. We met and discussed this issue and basically had supported the kinds of recommendations that Mr. Damian had given prior to this meeting. Without being unnecessarily duplicative of things that have already been said, we support the project based upon the criteria that were selected. One of the things that surprise me, however, is that these criteria had not already been made available. Standards and criteria are things that we typically use in planning. I hope these weren't made on the fly. One of the criteria that seems to be absent in this project, however, is the attention to the use of TIF funds. I'm not altogether clear on whether this is consistent with the use of TIF funds, but I'm sure that would also be included in the report. Finally, I would just comment that we on the south side of U.S. 20 (I'm in an area called Forrest Park and we have been living with this 15 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 5. OLD BUSINESS (CONT.) A. South Side Development Area (1) continued... problem since 2007). I can't think of a better way to carve up a neighborhood than the way the state has done it. So, I applaud the action of the city to stop this nonsense. Thank you. Mary Fisher: 4402 S. Michigan Street. We came to the community because of the traffic counts and visibility for the restaurant. By changing it to any other position other than this one I feel would have a bad effect on the business (Culver's). I'm in favor of the project the way it's being presented here. David Hodges: 4404 Fellows. I am in favor of this project as presented, mainly because it is probably the best of all alternatives that I've seen over the past several months. I've looked at every plan, at every angle of those plans and it does seem to be the best of them all. Thank you. Adam Detweiler: 4312 Fellows St. I am ready to do cartwheels. This is great. This is a smart, well thought-out plan. This is how it should have been approached months ago, years ago, actually. It addresses the safety, it addresses keeping our homes, keeping our neighbors. As you can see, we're all here. We're all concerned. So, I hope today you guys go ahead with this. This is a great idea. Thank you. John Martz: 4328 S. Fellows. I was not going to go before Adam. I've been trying since 2011 to tell the folks in the neighborhood, not trying to be their boss, but none of us are going to get everything that we want. We are not drawing up these plans. Somebody else is. You have to decide what you want to give up. What they've come up with today, I think most of us are pretty well satisfied with. I want to commend you (Scott and Jitin) for taking this project over, personally. The people in this neighborhood have this kind of a neighborhood that I grew up in as a small boy. We have people from foreign countries, we speak different languages, we are different races, different religions, and we all like each other. And I would like to see every neighborhood in this city like mine, that I live in. There are very few people in this neighborhood that I did not walk over and give my name and the boss's name and address to when they moved in to come and see us. Because that's the way I was treated and that's the way I like to treat people. This neighborhood is a unique neighborhood and, technically, don't misuse that word. This is a unique neighborhood. And if you ever want to build another one like this, I'll help you. Thank you. Gary Zapalski: 411 E. Chippewa. I've lived in the neighborhood all my life and this is the first good thing I've heard about this whole project. Everything else has been bad. This is great. 16 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 5. OLD BUSINESS (CONT.) A. South Side Development Area (1) continued... Matt Hanover: 4130 S. Fellows. I've previously spoken in support of Option A-1. We love our neighborhood. Frankly, the best case scenario would be us keeping our home. But I still have concerns that aren't being addressed by this plan. In previous meetings it's been stated that our road is at capacity. Now I know there are other roads that handle significantly more traffic than ours: Miami, I forget some of the other ones he mentioned. And I appreciate that, but frankly, I bought my house at this traffic level. And I paid for my house at this traffic level. And I am fearful that my property values are going to diminish because of any increased traffic. So, this is the plan that you decide to take and I fully appreciate that. If we had addressed this project from the beginning this way, I think everyone would probably have been more amenable towards it, but I don't know why we would wait to see if traffic counts increase significantly---I think any traffic increase is a problem. If this is the route the Commission decides to take today, then I would suggest we should automatically install speed bumps, or a stop sign at Walter or a stop sign at Chippewa. I think that we need to take the steps to slow the traffic down immediately. I mean we're talking about a couple of speed bumps and a couple of stop signs here. I feel like we're gambling with my family's safety. My kids play on the street every day. Again, I appreciate there are other streets that can handle the higher traffic, and I appreciate that our street may be able to handle more traffic, but that's not the neighborhood I bought into. That's not the neighborhood that any of these people bought into. So, I feel, if this is the route we decide to take, which previous to today was unacceptable to a lot of people (this is essentially not doing anything), we need to take the minimum steps that would have extremely minimal costs to at least minimize the danger to the public. Lynn Bishop: 4230 S. Fellows. My husband bought our house in 1999 and I agree with the Hanovers. When you look at the street now, it is already a fail. We talk about maintaining the integrity, but the integrity had already been lost. And I understand that other streets can handle more traffic than what we have; however, I would like a comparison of how big their front yards are, or how far their front door is from the road, because we have very miniscule front yards on Fellows. That makes a big difference and it's already at a large fail. We do not let our three small children play in the yard---they do not play in the front, they do not ride their bikes, they do not ride their scooters, they don't do that at all because of the traffic that is already there and the way that it speeds through. We're at the park by Walter where there's a slight hill and getting the kids out every morning for school is difficult. It's even worse when it's icy because even if a car is going five or ten miles over the speed limit they slide right over that hill and into our yard. So, to me the integrity has been lost. It's not an issue of maintaining, it's already gone. So, also with this, I know you mentioned with INDOT as saying the number of cars, but we think for a year or so, but it wouldn't be that, but I'm not looking for a year. I want my children to grow up in a wonderful town in South Bend like I did. And I want them to want to stay here in South Bend. So, instead of saying that this will be good for a year or so, I'd like to say what's 17 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 5. OLD BUSINESS (CONT.) A. South Side Development Area (1) continued... going to be good in ten years, twenty years, thirty years. I've worked on the south side, I've worked in a business for ten years trying to develop the south side and to help it grow and I want to see it continue to grow. My concerns are that we're kind of cutting it off at the knees right now, saying we're not going to get any more businesses on Ireland, we're not going to get any more businesses on Michigan, and that makes me sad because I remember a time when there wasn't anything there and it has grown and it's wonderful and I love shopping in my neighborhood. Like many people I'm not a fan of going to Grape Road because of the crazy traffic and I feel now we're going to create that here on the south side and shunt people away from our community. And I understand wanting people to stay on Michigan and to stay on Ireland and not having extra traffic on Fellows; however, if traffic is eased, then people are more likely to come out. I avoid Grape as much as possible because of traffic, and if you ask me, personally, where something is on Grape Road, I can't even tell you. I don't see store fronts because I'm watching all the traffic in front of me. So, that's just my opinion on the impact of the stores. I think if you ease up the traffic in the area people are more likely to come to the area and shop. My last point would just be please, consider the safety for our children. I worry for them every single day. I worry if they start to go out to the car in the morning before I go out there. They're not allowed to because it's dangerous. I've always been in support of Option A and I will continue to do so. Because we want the south side to grow, we want our children to be happy, and we want our children to stay in South Bend after they are adults and enjoy it like we have. Thank you very much. End of public input. Mr. Varner said this has been a really interesting process. I really appreciate the fact that folks were willing to get involved. In order to be a participant in government you can't sit on the sidelines and wait for others to get involved because you find out when that does happen is that everybody is unhappy. The process has been contentious and perhaps difficult, time consuming and frustrating, but it appears to me that the process is going to lead to a solution that is going to satisfy the greatest need. I think there are a couple of principles that have guided me through this. One of those is I would love a through street. It's just not a good idea to take increased volumes of traffic and direct them through existing neighborhoods. Carl Littrell, our former city engineer, has always said that the wider and smoother you make a street the faster people will drive on it. I think it's important that we looked at various solutions. Secondly, and probably the higher priority from my perspective, is while the authority to take property with eminent domain exists, it's recognized in the statutes, it's been affirmed in the courts, it doesn't always make for good public policy. 18 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 5. OLD BUSINESS (CONT.) A. South Side Development Area (1) continued... Mr. Varner said he appreciated the efforts of Mr. Ford who inherited this project and the efforts of those in the Department of Public Works who were willing to take a second look. These traffic numbers really make sense. Mr. Davis also thanked the residents for participating. He is pleased that more and more people are participating in their government. That is what makes government function well. He thanked Mr. Kain and Mr. Ford for their ears and eyes on this project to arrive at this best solution. Thank you so much. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Davis and unanimously carried, the Commission authorized proceeding with the modified Option C-1 that was presented today. 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) A. Public Hearings (1) Public Hearing on Tax Increment Financing Resolutions No. 3079 (AEDA), No. 3080 (SBCDA), No. 3081 (WWCDA), No. 3082 (DTMSD), No. 3083 (NNDA Fund #1), No 3084 (NNDA Fund #2), No. 3085 (SSDA Fund #1), No. 3086 (SSDA Fund #3), No. 3087 (DREDA) No. 3090 (Airport Bond Debt Service Reserve, No. 3091 (Blackthorn Golf Debt Service Reserve), No. 3092 (Downtown Bond Debt Service Reserve). Ms. Leonard noted that resolutions here will appropriate funding for 2013. This appropriation is usually done early in the next year, but the administration has asked that all appropriations be scheduled to coincide with the Council budget process. The total appropriations are: Allocation Area and Fund Resolution No. Not-to-Exceed Airport Economic Development Area,Allocation Resolution No. 3079 $22,000,000 Area No. 1 Fund South Bend Central Development Area, (South Resolution No. 3080 $5,100,000 Bend Allocation Area No. IA) Special Fund West Washington Allocation Area Resolution No. 3081 $450,000 (South Bend Allocation Area No.7) Special Fund Downtown Medical Services District Resolution No. 3082 $3,600,000 Special Fund Northeast Neighborhood Development Area Resolution No. 3083 $2,350,000 No. 1 Fund Northeast Neighborhood Development Area Resolution No. 3084 $3,228,500 No. 2 Fund 19 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) A. Public Hearings (1) continued... South Side Development Area, Resolution No. 3085 $5,700,000 Allocation Area No. 1 Fund South Side Development Area Resolution No. 3086 $500,000 Allocation Area No. 3 Fund Douglas Road Economic Resolution No. 3087 $450,000 Development Area No. 1 Fund Airport Bond Debt Service Reserve Resolution No. 3090 $5,000 Blackthorn Golf Debt Service Reserve Resolution No. 3091 $326,050 Downtown Bond Debt Service Reserve Resolution No. 3092 $6,000 Mr. Inks noted that the public hearing file is complete, containing: (1) A copy of the Resolution No. 3078 setting the public hearing; (2) a copy of the Notice of Hearing; (3) a copy of Resolutions No. 3079, 3080, 3081, 3082, 3083, 3084, 3085, 3086, 3087, 3090, 3091, and 3092; (4) an affidavit from Kim Wilson, Publisher of the South Bend Tribune, that the Notice of Hearing was published in that newspaper on October 12, 2012; (5) and an affidavit from Jason Jolly, Classified Manager of the Tri-County News, that the Notice of Hearing was published in that newspaper on October 12, 2012. Ms. Jones opened the public hearing on Resolutions No. 3079, 3080, 3081, 3082, 3083, 3084, 3085, 3086, 3087, 3090, 3091, and 3092 for whoever wished to be heard. There was no one who wished to be heard. Ms. Jones closed the public hearing for whatever action the Commission wished to take. (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 3079. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3079 appropriating tax increment financing revenues from allocation Area No. 1 Fund for the payment of certain obligations and expenses related to the Airport Economic Development Area Allocation Area No. 1 (3) Consideration of Resolution No. 3080. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3080 a supplemental appropriation resolution of the South Bend Redevelopment District (South Bend Allocation Area No. IA) Special Fund (SBCDA) (4) Consideration of Resolution No. 3081. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3081 appropriating tax increment financing 20 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) A. Public Hearings (4) continued... revenues from allocation Area Fund for the payment of certain obligations and expenses related to the West Washington-Chapin Development Area Allocation Area. (5) Consideration of Resolution No. 3082. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3082 a supplemental appropriation resolution of the South Bend Redevelopment District Special Fund (DMSD) (7) Consideration of Resolution No. 3083. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3083 appropriating tax increment financing revenues from Allocation Area Fund for the payment of certain obligations and expenses related to the Northeast Neighborhood Development Area Allocation Area. (8) Consideration of Resolution No. 3084. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3084 appropriating tax increment financing revenues from Allocation Area Fund for the payment of certain obligations and expenses related to the Northeast Neighborhood Development Area Allocation Area#2. (9) Consideration of Resolution No. 3085. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3085 appropriating tax increment financing revenues from Allocation Area Fund for the payment of certain obligations and expenses related to the South Side Development Area Allocation Area No. 1. (10) Consideration of Resolution No. 3086. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3086 appropriating tax increment financing revenues from Allocation Area Fund for the payment of certain obligations and expenses related to the South Side Development Area Allocation Area No. 3. 21 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) A. Public Hearings (11) Consideration of Resolution No. 3087. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3087, appropriating tax increment financing revenues from Allocation Area Fund for the payment of certain obligations and expenses related to the Douglas Road Economic Development Area Allocation Area No. 1. (12) Consideration of Resolution No. 3090. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3090 appropriating and transferring monies for the purpose of funding certain projects for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2013. (2003 Airport Bond Debt Service Reserve) (13) Consideration of Resolution No. 3091. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3091 appropriating and transferring monies for the purpose of funding certain projects for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2013. (Blackthorn Golf Course Bond Debt Service Reserve) (14) Consideration of Resolution No. 3092. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3092 appropriating and transferring monies for the purpose of funding certain projects for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2013. (2003 Downtown Bond Debt Service Reserve) (15) Public Hearing on Resolution No. 3088 appropriating monies for the purpose of defraying the expenses of certain local public improvements for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2013, including all outstanding claims and obligations, fixing a time when the same shall take effect. (Fund 425, Redevelopment Retail Operations) Ms. Leonard noted that the Redevelopment Retail Operations are the Michigan Street Shops, the retail on the first floor of the Wayne Street parking garage and the Leighton Plaza. The total expenses for the year are anticipated to be $151,185. Mr. Inks noted that the public hearing file is complete, including: (1) A copy of the Resolution No. 3088 setting the public hearing; (2) a copy of the Notice of Hearing; (3) an affidavit from Kim Wilson, Publisher of the South Bend Tribune, that the Notice of Hearing was published in that newspaper on October 12, 2012; (4) and an affidavit from Jason Jolly, 22 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) A. Public Hearings (15) continued... Classified Manager of the Tri-County News, that the Notice of Hearing was published in that newspaper on October 12, 2012. Ms. Jones opened the public hearing for whoever wished to speak regarding Resolution No. 3088. There was no one who wished to speak. Ms. Jones closed the public hearing for whatever action the Commission wished to take. (16) Consideration of Resolution No. 3088. Upon a motion by Mr. Varner, seconded by Mr. Downes and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3088 appropriating monies for the purpose of defraying the expenses of certain local public improvements for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2013, including all outstanding claims and obligations, fixing a time when the same shall take effect. (Fund 425, Redevelopment Retail Operations) (18) Public Hearing on Resolution No. 3089 determining to appropriate monies for the purpose of defraying the expenses of certain local public improvements for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2013, including all outstanding claims and obligations, fixing a time when the same shall take effect. (Fund 619,Blackthorn Golf Course Operations) Ms. Leonard noted that the appropriation in Resolution No. 3089 contains the one remaining debt service payment on the golf course bond. The total appropriation is $2,063,333. The Blackthorn Joint Committee met and approved this budget for 2013. Mr. Inks noted that the public hearing file is complete, including: (1) A copy of the Resolution No. 3089 setting the public hearing; (2) a copy of the Notice of Hearing; (3) an affidavit from Kim Wilson, Publisher of the South Bend Tribune, that the Notice of Hearing was published in that newspaper on October 12, 2012; (4) and an affidavit from Jason Jolly, Classified Manager of the Tri-County News, that the Notice of Hearing was published in that newspaper on October 12, 2012. Ms. Jones opened the public hearing for whoever wished to speak regarding Resolution No. 3089. There was no one who wished to speak. Ms. Jones closed the public hearing for whatever action the Commission wished to take. 23 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) A. Public Hearings (19) Consideration of Resolution No. 3089. Upon a motion by Mr. Varner, seconded by Mr. Downes and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3089 determining to appropriate monies for the purpose of defraying the expenses of certain local public improvements for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2013, including all outstanding claims and obligations, fixing a time when the same shall take effect. (Fund 619, Blackthorn Golf Course Operations) (20) Public Hearing on Resolution No. 3093 determining to appropriate monies for the purpose of defraying the expenses of certain local public improvements for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2012 and ending December 31, 2012, including all outstanding claims and obligations, fixing a time when the same shall take effect. (Fund 619,Blackthorn Golf Course Operations) Ms. Leonard noted that Resolution No. 3093 is an additional appropriation for the calendar year 2012 in the amount of$31,115. Most of these expenses have to do with the LPGA event that was held at Blackthorn Golf Course. The golf course made a profit of approximately $40,000 from that event. The Blackthorn Joint Committee met and approved this revision also. Mr. Inks noted that the public hearing file is complete, including: (1) A copy of the Resolution No. 3093 setting the public hearing; (2) a copy of the Notice of Hearing; (3) an affidavit from Kim Wilson, Publisher of the South Bend Tribune, that the Notice of Hearing was published in that newspaper on October 12, 2012; (4) and an affidavit from Jason Jolly, Classified Manager of the Tri-County News, that the Notice of Hearing was published in that newspaper on October 12, 2012. Ms. Jones opened the public hearing for whoever wished to speak regarding Resolution No. 3093. There was no one who wished to speak. Ms. Jones closed the public hearing for whatever action the Commission wished to take. (21) Consideration of Resolution No. 3093. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved Resolution No. 3093 determining to appropriate monies for the purpose of defraying the expenses of certain local public improvements for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2012 and ending December 31, 2012, including all outstanding claims and obligations, fixing a time when the same shall take effect. (Fund 619, Blackthorn Golf Course Operations) 24 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) B. South Bend Central Development Area (1) Professional services agreement addendum with The Troyer Group for Memorial Hospital area fagade improvements. Mr. Relos noted that this is a small addendum to the agreement we have with The Troyer Group which was tasked with finalizing the design plans, bid specifications, bid evaluation and construction oversight on the current improvements that are happening to the Skyway building and the skywalk between Memorial Hospital and the office building on the east side of Michigan Street. As the project progressed, the tower on the Memorial side of the building where the skywalk turns north to tie in to the Memorial campus was discovered to be right where Memorial had run its Metronet line. That had to be redesigned at an additional cost of$3,500 that was unforeseen in the original contract. He asked for approval of the addendum to the contract. Mr. Davis asked when the project would be done. Mr. Relos responded they are hoping to get the outside done yet this year, depending on the weather. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Alford and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the Professional services agreement addendum with The Troyer Group for Memorial Hospital area facade improvements. (2) Reimbursement of the Department of Administration and Finance for Economic Impact Analysis of the Morris Performing Arts Center, Palais Royale and Century Center. Mr. Kain noted that AECOM studied three city assets, the Morris Performing Arts Center, the Palais Royale and Century Center. AECOM is a global leader in analyzing public facilities such as these. The goal was to analyze what the impact is of these facilities to the downtown, as well as to look at other communities of comparable size and how those communities manage and operate similar convention centers and performing arts venues. In order to expedite the process we initially took the proposal to the Board of Public Works for approval and are asking the Commission to reimburse the city in the amount of$15,000. Mr. Davis asked whether this was part of an earlier conversation the Council had authorized which looked at the city's assets and whether we should keep them or not. Mr. Ford responded that this study will help drive the conversation about the operations of Century Center and other downtown assets. Although there have been other studies of these assets, there haven't been recent ones so we don't have any data to point to when we talk specifically about the Century Center. Secondly, the most valuable aspect of this study is benchmarking. It will not only look at our operations in South Bend, but compare them to operations in peer facilities in peer communities and where there might be room to grow or alternative models of operations that might make them more effective. 25 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) B. South Bend Central Development Area (2) continued... Mr. Davis asked how thorough the study can be when we don't have retail in and around the convention center or hotels. Mr. Ford responded that we purposely sought the services of a global firm that has unique experience with convention centers throughout the U.S. and the world so where our facilities do not exist downtown they are able to point to demographically and economically similar areas where those things do exist and identify what we're missing. It's as helpful on that end as it is on the assessment of the current operation. Mr. Alford asked if AECOM is going to assume management of these facilities, and if so, what measure is used to select such a company. Mr. Ford responded that this study is to provide information. AECOM will not take over operations or do anything at any of these downtown assets. They will clarify the picture and provide some access to best practices for these types of facilities in like communities. Mr. Downes asked how many bids they considered when selecting AECOM. Mr. Ford responded three. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Alford and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the Reimbursement of Department of Administration and Finance for the Economic Impact Analysis of the Morris Performing Arts Center, Palais Royale and Century Center. C. Airport Economic Development Area (1) Proposal for project management services related to installation of facade of Data Realty in Ignition Park Mr. Kain noted that the Data Realty facade project is underway. In a previous presentation he explained how the bidding process had gone. The initial bids for the facade work had come in quite a bit higher than the budget we had established, so we modified the scope of work and re-bid the project. The project was then awarded to Shafner Haney at the end of July, causing the installation dates to be moved back significantly. The rest of the construction of Data Realty should be complete by October 31, but additional project management will be needed from October 31 to mid-December to install the metal panels. Turner Construction which has a contract with Data Realty to manage its construction until October 31 will oversee the panel installation through December 14 for a fee of$6,500. Staff recommends approval. 26 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) C. Airport Economic Development Area (1) continued... Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Davis and unanimously carried, the Commission accepted the proposal for project management services related to installation of facade of Data Realty in Ignition Park for the scope of services and fee proposed. (2) Certificate of Completion for The Villas at Lake Blackthorn, Section One Mr. Inks noted that the Commission sold property in the Airport Economic Development Area to Cooreman Real Estate Group in 2003 for the development of the Villas at Lake Blackthorn. That project is complete in accordance with that contract. The Certificate of Completion releases any claims the Commission had on the property if the project was not completed as promised. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Davis and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the Certificate of Completion for the Villas at Lake Blackthorn, Section One. (3) Proposal for survey services related to the rezoning, replatting and vacation of excess right of way at the northwest corner of Indiana and Kemble Ave. Mr. Relos noted that Danch, Harner& Associates submitted a proposal to do the necessary planning, surveying, notifications, etc., to rezone, replat, and vacate excess right of way at the northwest corner of Indiana & Kemble. This corner consists of three parcels. The Commission owns two parcels, with the other lot occupied by Phoenix Engineering. Phoenix is in need of expanding its buildings the north and west. The Commission recently put the lots up for bid. Phoenix Engineering submitted a non-conforming bid at that time. This corner is currently zoned Mixed Use, with Phoenix being grand fathered under this zoning classification. To expand capacity, the property needs to be rezoned to Light Industrial and variances granted (setbacks, landscaping, etc.). There is also excess right of way on the south side of Phoenix's property which needs to be vacated, and the three parcels need to be replatted to allow the rezoning. The proposal totals $9,275 for the planning, surveying, and replat work, which includes attending and presenting to the Area Plan Commission, Board of Public Works, Common Council, and the Plat Committee. Filing fees to complete the work are $1,535, for a total of $10,810. Staff requests a not-to-exceed amount of$11,100, in the event other variances or miscellaneous filing fees are needed to complete the work. Mr. Varner said he would like there to be a Contract for Sale of Land in place before we spend the money for this work. Mr. Relos said that could be done, contingent upon the 27 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) C. Airport Economic Development Area (3) continued... above-noted work by Danch Harner. Mr. Relos noted that the Contract for Sale of Land would be written to prohibit certain land uses since it is adjacent to Ignition Park. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission accepted the proposal from Danch Harner and Associates for the scope of services and fee proposed, contingent upon a Contract for Sale of Land. D. West Washington-Chapin Development Area E. South Side Development Area (1) Proposal for engineering services for the Ireland Road corridor Mr. Inks noted that Wightman Petrie has submitted a proposal to provide survey services to aid the acquisition services being provided by DLZ in the Ireland Road corridor. The cost for the survey services is $3,680. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission approved the proposal from Wightman Petrie for the scope of services and fee proposed. F. Northeast Neighborhood Development Area G. Douglas Road Development Area H. Other (1) Memorandum of Understanding with the City of South Bend, Indiana and the University of Notre Dame Du Lac related to the use of Certified Tech Park funds. Upon a motion by Mr. Downes, seconded by Mr. Varner and unanimously carried, the Commission tabled Item 6.H.(1) until the November 8, 2012 meeting. 7. PROGRESS REPORTS There were no Progress Reports 28 South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting—October 25, 2012 8. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING The Next Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Commission is scheduled for 9:30 a.m., November 8, 2012. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Redevelopment Commission, Mr. Downes made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Alford seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m. W.3 i a 29