My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 11-07-63
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1960-1969
>
1963
>
RM 11-07-63
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/6/2012 3:04:01 PM
Creation date
9/6/2012 12:39:27 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
VI. <br />The Commission, on motion made by Mr. Place; seconded by Mr. Williams <br />and unanimously carried, approved the appointment of.Mr. Charles <br />Davis of Saginaw, Michigan, as Relocation Director of the Chapin <br />Street Project Indiana R -29 Relocation Office, at a starting annual <br />salary 9f $7,500. <br />VII. <br />Km <br />INDIANA R -29 PROJECT <br />On motion made by Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Koczan and unanimously <br />carried the Commission approved the requisition for Project Temporary <br />Loan Note #k2 to cover Preliminary Loan Note #1 for Project Indiana <br />R -29, C apin Street, in the amount of $1,009,447_ <br />VIII I�ROGRESS REPORT <br />On motion <br />made by Mr. Helmen, seconded by Mr. <br />Williams, <br />WOLTMAN <br />and una <br />imously carried,`the Commission, upon <br />review of <br />PROPERTY <br />the restUts <br />of the jury trial on the Woltman <br />property, <br />PARCEL 9 -1 <br />Parcel <br />-1, Indiana R--7 approved the payment <br />of $17,400 <br />IND. R -7 <br />awardedby the Jury for this parcel, subject to the <br />approva of the HHFA Regional office. <br />The Attorney <br />for the Commission, Mr. Baer, directed the <br />INTERSTATE <br />attenti <br />n of the Commission to the suit of the Inters:.tate <br />DEMOLITION <br />Demolition <br />Corporation against the Redevelopment Depart- <br />CORP. <br />ment and <br />advised in writing that by reason of having to <br />IND. R-7 <br />be a witness <br />in the case upon notice by Plaintiff, he <br />could n <br />t defend the action because of Canon 19 of Pro- <br />fessional <br />Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association. <br />Counsel <br />advised that he turned this matter over to the City <br />Attorney <br />and his staff for defense both on behalf of the <br />City of <br />South Bend and the Department of Redevelopment and <br />that the <br />City Attorneys would defend this action unless <br />otherwise <br />instructed by the Redevelopment Commission. <br />Mr. Baer <br />recommended that this proposal be adopted by the <br />Commission.. <br />On motion made by Mr. Koczan, seconded by <br />Mr. He <br />en and unanimously carried, it was agreed that the <br />above <br />ction be taken. <br />Mr. Sucl <br />after a <br />the S aml <br />people 3 <br />r told the Commission that several months ago, SUPPLEMENT - <br />evised development plan has been submitted on ARY REUSE <br />e Street Indiana,R -7 Project to HHFA, the Federal APPRAISAL <br />quested that three revised disposition appraisals IND. R -7 <br />EM <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.