Laserfiche WebLink
4. COMMUNICATIONS <br />a. Chicago <br />URA letter of December 7, 1965 asks for <br />R -39 SURVEY AND <br />additional <br />information on the R -39, Central Core, Survey <br />PLANNING. URA <br />and`Plann <br />ng Application, even though the South Bend <br />REQUEST. FOR <br />Redevelopment <br />Department was led to believe that an early <br />ADDITIONAL INFO. <br />approval <br />would be received. A policy change at HHFA <br />requires <br />hat the LPA now submit the anticipated appraisal <br />of all three <br />acquisition appraisals, instead of only the <br />first one <br />therefore, with title service cost and revised <br />reserve a <br />d contingencies, this would increase the application <br />by approximately <br />$93,000. <br />b. I response to the Trustees letters to the Commis- COMMISSIONERS <br />sioners, ated December 7, 1965, Mr. Louis motioned to give ACCEPTANCE OF <br />the Trust es a verbal "thank you" for their confidence -in REAPPOINTMENT. <br />the Commi sioners. The motion was heartily approved, upon <br />the secon of Mr- :4 Koczan. <br />5. BID PROPOSALS FOR REAL ESTATE R -7 <br />There are two interested businesses in Tract 1(a),- Which R -7. TWO <br />tract Uni ed Beverage was formerly interested in: -W4 INTERESTED <br />first business has asked to be allowed at least two weeks PARTIES IN <br />longer to make its decision. Therefore, the Redevelopment TRACT I(a). <br />Departmen has the promise of both interested parties to <br />wait unti the first of the new year to finalize preliminary <br />negotiati ns. Close: to 60% of 'the - land is now -sold -in <br />Sample St eet, R -7. ._. <br />6. OLD EXISINESS <br />Further action was'.taken at this time on the letter.`from R -39 SURVEY AND <br />URA of De ember-7, 1965, which'requested a resn.bmission of PLANNING <br />addition funds - allowing for second and third acquisition <br />appraisal in the Central Core, R -39 project. The Commis- <br />sion approved the motion by Mr. Kompar, seconded by <br />Mr. Louis that Mr. Hammerschmidt and Mr. Chong.explore the <br />possibili y of' deferring revision of the budget which -would <br />necessity a re'submissioi,to the South Bend "Common Council, <br />and, fail ng, to prepare the necessary documents "for "pre- <br />sentation to the first South Bend Common Council :meeting in-- <br />1966.. This motion also approved revision of the budget and <br />the—resolution previously acted upon by'the Redevelopment <br />Cordmis'siox. It was explained by Mr. Wiggins that the Add <br />the title service and appraisal costs would "not <br />mean expe diture of these funds until- necess -Ary', but `they <br />would have to be included ultimately in the total project <br />cost. <br />-2- <br />