RM 12-15-72 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9. NSW BUSINESS (Co_nt'd) that this bid be held in abeyance until we receive the bids for the total parcels; then the Commission, at that time, con- sider tie highest and best use for that parcel. The Chair asked if the parcels specified include Dan Clark's property and Mr. Taylor said it does. Mr. Louis Chapleau, Attorney representing Office Engineers, ad- dressed himself to the Commission. Mr. Chapleau stated that, because of property lost by his client due to Urban Renewal, it was imperative that his client obtain additional space. Mr. Chapleaj stated further that in his opinion Parcel 4 -30A should not be included in the offering proposed at this meeting be- cause C mmission action on his client's bid proposal in Decem- ber 1, 1972 went further than simply receiving the bid and de- ferring action. Mr. Tay or said that the Commission cannot legally award a bid proposal until it has been reviewed and approved by the Com- mission's Legal Counsel, the Commission has declared it the highest and best bid, and HUD concurs in the redeveloper as capable of undertaking the proposed redevelopment. Mr. Chapleau then stated that Office Engineers is prepared to go ahead with the contractor. Office Engineers is prepared to let contract to proceed with the construction, if it would be permitted to do so. The Board should consider this and if they do advertise, they should except Parcel 4 -30A from this offerin He asked the Board to let his client know when the Commiss on is ready to proceed and close the transaction. Mr. Wig ins made the motion to authorize the advertising for sale of the designated parcels and approval of the minimum bid prices specified. The Commission discussed whether Parcel 4 -30A should be in- cluded in the offering. Mr. Butler, Legal Counsel, suggested that after the bids are received on February 2, 1973, at that time the Commission may make its determination concerning Parcel -30A based on a number of factors, including any ac- commoda ion which might be reached among interested parties. Mr. Wig ins amended his motion to authorize advertising of the des gnated parcels, but separating Parcel 4 -30 into the redesig ated Parcels 4 -30A and 4 -30B with corresponding land areas a d minimum bid prices. Mr. Chenney seconded the mo- tion an it was passed unanimously. b Acquisition Parcel No. 4 -13: Commission approval was requested for settlement on Acquisition Parcel No. 4 -13, with Julius L. Tucker, per letter from his attorney dated November 27, 1972, R -66 Project. Motion �or approval, as shown above, was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconde by Mr. Chenney, and unanimously carried. ACQUISITION PARCEL NO. 4 -13 SETTLEMENT APPROVED, R -66