Laserfiche WebLink
4. <br />Sig <br />an <br />the <br />and <br />Mr. <br />that <br />anyc <br />figu <br />to H <br />and <br />and <br />wou 1 <br />lots <br />COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd) <br />h. HUD letter dated April 24, 1974: This letter, over the PHILADELPHIA, <br />iture of James E. Armstrong, Director Revion V, Chicago, advised INC. R -66 <br />)peal for determination regarding "Direct Property Loss" by RELOCATION <br />'hiladelphia, Inc. had been received from Mr. Theodore E. Poledor CLAIM <br />asked that the entire file on this parcel be forwarded for review. <br />elmen asked how we are going to finalize this. Mr. Lennon stated <br />we have paid relocation claim in the amount of $47,488 - and that <br />e in any area has the right to request a review. We checked our <br />es and found them to be correct so this information was forwarded <br />D and Mr. Poledor then has the opportunity to go over our heads <br />sk for a review. Mr. Helmen asked if we would wind up in court <br />r. Lennon stated that the difference is about $22,000 and it <br />have to be at their expense if we went to court. "We have spent <br />of staff time on this - it`has been going on for about two years.' <br />i. HUD Letter dated May 1, 1974: This letter, over the sig- RE -USE AP- <br />nature of Stephen D. Havens, Director of Operations Division, indicated PRAISALS -A -10 <br />that appraisals for re -use in SE #1, Project A -10, as submitted by SE #1 <br />Messrs. Eckert and Pence, are not acceptable to HUD. Further detail <br />is r quested. <br />Mr. ennon indicated the appraisers will have to go back and do what <br />HUD �as asked, just as they did on a previous unacceptable report. <br />Mr. iggins moved these communications (b) through (i) be accepted and <br />plac d on file. Mr. Chenney seconded, motion passed unanimously. <br />5. SOLD BUSINESS <br />a. The Frances Shop, Sidewalk Repair - Mr. Lennon stated that <br />there was copy of a report from Dan Akin before the Commissioners, re- <br />garding damage and recommendations for correction. Mr. Akin stated <br />that if this work had been done under the Mall contract and based on <br />pric s we are currently using, ignoring the fact there are heating <br />elements there, the work could have been done for $1,000. H. G. <br />Christman has quoted a price of $4460. and the additional money is <br />probably for damages to heating elements and coloring. Mr. Helmen <br />stated he has a memo indicating heating elements are not important <br />anym re. Mr. Lennon said our concern is that this must conform with <br />the est of the Mall. Mr. Wiggins said Mr. Fischgrund appeared at <br />the ast meeting and said that with the canopy system he did not think <br />heat ng was that vital. <br />Mr. Lennon said that we have Commission approval to try to negotiate <br />a price on what is necessary to complete the work - we say we are not <br />at fault - we are trying to conform with the Plaza, we wish you would <br />have done this last year ". <br />SIDEWALK REPAI <br />FRANCES SHOP <br />R -66 <br />Mr. lelmen asked at what point this work would have to be done without <br />the eating elements in the sidewalk. Mr. Lennon then asked Mr. Akin <br />how uickly we can complete this work if they agree - can it be done <br />in t e next six weeks. Mr. Akin said there would be no problem if Hickey <br />does it. Mr. Wiggins said he was willing to authorize payment of the <br />amou t we would have incurred originally - $1,000, and so moved. <br />-5- <br />