|
4. COMMUNICATIONS
<br />a. iUD Area Office letter dated September 12, 1975: This letter,
<br />ver the signature of Mr. Stephen J. Havens, Acting Director,
<br />ommunity Planning and Development, approves Change Order Nos.
<br />6 and 17, to Contract No. 5, for a decrease to contract, in
<br />mounts of $1,808.24 and $4,266.76, or revised contract estimate
<br />f: $2,799,264.29, with The Hickey Company, Phase III, Project
<br />ndiana R -66.
<br />UD 4217 contract change order concurrence form was enclosed
<br />ith the letter.
<br />tion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and
<br />rried, to receive the above letter and place on file.
<br />HUD CONCURS,
<br />CHANGE ORDERS,
<br />NOS. 16 & 17,
<br />TO CONTRACT 5
<br />R -66
<br />b. Block 6 Proposal, Project Indiana R -66: Mr. C. Wayne Brownell, BLOCK 6
<br />Executive Director, Department of Redevelopment, briefly out- PROPOSAL,
<br />fined the letter dated September 9, 1975, received from Inter- INTERNATIONAL
<br />national Constructors Company, signed by Mr. Gordon E. Medlock, CONSTRUCTORS,
<br />r. R -66
<br />nternational Constructors Company is asking, if we do not
<br />ward Block 6 to any other bidder or accept some other proposal,
<br />o negotiate with them and put 225 units by land -use change for
<br />he elderly, or if we don't do that, they would like to have us
<br />gree to sell two acres to them for the elderly housing with
<br />he 200 -unit maximum.
<br />r. Gordon Medlock, spokesman for International Constructors
<br />ompany, said they do feel that Block 6- -the southern two
<br />cres - -is a desirable location for the elderly high -rise, and
<br />that they would like to have some assurance that if nothing
<br />Else is done on Block 6, that a successful bid on their part
<br />or the 225 units for the elderly high -rise could show the
<br />ability to control the land, and that HUD has indicated that
<br />an award of Section 8 housing is not going to be made unless
<br />his is more evident than it is at the present time. He ad-
<br />vised they are simply asking that the Commission consider
<br />hat, in light of the fact that they are apparently taking
<br />longer to dispose of Block 6 than they had anticipated last
<br />pril, when they started this.
<br />Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Cira and
<br />carried, to receive the above letter and place on file.
<br />c. S PF Proposal for Block 6, Project Indiana R -66: Mr. Brownell BLOCK 6
<br />advised we have another proposal which has been brought to us PROPOSAL,
<br />oi Block 6 from another group of potential investors,, dated SSPF, INC.
<br />S ptember 4, 1975, which was not received in time for our R -66
<br />list Commission meeting, and since then they have brought in
<br />ai additional proposal which we received in the present form
<br />yesterday. Mr. Brownell advised he had talked to them last
<br />evening and agreed to have them make their presentation in to-
<br />day's meeting, and thought this would come under communica-
<br />tions at this point.
<br />- 4 -
<br />
|