Laserfiche WebLink
COMMISSIONERS' REGULAR MEETING <br />Page 3 <br />Friday December 3, 1976 <br />4. <br />5. OL <br />a, <br />W4119 <br />Project R -66. Mr. Brownell read this letter and Mr. Nimtz <br />then explained (for the benefit of everyone) that this matter <br />goes back a number of years and concerns the relocation of the <br />I & M.lines in the downtown area. There is a case in the Indiana <br />Supreme Court concerning Columbia City, Indiana, where it was <br />held that the city and the Redevelopment Department are respon- <br />sible for the expense of relocating these electric lines. It <br />has been felt - going back to Mr. Helmen's day - that this <br />should not be paid until HUD approved it. The approval has <br />been a long time in coming but they have finally approved this <br />payment and we will work out the cash flow problem and pay the <br />claim after the first of the year. Mr. McGill, the attorney <br />who represents the I & M has been so advised. <br />Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Cira and carried <br />to.receive the above communications and place them on file. <br />.D BUSINESS <br />Hasler v. Columbia Storage Warehouse Company, Inc. et al <br />Litigation, Cause No. F -6942, St. Joseph Superior Court, Project <br />Ind. R -66, recommendation for settlement: C. Wayne Brownell read <br />a letter from George T. Patton dated November 24, 1976 in which <br />Mr. Patton briefly outlined the situation concerning this law- <br />suit and recommended settlement in the amount of $4,000.00. Mr. <br />Brownell indicated that he had talked to the Regional Office in <br />Chicago about this matter and we have settled two previous law <br />suits in this same fire loss. The Regional Office therefore <br />suggested that if we would send them a letter along with our <br />attorney's letter of recommendation, they would consider the <br />matter and give us a ruling as to the eligibility of the payment <br />under the project. They thought however that this cost would be <br />eligible just as the other two were declared eligible. <br />HASLER V. <br />COLUMBIA <br />STOR. WARE. <br />LITIGATION <br />CAUSE NO., <br />F -6942 <br />COMMISSION <br />APPROVAL <br />PENDING <br />HUD CONCUR. <br />AMOUNT OF <br />$4,000.00 <br />The Chair asked if the Commission should approve the settle- <br />ment today and Mr. Brownell indicated that would be all right. <br />Mr. Cara inquired as to whether the Columbia Warehouse was a <br />wholesale outlet for Mr. Hasler's business. Mr. Patton said that <br />it was and Mr. Cira then wanted to know if there was no insurance <br />at all on the merchandise there. Mr. Patton stated that apparently <br />they did not have any for the merchandise, that is what Fireman's <br />Fund is involved in, they have money coming on this too. There <br />are six or seven parties involved -with the proposed settlement <br />being much more than this $4,000.00 of course. Mr. Nimtz said <br />that seemed to be the case with a lot of these tenants, they had <br />no insurance on the stuff they had in the building. <br />