RM 10-21-77 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR C MMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 21, 1977 Page Four 4. COMMUNICATIONS (CONT'D) the cnly problem would be the delay, and Mr. Wiggins indicated that tele hone approval would be fine, that no one wants to delay action we j st want to know what is being done. Jeanne Derbeck asked what was going to be done about the vandalism? Mr. Wiggins added that it wasn t legal to shoot them, but a request to the City Administration to beef up police patrol of that area might be in order. Mr. Wiggins also added that as more things happen in the Block 6 area a built in type of surveillance would exist. Mr. Butler wondered if we could purSILe with the Park Department, as we have not entered into a contract with the contractor, perhaps we could proceed with sale of the land to a public body, and a provision in that contract turning poss ssion over to them with additional provision that they bear the cost of all maintenance and repairs, including those that are necessitated by vandalism. Mr. Robinson said that was going to be the next motion but we hadn't voted on the first one yet. All were in favor of the first motion unanimously and Mr. Robinson asked the Chairman to entertain a motion to authorize the executive director and egal counsel to enter into negotiations with the Park Department and he City Administration to relieve us of the park and all responsi- bili y therein. Mr. Nimtz indicated he would entertain such a motion., Mr. onaldson supported the motion. Mr. Nimtz added that to clarify the IUD regulations, that is the reason this hasn't been fully and legally turned over to them. Mr. Brownell added that HUD objected to the City paying us for this particular property, as we wanted the Park Department to take down Community Development funds to buy the park from us and we would take those funds back on the project notes. HUD is perfectly agreeable to taking the money down from Community Development and putting it on the notes, but they don't agree to the sale of the land, our price on it is $160,000.00, HUD paid for the park once and they don't want to pay for it again. If they don't give in, once we get the project notes completed and paid off, why I would then suggest that we deed the land to the City, for a dollar or something of that sort. A combination of HUD officials are saying no, so there is widespread objection. Mr. Nimtz asked if there was any further discussion, all were in favor of Mr. Robinson's motion and it w s carried. The Chair added that the situation would be looked into to see if HUD approval can be gotton. 5. OLD BUSINESS a) A reement between redevelopers and the Redevelopment Commission r garding the purchase of project land. Mr. Brownell recommended that this be put over to the next meeting in as much as the contract or agreement has not been approved by HUD. Mr. Nimtz added unless there was objection, this would be continued over to the November 4th meeting. With no objections the Chair so directed this action.