My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 03-03-78
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
RM 03-03-78
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2012 5:06:39 PM
Creation date
9/24/2012 2:22:35 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
7. PROGRESS REPORTS, Continued <br />you have land appraised by two competent appraisers, you then have a re- <br />view appraiser come in and review the work of the other two and see if <br />they are accurate. The Review Appraiser corrects anything that needs <br />to be corrected and as a result of his work, we then bring the matter to <br />the Commission and they determine a price. The appraisers arrive at in- <br />dependent figures - then the reviewing appraiser reviews all the work and <br />recommends a selling price. <br />Ms. Derbeck: This stay order is not in effect now, but it did also stay <br />you from appraising such property as, say Wyman's, and other things which <br />wer not going to be torn down? <br />Mr. Brownell: Its very difficult to answer that question because so far <br />as I am concerned a stay order was never written, I have never seen it.. <br />I don't know what it says, the court simply says I will stay... <br />Ms. Derbeck: Do you feel that it restricted you? <br />Mr. Brownell: We didn't take any chances on violating the Judge's order, <br />when he said "stay ", we stayed. That's the way it is..the only thing that <br />was mentioned that was a violation that they mentioned was that a committee <br />was set up by the city to select an architect. I don't think anything <br />els has been charged as a violation of any kind. <br />Ms. Derbeck: Have the appraisers been able to get into Ms. Berg's and Ms. <br />Haw ey's? <br />Mr. Brownell: Yes, both appraisers got in, they wouldn't let them go through <br />the place but they did get inside. <br />Mr. Anderson: I may be beating a dead horse but are you back on any kind <br />of lime table? <br />Mr. Brownell: At the present moment, we are 30 to 45 days behind our original <br />sch dule. <br />Mr. Anderson: It is not serious - or fatal to the project? <br />Mr. Butler: Not fatal but we were operating within a very close time frame <br />anyway and this simply makes it that much tighter. <br />Lary Ford: Since you are operating under a tight time table, are you at <br />liberty to disclose how much delay you have suffered? <br />Mr. Butler: Basically, we have a deadline of April of 1979 to have the <br />pro erty available and there are about 25 steps within the process as set <br />up in the time table—there is not much leeway at all and it's much tighter <br />thar any other project in the past. <br />Ms. Derbeck: At the moment you are not under a stay and are going ahead <br />wit the appraising..you say that would take another 30 - 60 days? <br />Mr. Brownell: No, I said that it could take up to 90 days, that of course <br />is an estimate. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.