Laserfiche WebLink
South Bed Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting January 2, 1980 <br />mime <br />1'hetj were no progress reports to present <br />to t e Commission. <br />FLOOR DISCUSSIONS <br />Mr. imtz: Mr. Ellison, is the trip still <br />prop sed to Washington concerning the Odd <br />Fell ws Building? <br />Mr. Alison: At this juncture, it does not <br />appe r that it is necessary. <br />Mr. imtz:. If you do have to go, would I <br />need authorization from the Commission to go <br />or c3n I just go? <br />Mr. llison: You can just go. If the trip <br />does appear necessary, it would more likely be <br />next month. <br />The Cha# recognized Ms. Jeanne Derbeck: <br />�p4e rrbeck: I am wondering why it does not <br />necessary that you go to Washington <br />abou the Odd Fellows Building? <br />Mr. llison: I have reason to believe that <br />when the State Historic Preservation Office <br />meet on this matter, they will not forward <br />the nomination to the Keeper of the National <br />Regi ter. If the State does that, then <br />presinably the matter would be settled <br />without getting the Advisory Council, the State <br />Historic Preservation Office or the Keeper of <br />the Register involved in the determination. It <br />would obviously appear that this would be the most <br />efficient solution and less expensive to the <br />taxpayer. I have had several conversations <br />with the Keeper's staff, the Advisory Council <br />staff, and with the State Historic Preservation <br />Office, and the result of all those conversations <br />appears to suggest that the matter is going to <br />be resolved without our need to spend additional <br />time and effort on this matter. <br />-is- <br />NO PROGRESS REPORTS <br />WERE PRESENTED <br />DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING <br />ODD FELLOWS BUILDING <br />