Minutes 12/16/1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

27i December 16, 1975 Authority and also the conversion!of this property into an elderly housing development· Each of these proposed uses was reviewed by the Housing Authority because of the determina that the plans were not financially feasible. The proposed purchase of the property was rejected because the motel facility was newly constructed and did not qualify for acquisition or rehabilitation as a part of the Effingham Project. In fact, the Effingham Project was planned around the motel facility since this structure was one of the newer buildings in the area. The elderly housing development was also reviewed because of the substantial cost which would have been required for conversion of the building for use by the elderly. I have enclosed for your information copies of correspondence from PRFL& outlining in more detail the basis for each of the decisions which was made in regards to Mr. Moody's property. In October of 1975, the Social Services Department approached Mr. Moody concerning the possibility of leasing all or a portion of the motel facilities. On two occasions, Mr. Robert Bridges, Director of the Socia of his staff, and a representative of the Agent met with Mr. Moody to discuss the p of the building and the preparation of an offer was made to Mr. Moody on October 28 six of the motel rooms for a monthly rent nine motel rooms in a detached building f At this time, Mr. Moody was represented b and Miller. Mr. Moody's response to this for a monthly rental of $2,500. Mr. Mood Services Department was not in a position A subsequent proposal for leasing of a po per month was made by the Social Services Moody or his attorney as to this offer. On November 24, 1975, Mr. Moody cont City Attorney's office inquiring about th rooms as a day care center. His proposal motel rooms to the Social Services Depart rooms to be operated as the day care cent establishment were forwarded to Mr. Moody understanding that Mr. Moody would contac after he had determined that the rooms co' At this time, no further response has bee: this building. I have attached for your details of these negotiations by the City Motion of Mr. Oast and seconded by M by unanimous vote. 1 Services Department, along with other members City Attorney's office and the City Real Estate pssible use of his property. After examination appraisal by the City Real Estate Agent, an , 1975, to lease the restaurant facilities and ~1 of $800. This arrangement would have left ~r Mr. Moody to operate as a private business. f Ray Strople of the law firm of Moody, McMurran offer was a proposed lease of part of the facilitie~ ~ and his attorney were advised that the Social to make that kind of commitment for rental property. ~tion of the building in the amount of $1,000 Department. No response was received from Mr. ~cted the Social Services Department and the ~ possibility of operating the nine remaining motel was to lease the restaurant facilities and sxx dent as originally contemplated, leaving the addi' ~r. Copies of the rules and regulations for the and his attorney on November 28, 1975, with the : the representative of the Social Services Det lid be converted for use as a day care center. received from Mr. Moody concerning any use of information a copy of a memorandum outlinifig the Attorney's office." · . Early, to be received as informatRon, was adopted 7S-$BB - Report of field trip -- concerning codes enforcement, abandoned autos, etc: "Following a field trip taken by several members of the City Council, a list of problems and items to be corrected was compiled by the Director of the Office of Economic Analysis and Information, who requested that the Dmpartment Heads involved take necessary action to clear the violations listed. The Office of Economic Analysis recently checked with the departments which handled the complaints and advise me that most of the violations have been rectified either by owner compliance or by City clearance. The violations which are still outstanding are enumerated below and their status explained. 1. 1260 Chestnut Street Partial compliance. O%mer has been given an extension ~byc%he Health Department. 2. Has been completed. 2508 Chestnut Street Most of the debris has been removed. A few large pieces of the foundation remain and the o~mer has been notified by letter dated December 1, 1975, that these materials must be removed within fifteen days. 1118 Wilcox Avenue Has not co~plied! and the matter has been referred to the City Attorney's Office by the Health Department· 5=8. Has been completed. 10. 1520 Summit Avenue Is still occupied and the Redevelopment and Housing Authority is trying tennant. The Health Departmen~ institute court procedures if corrected. 2930 Lansing Avenue Progress changed hands and the new owne~ December 1, 1975, to complete fifteen days. Portsmouth to relocate the has been instructed to ecessary to have this violation as been made. Property has was notified by letter dated emoval of debris within 11. Has been completed. 12. C ~ W Motors, Portsmouth Bouleyard & Columbus- Partial compliance has been accomplished. Property has changed owners and the new owner has promised to comply fully with the Code.