Box 3, Folder 7, Document 48

Box 3, Folder 7, Document 48

(5) The requested increase in administrative costes is alse confusing. It

is stated that the present costs in this line item are computed at the rate

of $19,800 per month. Based on this rate, the total cost given by AHA is
$443,400 (from April, 1969, to the completion date of July, 1971 -- a period

of 28 months). With an unencumbered balance of $193,505, a net adjustment
(inerease) of $360,900 is requested. Based on the total cost as shown by

AHA, the correct net adjustment would be $249,895; however, $19,800 per month
for 28 months gives a total cost of $554,500 which, when reduced by the unencumbered
balance, requires a net adjustment of $360,895 -- a difference of $5 from the
request. ‘The given total cost would cover a period of only 22.4 months, based
on the given rate. This does not conform to the extension period ef April 1969,
through July 1971.

We appreciate your cooperation in past matters and trust that your department
will soon send us a reply to the above questions.

Yours very truly,

Charles L. Davis
Director of Finance

CLD: DMH: jel
Jee: Dan Sweat










ee, <a e e

CITY OF ATLANTA

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
501 CITY HALL
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303



July 29, 1969

CHARLES L. DAVIS
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

EDGAR A. VAUGHN, JR.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

W. ROY SMITH
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

Mr. Howard Openshaw
Director of Redevelopment
Atlanta Housing Authority
824 Hurt Building
Atlanta, Georgia

Dear Howard:

After reviewing the changes incorporated in Amendatory Application No. 1
for Project GA. R-90 (West End Redevelopment Area) I want to inform |
you that the requested adjustments to Project Expenditures Budget No. 6
are acceptable to the Department of Finance. However, there are some
oretios which we feel deserve answers from your department; they are
as follows:

(1) With reference to the 34 parcels determined not to be feasible for
rehabilitation, but which will be added to acquisition; there is no
breakdown provided in the narrative statement as to the cost of acquiring
these parcels.

(2) Similarly, the individual parcel coste (which will be deleted from
Acquisition Expenses) are not listed in the narrative statement, so these
cannot be checked against originally projected costs of acquisition.

(3) Street widening activities being undertaken by the City on Gordon
Street are not reported in the narrative statement.

(4) With regard to the increased interest costs, there appears to be

an error in the narrative statement accompanying the Project Expenditures
Budget. Computation of total interest cost from March 31, 1969, indicates
total interest of $624,500 and a net increase of $493,400. When the
unencumbered balance of $131,441.00 is deducted from the total interest cost
of $624,500, the net inerease is $493,059, whieh differs from the given
computation by $341. In addition, the interest to DHUD is increased by
$10,653 with the only explanation being a correction for a small overrun;
we feel that more information should be disclosed by the Housing Authority
with reference to this increase. (It ie somewhat frightening to note that
the = in time will cost the City over one-half million dollars in
interest).