Dublin Core
Title
Box 3, Folder 6, Document 8
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
—, - - at ——
f =I TMS fT a —— 1 fh RIT
—ae
!
!
r%
OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER
CITY HALL
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
CHARLES L. DAVIS
COMPTROLLER
EDGAR A. VAUGHN, JR.
DEPUTY COMPTROLLER
September 12, 1968
Mr..Dan E. Sweat, Jr.
Director
Governmental Liaison
City Hall
Dear Dan:
We have reviewed the amended application for the Rockdale
Urban Redevelopment Project R-21 which was approved by the Board
of Aldermen on September 3, 1968. Basically, we are in agreement
with the proposed amendment, however, there are certain factors
we feel should be taken into consideration and brought to light
at this time. This amendment results in additional cost to the
City of Atlanta of $169,369.00. Of this amount $102,960.00 is
attributable to increases in administrative costs ($30,360) and
interests on temporary loans ($72,600). The major portion of the
increases are due solely to the extension of the project execution
period by 36 months.
It is our understanding that this extension in the project
execution period principally results from the reluctance of the
FHA to approve the release of construction funds over a short
period of time. They apparently have some doubt about the eco-
nomic feasibility of this type of project and believe that by
staging the project some degree of the risk can be removed.
However, Since this extension results in an increase in
Federal Government costs of more than $200,000.00 in addition to
the $169,000.00 increase in the City's share, it would seem apparent
that a reduction in the period of this extension would benefit all
parties involved. Perhaps proper channeling of this cost information
might result in a review of the risk supposedly involved and a
prompter release of funds.
September 12, 1968
Page 2
We are in no way objecting to the project amendment and
realize that there are certain Local Grant-in-Aids that might
also delay completion of the project. However, a shortening of
the project by even 12 to 24 months should result in substantial
savings while still allowing a reasonable period for completion.
Any assistance you can give us in this matter would be greatly
appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Ob wt. £8
Charles L. Davis
Comptroller
CLD: es
f =I TMS fT a —— 1 fh RIT
—ae
!
!
r%
OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER
CITY HALL
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
CHARLES L. DAVIS
COMPTROLLER
EDGAR A. VAUGHN, JR.
DEPUTY COMPTROLLER
September 12, 1968
Mr..Dan E. Sweat, Jr.
Director
Governmental Liaison
City Hall
Dear Dan:
We have reviewed the amended application for the Rockdale
Urban Redevelopment Project R-21 which was approved by the Board
of Aldermen on September 3, 1968. Basically, we are in agreement
with the proposed amendment, however, there are certain factors
we feel should be taken into consideration and brought to light
at this time. This amendment results in additional cost to the
City of Atlanta of $169,369.00. Of this amount $102,960.00 is
attributable to increases in administrative costs ($30,360) and
interests on temporary loans ($72,600). The major portion of the
increases are due solely to the extension of the project execution
period by 36 months.
It is our understanding that this extension in the project
execution period principally results from the reluctance of the
FHA to approve the release of construction funds over a short
period of time. They apparently have some doubt about the eco-
nomic feasibility of this type of project and believe that by
staging the project some degree of the risk can be removed.
However, Since this extension results in an increase in
Federal Government costs of more than $200,000.00 in addition to
the $169,000.00 increase in the City's share, it would seem apparent
that a reduction in the period of this extension would benefit all
parties involved. Perhaps proper channeling of this cost information
might result in a review of the risk supposedly involved and a
prompter release of funds.
September 12, 1968
Page 2
We are in no way objecting to the project amendment and
realize that there are certain Local Grant-in-Aids that might
also delay completion of the project. However, a shortening of
the project by even 12 to 24 months should result in substantial
savings while still allowing a reasonable period for completion.
Any assistance you can give us in this matter would be greatly
appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Ob wt. £8
Charles L. Davis
Comptroller
CLD: es
Comments