My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Financial- Vandermay Law Firm (Previous Tenant)
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Financial- Vandermay Law Firm (Previous Tenant)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2012 3:43:48 PM
Creation date
9/9/2011 3:38:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10238
Title
Financial- Vandermay Law Firm (Previous Tenant)
Company
Marion County
BLDG Date
12/12/1998
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Finance
Project ID
CS9801 Courthouse Square Construction
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
141
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
~ <br />~ ~ <br />claim in a letter sent to the claimant August 28, 1998 (attached) to which the claimant responded <br />by letter on September 8, 1~8 (attached), because it appeared that the property in question <br />(reception station and bookcases) was attached or "affixed" to the building and was "unmovable" <br />(see descriptions of the property on the attached Substitute Personal Property Claim form). <br />Property that is "attached or affixed" in a more or less permanent manner has historically been <br />considered real property. The guiding criteria in the Code of Federal Reguladons is the <br />following: <br />49 C.F.R. 24.105(b) ~.ip,~vvements considered to ~, re~l prQpert~ Any <br />building, structure, ar other improvement, which would be considered to be real <br />property if owned by the owner of the real property on which it is located, shall <br />be considered to be real property for purposes of this Subpart. <br />It is this reviewers opinion that the property in question is "real" property, not "personal" <br />property, and therefore does r~c~t qualify under the provision for loss of tangible personal <br />property, notwithstanding ttte elaimant's assertion (see letter) that they were never advised by <br />agents of the County to seek campensation as a part of the acquisition of the building by Marion <br />County. <br />However, under 49 C.F.R 24.105, there are provisions for payment of tenant-owned <br />improvements, under certain circumstances, as part of the acquisition process. The cost of these <br />improvements at the replacemexit site have mented. It may therefore be appropriate <br />for the County to consider paytnent of the 5 933.33 the clai~nant as part of the real property <br />acquisition pr~ess if it is determined that the payment is justified. <br />** A claim of $1,082.50 was submitted for this item. However, it included reimbursement for <br />the original stationery. The relocation act only provides for the cost of "replacing" the <br />stationery. Therefore, the amount was reduced in half per the actual documented costs. <br />In summary, the relocation benefits claimed and documented that are allowed under the Federal <br />Act are as follows: <br />Search for Replacement Site: $ 1, 000. 00 <br />Reestablishment Expenses: 10,000.00 <br />Related Moving Expenses: 5,556.25 <br />$16,556.25 <br />If you have any questions regarding this determination or if I ean provide you any additional <br />information, please call me. <br />Sincerely, <br />~ °~~,...~. <br />Roger anna, Relocation Consultant <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.