My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 01-16-81
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
RM 01-16-81
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2012 4:06:36 PM
Creation date
9/26/2012 11:27:42 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
South Bend edevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting - January 16, 1981 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS <br />b. continued... <br />Mr. <br />vid- <br />bu i <br />Mrs. <br />the <br />Ms. <br />Mrs, <br />McMahon: The individual lots. They will be pro- <br />ng us with boundary lines and the location of <br />dings. <br />Kolata: We will take the title commitments from <br />title companies and provide a copy to the surveyors. <br />Derbeck: For the same parcels? <br />Kolata: Yes. <br />Mr. Cira: Couldn't you get a combination of (a) and (b) <br />bot ? <br />Mr. Butler: Certainly. An abstract company could have <br />a registered land surveyor on the staff, but none of <br />them do. <br />Mr. Cira made a motion to approve an Agreement for Pro - <br />fes ional Services. with Territorial Engineering. Ms. <br />Aub rn seconded the motion and it was unanimously carri <br />COMMISSION ENTERED INTO <br />AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL <br />SERVICES WITH TERRITORIAL <br />ENGINEERING REGARDING <br />MONROE- SAMPLE AREA <br />2d. <br />c. Commission approval requested for policies related to <br />Section 312 Underwriting Standards per the recommendation <br />of the Bureau of Housing. <br />Mr. McMahon: Item (c) relates to some policies that have <br />beep brought forward to the Commission with respect to <br />the Section 312 Program. There are two basic policies <br />that are being suggested. This comes before the Commis- <br />sion because the Bureau does not have the ability or the <br />authority to establish policies and it would be a Com- <br />mission function to adopt these policies. In the first <br />case, as it is highlighted in Mrs. Baumgartner's letter <br />to us, the policy relates to the indebtedness of a client <br />getting into a 312 package, stating that their total in- <br />deb edness not exceed 70% for any approved client. As <br />I understand it, this is a HUD recommendation. Previous <br />to this time there had been no standard that was utilized <br />and I think that it is very appropriate that some stand- <br />ard be set. The second item relates to the debt that is <br />associated with the property. It states that the debt <br />should not exceed the after rehab appraisal of the prop- <br />erty. Sometimes previously it had gone up to 105% and <br />had not been limited in that regard. I personally feel <br />NO <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.