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 Mee ing - January 16, 1981 <br />6. NEW BUS NESS <br />c. Mr. McMahon continues... <br />quite strongly that we shouldn't exceed the after <br />rehab cost and feel that a guideline along this line <br />will be very appropriate. <br />Kathy, do you have anything to add to my comments? <br />Mrs Baumgartner: Just that we did try to get the <br />mos conservative reading from HUD as to how they <br />int rpret the 312 package when it comes down to them. <br />As you are aware, some of the approvals that we have <br />mad have been countermanded by HUD because they have <br />thr e representatives and they do not all have the <br />sam standards. So that something like this would <br />not happen to the city again, we wish to find the <br />mos conservative stand by each of the three repre- <br />sen atives and then adopt that as our policy so we <br />will not be countermanded. <br />Mr. Cira: We worked on the guidelines before. <br />Mrs. Baumgartner: It is subject to interpretation. <br />It' what the particular HUD representative wishes <br />to inderwrite. <br />Mr. Cira: Why did we wait all this time before we <br />got into something like this? <br />Mr. McMahon I think it was necessary first to estab- <br />lisi a pattern, because they hadn't come forward and <br />vol nteered information saying that we have a problem <br />wit anything over 105% or with anything over 70% as <br />far as the client indebtedness itself is concerned. <br />Als , we were receiving a number of them back that <br />precipitated an inquiry down there as to why. While <br />HUD doesn't have any formal guidelines, we have de- <br />ter fined their informal guidelines and this is what <br />we're recommending be adopted. <br />Mr. Butler: Kathy, under item (a) a percent indebt- <br />edness shall not exceed 70 %, 70% of the after appraised <br />value? <br />Mrs. Baumgartner: No, of their gross income. <br />Mr. McMahon: This is the client's personal indebted- <br />ness. There is a HUD form right on the back of the <br />le ter from Kathy that outlines how one determines <br />what that indebtedness is and how the percentage is <br />w <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.