My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 03-12-82
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
RM 03-12-82
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2012 3:57:02 PM
Creation date
9/26/2012 2:49:06 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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 Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting - March 12, 1982 <br />6. NEW 3USJINESS (continued) <br />d. conftinued... <br />The next item states the lease has commenced and that <br />the e has been a transfer of possession. <br />The following item would be a <br />part that as of this date Fir: <br />in any of the key areas, that <br />str ction when required, that <br />any of the non - discriminatory <br />the are not currently nor do <br />pro erty for any purposes not <br />Urb n Renewal Plan. <br />certification on our <br />3t Bank is not in default <br />they have commenced con - <br />they have not violated <br />clauses of the lease and <br />they intend to use the <br />permitted under the <br />The last major item is a clarification of defaults. <br />The -e is an operating agreement that was entered into <br />in addition to the lease agreement, and that mainten- <br />anca and operation agreement does make reference to <br />certain defaults that could occur. These would not <br />be efaults that would give rise to redevelopment <br />terminating the lease, so we have essentially defined <br />those types of things that would give rise to termina- <br />tion of the lease, such as non - payment under the terms <br />of the lease and made the distinction between those <br />items that would give us a legal cause of action for <br />rei bursement but are not serious enough yet to re- <br />qui e that we would terminate the whole lease arrange- <br />men . <br />The last item would be just a statement that there <br />wou d be no other amendments without the approval of <br />the mortgagee, Detroit National Bank. I would em- <br />pha is that other than the clarification of the de- <br />faults that most of these tend to be assurances or <br />commitments that First Bank, as of this date, is in <br />compliance with the terms of the lease, for what <br />that ground lease was intended to require of First <br />Bank. I might also add that I do believe that these <br />ameiidments should be submitted to HUD for their <br />app oval. I don't think that they will find anything <br />con t ained in the amendments to be objectionable. <br />Upo <br />Rob <br />to <br />sub <br />a motion made by Ms. Auburn, seconded by Mr. <br />nson and unanimously carried, the First Amendment <br />round Lease with FBT Bancorp, Inc. was approved, <br />ect to approval by HUD. <br />FIRST AMENDMENT TO GROUND <br />LEASE WITH FBT BANCORP, <br />INC. WAS APPROVED, SUB - <br />JECT TO APPROVAL BY HUD <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.