Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting –January 18, 2008 <br /> <br />6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) <br /> <br />I. Other <br /> <br />(1) continued… <br /> <br />money into a project on the front end that we <br />feel compelled to go ahead with it. Mr. <br />Leone responded that that language is taken <br />directly from State Statute and is intended to <br />be “limiting language” in the sense that the <br />Commission can’t spend money on anything <br />other than property it has expressed an <br />interest in. <br /> <br />Mr. Peczkowski asked if “expressed an <br />interest in” must be in writing, or simply in <br />an informal discussion. Mr. Leone <br />responded that the Commission can limit that <br />in any way it feels comfortable. <br /> <br />Mr. Inks noted that staff will be very <br />conservative about application of that phrase. <br />He has no interest in bringing a list of <br />contracts to the Commission to be ratified <br />only to find out there is dissatisfaction with <br />the transaction. <br /> <br />Mr. Peczkowski asked about the form of the <br />Commission’s approval of contracts. Will <br />the Commission see the list of contracts the <br />staff has engaged? Will it have to approve <br />the list all or nothing? Mr. Leone responded <br />that the entire list will appear as an agenda <br />item at the Commission meeting following <br />staff engagement of a vendor; technically, the <br />Commission has the right to not ratify any <br />portion of the list. However, services may <br />already have been performed. If the <br />Commission gives the staff authority to act <br />on its behalf and the staff acts, the <br />Commission would be in a difficult legal <br /> 17 <br /> <br />