Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting — Thursday, August 15, 2013 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) <br />G. Ratification of Services Contracts <br />Mr. Inks asked for clarification of the issue. Does the owner no longer want to sell, or are they <br />asking for a larger price? Mr. Relos responded that the owner is asking for more money. Ms. <br />Schey responded that the property next to them (1505 Kendall, which is a business) was sold to <br />the Redevelopment Commission for $350,000. The Commission in November 2011 offered <br />$59,100 for the home next to that business. <br />Mr. Varner noted that this is one of those things that, once it's done, will haunt anybody that is <br />involved unless the whole story is put out there for anyone who's interested to understand. He's <br />asked Dave "have you got the worksheets, have you got the explanation, have you justification <br />for the price that the owners of 1509 S. Kendall agreed to ?" He doesn't mind delaying the vote <br />on this if people can get their questions answered. <br />Mr. Relos noted that the family does know how the purchase price was arrived at. From staff <br />research back on 2011, the mortgage was two years past due and is probably further past due <br />now. There are delinquent taxes and at least $12,000 in liens from the various children who have <br />inherited the property. The Commission is already going well over the appraised value to pay <br />those things off. <br />Mr. Downes did not like the precedent that would be set by reconsidering the price for this <br />property: if you make an agreement with the Redevelopment Commission, then you decide <br />because of some later, related deal that you didn't get a good enough deal, then you are going to <br />go to the Common Council who had no authority over the transaction and complain about it. If <br />they wanted to appeal the deal, they should have come to the Redevelopment Commission. <br />Ms. Schey pointed out that many members of the public don't understand the difference between <br />the elected and appointed bodies and what those bodies are charged with. She believes it is the <br />responsibility of the members of those bodies to work with the residents to help clarify those <br />roles. <br />Mr. Relos noted that ratifying these purchase agreement changes doesn't stop any of that from <br />happening. The changes are so the mortgage processor can decide whether they are going to <br />accept the short sale paperwork or not. They might come back and say that, after all, they don't <br />want to accept the short sale paperwork. Then we would be back at square one. <br />Ms. Schey asked when the purchase agreement needs to be signed. Mr. Meteiver responded that <br />this is a ratification of action already taken. The family is represented by a lawyer and should be <br />able to get most of their questions answered by the lawyer rather than running to the Common <br />Council in an attempt to circumvent the Commission's process. <br />Mr. Relos noted that he has received no word from the family or their lawyer about any <br />displeasure. <br />15 <br />