Board of Aldermen — 9/12/17 Page 32
President McCarthy
If | understood the intent of Alderman Siegel’s motion, we are allowed to buy the building under the terms of
the resolution. We would hold it for two years and then decide what to do with it instead if the $4 million was
not forthcoming in that timeframe. Is that what you had in mind, Alderman Siegel?
Alderman Siegel
That would be correct.
Alderman Deane
The other question | had was to our Mayor. We are currently being sued by an alderman and a resident
pertaining to the supposedly Spending Cap violation. Has that had any net effect on our bond rating or
perhaps could it have a net effect on our bond rating? Is bond counsel looking at that as pending litigation?
Attorney Bolton
That’s not the kind of thing bond counsel opines on. Bond counsel is retained by us to give opinions as to the
binding effect that the bond commits the city to and to opine that all the procedures necessary to bind the city
were properly followed. It may be that there are other consultants who could opine to us whether the existence
of that suit, or the two consolidated suits, would have an effect. But as far as | know, and | believe | am clear
on this, we have not been downgraded. My personal opinion is it is very likely that we will not be downgraded
just because of the pendency of the suits. The only way that we would be downgraded is if the result of the
suit causes the city to take some action that negatively affects the future prospects of the city paying its debt. |
think that is unlikely to happen.
Mayor Donchess
| reiterate what Attorney Bolton said. There is a hearing scheduled on October 23. Following that there will be
a decision one way or the other. | believe that we are going to be successful. If we are not, we will deal with it.
| think the end result will not affect the bond rating. We have definitely not been downgraded now. There’s no
way the suit has caused the city to lose anything on the bond rating to date, and | don’t think it will in the future.
Alderman Dowd
It has always been predicated that they will raise that money so | have not problem with the amendment.
There are a lot of checks and balances that we have in this whole process. We will have to negotiate the cost
of the building. It could go up or down. No expense can be made, none, without going through the Finance
Committee and having a hearing. If it is over a certain amount of money it is going to have to go back to the
full Board for the final expenditure. Then you’ve got the raising of the endowment to cover the cost, which by
the way we can keep evaluating in talking with our consultants and everybody to make sure that that
endowment is the right amount of money. Construction wouldn't start until all those steps, so we wouldn't be
spending the bond money, and only half of it over one year and half over another year. This is a project that
has a thousand steps. If we don’t start with the first step, we are never going to get there. It is time to take that
step.
President McCarthy
What the city attorney suggests is at the end of the next to the last paragraph, the one that begins with “No
borrowing for the renovation or construction...” we add a sentence that says: “This resolution shall expire two
years from its effective date in the event that the $4 million in private funds have not been raised prior to that
date.”
