Board of Aldermen Page 13
April 12, 2016
A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Dowd, 8
Alderman Caron, Alderman Siegel, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy
Nay: Alderman Deane, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Schoneman, 6
Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty
MOTION CARRIED
Alderman Schoneman
While we didn’t vote on the legislation itself and while the result is exactly the same as it would have been had
we debated for a long time, we will debate it undoubtedly later, | think it is abundantly clear that there were not
ten votes to support it and there were six votes that wanted to at least have that conversation and would have
most likely voted no.
R-16-020
Endorser: Mayor Jim Donchess
AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT TO RESTRUCTURE THE DEBT OF CLOCKTOWER HOUSING
ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Given its second reading;
MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-020
ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Moriarty
| suspect there is some kind-heartedness on the part of the city that is involved with this deal, public/private
partnerships. Nevertheless the fact remains that if the city needed money because it was strapped for cash
and if the city was a shrewd businessman the city would recognize what the comment on exhibit D where it
says in reference to the fact that the city is owed almost $11 million. The development note matured on
October 1, 2010; the city did not demand payment on the development note nor declared Clocktower at fault.
Essentially, Clocktower owes the city $11 million and the city decided not to demand payment. The city has
decided to extend the terms of the note and get a half of million dollars out it. If | am reading these documents
correctly the city could be sticklers to the law and say | want my money and the city has chosen not to. The
vote yes is to forego the $11 million payment and instead receive $500,000.
Alderman Siegel
If one were a shrewd businessman one would have paid attention to the Finance Committee meeting where
this was discussed at length and as a shrewd business person | asked all of the questions about the contract
and was clarified by Attorney Prolman that the city is really a conduit for HUD money. There is no taxpayer
money at all involved in this so the city is actually owed nothing. For restructuring the loan we are getting
$500,000 and we are risking not a dime of taxpayer money. When | first read the documents and | saw an
extension of 30 years at a 1% interest | went bananas thinking | would never do that with taxpayer money but it
is not the city’s money that is being dealt with this way. We would be insane to turn this deal down is my
bottom line statement.
