| 
			 
			
			 At the August 1st meeting, aldermen had heard from Wanda Lee 
			Rohlfs who issued questions and concerns about the bond issuance. On 
			that night, the topic at hand was to vote on a waiver of conflict of 
			interest for city attorney Blinn Bates, who also represents St. 
			Clara’s. 
			 
			On the 9th, Rohlfs returned to the council to ask questions during 
			the public participation segment at the opening of the evening. 
			 
			Rohlfs said she still had a number of unanswered questions about the 
			bond issuance. Her first question was, would there be a revenue 
			agreement between the city and St. Clara’s?  
			 
			City Administrator Clay Johnson answered saying that St. Clara’s had 
			representation in the chamber, and that would be part of a later 
			discussion. 
			 
			Rohlfs then asked if the city and St. Clara’s were required to 
			follow state statutes regarding the issuance of the industrial bond. 
			And if so, were they complying with those statutes? Johnson said St. 
			Clara’s had attorney’s working on the application, and a law firm 
			representing the specific issuance of the bond. He was confident 
			that all statutes that applied to the issuance, including state 
			statutes when applicable, were being addressed. 
			  
			
			  Rohlfs was skeptical. She said the issuance of an industrial bond 
			according to state statute did not allow for the issuance of the 
			bond to a service industry such as a nursing home. She said the bond 
			also had to be issued with consideration to the “unemployment, 
			underemployment, and those returning from the military (seeking 
			employment) and to increase employment in the community.” She wanted 
			to know if that was indeed being considered and what would the 
			actual impact be? 
			 
			She returned to a topic from the week prior, the “limited 
			obligation” clause. Again she said that didn’t mean ‘no obligation,’ 
			so she wanted to know what the obligation of the city would be. 
			 
			Mayor Marty Neitzel said the city was not obligated to pay the bonds 
			at all, that St. Clara’s would do that. She added this was not a tax 
			revenue bond, so the residents of Lincoln would not, could not, be 
			taxed for the payment of the bond. 
			 
			Rohlfs said there is a difference between “no obligation,” “some 
			obligation,” and “limited obligation,” and she wants to know who is 
			responsible for the limited obligation, is it the city? 
			 
			When the item came up on the agenda for the night, Steve Aughenbaugh 
			of the State Bank of Lincoln, and attorney Samuel Witsman of Hart, 
			Southworth and Witsman in Springfield were present to address the 
			matter. Witsman was there as the attorney for the bond issue. 
			 
			Witsman came forward to address the questions posed by Rohlfs and 
			any questions coming from the aldermen. He began by saying that the 
			law firm has reviewed all the statutes that apply including State, 
			Federal, and the statutes of the Illinois Municipal League. The bond 
			application complies with all of them. 
			  
			
			  
			 
			He went on to say that his firm has handled a lot of bonds and is 
			well experienced in meeting all the laws and statutes that relate to 
			them. Witsman said he personally had also worked with the city of 
			Lincoln on these same types of bonds with at least two other 
			companies or organizations; Lincoln Christian College (in 2001, with 
			re-issuance in 2002) and Central Illinois Service Access of Pekin 
			(in 2007, for the construction of a building in Lincoln). 
			
			[to top of second column]  | 
            
             
  
			In reference to Rohlfs questions about the limited obligation, he 
			said this was the terminology to distinguish this bond from a 
			General Obligation Bond, and is a term specifically used in the bond 
			industry. 
He explained that the terminology ‘General Obligation’ means that the city has 
the right to pass the liability to its residents through taxation. The ‘Limited 
Obligation’ means the city does not have the right to tax its residents for the 
payment of the bond. He went on to explain, as Johnson had in weeks prior that 
the bond is a pass through with the city’s name on it. The repayment agreement 
will be between the State Bank of Lincoln and St. Clara’s, and the city will not 
be asked to get involved in any way. 
 
Regarding the question about employment, Witsman said he did not have exact 
figures in front of him, but the St. Clara project was going to be a $22 million 
from ground up construction project, and that it would indeed impact the labor 
force. He said it was his guess that the long term employment of staff at the 
facility would also be impacted. 
 
He said he was satisfied that the bond issuance was in complete compliance with 
all the statutes he had named earlier. 
 
He also addressed the council about the State Bank of Lincoln’s involvement in 
the bond issuance. He explained that the SBL would be partnering with a sister 
bank in Bloomington; Heartland Bank and Trust Company. He said those two lending 
institutions would be responsible for monitoring the loan or bond agreement, and 
assuring the collection of payments from St. Clara’s. He said if there should be 
difficulty in collecting the payments, the two lending institutions would deal 
directly with St. Clara’s, and would not ask the city to get involved. 
 
Aughenbaugh also addressed the council, explaining that the bank in Bloomington 
would be the first signatory on the loan or bond because there were tax 
advantages to signing the bond with that bank as opposed to the SBL. However, 
the SBL would have half of the obligation. St. Clara’s would issue its payments 
to Heartland, and Heartland in turn would issue a follow-up payment to SBL for 
its share of the note. 
 
Tracy Welch asked for clarification of the $9.4 million, saying he understood 
that the city did not want to exceed $10 million in bonds. 
  
 
Johnson said that was correct. The city will issue a General Obligation bond at 
the end of this calendar year, for about one-half million dollars. To keep the 
city under the $10 million mark, the bond for St. Clara’s for 2016 will be $9.4 
million. Johnson added that the $10 million stipulation rolls over at the 
beginning of the new calendar year, so beginning January 1, 2017, the city can 
issue up to $10 million in bonds again.  
 
At the conclusion of this Aug. 9th council meeting, there was no further 
discussion on the topic. 
				 
			[Nila Smith] 
			  
			
			   |