Appropriating $5,915,000.00 Applied on the Cost of Various Purchases Construction

Home Browse Search

-2- Be -cause of the importance of the ultimate resolution of this matter to the City, on March 11, 1981, I contacted Mr. Michael Borge of the law firm of Borge and Pitt in Chicago to request that he conduct a review of the remonstrance filed in opposition to the general obligation bond issue and determine the legal sufficiency of the remonstrance. By letter of the same date, I provided Mr. Borge with the appropriate information concerning the remonstrance and the bond issuance process. I met with Mr. Borge in his office on the morning of March 12, 1981 to respond to additional questions about the bond issuance process and the remonstrance. By letter of March 16,'1981, Mr. Borge determined that the remonstrance was not legally sufficient. The basis of the determination made both by Mr. McCord and Mr. Borge is the fact that Indiana law requires that a remonstrance be both verified under oath and certified by the County Auditor as to the actual number of petitioners who are owners of real property in the political subdivision at the time the remonstrance is filed with the Clerk. The remonstrance, according to Indiana law, must be filed within thirty (30) days after the notice is given. The thirty (30) day period terminated on February 16, 1981. The petitions were not certified by the Auditor until February 24, 1981. The law firm of Ice Miller Donadio and Ryan is recognized as having_ the expertise to give the required opinions on bond issues. The law firm of Borge and Pitt is equally qualified. As you know, during the remonstrance period, this office received requests for legal advice from several of the remonstrators. The petitioning and remonstrance process set out by Indiana law is by its nature an adversial. proceeding. The process can easily result in litigation being filed either by the City or the remonstrators. The Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits the representation of clients with conflicting interests and provides that in instances where the conflicts of interests are critically adverse, one attorney or one office cannot represent both sides in the dispute. [,chile my office encouraged inquiring remonstrators to consult their own counsel, we refused, on the basis of accepted practices of professional responsibility, to provide legal advice to them. In light of the determination made by Mr. McCord as bond counsel and the fact that this determination was confirmed independently by Mr. Borge, I have drafted for Council consideration a Resolution determining the legal insufficiency of the remonstrance along with the necessary Appropriation Ordinance. If you have any further questions in regard to these matters, please let me know. RLH /smp