Scott County commissioners spent a significant portion of a Dec. 5 special meeting debating whether to sign closing paperwork for a judgment bond with an aggregate principal in the neighborhood of $4.8 million.

Bond counsel appearing by phone told the board that the county had already incurred substantial legal and financial costs preparing the bond and that those amounts were built into the financing. "If you choose not to proceed with the bond, I think you're gonna have to understand that you are likely going to be subject to amounts for services already incurred," the counsel warned, adding that failing to proceed could expose the county to lawsuits or claims for those fees.

Commissioners pressed for transparency about how bond proceeds would be used. The board was given multiple estimates during the discussion; the counsel cited a current aggregate principal figure of $4,800,555 and said that was roughly $400,000 in excess of the underlying judgment, an amount the counsel attributed to issuance costs built into the bond. Several commissioners said they had been told different earlier figures (for example, $4.3 million) and asked for a clear amortization and spending plan to be shared before they would consent to sign.

One commissioner (S1), repeatedly asking for a detailed breakdown and a visual "pyramid" showing where funds would flow, said he would not place his signature on documents that committed the county without first receiving the requested information. "If it requires my signature only, everybody's gonna be screwed because I'm not putting my signature on," he said. Other commissioners said they felt the county had limited alternatives and that staff and bond counsel believed a financing was needed for short-term fiscal stability.

After discussion on legal exposure, fund restrictions and alternatives such as a line of credit, a commissioner moved to approve signatures on the bond documents and forward the paperwork to the county council for final action; another commissioner seconded that motion and the board moved the matter to the council. Commissioners noted divergent views and asked for more detailed documentation (amortization sheets and scope-of-use descriptions) to be presented at the upcoming council meeting.

Next steps from the meeting: staff to deliver amortization sheets and documentation to commissioners and the council for the Tuesday council meeting; counsel and financial advisers will finalize paperwork and disclose fees that are built into the financing as requested.