I understand that City Council has asked that I “explain and elaborate on the events leading to the delay in the issuance of the ballpark bonds and identify the council members involved in the decision.” Mayor Leeser has specifically asked me to name the “several council members who “raised concerns about the timing of this activity [the bond sale] in relation to the upcoming election, specifically because of the ongoing controversy regarding the project.” I wrote a lengthy statement regarding this matter on August 26,2013, which became part of an exhaustive report by Paul Braden, Bond Counsel to the City (“the Braden Report”). My statement was truthful and made when I had better access to information, documentation and personnel who worked on the project with me. That statement was a summary of collective input from the project and finance team. Mr, Braden’s report, which was issued to the City Attorney in November 2013, and is now public, is truly a comprehensive review of the bond project. I will not repeat my August 2013 statement here, nor the many relevant facts recounted in the Braden report. However, it should be noted that Mr, Braden, while examining every aspect of the bond sale in a thorough and intelligent manner, never questioned my statement about my decision not to post the item on the April 30, 2013, agenda, He understood that it is a common practice not to post a complicated and controversial item right before an election, There has been recent interest in the names of the City Council members with whom I spoke about delaying the agenda item. I believe this interest has been generated by Ross Fischer’s opinion that the delay was for “political motives.” (Fischer Report at p.14). ‘The delay ‘was not for political motives, and there is no support for his theory. In fact, there was no council member who asked me to delay placing the bond resolution on the agenda. I did not actually state in my August 2013 statement that any council member had made this request. I stated that several council members had “raised coneems” about the timing of the activity. I also stated that I discussed the request to delay the resolution with the Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem. I was not clear, as pethaps 1 should have been, that it was my request; not the request of any council member I now realize that Mr. Braden misunderstood this aspect of my statement, when he wrote report that | advised the Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem of “the Couneil members’ request for delay.” (Braden Report at 42, n.45). Had I been privy to the document when it was first produced 1 ight have been able to clarify the statement then. However, the report was not provided to me at that time, Still, Mr. Braden was not concerned with the motive for this short delay. The ballpark was an extremely complicated project. It was further complicated by our request for $58 million, versus the initial project estimate of $52 million. 1, in consultation with iy staff and financial team, made the decision to delay posting the item based on a legitimate concern that we were not adequately prepared to defend our recommendation for additional funds and we needed to brief Council more thoroughly to ensure their support when the matter came before them, Plus, it was a long-standing practice not to post anything so significant immediately before an election, There is a concern that the issue may not be addressedappropriately, but will be used as a political issue in the election. My decision to delay the resolution until after the election was to protect the project, not for political purposes. While I do not have a specific memory regarding the timing and content of all of my conversations, I am sure that this aetion was discussed by either myself or my staff with every council member. The decision to delay this item was not significant at the time, so these communications were not documented, There was no hidden motivation, Mr. Fischer's idea that T may have violated the Texas Open Meetings Act by discussing issues with Council members ignores my duty to keep Couneil informed and adequately prepared, which is an aspect of the proper functioning of City government. ‘The interest in the names of the council members, and the effort to assign blame for the delay, overlook the fact that the bond issuance had been delayed for nine months by the opponents of the ball park project. The short delay in Spring 2013 caused by not posting the item on the April 30" agenda was not the cause of the difficulty in selling the bonds. While markets are always unpredictable, there was no particular reason to think that a thirty-day delay was tisky. The initial inability to sell the bonds was because of a lack of confidence in the ptoject, due to the very public acrimony occurring at the very time we were attempting to sell the bonds. This same acrimony very likely would have had the same effect of damaging our ability to sell the bonds one month earlier. Fortunately, the ball park has been an outstanding success and the City can refinance these bonds to their advantage. Although the project was enormously complicated and costly, ‘we were successful in getting more financial participation from the owners, and the result was a better ballpark. ‘The conclusion of the Braden Report was that “the City’s staff and its outside professionals have diligently put forth their best efforts to develop, finance and implement this very complicated project in accordance with the policy directives of City Council and applicable laws. 1 basically sacrificed my career for the ballpark project because I bore the brunt of the intense political fallout associated with it, I would not have done anything to adversely impact the City’s finances or jeopardize the project's success. I am offended by Mr. Fischer's unsupported theory that there was a breach of a fiduciary duty to the City of El Paso. On the contrary, the ballpark project was a great benefit to the City and I am proud of my participation init i ee Lio CE WILSON Date