My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/8/1979
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1979
>
8/8/1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:43:39 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:09:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/08/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
AUG 81979 8m 41 PnUE 263 <br />COMMISSIONER LOY DISCUSSED SELECTION OF A BOND COMPANY TO <br />HANDLE THE BOND ISSUE TO FINANCE THE RENOVATION OF THE COUNTY ADMINIS- <br />TRATIVE BUILDING. SHE NOTED THAT WE HAD A PROPOSAL FROM WILLIAM R. <br />HOUGH & CO. AND ANOTHER COMPANY, SOUTHEASTERN MUNICIPAL BONDING,IS VERY <br />INTERESTED AND HAS NOW SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL. COMMISSIONER Loy CONTINUED <br />THAT BASED ON PAST HISTORY AND THE EXTREME COOPERATION WE HAVE HAD WITH <br />THE COMPANY WE ARE DEALING WITH AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS A SERVICE <br />BUSINESS, SHE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH WILLIAM R. <br />HOUGH & CO. <br />INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS AGREED THAT DEALINGS <br />WITH HOUGH & CO. HAVE BEEN VERY SATISFACTORY. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCE MONETARILY <br />IN THE PROPOSALS MADE BY THE BONDING COMPANIES. <br />COORDINATOR THOMAS POINTED OUT THAT ALL THESE COMPANIES ARE <br />BONDED UNDER THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND MUST FOLLOW THE STATE REGULATIONS. <br />HE CONTINUED THAT IN INVESTING, NOTHING CAN BE GUARANTEED AND YOU MUST <br />BANK ON REPUTATION AND EXPERIENCE. HE STATED THAT LAST YEAR WILLIAM R. <br />HOUGH & CO. WERE THE LARGEST IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR MUNICIPAL BONDS <br />AND POSSIBLY THIRD OR FOURTH IN THE UNITED STATES. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF <br />WORKING WITH ONE COMPANY AND COORDINATOR THOMAS FELT WE SHOULD STAY <br />FLEXIBLE AND CERTAINLY GIVE CONSIDERATION TO MORE THAN ONE COMPANY, BUT <br />NOTED THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO TRY TO WORK WITH T00 MANY COMPANIES. <br />GEORGE BLAND OF WILLIAM R. HOUGH & CO. INFORMED THE BOARD <br />THAT HIS COMPANY HAS CERTAIN BASIC INFORMATION DERIVED FROM THE PREVIOUS <br />ISSUE WHICH WILL BE OF USE IN THE NEW ISSUE. HE STATED HE FELT THAT THE <br />BONDS ISSUED FOR THE SANITARY LANDFILL WERE AN EXCELLENT ISSUE AND THAT <br />THEY GOT A VERY GOOD RATE. THEY ARE VERY HAPPY WORKING WITH INDIAN <br />RIVER COUNTY, <br />GARY AKERS OF SOUTHEASTERN MUNICIPAL BONDING CO. CAME BEFORE <br />THE BOARD. HE NOTED THAT HOUGH & COMPANY DID THE COUNTY'S LAST BOND <br />ISSUE AND THEY ARE PRESENTLY WORKING WITH THE COUNTY ON THE HOUSING <br />FINANCE AUTHORITY. MR. AKERS COMMENTED THAT WITHOUT COMPETITION YOU <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.