3/12/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT BELIEVE THE COMMISSION IS IN A POSITION TO ACCEPT EITHER BID TODAY BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY OF AGAIN CHANGING THE HOME RULE ORDINANCE, WHICH WAS RECENTLY CHANGED TO 9%, AND MR. HOUGH FELT IT COULD BE AMENDED BY AN EMERGENCY ACTION. ATTORNEY COLLINS FURTHER COMMENTED THAT MR. HOUGH STATED THAT THE NOTES WOULD NOT BE CALLABLE FORA PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, BUT THE WAY THE RESOLUTION IS DRAFTED THEY WERE REDEEMABLE WHENEVER THE INTEREST IS DUE, WHICH HE BELIEVED IS SEMI-ANNUALLY. MR. HOUGH BELIEVED THEY WOULD PURCHASE THEM WITHOUT A REDEMPTION PROVISION. HE STATED THEY ARE NOT MARKETABLE IF THEY ARE CALLABLE, AND HE FELT YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING BY DEFEASING THE NOTES. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH ALL PRIOR DISCUSSIONS. MR. BLAND FELT THAT THEY DID HAVE A REDEMPTION PROVISION AT SOME POINT, BUT THE ONE REASON THEY HAVE GONE FOR NO REDEMPTION IS BECAUSE OF THE MARKETABILITY OF THE NOTES. COORDINATOR THOMAS STATED HE WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE HE BELIEVED YOU HAVE A PERFECT EDGE WITH DEFEASEMENT. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT WHETHER THE LEGAL DOCUMENTATION WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSAL, AND IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT AS FAR AS THE NOTES ARE CONCERNED, THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH 'ANO CALL." ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT THE NOTES AS PREPARED BY JOHN KELLEY ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THIS, BUT IT WOULD BE NO PROBLEM TO CHANGE THAT. HE FELT THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED MORE STRONGLY PREVIOUSLY, AND MR. BLAND APOLOGIZED THAT THIS WAS NOT MADE CLEAR SOONER. HEPBURN WALKER, INTERESTED CITIZEN, QUESTIONED WHETHER, IN REGARD TO SETTING A TRACK RECORD, IT WOULD MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF YOU WERE TO GO BY NOTE OR BOND, AND MR. HOUGH BELIEVED IT WOULD BE THE SAME EITHER WAY. HE NOTED THAT EACH RATING HAS TO STAND ON ITS OWN, AND RACETRACK FUNDS ARE CONSIDERED DIFFERENTLY. 7 MAR- l 2 NO w 4Z PO