My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/3/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
3/3/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:38 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:01:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/03/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
89
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
MAR 3 1982 19 mf <br />because he believed that it will benefit the existing <br />residents in the long run. <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons to authorize the <br />Chairman and Attorney Brandenburg to meet with representa- <br />tives of General Development Utilities and come back with a <br />recommendation as to the Inducement Resolution. <br />Attorney Wheeler explained that the Inducement <br />Resolution indicates intent to move forward but reserves <br />options not to proceed if you do not choose to do so. It <br />will also specify that any cost of the issue will be borne <br />by the corporation and not the county. She informed the <br />Board that they have a draft of a resolution that the <br />Commission might want to consider, and of the County does <br />wish to retain further counsel, it should not be necessary <br />to pay them to redo the work that has been done already. <br />Attorney Brandenburg noted that the Commission is the <br />issuing authority, and the Inducement Resolution, financing <br />arrangements, etc., should be worked out by their counsel to <br />protect the county's interests all the way down the line <br />rather than relying on the counsel who has been retained by <br />the corporation making the request. He did agree since it <br />appears that much of this work already has been done, there <br />may be reduced fees, but emphasized that the county should <br />have their own bond counsel. <br />Chairman Scurlock was in favor of accepting the <br />recommendation of the County Attorney in regard to having <br />our own bond counsel review these documents. Discussion <br />followed as to retaining the firm of Freeman, Richardson, <br />Watson & Kelly, which firm has worked with the county on <br />other bond issues. Attorney Wheeler stated that her firm <br />has worked with Freeman, Richardson, Watson & Kelly in the <br />past, and they would be happy to again. <br />It was noted that the Motion made by Commissioner Lyons <br />had died for lack of a second. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.