Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />Commissioner Fletcher discussed Section 2 regarding the <br />phrase "without limitation as to rate or amount." <br />The Attorney noted that it was required language in a <br />bond .issue, and stated that he would like to be able to <br />check this with the bond counsel. <br />Lengthy discussion followed about acquisition, <br />development, as well as acquisition and development; it was <br />felt if. the word "development" were omitted, the County's <br />options would be limited. <br />Bruce King, Community Development Director, interjected <br />that if.there were limitations that this money could not - <br />be used for development, it probably would preclude the <br />County from using bond money as matching funds. <br />Commissioner Fletcher suggested the Board might <br />consider locking themselves in to a.60/40 or 70/30 ratio. <br />The Attorney. stated he would not recommend that the <br />Board lock themselves in, as it might create trouble later. <br />Commissioner Fletcher disagreed. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board adopt <br />Resolution 82-85 authorizing the issuance of <br />a general obligation bond, accept the wording <br />- - as proposed, including -the "without -limitation". <br />change discussed, subject to clarification by <br />bond counsel, and authorize the Chairman to <br />sign the Notice of Bond Referendum. <br />William Koolage, interested citizen, stated that he <br />would rather see the Board put more money into acquisition <br />and then do the developing when they get matching funds. He <br />