4/16/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

problem with any of these changes, which are set out in the proposed amending resolution, as follows: On Page 4 carrying over to Page 5, the bond insurer wants an amendment of the definition of federal securities which deals with the potential defeasance of the bonds in the future by refund or some other means. On Page 6 there is a housekeeping change in the description of the pledge fund sources. Mr. Freeman explained that they were double counting the income on some sinking fund money so they stopped that and made a minor adjustment to the definition of project to give the county some flexibility. On Page 7 some minor technical changes were requested by the underwriter's counsel. They want redemption premium mentioned where we mention principal and interest in the bond resolution. On Page 8 there is a more important amendment. Mr. Freeman explained they allowed the pledged revenue sources to flow through and be used for any lawful purpose. These were locked up formerly. There is also a technical correction re what happens to investment income on the sinking fund, and he had no problem with that. On Page 9 there is an insertion requested by the bond insurers. If you have additional parity bonds and they are variable rate bonds, they want some means to determine an assumption for interest rate on those bonds so coverage can be figured. Mr. Freeman had no problem with their formula and believed it is reasonable to ask for some kind of standard. Also on Page 9, a.phrase was added dealing with the Construction Trust Fund allowing the deposit of legally available funds from other sources in this fund. Commissioner Wodtke questioned the statement on Page 9 "funds in an amount approved by the County Administrator of the Issuer," and wanted to know if we can give the Administrator that authority legally. 51 BOOK 64 I