My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/16/1988
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1988
>
2/16/1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2023 10:32:17 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 2:06:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/16/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
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
,FEB 1 '6'38 <br />BOOK <br />0 FxF888 <br />after they had provided the copy of the resolution for the agenda <br />packet last Wednesday. <br />County Financial Advisor Art Diamond explained that the <br />raise in the bond amount is based on a new estimate from Camp, <br />Dresser, McKee. This includes constructions costs of approxi- <br />mately $6,550,000, plus the costs of engineering, land <br />acquisition, issuance costs, and equipment for Segment 2, which <br />are approximately another 2,480,000. In addition to that, <br />provision has to be made for one year's interest payment during <br />construction. Also, provision has to be made for the possibility <br />that we do not get an insurance policy for the debt service <br />reserve and have to fund it fully up front. Mr. Diamond <br />stressed that conservative figures were used to come up with an <br />amount of about 10.6 million; these are very preliminary figures; <br />and he is being very careful. He explained that authorization is <br />different than issuance; so, we attempt to authorize more than we <br />actually need. That does not mean this is the amount we actually <br />will issue, just up to that amount. If you do not authorize a <br />sufficient amount, you then have to go back to court to authorize <br />additional and that would take another 75 days. This increased <br />amount just provides a cushion in case the number goes higher <br />than 9 million. <br />Mr. Sieck further explained that at the time the awarding <br />resolution is presented to the Board, they will have the <br />definitive number. The resolution being discussed today is just <br />to get the bond validation filed, and it would authorize the <br />issuance of up to $11,000,000 bonds. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted that we made certain presentations <br />when we held the public hearing about the solid waste district in <br />regard to raising revenues, and he wants to be very careful when <br />we work on the structuring of servicing the debt that we don't <br />fall into the trap of having this pyramid. Obviously the next <br />cell of the landfill has a certain life, and he did not want to <br />have a 15 or 20 year bond on a 5 year landfill cell. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.