Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Scurlock reported that when we went out for <br />proposals, one of the problems we came up with was the cash flow <br />in terms of refunding the entire utilities system. Since FmHA's <br />loan on the Gifford project has not actually been committed, no <br />discount is available. We went through various scenarios, and <br />Prescott, Wall and Turben, Inc. came up with a recommendation to <br />issue bond anticipation notes, which does not attach any specifics <br />other than that -the County -is going•to issue bonds at a future <br />date., With respect to a -3 -year terms versus a 5 -year term, we can <br />extend the 3 -year term by 2 years. <br />County financial adviser Art Diamond pointed out that the <br />other advantage of goingwi=th 'ant i c i pat i on notes i s the fact that <br />ter._ rui �. 1... <br />the Board already has approved the bond resolution and validated <br />the band rest ution. Chuck Sieck, bond counsel from Rhoads & <br />Sinon, has agreed that validation on the notes would not be <br />necessary. The main requirement here is one of time. At one <br />- point, we believed we had the time when we felt that FmHA was <br />going to give us a waiver, and we operated under that <br />understanding. Unfortunately, FmHA did a 180° turn and kind of <br />pushed us into a corner. The other advantage of anticipation <br />notes is that the only security necessary is a permanent bond <br />issue somewhere down the road, either 3 or 5 years. <br />Chairman Scurlock explained that by going with the <br />anticipation notes for 3 or 5 years, we will be_Iooking to FmHA to <br />better define "guaranteed revenue" so that we will be able to take <br />advantage of another discount by FmHA somewhere down the road. <br />Their present definition of "guaranteed revenue" creates a problem <br />for the County to expand its utilities system because they take <br />11guaranteed revenue" as an all exclusive term. They committed to <br />us at one point that they would get us a letter of comfort saying <br />that surcharges and other charges like impact fees were not a part <br />of guaranteed revenue. However, the counsel out of Atlanta <br />refused to do that, so our flexibility is severely hindered. Our <br />41 <br />NOV 8 1988 <br />BOOK 75 F,cE 139 <br />