Laserfiche WebLink
MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FORM 8B <br />IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD <br />Chairman Eggert led discussion regarding the recommendation of <br />the bond counsel to change the term of the bonds from 15 years to <br />20 years, as well as a change concerning the 1/2 mill. Chairman <br />Eggert read the suggested wording as follows: <br />INDIAN RIVER COUNTY <br />Bond Referendum <br />Environmental/Natural Lands Acquisition <br />November 3, 1992 <br />SHALL INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO ACQUIRE <br />ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT LAND TO PROTECT WATER <br />QUALITY, OPEN SPACES, AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, BY <br />ISSUING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS NOT EXCEEDING <br />$26,000,000 TO BE REPAID IN NOT -TO -EXCEED 20 YEARS <br />AND STRUCTURED SO THAT AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE THE <br />RATE NECESSARY TO FUND THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL PAYMENTS <br />ON THE BONDS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/2 MILL. <br />County Attorney Charles Vitunac explained that the County's <br />bond counsel, Chuck Sieck of Rhoads & Sinon, recommended changes in <br />the ballot form. The language, "structured so that at the time of <br />issuance the rate necessary to fund the maximum annual payments on <br />the bonds shall not exceed 1/2 mill," is necessary because we <br />cannot limit the.millage to 1/2 mill forever. It depends on the <br />tax value in the County. The inclusion of "not -to -exceed 20 years" <br />would satisfy our bond counsel and would protect the County in the <br />unlikely event that our tax values decreased. <br />Chairman Eggert emphasized that the majority of the members of <br />the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee felt 15 years seemed a more <br />appropriate lenge-of time.- Sher was not sure whether -it makes a <br />lot of difference. <br />Commissioner Scurlock was concerned that the language in the <br />ballot form may be confusing. We are validating $26 million, <br />changing the limit of the bond from 15 to 20 years and talking <br />about 1/2 mill. He felt that this is going to be a difficult issue <br />to present to the voters because the economy is not strong, and any <br />uncertainty in the language may cause individuals who normally <br />would support the acquisition of environmentally sensitive land to <br />vote against it. Although $26 million is what we wish to validate, <br />we must have the flexibility to issue these bonds in series with <br />structuring to avoid the need to exceed 1/2 mill. It should be <br />clearly stated that we will use the mechanisms of our Comp Plan, <br />F4i <br />1992 BOOK � d� �a.'�,t•.��� <br />