My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 06131989
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1989
>
CC PACKET 06131989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 4:37:26 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 4:37:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
18
SP Folder Name
CC PACKETS 1987-1989
SP Name
CC PACKET 06131989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
132
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
2 <br /> Mr . Soth asked to be allowed to clarify Mr . Hoium' s <br /> explanation of the proposal . He stated that in the way the <br /> developer proposed to structure the transaction Dorsey and <br /> Whitney concluded that they could not give an opinion that <br /> the notes were tax exempt . They then offered to permit the <br /> developer 's own counsel to give such an opinion to the <br /> investors . Developer ' s own counsel apparently concluded <br /> that they could not give such an opinion , either . At that <br /> point the suggestion had been made that the problem could be <br /> overcome by having the City do the soil correction work . Mr . <br /> Soth had advised against that because of the liabilities <br /> involved . He said he understood that since that time a. <br /> proposal had been made whereby the developer could still do. <br /> the soil correction work , but that the notes would not run to <br /> the developer but would run directly to the investors , <br /> solving the tax exemption problem. He raised the question of <br /> whether there were, however , sufficient investors to purchase <br /> the notes . <br /> Mr . Hoium responded that they had stopped seeking investors <br /> because of those uncertainties , and stated that they had <br /> never intended that the notes run to Evergreen but had always <br /> intended that they run directly to the investors . <br /> Mi . Soth indicated that , because the City would be doing <br /> business directly with Evergreen, the City would prefer that <br /> the notes run to Evergreen , but that the City would be <br /> agreeable to having the notes run directly to the investors <br /> if the City was able to obtain adequate protections . In that <br /> case , the investors would sign investor ' s letters <br /> acknowledging that the City has no liability and Evergreen <br /> would indemnify the City against any liability. <br /> Mayor Sundland questioned the saleability of the notes . Mr. <br /> Hoium responded that it was his feeling that without the tax <br /> exemption the notes were not saleable except perhaps at 16 <br /> percent , but that with the tax exemption they were possibly <br /> saleable at 12 or 13 percent , depending upon financial <br /> markets <br /> Council Nt-=-mber Enrooth asked whether there was actually any <br /> action that the Council could take in light of th-e many <br /> unanswered questions . Mr . Hoium responded that at this point <br /> Evergreen simply wanted to get the Council ' s reaction to the . <br /> tax exemption proposal , and, if that was not feasible, to the <br /> bond issuance proposal . He then offered some statistics <br /> about tax revenues to the City from the units , which he <br /> projected would total $84, 683 , providing sufficient revenue <br /> for bonds . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.