My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1982 10 05
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1982 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1982 10 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:20 PM
Creation date
7/8/2009 3:20:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
10/5/1982
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1982 10 05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />10/5/82 <br /> <br />Page -13- <br /> <br />it be more forthright~ forestalled or post- <br />poned until the resolution of the current <br />litigation. <br />Attorney Rautenstraus replied there was nothing <br />with repect to the revenue bonds - in them, <br />or any facet of them, which is forestalled <br />because of the litigation. It would be im- <br />proper if the loan documents did not reflect <br />the ligigation; the loan documents do reflect <br />it and it is set forth in those, in a manner <br />so that any potential purchaser of the bonds <br />would know that fact. <br />Yatchak inquired was he correct in assuming <br />all discussion would go on, and the City would <br />vote favorably on the IRB'S, there would be <br />no transfer of funds until the litigation is <br />resolved. <br />Rautenstraus advised that was not necessarily <br />the case. <br />Hr. Yatchak stated meaning that A. C. Nielsen <br />Co. would be receiving their funds as set <br />forth by the City and the banks, and even <br />though the proposal, in our opinion and <br />likelihood will not go through, what would <br />be the legal impact on the City per se? <br />Attorney Rautenstraus advised there is no <br />legal impact on the City. One of the pro- <br />visions in the ordinance for Industrial <br />Revenue Bonds sets forth that there is absolutely <br />no obligation on the part of the City, this <br />is in section 8, which specifically states <br />that anything with respect to this particular <br />series of notes does not constitute or give <br />rise to pecuniary liability of the City or <br />any of its officers. <br /> <br />Mr. Yatchak addressed his next comment to <br />Councilman Leary stating that he was pleased <br />to hear that he was going to act in the best <br />interest of the City of Louisville. All of <br />those in the Mesa area are trying to do exactly <br />the same. They have no objection to A.C. Nielson <br />or Neodata; have no objections to the City's <br />use of IRB'S to place Neodata in the City of <br />Louisville, they are in favor of that. The <br />thing they do object to is the proposed location <br />and the magnitude of the project, as well as <br />the impact on the area. He pointed out the <br />petition presented to councilmembers with 342 <br />signatures was circulated through the area. <br />In many instances there was only one adult <br />at home and the petition could have been of <br />greater magnitude. It was his personal opinion <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.