 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | So change the ordinance.... It seems like this one is a no brainer.
Change the ordinance and issue the bonds at a higher rate.
Notice that the city can still back the bonds with residual incomes, they just have to add in a requirement of default before payment.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
|
|
| I MAY be wrong...but if you change the ordinance you may have to revote?
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | reply to marigolds
said by marigolds:It seems like this one is a no brainer. Change the ordinance and issue the bonds at a higher rate. Notice that the city can still back the bonds with residual incomes, they just have to add in a requirement of default before payment. Wow. 25 posts before the first one that actually addresses the issue at hand. Congratulations on thinking rationally.
RJ |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to Octopussy2
said by Octopussy2:I MAY be wrong...but if you change the ordinance you may have to revote? Changing the ordinance should require a vote of the city council, but not a popular vote.
I am not certain if changing the requirement for default that would be considered a separate bond issue. If it is considered a separate bond issue then there would need to be a new vote.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association |
|
| I can find this out and get back to you and everyone.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
