My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
Res90 11261
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
City Council
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
Res90 11261
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/2/2008 9:40:15 AM
Creation date
11/29/2006 2:40:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Resolution
Date
4/9/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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 />LEGAL OPINION <br /> <br />I hereby certify that the following is a correct copy of the signed legal opinion of <br />Jones Hall Hill & White, A Professional Law Corporation, San Francisco, California, <br />addressed to the City of Redwood City and on file in my office, dated the date of <br />delivery of and payment for the Bonds therein described. <br /> <br />City Clerk <br /> <br />OPINION: $6,025,000 Limited Obligation Refunding Improvement Bonds, City of <br />Redwood City, Seaport Boulevard Assessment District (Reassessment and <br />Refunding of 1990) <br /> <br />We have acted as bond counsel in connection with the issuance by the City of <br />Redwood City (the "City") of $6,025,000 Limited Obligation Refunding Improvement <br />Bonds, City of Redwood City, Seaport Boulevard Assessment District (Reassessment <br />and Refunding of 1990), dated May 1, 1990 (the "Bonds"), pursuant to Division 11.5 of the <br />Streets and Highways Code of California (the "Act") and the resolution entitled "A <br />Resolution Authorizing Issuance Of Refunding Bonds" (the "Resolution") of the City <br />adopted April 9, 1990. We have examined the law and such certified proceedings and <br />other papers as we deem necessary to render this opinion. <br /> <br />As to questions of fact material to our opinion, we have relied upon <br />representations of the City contained in the Resolution and in the certified proceedings <br />and other certifications of public officials furnished to us, without undertaking to verify <br />the same by independent investigation. <br /> <br />Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion, under existing law, as follows: <br /> <br />1. The City is a chartered city and municipal corporation organized and existing <br />under its charter and the Constitution and the laws of the State of California with power <br />to adopt the Resolution, perform the agreements on its part contained therein, and issue <br />the Bonds. <br /> <br />2. The Resolution has been duly adopted by the City and constitutes a valid and <br />binding obligation of the City enforceable upon the City. <br /> <br />3. Pursuant to the Act, the Resolution creates a valid lien on the funds pledged <br />by the Resolution for the security of the Bonds on a parity with other bonds (if any) <br />issued or to be issued under the Resolution, subject to no prior lien granted under the <br />Act. <br /> <br />4. The Bonds have been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the City <br />and are valid and binding special obligations of the City, payable solely from the sources <br />provided therefor in the Resolution. <br /> <br />EXHIBIT A <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />11261 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.