HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-30 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutes7525 Northwest 88 Avenue
WamaraC, FL 33321-2401
April 28, 1992
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
There will be a Special Meeting of the City Council on Thursday,
April 30, 1992 at 9:30 a.m, in Conference Room #1 of City Hall,
7525 N.W. 88 Avenue, Tamarac, Florida.
The Council will take action on the following items:
1. MOTION 0 APPEM the Selection Committee's recommendation
to engage the firm of Raymond James & Associates, Inc., for
underwriting services in connection with the refinancing of
three (3) outstanding bonds at a cost not to exceed
$6.89/$1,000 of refinanced Series 1986 Water and Sewer Bonds,
$6.29/$1,000 of refinanced Series 1986 General Obligation
Bonds, and $6.46/$1,000 of refinanced Series 1987 General
Obligation Bonds. Expression of Interest EOI-92-01.
FINAL_ Amy
APPROVED Raymond James & Associates, Inc, as Senior Underwriters
and First Equity, Inc. as Co -Managers.
2• KQTION 19 AUTROBIZE the transfer of $17,897.00 from Account
#504-705-596-45U Property Liability Insurance to Account
#504-709-596-488 Property Liability Insurance Claims to
cover Risk Management settlements and provide monies to
pay claims for the remainder of the year.
ixeiokwn
The City Council may consider and act upon such other business as
may come before it.
All meetings are open to the public.
r
Patricia Marcurio
Acting Ciiy Clerk
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes ,
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City
Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or
hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and for such
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based
City Council Special Meeting
4/30/92/KJ
Page 1
CITY OF TAMARAC
CITY COUNCIL SPSCIAL NERTING
THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1992
S$LL TO ORDER: Mayor Bender called this meeting to order on
Thursday, April. 30, 1992 at 9:30 a.m. in the Conference Room #1 of
City Hall, 7525 Northwest 88 Avenue, Tamarac, Florida.
PRESENT!
Mayor H. Larry Bender
Vice Mayor Henry Schumann
Councilman Norman Abramowitz
Councilman Irving Katz
Councilman Joseph Schreiber
RL30 PRESENT:
John P. Kelly, City Manager
Mitchell S. Kraft, City Attorney
Patricia Marcurio, Acting City Clerk
Karen Jackson, Secretary
1.MOTION TO APPEM the Selection Committee's recommendation
to engage the firm of Raymond James & Associates, Inc., for
underwriting services in connection with the refinancing of
throe (3) outstanding bonds at a cost not to exceed
$6.89/$1,000 of refinanced Series 1986 Water and Sewer Bonds,
$6.29/$1,000 of refinanced Series 1986 General Obligation
Bonds, and $6.46/$1,000 of refinanced Series 1987 General
Obligation Bonds. Expression of Interest EOI-92-01.
Mr. Kelly said in order for the City to refinance the bonds, the
City had to get a Bond Counsel and a Financial Advisor. He said
Council had appointed a Committee of four people consisting of Leo
Platz, Chairman of the Investment Advisory Board, Mary Blasi,
Finance Director, Chris Wallace, Finance Director from the Town of
Davie and himself.
Mr. Kelly said the Committee has made the recommendations and has
aboard a Bond Counsel, Gerry Heffernan, who made a presentation at
the Regular Council meeting of April 22, 1992 addressing some of
the citizens' concerns at the Public Hearing. He said Clark
Bennett, Financial Advisor, is also present do discuss this issue.
Mr. Kelly said the Committee met and reviewed the bids and
analyzed them and Mr. Bennett did a more substantive analysis. He
said there was a unanimous agreement to pick the firm of Raymond
James and Associates.
Mr. Kelly read a memo dated April 28, 1992 from Mary Blasi
addressed to him regarding the Underwriter Selection. (See
Attachment 1) He introduced Clark Bennett, Financial Advisor.
Mr. Bennett said when they received the second round, they had
requested a second round of definitive proposals due to
substantial changes in the marketplace since January 31, 1992 and
until a certain problem in the City's Charter had been resolved by
the Bond Counsel. He said it was felt imperative to find out where
the City stood in savings, because interest rates have increased
slightly and markets change rapidly. He said they wanted to know
if there were sufficient savings in the 1986 General Obligation
Bond to merit the refunding of that bond.
Mr. Bennett said some of the original proposals had been dealt
with by some of the proposers and others had not; therefore, they
did not have a good feel for whether or not there was sufficient
savings to make this worthwhile. He said they had asked the
respondents to segregate the 1986 from the 1987 and tell them what
the savings were on those bonds individually. He said there is an
incremental amount of savings of cost of issuance by putting these
City Council Special Meeting
4/30/92/KJ
Page 2
together, but that can mask whether there are true savings in both
of them.
Mr. Bennett said the responses received by all except one of the
proposers showed savings sufficiently large to make it worthwhile
to refund those bonds at this time, which was the recommendation
of the Committee.
Mr. Bennett said he put together pages from each of the proposers'
second submission to the City. He said the gross savings, the net
savings and the percentage of the refunded amount of the bonds to
indicate what their best thought was that the savings were at the
time they sent in their proposals.
Mr. Bennett said in order to put everybody on an equal footing and
to also give the Committee some indication that they were not
being played with as far as the proposer's ability to deliver the
kind of savings that the City asks him to deliver, he had
requested the backup material and Council reviewed it. He pointed
out under interest rate coupons, the range of coupons starting at
Merrill Lynch, the interest rates began in 1992 and ran to 2011,
which is the last maturity of the Water and Sewer Bond. He said
these are not listed in any order other than the way they were
received in his office.
Mr. Bennett said most of these companies are well in line and did
not attempt to play games insofar as quoting coupons that were not
realistic, which also applies to the General Obligation Bonds.
Council reviewed the report regarding the interest rates.
Mr. Bennett referred to the gross spreads proposed by all of the
respondents and low in the spread was Raymond James & Associates.
He said he was pleased that the Committee had done its own work
and had come to the decision that it would like to recommend
Raymond James & Associates. He said the recommendation of the
Committee for Raymond James & Associates was based on the savings,
the coupons and the gross spread.
Mr. Kelly said in doing his own analysis of the spreads, Hough,
one of the firms, showed a higher savings on the present value at
$1,229,515 as opposed to Raymond James at $1,210,000, but the
Hough proposal did not include the Underwriter's Counsel and at
the most, is a factor of about $1.00 added to whatever the spread
is. He said the Committee felt that the Raymond James bid was
significantly better.
V/M Schumann asked if the Raymond James bid included the
Underwriter's Counsel and Mr. Kelly said, yes.
Mr. Bennett said the interest rate coupons for their proposal are
a little askew from the remainder, which would indicate that they
may have been bidding too aggressively, and was not consistent.
C/M Abramowitz said he is comfortable that the Committee came to
the same conclusion as Mr. Bennett did. He said the previous
indication by Mary Blasi, Finance Director, was that in many
instances, there was a prime person and an account manager. He
said he has concerns about only having one person handling this.
Mr. Bennett said the question that was brought up during the
meeting was whether a co -manager should be added, which would be
at the discretion and will of the City. He said when a co -manager
is selected, if looking at a co -manager who makes the pledge to
maintain his spread at a particular figure, that is the spread
that is maintained. He said if he takes on a co -manager, the co-
manager gets a piece of that spread and does not make a separate
commitment to the City.
C/M Abramowitz asked if there is a decision to take on someone
else, that party must live with the terms of the senior manager
and Mr. Bennett agreed.
FA
Discussion was held regarding the procedures of using co -managers.
City Council Special Meeting
4/30/92/KJ
Page 3
C/M Abramowitz asked if there is anything wrong with having a co-
manager and Mr. Bennett said, no, many transactions have multiple
underwriters, a senior and co -manager.
V/M Schumann asked what the advantages and disadvantages are of
having a co --manager and Mr. Bennett said the advantage that is
most often stated is that the co -manager helps in the distribution
of the bonds. He said the disadvantage is only to the senior
underwriter, who, if working on a slim margin, would be working on
an even slimmer margin.
Mr. Bennett said the ultimate decision is not the senior
manager's, but the decision of the governing body as to whether or
not to add a co -manager. He said adding a co -manager will not cost
the City anything.
V/M Schumann asked if this will be a disadvantage to the primary
manager and if it would be any disadvantage to the City and Mr.
Bennett said, no.
V/M Schumann asked if there will be in -fighting between the
primary and co -manager and Mr. Bennett said that has happened on
certain occasions; however, he does not believe that the quality
of Raymond James management and these other firms would allow in-
fighting and would quickly resolve any problems.
C/M Katz said the additional exposure of these bonds to the
marketplace by having an additional person to the Underwriting
Staff may help the City.
Mr. Bennett said this is frequently done and some carry ten or
twelve underwriters. He said there are often other advantages to
it, especially in certain minority situations or where other
purposes are trying to be achieved. He said if the City is seeking
further exposure, this is one way to do it.
C/M Schreiber asked if this would help the City to sell these
bonds quicker and Mr. Bennett said the bonds are sold immediately
when the senior manager comes to the City with a bond purchase
agreement and the City accepts it.
Mr. Bennett said the City's concern about whether or not the bonds
are sold at that time is over and what they do with the bonds is
their problem. He said at the outset, the City may have a better
market because there was exposure by two firms to perhaps presell
these bonds and to know in advance, that these bonds were presold.
Mr. Bennett said it was decided that there should be a time period
in which the City residents have an opportunity for a first come,
first serve basis to buy these bonds. He said this was discussed
with the Managing Director of Raymond James and they are happy
because it exposes them to potential new clients.
C/M Abramowitz said there are three things that interest him which
are: 1) no matter what happened, that if there was a secondary
pick, that particular company would have to guarantee and adhere
to the terms of the primary company; 2) the broader exposure that
the City gets, the better; and 3) he was very interested in seeing
that every company has an opportunity, even the smaller companies.
Mr. Bennett said that was brought up during the discussions and it
is the Council's decision.
Mr. Kelly introduced Arthur Ziev of Raymond James & Associates,
Inc.
Mr. Ziev said when a senior managing firm underwrites a bond
issue, they will make bonds available to other firms frequently.
He said this can be done by utilizing a co -manager or through a
selling group, where they would notify the firms of the selling
group that these bonds are available and will accept orders from
them. He said Raymond James appreciates the opportunity to serve
City Council Special Meeting
4/30/92/KJ
Page 4
the City if the Council so chooses and will be willing to add a
co -manager if it is the desire of the City to do so.
Mr. Ziev said Raymond James has based their bid and will maintain
it under any circumstances. He said if there is a co -manager
involved, the co -manager will sell a portion of the bonds, which
will reduce the amount of commissions received by Raymond James.
Mayor Bender asked about the percentages to be shared with the co -
managing firm.
Mr. Ziev said co -manager is a term which is used in the industry
whether it is a 50% split or whatever the split may be. He said
"co -manager" is a generic term, which implies a share. He said
when talking about a percentage for the other company, it does not
mean that Raymond James takes their percentage, goes out and gets
interest rates on it and the other firm takes their percentage and
gets interest rates on it. He said the senior manager goes out and
sets the interest rates in which the bonds are marketed. He said
the co -manager then has the opportunity to go out and sell those
bonds.
Mr. Ziev said this can normally be done this way. He said the City
can specify the interest rates and then specify the percentage of
the bonds, which would not be in the City's best interest. He said
it is in the City's best interest to have Raymond James set the
interest rates and negotiate with Mr. Bennett and then the co-
manager gets the opportunity.
C/M Katz asked about the split between the senior manager and co-
manager.
Mr. Ziev said the $6.49 for the bonds is broken into different
components and the biggest component is the sales commission,
which is the part that the co -manager firm would have the ability
to receive, if they sold the bonds.
Mayor Bender asked if it is required that the City state the
percentage of the sale and Mr. Bennett said it is to the City's
direct detriment.
Mr. Bennett said they do not know at this time where the market is
for the bonds that are going to be issued in the future to sell.
He said the market may be in the retail sector or it may not, it
may be institutional. He said if whomever the City selects comes
in with institutional orders at interest rates that are below
rates that might normally go out to retail individuals, it is
unfair to the City to limit their ability to sell the bonds to the
best market, because there is a constraint on how they distribute
the bonds.
Mr. Bennett said one of these firms may be an extremely large
seller of retail bonds and the other may be an institutional
seller of bonds. He said it may be that the market is one place or
another at that time and the City could suffer by its arbitrary
selection of a percentage going to a retail market. He said the
City may have to pay a higher interest rate which would be to the
detriment of the City and makes no sense.
C/M Abramowitz said he feels that Raymond James should get the
majority of this because they came before the City, did their
homework and gave the City the best deal. He asked if it is the
intent of Council to do this, how is it to be done to the best
interest of the City.
V/M Schumann said he does not feel that it is any concern of the
Councils. He said Council accepts their proposal and sells them
the bonds and what they do with them is no concern of the City's.
Mr. Bennett said the City can set an arbitrary limit, but he does
not feel that it is advisable from the City's perspective. He said
the City can request from the Underwriter a fair distribution for
the co -manager. He gave an example of the County's procedures on
71
City Council Special Meeting
4/30/92/KJ
Page 5
this.
C/M Katz said in allowing for a senior manager and a co -manager
coming in with 75% of the sales, the senior manager will receive
only 25% of the commission. He said in limiting a co -manager to a
particular percentage is not in the best interest of the City if
the co -manager can sell the bonds immediately. He said the Council
is looking out for the best interest of the City and looking for
the quickest sale at the best rate.
Mr. Bennett said any one of these underwriters can handle this
issue with a couple of phone calls. He said for the City to make a
decision to have a co -manager is good for the reasons mentioned.
He said his view is that the City has a senior managing
underwriter who manages this transaction and if he is appointed as
such, then that should be what he is allowed to do. He said the
two firms work in concert, generally with no friction at all. He
reviewed the list of firms and commented on the knowledge of them.
V/M Schumann asked if the title to the bonds is passed once the
City accepts the proposal of the underwriter and Mr. Bennett said
once the City signs the bond purchase agreement, the bonds belong
to the underwriter and his group. He said the managing underwriter
signs for the group and depending on how it is structured, the
group may have some ultimate financial responsibilities.
Mr. Ziev said Raymond James has worked,a number of times with
Howard Gary and Company as joint financial advisors and have
participated in underwritings together. He said that they may not
have the financial strength to handle the issue solely, but would
be able to serve as a co -manager.
C/M Katz said Mr. Bennett had referred to two firms that he did
not personally know their background, Howard Gary and Company and
First Equity.
Mr. Bennett said he knows,of them, but did not know their direct
marketing capabilities. He said both of these firms have been
around for a long time.
Mr. Kelly said the first two that the Committee deleted from
consideration due to the spread, were Howard Gary and First
Equity.
C/M Abramowitz said he would like to see the smaller firms get
involved as long as it is not detrimental to the City.
Mr. Ziev said it would not be detrimental to the City having them
involved. He said the only way that embarrassment could come to
the City is if Raymond James was instructed to give a particular
percentage to a firm.
C/M Schreiber asked if the rate would remain the same and Mr. Ziev
said it would be the same.
TAPE 2
Mr. Bennett said the senior manager and co -manager are bound by
the rates.
C/M Abramowitz asked if the co -manager would be out if he cannot
meet the rates established by the senior manager and Mr. Ziev said
the co -manager would not get any bonds to sell.
Mr. Kelly suggested that the Motion be amended to refer that the
firm of Raymond James be engaged as the Senior Underwriter and a
Co -manager of whichever company, without limiting the percentage.
C/M Schreiber asked if Raymond James can sell all of the bonds
with the co -manager having no piece of the action and Mr. Ziev
said that is a possibility.
Mr. Ziev said if there is a co --manager involved on the day that .
the bonds are priced, Raymond James will have a conversation with
the co -manager and the City to negotiate the interest rates. He
City Council Special Meeting
4/30/92/KJ
Page 6
said after the interest rates are established, there is an order
period of three or four hours and the brokers and salesmen from
both firms submit their orders and there is also a priority order.
He said if the co -manager puts in an order at the top priority at
25% and Raymond James puts in at 75% top priority, the co -manager
must get their 25%; however, if Raymond James is able to get 95%
at the top priority and the co -manager has no orders or a lesser
amount, then they may not get any. -
Mr. Bennett said the priority means the interest rates that they
are trying to achieve for the City, the low interest rates. He
said it always has to work to the City's benefit and to the
residents. He said for the senior manager to play games with the
co -manager when it has been the City's intent to provide for it is
not good politics.
C/M Abramowitz asked what happens if the senior manager comes in
with an interest rate and the co -manager comes in with a lower
interest rate.
Mr. Ziev said they would be bound to the co -manager's interest
rate.
Mr. Bennett said before the City gets the interest rates to
review, Raymond James will have reviewed them line item by line
item to be certain that those interest rates are consistent with
other bonds in the marketplace at the same time, at the same
maturity and of the same quality.
C/M Schreiber MOVED to APPROVE Raymond James and Associates,
Inc., as Senior Underwriter, and First Equity, Inc., as the Co-
manager, SECONDED by C/M Abramowitz.
Mr. Ziev said the co -manager will have the same access to the
bonds under the same priority system.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
Mr. Kelly said there was another item that was discussed by the
Committee which is in regard to the two General Obligation Bonds.
He said the Committee had suggested that the two General
Obligation Bonds be combine6 because that would come out to the
City's best interest. He said in this Motion that was approved, a
$6.29 refinancing of the 1986 Bond and $6.46 is the high side
spread.
Mr. Bennett said the City will get additional savings from the
standpoint that the cost of issuance will be spread, which will
include bond counsel, printing, and all other costs that would
normally be handled by one of these transactions and will now be
handled by two.
2. MOTION TO AUTHORIZE the transfer of $17,897.00 from Account
#504-705-596-45U Property Liability Insurance to Account
#504-709-596-488 Property Liability Insurance Claims to
cover Risk Management settlements and provide monies to
pay claims for the remainder of the year.
Mr. Kelly said $25,000.00 was transferred out earlier in the year,
but there are some claims that are outstanding to be paid out of
the subject account which total over $12,000.00.
C/M Schreiber asked what the balance of the money is for and Mr.
Kelly said to cover any other claims that become due until the end
of the year.
Mr. Kraft said some of these claims are regarding City employee's
trucks which have backed into other vehicles and caused property
damage.
Discussion was held regarding Broward County's claim payments of
over $500,000.00.
City Council Special Meeting
4/30/92/KJ
Page 7
Mayor Bender asked if Mr. Kraft had reviewed these claims and Mr.
Kraft said, yes.
C/M Abramowitz MOVED to AUTHORIZE the transfer, SECONDED by
C/M Schreiber.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
Mr. Kelly said he had attended the Resource Recovery meeting on
Wednesday, April 29, 1992 and no action took place due to lack of
a quorum and appear to be deferring due to the anger of the
municipalities regarding the $6.00 surcharge. He said it was the
expressed intent of the Board that the $6.00 was excessive and
needed to be reviewed. He said it was recommended that this be
referred back to the Broward League of Cities for review.
C/M Abramowitz said it is much worse than is being portrayed. He
said they are trying to charge an $11.00 surcharge and part of
this money would go to the following cities for transfer stations:
Hollywood, Ft. Lauderdale and Coral Springs. He recommended that
Council fight this. Discussion was held regarding the Resource
Recovery system.
Mr. Kelly said he received a proposal from Ed Klein, Attorney at
Law, to provide legal services for senior citizens in City Hall.
He read the proposal which states that he would be willing to sign
a Hold Harmless Agreement with the City and further suggested that
every resident seeking his legal advice sign a statement that they
had been advised by a non -employee of the City, in order to
protect the City.
Mr. Kelly said he forwarded this proposal to the City Attorney and
Risk Manager for review. He said there are some serious concerns
regarding the proposal. He said the Social Services function that
the City currently has costs the City insurance costs of over
$40,000 last year in accidents. He said the City is responsible
for any volunteer that comes into the building.
Mr. Kelly said this has not been bid out and there may very well
be other attorneys or accountants that would want to provide such
a service. He said there is a need for this, but it may be better
to have Legal Aide assigned here by the County.
C/M Abramowitz said Mr. Klein wants to provide a service to the
residents; however, he had informed him that he would have to cure
all of the concerns of the City. He said the City has a service
which provides free income tax assistance and has been very
successful. He said even though Social Services cost the City
$40,000 in insurance, it is a service provided to the residents.
He said it costs the City money to run the Multi -Purpose Center,
but it is a service provided to the residents. He said it would be
a wonderful service as long as it does not put the City at risk.
V/M Schumann said it does put the City at risk because a hold
harmless agreement will not stand up in court.
C/M Schreiber said this does present exposure to the City because
even if Mr. Klein has waivers signed, the City will be exposed to
any sort of lawsuit and it will cost the City money to defend the
lawsuit. He said Council is not against spending money for the
Social Services or the Multi -Purpose Center because they are a
good service, but it is necessary to try to limit the risk of the
extra expense of accidents or lawsuits.
V/M Schumann said the City is a municipal corporation and
corporations cannot practice law. He said it would be detrimental
to the City to condone an attorney on the premises other than the
City Attorney, who has only one client, the City of Tamarac. He
said if a person receives bad advice by an attorney, the City
could be liable or the City will be sued also. He said attorneys
carry liability or malpractice insurance for their private
practice.
City Council Special Meeting
4/30/92/KJ
Page 8
C/M Abramowitz asked how this would apply to all of the residents
who come to City Hall for accounting advice with the Tax
Assistance Program and V/M Schumann said there is a difference.
C/M Abramowitz asked if the City is at a risk with the accounting
and C/M Schreiber said the I.R.S. recommends the Tax Assistance
Program.
V/M Schumann said the I.R.S. recommends it, but the Bar
Association does not recommend placing an in --house legal office in
City Hall for the public.
Mayor Bender said the City has a Consumer Affairs Board and the
residents come in with complaints and some of the advice borders
on legal advice. He asked if the City would still be liable if a
legal service would be an extension of the Consumer Affairs Board
and V/M Schumann said, yes.
V/M Schumann said Mr. Klein is a professional and is classified
differently than a layman working on the Consumer Affairs Board.
He said they cannot give legal advice, but can tell the person
that there is a possibility of a claim and advise them to see a
lawyer regarding it.
Mr. Kraft said any kind of indemnification or hold harmless
agreement could be drawn up, but will only give the City another
pocket to go to once the City is sued, which would allow for the
City to go after Mr. Klein, but does not prevent people from suing
the City and does not prevent any other risks that may arrive. He
said the difference between having someone from Consumer Affairs
versus having Ed Klein providing legal services, is that there is
a lay volunteer sitting there. The people have to know that this
person is not an attorney and would rely on Mr. Klein as being an
attorney. He said this could jeopardize the City.
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST: ALL INDICATED NO
Mr. Kelly expressed his concerns regarding Council intervention
with Staff members and requested that this be done through the
City Manager's office. Discussion was held regarding this.
EDITOR'S NOTE: C/M Katz left this meeting at 10:56 a.m.
TAPE 3
Mr. Kelly requested consideration by Council regarding the
$500,000 received from the sale of the old City Hall. He said the
Retention Ponds need to be funded. He said the Recreation
Department has been requesting a new bus for transportation for
the recreational functions. He said the bus the City currently has
is pretty dilapidated and is close to being unsafe.
C/M Abramowitz said he gave Ed Doyle the names of two people that
may be able to supply the City with a good deal on a bus.
Mr. Kelly said Steve Oxenhandler, Development Services Director,
resigned and his last official day will be May 8, 1992. He said it
is his intention not to fill this position, but to restructure the
Department and utilize in-house personnel to run the Department.
He recommended that Kelly Carpenter be assigned that
responsibility.
C/M Schreiber asked if the City gives first preference to the in-
house employees and Mr. Kelly said it is advertised three days in-
house prior to going to the public.
Mr. Kelly said there is a recycling meeting to be held on May 1,
1992, which he will be attending and will be back at City Hall
after the meeting.
Mr. Kelly said the Scotty's Shopping Center has been sold and
Staff will be working on ideas for the center.
Mr. Kelly said the Small Business Workshop held on April 29, 1992
City Council Special Meeting
4/30/92/KJ
Page 9
was quite successful and discussions were held regarding opening
the north half of Hiatus Road from McNab Road to the property,
which would provide access to the area proposed for the driving
range and to open that area up for development.
C/M Schreiber asked what his feeling is about Council establishing
an Economic Development Board to work on marketing to bring
business into the area and Mr. Kelly said he would like to hold a
workshop meeting on this issue.
With no further business, Mayor Bender ADJOURNED this meeting
at 11:10 a.m.
f ' )H.e/BENDER
I C � MAYOR
CAROL A. EVANS
CITY CLERK
CITY OF TAMARAC
APPROVED AT MEETING OF Cv / I v -
I
Li
CITY OF TAMARAC
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: JOHN P. KELLY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: MARY C. BLASI, FINANCE DIRECTOR '40-V
SUBJECT: SELECTION OF UNDERWRITER TO REFINANCE OUTSTANDING
CITY BONDS
DATE: APRIL 28, 199,E
---------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
on Monday, April 27, 1992. the Committee for the Selection of a
Bond Underwriter met to discuss and choose a Senior Underwriter for
the refinancing of our 1986.Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds and 1986
and 1987 General Obligation Bonds. After reviewing the ten
proposals submitted, the Committee selected the investment banking
firm of Raymond James & Associates, ,Inc. Among the factors
considered by the committee were the firm's municipal experience,
marketing and distribution capability, and proposed gross spreads
(underwriter's cost of issuance) .
Given the current market, Raymond James' proposal shows a total net
present value savings of $1.,210,589 or $2,007,454 gross savings
over the life of the bonds.
LJI
1