The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1985-12-23 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutes_� r4 u n ORI 5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 MAIL REPLY TO: December 19, 1985 P.O. BOX 25010 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33320 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA There will be a Special City Council meeting on Monday, December 23, 1985, at 1:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 5811 NW 88 Avenue, Tamarac. The purpose of this meeting is discussion and possible action regarding issuance of Tamarac Utilities West Revenue Bonds - Temp. Reso. #3945 (tabled from 12/19/85) The public is invited to attend. Carol E. Barbuto Assistant City 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 %.vilich the appeal is t" b4, ti sed. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS zz y CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUW BONDS DECEMBER 23, 1985 Tape CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz called the meeting to 1 order on Monday, December 23, 1985 at 1:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL• PRESENT: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz Vice Mayor Helen Massaro Councilman Arthur H. Gottesman Councilman Sydney M. Stein ABSENT: Councilman Raymond J. Munitz ALSO PRESENT: Larry Perretti, Acting City Manager Jon M. Henning, City Attorney Gerald Heffernan, Bond Counsel 1. lgguance Qf Tamarac Utiliti-es West Rgyenue Bpnds-- Temp.eso 45 - Discussion and possible action (tabled from 12/19/85) SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED AS AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. R-85-439 PASSED Mr. Henning read Temp. Resc,.13945 by title. Mr. Gerald Heffernan, Bond Counsel, recapped the meeting held on Thursday, December 19, 1985; he stated that there was discussion about proposed amendments and particular points that the City had a concern with. Mr. Heffernan said it was decided, at that time, to table the item until he could meet with staff to discuss the possible changes. The Bond Counsel reported that on Friday, December 20, 1985 he met with V/M Massaro. Mr. Heffernan said the City was concerned about the responsibility of the Finance Director for investment of funds under the resolution; based upon that meeting on Friday, the Bond Counsel reported that it was de- cided to DELETE the requirement that the Finance Director invest the funds found on page 6, paragraph 26, and INSERT the phrase "at the direction of the City". He said this inserted phrase would give the City the flexibility to establish a particular set of criteria in the future. The Bond Counsel stated that another concern of the City was the definition of "Available impact fees", page 2, Section 2 whereby the term "prior to any Fiscal Year" was DELETED to allow the City more flexibility in determining when these funds are available. He noted that this change was made, wherever applicable, through- out the document. Mr. Heffernan also stated that the DELETION of the phrase 'prior to any Fiscal Year" was also made under the de- finition "Unavailable impact fees" on page 2, section 12 (at the bottom of page). He also cited page 3, paragraph 15, section 401 whereby the phrase "for any additional bonds issued for improve- ments" was ADDED to make it very clear that there was no con- struction fund in this first series of bonds because the City was not doing a project, only a refunding. Mr. Heffernan said it was for clarification that in the future it would only be for addi- tional bonds issued for improvements and not for this particular series of bonds. The Bond Counsel concluded that those were the three main changes although discussions were held as to the reason for the other changes within the document. Mr. Heffernan said another issue that came up on Thursday, December 19, 1985, was the question as to why the requirement to 1 12/23/85 /vdw have a certificate by a consulting engineer was eliminated when additional bonds are issued. He said he had spoken with the con- sulting engineer and the engineer understood because what happens is the City can issue additional bonds under this resolution and it needs a certain historical 110 coverage on its net revenues. He said, if the City implemented any policy in the future or has an existing policy, which he understood the City to have, stating improvements would have to be certified by the consulting engi- neer, the City would not be locked in to any specific timeframe or any specific type of certificate. The Bond Counsel said, in view of that, the City could establish that, in the future, at its flexibility and would not be in violation of anything in this resolution. Mr. Heffernan summarized that the reason for the deletion of certificate by the consulting engineer was to allow maximum flexibility for the City to insure that they were always in compliance with its current requirements. Mayor Kravitz asked the Vice Mayor if she had received the answers to the questions she raised at last Thursday's meeting. V/M Massaro said she depended on Mr. Henning to make the notes and would rely on them to determine if the questions raised had been resolved. Mr. Heffernan stated that all the changes were based on that meeting. The Vice Mayor referenced page 6, para- graph 21 noting that "511" should be CHANGED to 0512"; Mr. Heffernan acknowledged that it was a typographical error. The Bond Counsel cited page 6, paragraph 24, section 513, fourth line noting that the phrase "prior to each Fiscal Year" should be DELETED. The City Attorney said Mr. Heffernan had also corrected the typo on page 6, paragraph 28 to read "part" instead of "party". He referenced page 7, paragraph 36 whereby the Bond Counsel was to INSERT the phrase "At the end of" to read "At the end of Article X" because Article X had several paragraphs and this INSERTION would aid in clarification. The City Attorney said the possibility of the refunding issue at fifteen million dollars was left intact even though the original resolution provided for the issuance of additional parity bonds. Mr. Heffernan said the question was raised as to why there was talk about additional improvements and additional bonds; he stated that at the meeting, under Section 206, all they were doing was authorizing the first series of bonds which was only for the purpose of refunding. Mr. Henning said they had dis- cussed that the resolution provided that a refunding issue up to fifteen million dollars was permitted but that the City would only need $12.6 million to fund the refunding. The Vice Mayor said they had also discussed the fact that none of this money could be used for any improvements whatsoever but only for the purpose of refunding; the Bond Counsel concurred. C/M Gottesman MOVED that Temp_. Reso. #3945 be ADOPTED. SECONDED by C/M Stein. VOTE: ALL MTED AYE Mr. Heffernan informed Council of a pre -closing scheduled for Monday afternoon, December 30, 1985, and a final funding sche- duled for Tuesday morning, December 31, 1985. He said they would need the Mayor's signatures on some certificates although he was not required to be present. The Vice Mayor said she was concerned about the statement "that before any additional bonds shall be issued" and the references made to construction, improvements and issuance of additional bonds. V/M Massaro said she was assured that in no way was the City Council required to approve the funding of additional bonds for the other work that might be done at a later date. She cited page 17 in Resolution 85-436, "before any additional bonds shall be issued under the provisions of this section, the City Council shall adopt a resolution". Mr. Heffernan explained the statement as meaning when the City was ready to issue additional bonds, as they are doing in this transaction, then the City shall, at that time, adopt a resolution which would establish what improvements are needed, how much money is needed to do the improvements and 2 12/23/85 / /vdw V who the Professionals would be. The City Attorney explained that it was only a condition which provided that if the City Council wanted to issue additional bonds, a resolution Mr. must be passed. Heffernan added that the resolution could contain whatever detail Council wants; however, the required resolution was there to protect the bondholders who want to insure that before any additional bonds are issued, Council considers what the improve- ments are, make sure they meet the test, select the professionals and insure that the interest rates are acceptable. The Vice Mayor suggested that it read "it would be necessary for the City Council to adopt a resolution authorizing...". Mr. Heffernan said Council had to adopt a resolution but stated that there were no specifics as to what the resolution had to that contain but only Council take official action. The City Attorney said no one was directing that Council issue additional bonds but that if Council decided they wanted to issue additional bonds, the City must pass a resolution before the bonds are issued. V/M Massaro said as long as the City would not be responsible to anyone, and if and when the City additional bonds, wants the City would expect and would have to pass an additional resolution. Mayor Kravitz adjourned the meeting at 1:35 P.M. 1 11 MAYOR TY C ERK This public document was promulgated at a cost of or per copy to inform the 24-- general public and public officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the City Council of the City of Tamarac. CITY OF TAMARAC AP OVED AT MEETING OF o �� City Clerk 3 12/23/85 /vdw