05-06-1981 - Workshop
...........- ...
u
(.)
CITY OF EDGEWATER
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
May 6, 1981
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Robert H. Christy called the Workshop Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Edgewater to order at 7:00 P.M. in the
Community Center.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Robert H. Christy
Councilman Jacob Lodico
Councilman David C. Ledbetter
Councilman Wilbert Pendleton
Councilman John T. Wilbur
City Attorney Clay Henderson
City Clerk Nancy F. Blazi
Police Chief Earl Baugh
Present
Present
Excused
Present
Present
Late
Present
Present
The purpose of this workshop was to discuss funding for paving,
sewer, water and drainage improvements.
The Mayor opened the meeting by stating that he had contacted Mr.
Don Testa and Mr. Frank Magnuson regarding securing original blue-
prints and engineering data on streets and drainage for Florida
Shores.
The meeting was then opened for audience participation:
Robert Lawrence questioned why the streets in Florida Shores
ever accepted unpaved. There followed a general discussion
garding occurrences in 1955 involving subdivision plat law.
Walls offered background information.
were
re-
Paul
Tony Veschusio spoke favoring paving only. The Mayor explained
why sewer and water was also necessary, citing poor septic tank
performance, fractional use of sewer plant and possible grant con-
sideration if a combined program used.
Robert Tipton favored installation of sewers before paving.
Frank Wroniak spoke against funding the project by a bond issue.
Julian White suggested we pave only every fourth street north of
Indian River Blvd.
Paul Walls suggested that first streets be paved and then sewers
installed in rear property easements later.
Ruth Katz questioned whose responsibility the septic tanks in
Florida Shores were.
William Griffith spoke against a front foot assessment and indicated
that after paving, restrictions on heavy equipment must be established
to prevent their damage.
Evelyn Brogan favored a rear easement sewer installation and was
against a front foot assessment.
Mr. Bill Cross of Briley, Wild & Associates, Edgewater City Engineers,
raised the following issues: Engineering: The project can be en-
gineered in many different ways and he can provide alternate plans.
A project this size will attract the best contractors at the best
prices available. Concrete paving should be considered as it is:
(a) Cost competitive; (b) Needs less maintenance; (c) has a longer
life span (6 times asphalt); and (d) will require less road base
preparation. Financing: Total cost will range from $25 to $29 million
based on projected 1983 costs. A bond issue will be necessary for
.-"- ..
(.)
o
funds of this size. If $29 million is financed entirely by front
foot assessment, the cost would be approximately $50 per foot.
Grants with the current administration are not realistic, however,
FHA funding should be checked. If a bond issue is used for wfrter
and sewer work, repayment can be made from pledged utility taxes
and adjusted user fees. If front foot assessment is used for paving
and drainage work, repayment can be spread over 10-15 years. It
is also possible to set up a separate taxing district. Cost Offsets:
Improvements will cause more building and raise existing property
values thus increasing tax base. Paved streets will require less
maintenance and result in maintenance cost reductions. He con-
cluded that the first step to take would be to have a workshop to
discuss the matter further with the engineers and bonding agents.
Mr. Ron Austin of Lone Star Concrete spoke on concrete paving. He
stated that a surface 5 inches deep, 20 feet wide and 100 miles long
would cost $6 million for concrete alone. He also pointed out:
(a) Less shell base was necessary if we use concrete (b) The life
span is 6 times asphalt (c) Concrete could be poured by city crews
at 100 yards or 300 lineal feet a day, and (d) Would be less ex-
pensive than contracted job. He added that a 3 day curing period
was necessary before use.
Mr. Copeland of the Edgewater Street Department indicated that our
current street maintenance costs are approximately $150,000 yearly.
Mr. Bill Fray of the Leedy Corporation (Municipal bond dealers,
financial advisers; investment bankers) spoke next on funding a
bond issue through pledged utility taxes, special assessments;
a special taxing district and ad valorem taxes. He stated that
the current rate of interest on municipal bonds is 10.94 and could
easily go to 11 or 12%. Mr. Fray concurs that FHA funding is
unlikely. Mr. Fray outlined the bond issuance process as follows:
(a) Engineering plans completed and submitted; (b) Bonding agents
develop alternate financing plans; (c) City chooses plan; (d) Bond
counsel and the City Attorney put financing plan into legal form;
(e) Resulting resolution is reviewed and passed by city; (f) City
Attorney attends validation hearing (23 day waiting period); and
(g) After 30 day appeal period, bonds are delivered and funds
released. Mr. Fray indicated that we would probably utilize a
serial bond issue with each portion maturing at a different time.
He further explained default procedures. Mr. Fray stated that if
a special taxing district were utilized, a resolution must be
developed that would authorize the city to levy a tax totaling
125-130% of debt service.
A general discussion was then had regarding scheduling a workshop.
It was agreed that 1:30 P.M., May 7, 1981 would be acceptable and
the City Clerk was instructed to invite the auditors to attend.
There followed a short period of audience participation of a
general nature related.to payment for these improvements.
ADJOURN
Councilman Wilbur then made a motion to adjourn. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Pendleton and the meeting was adjourned.
Minutes submitted by:
Holly Haeger
City Council Workshop 5/6/81