89-R-33RESOLUTION NO. 89-R-33
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ENGAGEMENT OF
�.�✓t ore. Klr7 11�/°/f , FOR BOND COUNSEL
AS PER THE ATTACHED PROFE SIGNAL SERVICES PROPOSAL;
REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Edge-
water, Florida, hereby authorizes the engagement of Liut��11
x le", f._/✓Z�4 84 , for Bond Counsel, as per the
Professional Services Proposal attached to this Resolution and by
reference incorporated herein as if fully set forth and marked
Exhibit "A".
SECTION 2. That all resolutions or parts of resolutions
in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. That this Resolution shall take effect immedi-
ately upon its adoption by the City Council of the City of Edge-
water, Florida, at a special meeting of said Council
held on the 15th day of May , 1989, and ap-
proved as provided by law.
This Resolution was introduced and sponsored by Councilwoman
Bennington , and was read and passed by a vote of the
City Council of the City of Edgewater, Florida, at a special
meeting of said Council held on the 15th day of May ,
1989, and approved as provided by law.
ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
Mn vnr
1
Authenticated this aH of , 1989.
Mayor
This
Resolution
Prepared
by:
Jy�k
or"y
_IVERMORE KLEIN 8 LOTT, P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW �.
1750 GULF LIFE TOWER '
DANIEL U. LIVEKMORE,JR. JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32207
RICHARD E. KLEIN
RICHARD I. LOTT TELEPHONE 904/399-0500
PATRICIA D. LOTT TELECOPY 904/398-0500
WILLIAM L. ZVARA
W. LON ALLWORTH
May 11, 1989
Honorable David Mitchum
Mayor
City of Edgewater
104 N. Riverside Drive
Edgewater, Florida 32032
Re: Revised Proposal to Serve as Bond Counsel to
the City of Edgewater, Florida
Dear Mayor Mitchum:
This letter supplements my firm-s March 10, 1989 proposal to serve as bond
counsel to the City of Edgewater, Florida for the financing of construction of an
additional potable water treatment facility and distribution system; wastewater collection
system and expansion of existing plant; drainage improvements and paving of streets,
which are estimated to cost approximately $30,000,000.
At the interview on May 4, 1 learned that the financings contemplated are:
1. Water and wastewater special assessment issue of approximately
$11,000,000.
2. Water and wastewater revenue issue of approximately $10,000,000, with
a possible $1,500,000 retirement of outstanding debt by refunding.
3. Paving special assessment issue of approximately $10,000,000 for road
improvements.
4. Stormwater utility revenue issue of approximately $2,000,000 for
stormwater drainage projects.
5. Possible short term bridge financing for $5,000,000 or less to provide
cash for these projects pending sale of long-term bonds.
Applying our fee proposal in our March 10 letter to these financings, and
assuming the primary responsibility for legal review for the special assessment resolutions
and hearings would be undertaken by the City Attorney, our proposed fees and expenses,
and maximum contract price, for the above issues would be computed as follows:
' j-A! - J
LIvERMORE KLEIN a LOTT, P.A.
Issue 1:
$15,000
Issue 2:
$11,500
Issue 3:
$10,000
Issue 4:
$ 7,500
Issue 5:
Total Fees
$ 7 500
51,500
Maximum Expenses
$16 000
Maximum Contract Price
67,500
If any additional services are requested outside the normal scope of bond
counsel services for these issues, we will provide them at an hourly rate of $150 per hour
for partners and $90 per hour for associates.
As I mentioned last week during the interview, I will be the attorney
responsible for this engagement, and will personally do the work, except for any rare
scheduling conflict which may arise.
To reiterate our qualifications for these financings, we bring to this work a
broad base of municipal experience, as well as extensive municipal finance expertise. I
served as Assistant General Counsel and Acting General Counsel Tor —the consolidated
government in Jacksonville during its formative years, 1968 - 1974, providing legal
services to the combined city -county, the electric utility, 2 publicly owned hospitals, the
marine and aviation activities of the port authority, the Duval County School Board, and
the transportation authority, which operated the public bus system and the expressway
system. Mr. and Mrs. Lott were each County Attorney for Escambia County for a period
of years. Thus, our outlook is one of assistance to, and appreciation of the overall
responsibilities and problems of, the City in general and the City Attorney in particular.
Our Summary of Qualifications lists all of our financing experience. In the
utility area, we have acted as bond counsel for more than 40 utility revenue financings,
many of which involved special assessments. My personal experience includes more than
half of these utility revenue financings. I am now completing a combined water,
wastewater, paving and drainage program for the City of Atlantic Beach which was
financed by a combination of special assessments, utility revenue bonds, and other
revenue bonds.
At the request of Mr. Alvarez, I have reviewed Sections 66, 74 and 102 of your
City Charter with a view to determining whether these sections would adversely affect
your financing program, and in our opinion, they will not. These sections were all part of
Chapter 27532, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1951, your basic Charter, and have not
been amended or repealed by any Act of the Legislature. All of these sections became
ordinances upon enactment 0 ChaO 73-129, now codified as Section 166.021, Florida
Statutes, and have been subject to modification or repeal as are other ordinances, since
July 1, 1973. Section 102 applies to all bonds, on its face, although it would probably only
be applied by a court to general obligation bonds, and we recommend it be repealed by
ordinance of the City Council. The general laws of Florida are adequate for your
financing needs. Section 74 only applies to bonds payable from ad valorem taxes, and
Section 67 only requires the City Council to do what the bond resolutions will also require.
Neither of these sections needs to be repealed to accomplish your financings.
LIVEitMORE KLEIN a LOTT. P. A.
I emphasized amendment or repeal by Act of the Legislature. Since 1973, your
Charter could be amended by ordinance of the City Council with voter approval. We have
not made any examination of City ordinances, and assume for purposes of this analysis
that no such amendments or re-enactments, after July 1, 1973, have taken effect.
I look forward to your favorable consideration of our proposal, and to meeting
with you on May 15 at 6:00 p.m.
Sincerely,
j � c
Daniel U. Livermore, Jr.
DULJr/gb-407A
CC: Jose Benito Alvarez, Esq.
Gerald C. Hartman, P.E.
..IVERMORE KLEIN a LOTT, P.1-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1750 CDLF LIFE TOWER
DANIEL D. LIVERMORE,JR. JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA M207
RICHARD E.KLEIN
RICHARD I. LOTT TELEPHONE 9D4/399-0500
FATKICIA D. LOTT TELECOPY 904/398-0500
WILLIAM L.ZVAILA
W. LON ALLWORTH
May 5, 1989
C.I.P. Committee
City of Edgewater
104 N. Riverside Drive
Edgewater, Florida 32032
""D MA" b- - t:,,;g
Re: Proposal to Serve as Bond Counsel to the City of Edgewater, Florida
Gentlemen:
This letter supplements our March 10, 1989 proposal to serve as bond counsel
to the City of Edgewater, Florida for the financing of construction of an additional
potable water treatment facility and distribution system; wastewater collection system
and expansion of existing plant; drainage improvements and paving of streets, which are
estimated to cost approximately $30,000,000.
At the interview on May 4, we learned that the financings contemplated are:
1. Water and wastewater special assessment issue of approximately
$11,000,000.
2. Water and wastewater revenue issue of approximately $10,000,000, with
a possible $1,500,000 retirement of outstanding debt by refunding.
3. Paving special assessment issue of approximately $10,000,000 for road
improvements.
4. Stormwater utility revenue issue of approximately $2,000,000 for
stormwater drainage projects.
5. Possible short term bridge financing for $5,000,000 or less to provide
cash for these projects pending sale of long-term bonds.
Applying our fee proposal in our March 10 letter to these financings, and
assuming the primary responsibility for legal review for the special assessment resolutions
and hearings would be undertaken by the City Attorney, our proposed fees for the above
issues would be computed as follows:
Issue 1:
$15,000
Issue 2:
$11,500
Issue 3:
$10,000
Issue 4:
$ 7,500
Issue 5:
$ 7,500
LIVERMORE KLEIN a LOTT, P.A.
To reiterate our qualifications for these financings, we bring to this work a
broad base of municipal experience, as well as extensive municipal finance expertise. I
served as Assistant General Counsel and Acting General Counsel oil} a consolidated
government in Jacksonville during its formative years, 1968 - 1974, providing legal
services to the combined city -county, the electric utility, 2 publicly owned hospitals, the
marine and aviation activities of the port authority, the Duval County School Board, and
the transportation authority, which operated the public bus system and the expressway
system. Mr. and Mrs. Lott were each County Attorney for Escambia County for a period
of years. Thus, our outlook is one of assistance to, and appreciation of the overall
responsibilities and problems of, the City in general and the City Attorney in particular.
Our Summary of Qualifications lists all of our financing experience. In the
utility area, we have acted as bond counsel for more than 40 utility revenue financings,
many of which involved special assessments. We are now completing a combined water,
wastewater, paving and drainage program for the City of Atlantic Beach which was
financed by a combination of special assessments, utility revenue bonds, and other
revenue bonds.
At the request of Mr. Alvarez, I have reviewed Sections 66, 74 and 102 of your
City Charter with a view to determining whether these sections would adversely affect
your financing program, and in our opinion, they will not. These sections were all part of
Chapter 27632, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1861, your basic Charter, and have not
been amended or repealed by any Act of the Legislature. All of these sections became
ordinances upon enactment of Chapter 73-129, now codified as Section 166.021, Florida
Statutes, and have been subject to modification or repeal as are other ordinances, since
July 1, 1973. Section 102 applies to all bonds, on its face, although it would probably only
be applied by a court to general obligation bonds, and we recommend it be repealed by
ordinance of the City Council. The general laws of Florida are adequate for your
financing needs. Section 74 only applies to bonds payable from ad valorem taxes, and
Section 67 only requires the City Council to do what the bond resolutions will also require.
Neither of these sections needs to be repealed to accomplish your financings.
I emphasized amendment or repeal by Act of Legislature. Since 1973, your
Charter could be amended by ordinance of the City Council with voter approval. We have
not made any examination of City ordinances, and assume for purposes of this analysis
that no such amendments or re-enactments, after July 1, 1983, have taken effect.
We look forward to your favorable consideration of our proposal.
Sincerely,
Daniel U. Livermore, Jr.
DULJr/gb-407A