Miscellaneous CorrespondenceWilliam R. Hough & Co.
OLD PORT COVE )OE B. WISE
1212 U.S. HIGHWAY ONE
P.O. BOX 14095
NORTH PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33408
(305) 626.3911
November 3, 1978
The Honorable Chairman and Members
of the Board of County Conmissioners
Monroe County
P.O. Box 1029
Key West, FL 33040
Gentlemen:
RESIDENT MANAGER
RAYMOND V. CONDON
f
In our capacity as Underwriter or Financial Advisor to Monroe County, we
are providing you with a pamphlet which we have prepared to give you a
"quick review" of certain features of the recently enacted Florida Housing
Finance Authority Law and a plan for implantation.
Also attached is a proposed County resolution which, upon passage, would
permit us to immediately proceed to assist you in (1) determining Monroe
County's shortage of affordable housing and capital for investment in
such housing and (2) developing, if required, the necessary documentation
to create the Housing Finance Authority.
In view of the shrinkage of available private capital for new mortgage
loans and the effect on future housing starts, we suggest that you may
wish to schedule an information meeting in the near future to discuss
this matter. We have arranged to speak to the Commission at the
November 14th Commission meeting to acquaint you with all aspects of
this subject.
Very truly yours,
R. & CO.
. (YOUGH
gise
JW/js
Enclosure
cc; William E.P. Roberts., County Administrator
Michael H. Cates, County Attorney
J Ralph W. Mute, County Clerk
STATE. COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL BONDS
RESOLUTION
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the State of Florida has recognized a critical shortage of
affordable housing throughout the State for low to moderate income citizens;
and
WHEREAS, Chapter 78-89, Laws of Florida, provides authority for each
county to create a Housing Finance Authority with powers to attract private
capital to satisfy such shortage; and
WHEREAS, Monroe County desires to immediately proceed to evaluate and
determine its need to establish a County Housing Finance Authority; and
WHEREAS, William R. Hough & Co. has considerable experience and is
eminently qualified in local government financing with a long, successful
record of helping Florida communities solve their financial needs; and
WHEREAS, William R. Hough & Co. is thoroughly familiar with the Florida
Housing Finance Authority Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended, which together provide a means for the County to provide financing
of mortgage loans through the issuance of tax-exempt bonds; and
WHEREAS, William R. Hough & Co. has the depth of expertise in this
field of financing to insure the prompt implementation of the desired
program; and
WFE.iEAS, William R. Hough & Co. proposes to diligently and profession-
ally assist the County staff and others designated to work in this program
to specifically identify the shortages of housing and capital investments
for such housing in Monroe County;
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that:
William R. Hough & Co. is hereby authorized to proceed
to coordinate and assist in the efforts of the County
agencies and others in determining the shortage of
affordable housing and of capital for investment in such
housing in Monroe County. It is specifically under-
stood that the County shall not be financially or other-
wise obligated to William R. Hough & Co. for its
assistance in this undertaking.
William R Hough & Co.
HOUSING
FINANCE
AUTHORITY
PLAN
William R. Hough & Co.
Clients Served by William R. plough & Co.
State of Florida
Acme Drainage District
Alachua County
Baker County Board of Public Instruction
City of Belle Glade
City of Boynton Beach
City of Bradenton
Brevard County
City of Brooksville
Canaveral Port Authority
City of Cape Canaveral
City of Cape Coral
Charlotte County
Charlotte County Development Authority
Citrus County Hospital Board
City of Clearwater
Collier County
Dade County
Escambia County
City of Fort Meade
City of Fort Pierce
Fort Pierce Hospital Authority
Fort Pierce Utility Commission
City of Gainesville
Hamilton County School Board
Hamilton County Hospital Board
Hernando County
City of Holly Hill
City of Homestead
Indian River County
City of Jacksonville
Jacksonville Electric Authority
Jackson County School Board
City of Kissimmee
City of Lake Butler
City of Lake Wales
Leon County
Levy County School Board
Town of Longboat Key
Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District
Manatee County Port
City of Margate
Marion County Hospital District
Martin County Board of Public Instruction
Martin County
City of Miami
New Smyrna Beach Utility Authority
AL
(Continued on back page)
William R. Hough & Co.
Housing Finance Authority Plan — An Overview
Today one of the most serious problems confronting Florida communities is
the critical shortage of housing at prices that our citizens can afford.
Every day more and more Floridians are finding that they have been pr1ced
out of the single-family home market, largely due to high interest rates
on mortgage loans. The problem is not limited to the less fortunate, low-
income groups. According to data released by the Florida State Department
of Community Affairs, over seventy percent of all Floridians are unable to
purchase or rent housing without spending in excess of twenty-five percent
of their total family income. The problem is particularly acute for young
and elderly families in low to moderate income groups.
THE ACT:
Recognizing the critical shortage of affordable housing units, the Florida
Legislature passed the Florida Housing Finance Authority Law in July, 1978
(the Act). Under the terms of the Act, the county can issue tax-free
mortgage revenue bonds secured by new conventional mortgage loans purchased
from a lending institution. The Bonds would not be payable from general
revenues of the county but would be paid from moneys derived from principal
and interest payments on the mortgage loans. All accounting functions for
the mortgage loans (purchased by the county from bond proceeds) will be
carried out by the lending institution and by the Trustee acting on behalf
of the bondholders.
The overall concept of the Act is to provide financing so as to enable the
lending institutions to make certain mortgage loans at interest rates lower
than the prevailing conventional market. This is made possible by financing
the eligible mortgage loans from proceeds derived from the Authority's sale
of tax-exempt bonds. Through this financing mechanism, many prospective
home purchasers that are not presently eligible for mortgage loans could
be brought into the "zone of qualification". Thus the Act was designed to
provide a county with a means to aid in the solution of a portion of the
local housing problem.
It is envisioned that the program will be directed to those families and
individuals whose earnings are above the eligibility requirments of Federal
programs, but are insufficient to qualify an applicant for conventional
financing. The program can be designed to provide sufficient flexibility
to meet the particular housing needs of each county.
The Florida Housing Finance Authority Law is one of the most important
housing acts ever passed in Florida. It will allow many Floridians, who
might not otherwise have the opportunity to realize the dream and pride
of home ownership. It will help to stabilize the local construction
industry by providing a new source of mortgage money. The Act will also
provide direct benefits to the county via an increased ad valorem tax base
and a more stable labor force.
William K Hough & Co.
IMPLEMENTATION:
The program is not difficult to implement. It will require the services
of a firm thoroughly familiar with the Florida municipal bond market and
the real estate and mortgage markets. William R. Hough & Co. is prepared
to assist you in this program. Our Company was formed in 1962 with the
objective of providing complete underwriting and consulting services to
Florida local governmental units. Each year since 1966, we have been the
number one underwriter of Florida municipal bonds. Our depth of personnel
including carefully selected individuals from various fields of expertise
needed for this problem, our team approach, our position of leadership in
the marketing of Florida bonds, the respect for our judgmant among insti-
tutional investors which we enjoy, all contribute to our ability to get
the job done on a basis consistent with the needs of your County.
Housing Finance Authority Act
PURPOSE:
The Florida Housing Finance Authority Law was enacted, effective July 1,
1978, to help alleviate "a shortage of housing available at prices or
rentals which many persons and families can afford and a shortage of
capital for investment in such housing."
CREATION:
Each county may create a separate public body, corporate and politic, to
be known as the "Housing Finance Authority" of the county for which it
was created.
The Board of County Commissioners will appoint five members, of which not
less than three shall be knowledgeable in one of the following fields:
labor, finance or ccmnexce. The County may also change the structure,
organization, programs or activities of any housing authority, including
the power to terminate such authority subject to any contracts in force.
. M.
(1) "To sue and be sued, to have a seal and to alter the same at pleasure,
to have perpetual succession, to make and execute contracts and other
instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of the powers of
the Housing Finance Authority, and to make from time to time, amend
and repeal by-laws, rules, regulations, not inconsistent with this
Act, to carry into effect the powers and purposes of the Housing
Finance Authority."
(2) To purchase and make commitments to purchase or to make loans for such
purpose, and to take assignments of, from lending institutions acting
as a principal or as an agent of the Housing Finance Authority, mortgage
loans and promissory notes accompanying such mortgage loans, including
federally insured mortgage loans or participations with lending insti-
tutions in such promissory rotes and mortgage loans for the construction,
purchase, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of the qualifying housing.
Wiiliam ri.hough & Co.
Description of Functions to be Performed
1. DETERMINATION OF COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS
The most important step in developing a comprehensive housing program
is to identify those housing demands that are not being satisfied by
existing conventional or government -backed financing programs.
Discussions will be held with local realtors, builders, county hortsing
officials, and lending institutions to determine the areas of greatest
need. In addition, population trends and demographic characteristics
of county residents will be reviewed to facilitate projections of
future demand. The data collected will be analyzed and a report will
be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners will full recomneld-
ations for a Housing Assistance Program. The program will include
specific recommendations on the types of loans, income and other
eligibility requirements for program participants, and the nature and
term of the Loan Purchase Agreement and Service Contracts with the
lending institutions. A detailed financing plan will also be presented
to the Authority.
2. ORDINANCE TO CREATE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY
Once the specific county housing problem areas have been identified,
the County Commission may create, by ordinance, a separate public
body, corporate and politic, to be known as the "Housing Finance
Authority" of the county for which it is created to carry out only
those powers granted in the Housing Finance Authority Law.
3. APPOINTMENT OF HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY MEMBERS
Each Housing Finance Authority shall be composed of five mamters
appointed by the County Commission. Not less than three of the
members shall be knowledgeable in one of the following fields:
finance, labor or commerce. The County Commission may, at any time
during the existence of the Authority, change the structure, organi-
zation, program, or activities of any Housing Finance Authority,
subject to any limitation on the in-pairment of contracts entered into
by such Authority.
4. BOND RESOLUTION IS PASSED
Once the program terms and conditions have been defined and a recommended
financing plan has been approved, the bond resolution is passed by the
Housing Finance Authority. In the event that the Authority members
have not been appointed at this time, the County Commission would act
on their behalf.
William R. Hough & Co.
5. BOND VALIDATION PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED
The Authority files suit for validaton of the bonds in the Circuit Court
with a hearing date to be set not less than twenty-one days from the
date the suit is filed. Assuming no appeal is taken to the validation
proceedings during the thirty -day appeal period, the bonds may be,
delivered to the underwriters upon the expiration of the thirty -day
appeal period.
6. PREPARATION OF OFFICIAL STATEMENT
In coordination with the Authority, William R. Hough & Co. will prepare,
print, and distribute to prospective bond buyers, the Official Statement
which will form the basis of the bond offering.
7. RATING AGENCY PRESENTATION
Confer by direct personal contact with the municipal rating services
and provide these services with complete information regarding the bonds
the housing assistance program,
pertaining to the county and th
e
If engaged as underwriter, William R. Hough & Co. will, as "Senior
Manager" of an underwriting syndicate, submit an offer to market the
bonds through such syndicate in accordance with the approved financing
plan for the mortgage revenue bond issue. The interest rates which
the mortgage revenue bonds will bear will be determined by the market
at the time a purchase offer is made and must be in line with rates
prevailing at the time for similar securities. The Authority will have
the opportunity to assure itself as to the appropriateness of these
interest rates prior to entering into a contract for the sale of the
bonds. William R. Hough & Co. provides financial consulting services
also, and, should the Authority wish, William R. Hough & Co. would be
pleased to act as advisor to the Authority and assist in the structuring
and preparation of the bonds for the market.
• It � P • - � • - � 'JIB : • � ' S•1M`J19_I�
After the bonds have been purchased by the underwriters, the bond
proceeds will be escrowed until individual loans are purchased by the
Authority from the savings and loan associations or other lending insti-
tutions which have agreed to supply the required mortgages. The details
and conditions regarding the mortgages to be purchased will be specified
in detail in the Loan Purchase Agreement and Loan Service Contract with
the participating lending institutions. The lending institutions will
be given a specific time period in which to originate and deliver the
mortgages.
LUilliam R. Hough & Co.
working with William R. HOLTh & CO.
William R. Hough & Co. was founded in 1962 with a single objective to
provide complete underwriting and consulting services to Florida muni-
cipalities. Each year since 1966, we have been the NUMBER ONE managing
underwriter of Florida municipal bonds. In 1977, William R. Hough & Co.
acted as manager or co -manager of 47 Florida bond issues and participated
as underwriter in 11 others. These issues constituted 42.96% of the
issues marketed in Florida and 44.37% of the volume. We know the market.
We have an intimate knowledge of bond prices and supply and demand factors.
Our experience and expertise will help insure the County the lowest
possible interest rate on their imrtgage revenue bonds.
The geographic distribution of William R. Hough & Co. personnel throughout
Florida, both in depth and in quality, assures you the immediate availa-
bility of professional assistance to you in your housing program. Our
1977 Annual Report, included herein, gives resumes of our key personnel.
It can be seen that by careful selection, we have a well-balanced team with
formal training and expertise in the various facets of tax-exempt finance.
The services which our employment will bring to you will include anong
other things our working with you and your staff as follows:
(1) Determining the County housing needs and structuring of the
housing assistance program including the establishment of criteria
(2) Drafting the ordinance creating the Housing Finance Authority
(3) Preparing the bond resolution
(4) Structuring the Loan Purchase Agreements, Loan Service Agreements
and establishing the details for the purchase of mortgages
(5) Assisting in the bond validation
(6) Preparing and distributing the Official Statement for the bond
offering
(7) Preparing for and presenting the bonds to the bond rating agencies
(8) Marketing assistance either as senior underwriter or as financial
advisor on the best interest rate terms available in the bond
market for the Authority's bonds.
William R. Hough & Co. is prepared to assist you in your rmrtgage revenue
issue. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you at your convenience
to discuss the program in more detail. Please feel free to contact any of
our offices shown on the following page.
a
WiLLIAM R. EOUGH & CO.
STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL BONDS
Eleven 4th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33731
Telephone (813) 823-8100
23 West Church Street, Orlando, Florida 32802
Telephone (305) 841-1685
1340 Atlantic Bank Building, Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Telephone (904) 355-6691
1212 U.S. Highway One, North Palm Beach, Florida 33408
Telephone (305) 626-3911
509 Mayflower Lane, Fort Pierce, Florida 33450
Telephone (305) 461-2588
William R. Hough & Co.
Clients Served by William R. Hough & Co.
cont'd. o
a
City of North Lauderdale
City of North Miami
City of Ocala
City of Ocean Ridge
Okaloosa County
Orange County Civic Facilities Authority
City of Orlando
Orlando Utilities Commission
Osceola County
Osceola County School Board
City of Pahokee
Pasco County
Pasco County School Board
Pinellas County
City of Pinellas Park
City of Plantation
City of Port Richey
City of Riviera Beach
Royal Palm Village
City of St. Augustine
City of St. Cloud
St. John's County
St. Lucie County
St. Lucie County Board of Public Instruction
City of St. Petersburg
City of St. Petersburg Beach
City of Safety Harbor
City of Sarasota
Sarasota County
Sarasota -Manatee Airport Authority
City of Sebring
Seminole County
Seminole Drainage District
Siesta Key Water Authority
City of South Pasadena
Sumter County Board of Public Instruction
City of Tallahassee
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
City of Tarpon Springs
Village of Tequesta
City of Treasure Island
University of Miami
City of Venice
Volusia County Educational Facilities Authority
City of Williston
City of Winter Haven
City of Winter Park
INVESTMENT BANKING
Who leads in municipal
underwriting
Despite the overall drop in public financing so far this year,
a number of firms have shown hefty gains in 11's rankings.
As it did during 1977, Goldman Sachs
easily outdistanced the field in negotiated
municipal underwritings during the first
half of 1978. It ranked first by each of the
three different measurement methods:
Institutional Investor's bonus -credit -to -
lead -manager method, the full -credit -to -
lead -manager method and the full -
credit -to -each -manager method. What's
just as significant is that it did so in a gen-
erally declining market. Amid a slowdown
in overall underwriting volume, Goldman
participated in only 36 negotiated deals
during the first half of the year compared
with III for all of 1977. Second -ranked
Blyth Eastman Dillon was in on just 29
deals during the first half against 84 last
year. And so it is all up and down the list,
with underwriting volume down because of
rising interest rates, tighter government re-
strictions on certain kinds of offerings and
less buying by some large institutions.
Goldman's strength, as the tables on
the following pages indicate, was in the
pollution control area, where it ranked first;
in the hospital sector, where it moved from
second to first; and in the housing field,
where it jumped from fifth to second place.
Blyth nailed down second place in total un-
derwritings under two of the three mea-
surement methods on the strength of its
first -place finish in the big transportation
sector. And Kidder Peabody earned third
place in total muni underwritings under two
of three measurement methods thanks to a
strong showing across the board, particu-
larly in education and public power issues.
First Boston, too, achieved a solid overall
performance, with its chief strength in the
public power area.
Notwithstanding the drop in public
financings this year, there were some firms
that scored hefty gains in the first-half rank-
ings. E.F. Hutton, for example, rose from
ninth to fifth in the overall standings using
the bonus -credit method. Its particular
strength was in water and sewer issues,
where it ranked first using the bonus -credit
measurement method. Resisting the vol-
ume downtrend, Hutton participated in
some 22 negotiated deals during the first
six months of this year compared with 42
for all of last year. And another big gainer,
Paine Webber, was in on 21 negotiated
deals during the first half of the year
against 32 for the full year 1977. Thanks to
that volume, it was able to rise several
notches in the overall standings according
to all three measurement methods.
Public financing is an underwriting
market where some of the regional firms
often rub shoulders with the big national
firms — generally because of the localized
nature of the deals. Thus, firms such as
Wm. R. Hough, Butcher & Singer and
Alex. Brown manage to rank well up
among the top 25 municipal underwriters in
the table below.
On the following pages are the
market -by -market rankings of the public
finance underwriters, together with their
standings at the end of 1977 and other data
regarding their deals this year.
The standings, ranked by R's
bonus -credit -to -lead -manager formulal-
1st 1/2
1977 1978
$ Volume # of
(millions) issues
1 1 Goldman Sachs
$783.0
36
2 2 Blyth Eastman Dillon
594.8
29
3 3 Kidder Peabody
498.4
34
6 4 First Boston
440.4
24
9 5 E. F. Hutton
398.2
22
4 6 Merrill Lynch White Weld
389.5
31
5 7 Smith Barney, Harris Upham
376.1
17
12 8 Paine Webber
327.9
21
7 9 Salomon Brothers
290.8
18
14 10 Rothschild, Unterberg, Towbin
237.5
20
* 11 Lehman Kuhn Loeb
237.4
9
19 12 Wm. R. Hough
236.4
11
16 13 Butcher & Singer
221.6
28
— 14 Wertheim
216.4
2
21 15 Alex. Brown & Sons
200.8
6
11 16 Bache
180.2
15
** 17 Dean Witter Reynolds
165.0
17
*** 18 Loeb Rhoades Hornblower
164.2
12
— 19 Matthews & Wright
157.6
9
— 20 Baker Watts
138.8
4
— 21 American Securities
137.1
11
— 22 Ziegler Securities
122.8
12
10 23 John Nuveen
120.5
12
25 24 Miller & Schroeder
119.2
7
— 25 Dain, Kalman & Quail
117.0
11
* 1977 Rankings: Lehman Brothers 15, Kuhn
Loeb 17
** 1977 Rankings: Dean Witter 18, Reynolds Securities--
1977 Rankings: Loeb Rhoades 23, Hornblower Weeks--
t These leadership rankings are derived using Institutional Investor's
bonus -credit -to -lead -manager formula. Each co -manager in an underwriting is given
a proportionate share of the credit, but the lead manager (the firm running the books)
is given a double share. For example, in a $100 million deal with one lead manager
and three co -managers, the total is divided into five equal shares of $20 million. Each
co -manager is credited with one share, while the lead manager, in recognition of its
larger contribution to the deal, is given two shares, totaling $40 million.
Reprinted from the September issue of Institutional Investor.
BONUS CREDIT TO LEAD MANAGER FULL CREDIT TO LEAD MANAGER FULL CREDIT TO EACH MANAGER
1st'/a $ Volume # of 1st Ih $ Volume # of 1st 1/2 $ Volume # of
1977 1978 (millions) issues 1977 1978 (millions) issues 1977 1978 (millions) issues
Total public finance issues
1
1
Goldman Sachs
$783.0
36
1
1
Goldman Sachs
$1,249.0
26
2
1
Goldman Sachs
$2,258.2
2
2
Blyth Eastman Dillon
594.8
29
2
2
First Boston
817.6
15
4
2
Blyth Eastman Dillon
2,074.1
3
3
Kidder Peabody
498.4
34
6
3
Kidder Peabody
633.9
19
1
3
Merrill Lynch White Weld
1,969.5
6
4
First Boston
440.4
24
3
4
Blyth Eastman Dillon
633.6
12
7
4
Salomon Brothers
1,790.6
9
5
E. F. Hutton
398.2
22
4
5
Smith Barney, Harris Upham
611.2
14
3
5
Kidder Peabody
1,606.6
4
6
Merrill Lynch White Weld
389.5
31
9
6
Paine Webber
532.3
11
6
6
First Boston
1,450.5
5
7
Smith Barney, Harris Upham
376.1
17
7
7
E. F. Hutton
471.9
12
9
7
E. F. Hutton
1,424.4
12
8
Paine Webber
327.9
21
14
8
Wm. R. Hough
389.1
7
8
8
Bache
1,343.0
7
9
Salomon Brothers
290.8
18
-
9
Wertheim
354.9
1
9
Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb
1,192.8
14
10
Rothschild, Unterberg, Tow.
237.5
20
*
10
Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb
306.6
3
14
10
Paine Webber
987.3
11
Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb
237.4
9
18
11
Rothschild, Unterberg, Tow.
273.1
14
**
11
Loeb Rhoades Hornblower
855.9
19
12
Wm. R. Hough
236.4
11
10
12
Merrill Lynch White Weld
257.1
7
5
12
Smith Barney, Harris Upham
676.2
16
13
Butcher & Singer
221.6
28
5
13
Salomon Brothers
233.6
6
--
13
Butcher & Singer
615.1
-
14
Wertheim
216.4
2
**
14
Loeb Rhoades Hornblower
223.4
3
-
14
Alex. Brown & Sons
608.0
21
15
Alex. Brown & Sons
200.8
6
***
15
Dean Witter Reynolds
219.1
9
-
15
Baker, Watts
555.3
11
16
Bache
180.2
15
16
16
Butcher & Singer
198.8
16
13
16
Citicorp
553.2
•*
17
Dean Witter Reynolds
165.0
17
15
17
Alex. Brown & Sons
172.2
3
11
Morgan Guaranty
553.2
***
18
Loeb Rhoades Hornblower
164.2
12
-
18
Matthews & Wright
162.0
8
-
18
Wm. R. Hough
548.7
-
19
Matthews & Wright
157.6
9
-
19
American Securities
146.0
8
-
19
Wertheim
510.6
--
20
Baker Watts
138.8
4
23
20
Ziegler Securities
129.4
8
***
20
Dean Witter Reynolds
508.7
21
American Securities
137.1
11
-
21
Morgan Guaranty
110.0
1
19
21
Bank of America
498.9
-
12
Ziegler Securities
122.8
12
11
22
John Nuveen
108.9
5
17
22
Rothschild, Unterberg, Tow.
482.7
10
23
John Nuveen
120.5
12
22
23
Miller & Schroeder
107.5
4
-
23
Piper, !affray & Hopwood
480.5
25
24
Miller & Schroeder
119.2
7
24
Elkins, Stroud, Suplee
103.8
5
-
24
Dain, Kalman & Quail
455.2
-
25
Dain, Kalman & Quail
117.0
11
-
25
Bache
100.0
1
25
Bankers Trust
443.2
*
1977 Rankings:
Lehman Brothers 15, Kuhn
Loeb 17
*
1977 Rankings: Lehman Brothers 12, Kuhn Loeb 20
*
1977 Rankings:
Lehman Brothers--, Kuhn
Loeb--,
**
1977 Rankings: Dean Witter 18, Reynolds Securities--
**
1977 Rankings: Loeb Rhoades 21, Hornblower
Weeks--
**
1977 Rankings:
Loeb Rhoades--, Hornblower
Weeks--
***
1977 Rankings: Loeb Rhoades 23, Hornblower
Weeks--
***
1977 Rankings: Dean Witter 19, Reynolds Securities--
***
1977 Rankings:
Dean Witter 22, Reynolds Securities --
Transportation
1
Blyth Eastman Diffon
$267.7
5
1
Goldman Sachs
$504.2
3
1
Blyth Eastman Dillon
$857.7
5
2
Wertheim
216.4
2
1
Wertheim
354.9
1
2
Goldman Sachs
556.4
4
3
Alex. Brown &Sons
166.6
2
3
Blyth Eastman Dillon
304.5
2
3
Merrill Lynch White Weld
553.2
3
4
Goldman Sachs
137.0
4
4
Alex. Brown & Sons
155.7
1
4
Alex. Brown & Sons
510.6
2
5
Baker Watts
127.7
2
5
Smith Barney, Harris Upham
80.0
1
Wertheim
510.6
2
6
First Kentucky Securities
93.5
1
6
Rothschild, Unterberg, Tow.
52.2
1
Baker Watts
510.6
2
7
Merrill Lynch White Weld
56.7
3
7
Wheat, First Securities
10.3
1
7
Salomon Brothers
495.4
2
8
Salomon Brothers
50.7
2
8
Citicorp
443.2
1
9
Citicorp
40.3
1
Bank of America
443.2
1
Bank of America
40.3
1
Bankers Trust
443.2
1
Bankers Trust
40.3
1
Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb
443.2
1
Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb
40.3
1
Bache
443.2
1
Bache
40.3
1
Morgan Guaranty
443.2
1
Morgan Guaranty
40.3
1
14
First Kentucky Securities
280.5
1
15
Rothschild, Unterberg, Tow.
20.9
1
15
Kidder Peabody
132.2
2
16
Kidder Peabody
19.3
2
16
Smith Barney, Harris Upham
80.0
1
17
Smith Barney, Harris Upham
17.8
1
Janney Montgomery Scott
80.0
1
18
Janney Montgomery Scott
8.9
1
Butcher & Singer
80.0
1
'
Butcher & Singer
8.9
1
Elkins, Stroud, Suplee
80.0
1
Elkins, Stroud Suplee
8.9
1
American Securities
80.0
1
American Securities
8.9
1
21
Rothschild Unterberg, Tow.
52.2
1
22
Wheat, First Securities
6.9
1
22
Wheat, First Securities
10.3
1
23
Craigie
3.4
1
Craigie
10.3
1
Housing
1
1
Paine Webber
$239.4
11
1
1
Paine Webber
$458.4
6
2
1
Paine Webber
$698.0
11
5
2
Goldman Sachs
218.1
7
3
2
Goldman Sachs
285.9
4
5
2
Goldman Sachs
600.8
7
13
3
Matthews & Wright
134.3
7
2
3
Salomon Brothers
184.1
5
12
3
Dain, Kalman & Quail
369.4
5
2
4
Salomon Brothers
106.2
8
4
4
Blyth Eastman Dillon
144.0
3
12
Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood
369.4
5
6
5
Blyth Eastman Dillon
91.7
6
8
5
Matthews & Wright
132.1
6
5
Dean Witter Reynolds
324.8
6
*
6
Dean Witter Reynolds
82.7
6
5
6
Smith Barney, Harris Upham
122.9
2
1
6
Salomon Brothers
315.7
8
3
7
Kidder Peabody
78.9
3
7
Dean Witter Reynolds
102.2
2
6
7
Blyth Eastman Dillon
311.6
6
9
8
Dain, Kalman & Quail
78.3
5
7
8
Kidder Peabody
95.1
1
11
8
First Boston
295.3
7
9
Piper, !affray & Hopwood
78.3
5
11
9
E. F. Hutton
85.0
2
14
9
E. F. Hutton
250.2
5
it
10
E. F. Hutton
76.3
5
14
10
Bank of America
50.0
1
3
10
Kidder Peabody
203.5
3
7
11
First Boston
68.6
7
10
11
First Boston
18.9
2
-
11
Matthews & Wright
193.3
7
4
12
Smith Barney, Harris Upham
46.9
3
-
12
Miller & Schroeder
14.0
1
-
12
Burrows Smith
183.6
2
-
13
Burrows Smith
42.4
2
10
13
Bar:he
163.9
3
24
14
Carolan
31.7
1
16
14
John Nuveen
157.2
3
17
15
John Nuveen
31.4
3
4
15
Smith Barney, Harris Upham
151.9
3
12
16
Rothschild Unterberg, Tow.
29.6
2
8
16
Rothschild, Unterberg, Tow.
144.7
2
17
Bache
29.3
3
7
17
Merrill Lynch White Weld
102.2
2
18
Young Moore
20.7
1
-
18
Carolan
95.1
1
18
19
Merrill Lynch White Weld
20.4
2
-
19
J. C. Bradford
70.0
1
9
20
Bank of America
20.0
1
-
First Tennessee
70.0
1
21
Citizens Fidelity
15.0
1
-
Cherokee Securities
70.0
1
First Kentucky Securities
15.0
1
-
UMIC
70.0
1
23
Miller & Schroeder
14.0
1
-
23
Young Moore
62.1
1
24
Bank of New Mexico
12.2
1
15
24
First Nat'l State Bank of NJ
61.7
1
25
First of Michigan
11.0
1
-
25
Bank of New Mexico
61.2
1
`*
1977 Rankings: Dean Witter 16, Reynolds Securities 20
* 1977 Rankings: Dean Witter 9, Reynolds
Securities--
* 1977
Rankings: Dean Witter 21, Reynolds Securities
18
BONUS CREDIT TO LEAD MANAGER FULL CREDIT TO LEAD MANAGER FULL CREDIT TO EACH MANAGER
1st 1/2 $ Volume # of 1st'/2 $ Volume # of 1st 1/2 Volume # of
1977 1978 (millions) issues 1977 1978
(millions) issues 1911 1918 (millions) issues
Hospitals
2 1 Goldman Sachs $131.3 10 2 1 Goldman Sachs $219.2 8 3 1 Goldman Sachs $283.0 10
6 2 Miller & Schroeder 105.2 6 5 2 Smith Barney, Harris Upham 98.8 2 1 2 Merrill lynch White Weld 195.0 7
9 3 Ziegler Securities 89.0 9 7 3 Miller & Schroeder 93.5 3 14 3 Ziegler Securities 141.9 9
7 4 Smith Barney, Harris Upham 65.9 2 10 4 Ziegler Securities 93.4 6 16 4 Miller & Schroeder 134.6 6
1 5 Kidder Peabody 53.5 4 1 5 Kidder Peabody 79S 3 4 5 John Nuveen 107.7 5
4 6 Merrill Lynch White Weld 48.5 7 13 6 Paine Webber 62.8 4 10 6 Smith Barney, Harris Upham 98.8 2
- 7 Henderson Few 42.5 5 9 7 Merrill Lynch White Weld 57.5 2 2 7 Kidder Peabody 95.3 4
14 8 Paine Webber 33.0 5 - 8 First Boston 47.2 3 12 8 Alex. Brown & Sons 85.5 3
9 First Boston 31.5 3 - 9 E. F. Hutton 45.5 3 5 9 Blyth Eastman Dillon 84.9 4
10 American Securities 30.9 3 - 10 Henderson Few 41.8 4 15 10 Paine Webber 77.2 5
3 11 John Nuveen 30.6 5 - 11 Donaldson, Lufkin, Jenrette 31.9 1 - 11 E. F. Hutton 75.7 4
18 12 Alex. Brown & Sons 30.3 3 8 12 Blyth Eastman Dillon 31.8 1 24 12 Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood 68.7 4
5 13 Blyth Eastman Dillon 30.2 4 - 13 Boettcher 30.9 3 9 13 Butcher & Singer 64.6 3
- 14 J. C. Bradford 30.0 2 - 14 J. C. Bradford 30.0 2 - 14 Henderson Few 64.2 5
- 15 E. F. Hutton 28.9 4 3 15 John Nuveen 28.4 2 - 15 Seasongood & Mayer 63.2 1
10 16 Butcher & Singer 23.8 3 - American Securities 28.4 2 - 16 Janney Montgomery Scott 59.6 2
24 17 Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood 22.6 4 - 17 Wm. Sword 21.7 1 17 Loeb Rhoades Homblower 50.1 2
- 18 Wm. Sword 21.7 1 - 18 Kirchner Moore 21.6 1 6 18 Wauterlek & Brown 49.1 2
- 19 Boettcher 20.7 3 6 19 Butcher & Singer 18.4 1 - 19 First Boston 47.2 3
- 20 Bain, Kalman & Quail 18.2 3 - 20 Bain, Kalman & Quail 17.5 1 - Burrows Smith 47.2 3
- 21 Donaldson, Lufkin, Jenrette 16.0 1 - 21 Cumberland Securities 16.9 1 - 21 B. C. Ziegler 47.1 2
- 22 Seasongood & Mayer 15.8 1 11 22 Alex, Brown & Sons 16.5 2 21 22 Dain, Kalman & Quail 45.2 3
13 B. C. Ziegler 15.7 2 - 23 Stifel Nicolaus 14.4 1 7 23 Herbert J. Sims 43.8 3
Burrows Smith 15.7 3 - Allen C. Ewing 14.4 1 - 24 Stifel Nicolaus 41.7 2
- 25 Janney Montgomery Scott 13.9 2 - UMIC 14.4 1 - 25 Hazlett, Burt & Watson 40.2 2
- EhrBch-Bober 14.4 2
* 1977 Rankings: Loeb Rhoades--, Hornblower Weeks 25
Education
2 1 Rothschild, Unterberg, Towbin
8 2 Butcher & Singer 120.8 16 11 2 Butcher & Singer 120.9 10 4 2 Rothschild, Unterberg, Tow. 196.6 12
9 3 Kidder Peabody 114.3 9 12 3 Kidder Peabody 113.7 7 6 3 Moore, Leonard & Lynch 186.4 13
6 4 Moore, Leonard & lynch 79.2 13 10 4 Moore, Leonard & Lynch 63.4 7 11 4 Kidder Peabody 149.9 9
3 5 Arthurs Lestrange & Short 43.6 7 * 5 Dean Witter Reynolds 54.9 2 - 5 Dolphin & Bradbury 87.6 9
- 6 Dolphin & Bradbury 41.1 9 21 6 Parker/Hunter 48.0 3 7 6 Arthurs Lestrange & Short 85.0 7
- 7 Parker/Hunter 38.7 4 - 7 Elkins, Stroud, Suplee 46.3 2 * 7 Dean Witter Reynolds 70.0 3
8 Dean Witter Reynolds 34.8 3 7 8 Continental Illinois 43.8 1 - 8 Parker/Hunter 66.1 4
9 Elkins, Stroud, Suplee 33.0 3 3 9 Arthurs Lestrange & Short 40.7 3 - 9 Bache 61.4 2
25 10 Cunningham Schmertz 27.5 2 24 10 Dolphin & Bradbury 39.6 3 - 10 Elkins, Stroud, Suplee 60.8 3
11 First Natl Bank of Chicago 23.8 2 - 11 Charles G. Peelor 30.0 1 - 11 First Nab Bank of Chicago 58.8 2
12 12 Continental Illinois 17.5 1 - 12 Cunningham Schmertz 27.5 2 13 12 Merrill Lynch White Weld 44.3
13 13 Henry Fisher Munis. 14.7 2 14 13 Henry Fisher Munis. 26.5 2 15 13 Continental Illinois 43.8
- Rauscher Pierce Securities 14.7 1 - 14 Natl Central Bank, Lancaster 21.9 3 - Northern Trust 43.8
- 15 Bache 13.9 2 - 15 Wachovia Banc & Trust 19.0 1 - Harris Trust & Savings Bank 43.8
- 16 Russell Rea Bleir & Zappalla 13.2 3 - 16 Craigie 16.5 1 - 16 Russell Rea Bleir & Zappalla 43.5 3
- 17 Nati Central Bank, Lancaster 12.9 3 - 17 First Nall Bank of Chicago 15.0 1 -- 17 Henry/Kearns Municipals 42.1 2
- 18 McDonald 12.6 1 - 18 Rauscher Pierce Securities 14.7 1 - 18 A. E. Masten 38.0 2
- 19 A. E. Masten 12.3 2 18 19 Boettcher 13.6 2 - 19 Babbitt Meyers 34.5 3
18 20 Merrill Lynch White Weld 12.0 2 - 20 McDonald 12.6 1 - 20 Carolan 31.8 2
14 21 Boettcher 11.1 2 - 21 Shearson Hayden Stone 11.6 2 - 11 Warren W. York 30.2 2
- 21 Craigie 11.0 1 - 22 E. F. Hutton 10.5 1 - 22 Charles G. Peelor 30.0 1
23 Carolan 10.6 2 - 23 American Securities 9.7 1 - Hefren-Tillotson 30.0 1
24 Warren W. York 10.1 2 - 24 Foster & Marshall 9.2 1 - 24 Paine Webber 28.1 1
23 25 Babbitt Meyers 10.0 3 6 25 Kirchner Moore 9.1 1 - 25 Cunningham Schmertz 27.5 2
* 1977 Rankings: Dean Witter--, Reynolds Securities-- * 1977 Rankings: Dean Witter--, Reynolds Securities-- * 1977 Rankings: Dean Witter 22, Reynolds Securities --
Public power
2 1 First Boston $131.8 4 1 1 First Boston $525.0 3 1 1 First Boston $650.0 4
* 2 Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb 111.6 3 2 Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb 219.7 2 2 Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb 569.7 3
6 3 Kidder Peabody 74.9 3 8 3 Wm. R. Hough 205.0 1 13 3 E. F. Hutton 555.0 2
17 4 Wm. R. Haugh 68.3 1 3 4 Kidder Peabody 125.0 1 8 4 Salomon Brothers 525.0 3
8 5 Goldman Sachs 66.3 4 13 5 Goldman Sachs 35.3 2 4 5 Goldman Sachs 510.3 4
9 6 E. F. Hutton 66.0 2 4 6 Smith Barney, Harris Upham 31.5 2 9 6 Kidder Peabody 485.0 3
19 7 Robinson -Humphrey Co. 57.0 3 12 7 John Nuveen 24.4 1 17 7 Robinson -Humphrey Co. 375.0 3
11 8 Salomon Brothers 55.5 3 - 8 Stifel Nicolaus 15.8 1 21 8 Dillon Read 369.3 2
5 9 White Weld 49.3 3 ** 9 Loeb Rhoades Hornblower 366.0 2
10 10 Bache 47.9 5 20 10 Lazard Freres 350.0 1
7 11 Merrill Lynch White Weld 45.9 4 23 W. H. Morton 350.0 1
18 12 Dillon Read 36.6 2 5 12 Bache 326.0 5
- 13 Leedy, Wheeler & Alleman 34.2 1 3 13 Merrill Lynch White Weld 310.0 4
Leedy Corp. 34.2 1 6 14 White Weld 294.7 3
Southeastern Muni. Bonds 34.2 1 24 15 Wm. R. Hough 205.0 1
** 16 Loeb Rhoades Hornblower 33.8 2 - Leedy, Wheeler & Alleman 205.0 1
3 17 Blyth Eastman Dillon 33.3 1 - Leedy Corp. 205.0 1
Drexel Burnham Lambert 33.3 1 - Southeastern Muni. Bands 205.0 1
21 19 Lazard Freres 31.8 1 2 19 Blyth Eastman Dillon 200.0 1
25 W. H. Morton 31.8 1 - Drexel Burnham Lambert 200.0 1
1 21 Smith Barney, Harris Upham 26.4 3 17 21 Johnson, Lane, Space, Smith 175.0 2
19 22 Johnson, Lane, Space, Smith 23.7 2 7 22 Smith Bamey, Harris Upham 47.5 3
16 23 John Nuveen 17.7 2 16 23 John Nuveen 34.4 2
24 Stifel Nicolaus 15.8 1 - 24 Seattle -Northwest Sec. 24.4 1
- 25 Seattle -Northwest Sec. 8.1 1 - 25 Stephens 19.3 1
* 1977 Rankings: Lehman Brothers 4, Kuhn Loeb 15 * 1977 Rankings: Lehman Brothers 5, Kuhn Loeb-- * 1977 Rankings: Lehman Brothers 14, Kuhn Loeb 15
** 1977 Rankings: Loeb Rhoades--, Hornblower Weeks 23 ** 1977 Rankings: Loeb Rhoades--, Hornblower Weeks 19
Pollution control
BONUS CREDIT TO LEAD MANAGER FULL CREDIT TO LEAD MANAGER FULL CREDIT TO EACH MANAGER
1st 1/2
1977 1978
$ Volume # of
(millions) issues
1
1
Goldman Sachs
$181.6 8
9
2
Smith Ramey, Harris Upham
169.7 5
2
3
Blyth Eastman Dillon
127.7 9
4
4
First Boston
112.3 6
5
Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb
89.5 4
7
6
Merrill Lynch White Weld
67.4 4
6
7
Kidder Peabody
67.0 3
-
8
Lazard Freres
42.8 3
**
9
Loeb Rhoades Hornblower
33.3 3
3
10
Morgan Stanley
33.2 2
11
11
Salomon Brothers
31.3 1
12
12
Paine Webber
29.0 1
***
13
Dean titter Reynolds
28.2 4
5
14
E. F. Hutton
20.3 2
-
15
J. J. B. Hilliard, W. L Lyons
14.0 1
-
16
A. G. Becker
12.9 2
17
17
Wheat, First Securities
11.7 1
-
18
Burrows, Smith
10.5 1
24
19
J. C. Bradford
9.6 1
24
Sterne, Agee & Leach
9.6 1
-
21
McDonald
9.5 1
-
Prescott, Ball & Turben
9.5 1
23
Foster & Marshall
8.5 1
-
24
Bache
3.3 1
-
Wiliam Blair
3.3 1
* 1977 Rankings: Lehman Brothers 15, Kuhn Loeb 8
** 1977 Rankings: Loeb Rhoades 10, Hornblower Weeks--
1977 Rankings: Dean Witter 13, Reynolds Securities --
Water and sewer
BONUS CREDIT TO LEAD MANAGER
1st 1/2 $ Volume # of
1977 1978 (millions) issues
6
1
E. F. Hutton
$135.3
14
2
Wm. R. Hough
115.4
3
Loeb Rhoades Hornblower
83.3
4
Boland, Saffin, Gordon, Sautter
76.1
-
5
American Securities
75.0
6
Charles G. Peelor
63.9
7
7
Butcher & Singer
54.5
4
8
Kidder Peabody
51.2
-
9
Pierce, Wulbero & Murphey
46.4
-
10
John Nuveen
40.8
12
11
Elkins, Stroud, Suplee
36.8
1
12
Goldman Sachs
33.3
-
13
White Weld
32.1
-
14
Kirchner Moore
30.2
-
15
A. G. Edwards & Sons
26.4
-
M. G. Lewis
26.4
2
17
Merrill lynch White Weld
25.8
17
18
Blyth Eastman Dillon
24.7
-
1Q
Ziegler Securities
21.8
-
20
Fischer, Johnson, Alen, Burke
21.4
-
21
Southeastern Muni. Bonds
20.7
8
22
Salomon Brothers
19.8
-
23
Moore, Leonard & Lynch
18.8
24
Johnson, Lane, Space, Smith
16.1
-
Robinson-Hunrpkrey Co.
16.1
1st 1/2
1977 1978
$ Volume # of
(millions) issues
9
1
Smith Barney, Harris Upham
$198.5
1
2
Goldman Sachs
171.1
3
3
Blyth Eastman Dillon
153.3
2
4
First Boston
136.5
5
5
Kidder Peabody
125.0
6
Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb
86.9
-
7
Lazard Freres
78.5
**
8
Dean Witter Reynolds
49.1
***
9
Loeb Rhoades Hornblower
47.5
4
10
Morgan Stanley
36.3
8
11
Merrill Lynch White Weld
36.2
6
12
E F. Hutton
17.2
-
13
Bank of America
5.7
* 1977 Rankings: Lehman Brothers 11, Kuhn Loeb 7
** 1977 Rankings: Dean Witter--, Reynolds--
1977 Rankings: Loeb Rhoades 10, Hornblower Weeks --
FULL CREDIT TO LEAD MANAGER
1st 1/2 $ Volume # of
1977 1978 (millions) issues
5
1
E. F. Hutton
$230.9
3
>.
2
Loeb Rhoades Homblower
175.9
2
13
3
Wm. R. Hough
138.6
4
-
4
American Securities
95.8
4
6
5
Kidder Peabody
84.4
4
-
6
Boland, Saffin, Gordon, Sautter
76.1
3
7
White Weld
64.2
1
-
8
Charles G. Peelor
63.9
3
9
John Nuveen
56.1
2
9
10
Salomon Brothers
49.5
1
8
11
Butcher & Singer
44.8
4
22
12
Elkins, Stroud, Suplee
36.8
2
3
13
Goldman Sachs
33.3
2
20
14
Arch W. Roberts
22.9
1
24
15
Moore, Leonard & Lynch
18.8
2
1
16
Smith Barney, Harris Upham
18.2
1
18
17
Ziegler Securities
18.0
1
--
18
Herbert J. Sims
15.9
1
-
19
Southeastern Muni. Bonds
12.4
2
20
Matthews & Wright
9.9
1
-
21
Foster & Marshall
9.5
1
12
Dolphin & Bradbury
9.5
1
-
23
Cunningham Schmertz
5.8
1
**
24
Dean Witter Reynolds
5.4
1
-
15
Seattle -Northwest Sec.
5.3
1
1st %
1977 1978
$ Volume # of
(millions) issues
1
1
Blyth Eastman Dillon
$241.9
9
2
1
Goldman Sachs
213.1
8
4
3
Merrill Lynch White Weld
201.2
4
14
4
Smith Barney, Harris Upham
198.5
5
*
5
Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb
195.9
4
6
6
First Boston
158.0
6
3
7
Kidder Peabody
150.7
3
10
8
Salomon Brothers
125.0
1
**
9
Loeb Rhoades Hornblower
104.5
3
13
10
Paine Webber
86.9
1
-
11
Lazard Freres
78.5
3
-
12
A. G. Becker
68.0
2
***
13
Dean Witter Reynolds
54.8
4
20
14
1. C. Bradford
48.0
1
20
Sterne, Agee & Leach
48.0
1
-
16
McDonald
47.5
1
-
Prescott, Ball & Turben
47.5
1
-
18
J. J. B. Hilliard, W. L. Lyons
42.0
1
-
Burrows, Smith
42.0
1
7
20
Morgan Stanley
36.3
2
16
21
Wheat, First Securities
35.0
1
-
22
Foster & Marshall
34.0
1
5
23
E. F. Hutton
26.5
2
-
24
Bache
20.0
1
-
Wiliam Blair
20.0
1
* 1977 Rankings: Lehman Brothers 17, Kuhn Loeb 8
** 1977 Rankings: Loeb Rhoades 9, Hornblower Weeks--
1977 Rankings: Dean Witter 11, Reynolds Securities --
FULL CREDIT TO EACH MANAGER
1st 1/2 $ Volume # of
1977 1978 (millions) issues
12
1
E. F. Hutton
$406.8
5
*
2
Loeb Rhoades Hornblower
329.0
4
-
3
Wm. R. Hough
222.7
6
25
4
Kirchner Moore
181.2
2
13
5
Butcher & Singer
172.8
6
-
6
Blyth Eastman Dillon
168.0
2
-
7
A. G. Edwards & Sons
158.3
1
M. G. Lewis
158.3
1
9
Pierce, Wulbero & Murphey
139.1
2
1
10
Merrill Lynch White Weld
128.9
3
14
11
Bache
118.5
1
17
McDonald
118.5
1
-
Prescott, Ball & Turben
118.5
1
-
14
American Securities
95.8
4
-
15
Fischer, Johnson, Allen, Burke
94.7
2
2
16
Kidder Peabody
84.4
4
-
17
Boland Saffin, Gordon, Sautter
76.1
3
-
18
White Weld
64.2
1
-
Johnson, Lane, Space, Smith
64.2
1
-
Robinson -Humphrey Co.
64.2
1
-
21
Charles G. Peelor
63.9
3
-
22
Southeastern Muni. Bonds
62.3
3
-
23
John Nuveen
56.1
2
5
24
Salomon Brothers
49.5
1
-
25
Joe Jolly
46.0
1
* 1977 Rankings: Loeb Rhoades 22, Homblower Weeks 10 * 1977 Rankings: Loeb Rhoades 23, Hornblower Weeks-- * 1977 Rankings: Loeb Rhoades- Hornblower Weeks 7
fl g
* 1977 Rankings: Dean Witter--, Reynolds Securities--
U7
1
Vq
William H.Hough & CD. /Annual report 1977
Dear friends:
It is with pleasure that we submit herewith our
Annual Report for the calendar year ending
December 31, 1977.
Nineteen seventy-seven was an exceedingly
heavy volume year for our firm. During this
year we had direct billings in the sale of
municipal bonds of $815,986,250, as compared
with $541,388,265 for the preceding
calendar year.
For many yews our firm has been the
leading managing underwriter of Florida Bonds.
We owe this position to our active sales
organization and secondary market trading
activities. Our strong position in these fields
gives us an edge on our competitors in winning
bond issues at public competitive sale and
enables us to market bonds at higher prices than
many other firms are able to do. In 1977, we
were the manager or co -manager of 47 Florida
Bond issues and participated as Underwriter in
11 others. These issues constituted 42.96°s, of the
issues marketed in Florida and -H.37 of the
volume. This market penetration, in our
opinion, was greater than that of any other
underwriting firm.
During the year our net capital funds,
including subordinated capital, grew from
5-1.547,766 as of December 31, 1976 to a
year-end figure of S5,-t89,+t9, for a gain
of '07",
We are pleased to welcome as additional
partners Mr. Robert Evan Ward and Mr.
Cornelius J. Fagan. Mr. Ward is a graduate of
the University of Florida with a Masters in
International Management from the American
Graduate School of International Management,
Glendale, Arizona. Mr. Fagan is a graduate of
the C.S. ;Naval Academe, with graduate work in
f inance at the Wharton School. and is a former
Vice President of Reynolds Securities Inc.
We also welcome the following new
employees who have joined the firm since the
previous year: Mr. Jack Larkins joined us in our
Jacksonville Office from Kidder Peabody; Mr. Van
C. Sayler, a recent graduate of Vanderbilt
University, joined us this past summer; and Mr.
Jerome J. Selitto, who is to specialize in housing
financing, joined us from Florida Federal Savings
and Loan Association,where he was a Vice
President, Both Mr. Savler and Mr. Selitto are in
our St. Petersburg Office.
We wish to thank our friends for their
support in making 1977 a banner year
for our firm.
Respectfully submitted,
WTLLIAM R. HOUGH & CO.
'3/h R )�".
William R. Hough
March 31, 1978
William R. Hough & Co.
Wlliam R. Hough & Co. was founded in 1962
with a single objective: provide complete
underwriting and consulting services to Florida
municipalities. We lived here. We believed in
Florida. And we believed in the credit worthiness
of Florida communities.
That belief has helped us become the
number one managing underwriter of Florida
municipal bonds each year since 1966. And we
have been able to convince investors to pay
higher prices for Florida bonds than our
competitors thought they were worth.
(Historical Note: In our early years,
northern -based underwriting firms were
aggressively bidding for New York and
Pennsylvania bonds while considering Florida
bonds risky We felt otherwise, and our
customers have seen their Florida bonds rise in
value as Moody's and Standard & Poor's
gradually up -graded their ratings on Florida
bonds while down -grading northern bonds. Our
belief was well-founded.)
But it takes more than belief to be the
country's leading marketmaker in Florida
securities.
At William R. Hough & Co. we provide a
complete "turnkey" function for Florida
municipalities from planning finances to final
sale and delivery of bonds.
When retained early in the development of
an issue, we can help avoid time-consuming
and costly pitfalls. And we have the specialized
knowledge and experience required to help
generate the maximum capital for municipal
financing programs.
In addition, we create "secondary" markets
for Florida municipal bonds among institutional
and individual investors. Since our company
maintains a bond inventory averaging between
$20,000,000 and $30,000,000, we have an
intimate knowledge of bond markets, prices and
supply and demand factors.
Operating philosophy
William R. Hough & Co. has a twofold operating
philosophy, namely:
1. 'Ib provide the lowest possible interest
rates to municipalities through financial
consulting, investment banking and public sale
underwriting...
2....And to provide maximum future
financing flexibility for municipalities in
keeping with their specific long-range objectives.
In addition to working closely with Florida
municipalities in the planning of bond issues,
we provide the following specialized consulting
services:
• Development of long-term capital budgets
based on our experience with comparable
municipalities.
• Utility rate studies.
• Aid in short term investment of bond issue
proceeds.
• Surveys of all available revenue sources.
• Rating studies and reviews.
• Communications programs to inform the
public of the need for bond issues.
Then, once the issue has been approved, we
help determine the single best means to sell the
bonds. For example:
1. Direct placement
Depending on the existing market and other
factors, direct placement through William R.
Hough & Co. to insurance companies and banks
is one of the best ways to insure the lowest
possible interest cost. Simply because the
placement fee is generally Less than the cost of
marketing bonds through negotiation or
competitive bidding.
We can help in placement because our
representatives are in daily contact with
insurance companies and banks who rely on us
for accurate, up-to-date information on Florida
issuers, credits and markets. As a result, we're
often able to present clients with an "instant
market" for their bond issues.
2. Sale by negotiation
There are some circumstances when sale by
negotiation is the best marketing method. For
example, when it proves advisable to determine
exact borrowing costs and obtain a firm
commitment for sale early in the development of
a municipal bond issue. When bonds are sold by
this method, Wilfiam R. Hough & Co. charges
no fees — our compensation comes by way of a
mark-up obtained by resale of the bonds.
3. Sealed competitive bidding
There are times when factors dictate competitive
bidding as the best means of selling a
municipality's bonds.
In this situation, we work as financial
consultant to the issuer, and develop a detailed
financial plan which becomes a guideline for
the development of the necessary resolutions,
engineers' reports and official statement relating
to the proposed bond issue.
After a review by the national rating agencies,
we distribute the official statement and
supporting documents throughout the country
to an extensive list of prospective bidders. Finally,
we help advertise the bonds for sale, assist in the
conduction of the sale, and make the
recommendation as to the award of the bonds.
In brief
Nineteen seventy-seven marked the best year in
our history. We were the underwriter for 47
issues — more than 2-1/2 times the total of our
nearest competitor. And in terms of Florida bond
issues sold, William R. Hough & Co. was
involved in almost 43% of all issues, amounting
to $674,917,000.
We've progressed a long way since 1962. But
our objective remains the same. To provide
Florida municipalities with the underwriting
and consulting services needed to market their
securities at the best possible price.
WILLIAM R. HOUGH & CO.
Ni; umers
E.F. Hutton
&Company, Inc
WILLIAM R. HOUGH & CO.
Merrill Lynch.
Pierce.
Fenner&
Smith. Inc
The Pierce,
Wulbern,
Murphey
Corp
l nth Barney
rns Upham & Co.
orporated
1977 1976
UNDERWRITING POSITION-FLORIDA BONDS
O�GH &
HA Y O�
1977 PERCENTAGE OF DOLLAR VOLUME 1976
OF FLORIDA BOND ISSUES SOLD
Southeastern
Municipal Bonds Inc
The Pierce.
Wulbern. Murphey
/ Corp.
Bear. Stearns & Co.
Salomon Brothers
O
O
O
\
All Others
r`
CD
61)
600
500
Y)
Q
J
J
O
0
LL.
O
U)
400 Z
J
J
z
w
H
_H
300
w
0
z
D
U)
w
D
U)
200 U)
m
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
Consulting staff
George I Bland, General Partner —
Chartered Municipal Financial Consultant:
Municipal Finance Consulting Bond Origination
Services, eight years: Professional Comptroller
directing world-wide budgeting finance
management analysis computer systenns, U.S.
Department of Defense, 25 years:.Armed Forces
Industrial College: North Carolina State College.
Raymond V. Condon — Former Vice
President, B.J. Van Ingen & Co.: Nice President
and Bond Department Manager. First \Mscousin
National Bank of Milaukee: Chairman,
Financial Advisory Board of Nlisconsin State
Building Commission: A(h'isor to Financing
of Milwaukee City and County: Past Governor,
Investment Bankers .)Lssociation: NortImestern
University, Economics,
Katherine H. Coyle, General Partner and
Director of Statistics — Chartered Municipal
Financial Consultant::AA, Stephens College,
Columbia, Missouri: BSA, Ohio State University,
Columbus. Ohio: Graduate work in statistics
at Ohio State ['niyersity
Roy R. Dickson, General Partner and
Municipal Bond Trader — BS, Muskingum
College, Nevy Concord. Ohio (Physics and
lath ematics) ; NIBA, University of Floricla.
Gainesville. Florida (Finance and Investments)
Cornelius J. Fagan, General Partner —
('.S. Naval Academy' Annapolis, Md: BS. 1961
Graduated with Distinction: NIBA, Graduate
study in Finance at the Wharton School of the
University of PennsyIania: six years with
Reynolds Securities Inc., three of which were is
Vice President.
G. William Gernazian, Trader/Institutional
Sales — NIBA, University° of Florida, Gainesville.
Florida.
James R. Hawkins, General Partner —
Chartered 'Municipal Financial Consultant;
BS, Florida Southern College (Accounting);
NIBA, Florida State University (Industrial
Management): formerly with Arthur Andersen
& Co., Certified Public Accountants.
William R. Hough, Senior Partner — BSBA.
Miami University, Miami. Ohio: MBA, University
of Florida: Chartered Municipal Financial
Consultant: Past President, Florida Security
Dealers .Association: Member, Board of Directors,
Public Securities Association.
D. Carl Huskey, Financial Consultant —
BA, Florida Southern College: M.Ed- Duke
University: additional Graduate study at the
['niversin of Florida and Columbia University:
Director of Finance. City of Ft. Pierce, Florida,
11 yews: Superintendent of Public Instruction,
St. Lucie County, Florida. 11 vears.
Thomas W. Kerwin, General Partner and
Trader — BS, Diiyersiti of Florida: formed
Vice President, Municipal Bond Department,
Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, N.A.: Member,
Municipal Finance Committee, Securities
Industry Association.
Jack Larkins — BA, Vanderbilt University:
will receive MBA in Finance in June. 1978 from
the University of North Florida: Past President,
Florida Security Dealers' Association: currentl
an Instructor in Corporate Finance at
Jacksonville University: involved in municipal
financial work and sales since 1954.
Doris Litten, General Partner and Dealer,
Sales Administrator — Indiana University
(Accounting): associated for ten years with
William R. Hough & Co. in Municipal 11rading
and Underwriting.
Patrick E. Mann, General Partner — BA,
Economics, University of South Florida; Board of
Governors, Florida Security Dealers' Association;
Member, Public Securities Association,
Municipal Committee.
Van C. Sayler — BSBA with Honors, Vanderbilt
University: presently working on MBA in
Finance at the University of South Florida.
Arnold W, Schneider — BA, Florida
Technological University, Orlando: Associate
Member, Municipal Finance Officers
Association.
Jerome J. Selitto, Financial Consultant
Former Vice President, Florida Federal Sayings
and Loan Association: BA with Honors,
Marketing, Minor in Economics. University of
South Florida; Graduate work in Economics,
University° of South Florida.
Alfred C. Shepard, General Partner —
Chartered Municipal Financial Consultant:
Municipal Bonds, underwriting consulting
financial planning marketing sales, 30 years:
directly involved in consultation to Florida
Municipalities and marketing Florida Bonds,
20 years: BS. Mathematics, Florida Southern
College: NIA. Public Finance and Administration,
Indiana Uriiyersity.
Charles D. Smith, General Partner, Financial
Consultant — BA, Swarthmore College:
Graduate work in Public Finance, Cornell
University; Formerly Professor of Economics,
University of Florida and Florida Presbyterian
College.
Robert Evan Ward, General Partner —AA,
St. Petersburg Junior College, 1970; BA, Political
Science, University of Florida, 1973; Masters,
International Management, American Graduate
School of International :Management, Glendale,
Arizona, 1975.
Joe B. Wise, Resident Manager of North Palm
Beach Office — Graduate, Denison University,
BA: Past Vice President and :Manager, New York
Bond Department, Mercantile National Bank
at Dallas; Past Special Partner and National
Manager, Municipal Bond Department,
Goodbody & Co.; Specialist in Municipal
Finance since 1946.
Edward R. Wulbern, General Partner:
Manager, Jacksonville Office; Financial
Consultant — BA, Economics, Yale University;
Chartered Municipal Financial Consultant; Past
President, Florida Security Dealers' Association.
w
JA
s
0
Clients served by William R. Hough & Co.
State of Florida
Acme Drainage District
Alachua County
Baker County Board of Public Instruction
City of Belle Glade
City of Boynton Beach
City of Bradenton
Brevard County
City of Brooksville
Canaveral Port Authority
City of Cape Canaveral
City of Cape Coral
Charlotte County
Charlotte County Development Authority
Citrus County Hospital Board
City of Clearwater
Collier County
Dade County
Escambia County
City of Fort Meade
City of Fort Pierce
Fort Pierce Hospital Authority
Fort Pierce Utility Commission
City of Gainesville
Hamilton County School Board
Hamilton County Hospital Board
Hernando County
City of Holly Hill
City of Homestead
Indian River County
City of Jacksonville
Jacksonville Electric Authority
Jackson County School Board
City of Kissimmee
City of Lake Butler
City of Lake Wales
Leon County
Levy County School Board
lbwn of Longboat Key
Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District
Manatee County Port
City of Margate
Marion County Hospital District
Martin County Board of Public Instruction
Martin County
City of Miami
New Smyrna Beach Utility Authority
City of North Lauderdale
City of North Miami
City of Ocala
City of Ocean Ridge
Okaloosa County
Orange County Civic Facilities Authority
City of Orlando
Orlando Utilities Commission
Osceola County
Osceola County School Board
City of Pahokee
Pasco County
Pasco County School Board
Pinellas County
City of Pinellas Park
City of Plantation
City of Port Richey
City of Riviera Beach
Royal Palm Village
City of St. Augustine
City of St. Cloud
St. John's County
St. Lucie County
St. Lucie County Board of Public Instruction
City of St. Petersburg
City of St. Petersburg Beach
City of Safety Harbor
City of Sarasota
Sarasota County
Sarasota -Manatee Airport Authority
City of Sebring
Seminole County
Seminole Drainage District
Siesta Key Water Authority
City of South Pasadena
Sumter County Board of Public Instruction
City of Tallahassee
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
City of Tarpon Springs
Village of Tequesta
City of Treasure Island
University of Miami
City of Venice
Volusia County Educational Facilities Authority
City of Williston
City of Winter Haven
City of Winter Park
grown-:
.. .........
a,. ���` .may
.in
'Will
'1i ARS
,sib
11 =at ray
m 10iME -1 �
MAI I
Florida issues underwritten by William R. Hough & Co. in 1977
Amount Issue WRH Role
7,470,000
Leon County, Florida, Capital Improvement, Series 1976 Revenue Bonds
Sole Manager
600,000
Brevard County, Florida, Solid Waste Disposal System Bond Anticipation Notes
Sole Underwriter
3,000,000
City of Safety Harbor, Florida, Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1974
Sole Underwriter
2,200,000
The Board of County Commissioners of Alachua County, Florida, Capital Bonds
Senior Manager
1,300,000
The Alachua County Public Facilities Authority, Florida, Courthouse Complex Completion Revenue Bonds
Senior Manager
1,700,000
City of Ormond Beach, Florida, Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1976
Sole Manager
4,475,000
Alachua County Public Facilities Authority, Florida, Courthouse Complex Refunding Bonds Series 1977
Senior Manager
1,745,000
Alachua County Public Facilities Authority, Florida, Special Refunding Revenue Bonds
Senior Manager
134,245,000
City of Tallahassee, Florida, Electric Revenue Bonds, Series 1977
Senior Manager
64,120,000
City of Tallahassee, Florida, Special Obligation Bonds, Series 1977A
Senior Manager
28,630,000
Pinellas County, Florida, Water Revenue Refunding Certificates, Issue of 1977
Sole Manager
5,390,000
Pinellas County, Florida, Special Obligation Refunding Certificates, Issue of 1977A
Sole Manager
19,965,000
St. Petersburg, Florida, Utility Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 1977
Participating Underwriter
9,115,000
St. Petersburg, Florida, Special Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 1977A
Participating Underwriter
2,500,000
Polk County, Florida, Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1975
Senior Manager
19,160,000
Plantation, Florida, Water and Sewer Refunding and Improvement Bonds, Series 1977
Participating Underwriter
11,180,000
Ocala, Florida, Power Supply Revenue Bonds, Series 1977
Senior Manager
7,850,000
Ocala, Florida, Electric Revenue Bonds, Series 1977
Senior Manager
10,990,000
Ocala, Florida, Special Obligation Bonds, Series 1977A
Senior Manager
7,000,000
Orange County, Florida, Gas Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 1977
Senior Manager
5,400,000
Broward County, Florida, System No. 5 First Lien Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds of 1977
Senior Manager
4,490,000
St. Cloud, Florida, Refunding and Improvement Utilities Revenue Certificates, Series 1977
Sole Underwriter
1,595,000
St. Cloud, Florida, Special Obligation Refunding Certificates, Series 1977A
Sole Underwriter
2,800,000
Halifax Hospital District, Florida, Refunding and Hospital Revenue Bonds
Sole Underwriter
1,100,000
The School Board of Sumter County, Florida, Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 1976
Sole Underwriter
10,210,000
Escambia County, Florida, Capital Improvement Refunding and Revenue Bonds, Series 1977-1
Participating Underwriter
10,000,000
Hillsborough County, Florida, General Obligation Bonds, Series 1977
Senior Manager
350,000
Anastasia Sanitary District of St. Johns County Florida, Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1973
Sole Underwriter
495,000
Riviera Beach, Florida, Public Service Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 1977
Sole Underwriter
1,750,000
Lake Worth, Florida, Water and Electric Revenue Certificates, Series 1973E
Senior Manager
772,000
Hamilton County, Florida, Hospital Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1977
Senior Manager
1,480,000
Orlando, Florida, Public Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1977A
Sole Underwriter
30,000,000
State of Florida, Jacksonville Expressway Bonds, Series 1977
Joint Manager
19,795,000
Tampa Sports Authority, Florida, Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1977
Participating Underwriter
12,030,000
Tampa Sports Authority, Florida, Special Refunding Bonds, Series 1977A
Participating Underwriter
2,600,000
Volusia County Educational Facilities Authority, Florida, Revenue Bonds (Embrv-Riddle Aeronautical University Project)
Sole Manager
100,000
lbwn of Ocean Ridge, Florida, Franchise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 1977
Sole Underwriter
8,930,000
Lee County, Florida, Fort Myers Beach Sewer District General Obligation Bonds
Participating Underwriter
53,650,000
City of St. Petersburg, Florida, Refunding Public Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 1977
Participating Underwriter
1,200,000
Leon County, Florida, Capital Improvement, Series 1977, Revenue Bonds Anticipation Notes
Sole Underwriter
56,340,000
City of Jacksonville, Florida, Excise Taxes Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1977
Senior Manager
1,815,000
Indian River County, Florida, Solid Waste Disposal System Revenue Bonds, Series 1977
Sole Underwriter
18,000,000
City of Homestead, Florida, Electric and Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1977
Joint Manager
10,585,000
City of Homestead, Florida, Special Obligation Bonds, Series 1977A
Joint Manager
330,000
Dade County, Florida, Water Revenue Bonds (Series B)
Sole Underwriter
16,000,000
Orange County Florida, Water and Sewer System Revenue Bonds of 1975
Senior Manager
6,060,000
City of Clearwater, Florida, Utilities Tax and Bridge Revenue Bonds, Series 1977
Senior Manager
3,290,000
City of Clearwater, Florida, Utilities Tax Bonds, Series 1977
Senior Manager
2,120,000
City of Clearwater, Florida, Special Obligation Bonds, Series 1977A
Senior Manager
1,375,000
City of Clearwater, Florida, Special Obligation Bonds, Series 1977B
Senior Manager
360,000
Alachua County Florida, Capital Notes
Sole Underwriter
18,400,000
City of Kissimmee, Florida, Electric Revenue Bonds, Series A
Participating Underwriter
5,525,000
City of Kissimmee, Florida, Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series A
Participating Underwriter
3,920,000
Port of Palm Beach District, Florida, Revenue and Refunding Bonds, Series 1977
Participating Underwriter
6,660,000
Pinellas Park, Florida, Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1977
Sole Underwriter
5,370,000
Pinellas Park, Florida, Public Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1977
Sole Underwriter
6,420,000
Pinellas Park, Florida, Special Obligation Bonds, Series 1977A
Sole Underwriter
965,000
Pinellas Park, Florida, Special Obligation Bonds, Series 1977B
Sole Underwriter
Our underwriting position in Florida bonds, 1977
Number of Rank Total
Issues by Dollar Dollar
Underwritten Amount Amount (000)
William R. Hough & Co.
47
1
$ 222,789
E.E Hutton & Company, Inc.
17
2
97,813
Arch W Roberts & Co.
17
7
60,932
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
15
5
79,533
Bache Halsey Stuart Shields Incorporated
12
6
74,787
Southeastern Municipal Bonds Inc.
12
13
32,848
The Pierce, Wulbern, Murphey Corp.
10
3
97,449
Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. Incorporated
10
4
89,957
Reynolds Securities Inc.
9
14
32,536
Salomon Brothers
9
8
58,805
Summary of Florida bond issues sold in 1977 vs. 1976
1977
:Number of
Percent of
Dollar
Percent of
Role of William R. Hough & Co.
Issues
Issues
Volume (000)
Dollar Volume
Manager
44
32.59%
$ 435,632
28.64%
Co -Manager
3
2.22
58,585
3.85
Participant
11
8.15
180,700
11.88
Total for \RH & Co.
58
42.96%
$ 674,917
44.37%
Issues Purchased by Others
77
57.04
846,285
55.63
Total Florida Issues
135
100.00%
$1,521,202
100.00%
1976
Number of
Percent of
Dollar
Percent of
Role of William R. Hough & Co.
Issues
Issues
Volume (000)
Dollar Volume
;Manager
46
38.66%
$ 264,308
20.66%
Co -Manager
2
1.68
133,140
10.40
Participant
9
7.56
134,885
10.54
Total for WRH & Co.
57
47.90%
$ 532,333
41.60%
Issues Purchased by Others
62
52.10
$ 747,260
58.40
Total Florida Issues
119
100.00%
$1,279,593
100.00%
Statement of financial condition, December 31, 1977 \uliam R. Hough & Co.. St. Petersburg, Florid
Assets
CURRENT .ASSETS
Cash..................................................
Cash Segregated for Exclusive Benefit of Customers .......... I . I ........
Receivable From Brokers and Dealers ..............................
1,93i,852
Receivable From joint Accounts .......... I .................
I .... �,� 2,
Receivable From Customers — Cash Accounts ........................
2-43 '30
Securities (honed at Market \aloe — State and Municipal Bonds ............
29,W.956
Securities Borrossed at Market VdLie ..............................
-48.0,0
Accrued Interest Recekahle....................................
-496.8'I
Good Faith Deposits ........................................
1-16.630
Other Current Assets ........................................
325,326
M'ESTME\TS
Securities —At Market Value (Cost S16-i.CO) ........................ 1S8.6S9
FIR\ISHINGS AND F.QI-IPMENT
(\et of Accumulated Depreciation) 132.210
S36.26 ;.3,6
Liabilities and capital
CURREN,r LLABILI"PIES
Loans From Banks:
Collateralized by Securities W ned or Borrmed .....................
S27.-+1l.-485
Pavahle to Brokers and Dealers .................................
2.6'6.-f99
Pa�ahle to joint Accounts .....................................
2-46,8-40
Payahle to Customers .......................................
29,81'
Accounts Pa%ahle and Other Current Liahilities .......................
Subordinated Liahilities .................. .................
35.500
L0\G-TERM LIABILITIES
Suhorchated Liabilities ...................................... 34-.000
'1,122,92-
CAI)ITAL
Partnership Capital .........................................
THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES ARE A! INTEGRAL PART OF THIS FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
Notes to financial statement, December 31, 1977 William R. Hough & Co.. St. Petersburg, Florida
1. Significant Accounting policies
Securities transactions and related commission expense
are recorded on a settlement date basis, generally the fifth
husiness day following the transaction date. Receivables and
parables to customers and other brokers arise in connection
with normal cash transactions. Municipal honds are delivered
or received when payment is received or made.
Furniture. equipment and leasehold improvements are
stated at cost less accumulated depreciation and amortization
of S19.706.
Depreciation is computed using an accelerated method
over the estimated useful lives of office furniture. fixtures
and equipment. Leasehold improvements are amortized over
rears using accelerated methods of depreciation -
State and municipal honds are valued at market value
for financial reporting purposes, The cot of these securities at
December 31. 19" was S29.829.686.
2. Short-term hank loans at Decemher 31. 19" are full
collateralized by marketable securities. which are owned
or borrowed by the Cc pam: hating a market value of
S 28.930.86- as well as additional securities on fails in the
amount of S1.036,123, and good faith deposits of S24.1i0.
Loan Arrangements:
The Compam maintains Lines of Credit with various
commercial hanks in the state. As of December 31. 19
the total amount arailahle to the Compam under the Lines
of Credit was S12.425,000 of which S9.99L+85 was used
and classified as current outstanding debt
The Company also maintains a secured loan on the
offering basis with the Chase Manhatmn Bank. At
December il. 19" the outstantng balance of this loan
was S17,420.000
Compensating Balance Arrangements
At December 31, 197- and for the nine months then ended.
'Mlliani R Hough & Compam was under informal
compensating balance arrangements with various hanks.
The compensating balances were not legally restricted as
to withdrawal and included working cash balances which
the Compamc would have on deposit regardless of the
arrangements with the carious hanks_ It is estimated that
the amount borrowed at any time during the nine month
period for the purpose of promi ng compensating halances
did not exceed SS.010 0(N)
3. Cash borrowings subordinated to the claims of general
creditors hate been contributed under agreements requiring
interest pasinents of 10°„ to 18 and expiring as follows
Expiration Date
_' 1 -8
S)O O W
8 1 -8
� 500
1 I '9
;u 000
8 I '9
0-000
9 I '9
19,000
_' 18n
185.0iKi
6 1 80
i1,000
8 1 80
6.000
9 180
2,000
10 1 80
_18,000
S38 2 500
4. hi the normal course of business. the Companc enters into
underwriting commitments and participates in joint trading
and investment accounts carried he other brokers and dealers.
As of December 31, 19" the Compam had unrecorded
open underwTiting commitments on a " Uen-Issued basis
of approximately $h .3».000. The Company was also
committed as a participant in joint trading and investment
accounts in which there was an estimated unsold liability
of $800.000 as of December 31, 19
5. At December 31, 197 R'ilhaun R. Hough & Companc had
a contingent liaihilin for open collection items at hanks of
approximately S312M00 'fire Conipam has not been notified
that anc of the outstand ng items were uncollectible.
6. The Companc has established a profit -Sharing (Keogh)
plan which provides that each partner and employee will
participate in the amount of 1 S of his annual gages, not to
exceed S-.500 per person These pamients are required onl if
the net inconie of the Conipam is in excess of Si �0.000 For
the nine months. ended Decemher 31. 19T, all contributions
have been made and therefore, no liability is recorded at
December 3i. 19
7. During the nine month period ended Decemher 31. 197
William R_ Hough & Companc leased office space in St.
Petersburg and Orlando on a nionth-to-month hasis. The
Compam leases office space in the following cities under
formal lease agreements.
Annual Rental Expiration Date
North Palm Beach S4.2i6 _' 19
jacksolmlle S3.+20 2 '8
'oral rental expense for the nine months ended December il.
19" including the St Petersburg and Orlando offices was
S2'.3 The rent expense under formal lease agreements
as wSM-1
S. The components of receivable from and pacahle to brokers
and dealers are as follows.
Securities Failed to Deliver:
Brokers and Dealers:
Outstanding Less Than 21 Dacs S1,801.'3'
Outstanding 21 Days or More 133.11i
SIM+.852
Securities Failed to Receive:
Brokers and Dealers - Offset he
Corresponding Failed to Deliver Sl?06.3"
Brokers and Dealers Offset hr,
Securities Carried Long L470.122
S2.676. +99
Fails represent the contract value of securities which have
not been recen'ed or delivered h" settlement (Lite.
9. Inventories are maintained at total market value or total
cost whichever is lower for tax purposes and at total market
value for financial reporting The inventories at the
beginning and end of the period are as follows
''otal Cost Total Market Aclue
April 1, 19,- Si+.-+0.i3+ S;SJH_'.8,6
Decemher 31, 19„ S29 82(086 S29 ;81.9i6
Imestmens in marketable equm securities are carried
at the lower of total cost or total market value for financial
reporting. At Decemher 31. 197 the excess of total cost over
total market value was Si811 and the resulting unrealized
loss has heen included in the determination of income for
the nine nionth period then ended.
10. william R hough & Companc is a partnership formed
pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. The Compam
is not liable for Federal Income taxes as each partner is
individually liable for tax on his share of partnership
income. At December 31. 197 the Companc does not
anticipate that am significant amounts will he withdrawn
within the next six months for payment of partners
nd vidual income taxes.
11. The Company is subject to the net capital provisions of Rule
1i6-1 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which
requires that aggregate Indebtedness. as defined by the rule.
shall not exceed IWO",, of net capital as defined. At
December 31. 197 aggregate indebtedness was
approximatek 24 of net capital. Net capital, as defined.
was 52708.1'6- The mininwm net capital required he Rule
liC-1 was S-+i.+96.
12. Fhe Compam, is subject to the reporting requirement, of
Rule I'a-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 193-1.
which requires that certain brokers and dealers file with the
Securities and Exchange Commission annual audited
statements of financial condition and an accountants report
descrihing am material inadequacies. if -,inc. found to exist
or found to have existed since the date of the precious audit
III the Compam s accounting system, internal accounting
control or procedures for safe-guar<fingsecurities. UilGam
R Hough & Companc has met these requirements by filing
an audited statement of financial condition as of Decemher
31, 19 A coPe of the statement of financial condition filed
pursuant to Rule 1'mS isalajlahle for examination at the
St. Petersburg office of the Company and in the regional
office of the Securities and Exchange Commission in
Atlanta. Georgia.
13. uilliam R. Hough & Compamc is exempt from making
computations of amounts on deposit in the "Special Account
for the Exclusive Benefit of Customers under the pro%isions'
of paragraph (k)(2)(A) of Rule I5c3-3- The Compam does
maintain the "Customer Reserve Account as required by
paragraph (k)(_')(A) of Rule 15c3-3.
CANNING, WELLS & SAI.ZER
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
SUITE 000. 440 FIRST AVENUE SOUTH
ST. PF.TERSBURG. FLORIDA 33701
to the partners
\1'lliam R. Hough & Conipam
St. Petersburg. Florida
%ke have examined the statement of financial condition of
Adliaan R Hough & Conipam as of Decemher 31, 19-'.
Our examination was made in accordance with generalk
accepted auditing standards and accordingly included such
tests of the accounting records and such other auditing
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
In our opinion, the statement of financial condition
presents fairly the financial position of \lilham R Hough &
Companc at Decemher 31- 197 in conforming with
generally accepted accounting principles on a basis
consistent with that of the preceding year
' ��a �1,
Certified public Ac OU ntaHL1
Fehruan _'3.19-8
.,j.:
��recsnctrn ; JZic�ur rrl c-iz > /Irrsa�v, Jlzci, J7.eClzy <r'' �verrrzare�, �/ • �•
JUDSON FREEMAN
RAY W. RICHARDSON, JR.
THOMAS B. SLADE,IU
JOHN F. KELLY
DANIEL U. LIVERMORE,JR.
A. GRAHAM ALLEN
RICHARD E. KLEIN
JOHN L. MCWILLIAMS, III
JUDSON FREEMAN, JR.
ROBERT O. FREEMAN
WILLIAM D. BRINTON
1200 BARNETT BANK BUILDING
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32202
(904) 3S3-1264
Mx. Michael H. Cates
Attorney at Law
505 Whitehead Street
Rey West, Florida 33040
July 7, 1980
Re: $6,000,000 Monroe County, Florida,
Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1980
(Incinerator Program Financing)
Dear Mr. Cates:
GILES J. PATTERSON
(1885- 1963)
FRANK L. WATSON
OF COUNSEL
It is my understanding that the County may want our firm
to serve as bond counsel for the above issue and would like a fee
proposal from us. Based upon the projected issue size, we pro-
pose that our fee for serving as bond counsel be fixed at $2.00
per $1,000 of bonds delivered plus our out-of-pocket expenses.
Our minimum fde for any bond issue involving special assessments
is $6,000, plus out-of-pocket expenses. The bond counsel fee
covers the preparation by our firm of all financing documents and._',
circuit court validation pleadings, and assistance in the pre- ,
paration of the official statement, but does not include tem-
porarX financing participation or Florida Supreme Court appellate
work. If either of these possibilities become a reality, we will
be happy to supply a fee quotation at that time. This fee is
contingent upon the delivery of bonds, however, we would still
expect to receive reimbursement for our out-of-pocket expenses if
no bonds are delivered. The amount of the -fee proposal is based
upon a relatively straightforward financing involving a bond
resolution without"any complex trust indentures, installment sale
contracts or leases. If more complex financing vehicles are
desired, some adjustment in our fee may be requested.
As soon as the Board of County Commissioners retains our
firm as bond counsel for this issue, we will be in a position to
review the financing plan submitted by Joe Wise of William R.
Hough & Co. and begin preparation of the financing documents.
Please indicate retention of our firm as bond counsel in your
next correspondence.
i
{ rtpL
Fri �jr"a ��S d+R4"
r
Mr. Michael H. Cates
July 7, 1980
Page Two
If you have any questions or comments, please call me.
Yours very truly,
114
Judsca Freeman, Jr.
J FJr/vh
cc: Mr. Joe B. Wise
90
SOO C)
L(n
1980 REGULAR SESSION
Ch.80-98 •
BONDS -LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL- UNITS
.,: CHAPTER 80-98
a Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No- 102
to bonds of units of local government;
creating
An act relating
S. 218.385, Florida Statutes; municipal, and special '
regulating the sale of county, res for the sale- and
providing P
1. district bonds; P requiring certain disclosure
�> issuance of such bonds;
statements by senior management underwriters or financial
flcertain
prohibiting the giving or receiving amending f
consultants; pand gratuities; providing penalties;
bonuses, fees, 9 requiring units of local
s. 218.38(1), (3), Florida Statutes;issuance
government to disclose certain
ecified1nperiodioofupon
time; requiring
of bonds within a sP information within a
underwriters to disclose certainng penalties; amending ss.
specified period of time: pFlorida Statutes; deleting
153.06(4), 161.38(2)(d). to the manner of sale of ;
conflicting provisions relating hi
bonds; providing an effective date•
re of the State of Florida:
Be It Enacted by the Legislatu
Section 1. Section 218.385, Florida Statutes, is created to read:
218.385 County, municipal, special district bonds; sale.--
"bonds"neas used in this section shall include the
(1) The word
following meanings as deft
�) "General obligationd cred it, orlpayable fromlthelOf proceeds ofunad
bond" whch are obl
secured by the full faih
valorem taxes, of the governmental unit.
(b) "Revenue bonds"
which are obligations of a unit to pay tion Of
the cost �..
or improvanents thereof or • a ableafrom thg s#
of :� self-liquidating project and p Y
*� one or more projects or improvements
authorized to b.
earnings of such project and any
pledged as additional security therefor• a unit to
(c) "Limited revenue bonds" which are obligations issued by i
` and payable from funds s'
pay the cost of a project o= gents ent thereof, or combination of one a
or more projects or 1mP special assessments, or earnings from such
exclusive of ad valorem taxes,
" projects or improvements.
ovid¢
(d) "Special assefor
ssment bonds" which are boas{ tbhpr
yatlevyinge and
capital improvements and are paid in whole or irtcontiguous, ,or
collecting special assessments on the abutting.adjoining,other specially benefited property.
as
f- 2) All bonds 'sold ined in
by a unit of local
etbids ata.
fsuch place
11a.31(1), shall be,¢old at public sale by P roposals for
r fi; body shall determine to receive published
one
r places as the governingIs
e purchase ,of such bonds. Noticeof
Loctheadate oflsale in one or more
tA-#_ )r more times at least 10 days prior
shall deem advisable
newspapers or financial journals published within or without the state,
shall contain such terms as the governing body
shall
and proper under the circumstances. However, if the governing body
an at a public meeting determine that a negotiated sale of.
by resolution
a are deletions from existing law;
coDING: Words in underscored t e are additions•
words in underscored cared type
�:. 423
Ch. 80-98 1980 REGULAR SESSION
such bonds is in the best interest of the issuer, the governing body may
negotiate for sale.of such bonds. i+r
(a) In the resolution authorizing the negotiated sale, the local
governing body shall provide specific findings as to the reasons
requiring the negotiated sale. Said reasons shallAnclude, but not be
limited to, characteristics of the bond issue and prevailing market
conditions that necessitate a negotiated sale.
(b) A' resolution authorizing a negotiated bond sale may be the same
resolution as that authorizing the issuance of such bonds.
(3) All proposals for the purchase of any bonds offered by a unit of
local government shall be opened in public. Such bonds when
competitively bid shall be awarded by resolution to the lowest bid
consistent with the notice of sale.
(4) No bid conforming to the notice of sale may be rejected unless
all bids are rejected. If all bids are rejected, such bonds may be sold
thereafter at, public. sale by competitive bids or by negotiated sale
pursuant to this section..
(5) No bonds of a unit of local government shall be issued unless the
face or reverse thereof contains a statement, executed either manually or
by facsimile signature, of the appropriate officer of the unit of local
government responsible for issuing such bonds to the extent that issuance
'of such bonds has been approved under the provisions of this act. Such
statement shall be conclusive evidence as to approval of the issuance of
such bonds and that the requirements of this act have been fully complied
with.
(6)' In the event the local governing body decides to negotiate for a
sale of bonds, the senior managing underwriter, or financial consultant
or advisor if applicable, shall provide to the unit of local government,
prior to the award of bonds to the senior managing underwriter, a
disclosure statement containing the following information:
(a) An itemized list setting forth the nature and estimated amounts
of expenses to be incurred by the managing underwriters in connection
with the issuance of such bonds. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any such
list may include an item for miscellaneous expenses, provided it includes
only minor items of expense which cannot be easily categorized elsewhere
in the statement.
:t (b) The names, -
addresses and estimated amounts of compensation of any
person who enters into an understanding with either the issuer or
managing underwriters or both, for any paid or promised compensation or
f valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, expressly or implied, to
ti act solely as an intermediary between said issuer and managing
underwriters or exercises or.attempts to exercise any influence to effect
j, any transaction in the purchase of said bonds.
t(c) The amount of underwriting spread expected to be realized.
,- (d) Any management fee charged -by the managing underwriters.
r� :y
�( (e)- Any other fee, bonus,'and other compensation estimated to be paid
, by the managing underwriters in connection with the bond issue to any
person not regularly employed or retained by the managing underwriters.
(f) The name and address of each underwriter connected with the bond
issue.
(g) Any other disclosure which the local governing body may require.
CODING: Words in steaek-theeugk type are deletions from existing law;
words in underscored type are additions.
424
"subsection is not inter
Messional services relat.,
iection '2 1 Bonds; finde.
�.Jh (a):.' As used in this r j
Coyed by, or_a.partner o.j
sultant,- whose primary f,
influence the acquisitio
(b) No- underwriter, -co
sultant shall pay any fi
h_,the sale of any, genera
cial assessment bonds, i
i disclosure is made
,current with the submiss
lerwriter,•- commercial ba;
Ci,subsequently in the off:
W name -,and-- address o'
-itity paid to -such find,
12) Willful- violation
pFee, punishable,asVprov-',
�rida Statutes,
;Section 3; Subsections
stutes, are amended to r
218.38 Notice ofbond
,)(a) tach`un of to
to issue general oblic 1
sessment_ bonds,_ shall
partment=of General Seri•;
rods and shall-, also . F
:ficial-statement for the;
icluaion into the bond r
•oposed new bond issue st
go'vernii j
ber:
a.- The ' nameand add
name and add E
,,: -
c Any management fe(
c
The underwriting ,
e. Any fee, bonus,
___ .. "k- As write,
)DING: Words in sdseek-t
words in underact I
i Tentative assignment as 21U i
r, the governing body may
negotiated sale, the local`
ings as to the reasons"
shall -include, but not be
e and prevailing market
., t;JDAV
bond sale may be_the same
such bonds.+
bonds offered by a_unit of
ic. Such bonds when'
olution to the lowest bid
ale may be rejected unleJ
d, such bonds may be sold
oids or by negotiated sal,
shall be issued unless this
xecuted either manually o..
fiver of the unit of loea
3 the extent that issuanc
visions of this act. .Suc
?royal of the issuance:6
t,have.been fully,compli';
3ecides to negotiate fo
or financial consults
unit of local governmen
managing underwriter&
aformation_ -
ate!
ture and estimated amour
3erwriters 'in''connect�
ng the foregoing, any's_
nses, provided it includ
sily'categorized elsewt�
nti of compensation oar
n ,either the issue
r promised compensati n
expressly or"implied,
aid 'issuer and ''man-
se any influence to of
ted to be realized_
ing underwriters.
ation estimated to be pa
the 'bond issue to `!-
e managing underwriters
er connected with the
overning body may requYt
tions from existing lays:
1980 REGULAR. SESSION Ch. 80_98
0.'
This subsection is not intended to restrict or prohibit the employment of
professional services relating to local government bond issues.
s ection 2.1 Bonds; finder's fees prohibited.--
i
k (1)(a) As used in this section, "finder" means a person not regularly
t employed by, or a partner or officer of, an underwriter, bank, banker, or
consultant whose primary function in the construction of a bond issue is
to influence the acquisition of a contract from the issuing body.
( ) No underwriter, commercial bank, investment banker, or financial
consultant shall pay any finder any bonus, fee, or gratuity in connection
with the sale of any general obligation bonds or revenue bonds, including
special assessment bonds, issued by any unit of local government, unless
full disclosure is made to the unit of local government prior to or
concurrent with the submission of a purchase proposal for bonds by the
und.,-rwriter, commercial bank, investment banker, or financial consultant
and subsequently in the official statement or offering circular detailing
the name and address of any finder and the amount of bonus, fee, or
gratuity paid to such finder.
Willful violation of this section shall be a felony of the third'
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.� 775.084,
Florida Statutes.
Section 3. Subsections ,.(1) and (3) of -section :218.38, Florida
Statutes, are amended to read:
-13.38 Notice of bond issues required; verification. ---
Each unit of local government authorized by general or special
law to issue general obligation bonds or revenue bonds, including special assessment bonds, shall furnish the Division of Bond Finance of the
Department of General Services a complete description of all outstanding
bonds and shall also provide the division with any notice of sale or
Official statement for the purpose of offering bonds, prior to sale, for
inclusion into the bond newsletter. Failure to submit prior notice of a
proposed new bond issue shall not affect the validity of the bond_ issue.
(b) I. The autgovernin board of each unit 'of local government;
horized by eneral or special law to issue general 0 l-I ation bonds or
revenue bonds, includin special assessment nds, shall, wit in 20 a s
after the issuance of an such bonds, ile wit the Division o Bond
Finance, on orms rescribed by the division and si red y all members o '
such board, the followin in ormation to the best now e e o eac ar
Member:
issa. The name and address of each underwriter connected with the bond
ue;
b• The name and address of any attorne or financial consultant who
ad✓ se the unit o loca government wit respect to the bond issue;
C. Any management fee charged by the underwriter
The underwriting spread which the underwriter expects to realize
e. Any fee, bonus, or gratu±31ty paid, in connection with the bond
issue, b the underwriter or' inancia consultant to -any person not
reu�larly employ6u by the un erwriter or consu taut an
CODING: Words in struek-ehrevgN type are deletions from existing law;
words in underscored type are additions.
Tentative assignment a$ 218.386.
425
Ch. 80-98 1980 REGULAR SESSION
f. Any other fee paid by the unit of local government with respect to
the
n issue, including any fee, pai to attorneys or 1-1-n-a-H-c—la-T
consultants.
enomina tion of the bor
atereat whic ' h may be at
2. Within 90 days after the time of sale of a unit of
tate.
;np ba7?d;iby
local government to an un erwriter, such underwrite le with the
(d) Th4l
Division of Bond Finance and t1:11:! 101:1!it of local —government a sworn
statement containing the in ormation required -
and e. of su --------
r
The information disclosed pursuant to this para raph shall be maintained
vision as a Du is recor a alsvo:be filed with tWe_c_1_er_R
of thbecircuit court 102f
�hdii_shal
ant- of on m
each county in whichinterest
has apthorl local government
?'cent per annum, compute
Aii in accordancjwith
M- If a. -unit of local government fails to verify, pursuant to
�cll'computation, however,
emption
subsection (2), the information held by the division, or fails to provide
of any bonds pr
a complete description of all outstanding bonds pursuant t o 1p�ara
(1)(a) or the information
6. This act sh,
�ra"ph
required I e i i.. kt,
the division ion (1)(b) embee t
shallnote-the —Legislative —A-u-d-iti—ng Committee
,.-Section
of such
failure to comply. Following receipt of such notification of failure to
roved by, the Governo.,
comply with these provisions, the Legislative Auditing Committee may;
A"
Piled in Office
(a) In the case of a city or county, notify the Department of Revenue
Secreta?
.0Aft
and the Department of Banking and Finance that the local unit ofy.
government has failed to comply. Upon notification, the Department of
V"L2V.xz'M af-
Banking and Finance shall withhold any funds payable to such governmental
entity
until the required information is received by the division.
be-1-
(b) In the case of a special district, notify the Department of
WATEW AMY-SE
Community Affairs that the special district has failed to comply. Upon
notification, the Department of Commun Affairs Banking-and-pinanee
itz
7'
shall proceed pursuant to ss.189.00'9 —and m.Lofo5f2
committee' -Sul
Subsection
Section 4. (4) of section 153-06, Florida Statutes, is
vue
amended to read:
Acr act:��, relating'. to tj
153.06 Issuance of bonds.--
_reviving;:'readoiting,
367.022j_367.031,
`367.081 367.091,
(4) ThO ---
367.123: 367.141,'
Y
Statutes; , clarifyir
te
Me
!'definitions di
; - - mo I
-and
certification require
e4--the-eeKftkYr-but No sweh sale of bonds shall be made at a price so low
application- for a ce
as to require the payment of interest on the money received therefor at
to issuance of &'cert
more than 7 1/2 percent per annum computed with relation to the absolute
maturity the bonds
to.. extension of
of in accordance with the standard tables of bond
modi fying - - provisions
values, excluding, however, from such computations the amount of any
certificates,.:- faci
premium to be paid on redemption of any bonds prior to maturity. Prior
pr6v- iding' -'for "estab
to the preparation of definitive bonds, the county may, under like
restrictions, issue
transfer;,"
interim receipts or temporary bonds with or without
changing of rates and j
coupons exchangeable for definitive bonds when such bonds have been
::r!icel providing fo 1
executed and are available for delivery. The county commission may also
rvici--avallability 1
provide for the replacement of any bonds which shall become mutilated or
-
Public -''Service Comm
be destroyed or lost.
clarifyin g' meaning
servide"i modifying t--
Section 5. Paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of section 161.38, Florida
the commission to ord(
Statutes, is amended to reads
,,or , facilities and
wholesale service %--
161-38 Issuance of bonds—
examination and-teitir
(2) The board of county commissioners shall determine the Corm of
commission to ' require
rosalef repealing 9.
such bonds, including any interest coupons to be attached thereto, the
;`judicialreview;prove
rule; modifying pro%
CODING: Words in skVvOk-threugh type are deletions from existing law;
modifying provisions
words in underscored type are additions.
s in-eItrliiff4y-
"INGi
words in underecoil
426E.
a w@
,vernment with rest
a ornevs or nancia
if an__yy�i bond by a unit c
-ter shall file with th
local overnment a swor
su su paragrap a c.,
iraoh shall be maintains
to verify, pursuant 1
Sion, or fails to provi(
ids pursuant to are ra
(1)(b) subeeel4ee-- I-,
i is ting Committee of su(
:"ification of failure l
citing Committee may:
.he Department of Reveni
'
iat the local unit (
.ation, the Department (
able to such governments
i by the division.
notify the Department (
:ailed to comply.` 'Up4
fairs Banking-and-Pinani
Ir
p ..�
•06, Florida Statutes,
bne .c)t
;... iw
i!Gt
-statute-and--f*h*
oe made at" a, p;ice so 1,
ay. received therefor
relation�to�I absolute
tandard tablesl:of _bop,
tations the amount of any
for to. maturity. -, Prior°
e county may, under'lik
y bonds with or without":
ien, such bonds have been,
anty.cemmission may ;""als%
shall -become -mutilated or;
f section 161.38,, Florida-
all determine they form of;
attached thereto the
ions from existing law;
1980 REGULAR SESSION
Ch. 80-99
denomination of the bonds, and the place of payment of principal and
interest which may be at any bank or trust company within or without the
state.
(d) 3?}te--}eeaa»ee--e£--be»ds--prev3ded-far-}»-part-��-ef-tl+#e-ekapter
e�+a��-»et-be-eub3eet-te-a»y-�3inatat}e»e-er-eend3t;e»e--ee»tai»ed--�»--a»y
ether--laver--a»d-the-beard-ef-sea»ty-eemm�ee#e»ere-may-ee��-enek-bends-�»
euel,-n�a»»err-ether-at-pabfae-er-private-safe-a»d-€er-exeh-gr?Eeee--ae--mot
may--determine-to-be-i»-the-beet-�»tereete-a£-tl+e-d#etr#et-ee»eer»edr-b+�t
No sueh sale of bonds shall be made at a price so low as to require the
payment of interest on money received therefor at a rate in excess of 6
percent per annum, computed with relation to the absolute maturity of the
bonds in accordance with standard tables of bond values, excluding from
such computation, however, the amount of any premium to be paid for the
redemption of any bonds prior to maturity. -
Section 6. This act shall take effect upon becoming'a law.
Approved by the Governor June 12, 1980.
Filed in Office Secretary of State June 13, 1980-
WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM REGULATORY LAW
CHAPTER 80-99
Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 297.
An act relating to the Water and Sewer System Regulatory Idw; -
reviving, readopting, -and amending ss,_, 367:011,' 367.021,
367.022, 367.031, '" 367.041, 367.051,"' 367.061, 367:071,
367.081, 367.091, 367.101, 367.111, 367.121, 367.122,
367.123, 367.141, 1367.151, 367.161, and 367.171, Florida
Statutes; clarifying legislative intent; providing
definitions; modifying exemptions;` modifying the
certification requirement; modifying provisions relating to
application for a certificate; modifying provisions relating
to issuance of a certificate; modifying provisions -relating
to extension of service and amendment,,of „,certificate;
modifying provisions relating 'tor `"sale or ` transfer of
certificates, facilities, or : organizational.. control;
providing for establishment of`-' rate base upon sale or
transfer; modifying provisions relating -'to fixing and
changing of rates and relating to rates for new classes of
service; providing for the setting, by rule, of standards for
service availability charges and conditions; authorizing -the
Public Service Commission to amend or,revoke a certificate
clarifying meaning of "safe,-- efficient, and sufficient
service'; modifying the powers of the commission; authorizing ,
the commission to order certain interconnections of service"
or facilities and to approve plant capacity charges,
wholesale service charges, or • rates; providing for
examination and testing of certain equipment; authorizing the
commission to require 'a- utility to provide service for
resale; repealing s. 367.131, Florida Statutes, relating"to
judicial review; providing for application fees to be set by
rule; modifying provisions .relating to gross receipts tax;
modifying provisions relating to violations; providing
CODING: Words in strdek-threugh type are deletions from existing law;
words in'underscored type are additions.
'�" 427