HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-04-1996 - 8l a
1
Orange County
Board of County Commissioners
Action Agenda
Item No
Action Agenda Item Abstract 9-
Meeting Date: November 4, 1996
Subject: Appointment of Bond Counsel
Department: Finance/Manager/Attorney
Attachment(s): Public Hearing: Yes No x
Request for Proposals Budget Amendment
10/31/96 Staff/Attorney Memo Needed: Yes No x
Information Contact
Ken Chavious, ext 2450
Rod Visser, ext 2300
Geof Gledhill, 732-2196
Telephone and Extension Number
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 9684501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
Purpose: To consider appointment of new County bond counsel.
Background: At the October 15, 1996 meeting, the Board of Commissioners adopted a
resolution authorizing the staff and Attorney to prepare and distribute a Request for Proposals
(RFP)to various law firms in North Carolina to ascertain their interest in, and qualifications for,
serving as the County's bond counsel in the planned Southern Village Elementary School project
financing. This RFP was necessitated by the change in emphasis of the practice of the County's
current bond counsel, the Brown &Wood law firm of New York.
After consultation with staff of the Local Government Commission concerning law firms in the
State likely to be qualified to provide bond counsel services, staff distributed the RFP to six firms,
five of which responded. Based on staff/attorney evaluation, the Manager recommends that the
Board select the Sanford Law Firm to serve as the County's bond counsel for the Southern Village
Elementary School financing project. While this appointment is for this specific financing, the
Board may, at its option, choose to retain the Sanford Law Firm as bond counsel for future
financings, or pursue another RFP process for any such financings.
Recommendation(s): The Manager recommends that the Board appoint the Sanford Law Firm
to serve as bond counsel for the Southern Village Elementary School project financing.
M
2 ,
S
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
BOND COUNSEL SERVICES
SOUTHERN VILLAGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FINANCING
OCTOBER 21, 1996
DESCRIPTION OF ENGAGEMENT
Orange County's adopted Capital Improvements Plan includes construction of a$14 million elementary school
in the Southern Village Development in southern Orange County. The school's planned opening is Summer,
1999. The school building and related improvements will be located on a combination of land currently owned
by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education and by the Town of Chapel Hill. It is anticipated that title to
the land upon which the school will be constructed will pass to the County prior to closing, and that security
satisfactory to the prospective lender will be made.
Orange County wishes to engage a qualified firm to provide all bond counsel services, including providing a
tax certificate(s)satisfactory to the County and a tax opinion upon which Orange County and the lender can
rely,related to a 160A-20"private placement"financing of this facility. In order to obtain the lowest possible
interest cost, Orange County prefers a"split forward"financing approach of$5 million in December 1996 and
$9 million sometime in 1997,thus preserving the County's"bank qualification"for both calendar years 1996
and 1997. Orange County's interest is in obtaining the most favorable tax status for this financing, and thus is
willing to consider alternatives that bond counsel may suggest to accomplish this purpose.
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
Proposals must address the following points:
1. Briefly describe the firm's practice in public finance, including information relating to total size and
staffing, research capability,professional staff,and support staff. Include biographical information on the
individuals who would be directly responsible for the County's work. Do not include information on staff who
would not have day-to-day contact with the County's business.
2. Describe any experience your firm has in handling 160A-20 financings,especially involving school
construction, distinguishing between private placements and Certificates of Participation(COPS).
3. Describe the firm's capability and experience in Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, and any other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code applicable to public finance.
4. Describe other areas of the firm's expertise related to government practice from which the firm
believes the County may benefit.
5. Identify three(3)capital financing challenges encountered by North Carolina local governmental units,
the information about which is not privileged,with which the firm has worked,and describe the solutions to
those problems developed by the firm. Provide names and telephone numbers of references from the local
governmental units involved.
r
3
6. Provide names and telephone numbers of three(3)additional individuals(local government finance
officers or attorneys, underwriters,or investment bankers)with whom the firm has worked on local government
finance matters, who may also be contacted as references concerning the firm's qualifications and performance.
7. Describe your methodology in calculating fees for services as bond counsel. Provide a range of the
costs estimated for your services for the Southern Village Elementary School financing, and an explanation of
factors and variables that would influence those costs.
8. Disclose any known or potential conflicts of interest which would or might exist if your firm were to be
selected as Orange County bond counsel for this or future financings.
9. State whether the firm,or any public finance issue in which the firm has been involved, is or has been
under investigation or subject to proceedings before any court or regulatory agency having jurisdiction over
public finance securities. If the answer is affirmative,provide as many details as are not privileged.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Interested firms must provide three(3)copies of proposals to Ken Chavious,Finance Director, 208 South
Cameron Street,PO Box 8181, Hillsborough,NC,27278. All documentation must be received by 5:00pm on
Monday,October 28, 1996. Any response to this Request for Proposals will not be privileged and will be
public information upon receipt by Orange County. Orange County may elect to interview one or more of the
firms responding to this Request for Proposals. If the County does so, interviews will be conducted on
Thursday, October 31,between the hours of 9:00am and 12:00pm. The County will notify any responding
firms that it wishes to interview.
The successful firm should be prepared to provide rapid review and counsel on a Request for Financing
Proposals which Orange County will send to prospective lenders during the business week ending November 8,
1996.
Although at this time the County contemplates engagement of bond counsel only for this specific financing,the
County may, at its option, retain the law firm selected for a longer period to provide traditional bond counsel
services on any financings in which the County is the obligor. The County may unilaterally terminate its
arrangement with the firm selected at any time,with or without cause. The County is not responsible for any
costs incurred by any firm in connection with the preparation of a proposal,nor for any failure or delivery at the
time and place required. Orange County will select bond counsel solely within its discretion. The weight
which Orange County lends to specific proposal requirements is also solely within its discretion. The County
reserves the right to negotiate with any proposer,and to waive any irregularities and informalities in the
proposals received.
GENERAL INFORMATION
County staff and the County Attorney will evaluate all statements of qualification and proposals that are timely
received,and provide recommendations to the Orange County Manager. The Manager's recommendation on
selection of bond counsel is expected to be presented to the Orange County Board of Commissioners for a
decision on Monday,November 4, 1996.
For further information concerning this process,contact Finance Director Ken Chavious at(919) 732-8181,ext
2453,or County Attorney Geof Gledhill at(919)732-2196.
Y
4
MEMORANDUM
FOR: Orange County Board of Commissioners
John M. Link, Jr., County Manager
FROM: Rod Visser, Assistant County Manager
Ken Chavious, Finance Director
Geof Gledhill, County Attorney
DATE: October 31, 1996
RE: Appointment of Bond Counsel
At the October 15 meeting, the Board instructed us to prepare and distribute a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for bond counsel services. We prepared the accompanying RFP, and
distributed it to six North Carolina law firms that are well-recognized for their public finance work.
Five firms responded to the RFP. We feel that each firm prepared a strong response, and that
any of the firms would be capable of doing a good job for Orange County on the Southern Village
Elementary financing, or any future financings. Two firms provided responses that we all felt were
particularly strong, and the attorneys for these firms who would be our principal contacts were
interviewed this morning.
Our recommendation is that the Board of Commissioners appoint the Sanford Law Firm to act as
the County's bond counsel for the Southern Village Elementary School project financing. The
Board may wish to retain the Sanford Law Firm in an ongoing relationship for future bond counsel
work, but we recommend that the Board make a decision on that point sometime in the future.
The Sanford Law Firm attorney who will perform the County's bond counsel work will be Mr.
Robert Jessup. We were very favorably impressed by Mr. Jessup's knowledge, experience, and
interpersonal skills, and feel he will do an excellent job for Orange County on this financing
project. Specifically, some of the factors that permit us to enthusiastically recommend
appointment of Mr. Jessup and the Sanford Law Firm are:
• Relevant Experience- The firm has extensive experience in installment purchase financing
review, to include numerous school financings. The firm has handled either Certificates of
Participation (COPs), private placements, or both for school facilities in Sampson, Bladen,
Iredell, Richmond, Halifax, Moore, and Brunswick Counties. Moreover, the firm recently
served as underwriters'counsel on a"split forward financing"deal for a Moore County school
that is very similar to the financing approach we are contemplating for the Southern Village
Elementary School.
• Creativity-The firm's record, and Mr. Jessup's responses, reveal a strong orientation toward
creativity and innovation in finding appropriate solutions to clients'capital financing needs.
• Accessibility-The firm will be readily available to consult as needed with us on either the
Southern Village project or other financing issues. The firm is prepared to work with us under
the extremely tight timeframes we face in bringing about a successful December 1996 closing
for partial funding of the Southern Village school. Mr. Jessup is also an Orange County
resident, whose response to the RFP uniquely reflected an awareness of the County's recent
and planned efforts in school capital financing.
5
• Versatility- Mr. Jessup and his firm present the view that bond attorneys should have
extensive expertise in tax law as well. This point is particularly important, as it affords the
County greater responsiveness since our principal bond counsel will not have to delay service
while awaiting answers from the tax experts in his own, or outside, firms.
• Teamwork-It is clear that Mr. Jessup would actively protect Orange County's interests in the
role of bond counsel. He has a strong desire to assist with the County's overall capital
finance planning, and volunteered his willingness to attend meetings and participate in the
planning process, if the County believes that would be helpful in developing long-term capital
financing plans
• Competitive Fees-The firm has given us a solid quote of$12,000 for the Southern Village
Elementary project, if undertaken as we have described it. This fee is very competitive, and in
our view, very reasonable based on the level of service we believe we will receive from Mr.
Jessup and the Sanford Law Firm.
We also note that Mr. Jessup and the Sanford Law Firm enjoy an excellent reputation for bond
counsel services in North Carolina, and have no known or anticipated conflicts of interest should
the firm be appointed as Orange County's bond counsel.
Please let any one of us know if you would like to discuss or review the complete proposal of
either the Sanford Law Firm, or any of the other responding law firms, prior to Monday night's
meeting.