HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04021991 - 2.2 �V\
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
vE L L
�.
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Costa
Count
April 2, 1991 ^;::. Y
DATE:
SUBJECT: Bond Counsel Services, 1991 Tax and Revenue Anticipation
Note Borrowing Program
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Approve the list of -qualified bond counsel firms responding
to the Request for Proposals authorized by the Board on
March 5, 1991.
2. Authorize the County Administrator to execute an agreement
with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe for bond counsel
services.
3 . Determine that Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe meets the
requirements of the County' s Minority & Women Business
Enterprise Contract Compliance Program for the Bond Counsel
Services, 1991 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note Borrowing
Program.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
The cost of services for the bond counsel has been determined by
comparison of proposals received in a competitive process. The
recommended firm proposed the lowest base fee for the service.
Costs for services are payable upon successful completion of the
note borrowing program and are paid as part of the cost of
issuance for the issue.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON April 2, 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
-�1 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
Y UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: County Administrator ATTESTED
APR 2 1991
Treasurer- Tax Collector PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Auditor-Controller SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Redevelopment Director
County Counsel
BY ,DEPUTY
M382 (10/88)
-2-
BACKGROUND•
The Board, on March 5 , 1991 authorized the County Administrator
to release a request for proposals for bond counsel services to a
list of firms with the most experience in note borrowing
programs. Seven firms where contacted and five firms responded.
The responding firms are as follows:
1 . Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
2 . Brown & Wood
3 . Jones Hall Hill & White
4 . O'Melveny & Meyers
5. Alexander, Millner & McGee
The firms of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott and Pamela S. Jue
did not respond to the request for proposals. We believe all
five of the responding firms to be well qualified. All have
offices in San Francisco. The attorneys proposed to be assigned
to the issue are all well experienced and respected in their
field. A comparison of the fee proposals and experience with Tax
and Revenue Anticipation Note issues during 1990 for California
counties provides the following ranking:
Fee 1990 County
Counsel Name Basic Expenses TAN Experience
Orrick Herrington $13 ,750 $1 , 250 7
Jones Hall 15,000 incl. 2
O'Melveny 15,000 1 , 000 4
Brown & Wood 17,500 2 , 500 3
Alexander, Millner 19 ,000 2, 500 1
The fee proposals are very close among the three firms of Orrick,
Jones Hall and O'Melveny. The comparison of County Tax and
Revenue Anticipation Note issues experience for 1990 indicates
that the Orrick firm completed issues for seven major California
counties as well as the State of California. The other firms
provided services to fewer counties, many of which were smaller,
rural counties. Each of the firms completed issues for a number
of school districts and cities.
In view of the fact that the fee for services is the same or less
than other firms, it is our recommendation to continue to work
with the Orrick attorneys who have provided excellent, timely
assistance in the past. The open competitive process using the
assistance of the Financial Consultant has resulted in very
competitive fee proposals from the best qualified firms
available.