2002_1118_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Discussion Items Consistent with recent attorney review processes, Staff asked each of the panelists to evaluate each of the firms and the assigned attorneys, and to summarize the review using a rating system. Each of the firms submitting proposals were asked to take part in an interview with the Panel. A copy of the interview questions is included in Attachment A. The following chart provides a rating summary of each of the four firms, based on their average score from the panelists. EN aluatioll Criteria 1.1111:14 fill] Ilittlo, (I 1'ilN ell 1111 Ex eriencel uglification of Firm 2.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 Ex eriencel ualification of Assi ed Personnel 3.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 Knowledge of issues ertinent to Roseville 2.3 3.7 3.7 4.3 Firm's philosophy in representing the City 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Awareness of Conflict of interest Issues 4.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 Overall presentation 3. 7 5.0 5.0 5.0 Total 1 18.9 28.7 28. 7 29.3 Rating Scale: 5 - Excellent; 4 - Very Good; 3 - Good; 2 - Satisfactory; 1 - Poor Panel Findings Based on the review by the Panel, Briggs&Morgan was viewed best suited to meet the needs of bond counsel for the City. Briggs&Morgan has served the City well for most of the last 20 years, with an exception of a four-year period in the early 90's. They are acutely aware of the City's current and potential bond-related issues, and are in a position to continue delivering services without interruption. Approximately 80% of their practice is in the public finance arena. City Staff has both past and current experience with their firm as well as several attorneys within the firm, and is comfortable renewing the relationship. The firm of Kennedy & Graven was equally respected and would in all likelihood meet the needs of the City as well. Along with Briggs & Morgan, they focus the majority of their practice on public finance issues. However, they were not familiar with the City of Roseville's current bond-related issues, and would initially require additional time before they are in a position to represent Roseville. Absent appointing this firm as primary bond counsel, Staff may seek their opinion on various public finance matters from time to time. Dorsey & Whitney is well respected and very experienced. They are a larger firm with many specialties, and have aided clients with their legislative programs. However, they were not familiar with Roseville issues, and may present a much greater potential for a conflict of interest on an on-going basis, which would require the use of separate bond counsel.