The Lantern posted an article about a No-Bid Contract Awarded to Zebulon Advisors, and the Douglas County Communications Director responded. This is the first instance of an official from the Douglas County Government responding to a Lantern article.
The email response came from Caroline Frizell, who began commenting on Lantern articles this week, only when we released information about the $19 million tax break Commissioners gave to a data center in Parker.
In the email reply, Frizell accuses The Lantern of violating the SPJ Code of Ethics. Adhering to an ethical standard is a requirement of joining press associations.
In bold below are the questions that appeared in our article with Frizell’s reply on behalf of Douglas County.
Will general fund sales tax be used to support Zebulon construction until it generates revenue?
Douglas County does not collect general fund sales tax. Douglas County voters approved a sales and use tax of 0.17% allocated to Parks, Open Space Acquisitions, Open Space Operations and Maintenance, and Historic Resources. The Parks portion of this 0.17% sales and use tax will fund the annual lease payments while the facility is under construction. Once the facility is open, operating revenues will fund the annual lease payments.
Under what provision of the county’s Purchasing Policy was a $137,500 professional services contract awarded without competitive bids?
Section 7 of the County’s Purchasing Policy allows for procurement of “professional services selected from a pre-qualified vendor list if the pre-qualified list was created as a result of a formal process.” Stifel was most recently selected through a competitive Request for Qualifications (RFQs) process issued by the County in 2021. That RFQ was for the purpose of assembling a “short list” of qualified firms that could be utilized as needed for public finance advising in support of the Board and special district financial review. Prior to that, George K Baum and Company (acquired by Stifel in 2019) acted as a trusted public finance advisor to the County for many years, including a competitive selection in 2016.
Why did the County Commissioners delay approving a contract with Stifel for almost a year?
When the Zebulon project was initially proposed, a range of ownership and operating structures were under consideration. Potential options included a public-private partnership with an operator in which the financing would be private, a county contribution to a Sterling Ranch Community Authority Board-owned and financed project, or a County owned and financed project. Throughout 2026 and into 2026, all three options were explored. The County moved forward with the Stifel contract when it was determined that County ownership and financing was the most suitable option.
What answer, if any, did Finance Director Christie Guthrie receive to her March 27, 2026 question about an RFP, and who decided the item would proceed to the March 31 agenda without a competitive bid?
Staff from the County Manager’s office discussed purchasing policy compliance as described in this email with the Finance Director prior to publication of the March 31st agenda.
Did the county assess Stifel’s work for Sterling Ranch-affiliated entities as a conflict before retaining the firm as its fiduciary?
Stifel’s work for Douglas County is specific to the roles described in its agreement for financial advisory services. In that role, Stifel will provide advice and analysis on pricing and structure of Certificates of Participation (COPs); coordinate with bond counsel, underwriters, consultants and accountants; and coordinate scheduling and logistical aspects of bringing COPs to market. In this role, Stifel does not and will not advise the County on real estate matters, infrastructure provision or any aspect of its interactions with the Sterling Ranch Community Activity Board, Sterling Ranch Development Company, or other affiliated entities.
Why does the executed agreement cover $65 million in debt plus County Revitalization Act (CRA) bonds when the county’s public materials detail a $100 million funding requirement and no CRA involvement?
The agreement presented to the Board of County Commissioners on March 31, 2026 specified neither an amount nor a reference to CRA bonds. The County explored a variety of funding amounts and structures. As identified in public materials, the County intends to proceed with a COP issuance of approximately $100M, with final amounts and structure to be determined through upcoming due diligence.
What was the nature of the conflict of interest that prevented Piper Sandler from participating in the RFP process?
Piper Sandler resigned its role as the County’s financial advisor citing an interest in acting in an underwriter role with the County’s COP issuance.
When did the Board of County Commissioners first discuss the Stifel engagement — in work sessions or executive sessions — before the sole public vote on March 31, 2026?
Staff and the Board evaluated a range of financing options in the summer and fall of 2025, during which time the Board of County Commissioners was appraised of the County’s long-standing relationship with Stifel as a public finance advisor.
Will any Federal funding benefit the Zebulon project and trigger audit requirements from a U.S. Inspector General that would press the G-23 and G-42 rules issues?
No Federal funding is expected to be used for the Zebulon project. The blog post’s discussion of Rules G-23 and G-42 are a mischaracterization of the requirements and a misunderstanding of the standard disclaimers that appear on all Stifel emails. As indicated in the first sentence of the disclaimer, Stifel does not owe a fiduciary duty when it is serving or proposing to serve as underwriter or placement agent. Stifel was not serving or proposing to serve in those roles, and absent those qualifying conditions, it owes a fiduciary duty.
Getting Frizell engaged begs the question...are her inputs and reponses accurate and truthful?
Her demeanor mirrors the low respect held for the public by the BoCC.
That said, The Lantern is establishing an importanty position.
May The Force Be with You!
Could someone with a legal background explain in layman's terms what these responses actually mean? 🤷♀️