to when you talk. >> Okay. >> Well, you got >> you press that push when we talk. >> Just two talk. We have to turn them on. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> There's a green. >> Uh good afternoon everybody. It is 1:34 p.m. on Thursday, January 15th, 2026.
We're here for a selection advisory committee meeting um for RFP-26-04- FN titled Financial Auditing Services. This RFP was issued on Monday, December 8th, 2025 with all proposals being due
to the town by Wednesday, January 7th, 2026 at 2 p.m. Um, as of that cutoff date and time, we had the town has received five proposals. Um, Carr Riggs and Ingram, Citroen, Coopermanman,
Growl, Hillbar, and King, and Molden and Jenkins. Um, I'm here with the selection advisory committee. I am Amy Baker, the town clerk. I'm going to open up the um the meeting and let everyone introduce themselves for the record so our
transcriptionist can keep an accurate record of this and then I will turn it over to um our vice mayor Safford to chair this meeting and get hopefully a recommendation per our ordinances. Um you've already been provided a ranking
and evaluation worksheet to fill out. Um I do have those numbers in front of me. I can share them when we get to that point. Um, everyone can you can give your own rankings or your own scoring criteria and maybe why you chose one
over another or ranked them low, high, whatever you wish. Um, we'll have open discussions about that. There were two there was two steps to the um the evaluating. The first one was the mandatory elements. if you thought they
and in the RFP documents there was um six categories called out and if you thought the the five proposers all met those you were to go on and then rank them with a score. Um, so I guess we can start there with those the five
companies and the first mandatory elements. >> Mhm. >> And if you all decided they met them, did not meet them, maybe you, one of you thinks they didn't meet them and the rest want to say why they think you did meet them or they did meet them.
Um and then once we get firms that are okay to or pass this mandatory element portion, we'll move on to the the uh the rank or the scoring on the second step of this and then speak of those firms only and then hopefully out of that
maybe make a recommendation as the selection advisory committee group. You can also choose to bring any of these firms back for um additional interviews, one onone interviews with the committee if you so choose. If you don't have all the answers you need here and from the
proposals you you we have that ability to bring those firms in for further interview. So with that, I will pass it over to our chair. >> Okay. Thank you. Um good afternoon everyone. I'd like to take roll call. Jack, can you start for the record?
>> Jack. Jack Mason. Okay, >> great. >> James are on. >> Brian Thomas, >> Scott Safford, vice mayor, >> Debbie Dutton, Maryanne Julie Lee. >> Okay, thank you. Um, do we have to say who was not able to attend or this is
the committee? >> This this is the committee. Um there's only one of the and just so just for the record, this is our audit committee, our town's advisory board audit committee that acts as the selection advisory committee in this in this instance for
this RFP. Um and the only member not in attendance is Barbara Puffer and she has an excused absence from this committee >> today. >> Fantastic. For the record. Great. Um, so the purpose of this is to we're after we make sure that that they meet the
criteria, we're going to rank them and then give a give a recommendation to the town manager of the top three. It's my understand at least the top three. >> Hopefully at least three. >> Yeah, hopefully at least three. And then the town manager in turn will turn that over to council for final approval.
>> So I I guess we should start by >> clarification. >> Yes. So, what if we think there's one or two are better than the other three? But we still >> we're going to rank them. >> We're going to rank them. And usually the recommend if you get to that point today, the recommendation would be to
the town manager to um and the the recommendation will have to go to council for approval to even start negotiating with a a number one ranked firm. And you we we choose more than one new normally if we can't reach a a negotiated amount with the first ranked
firm. Um, the way it'll be worded to go to council is if we can't reach that agreement or that negotiated amount, then we go to the second ranked and the third ranked and move on till we find a company that can work with us. >> Okay, great. >> Okay. >> All right. The the first criteria was the audit firm is independent and
licensed to practice in Florida. Um, I believe I I believe that all five are. Is is there any discrepancy there? >> No. >> Okay. Second, the second criteria is that the auditor firm has experience
with comparable government entities in the state of Florida within the past five years. I had one question about Hill, Bar, and King. I really didn't see that in there. Maybe I missed it. Did Did
>> I didn't I didn't see it either. They they didn't The uh references they gave were a university. They weren't towns. They were >> Yeah, it's like ones >> university bodies. And so they really didn't give any true experience other than they mentioned they do government work.
>> I that's kind of how I felt. So my question to you Amy is is if they don't reach all five of these they can't even be considered. >> How about you go through the whole list first and then um you could as a committee you can decide are you going
to move this this firm onto the scoring part of this. Okay, fair enough. >> In in the RFP documents, it says if they don't meet all these requirements, then you don't even have to evaluate the second, you know, the scoring part. >> Okay, fair enough.
>> But you when you were evaluating them, you don't know what your other committee members were thinking, >> right? >> Um so you evaluate all of them. >> That's why we're having a discussion, >> right? You have a discussion. Should this Hillbar and King move on to the second step or not? >> Okay. Well, let's let's go through all
the criteria and we'll see what what everyone else thought about what may be missing. The third criteria is the audit firm's professional personnel have received adequate continuing professional education within the preceding two years. >> Some of them provided more information than others. Some was just vague and
then others not as well >> for their license. They need so many hours, right? >> So that's a given what what they specialize in. >> I felt that way too. Some some gave a lot more details of what what they what classes they took but I I think to you
have to have continued. >> Okay. >> Everybody agree? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> The fourth criteria is the firm has no conflicts of interest with regard to any other work performed by the firm for the town. >> I didn't see any conflicts for anyone. I
>> mean the the Hill firm had done some consulting work a few years back that they noted. Um so they didn't weren't specific as to what type of consulting work it I think it was finan it was financially related so they had they had done consulting work for the town.
>> Do did you find that as a conflict of interest >> not knowing exactly what work they did if it was to help establish controls or something like that it could be considered a conflict of interest. Yes. >> Okay. How did you read that Ryan?
Um, I read it the same way, but I didn't really use it as a a basis to exclude them from the evaluation. >> Okay. Anyone else? Okay. The >> I guess Amy, would you know if there's anything knowing
>> I did not read the proposals, but how long ago did they say they worked for the town? >> I think it was 2022. >> Oh, >> so within the fiveyear window. I not I don't know that I don't know that answer. I the name doesn't stand
out to me that because that's very recently. >> Yeah. And that was a question that I was going to ask Joe if Joe was part of this process, but obviously he's not. So >> So that's just something that need I think needs to be clarified what specific work they did to then appropriately evaluate is it truly a
conflict or not. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. would note that as >> I I I guess I left that as sort of a maybe inappropriately but a last a defining factor to go on to the scoring and in my mind based on the the ultimate
scoring I didn't see it as a potential negative if that makes sense. >> Yeah. Yeah. It was a question that I just had that I not that it would proceed preclude us from going forward. something that would just need to be clarified of the process if the scoring resulted in them being one of the top
camp selections. >> Exactly. >> Okay. The the fifth out of the six criteria is the firm submits a copy of its most recent external quality control review report and the firm has a record of quality audit work.
>> So yet again, Hill submitted their review and they actually had deficiencies noted related to government work. saw the same thing. >> The other reports were clean. So all of them submitted the report. Correct. Hill
was the only one that had any noted deficiencies. And one of the deficiencies was specifically in relationship to their work around government work, government projects. >> And it seemed also they didn't have much customization uh inside their proposal. >> Yeah. >> As an offering.
>> Okay. Finally, the the the last criteria is the firm adheres to the instructions in this request for proposals on preparing and submitting the proposal. >> I think everybody >> I think everybody did that. >> Yeah. >> So real question is the other four firms
other than Hill met all the criteria. Hill there was three three sections where we're not sure. So, it would be my recommendation and um I'm going to make a motion that we we move the other
other four firms forward and leave Hill behind for the ranking. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Yes. >> I I Okay. It's unanimous. I >> do. We have any discussion on that or no? >> Oh, we can have discussion.
>> I guess the only comment I was going to say, Emily, >> Mike, >> um well, maybe it's premature. We'll get to this, but in my mind, some of what made me feel not as concerned about that because then I went on to do the scoring and based on their scoring results, it kind of concluded for me that they weren't the best candidate either.
Anyway, >> I agree. I mean, they had they're very professional because they're such a large firm, >> but they were so expensive that I they wouldn't even be in consideration. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I agreed. I scored them as well, not knowing exactly how we were going to manage that. Um, and they came in as the
lowest in the scoring as well. So >> leaving them behind is probably not one way or another we you end up at the same answer, >> right? >> Yeah. Um I'm likewise they >> my score for them was was much below the other ones. >> Yep. >> So do you want to keep your motion as is
and not consider them in this this next step or talk about them anyway? Send your motion and talk about them anyway. >> Yeah. I mean I' I'd be comfortable with the motion as it as it is on the floor. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Motion to second and a vote. So, it's unanimous.
>> Move on then. >> Moving right along. Okay, let's go to the ranking. Amy, how do you want to handle this? >> Um, I have everybody's rankings. I can shoot up on the screens if you want. >> Yeah. >> Or you can go individually and talk how you rank them. I can shoot the numbers up there and then we'll there's at the
bottom it keeps a total score. >> Um, so we can go that way. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, the one that you see here that says value, sorry, I'm moving away from the mic. The one that says value >> put them on these screens. No, >> no. Um, I can get it a little bigger up
here though. The one that says value everywhere, that's Barbara Puffers because she did score and rank, but she's not here today. So, we can't take her scores as part of the consideration. >> Um, so I think I ranked these the wrong
direction, though. I'm sorry. because I have a score overall down but that's all your scores. Can we take just about a five minute break? >> We can discuss. >> Yeah, you can discuss >> and then why don't we just discuss I mean >> y
>> I guess we just each of us give give our top three or top four. >> Sure. So, I ranked Modelllin and Jenkins number one. I ranked Citroen number two, Car Rigs and Ingram.
>> Don't Don't shoot my screen yet. >> Three, and Growl four. >> Keep doing it, but not. >> How about you, Jack? How did you rank them? >> Um, can you turn the mic on? >> First of all, >> we agreeing that Hill Bar that was a
waste. I started Malden and Jenkins and Car Rigs and Citrus. Those were my top three. But I would rate Malden, we had them before costwise,
cont continuity and whatever our relationship with them that we would have to rank them. But that's I would go with modern and then car rigs. >> Okay. the one two or however two one. >> Okay.
>> Um I model was one for me as well. Citroen was two, Growl was three and then car rigs was four but all very close behind but Mlin was by by far the the top.
>> Okay, Ryan. >> So very similar. I had uh Malden and Jenkins as my number one, Citroen number two, car number three, uh Growl number four, but I guess for the for the good of the core, the Malden and Jenkins score was materially higher than the
other three. >> Okay, Barbara >> Debbie, he saw your name, please. >> Charles, >> um >> had to make one mistake. >> I was very similar. I I had Maldwin and
Jenkins first. Um they scored high in everything. It this first section I found everybody was kind of similar, but then the price kind of outweighs everybody too. But the Yeah, we already had the experience with them and they seem to be doing a good job. So I had
them first and then uh Citroen second, Car Rigggins and Ingram third and Growl fourth. >> Okay. How'd you come out? >> I have um Malden and Jenkins first. So, Car Rigs 2, Grow Three, Citron 4, Malden
and Jenkins, like everyone has says the they're familiar with us. They got us through the hurricane without having a financial advisor. I think just for efficiency purposes to not start over is huge, too. And their price was good. Um, if we go with someone else, I would
prefer just from my own experience working in numerous public accounting firms, a local firm compared to a national one because you can I mean, you can get a first year kid who doesn't know anything. So, um, a local one in Florida, too, compared to, you know, someone who doesn't know Florida
information, >> right? >> So, um, I would I did Mkins number one, just mostly for um continuing. I I personally feel they did a fantastic job given >> given the the size of our audit with all
the all the FEMA >> things that happened and the state funds and I you know they've they've done a great job and their their price they was was the best price. So I I feel comfortable. >> Um Amy, do you want to
>> Yep. So I'll just read the the final scores and that's taking all the the committee members ranking or scoring criteria putting it in and getting a a total number for that firm. Um Carr Riggs and Ingram had a total score of 532.
Citroen Coopermanman had a total score of 548. Uh Growl had a total score of 509. Hill, Bar, and King had a total score of 368 if just to put it out there. I know we're not considering them in here, but
um and Malden and Jenkins had a total score of 593. >> So, it looks like it would be Malden and Jenkins, then Citroen Cooperman, and then Carr Riggs and Ingram. >> Okay. >> As your top three.
>> As our top three. Okay. I'd like to make a motion that uh we submit this to the town manager, our top three, Malden Jenkins number one, Citroen number two, and Car Riggs and Ingram number three for his take to bring to town council. Do have a second.
>> Second. >> Okay. Any discussion? No discussion. Hearing none. Um let's >> can before you take a roll call vote. >> That would be great if you would like to do. We're always up for a roll call vote. Okay. >> Um but this will hopefully be going to
the February 2nd um town council meeting for this recommendation to the town manager to enter into negotiations with the top firm and then two and three if the um a satisfactory negotiation is not reached. Um and then depending on how
fast and well that goes, we hopefully get it back to the February I believe it's 17th council meeting for an award. >> Okay. Fantastic. >> Okay. Um I I'm an I. Brian >> I >> Jack >> I
>> I >> I >> I >> Okay, it's unanimous. >> Perfect. >> Any other items on our agenda? >> That's it. >> I have a question. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Why are we just kicking off the audit for the end a fiscal year ending
September 30th like in a couple months? Shouldn't that have happened? Why are we doing this so late this election? I think with the the turnover in staff, we didn't have a contracts person forever. Um, we had one that wasn't performing to
our standards and then that person left. Um, and then nobody was We still don't have a contracts person. So, by the time this got around, it's here we are. >> Yeah. Isn't the audit due June? >> Yeah. I think Joe is expecting to start
this pretty quickly. >> Yeah. You know, that's why we're we're pushing it now to get backtoback council meetings and >> makes sense. >> Which goes along with our recommendation for number one because they're familiar with it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Y
>> Okay. Any other comments? >> Okay. I'd like to move to adjourn. The time is 154. >> Second. Second. Okay. >> Thank you. Everybody says I. >> All right. Thank Thank you. It's
interesting that we all came up