WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=taxgxnaqVII

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: taxgxnaqVII):
- 00:06:39: Meeting Call to Order, Invocation, and Pledge
- 00:08:02: Roll Call and Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes
- 00:09:11: Challenging the Accuracy and Subjectivity of Minutes
- 00:12:19: Motion to Review Minutes with Staff Oversight
- 00:24:52: Chair Role Questioned; Clarification on Process Guidelines
- 00:30:02: Addressing Discrepancies in Packet's Meeting Minutes
- 00:32:57: Motion to Accept Minutes with Subjectivity Reference
- 00:34:55: Question about Concerns Satisfaction; Gabble Back
- 00:35:25: Moving to Regular Business: Top Ranked Firm Verification
- 00:35:51: Staff Report: Verification Phase Summary and Review
- 00:39:56: Concerns with Pervis Gray's Corporate Registration Status
- 00:43:16: Discussion on Peer Reviews; Mandated RFP Criteria Review
- 00:46:25: Setting Audit Firm Rankings and Voting Approval
- 00:51:57: Clarification of Procedural Steps and Procurement Policy
- 00:55:10: Verifying Pending Dates and City Audit Monitoring


Part: 1

1
00:06:39.919 --> 00:06:55.039
Good afternoon everyone. Uh thank you for being here today. We are going to officially call this audit selection committee meeting to order. And at this time we will have invocation by pastor Malberry and the pledge of allegiance to

2
00:06:55.039 --> 00:07:12.720
our flag uh by Miss Meyers if you don't mind. Good evening everyone. Father again we give you thanks and praise for your kindness towards us. We thank you dear God for all your many blessings and benefits that you alone have bestowed.

3
00:07:12.720 --> 00:07:28.160
We pray God that you will crown the heads of these leaders with wisdom God in every decision they make. Pray God that your guiding hand, mercy, grace would be upon us even the more as we move this city in the direction that is

4
00:07:28.160 --> 00:07:44.800
need to go. We thank you now for all your blessing. Continue to do what you do, God, because you're still in control. We thank you for it. It is in Jesus name we pray. Amen. >> Amen. >> Please join me. I pledge allegiance to

5
00:07:44.800 --> 00:08:02.319
the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you, Pastor Malberry and Miss Meyers. At this time, we will have the

6
00:08:02.319 --> 00:08:22.720
roll call. >> Alan Sheffield, >> present. Pres >> here. Thank you. >> Jeremy >> present. >> Commissioner Camp >> present. We do have a quorum in the

7
00:08:22.720 --> 00:08:39.440
chambers. At this time we will have the approval of minutes. I do want to um bring to the attention even in the minutes that is printed with regard to um I emailed earlier and I see partial

8
00:08:39.440 --> 00:08:54.000
correction but I want to make sure that the record reflect that Miss Meyers was not present via Zoom. >> Oh that's right. >> We will wait. >> Yes.

9
00:08:54.000 --> 00:09:11.120
Everything was read into the uh minutes on her behalf by attorney West. Do we have any other um [clears throat] corrections to the minutes? >> I don't have anything beyond what I said in the letter. >> Do you want to address?

10
00:09:11.120 --> 00:09:28.560
>> Um there was there were some >> Wait, could I Is this part Are you challenging anything in the minutes or can we just bring this up separately? >> Well, it it references the minutes is how you know on a correction to the minutes potentially. >> Yeah, I think the minutes need to reflect that this process is subjective

11
00:09:28.560 --> 00:09:47.200
and not objective just for clarity. >> And at what point are you referencing this in >> at any point if in my opinion it objective process you check a box or yes or no and you move on. The fact that we have a scoring criteria makes it a

12
00:09:47.200 --> 00:10:03.279
subjective review as opposed to objective. >> Okay. So the minutes capture what transpired and what was said in the meeting. So to the extent you are taking the position that the current minutes are incorrect because they failed to

13
00:10:03.279 --> 00:10:19.760
state that you mentioned objective versus subjective. >> That's correct. >> Um and I'm I apologize. I've not had time to read the minutes that you have published. Um, we can go back and review that to make sure that that language is

14
00:10:19.760 --> 00:10:39.600
indeed captured if that was discussed during the meeting. >> Yeah, that's correct. >> All right, we'll move forth with the um a motion to accept the minutes with the correct changes as well as the review of

15
00:10:39.600 --> 00:10:56.240
staff. Yes, we can recirculate minutes uh corrected minutes if necessary via email to the committee members after uh the city clerk has had an opportunity to review. >> So would we so would we want to we still can accept just

16
00:10:56.240 --> 00:11:12.000
>> for clar? >> Yes, you can accept the minutes as her >> condition on the changes to be made >> limited to that point or the minutes as a whole. >> Do you have any additional corrections? Um, just looking at the email, it I

17
00:11:12.000 --> 00:11:28.160
think referenced I just don't know if it was in the minutes. It referenced a conversation about the criteria that would be discussed at today's meeting versus what we have previously talked about. >> Okay. So, and just [clears throat] to be

18
00:11:28.160 --> 00:11:43.120
clear on minutes, they they capture the essence of conversations. They are not meant uh nor should they be an exact transcription of the proceedings. So to the extent that they have adequately captured the essence of what was

19
00:11:43.120 --> 00:12:00.480
discussed, uh this committee may move forward with approving of the minutes as is or you can move forward with a motion conditioning your approval on further review by the city clerk with dissemination of any corrected minutes

20
00:12:00.480 --> 00:12:19.040
uh transpiring via email. >> And whatever the motion is, please make sure that it's stated in the motion. So, we will move forth with a motion. >> Anyone? >> Well, I actually don't believe I should make a motion and hesitate on voting on

21
00:12:19.040 --> 00:12:34.000
it because >> if you were you were not in attendance, it would be inappropriate for you to make a motion >> and I did listen to it, but the last 30 minutes was not audible. >> So, I don't >> and I just don't believe looking on the internet's the same as making a phone call from an essence perspective. I'm

22
00:12:34.000 --> 00:12:49.839
not going to make the motion either, but if staff believe so. >> Well, we need a motion >> to deny them or were present. >> Yeah, I just don't want I don't the interpretation of essence. I don't I mean, I'm good with that, but I think we

23
00:12:49.839 --> 00:13:05.120
do need to I'll make a motion we review the minutes or we approve the minutes, but staff review the um earlier discussed item and the particular feedback on making the phone call or doing an that review for the additional

24
00:13:05.120 --> 00:13:19.680
criteria we're supposed to talk about today. >> Maybe I'm a tad bit confused. >> Um, could you >> So, we had >> and I know that I really wanted to be made plain so that we can really capture what it is that you're trying to convey

25
00:13:19.680 --> 00:13:36.480
so that all of us are on the same page with regards to >> how we are trying to proceed. So if you if you started the March 4th meeting, there was quite a bit of conversation around what this meeting we're here today is for. Um and it was

26
00:13:36.480 --> 00:13:52.399
specifically conversation large in part by myself, Mr. Sheffield, I believe Commissioner Campbell. Um I don't know who else was in the meeting at that point, but the idea was that we would [snorts] have the ability to, you

27
00:13:52.399 --> 00:14:08.720
know, I proposed on the front end, but it was voted on and decided that we would have some information in addition to the actual RFPs, the written documentation that we would follow up and call to make sure it's not we're not just selecting someone based on a written proposal. We would call and

28
00:14:08.720 --> 00:14:23.760
check references and so forth. and and I believe we still have not done that, but we've publicly communicated we were going to do that and that's a concern for me. That's just the point and blank piece of it. >> Okay. So, in your packet, today's packet has all that information in it. We have

29
00:14:23.760 --> 00:14:39.680
not we've only talked about it, but today was the if you look on page um from six from actually 4 to 34 [clears throat]

30
00:14:39.680 --> 00:14:55.360
page to page 30 in your packet that you have on your desk right now. Those are all those resources that that were requested back on um March 4th. So, it has the DVPR all the results that she

31
00:14:55.360 --> 00:15:11.199
>> Yeah. What I'm what I'm contesting is that's not what we asked for. I mean, I know that's what's in here. I didn't see that, but if you'll I sent you an email as to where it's talked about at the 1 hour, 1 minute, and 30 second mark of the March 4th meeting if you just want to play that. It specifically talks

32
00:15:11.199 --> 00:15:27.519
about us calling what we're going to ask them, making sure it's consistent with what's in the RFP. And I just don't know that that's what we did. Um, if we feel good about it, then that's fine. I just want to make sure everybody's aware. >> Maybe I thought there was a misunderstanding. I thought that we would have them pre uh we would have

33
00:15:27.519 --> 00:15:44.399
them if we have any questions that we would be able to reach out to them. I didn't know that was supposed to be done prior to uh by staff. >> I I'm just reviewing what we talked about. So, >> well, Mr. Chairman, communications always are stickler, aren't they?

34
00:15:44.399 --> 00:16:00.480
>> Absolutely. We all think we're clear, but what people are hearing, I thought that I understood from all of the feedback on those things issues that that type of of followth through would be done after the three were selected. Correct.

35
00:16:00.480 --> 00:16:15.839
>> That's correct. >> And and I didn't see that as our role. I saw that No, no, no. I Let me just quickly finish it. I saw that as a role once we said yes, we do >> believe this is the right ranking that at that point before it goes to the

36
00:16:15.839 --> 00:16:32.320
commission those questions would be followed through with the staff so that when they go to the commission they can say the audit committee recommended these three we they ask us to follow up we did and here's those responses I didn't expect those to come back to us personally because we haven't actually

37
00:16:32.320 --> 00:16:48.079
we haven't finalized these are the three that are going forward until today which I believe we're going to finalize those three going forward so that's how I heard what you were saying I must have misunderstood you. >> I think >> that's what I see as the process that I

38
00:16:48.079 --> 00:17:03.360
believed and I don't understand. >> If we just play that two-minute clip, I think it'll make it very clear. >> I'm probably totally misunderstood you. >> I mean, it literally said who was going to call what they were going to ask and making sure that it was going to stay under the oices of the proposal criteria because I think that's something that's

39
00:17:03.360 --> 00:17:18.559
very important and has to be consistent across. >> We asked questions. Did you think that would be done before we even rated them? >> Well, that's why we had this meeting from the last meeting. You didn't hear that part. That's the whole reason for this meeting today, >> April 28th's meeting. >> No, no, no. Today's meeting was May 6 to

40
00:17:18.559 --> 00:17:33.600
review the feedback she was gathering and that we have from page whatever to 30 to verify who was going to be presented to the commission >> if I'm not >> I I believe just to to add some clarity um the purpose of today's meeting which

41
00:17:33.600 --> 00:17:49.440
is in line with our procurement policy is that a ranking be determined with the the top scored firms. So there were three firms that were um scored the [clears throat] highest scores and from those three we determine the ranking

42
00:17:49.440 --> 00:18:06.000
>> um and if it is the will of the committee today to perform or reach out to each um reference please understand that would delay the process because I have to wait for someone to call me back. Most of the folks that are listed

43
00:18:06.000 --> 00:18:24.160
as references are finance directors are folks that are going through audit right now this moment. So the question would be just to get clarification if it is the will of the committee for me to call the references before you guys perform the ranking then I would need to know

44
00:18:24.160 --> 00:18:42.720
from you um how how many references should be contacted because if I'm waiting for three folks to call me back that are also going through the audit process right now um I I mean I can't control how if they call me back or

45
00:18:42.720 --> 00:18:58.960
don't call me back or um that's just a concern and also I want to make sure we're not making any decision based on a reference um because that is subjective information and the the role the idea would be to present objective

46
00:18:58.960 --> 00:19:14.720
information and for you to make decisions based on objective information but if it is the will of the committee to proceed and call the references and wait for responses back I can certainly do that it's just it delay the >> let's

47
00:19:14.720 --> 00:19:31.520
pause real let's push pause real quick Mr. Dolan and then we'll hear from Mr. Sheffield. >> Um just based on what you just said when were you planning on conducting the references? >> After we selected the three or after one was >> after you selected the three

48
00:19:31.520 --> 00:19:49.120
>> or did did the ranking? So what? Let me let me >> we don't normally I just want to say for the policy the current um procurement policy um that we've been following we don't normally contact the references um

49
00:19:49.120 --> 00:20:04.400
before we have we do the ranking. >> Let me let's hear from Mr. Sherfield please. >> Um the two points that I'm I'm I'm hearing that I'm trying to make sure I I get and understand.

50
00:20:04.400 --> 00:20:21.679
one in terms of the minutes um actually being required to caption capture major discussions and actions of the the committee. um my recollection and I I I I have not

51
00:20:21.679 --> 00:20:39.039
gone back and watched the the specific uh portion of the the the clip or the meeting uh being referenced, but my recollection was that we were discussing the top the type of things we were going to look to do in addition to reviewing

52
00:20:39.039 --> 00:20:57.679
the uh responses and ranking. Once we got an idea which ones were the were the top three because we didn't want to um just go blindly and not do any additional checkups or follow-ups. I don't recall us deciding and voting on

53
00:20:57.679 --> 00:21:14.240
and agreeing what specific things except for looking for the uh doing the follow-up with the state looking for any um reported um uh things in in in terms of their

54
00:21:14.240 --> 00:21:31.039
records or uh I didn't recall us deciding that yes we were going to uh uh contact and call uh references. Um, and so I know all those things were discussed, but to my recollection, we

55
00:21:31.039 --> 00:21:48.320
didn't agree and um to to instruct this the the the staff to do all of that. Um, so I actually think the minutes actually do reflect accurately the decisions and

56
00:21:48.320 --> 00:22:04.720
major discussions. Um it is true we did state that this was an objective um uh process and so if we're we feel that that was a major item that needs to be reflected then so so be it. I'd make

57
00:22:04.720 --> 00:22:20.320
a motion to um approve the minutes and and and uh subject to the addition of that statement being uh included in or referenced. Um but as to the specific

58
00:22:20.320 --> 00:22:36.480
instructions um in terms of followup, I think the package that we received today speaks to the things we had asked the staff to do after we identified the top three. >> Chair, we have a motion on the floor.

59
00:22:36.480 --> 00:22:52.640
>> Yeah, I was just going to make that reference. Um so we do have a motion on the floor. It has not been seconded. Uh and the motion was made. >> I'm going to ask him to repeat it. Okay. Oh, I'm >> I can withdraw my motion. [clears throat]

60
00:22:52.640 --> 00:23:09.840
>> So, the motion has been withdrawn and yes, he can make a motion from Zoom. >> Okay. I move that we accept the minutes as presented with the condition that staff would add uh the reference to this

61
00:23:09.840 --> 00:23:27.200
process being uh subjective. >> All right. We do have a Were you done? >> Yes. >> All right. We do have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? >> I'm still a little confused. Me.

62
00:23:27.200 --> 00:23:43.200
>> All right. Let's bring it back to square one. Okay. So with regards to the additional information that has been provided again the meeting I read over the minutes and the only minute the only

63
00:23:43.200 --> 00:24:01.120
question um that I had was with regards to the attendees. I didn't have a issue with anything else that was presented and again the meetings as stated previously by attorney West as well as Mr. which I feel is a overview um and

64
00:24:01.120 --> 00:24:18.320
not specifics. But if there is question with regards to uh what is printed or any additional information that needs to be added to the minutes, that's why I know we received this email. Um and if

65
00:24:18.320 --> 00:24:32.240
this information needs to be addressed, that's why I wanted to make sure that if there was something in the minutes that was not addressed or needs to be addressed, that it is put out so that we can properly address it. So at this

66
00:24:32.240 --> 00:24:50.279
moment I will ask for those who have um any qualms or uh confusion any clarifying questions so that we can try to navigate our way through this so we can push on with the agenda.

67
00:24:52.080 --> 00:25:08.159
>> Again Mr. chairman since I wasn't part of this understandable to but if you need to step aside and let me chair because you were and you need to be a seconder >> I would be glad to >> and that's why I'm out to head to >> Mr. Alexander, could you summarize what you're trying to say in this?

68
00:25:08.159 --> 00:25:23.919
>> Sure. >> Into like one paragraph. >> Sure. The >> Thank you. >> Could you cut on your mic? [clears throat] >> The conversation that I started down last meeting but did not want to be considered uh is the same I have today. There is a guideline out there from the

69
00:25:23.919 --> 00:25:41.440
state of Florida that says once we affirm the ranking, we cannot go back and include any other criteria. That's why I advocated from the first meeting that this type of information be included on the front end and not the back end after folks have been ranked and and tallied. So that is my entire

70
00:25:41.440 --> 00:25:57.360
summary. So we either need to step away and reevaluate the process or we need to not include anything else from here. That is my opinion but that is it. >> So you're talking about the DBBPR >> and and that's why I kept asking what

71
00:25:57.360 --> 00:26:14.960
are we here for today? Just want to >> Miss Pierre, >> if I'm understanding you correctly, when you say criteria, you're talking about evaluation criteria. Is that right? Evaluation criteria. Is that what you

72
00:26:14.960 --> 00:26:30.320
mean when you say you said earlier? >> In what context? >> Just now you just gave a summary of what you mentioned in in your email. You mentioned the word criteria. Are you >> right? I just don't remember what context it was in is what I'm saying. you just summarize what you're

73
00:26:30.320 --> 00:26:47.120
>> I mean I mean that yes if that helps. >> Okay. So ultimately we need to follow the Florida statute which is 2118 that was provided at the very first meeting and within that it says that the one of the responsibilities of the audit selection

74
00:26:47.120 --> 00:27:02.559
committee is to approve the evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria is what you use to independently score each proposer. So before we scored, before you all scored or made your scores

75
00:27:02.559 --> 00:27:18.960
independently, you were provided with the evaluation criteria. There was a motion that was passed and approved for that criteria and that's in line with what the Florida statute requires. >> Agreed. And today this is a procedural

76
00:27:18.960 --> 00:27:36.080
um step that we take to make sure that the proposers that have been submitted are in fact qualified to do the work because they are certified public accountant firms. The state of Florida requires that they

77
00:27:36.080 --> 00:27:53.039
have to have a license to practice. The firm has to have a license to practice. So, as a staff, my my procedural step would be to verify that each each CPA firm that claims that they are a CPA firm are in fact a firm. So, the the

78
00:27:53.039 --> 00:28:09.120
information provided in on today's packet includes their registered number, their license number for the CPA firm and that they're active licensed. So that is in included in the packet and and the state of Florida requires that

79
00:28:09.120 --> 00:28:25.039
we that um if anyone wants to file a complaint against the audit firm that they can do so and that information will appear on the state of Florida website. So part of my process is going to the state of Florida website to verify that

80
00:28:25.039 --> 00:28:41.600
each firm does not have a com a complaint that was filed against it and that is included in today's packet along with just to the peer review. If you if you reference

81
00:28:41.600 --> 00:28:57.279
the staff report, I explain the what the peer review process is and why we can rely on it because it's based on another accounting another CPA firm coming in reviewing the CPA firm's the proposers that have submitted their proposal

82
00:28:57.279 --> 00:29:13.440
reviewing their work and affirming that their processes and procedures are in compliance. And each letter provided states that each CPA firm in fact passed. So this is all objective information

83
00:29:13.440 --> 00:29:29.600
that is being provided that could help support the the rankings that hopefully could be decided today. This is not considered criteria. This is a procedural step that is taken just to verify that each CPA firm is in fact a

84
00:29:29.600 --> 00:29:45.120
firm that can practice in the state of Florida and that complaints that were filed. We can verify that no there were no complaints filed and if there were we can re look it up and see what was the complaint and we could use that information to determine the ranking.

85
00:29:45.120 --> 00:30:02.000
But this what is being presented today is not um eval considered evaluation criteria. We've already moved past that step each. Um >> I agree. >> So we're so >> Okay. So >> okay,

86
00:30:02.000 --> 00:30:17.600
>> at this moment I'm still >> we're talking about minutes. >> Okay. >> Does the minutes reflect adequately what was discussed in our last meeting? >> The 428 meeting.

87
00:30:17.600 --> 00:30:44.159
>> The 428 meeting. That's ultimately what we're trying to move past. Since I can't talk then I would not this is a broader than just the absolutely discussion [clears throat] and so I would share that with all due respect to

88
00:30:44.159 --> 00:31:00.720
all of the board members that have volunteered their time to bring their objectivity to this process. >> I so the issue this is the issue and it's been quickly identified. The minutes that are in this packet

89
00:31:00.720 --> 00:31:22.000
reflects the March 4th date. Approval of minutes from March 4th instead of the April 28th meeting. >> Mine has April 28th minutes. >> April 28th.

90
00:31:22.000 --> 00:31:37.840
>> So is exactly that's what >> mine doesn't. I'm looking at >> talking about the approval of the minutes. >> That's when you approved them in April. >> That's when you approved them in April on 28th. April 28th. >> You approved the March the meeting

91
00:31:37.840 --> 00:31:53.440
before. So you're approving April 28th tonight, which is the May 8th meeting. Next meeting you'll approve the May 8th meeting, which is the approval of the minutes from March. You know what I'm saying? That's how it's it's even how it is in the

92
00:31:53.440 --> 00:32:23.919
>> just reflecting that at the April 28th meeting there was a discussion to approve the March 4th minutes. >> Yes. >> The ones you're looking at right now. >> No, I'm I understand what you're saying. Okay. for clarification. I believe Mr.

93
00:32:23.919 --> 00:32:40.080
Alexander, are you suggesting that the discussion underneath the title approval of March 4th does not reflect entirely what you thought it should? >> Yes, ma'am. >> So, essent not in this one. That would have already

94
00:32:40.080 --> 00:32:57.039
been approved at a prior meeting. >> Correct. Yep. And I had the same conversation last meeting. So, that's that's it. Okay. But it's not relevant. I guess in my opinion it's not relevant to this I mean this discussion. >> So

95
00:32:57.039 --> 00:33:14.640
>> it was relevant April 28th. >> Correct. >> Any advice? >> All right. So um there is no motion on the floor. Uh Mr. uh Mr. Alexander withdrew his motion. Um and I do believe

96
00:33:14.640 --> 00:33:30.240
that Mr. Sheffield had made an attempt, but we already had a motion on the floor. Mr. Sheffield, would you like to proceed with that motion? >> Yes, I would. Uh, chairman, I'd like to move that we accept the uh minutes as

97
00:33:30.240 --> 00:33:47.200
presented from the prior meeting um with the condition that a reference be added with respect to this process um being uh being subjective. All right, we have a motion. Do we have

98
00:33:47.200 --> 00:34:06.559
a second? >> At this time, I am going to pass the gavl to uh Miss Meyers, being that Miss Meyers was not at that meeting, so she has uh very unbiased stance. So, I'm going to pass the gavl so that we're

99
00:34:06.559 --> 00:34:22.639
able to proceed. Mr. Sheffield, would you I'm sorry, Miss >> Mr. Sheffield, would you I I I don't know that we need to repeat the motion. Everybody knows what it was. Thank you, Mr. Chapel. Is there a second? >> No, it actually officially died. So, >> repeat the motion, Mr.

100
00:34:22.639 --> 00:34:38.320
>> I move that we accept the April 28th um the prior meeting minutes as presented with the condition of adding the reference to uh the process being subjective. >> Second.

101
00:34:38.320 --> 00:34:55.200
>> Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any question? Sorry. >> I'm sorry, I didn't see you. >> Sorry, I had a question. Um, is that will that meet will that satisfy your concerns?

102
00:34:55.200 --> 00:35:10.640
>> I still believe we've talked about it during regular business, but I'm fine with the minutes. Yep. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> All right. Any further questions or discussion on this motion? Seeing none, I think all those in favor

103
00:35:10.640 --> 00:35:25.839
please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Same sign. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Asking the gabble back. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Meyers. At this time, we are going to proceed forth with our

104
00:35:25.839 --> 00:35:44.599
agenda. Is there anyone here for public comment? Seeing that we are amongst ourselves, we will move forward um into our regular business which is item A uh top ranked firm verification phase.

105
00:35:51.599 --> 00:36:06.079
Greetings everyone. Included in your packet is a staff report providing a summary of the verification phase. The top three firms that were scored were um

106
00:36:06.079 --> 00:36:23.040
Pervis Gray and Company, Malden and Jenin CPA, Grow and Associates, Inc. And the purpose of this is um to ensure that we're consistent with the procurement evaluation. staff conducted a verification review based strictly on

107
00:36:23.040 --> 00:36:38.720
documented qualifications. Um the following steps were completed [snorts] for each firm. Each firm's professional registration status through the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Checked for any recorded complaints in

108
00:36:38.720 --> 00:36:55.280
the state of Florida. Verified each firm's corporate status through its respective state division of corporations. And if we could, if you would like, we can talk through each um item that was presented. The first item should be your

109
00:36:55.280 --> 00:37:16.280
the license for GRA and Associates. It shows that their license um CPA firm and that their license is active. On the next page shows that they have no complaints filed in the [clears throat] state of Florida.

110
00:37:16.640 --> 00:37:36.480
You'll see the section down towards the bottom, incident date, status, disposition is all blank because there's no there were no um complaints filed. Also, the Sunbiz, we went on Sunbiz to verify that this business was registered in Florida.

111
00:37:36.480 --> 00:37:56.079
And with GR Associates, they're using um DBA doing business as which is GR Associates. But um then the next page shows the the actual corporation name itself. Any um questions about

112
00:37:56.079 --> 00:38:37.520
what was provided for GR and Associates. >> I'm good. Are there any other questions or concerns from the committee? >> Um, okay. Well, the next we can just look at the next firm's information. Maldin and Jenkins.

113
00:38:37.520 --> 00:38:55.200
It shows that they they have the license to practice in the state of Florida and it is active. On the next page, we can see that there were no complaints filed. And because the the liability company was was set up in the state of Georgia,

114
00:38:55.200 --> 00:39:21.440
um I just went to the Georgia website to pull up the that this is a fact of business that was set up in Georgia. Any questions about what was provided for um Maldin and Jenkins. >> All right. Do we have any questions from

115
00:39:21.440 --> 00:39:39.079
the committee concerns? >> Okay. Um, and Pervis and gray. We can see that their license is active and current and there were no complaints filed

116
00:39:39.680 --> 00:40:01.440
and that they are registered on sunbiz.org. >> Mr. Chairman, question. When you get >> Are you finished reviewing? Um, sure. >> All right. On the sun, I do see where there are two LLPs

117
00:40:01.440 --> 00:40:18.800
using the same EIN with different document numbers, which is rather interesting. But the second one, which appears to have all the annual statements, and this is for purpose, gray and company, you don't see where they have filed their 2026 registration with the

118
00:40:18.800 --> 00:40:34.079
state of Florida as of when this was pulled. Now, it had to be done by May 1st. And so, maybe these reports were pulled before May 1st. >> May 4th. >> May 4th. >> There's a section where it says if if

119
00:40:34.079 --> 00:40:50.960
you don't file and or if the person is considered delinquent, if you look in the middle of the page, there's a section that says status, and there it says that it's active. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Yes, ma'am. >> But I get what you give you. They chop you off instantly. They just charge you

120
00:40:50.960 --> 00:41:06.960
more. >> $200 penalty as of May one. >> Okay. >> Um as you So, it's just interesting that it hasn't been filed. Um just bring that to the attention. >> DBPR has it says their license expires

121
00:41:06.960 --> 00:41:22.319
123127. >> Now, that is their CPA firm license, not their corporate registration with the state of Florida. that requires between January 1 and April 30th, have an annual re-registration. Now, you can go all the

122
00:41:22.319 --> 00:41:40.720
way to October before they actually um make you inactive. Um they just charge you more money. So, I mean, I'm not saying they're not active at all. I'm saying is it's interesting that >> if you look at their history, it appears that they often missed the deadline.

123
00:41:40.720 --> 00:41:56.240
That's >> and miss the 24th. They didn't so they paid the extra money. >> I mean just even just saying that are they going to miss our deadlines. So I mean that can pose a question because

124
00:41:56.240 --> 00:42:11.760
this is something that is required by state. So that is something for consideration. >> So I'm not saying you're inactive. >> No, no, no. I get it. But again, if you miss those kind of deadlines, are you going to miss our deadlines? that just thing that sticks out to you.

125
00:42:11.760 --> 00:42:29.200
>> I guess without the answer to Miss Meyer's question, do we know that? We don't know when it was printed because it didn't expire until the first. >> It was printed on the 4th. This is >> doesn't expire. I'm just trying to say it doesn't expire you accumulate fees. You accumulate fees. You can just amend

126
00:42:29.200 --> 00:42:44.640
it and they reinstate you. It is not inactive or it would say that as as was pointed out. It is not inactive. It just was interesting that the date wasn't met, but apparently, as you Mr. Dolman said, I see that two or three times they were late.

127
00:42:44.640 --> 00:42:59.680
>> Just to make a note, I looked up on the sunbiz.org website, and it says here that annual reports are due by the third Friday in September to avoid administrative dissolution. >> Yes. See, in September is when you're dissolved. So, they're not dissolved. Absolutely. just just

128
00:42:59.680 --> 00:43:16.079
>> her point is that the original deadline was missed and at this point they accumulate fees. I don't think it was to say that they weren't active just to bring the attention to that they had not met at that moment the deadline that is

129
00:43:16.079 --> 00:43:36.800
set for everyone who is filing through some biz. All right. Is there any more with regards to So the next pack part of the packet are the peer peer reviews which is done

130
00:43:36.800 --> 00:43:56.400
every three years and each peer review each firm passed. So >> all right are there any questions, comments or concerns prior to us moving forward? I'm I'm just curious while

131
00:43:56.400 --> 00:44:14.400
we're reviewing this now when we were supposed to disqualify them that was part of the mandatory criteria in the RFP. >> Could you clarify what what was part of the mandator? >> Well um the question was brought um as

132
00:44:14.400 --> 00:44:31.440
to the um let me pull up the >> miss Mr. Chairman >> report. >> Yes. Sorry Mr. Sheffield. the the their peer review was included in their response in their proposal. >> They all were almost everybody. >> I'm just curious as to why we're

133
00:44:31.440 --> 00:44:46.880
reviewing it now. We were supposed to review it before last meeting. >> I think it's a good point. I I think what what she's doing >> what are we here for? >> This is an independent um look at what the proposals

134
00:44:46.880 --> 00:45:02.079
represented in terms of their their licensing uh their profession uh whether they truthfully responded to whether there are any complaints. And so we're not just taking their word. We've asked the city staff to independently

135
00:45:02.079 --> 00:45:18.480
verify those um legal items >> for those for the top three >> for the top three. And that that's that's what I think that was my understanding is what today was >> and if you go back to the staff report I

136
00:45:18.480 --> 00:45:35.359
provide an explanation as to why the peer reviews are included. I can go we can go through it. The peer review reports included in each proposer's packet provide an additional level of assurance. These independent reviews evaluate audit quality adherence to professional standards and the firm's

137
00:45:35.359 --> 00:45:51.920
internal quality control systems because they are conducted under established professional guidelines by external CPA firms. Peer reviews offer a reliable and objective measure of each proposer's performance history. It is the staff's It is also the staff's intent to protect

138
00:45:51.920 --> 00:46:06.960
the city from rankings based on any subjective information such as informal opinions, unverified feedback, or inconsistent reference information by relying on documented qualifications, regulatory verification, and

139
00:46:06.960 --> 00:46:25.839
independently issued peer reviews. The the process remains objective, uniform, and defensible. All right, we're going to move forward. At this time, we are going to have the setting of the audit firm's ranking and

140
00:46:25.839 --> 00:46:42.560
voting to approve. Good afternoon. We will now move to the portion of the meeting where the audit selection committee will establish the final rankings of the firms responding to the request for proposal for external auditing services in accordance with the

141
00:46:42.560 --> 00:47:00.880
Florida statute 218.391. Each committee member has completed their evaluations. We will now discuss and determine the committee's final ranking. Are there any comments or discussions

142
00:47:00.880 --> 00:47:20.160
regarding the strength, qualifications or concerns of the three firms under consideration? Here are the three firms and please forgive me if I mispronounce them. Is it Gu? >> Gua and Associates, Prievis, Gray and

143
00:47:20.160 --> 00:47:39.359
Company CPA, and Mandolin and Jenkins CPA. Are there any again >> if there's if there's no discussion I believe the ranking was based on the scoring and unless there's something that would discount that I would say we

144
00:47:39.359 --> 00:47:55.520
go with as for the average score as they listed on our scoring sheet one two and three one with purp for M and Jenkins and three for Associates unless there's someone who sees a reason to change that at this point >> chair chairman

145
00:47:55.520 --> 00:48:12.720
>> Mr. Shu >> um with the uh the firm um modelin and Jenkins that was um uh I think is number two um they didn't put the full uh fee quote

146
00:48:12.720 --> 00:48:28.720
in. They were ranked lower because of it, but remember they only quoted on the base audit, not the other three, the CRA, the golf uh inc. So, I'd be

147
00:48:28.720 --> 00:48:45.760
concerned uh with respect to what their quote would be on the other three. Um uh they were really low on the base. they were one of the lowest on the base audit and whether that would follow suit

148
00:48:45.760 --> 00:49:02.800
on the other three. Um it could or it may not. And so that's my concern that I think warrants at least a bit of consideration um with that. >> Thank you. We have heard the

149
00:49:02.800 --> 00:49:19.119
recommendation from Miss Meyers and we've heard concerns from Mr. Shfield. Mr. Dolan, do you have anything? >> Um I kind of lean toward Miss Meyers. Um, but Mr. Sheffield just said something about Mullen there. You scored

150
00:49:19.119 --> 00:49:35.440
them. They're your second highest ranking score. So, I'm just curious why you you ranked them so high. >> I ranked them so high um for the other criteria, but they were my lowest ranking as far as the fee because

151
00:49:35.440 --> 00:49:52.400
they did not include a complete picture. But as far as the the qualifications in the other areas, they were superb in in in my view. >> And he did bring that before the committee at our last meeting when he gave his rankings. Mr. >> Chairman, I believe that's what that

152
00:49:52.400 --> 00:50:08.480
criteria conversation was all about. I ranked them five out of 20. I ranked it very low because of just what you've described. And I know as I look at everybody else's rankings, pretty much everybody took points away from them for that. So I believe that the probably

153
00:50:08.480 --> 00:50:24.720
captured the issue in my opinion. >> Yes, ma'am. Mr. Alexander, >> no, I think that's speaks to two things. One, I think you're spot on with the compensation criteria. Um, but I think it also speaks to the fact that everybody didn't give it the same score that it is subjective and not objective.

154
00:50:24.720 --> 00:50:41.359
And I'll make that point one more time. >> May I say something? So there's a uh Miss West can correct me if I'm wrong, but the Florida statute states that when it comes to scoring, it needs to be it needs to happen independently. Um so as long as that process was done

155
00:50:41.359 --> 00:50:56.400
independently, then we're good to go. Um Miss West, would you like to add anything to that? >> Yeah, exactly. And we discussed this a little bit um before. You know, if this was purely a mechanical objective

156
00:50:56.400 --> 00:51:12.000
criteria, you could have AI do it, right? >> There is a level of subjectivity. There are the objective criteria that you have out there, but you have human beings ranking it and going through all the proposals and there is always going to

157
00:51:12.000 --> 00:51:28.960
be an element of subjectivity anytime you have a human making a decision. So, we have the objective criteria and I think that's what you're getting at a little bit of semantics here, but we are complying with the Florida statutes on the objective criteria.

158
00:51:28.960 --> 00:51:44.800
>> Agreed. >> M Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, sir. Mr. Sheff, >> um I I just wanted to point that out with respect to Molden and Jenkins. I actually agree with uh Miss Meyers in terms of uh what she stated before, but

159
00:51:44.800 --> 00:52:00.480
I wanted to once again point that uh piece out. >> Thank you. Is there any more discussion to be brought forth with regards to the rankings? >> Not regards to the rankings, but was today just a check the box day for us to

160
00:52:00.480 --> 00:52:16.240
be here. So the staff report explains that um one okay this is a procedural step that's part of our procurement policy. We have to be consistent and follow the policy and that was included in the staff

161
00:52:16.240 --> 00:52:32.720
report today. Am I answering your question? I would just I would say that answer isn't consistent with the procurement policy and I'll leave it at that >> and I have specific around >> my my this is my concern if things are going to be mentioned they need to be

162
00:52:32.720 --> 00:52:49.200
explained because again if we are not all on the same page I don't feel comfortable with us moving forward um unless we get on the same page so you may mention do you mind explaining >> what your position is >> yeah we've given a contractor I'm trying to protect the city but We've given a

163
00:52:49.200 --> 00:53:05.280
contractor a grant for half a million dollars and he has a probation violation on his DPPR report. So I'm not sure how that's consistent if we missed that but didn't miss it here. So >> So you bringing information that is not related to what we're here today to

164
00:53:05.280 --> 00:53:23.040
discuss, but I'd be more than happy to discuss what you just mentioned outside of this meeting. >> I appreciate that, but the chairman asked me a question. I did ask a question but again it's been stated from the beginning that we aren't to bring any additional information outside. So

165
00:53:23.040 --> 00:53:43.599
um with respect uh we'll move forward if there is not any additional uh comments or concerns with regards to this particular matter that's before us hearing none. Thank you. Based on the evaluation and our discussion, I will

166
00:53:43.599 --> 00:54:04.000
now entertain a motion to establish the committee's final ranking for the audit firms as follows. Firm A, which is Pervis Gray Certified Public Accountants

167
00:54:04.000 --> 00:54:23.280
firm B would be uh Mandolin and Jenkins LLC certified public accountants and firm C which would be Gu and Associates LLC certified public

168
00:54:23.280 --> 00:54:37.599
accountants. Is there a >> So, Mr. Commissioner, we have a motion and it's been properly second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we will move forth. All in

169
00:54:37.599 --> 00:54:55.680
favor of the ranking do so by saying a >> a >> a [laughter] >> that's what the uh >> oh well I >> any of those that oppose do so by saying

170
00:54:55.680 --> 00:55:10.559
nay hearing none motion passes this concludes the portion of our meeting and thank you all right so is there any additional information that needs to be brought before this committee prior to our endermanment.

171
00:55:10.559 --> 00:55:28.000
>> I would like Mr. Chairman to just have someone verify any pending date. >> Yes. >> That we should be aware of >> because I know that uh our duties officially aren't done but essentially

172
00:55:28.000 --> 00:55:50.000
they are done until when? >> So you can >> Yeah. And I'm just reminding the committee members of the resolution that was enacted in June of 2014, resolution 2014-10-91 after all of your evaluation duties. Um,

173
00:55:50.000 --> 00:56:06.400
subsection 3C states that the audit committee shall monitor the annual city audit and the process relating to the performance of the annual city audit. Review the financial statements prior to completion of the annual city audit. Review the results of the annual city

174
00:56:06.400 --> 00:56:24.319
audit. Evaluate management's proposed corrective action plans to any comments by the city auditors. monitor those action plans and evaluate the city auditor's performance and such other performance matters as may be appropriate. Um so the resolution does

175
00:56:24.319 --> 00:56:40.160
not establish a time frame for doing that. Obviously those time frames are going to be triggered by the auditors moving forward gathering information. They will just need to be aware of the fact that they're going to be needing to

176
00:56:40.160 --> 00:56:57.599
report to this committee and maintain that level of communication so you can fulfill your duties under this resolution. So with that in terms of next steps um our finance director will reach out to uh the firm and we can

177
00:56:57.599 --> 00:57:15.680
establish a time frame of when we can accomplish these next steps as required under the resolution and that will dictate when the next uh committee meeting will be. Does that sound reasonable in terms of moving forward? >> Yes, ma'am. Mr. Have we established when the city

178
00:57:15.680 --> 00:57:32.160
commission is going to be reviewing these three proposals? >> The 28th is 28th of May. >> Yeah. Oh, sorry. >> So, everyone received this timeline um at previous meetings and the next step is we're going to notice an intent to

179
00:57:32.160 --> 00:57:47.040
award on uh May 14th. >> We don't have to be available for that, do we? >> Correct. Um, so and the protest period begins once we post the notice to award. Uh, it

180
00:57:47.040 --> 00:58:02.480
the protest period ends May 19th and then at the May 28th city commission date that is when it'll be on the agenda and it all the information will be presented to to the commission. Yes. May 28th.

181
00:58:02.480 --> 00:58:20.400
>> May 28th. Any other any other comments, questions or concerns that needs to be brought up hearing? None. I >> We have a motion on the floor. A second. >> Second. All in favor say