City staff seek new five‑year contracts for municipal financial adviser and bond counsel; no committee vote due to lack of quorum

Staff presented two proposed five‑year professional services contracts related to bond issuance and capital financing to the Finance and Claims Committee on Sept. 11: one with the city’s municipal financial adviser (up to $370,500 over five years) and one with bond counsel (up to $477,500 over five years). The committee did not vote because there was no quorum.

A staff member described the municipal financial adviser’s role in preparing official statements, coordinating departments for bond sales, advising on timing, and working with rating agencies; the adviser also assists with capital‑planning decisions that affect credit ratings. The city received two RFP responses for municipal financial advisory work; the incumbent (referred to in the discussion as Munozat) and a second firm. The staff member said Munozat has substantial institutional knowledge of the city and proposed keeping the incumbent; the $370,500 figure is a five‑year cap and actual fees will vary by the size and type of issuance.

On bond counsel, staff said four firms responded to the request; three were interviewed and Shipman & Goodwin — the incumbent bond counsel — was recommended based on experience with Connecticut municipalities, responsiveness and price. The staff member explained bond counsel’s role at closing, the legal due diligence needed for bond sales and ad‑hoc assistance on language for special appropriations or bond authorizing resolutions.

Committee members discussed the broader connection between fund‑balance management, capital planning and debt issuance. Several members asked for a joint presentation after the municipal election that would explain how ratings agencies evaluate the city (debt metrics, fund balance usage, debt service ratios) and how the adviser’s work interfaces with the budget and capital calendar. Staff agreed to coordinate a joint briefing for the council, the Board of Estimate and Taxation and finance staff before the budget cycle.

Because no vote was possible at the Sept. 11 meeting, staff said they would circulate the contract materials to committee members by email and forward the items to the full council for formal action at a future meeting.