Presenter outlines audit-selection rules and says draft RFP will be emailed to commissioners

A presenter reviewed the audit selection process and a 2014 resolution that the transcript identifies as "resolution number 20 14 dash 10 dash 91," saying it establishes evaluation factors and monitoring duties for the annual city audit.

The presenter, identified in the record only by speaker number, said the document lists the committee's functions and qualifications and that specific items in Section 3 outline the committee's tasks. When asked whether the "1 through 5" items are in the packet, one participant asked, "The 1 through 5 that we just read off, are they in the packet somewhere?" Another attendee confirmed they are in the packet and advised the group that, because of confidentiality, the RFP cannot be made public until the city formally releases it. On that point the presenter said, "you will receive a drafted RFP from me via email."

Participants described the prior evaluation process: accounting firms returned packets listing strengths and rates, the submissions were scored against a list of criteria, and top-ranked firms were identified from that scoring. One participant noted limited personal involvement in the interview stage for one firm and raised that prior professional relationships had been reported on one response form.

Members also asked for clearer documentation before distribution. One speaker requested staff highlight what was modified from the version used five years earlier and explain why those changes were made so new committee members could follow the history. Speakers clarified that open-meetings (sunshine) rules apply as of today and discussed meeting times and public notice; no public commenters spoke during the allotted public-comment period.

No formal motion or vote on an auditor was recorded in the transcript; the discussion closed with an agreement to circulate a draft RFP for review and to provide supporting documents that show changes from the prior solicitation.