02/17/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~, e CB 2327--An ordinance concerning Municipal Court; amending Sections 2.011 and 2.776 of the Eugene Code, 1971; adding a new section 2.773 thereto; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously, with Mr. Hamel abstaining. Council Bill 2327 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion carried 6:1, with Councilor Hamel voting no. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18928. III. RECOMMENDATION ON SELECTION OF CITY'S EXTERNAL AUDITOR (memo distributed) e Mr. Gleason introduced Carol James, Management Services. Ms. James stated that the memo explains staff's process in selecting the external auditor being recommended. Staff is not claiming dissatisfaction with the present auditors, but staff felt it was important to check the market and get a reasonable price. Staff first identified the City's needs, let requests for proposals, determined the qualifications of those who submitted proposals, and then made a recommendation. RFPs were sent to 47 Oregon firms, including all Eugene-Springfield firms larger than sole proprietors. The City received proposals for service from ten firms. The proposal review team reviewed and evaluated the proposals. The team then informally interviewed representatives of three firms. As a result of the interviews and the written proposals the review team made a recommendation to Dave Whitlow as to the two most qualified firms which had submitted reasonable fee proposals. Those two firms then made presentations to senior Management Services staff and this is the recom- mendation from that committee. The staff recommendation was to retain Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, & Company for the City's auditor for the next four-year period. Coopers & Lybrand was the other finalist. Both firms were qualified, but Peat, Marwick, & Mitchell had a lower bid. Also, Peat, Marwick, & Mitchell based their proposal on 2,600 hours of audit time, while Coopers & Lybrand based their proposal on 2,155 hours of audit time. Mr. Hamel asked if there is an advantage in having a local firm to lower costs for long-distance calls, etc. Ms. James responded that there have been no problems with the current firm being available. If there is a difference in costs, staff has not noticed. Mr. Obie asked if proposals were received from other firms. Ms. James repeated that proposals were received from ten firms. The committee reviewed the technical portions of the proposals and then only the four appearing technically qualified were reviewed on a basis of cost. Mr. Obie asked if Peat, Marwick, & Mitchell was the lowest bidder of the four considered. Ms. James responded that they were not, although they were the lowest of the two finalists. There was staff concern about the lowest bidder's qualifications for handling an account the size of the City's. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1982 Page 4