Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Meeting <br />April 11, 2005 <br /> <br /> <br />Ms. Brot said that she did not have a problem with tabling this, but she would like to <br />hear from Ms. Brungardt first, since she was the one that had this removed for <br />discussion. <br /> <br />Ms. Brungardt said that she did ask for this to be taken off the Consent Calendar for a <br />number of reasons, not the least of which, because it is a sole bid. She believes that <br />asking for the Council to approve of an expenditure with one bid for a three-year <br />contract is not a particularly thoughtful or correct approach to this particular issue. She <br />was in attendance at the St. Louis County Municipal League conference, as well, last <br />Thursday. As well as finding corroboration for her concern about this issue, she also <br />has read fairly widely on the issues of how public transparency can somehow get <br />muddled. This particular issue concerned her because the city has had this contract <br />with this company for, depending upon how it is deciphered, seven or six years and she <br />thinks it behooves us to make sure we are keeping ourselves as broadly open to the <br />process that is out there. She would have been more comfortable with three bids; she <br />might have even considered handing this contract if there had been more bids. But with <br />no bids from anywhere else, that put the first flag up. The second flag was the number <br />of years we have spent with this one auditor. Her third concern is just the over all <br />tendency and problem in our public life now, both at the corporate and governmental <br />level, of people not taking the care in issues of this type and finding themselves in <br />trouble for not taking care in issues like this. It’s our responsibility and that is why she <br />wanted it pulled. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams asked Mr. Ollendorff if he had solicited other companies for this audit, <br />and Mr. Ollendorff responded that bids were solicited from either four or five companies <br />approximately five or six years ago when the Council last determined that auditors <br />should be changed. Recommendations were sought from other cities and then the city <br />invited the four or five leading firms in municipal audit work to submit proposals. The <br />recommended firm was either the least expensive or the second-least expensive, price- <br />wise, but they were the highest recommended quality-wise, so he recommended and <br />Council agreed to employ their services. Since that time we’ve renewed that bid every <br />three years and this would be going into our sixth year and the price is modestly <br />increasing from $30,500 this year to $ 32,700 next year. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams asked if there was any rationale why other companies did not bid this <br />year, and Mr. Ollendorff explained bids were not sought this year. Because they were <br />satisfied with the services, he recommended extending the contract. Mayor Adams <br />agreed with Ms. Brungardt that there are times when a different auditor is needed, for <br />appearance sake, if nothing else. Mr. Sharpe then asked Mr. Ollendorff if he knew of <br />any other municipalities served by this particular auditor and Mr. Ollendorff said he <br />knew six years ago but did not remember now. <br /> <br />Ms. Brot said: “I would like to move that we table this item and we suggest to the City <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />