My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/28/2015
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2015
>
01/28/2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/2/2018 11:20:15 AM
Creation date
5/11/2016 10:55:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
01/28/2015
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Subject
Florida Municipal Power Agency (FMPA)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
****PRELIMINARY AND TENTATIVE FINDINGS**** <br />suggestions with respect to structure, timing, and marketing of the bonds being sold.6 Bond counsel renders an <br />opinion on the validity of the bond offering, the security for the offering, and whether and to what extent interest on <br />the bonds is exempt from income and other taxation. The opinion of bond counsel provides assurance both to <br />issuers and to investors who purchase the bonds that all legal and tax requirements relevant to the matters covered by <br />the opinion are met.' <br />The GFOA recommends that issuers selecting financial advisors, underwriters, and bond counsel employ a <br />competitive process using a Request for Proposal (RFP) or Request for Qualifications (RFQ). A competitive process <br />allows the issuer to compare the qualifications of proposers and to select the most qualified firm based on the scope <br />of services and evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP or RFQ. A competitive process also provides objective <br />assurance that the best services and interest rates are obtained at the lowest cost possible and demonstrates that <br />marketing and procurement decisions are free of self-interest and personal or political influences. Furthermore, a <br />competitive process reduces the opportunity for fraud and abuse and is fair to competing professionals." The <br />GFOA's best practice further recommends that debt issuers review their relationships with bond professionals <br />periodically. <br />Financial Advisor Services. Contrary to the GFOA's best practice, the FMPA contracted with its current <br />financial advisor since 1978 without utilizing effective competitive selection. In April 2007, the FMPA did <br />undertake a financial advisor selection process by forming a Financial Advisor Committee (Committee) and <br />issuing an RFQ for financial advisor services. Four firms responded and gave presentations in July 2007 to <br />the Committee. Subsequently, the Committee sent the firms a list of questions and requested written <br />responses. The existing financial advisor did not provide written responses and withdrew from the selection <br />process. The Committee met on August 24, 2007, to select a financial advisor from the remaining three <br />firms, and unanimously recommended a new financial advisor to be presented to the Board for approval. <br />However, on September 27, 2007, the Board voted to table the RFQ and to issue a new RFQ to the initial <br />four firms to be awarded solely on a retainer and hourly fee basis, retaining its existing financial advisor in the <br />interim. On October 5, 2007, the Committee evaluated the retainer and hourly fees submitted by the four <br />financial advisors and selected its existing financial advisor, although the rates were higher than the other <br />three respondents, because the Committee members felt comfortable working with the financial advisor.9 At <br />the December 6, 2007, Board meeting, the Committee recommendation was presented to the Board for <br />approval. Despite FMPA staff recommendations to consider two of the other financial advisors, the Board <br />voted to continue contracting with its existing financial advisor. <br />In addition, the RFQ indicated that the resulting contract would be for a three-year period, with two optional <br />one year extensions, for a total of five years; however, the contract signed with its existing financial advisor <br />dated December 6, 2007, indicated that "the term of this contract is for so long as the parties continue to <br />both desire to be bound by this contract." Accordingly, as of September 30, 2014, the FMPA has made no <br />additional effort to competitively select a financial advisor. <br />)= Bond Counsel Services. Contrary to the GFOA's best practice, the FMPA last contracted with its bond <br />counsel in 1996 and had not, as of November 2014, issued an RFP or RFQ for bond counsel services. <br />GF( )A Best Practice: Selecting and Afanaging Undenu'niten %a -Negotiated Bond Sales (2014) <br />' GFOA Best Practice: Selecting Bond Counsel (1998 and 2008) <br />GFOA Best Practice: Selec/ing and Managing Municipal Adoirols (2014); GF( )A Best Practice: Selecting and Alanaging t 1ndenvriters %a - <br />Negotiated Bond Sales (2014); GF( )A Best Practice: Selecting Bond Counsel (1998 and 2008) <br />" The financial advisor provided services to four of the five member municipalities. <br />20 <br />22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.