Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01301990 - IO.2 ;' ,�E•_s- -L ,oma y'TO: Board of Supervisors »;•'- �_,,. LO. 2 FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 4 DATE: January 22, 1990 a-couK`�'t SUBJECT: REVISED POLICY ON THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR FINANCIAL ADVISERS, INVESTMENT BANKERS AND BOND COUNSEL Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve the following procedures to be followed by all County Departments in selecting financial advisers, investment bankers and bond counsel (hereinafter referred to as "Advisers") for capital financing: 1. Establishment of Qualified Advisers List. A. Solicit statements of qualification or proposals from all known firms for particular types of transactions, such as lease financing, single family housing bonds, short term financing, etc. B. Affirmatively solicit qualifications from minority and women-owned firms. C. Establish a screening committee of.appropriate County staff to review qualifications/proposals and conduct interviews, if necessary, to develop a professional conclusion regarding the firms. D. Forward to the Finance Committee and Internal Operations Committee a list of qualified Advisers, and firms proposed to be eliminated from further consideration,along with commentary regarding qualifications or reservations staff may have. E. Request the Finance Committee and Internal Operations Committee to review the staff submission and recommend to the Board of Supervisors adoption or amendment of the staff submission. F. The Board of Supervisors shall review the recommendations of the Finance Committee and Internal Operations Committee prior to establishing a list of qualified Advisers. This list shall be in effect for three years from the date of its approval by the Board of Supervisors. Continued on attachment: YES Signature: Recommendation of County Administrator Recomme n of Board Committee Approve A Other: -- Signature(s): Action of Board on: January 30 1990 Approved as Aecommended x Other Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN x Unanimous (Absent — ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Absent: Abstain: cc: County Administrator Attested 9a0 /990 Assistant Administrator-Finance Kil Batchel r, Clerk of the Board Auditor-Controller of Supervisors and County Administrator Treasurer-Tax Collector County Counsel Deputy Director,Redevelopment Agency By _X , Deputy Clerk Deputy County Administrator,Capital Projects w O 2. For transactions where the principal amount of bonds is equal to or greater than $10 million: A. Solicit full bids from firms on the qualified Advisers list. B. Establish a committee of appropriate County staff to judge the qualifications and experience of firms submitting bids. Interviews and such other investigation judged appropriate may be undertaken. C. The lead County Department shall submit a report to both the Finance Committee and the Internal Operations Committee, with the screening committee's commentary, analysis, explanation of issues,or other information believed to be of importance in reaching a decision regarding Advisers. D. Both the Finance Committee and the Internal Operations Committee shall review the bids and staff submittals and develop a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. E. The Board of Supervisors will determine which Advisers are to be selected for a particular transaction, giving due consideration to the staff comments, the Finance Committee and Internal Operations Committee recommendations, and the desire of the Board of Supervisors to insure that minority and women-owned firms receive an appropriate share of the County's business. 3. For transactions where the principal amount of bonds is less than $10 million: A. A competitive bid procedure is not required but may be used if the lead Department,in its discretion, deems it necessary. Advisers are to be selected from the Qualified Advisers list. B. The lead Department shall submit a report to both the Finance Committee and the Internal Operations Committee, along with any commentary, analysis, explanation of issues, or other information believed to be of importance in reaching a decision regarding Advisers. C. Both the Finance Committee and the Internal Operations Committee shall review the lead Department's submittals and develop a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. D. The Board of Supervisors will determine which Advisers are to be selected for a particular transaction, giving due consideration to staff comments, Finance Committee and Internal Opera- tions Committee recommendations,and the desire of the Board of Supervisors to insure that minority and women-owned firms receive an appropriate share of the County's business. 4. For conduit financings (e.g.,multi-family bonds,industrial development bonds,non-profit private facility bonds,etc.)it is the desire of the Board of Supervisors to respect the public/private partnership nature of the financings by: A. Adhering to the procedures outlined in Section 1 with respect to establishing a qualified Advisers list. B. Adhering to the procedures of Section 3, in the selection of Advisers, except as modified below. C. Generally retain two or more investment bankers(exempting small financings,private placements, or small institutionally sold financings); said firms and their role must be acceptable to and designated by the Board of Supervisors after giving due consideration to the review comments of staff and the recommendations of the Finance Committee and the Internal Operations Committee. Financing participants(developers, lenders, etc.) may suggest firms for inclusion in the financing. 5. Annually,the County Administrator shall report to the Board of Supervisors on all issues which have been approved during the last year,which Advisers received contracts,and what fees were paid to said Advisers. 6. Remove this item as a referral to our Committee. - 2 - BACKGROUND: On October 17, 1989 the Board of Supervisors referred to our Committee a recommendation from Supervisor Powers that the Board change the manner in which it selects firms for services such an financial adviser,investment banker and bond counsel so that the Board of Supervisors has a great opportunity to participate in and make the final decision regarding which firm will receive the County's business. On January 22, 1990 our Committee met with Kerry Harms-Taylor,Assistant Administrator-Finance,the Auditor- Controller, Treasurer-Tax Collector, County Counsel, Deputy Redevelopment Director and Deputy County Administrator for Capital Projects. We reviewed the attached report from the County Administrator's Office and discussed the matter thoroughly with all parties who were present. The recommendation from the County Administrator's Office,based on input from the Treasurer-Tax Collector,Auditor-Controller,Deputy Director of the Redevelopment Agency and Deputy County Administrator for Capital Projects, included referring the matter to the Finance or Internal Operations Committee prior to presentation of a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The County Administrator's Office also identified several alternatives which might be considered, including the following: "1. Establish a dollar limit on the type of contracts referred to committee or the full Board,such as$10 million or $25 million. This would reduce the amount of Board time necessary and would allow the Board or committee to concentrate on those issues with the greatest financial impact. 2. Establish a list of qualified vendors every 3-5 years and direct staff to recommend vendors to the Board on a rotating basis. This is currently done on some issues in the Community D evelopmentDepartment. It would require a great deal of time to create the initial list, but would require less time thereafter than the current process. Additionally,it would not allow for selection of companies with special expertise in selected areas. 3. Continue the current process,but include one or more Board members on the selection panels. This would allow Board members to participate fully in all issues in which they have an interest. 4. Continue similar staffprocess to one currently used,and refer 2-5 of the highest rated contractors to the full Board, with a recommendation about the top staff choice(s). This would allow the continued use of staff expertise in the review process, but would take significant amount of Board time. The change recommended by staff would allow for greater Board and public review of potential contracts, and would continue to make use of staff expertise in the selection process. However,the recommended alternative would take more Board and staff time than the current process and would likely slow down the selection process." The above recommendations are the result of those discussions. Our Committee would emphasize that our interest is in seeing the Board of Supervisors have more of an opportunity to participate in the selection of financial advisers, investment bankers and bond counsel and to insure that all qualified firms have an equal opportunity to receive the County's business. We recognize that there will always be extenuating circumstances which will result in a need to award a contract for a particular issue to a particular firm because of unique qualifications or other similar factors. However,we are trying to insure that more firms have an opportunity to receive some of the County's business where it is possible and appropriate to do so. Our Committee also recognizes that for some issues third parties are also involved in the selection process and that their wishes must also be taken into consideration in selecting a firm. INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE T?�r BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra L T_ Costa FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator J o�. s County DATE: January 22 , 1990 c�rrgc6i+*�� SUBJECT: PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF CONTRAC'T'ORS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)8,BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Approve a change in current policy related to the selection of certain capital contractors (bond counsel, investment bankers and financial advisors) to allow for referral to Internal Operations or Finance Committee prior to presentation of a recommendation to the Board. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The only financial impact expected if this recommendation is accepted would be the Staff and Board time necessary to review proposals and recommendations at the Board committee level . BACKGROUND: Late last year, Supervisor Powers requested that the Internal Operations Committee and County Administrator review the procedure for selection of professional contracts . A process allowing for more Board of Supervisors and public review was recommended by Supervisor Powers. A copy of that Board Order is attached. To summarize, he asked that staff eliminate unqualified bidders and do the initial screening, referring the final 2-5 bidders to the Board for final selection. County Administrator' s staff met with the Auditor, Treasurer-Tax Collector, Redevelopment Director, Deputy CAO for Capital Projects, and County Counsel to review and discuss this proposal and alternatives . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES -SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): CTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF S VISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: ATTESTED PHIL BATCH CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND NTY ADMINISTRATOR M382 (10/88) 1 BY DEPUTY -2- It is clear to all concerned that the Board has ultimate responsibility for selecting contractors. However, several concerns were expressed about the proposal: 1. The' amount of Board time necessary to review proposals and interview applicants would be significant. 2 .. The potential exists for perceived conflict of interest if Board members received political contributions from potential contractors unless staff recommendations are included. 3 . Unless the proposal was limited to specific types of projects, such as capital financings, the Board could spend a great deal of time on -items of minor financial impact. 4. Additional review would slow down the selection process. 5. Some contractors are chosen. by a third party, e.g. CSAC, so a County selection process is not feasible. 6. Previously adopted Board procedure for private activity bonds, such as multi-family bonds and industrial development bonds, recognized that private sector participants appropriate had a say in the selection of advisors. Adherence to those procedures should be maintained. 7. The utilization of staff expertise in given areas would be eliminated unless a staff review/recommendation process were to be followed. 8. Lower level staff with less chance of having the "big picture" would be assigned to review proposals in lieu of department head or assistant department head level staff if little judgment or expertise is required of staff in the paring down process. To address these concerns, as well as the goals of achieving more Board of Supervisors and public input in the selection process, a number of alternatives were developed. The first, recommended by the departments, would be to continue much the same process currently used by staff in initial review, but in lieu of referring a final recommendation to the full Board of Supervisors, staff ' s recommendation would be referred to the Internal Operations or Finance Committee for further review and recommendation back to the Board. Additionally, this recommendation would not include certain private activity bonds such as multi-family and industrial development bonds, since existing procedures call for an Internal Operations Committee review already in a slightly different manner than what is proposed here. OTHER ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSED WERE: 1. Establish a dollar limit on the type of contracts referred to committee or the full Board, such as $10 or $25 million. This would reduce the amount of Board time necessary and would allow the Board or committee to concentrate on those issues with the greatest financial impact. 2. Establish a list of -qualified vendors every 3-5 years and direct staff to recommend vendors to the Board on a rotating basis. This is currently done on some issues in the Community Development Department. It would require a great deal of time to create initial list, but would require less time thereafter than the current process. Additionally, it would not allow for selection of companies with special expertise in selected areas . 3 . Continue the current selection process, but include one or more Board members on the selection panels. This would allow Board members to participate fully in all issues in which they have an interest. 4 . Continue similar staff process to one currently used, and refer 2-5 of the highest rated contractors to the full Board', with a recommendation about the top staff choice(s) . This would allow the continued use of staff expertise in the review process, but would take significant amount of Board time. -2- It is clear to all concerned that the Board has ultimate responsibility for selecting contractors . However, several concerns were expressed about the proposal : 1. The amount of Board time necessary to review proposals and interview applicants would be significant. 2. The potential exists for perceived' conflict of interest if Board members received political contributions from potential contractors unless staff recommendations are included. 3 . Unless the proposal was limited to specific types of projects , such as capital financings, the Board could spend a great deal of time on items of minor financial impact. 4 . Additional review would slow down the. selection process . 5. Some contractors are chosen by a third party, e.g. CSAC, so a County selection process is not feasible. 6 . Previously adopted Board procedure for private activity bonds, such as multi-family bonds and industrial development bonds , recognized that private sector participants appropriate had a say in the selection of advisors . Adherence to those procedures should be maintained. 7. The utilization of staff expertise in given areas would be eliminated unless a staff review/recommendation process were to be followed. 8. Lower level staff with less chance of having the "big picture" would be assigned to review proposals in lieu of department head or assistant department head level staff if little judgment or expertise is required of staff in the paring down process . To address these concerns , as well as the goals of achieving more Board of Supervisors and public input in the selection process, a number of alternatives were developed. The first, recommended by the departments, would be to continue much the same process currently used by staff in initial review, but in lieu of referring a final recommendation to the full Board of Supervisors, staff ' s recommendation would be referred to the Internal Operations or Finance Committee for further review and recommendation back to the Board. Additionally, this recommendation would not include certain private activity bonds such as multi-family and industrial development bonds, since existing procedures call for an Internal Operations Committee review already in a slightly different manner than what is proposed here. OTHER ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSED WERE: 1. Establish a dollar limit on the type of contracts referred to committee or the full Board, such as $10 or $25 million. This would reduce the amount of Board time necessary and would allow the Board or committee to concentrate on those issues with the greatest financial impact. 2. Establish a list of qualified vendors every 3-5 years and direct staff to recommend vendors to the Board on a rotating basis. This is currently done on some issues in the Community Development Department. It would require a great deal of time to create initial list, but would require less time thereafter than the current process . Additionally, it would 'not- allow for selection of companies with special expertise in selected areas . 3 . Continue the current selection process, but include one or more Board members on the selection panels. This would allow Board members to participate fully in all issues in which they have an interest. 4. Continue similar staff process to one currently used, and refer 2-5 of the highest rated contractors to the full Board, with a recommendation about the top staff choice(s) . This would allow the continued use of staff expertise in the review process, but _4 ,.,n; ;:4 - =nt- amount of Board time. aA . -3- The 3-The change recommended by staff would allow for greater Board and public review of potential contracts, and would continue to make use of staff expertise in the selection process . However, the recommended alternative would take more Board and staff time than the current process would likely slow down the selection process .