Staff Suggested RFP

Happy Friday.

Back to Crystal River.

This will be an update to the Brannen Bank piggyback of the school board banking contract.

As mentioned previously, the City of Crystal River opted to go this route to avoid the RFP process. This allowed them to hand pick Brannen Bank for the banking services for the city. At the December 8th Meeting, the council was told that this switch would bring an additional $5500 per month in interest income.

That was the purpose of switching... bring additional revenue to the city.

Great idea.. who can say that is not a good thing? No one really. However, the process in how they got there was not following the proper procurement process. There was stated bias by the mayor. That in of itself violates the city's procurement rules.

But it was ignored and the council voted to go with Brannen rather than going through a transparent procurement process via RFP.

I wanted to see where this started and found this email from banking executives at Brannen to Finance Director Michelle Russell-Maynard.

It appears that city staff had a meeting with Brannen officials on October 3rd. In this meeting it looks like city officials talked to Brannen about their banking services. Despite asking for all emails regarding the banking issue, I have not seen an email initiating this conversation. Either it was not done via email or they did not send it to me.

In any case, I do not know what started this search for new banking services and why the city had a meeting with Brannen Bank. But it is clear... based on this email, Brannen was asked to put together a comparison for what they could offer the city.

Two more emails went out to Brannen over the next two days to send them the information for them to do their analysis.

Then the October 13th meeting happened where council directed staff to make the comparisons and bring back numbers to their next meeting.

This email then goes out.

Both banks respond that they will provide information requested.

Let's pause right there. The city is basically asking for proposals from each bank to determine which would be the best option. This is not allowed. In order to compare services like this, they need to do a formal RFP process. This ensures fairness to all parties involved.

So this process is likely violating state procurement laws and cannot be used. But this was the entire basis of the October 27th meeting. They compared the rates/services and decided to go with Brannen because it was a better deal.

Again, this process cannot be done... as mentioned in this email from Batsel on November 13th.

So where was Batsel to tell them this when they were going down this route at the October 13th meeting? Why was the council not directed they cannot ask the banks to submit proposals?

Now that council has seen the proposals, that taints the process. Remember, those numbers cannot be considered.

That leads to this interesting find. This is from Russell-Maynard to Batsel on November 6th.

In this email, she states that she feels the city should go through the RFP process and that she had already done most of the work needed for that. She states this will help avoid any possible perception of bias from the public.

Now we have staff suggesting the RFP process to the city manager and the city attorney to avoid potential issues. She states the majority of the work has been done already for the RFP.

Joe Meek then sends this email on the 13th.

He references the staff analysis that suggests the city will make between $7,200 and $7,900 per month in additional interest income. This was based off the comparison staff did between the two banks.

However, at the meeting on December 8th, Joe stated these numbers would be between $5,106 and $5,613 based on the piggyback. Remember, Batsel said they can ONLY look at the piggyback numbers and cannot consider anything else outside of that.

So the question now becomes... if the staff did the comparison showing the city would make between $7,200 and $7,900 additional per month, why would they settle into the piggyback that makes $2,000 less per month rather than go through RFP, which could consider those other numbers?

Seems that the RFP might produce a better deal and it is a contract they control.

Also, what happened between November 6th and November 13th for staff to agree they are on board with Joe?

She goes from wanting RFP process to avoid perception of bias among the public to being on the same page with the piggyback proposal, using the WRONG numbers that they cannot consider?

So what happened? Nothing in email showing a change anywhere. However, she was replying to Joe's email saying she was on the same page and finance will make whatever changes the council decides... which is her job.

She did not give her opinion here like she did to Batsel a few days prior... and no one asked her for her opinion since then.

In his Nov 13th email above to Joe and staff, Batsel acknowledges conversations he has had with Joe regarding the banking contract but does not go into those as he wants to stay in his lane as city attorney.... so what were those conversations? And why is he having a conversation with the mayor regarding the banking services that is outside his scope as city attorney?

Shortly after that email to Joe, Batsel sends this email to put it on the agenda.

Again, this is being done at the request of Joe Meek... the one who has admitted bias towards Brannen Bank.. again.. in violation of the City's stated Procurement process.

I do find it odd that no one asked Batsel or Russell-Maynard or city manager Audra Curts if this stated bias violated the written procurement policy of the city. Batsel was asked if Joe had a conflict, but Batsel did not answer that directly either. He only stated that a conflict occurs if the person voting gets a benefit for them or their company... but did not address that perhaps better banking terms will come as a result of more money going to Brannen (generates more profit for the bank so they can reduce interest rates on loans) creates a "benefit" for Joe's business, who borrows money from Brannen.

In any case, they voted to do the piggyback for the school board and bypass the RFP process.

So I found it interesting that staff recommended the RFP process for this, yet the council ignored that and did the piggyback option regardless.

I also did not see where that recommendation was sent to the council I heard no discussion of it at the meeting. Did the council know that staff made the recommendation to go to RFP? I would think that is something they should know for this discussion, yet, did not hear that mentioned or addressed.