Board of Supervisors - workshop

Call this meeting to order. Can I have a roll call, a roll call please? Yes. Supervisor Stanton?

Here. Supervisor Connell? Here. Supervisor Spitz? Here. I'm here. Oh, she's on the phone.

Great. Thanks for joining us, Diane. Okay. All right. Let's go ahead and just walk. What do you How do you recommend we proceed, Michelle? Should we just start with fiscal 23 and work through those findings?

You better. Have you approved the agenda?

Oh. That's right. All right. I'll have a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Do I have a second? So moved. All right. All in favor of approving the agenda, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Aye. Okay. All right. And let's go ahead and go into the discussion. So Michelle, how do you think we should proceed? Should we just start with the findings in fiscal 23? Or how do you want us to do this?

Well, you've set the meeting, so my point would be is what are your concerns and how do you, what would you hope to achieve from this meeting? I think that would be a good place to start.

Okay, well in the past at least not every year that I've been here, but in some years, what they did is basically take the findings and go over them. Both the treasurer and the auditor would kinda highlight stuff that they think that the board should know, especially if it involves supervisor input. I know there are some things, and since I was part of the conversations initially, but the rest of the board members were not, it'd probably be good to loop them in on some of these things. especially the ones where, you know, the board supervisors need to take action.

So... Yeah, maybe that's what we should focus on today. Yeah. So do you think that that would be a different way to start since you've got you guys there?

We can start with there and then... What are the things? We can start with there. if you want. So I'm just looking at the schedules and findings on fiscal 23. Obviously the separation of duties, that's been a long-standing issue and it's a long-standing issue with a lot of smaller counties. Yeah, yeah. So that's been a finding for almost at least all the years I went back.

next one they find that on every single floor yes um i think it's something they've just seen and never paid out i think it's a cut and paste yeah i i don't disagree with that man um finance reporting is the next one so um

They mentioned some things in there, and their recommendation was we should establish procedures to ensure all capital asset infrastructure additions, deletions, payables, donations, et cetera, are properly reported. So both you and the engineer responded on this, Michelle. Can you give us a little bit more background as to what the concern was here and what you think we need to do

going forward so we don't... At some point the state auditor provided us with an Excel spreadsheet And it was a preferred alternative to the asset program in solution. And that's who I know. And so that's why I want to think about what she wants. I don't have something in writing, but we definitely thought it would be a good time.

So did you have to import all the data into that spreadsheet from solutions or are you managing both? Because that's tedious if you're managing both. We don't utilize solutions as a program. Okay. Now the next one is bank reconciliations. this is the one that i know we've had some heartburn over and it is the one that led to their qualified opinion on both the fiscal 23 and the 24 audits so um how how do you how do you want to take it away on this i know there's we're not balanced And this is something, the bank reconciliations has been an issue, I went back all the way to fiscal of 19, and it's been an issue every single year. But yet this year was the first year they used it to do a qualified payment, which I thought was odd. So can you or Kylie or both of you give some feedback as to how we are gonna work through that?

We're comfortable with the finding because it's the truth. I can't go back farther to say why or why not. It was found and not found. And the only thing I can offer you is that we're both committed to making this happen. happened and we reconciled. We, our first step is to balance between our departments and then we'll go on to the Bank of Texas locations. Okay. I heard you say, what I just heard you say is You need to balance, you need to get straight with each other, and then we'll go make, together, we'll all make the corrections that have been cited, because we can't go forward without balancing. We have to balance first, and all those corrections will fall into place. And honestly, my perspective is we cannot cross-border. that means you can't what i'm sorry and again i i that's why i feel like our response to the audit was the very best that we can do for both kylie and myself okay what what did you say at first we can't what michelle you cut out before you say you can't thaw them okay and i don't mean that in a specific way at all

I don't know if they decided to use this as part of their qualified opinion because it's been a problem for the last five years or it's just You know, it's been compounding to where we got to the point where it's so bad they had to do it. I don't know. What's your sense in your conversations with the state auditor, Michelle, what was your sense from them on this? Because I want to make sure it gets the priority needed.

It just didn't get better. Okay. It just didn't get better. I mean, it just didn't get better. And so, you know, sometimes you have to use a shot caller make everybody understand that this is an unacceptable condition it's not nothing that kylie and i are comfortable with and and again um i can't really speak to the other okay so what well one reason we didn't balance One reason we didn't balance years ago was we were the physical agent for mental health. This was when I very first started. And the church at the time did claim that. It was like a couple million dollars off. And then it got a little bit wonky for a while. I think it goes clear back to that being putting the wrong thought.

if that makes sense well i remember it being wonky like when i first started even before that when heidi bernhans was the auditor i don't think well she had a lot of trouble yeah because the treasure didn't count yeah so okay well part of that was that

Doesn't matter, we just have to fix it.

Right, no.

So, Michelle... We need to fix this, and I think we need to step back

So Michelle, I know you had mentioned to me that this is something that you guys are prioritizing and you want to potentially focus on that for the forensic audit. And that was listed as one of the things for them to focus on in the forensic audit RFP. Are you and Kylie putting together stuff that you think you need from us to assist you with this? programs or systems or are you just kind of not there yet? You're just kind of trying to prioritize the biggest flame right now.

I think that a ladder statement is a better representation of where we're at. Okay. Do you want us to wait? Well, I don't want to throw money at something without knowing what I'm doing there.

Okay, all right, fair enough. So how are we doing?

You're asking us, you will come to us when you're ready? Is that what you said? yes and i mean without being involved incidentally with these rfts yet i mean i've got some thoughts but um i again that's something for kylie and i to make a plan and actually probably talk to folks when they come out of equity forensic audit proposals i definitely have questions um does that mean You know, butt in the chair or does that mean remote? We said that you cannot drink at late. I mean, you can forensic on all you want, but until the work is done, you're not going to be looking at anything. And that's what that's going to try to say all along. And I think I would be trusted. She's not in your head yet. Yeah.

yeah the concern i have is that it's been an ongoing problem for years so i'm just wondering if there's something that we're missing that's you know there's there's something missing because you know we've been through three treasurers now and each one has had the same problem So, I'm trying to figure out, there's a... You're short of criminal activity.

Right. I don't know what you're missing. And I think that's going to play out in the court.

Well, remember, we had this problem before the criminal activity, allegedly criminal activity. We had this problem with the previous two judges.

Here's my thought. Okay. Remember those conversations we had when there was an investigation into the situation when I was board clerk? Yes. And there were three things that could be the case. Incompetence, just not doing your job, or malfeasance.

Correct.

And the reason nothing went forward was because we did not think that there was malfeasance. So you guys can fill in. But I will tell you that I feel very strongly that we are working. I feel relatively confident and confident and I know Kylie does as well. So either you can say, yep, we're going to give these two gals a chance to prove us wrong or right or whatever you're feeling right now or not. I mean, that's where we're at. You know, we've been dealt a hand and we have not run from the building screaming yet.

Right.

No, that's not... And you are making progress. Is that a current statement? Yes, we're making progress.

Okay, so we're past November now? Are we in December at least?

No. Okay. So November is balanced? No, if we... Is November balanced? No. So we're only through October. So we need to have progress. So October's balanced and you've got significant progress on November.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, I should be told. Yes, we have progress. Would Heidi be open to asking? Sorry.

That's okay.

Would Heidi be open to asking?

Go ahead. No, it's the lag and stuff because everyone's on the bridge. There's a lag in timing. No, the comment earlier, Michelle, was not to imply that you guys aren't working hard. I know you are. My point is that this has been a struggle for people before you, and that's why I'm wondering if there's a gap somewhere that's causing the issue as a consistent problem, no matter who we have in those chairs. So that's what I'm trying to get down to is there's something that we're missing that is causing this reoccurring problem no matter who is in office at the time. And that's not a condemnation of you or Kylie or even previous people. I'm just wondering if there's a process somewhere that's broken that we're not seeing.

Heidi has found in the computer system, if I come in and pay my taxes, $1,000, and I pay $800 in cash and $200 in a chip, it doesn't show the $200. It doesn't break it out as a full payment. That's a huge issue that they have got to rectify because that would make you unbalanced. There has to be a way that they can show that total payment, even though it came in cash and in checks. And I think he is getting that rectified. You would never balance if that's the case.

And so we suspect that's causing... We are definitely getting that fixed. Okay. And you suspect is that what's been causing the problem? And that goes way back.

I hope it's that simple, but they have discovered that, and I think Kylie thinks she's getting that rectified, because that's a huge mistake, and she should be able to, I worked for, and I think kind of the same program that she has, she should be able to show that payment, and even if it comes in separate cash and a check, And they'll add it up and carry it over to the full correct payment. Not split it out into something else. That is something they can easily replicate.

Okay. Well, if that's what's been causing the problems for five years, and we fix it, that would be awesome.

Well, it could be that simple. It could be that simple. You would be always screwed up if that's what it's splitting it out. Well... I can't split it out. It's still the full payment.

It's just a different form. Okay. Well, it would be great if it's just as simple as a technology thing. Yeah. Yeah, so keep us posted on that. I would like to have this whole bank reconciliation type finding go away, like completely. So... okay all right moving on to what are you are you using your spreadsheet no i'm using the actual audit okay findings okay um and i that's why i sent you guys the email so you have what they sent us okay so the next one is timely deposits now i know this has been a struggle um And I don't know, I know, Kylie, you had a solution or something or some kind of automated thing, and I'm probably misremembering exactly, but did you want to kind of explain to the board as to what that is? Because it looks like fiscal 23 we got in 24 we got dinged for that both of them but in fiscal in fiscal 24 we got dinged for something else called undeposited receipts and i don't understand the difference between the two so we can decide we can discuss that when we get to fiscal 24 but i just didn't understand that what they meant by

that so are we fixed the whole time deposit thing i know a little bit about this i know a little bit about the time being positive i got an email and um This was way more than one time of checks. They were 90 days old. And then Medicare checks, those are only good for at least 30 days. You have to have public health, I'm not sure I remember. So that got everything wonky because then they don't want to honor them. There was no reason, and I did speak with the treasurer about depositing checks in a timely fashion. I don't know why you wouldn't go to the bank every day. I wouldn't want any money laying around.

I don't know either.

I think that's big. So, yeah. No, never. Go to the bank every day. Walk over and go. Right, no. And I don't disagree with that. If we have to have a policy, go to the bank.

Yeah. My question to Kylie was how do we resolve this? Did you have a plan? Did you need us to do anything? What's your thoughts?

So we're checked actually. We don't take them to the bank. We send them in, in-house. They're registered in the bank, though. You don't take them to the bank, but once you scan them in, the bank knows it, correct? Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's kind of the, yeah, you're depositing them.

Yeah. Right. That was something that was, and that was something that is a fairly recent thing, because before we used to physically take them to the bank, right? Right. Right. Okay. Well, that's going to make things easier. Leveraging that? Yeah. Okay. Has that improved things in your opinion, Kylie, to where we're not having that same issue?

Well, I mean, yes, but I mean, what they're speaking of in that timeframe, in that year, There's a lot to that situation and the findings of finding and I think we can just speak to what we're going to do going forward. Does that make sense?

okay so um because yeah these are these are late audits so um so obviously some of the things in the past we can't change that i just want to make sure that was there anything else that you see as potential problems that you know the scanning into the checks is great but i'm sure there's still people that pay in cash so do we go to the bank every day and deposit that or how do we do that

Yes, we're good. As far as looking now ahead into where we're at currently, things have dramatically changed and have improved.

Okay.

All right. But, Heidi, you go to the bank every day with cash, correct? No, I'm not going to say I go to the bank every day, but I make it there at least once or twice a week. Okay. We don't always get, I mean, there's not always stocks of cash that are paid into here. I mean, things have very much changed over the past five or six years. Your credit card or debit card.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So you're not having large amounts of cash like you would five years ago or six years ago. Okay, but you're going in a timely fashion. You're going at least once a week with the cash. Yeah, and it just depends on what time of year as well. You know, like during tax time, that's completely different. You know, whether it's anything like now, I mean, it's just the summertime and everybody's just randomly coming in. So it really just depends. Okay.

All right. um the next one is bank signature cards this looks like this was taken care of already we don't have an issue with that any longer i'm assuming correct the signature card from the bank that's just updated yeah that's the answer okay all right uh next one is property tax reconciliation um You guys can speak to that. You guys probably know more about that. I think I know that, too. Go ahead. Kylie, do you want to speak to that?

I mean, that's really, that, right now, currently, that has, it's a whole different involving than what it was previously. I mean, they haven't improved dramatically. Okay. Okay. Because you've made needed changes, or why? Why is it improved dramatically? Yes. Because you've made needed changes. So going forward, it will be better?

Yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay.

Okay.

Because we got dinged on this on fiscal 20. We were good on 21 and 22, and then we got dinged again on 23 and 24. So... I don't know, I don't pretend to know your guys' jobs and I don't know how you do this, but the process going forward, you don't think this will be an issue anymore, okay? Is that correct?

Yes, and I will be honest. The first rollout with taxes, I'm not going to say that there wasn't some. I didn't get things bounced right away because things were crazy. But then I developed and kind of got down the system. And that second rollout with taxes, it was completely different. opposite and better and it was we were doing taxes every single day balancing and like passing this what we do so it was perfect I mean so you got your groove on what you're saying

then the next one is journal entries and i don't completely understand that what that what that is but we only got this is a i went back to fiscal 19 and we have not gotten dinged on it before we got dinged on it in 23 but we didn't get dinged on it in 24. so i don't know if that was just an anomaly in 23 or what i suppose it means work i suppose it means working for government government well that means this would be an answer this would be a thing for our either kylie i just think it means

I understand. I understand. It means to, you probably need a journal entry of somewhere to back up. So if they do an audit, you have it written down or accounted for somewhere. It's just an entry that they can cross-reference it with. That's just a gift.

And they're not doing that, and that's a simple thing to do. So Kylie, Michelle, can you confirm that? Is that what that is about? Mm-hmm. I don't understand why we were dinged.

What did you write in our answer? Or was that a correction that the state made? They corrected some of them.

They said your response was the same as mine. This is not something that was ever mentioned in previous audits. And that you just changed your process and all journal entries will be reviewed and signed off by it. So apparently they had an issue with someone not signing or initialing the journal entries.

i don't i don't pretend to understand what that means but i wonder if you made a change and you didn't um you didn't make notes of the change that simple that you made a change you made a correction or a better change better way to do it but you didn't make an entry of why you made the change well i think you got dinged on it yeah yeah that

sounds like government yeah you made the change you said okay i have a better way of doing this you made the change but you didn't document why you made the change so they see it as an error well they said yeah the actual condition they mentioned was independent review and approval of journal and cheese is not documented that's their finding yeah so it sounds like they require independent approval of journal entries so like if you do a journal entry michelle You would need Lori to sign off on it? Is that what they mean? Yeah. Is that what they mean, Michelle?

We review them on them. Properly. We review the report.

Okay. So that's a potential policy update to address that issue, just to ensure that everybody's documenting it? They put it in writing.

Yeah. Is that a policy? I'm assuming that's an internal policy that you will institute, right, Michelle?

Well, I will need to institute it because I don't have any documents. There were policies in the share drive, and those have been printed and reviewed. I'm not sure I saw one on that one. Well, obviously you didn't because it hit an audit.

It seems to be nitpicky in my mind, but okay.

No, I mean, I don't really think it's nitpicky at all.

No, because you got a document. No, I don't either.

If you move something. No. Yeah.

If you move something or change something. Write it all down so they can find it. Go ahead. Yes, you're right.

Yeah.

Yeah, we were saying the same thing.

I really respect, I respect, I mean, everything that they have to say is valid. I guess that's where I, you know, when I've got it written down, it's on my Google. Yeah. Right now, I'll give my report, my other reports when I have the meeting, but if I get it finished. Okay, what's next?

Okay, so the other one is under findings related to required statutory reporting. It looks like it's regarding the certified budget. Disbursements are allowed to exceed the budget. So, yeah, that's just a process thing we're going to have to change, I guess. Keep a better eye on. Because this was, I think this hit both years. And then there was questionable expenditures. We had this in, I think, both years, too.

I'm sorry, before you go on to questionable expenditures, so the certified budget section, you know we've had several budget amendments that we've done is there there's nothing really different than we've got to keep track on this and make sure that the fund balances support that and there's a budget amendment and there's documentation if we go over am i interpreting correctly you are okay and this is something and this is something we got you got dinged on for the past five years every single I went back to fiscal 19 every year we got in the same exact and if we're not balanced it's hard to know if if we're going to go over or not so okay okay um but no changes or policies and I also I can add to that yes um so and again people work up about um

Really, it's just service areas. You don't want to go over your service areas. And that's something you can do a little bit of memo about. But I think a budget or anything for a super useful tool from an expenditure side.

So how do you monitor that? How do you monitor that?

Michelle? What if I did a variance report?

Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

So should we have, like, just a standard or a rough, you know, we're doing that quarterly, we're doing that... We have to do it every month because we don't want to go over. Yeah.

So it would be a monthly... Well, monthly is not reasonable. I think quarterly would be fine.

Doing a variance report and so then it's... So that would be something that you could run, Michelle, and have a calendar reminder to do so that everybody's looking at that?

I would want to check with what other auditors do in other counties and see what's their place as far as what was done two years ago. So that's where I'm looking at two years ago. Okay. See what was going on there. Okay, I just don't want to make a decision in a vacuum, you know, I think, but the variance is super important.

Well, obviously other counties have figured out how to do this, you know, and track it to make sure that their board doesn't approve things and go and disperse more than we should. so i yeah so you know if you want to come back and let us know what you find out that would be great um okay okay so she will once you get this done so uh but we're not under questionable expenditures so uh i think we got hit with this yes we did um that was that credit card that i'm that's what that was Yeah, it was $201. And then we had $36 paid out of lost funds, too. So, Michelle, is that just, how do we, what do we do? When I call the bank. What do we do with that when we get a report? Obviously, it's two years down the line.

I don't really have anything to add to what we've done before. Okay, so there's nothing we do.

It's just that we've never been done before. Okay, so we just never... So we don't have to take any action on this. It's just, hey, here's a questionable expenditure. FYI, don't do it again type of thing? Yeah.

So everybody's confident. We have procedures in place that... This won't happen again then.

We don't allow people to take out credit cards. Yeah, don't allow it. And we've got to make sure that... We can't allow people to make fly-ass grins.

Yeah, I'm assuming these things were for her office. But you're absolutely right. And I think what we need to do is when we have new employees or... new elected officials, there's a policy packet, so they all know what they should and should not do. And we've had a lot of new people, and I think that would be helpful. And the best people in place to do that, I think, would be Michelle and Kylie, because you guys are the ones that deal with all this stuff, would you agree? Yes. Okay. All right. So are you guys open to do, I mean, it's not, obviously it's not critical running that well. We're going to have too many people next year. Do you think it's, do you think sometime between now and the end of the year we can have something together to, you know, like a little orientation packet of policies and stuff for new hires and new elected officials?

so probably what i would just first of all we discussed taking all of the recommendations from the state that required a policy addressing we've got a list okay and we will be knocking that list out awesome okay great so you'll whatever you knock the list out you'll write the policy we'll review the policy

sure sure okay sounds good sounds great okay okay so the next one is business uh travel expense we had no problems with travel expenses yay um the next one is business transaction that they recommended that we would consult legal counsel to determine the deposition of that one. And it was building repairs for $16,100. And we were told it may represent a conflict of interest because it involved a sheriff's deputy and it was not competitively bid. Now, I have feedback on this because I actually asked Shelly about this because when I saw them coming in and construction, I actually asked, asked her and I said, Hey, um, did we, I don't remember getting bids on this. And she told me that she got competitive bids. So I don't know if, um, that was true. And. You just couldn't find it?

Yeah, those bits could be found.

Or if it wasn't true. So, but I wanted to give the board and you gals my feedback on that because I actually talked to Shelly about this when this was going on. And I asked her that question. And she told me it was competitive. But I would have the foggiest idea of where all that documentation would be. So,

And be careful about things. I mean, be very careful.

Well, that's why I'm telling everybody right now. Because, Diane, this is a public document. So it's already out there. There's nothing to be careful about this entire day. It's down somewhere then. But I wanted to provide that information because this information is not in the public document. Right. And it is different than what I was told when this construction was going on. So, and if it is true,

I don't think the finding indicated there were other bids.

No, yes, it did. Yes, it did. It says, yeah, and I quote, it says, the transactions of the Chief Deputy Sheriff may represent a conflict of interest in accordance with Chapter 331.30342, Subsection 2J of the Code of Iowa since the total transactions exceeded 6,000 and were not competitively bid. And that is... Because all of this is in a public document, that's why I'm sharing that I have a little bit of information that it may happen based on what I was told. So I don't know how to handle that because their next recommendation is to consult legal counsel on it. to determine the deposition of the matter because it would represent a conflict of interest. But if it was competitively bid, it would not be a conflict of interest. So I'm not quite sure how to handle it, but I wanted to give you guys that feedback. But that, as a witness, that's what I was told. I never actually saw multiple bids. I was just told they weren't.

So if there were other bids received for that and we're able to locate those, then do we do a follow-up report to the state auditor and say, just to correct the record here, we want to make sure this is clear.

um and if this wasn't accurate here's what we found well i would like to because it's public yeah yeah so um so we can take that i'll let you get michelle let you mull that over but i just want to make sure you guys have that information and then maybe

come back with to the board on on that and michelle you're going to be in the best position to know where to look and potentially find those documents or bids right i think so okay okay don't have to communicate with jim yeah he might know yeah he might know he might just remember who knows

Okay, well let's move on. Restricted donor activity, no transactions noted, bond coverage, we're good with that. Do we review it annually, Michelle, for bonds?

I know this came up with- Yes, three times a year. Okay, good.

Four minutes, we're fine. Deposits and investments, we're fine. So the next one that we had a finding was the financial condition of the capital projects fund had a deficit balance of 167,592 in June of 2023. I remember that and I don't, what was that? Was that one of our loans? What was it?

So there was direction to have an in and out. So the two funds should match. You should have a negative fund and a positive fund, and they should match. The problem comes in, they don't match. Okay. And that goes back to business. They match. So there's a little bit of a discrepancy about where that direction came from. It's been told to me that that came from the state. But my point would be that is one thing we have on our list as soon as we're balanced is to go back and audit those two funds and figure out why the money in and the money out don't match. okay and that's you're still working on that right now okay what you're still working on that one you just haven't gotten to it yet yeah okay we can't we have to get back to those funds and balance okay you're saying they answer the funds and they're i see i need to know what those real balances are okay Gotcha. Before I ascertained there was a problem. There may not be a problem. Okay. Again, that's what I wanted to kind of reiterate to everybody is that there just could not be a comfort level with the auditing of our system. That's what that says. That's what the qualified finding means. There could not be a comfort level of insurance condition advantage.

Okay. Okay. Two more findings in fiscal 23 and then we'll do the 24. So sales tax on reimbursed purchases. I'm assuming this is on your list of policy to let people know that the government does not pay sales tax?

So we check everybody. My office checks every single person and every single invoice that comes in to make sure we're not being charged. Okay.

And what about the Amazon account? Are we looking at all those charges to make sure, too? Yeah.

Well, I've confirmed that. I don't want to make a misstatement.

Yeah, because I think this one... That occurred...

I know it.

think this one was an amazon purchase if i recall correctly granted we're going back and they didn't know and again this is something that you know you wouldn't know unless you're told so This could probably be something that...

I think the Treasurer's Office knows that now. Yes.

My point is this be on your list of policy packets to give to newly elected officials.

We've also run back and made vendors remove junk packets. Yes. Good.

I just want to make sure if anyone gets a wild hair and uses a different vendor and they don't know. I want to make sure people know that if you do that, make sure the vendor doesn't turn you sales tax. Okay, so the next one is the bank overdraft. Now, was this the one where the money was in the different fund and it was pulled out of the wrong fund and then eventually they got it fixed? Or am I thinking something else?

No. No. No. Okay. Well, this is just the one that, um, that, which, like, different ones. It's just how, you have to write one check from one bank to cover a different bank. We tell them what we're spending and they cover it. Okay. And how it used to be done, it wasn't efficient and so it did change actually in that year. Okay. So why would you ever make an expenditure without enough money? Why would you cover it?

I mean, why would you do that? Well, what do you think?

I mean, there's two different offices that are, one office that's ready to check, and then there's one office that's covering the check.

And those are two separate accounts. Okay. And those are two separate accounts, and that's why you have to communicate? Is that my understanding correctly? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So this probably won't happen again because now you guys communicate better. Correct. Okay.

And like I said, it wouldn't even fit.

in that year. So, I mean. Yeah, that's, you know, it's kind of stinky they still put it as a finding even though it was corrected in that year. So, that's one way.

But we have to know because it was, because it happened.

Yeah, because it happened. Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. That is the last of fiscal 23. Do we want to go on to 24 or do you have a question?

I just have a quick question. So this audit from 2023 was signed off in December of 2024 by Phil Clifton. Is that correct?

Yes.

Do you have that paperwork? I don't. That's where I'm at. I want to clarify.

Go ahead.

Yeah, I'm just trying to understand what happened there, because I know when I took office January of 25, multiple meetings and multiple discussions, and we're saying, where are the audits? Where are the audits? And as I understand it, that was found where he had signed off on 23 just last month.

Is that accurate? What was explained to me by the state auditor's office, and I thought I forwarded that email. I keep doing it. I apologize. I understand it. I asked for a copy of it after, you know, I signed off on the other one, fiscal 24. And it was, the document was signed by Shelly and Phil. But December 19th or 17th or something like that, Shelly told the auditor, state auditor that they're waiting on. Amanda to sign it. It was signed in January. I'm assuming January or late December. I don't know. By the current treasurer. By Amanda DeVos, the treasurer. Well, no. It would have been Amanda DeVos in 24. It is Amanda DeVos. And then the way it was explained to me was She was then arrested, and they kind of put things on hold. They wanted to do another look-see, which I'm not necessarily opposed to. I think that's wise. However, when we got the $45,000 bill in June of last year for 23, and I think it was 57 for 24, we were told they had everything they needed, and we should have an exit conference soon. Nothing happened. And based from the state auditor's perspective, the document was not re-found until November of 25. And my question asking, okay, so from November to 20, why did we not have the exit conference on 23? after you found the paperwork and found the paperwork in november 25 why did we wait until april 26 to do 23 and i never got a response so um and that's gonna be one of the questions i have for them but the concern i have is not is 12 to 18 months delay in audits really makes it hard for our auditor and our treasurer to fix things without being behind the eight ball and pulling out their gear. We have to have audits done quicker.

it's not uncommon it's not uncommon anymore because nobody wants to do government audit on two boards i'm on we cannot hire auditors and in one case they're almost two years behind which is is horrible yeah and and they it's that's why And I don't know how they can justify being so late.

I don't understand it either, especially since there's Iowa code that governs how quickly you have to turn it around. So nevertheless, the fiscal 23 was done and it was delayed and I still don't know why. So 18 months for fiscal 23, 12 months for fiscal 24.

so um and let me know if you don't have that email or get to both of you guys yeah i'm just trying to understand um i think should i i should probably add to it it is my understanding that because of amanda's arrest that they they didn't want to come to break they did want to look at that but they also That's the reason that they could not wrap it up was because of the lack of response. And I know that's been more documented. Yes, prior to. And I'm not, I'm trying to add some enlightenment to that. Right. And then a lot of the responses from the treasurer's office, it was, as a previous auditor, how she completed her answers. So my thought is that they didn't even have answers for 23. Until 25. Well, no, because he was not removed until 25. You know who I'm talking about, right?

I do, but Phil and Shelly would not have signed off on it if he wasn't ready because I did not sign off on fiscal 24 until we were done. So I'm assuming they followed the same process.

But I'm trying to say, do you recall her answers being, I, Amanda DeVos, the previous treasurer? Is it literally her answer?

Yes. And they kept those in the findings.

They're still in there. Yeah. So, yeah. That was what I wanted to ask. Yes. Some of her answers did not come in time enough.

Yes.

And I... Maybe that's it.

Yes. Well, the... The 23 one should have been done sooner than 24. But the point I think that the concern I have is that everything was wrapped up in the December, January, December 24, January 25 timeline. Now I get that the state auditor wanted to have another look-see at it. And I didn't personally have a problem with that. They obviously didn't spend that much time on it because that additional bill was $2,900. So what I was trying to understand is, you know, we did not have a definitive answer as to why they delayed it so long. And I still don't have a definitive answer from them for that, which irritates me because we could have been addressing some, hopefully addressing some of these issues a lot sooner than June of 26. But that's neither here nor there. That's just how it is.

It shouldn't happen again, right? Hopefully it will not happen again.

Okay, so moving on to fiscal 24, these have a lot more findings.

Can we just go over the new stuff? Yes, yes, yes. I do need to kind of get going. Yes, no, I understand.

So we'll go through the new stuff and... And on my spreadsheet, I checkmarked the stuff that's just fiscal 24, so hopefully that's helpful. So for the treasurer, it had unrecorded interest. I'm assuming this is the one where they let the CDs lapse and the money had to be redeposited. Is that what that is?

Um, that's part of it, but then there's just other, there's other interest that, um, or just the different accounts that wasn't necessarily put in there in a timely manner. Okay. Okay.

So a variety of...

Delayed deposit, delayed interest. Okay.

Okay. All right. And... So separately maintained records for county conservation. Now we've been doing this for a long time is my understanding. So I'm just curious as to why it found itself as a finding for the first time in fiscal 24. Did you know or did this is a new account they set up brand new?

is this a county conservation board i think what this might be is they got some land if i'm right given to them they get a crop off of it so that is an income yet they classify themselves as non-profit but they can't do that because they are receiving a profit on the land

so that has been reclassified to they have to pay taxes on the profit of staff and that was i'm only guessing if that's what that might be that has been corrected well it said the county conservation department did not transfer separate seats to the county treasurer's office at fiscal year end and there were separate records right so yeah so the

But we've been doing that for a while. Well, they have that for, I don't know, you might ask Shawn, but they were not, that's been rectified. And they've done that for quite a few years, which you would get dinged on that.

Well, we've never gotten dinged on it.

I don't know if that's what it is.

This is the very first time.

Well, we haven't had the land forever.

yeah they've only had it for you know you don't have to see how many years not for ever no okay well i don't this has to do with this has to do this is the revenue deposit system diane i don't it does they don't mention anything about land out here so no they might not because Because it says the county conservation department did not transfer certain receipts to the county treasurer's office at fiscal year end. So the records were not. But my point is that the state audit had an issue with internal control. And the balance of the conservation checking account was not included in the county's records. So this is a record thing. It doesn't seem to be a land thing. And my point is that this is something they've been doing for years that was not an issue in previous audits, but it appeared in this audit. So was there a change in code requirement? Do we know? Why was this not mentioned as a binding before? Do you have any idea?

I don't have an idea. Okay.

But going forward, we've corrected that.

Well, if we don't know what that means... Well, we've corrected that, and they're taking command of their boat, and they do a really good job. Okay. Because there is... That's why I'm wondering if it... If the code did change, they were taking all the income off and paying no tax, they can't do that. So they didn't show probably those, I don't know, I'm leaking here. And then when they find that, if the code changed, then they're not going to be in compliance.

Yeah, I don't know if it's that.

Because it has been classified now that they have to. I don't either. Yeah, I don't know if it's that. That kind of makes sense, though.

Because they talk about in their response, We talk about bank reconciliations and online reservations for shelters and all that stuff. So I think, I don't know if this was just a highlight, so we're aware of this separate account that's not included in county records, which I'm glad we are, but I'm a little concerned that this was not mentioned in previous audits.

I would never approve a separate account that we're not aware of.

Yeah.

So I wish this was wrong.

That is not acceptable. Yeah. I wish this was wrong. Talk to Stephen and ask him when you're done. So going forward, Michelle, how are we going to make sure that we don't have separately maintained records for county conservation? Are they just going to let you, you know, you're going to handle their books or how, or you don't have an idea yet you're working on?

Well, just ask Stephen, tell him not to do it. Michelle can say, Steve, don't do this. Period. Isn't it that simple, Michelle? To get this jammed up. I have to read the finding more thoroughly and maybe talk to the state auditors as to suggestions. But right now, I think our funds, again, it goes back to what's in the funds. and what what are those records are they accurate i mean that's again i think a lot of these things will be resolved once we get balance does that make sense right so that's a fund i mean there's a and i tell you what everybody's frustrated because they can't pull up a fund balance sheet and and know where they are i mean they think that the bank accounts right they think about that um but again i Well, I think I'm 100% aware of everything that Steve is doing.

Well, according to this finding, it says the county conservation department maintained a checking account separate from the county treasurer records. The account was utilized for camping and family faculty facility rental revenues. The transactions were reported to the county treasurer. Yeah, so they were maintaining this checking account. They were maintaining this checking account separately out of, I'm assuming, out of the treasurer didn't have access to it. They just reported what the amounts were. I'm assuming that's what that means.

Because that is a state park, it's only separate through i want to say do they have any yeah well can you maybe that put that pin in this michelle will circle back with the state auditor on what their expectation is on that because i don't want to get into this again

so i don't know what they're meaning yeah yeah does that make sense yeah because this is the this is the first year they've dinged us for it and this is something county conservation has done for years so i don't know if this is a new rule or you know i don't know so i bet i want to make sure going forward we don't get dinged for it again okay um public health reconciliations I believe this has been resolved, at least for now. But the 2080 with Warren County is the end in early September. So this is something, Michelle, you'll probably have to get with the board of health chair on how we're gonna, because we'll have to bring the grants back under us as the fiscal agent. And then I know she told me that she was working with the state provide some gap between September and December, because come January, everything's gonna change with the regionalization of public health. And no one really knows what that's gonna look like yet. I think the state's gonna see their pants, personally. But in the meantime, I want to make sure that, because I know it was a pain to get it moved over to Warren County as the fiscal agent. So I don't know if you want to circle back with the board of health chair if you want me to do that and say, hey, can you give me an update as to this? Because I don't think their next meeting is until August.

So... They have a new board here, and I've already reached out.

To... To Warren County or to Madison? Yeah, Warren County.

Okay.

Well, no, I was... Well, I was talking about our county because... It's definitely Warren County. Right, but Warren County is basically going to be out of the picture come September 6th, 8th, I don't remember the date. And then we're going to have to, we have a moving forward with our own board chair. So have you reached out to the Madison County Health Board Chair? I mean, Greta? Yeah. No, I'm not there. Okay, all right. So probably need to put a pin in that, too, because...

I just want to know who's going to release the money and where the checks are going to go.

Well, after September, they're going to come back to us. That's what I want to know. Yeah, they're going to come back to us, but the Board of Health needs to give that direction. That's not something any of us can do. So, all right. Ambulance service reconciliations. I think that's kind of self-explanatory. I know they struggled for a while on this until they got that system in place with the service organization to fix it. And there was also the issue of the timeliness of reports from the former treasurer as well. but we don't have that issue anymore. So Kylie, do you feel comfortable that things are okay on this going forward? You have no issues? All right. The next one, lease and subscription-based IT agreements. This is another one that first time we got hit for this was this year, even though we've been doing this for years. Again, I'm wondering if there's some kind of change in code or something that put this on here. What's your understanding on this, Michelle? They had said that we should have a formal policy for reviewing leases and IT-related contracts. I know most of our stuff is built into the solutions agreement. And I know we have, we also have, I don't know if the printer, copier, scanner falls under that or not.

Or is that something that... Well, I just want to read the code. Okay. I want to read the code with that. Okay.

I mean, I think it's a good idea to review it regardless, but, you know, I don't, I didn't realize that this is a, it sounds to me like it may be something new. I don't know. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Okay.

Okay. So that's one thing. And it could be just like the appropriation resolution, where at some point, the dollar amount per department got dropped off, and nobody realized that the department needed to be on there. So, you know, again, it could just be that old telephone game. Yeah.

Well, yeah. But it just makes me wonder. We have a lot of findings that we got the first time this year on stuff that we've been doing for years. And it's never been mentioned as a finding in previous audits. So that's kind of why I'm wondering what's going on.

And it says under the cause, management has not developed or implemented the necessary procedures to comply with the new standards. So maybe there is something new that we just missed. Yeah, but that would be good to know on that.

Because how new is new? They've been very, very, very helpful by directing you with, oh, that comes from here. Oh, this comes from here. Okay? Yes, got it. So I'm training. I'm training as I go. Okay.

All right. The next one is capital assets. This is another one that we've gotten dinged on that we've been doing for years. So it's something about an internal control. related to proper accounting for all capital.

It says, they said we elect an effective... That might be a depreciation period.

We depreciated it over the long amount of time. Maybe, because it says management has not established policies for requiring approval for the deletions of assets. So it looks like we, I think it's got, maybe this was because we got rid of an asset and we forgot to document it. do you remember what could be that on the uh yeah i'm i know that we are gone from any now okay okay all right uh treasurer petty cash change policy is this the one i think they need supervisors oh yes so i found out that apparently the supervisors need to do surprise cash counts at the treasurer's office. Just show up and say, hey, I'm here to count your petty cash. I did not know that was a thing. Apparently it is a thing.

I didn't think petty cash is supplemented legal. It never was for me.

Well, maybe I'm using the wrong term. I didn't think you could ever have petty cash. So their recommendation... Is that wrong? Do you have petty cash? Their recommendation in this audit says the county should formalize a petty cash fund and change fund policy establishing proper usage, allowable disbursement, approvals, and maximum dollar amounts to maintain the petty cash fund and change fund. The county board supervisors should periodically perform and document surprise cash counts. Did not know that. We've never done that. Have you ever done that, Diane? I don't think so.

I have never had... No. For government, my life, you've never allowed to have petty cash. Why would you have petty cash?

To give change for people that pay cash for their bills.

Or you could have a cash drawer. You should have a cash drawer, not a petty cash. It means different things. I'm a counselor. I'm only telling you what the state auditor put in there. I agree.

I'm here to stand.

I thought, and I understand, but I don't think you should have a cash drawer that you make change out of. Because petty cash means you can buy top for the office, or I'm not for that. I think if you want a cash drawer to make change, that's different than petty cash.

Maybe it's defined... Maybe it's defined differently. I don't know. All I know is that We have the responsibility to do that. So news to me. So I don't know how you want to do that. Do I just show up in your office, Kylie, and just say, hey, I'm here to account for any three of us. And we can't tell you when we're coming because then it's not a surprise. So I suppose this is something maybe the board needs to determine. I don't know.

Well, which departments need cash? Michelle, you need some cash, too, for example, if citizens are doing an open records request or something. Well, it says we're supposed to be surprised for the honor and the treasure.

No, what we do is we immediately receive it over to the treasurer. We don't hold it. Okay.

So then, yeah, we just go right over.

How do you give change, then, if someone needs change?

We have a passport envelope. Yeah.

Okay.

Oh, so you have an envelope with money for that, and that's your, that's like your cash drawer, so it's on there. Does that do anything? And then you make them go to the bank? So what do they have to do? Go to the bank, you get change? Sure. Send them home first, okay? I'm not a bank.

So, Getting back to our job is surprising you, Kylie. Do we just show up for, I mean, would you guys discuss it with the state auditor on that, or how we work on that?

What if the auditor shows up and counts her bag drawer and then they account for each other?

They specifically said they specifically said the board of supervisors, Diane. Okay, so I'm only telling you what they said. So I guess we're going to have to start doing that and and

But they don't define any level of frequency. They don't define what we do once we do that surprise count. So what if, I mean, what do we do with that information? Okay, there's $200 in it. What do we do?

Michelle, can you go back to, would you be willing, and I can always ask this question too, but would you be willing to ask them for a little bit more direction on that? I will. Okay.

I would be happy to do that. Okay.

Okay. And if we should call it just change fund, as they have referenced, or if petty cash is accurate, that would be good to know, too, so we're using the right terminology. They used both on their report.

Yeah. I'm writing.

Thank you. Okay.

All right. So the next one was the EMS grant. I think this was the clawback that we had to do because the previous director did not do the paperwork properly and didn't tell anybody. And we ended up having to pay not only the grant back, but the fine. It wasn't that much, but still.

So, yeah. But Michelle, you worked a lot with Mitch to try to get all that straightened out, right?

This isn't Mitch.

No, I know, but for current... That was EMA. This is EMS. Not Mitch.

Okay.

Because I know... Okay. So, no, this was... He had a changeover in personality. Things got... And lack of follow-up. So now Brady knows when he deals with those grants to follow up on them to make sure, because in the past it was the auditor that helped him with the paperwork. So Brady knows now to avoid that, to work with the auditor to make sure.

We just did another one. We both get the emails. As soon as we get the emails, we go and take care of the grants.

All right, perfect. Okay, so the next one is computer system access. This was one that I've been told by multiple CPAs they're confused as to why it's even a finding. This is outside the scope of the state auditor. This is a financial audit, not a cybersecurity audit. So I don't know why we were dinged for this. but it's on here so unfortunately because it's on here that means every future audit has to address it so anyway um and we've never been dinged for this before and this is a fiscal 25 thing not a fiscal 23 or 24 thing so i don't know why he was doing stuff for fiscal 25 in our 24 audit but Anyway, needless to say, though, I did give feedback on this because I wanted to make sure that they were comfortable on stuff. So in the past, when we had someone leave, they would turn in their computers. And the email would be shut off, but the actual login and the VPN wouldn't always be deleted. Now, they couldn't get in because the computer wasn't there. The way Solutions has designed is the clients only work when they're on our network. So once they turned in the computer, there was no web browsing way to log into anything. However, it is still... from a cleanup perspective, I'm sure you would agree, Michelle, is you really want, when someone leaves, there's an exit log and a checklist of everything that next needs to be disabled. An off-boarding. An off-boarding. Thank you for, yeah, I couldn't think of the term. Thank you. So, Before the patent, beforehand the VPN client and the login were not related to each other. So you would have to go in this, this is what solutions tell. You would have to go in and remember to separately disable both of those. So what they told me they were going to do in the future is they were going to link them. So you only had to go in, you only have to go in and remove one and it would turn off both. At least that's how we explain it. The VPN client login and the actual system login. So when you log in here, the actual login. Now, the one thing that this doesn't address, and this is something we probably need to address, Michelle, is we currently do not have a records retention policy for people. And we need to probably have that. order to be compliant to that or retention or retention is that related to the um is that related to the the audit or is that just an ad that's just an add-on for me because we're talking about it and it came to my brain to talk about that because we don't currently have one so a lot of times things are a loss but people you you don't have you sure you don't have faith

They recommended that you have to keep something for seven years, retain for two years, retain indefinitely.

We should have a list of things you have to retain. I'm just telling you what has been my experience. I know, but that should be there somewhere.

Didn't this come up on our handbook work session too? Weren't we talking about it then?

I did, but the thing is is that some of these things and these recommendations from the state auditor is a required board action because we required board purchasing. So keep that in mind, please, that in order to do some of the stuff that they recommend, we're gonna have to make some changes and potentially and on policy, policy and potentially cost. So we'll have to work closely with the auditor on that as we work through this, because she may have to come to us and say, hey, in order to comply with this recommendation, we need to do this. And it's going to cost money. So I don't like saying that, but it is what it is. So anyway, so on this one, I gave some feedback. I didn't give feedback on all of these. This was just one that I did because I wanted to make sure that they were aware. And my understanding, Michelle, you went through and all the logins from past employees that were still showing have been removed. Yeah, I did an audit. I did it.

Well, actually, the state prefers you to call it a review. A review, not an audit. So I did a review of all of the login reviewer levels, et cetera. So I think we'll speed on that. Yeah.

So my understanding is they had employees on there that had been gone for years, and they were still showing up.

But you can't delete those employees. You just need to be able to deactivate them. Right, right. Because there may be records related to that employee that you can easily delete the records.

You just have to have them deactivate it. Right, and it all depends on how it's deactivated. Because if you're deactivating it in Microsoft, you could potentially erase all the records. So it all depends on how...

I only dealt with pollution.

Yeah, so it all depends on how whoever's managing that does it. So, because I know when I've received open records requests from previous employees and they've come back almost empty because there was no records to pull, which is a concern. Yeah. So anyway, so it's going forward, we should have this issue going in a policy and off boarding, they're gonna list stuff and then provide it to solutions so they can deactivate their login when all the equipment's been turned in. So, but yeah, that's the kind of cleanup that, but not but not remove all those records of their emails or anything like that it will hold them for a set amount of time per what has to be specifically total right now it's six months right now it's six months right it has to be specifically toll because then they have to create storage for that storage costs money so that's what we have to determine as a board as to how long you want to store things

records like that how long should it be stored michelle how long do you think it should be stored well i think it all relates back to the climate that we're operating in right now i mean normal is normal and and angst is angst and i would have to ask another county to see what they think or if there's any direction from the state yeah let's get let's let's let's try both of those because

We're not the only county that has records requests. And if someone gives a records request for information from two years ago and we can't provide it because we didn't store it, that's an issue. So, and I don't know what the recourse is under IOC 22 for that. So. Okay, moving on. County Treasurer Payroll Resolutions. This was one that was unique to the previous treasurer, and we got dinged on this, but it was resolved in the same fiscal year. It's a moot point, however, it did highlight an issue that we probably need to reserve We view these resolutions before they're in the packet against union agreements, against everything like that, before the supervisors see it. Because by then it's too late. I mean, we could correct it, but it's a pain. I'd rather have it be put in the packet accurately so then we don't have to have, this is before your time. But we had to meet multiple times to correct this payroll issue. We had to redo the response. I think it was two times, wasn't it, Michelle? You had to redo it two times?

Something like that. You'll have to enlighten me a little bit more.

This was the one where we had the wrong payroll. This is an employee in the treasurer's office. And the wrong hourly wage was in the first resolution. We had to correct it in the next resolution in a meeting. And I think we had to do it a third time, too. I don't, I don't, I'm trying to go by memory here. But, but what was the highlight?

That's really why, if I had my brother, he got it, we let our HR person do the salary resolution. That's what I think. Yeah. That's what, yeah. Because they're going to have the, okay. How much, how many more findings are there on?

Just a few. We'll go through them. There's a. Let's go back. Okay. Okay. So the next one is the professional services agreement. This was one that is also fiscal 25 as well, and it's not a financial finding. And as we have discussed since then, that there is some leeway for department heads, elected officials to sign their own contracts. So knowing that, I don't understand why that was in here because we've had several elected officials sign contracts since this one elected official did, since Terry did, but yet they put it in as a hot date. So I don't know why it's in there. It was in her budget. She had the authority. It should not have been in there. So I just wish there was consistency, but I asked them to reboot the finding and they went. Okay, moving on. Treasurer, DeVos vehicle, property taxes, that is an obvious thing. She was arrested for allegedly doing things she shouldn't. The next one after that is comp time. My understanding, we've had issues with this for years. It's never been mentioned in a previous audit. They are mentioning it in a fiscal 25 annual year, so I'm not quite sure why they were looking at this if they were doing fiscal 24. But we know that there's comp time challenges, as we talked about in our handbook meeting, so I'm not sure. Are you comfortable that that's been resolved, Michelle, that we don't have any

only in that i in my department that i have control over and then i just make sure that we understand about the fair labor standards act and that we still have some compelling attorney but that's not within my purview and um Again, that's kind of a more under your guidance, if I can be honest. I mean, you've got to figure out, you know, these people who are still doing comp time, that's not my business. I just have to abide by what you guys decide. Right.

Because we talked about this at the handbook meeting.

And I don't think salary people should get comp time. I don't either.

So I guess... That's bottom line, by and large. So we're going to have to figure out how to address this because from my understanding from Kelly is that other departments are still doing this and some of those departments are elected officials. So.

Well, not her, not Kylie, and not me. Okay.

And the board doesn't have any voice. It's not us. So, so maybe let's, let's, let's kind of put her, if we could put a, I don't want to get dinged for this again, though, is my point. So if we get dinged for this again from another office, I don't want to get dinged.

So can we add that to our next handbook session to talk about it further then? What do you think about that, Michelle?

Yeah, I don't mind that one bit. I'll probably just give you a... heads up on where it is and then you guys can probably deal with it individually okay that's a good idea absolutely yeah because i don't think it already yeah i don't think our handbook meeting was specific was department for us it was just we were just told that it was other departments other than forbes too so okay okay understood okay the next one we got to get it out of the handbook i mean that's the point because if you can't have it in the handbook Right. Right. Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. So, uh, credit card. Yeah. So the next one is, uh, in the treasurer's office, the credit card purchase and the lease of the, of the, um, postage there. Um, so...

The credit card, when I found out, the bank cut it up. That was something that should have never, ever happened. Right, right.

So this is something that's going to be in the policy packet for new hires and new elected officials, right, Michelle? Yes. Okay. Because based on the response from the previous treasurer, she was unaware of the policy of that. So I want to make sure... I want to make sure we don't have anyone get that excuse again. If you understand what I'm saying. So I want to make sure there's actually no excuse for lack of knowledge on that.

And then the lease is that postage meter.

I don't know how we can do about that because she bought it from her office and it was in her budget.

And we discussed in other meetings we're going to have to just let that lease run out and try to consolidate after that time. Yeah, because Pitney Bowes won't come on then.

okay um yeah they will get you out of it no we have to run it we have to let it run its course is what jess was saying because they won't let us out that's a horrible like stance All right, the next one is other findings related to required statutory reporting. Certified budget, that's the same thing as previous. Questionable expenditures, there was a $36 thing out of lost funds from Menards. I'm assuming what that was was just a receipt that was missed or something like that. A bunch of things were bought from Menards. It was a mistake. It was a mistake, yeah. So coding error, no issues with travel expense, business transactions, we had some building repair and maintenance. by Nathanious, it was under the 6,000, so does not appear, according to the auditor, did not appear to be a conflict of interest. The same thing with Donn-Kinney, also under the 6,000, so not a conflict of interest. No restricted donor, bond covers, let's see, where is the next one? So the financial condition, we still have the same issue with the capital projects fund. okay here's the one you were mentioning earlier diane property tax on county-owned farmland and it said we're invest uh that has been corrected that's been corrected already sean went in and corrected that because what they were doing is

When your tax is down, how many tax is down? Right. But the money you make on the contract is not, and he had corrected that. Okay. Because I spoke with him today about that. It's corrected. Okay.

And the next one I know has been resolved already, the tax payments to local taxing districts. So this was where all that money went to the wrong taxing authority because the wrong coding was used? I didn't realize we were that dependent on stuff, but apparently we are. But that's been fixed now, right? Okay.

Yes, it has. Good. We've already went through one process of even where that treasurer was providing the correct and used the correct post. Okay. Were you given the wrong code or it just went in wrong?

We don't know. I'm not sure. We weren't here. So, I don't know. Let's see. So, yeah. So, the tax payments, we have to give things to them by the 15th of the month, correct? Yeah. Okay. Okay, and that was an issue we've had several times, and it predates UJESS. Is that an issue? Okay, the last one is the qualified opinion due to bank cancellations. That was something that I just put on here on my list, but it's not up. And so the tax increment financing payments, this is the last one in fiscal 24. This was the, this was another issue, that was, oh, I'm sorry, this is what we already talked about, the TIF coding. It was coded wrong, so the 258,000 went to the wrong. Yeah. Yeah, okay. Okay, all right, that's it. Any, so, so any questions on any of this?

Just where we go from here, clearly, you know, appreciate all the hard work that Kylie and Michelle, you guys are doing, you ladies are doing to try to get this, everything balanced and get things up to snuff. We probably need a follow-up meeting at a later day to review this and come back with, okay, this person reached out on this issue, this person there, what policies do we need to drive after today.

And then... No, I will need six weeks if that's okay with you guys. Six weeks should have me... I think that's quicker.

Okay.

If that's what you need, then we should offer that. Is that okay with you to get it done?

Yeah, I don't have an issue. Yeah, for me it is. I don't have an issue with that. The other outstanding...

I mean, I need to get taxes done.

Yeah, the other... You need to get what done? I agree. If that's what you want. I'm sorry, you need to get what? Taxes. You've got to get her stuff done. Oh, taxes? Okay. Okay. So the other thing is that, and this is on the spreadsheet I provided to you, ladies, is the concerns I have that I was going to ask further questions because the state auditor refused to provide more detail because they gave us a more detailed bill, but basically all they did is took each day and told us who was working each day and how many hours they were putting in. So My questions are, especially considering some of these findings are, you know, eight of them have been done for years but never mentioned before, four were fiscal 25 items, three were corrected the same year, two were not financial findings at all within the statutory authority. I'd like to know how much of this we're paying for, for stuff that's, you know, I have concerns. we're looking at over half the findings, which is 24, being things that we've never seen before. So how much time, I mean, I don't necessarily need the detail of what exactly they were doing, but I would like to know how much of this bill is going to this, how much of this bill is going to this, because if we're being billed for them to do efforts on stuff that is not even part of a financial audit, I don't want to pay for that. But again, this is a board call, and I'm a little frustrated. So that's why I kind of put this together to kind of show you visually what this looks like. And, you know, we have to pay for that.

Heather, did you forward? I'm sorry, go ahead. I was going to ask you, Heather, did you forward John's email to the board?

I believe he said it. I think he sent it to everybody. I'm pretty sure he did. He sent it to us. It's the one that stated that kind of. So the board. When I emailed him, the board had asked me to ask for more detail. So that's what I did. And that's what his response was. So, you know, and I don't... As the client, I'm having a hard time being told, trust us. Rather than, if we're asking for more detail, why can't we get detail? You know, I'm able to trust the verified crowd. I'm not saying I need... you know, minutiae, but given the fact that these audits were late, that over half of the findings in 24 is stuff that we're being dinged on that were never caught in previous audits that he did for us, which is concerning to me. So are they really findings or is it something that encouraged our independent auditor to back out because we had 26 findings? So that's why I kind of want to know, you know, how much time are we billing, is he billing us for, for stuff that is not within his purview or stuff that we think is a finding that really isn't a finding. It's just, because if it was a finding, it would have been found on the previous four years.

And can they give us a dollar value? Unless it's a new rule.

Unless it's new. You're absolutely right, Michelle. You're absolutely right. So what I was going to do, I was waiting for us to meet today. What I was going to do is kind of in the spreadsheet I sent you guys was my questions. Would the board be opposed to me going back to him and just asking the questions? Either it could just be from me, but, and I want to, if you guys have other questions, I just think as, this is a huge bill. I mean, we were told last June that they were pretty much done. Now, I expected a little bit extra because they did a little extra time because of the treasurer arrest. I did not expect a $45,000 bill. So all told, for two audits, it's almost $200,000 in payments to be paid. And normally in the past, when there was going to be, oh, is it going to be more than we thought, we'd get a letter or something saying, hey, this isn't going to cost more than we thought. Not a year later, literally a year later, a $45,000 bill. That's just what we're doing.

if they can't give detail for for every level of service provided you know that's one thing i understand they they provided the hours but at minimum your list of the you know these questions that you rattled through just a minute ago like for example the findings for pertaining to 2025. it should be pretty easy to say okay here's how much time is associated with that we didn't engage you for 25 we engaged right 24.

So you're charging us for services.

But Heather, didn't they, in your back and forth, didn't they explain why they included that?

I thought I read that. On a couple of them, yeah.

I mean, I understand why you're not accepting of that, but I think that they explained it.

But they explained it, yes. They explained it. I don't agree with this.

No, I'm just agreeing with it. Yes.

So, but, but this is even, this is just, if we didn't get a $45,000 bill, Michelle, I probably would not be as wealthy about this. So, so that's why I'm just like, wait a second.

You know, I'd be okay with taking your list of fiscal 24 findings, for example, that just that list alone. the questionable items and saying, okay, what's the dollar value and what are you going to give us credit back on? What are you going to credit this invoice for?

I think we're just at least deserve an explanation. At least an explanation of why this is such a huge bill. Because basically we're at their mercy. saying, you know, you're just, you're supposed to pay the bill and just trust us that the information provided is accurate. And I don't want to imply that it's not accurate, but at the same time, I'm like, oh, explanation, because excuse me, you've been doing your audits for how long? And we have eight findings that we've been doing for years and you've never did this. I think that's a valid question.

And if it's a new rule, then going back and forth, why don't you continue? You do it.

Well, And I don't have a problem doing that.

You seem comfortable with it.

Well, I've been looking at this in detail for a while. I know you gals are relatively new to the game. But that's why I took the time to make the spreadsheet and provided you my concerns because I wanted feedback from you and your thoughts.

So I think it's reasonable to ask some more pointed questions. And clearly you have the greatest, most detailed understanding of this. So I am absolutely in support of asking more questions regarding the billing details so we can get an understanding.

And if we can get an understanding, you know,

I think I just said that. If Heather is willing to go forward, go forward. Okay.

All right. I just didn't want to make anything on behalf of the board without talking to you guys. Okay. If you guys have any questions on your own, I can add those to mine so it's all in one email stream.

Well, I think what you put together is very detailed and very helpful in assimilating and

well it also helps us track what we're doing consistently and doing wrong yeah so we can address it okay so all right well i don't have anything else so ladies um does anybody else have anything otherwise i'll do it entertain a motion to adjourn excuse me michelle did you need to say something

No, I'd just like to tell you to please initial that agenda. I'll leave the recorder on the table.

Yeah, I'll leave it on the table.

You got it. I want you to show it when I get there.

Okay. All right, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. No move. I'll second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Yeah, I did it. Okay, all in favor of adjournment, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.