Ad-Hoc Stadium Audit Committee - Regular Meeting

Oh, good. There we go. 406. Thank you so much. Alright. Roll call. Council member Chohal.

Present remotely. True.

Ashley, before we do Oh, that's right. Some housekeeping for the hybrid meeting.

Oh, that's right. That's right.

So the meeting will be recorded. The Zoom applications will notify you that this meeting is being recorded. Please press continue on the Zoom application's safe meeting. If you would like to speak on an agenda item or doing public presentations, please raise your hand on the Zoom applications or press star learning on your phone. Please only raise your hand while the item you're seeking to speak on is being presented. Staff will enable speaking at the appropriate time.

Thank you. I actually thought about that. Get these are hybrid in here. Normally, this is closed for session. Okay. So roll call. We'll do that again. Raj, I should say council member Chapal. Present remotely. Yeah. Remotely. Thank you so much. Council member Gonzales? Present. And chair Hardy, I am present. And the rest of you, I will let you just go around real quick because this is the first time I've been on this, and let and explain who you are and why you get to be here for this fun meeting.

So I'm Amy Meyer. I'm with Maes and Associates, and I'm your external auditor.

Oh, Lynn Lam. I'm the assistant director of finance for SAP working on this audit report. What?

Marissa Perez. I work with finance. I'm taking the minutes. Yep. Nathan, principal accounting.

Excellent.

I'm the coach accounting division manager.

Dan Bellen. I'm subbing in for Sue.

Oh, okay. Yeah. From our attorneys office because the city attorney Trying

to keep us on track. Try to keep you legal. And lead director of finance. Wonderful.

Oh, thank you. Kathy Bunce. I'm a management analyst with Housing Division.

Wonderful. Pata Marcus, housing and new services manager.

K.

And Javon Grogan, city manager. I don't always attend these meetings, but I really try. And because it's the audit committee, I really have no formal presentation role. I'm really just here to support the team and answer any questions.

Appreciate your eyes and ears here because he's responsible for everything. Isn't that fun? Everybody can sleep at night. Incredible. Incredible. Okay. Let's put it that way. First off So excited. Thank you so much. You have to be very careful. You're right. And thank calendar. Now I did go through and read the minutes. Even if you were not here, that is appropriate if you've read the minutes to vote on those.

I'll move to approve.

K. Wonderful.

Second. I was also not there, but I'll let the minutes too. Right. Right.

Next time, you'll you won't have to do that, but thank you so much. And even our attorney's nodding their heads, so we're good. So I'll call for acceptance to vote. Yes.

Yes.

And I vote yes also. Appreciate that. Thank you so much. We had a really fast one. Great. We are up to, action. Well, public presentations first. We do have a public member here. Is there any

Staff Staff is here. Staff is a member too.

Yeah. I thought you were with oh, you're with the housing office. Oh, division. I thought, okay. It's the housing.

Yeah. There's no members on of the public online either.

We do not. That's my next question. Okay. Then we will move on from public presentations to our general business. Overview of the single audit report for fiscal year ended 06/30/2024.

So sure. Hardy, if I may just add some comments, and then I'll turn it over to our external auditor, Kent Lee, director of finance just for the record. Just wanted to acknowledge staff led by both Lynn Fang and Lynn Lam and Tyler Cook that worked hard to get this report done and working Amy and and the May's team. This is a report that we bring to the audit committee every year. It's a part of the requirements of of an agent as an agency receiving federal funds over $207,150,000 dollars.

So Amy will kinda give some context. And and so as a committee, you'll hear this item repeatedly, annually around this time, and our auditor reviews just based on a sampling of of federal funds that compliance for federal grants that Citi receives. And so with that, I'll turn it over to Amy Meyer with Maze and Associates.

Alright. Great. Thank you. And and something I'll mention too that I didn't think to put in here, it has a different filing deadline. You know, your ACT for your annual comprehensive financial report has a 12:31 filing deadline for the award program. Single audit is due to the federal grantors by 03/31, March 31. So that's why that work usually starts after after the act for a push. That's when that starts. Yes. So that's why that's why it's usually two separate meetings with this report. Alright. So thank you. Okay. I'll give you the thumbs up for each, one. So we're gonna because you're new to the to the committee Appreciate that.

We're going to give a little more background on the why and what this separate report is. So, as Ken mentioned, it's required when the city expends more than $750,000 across all federal programs. So everything is brought into one report, hence the name single audit. Because back in the day, I'm gonna talk old times, prior to 1984, each grantor could come in. They can still come in today, but in 1984, the Single Audit Act was adopted, which consolidated that because there were too many. Right? There were lines out the door. I'm exaggerating, but those are the stories that are told. But there were lines out the door of the grantors wanting to come in one after the other to to audit their specific grant no matter what the dollar amount. So in '84, single audit act was was adopted.

And then it's been amended along the way, and now it's called it's still referred to as a single audit, but now the guidance, instead of being called single audit blah blah blah, it's usually uniform guidance. Now it's even been consolidated a little more into something called uniform guidance that I'll go over in a second. And so each federal granting agency outlines its items that it wants the auditor to look at. So if their program is determined to be a major program, which I'll go over that as well, then the grantor says, here's what we want you to test, auditor. You know?

And so that they do that each year. It's in a document excuse me, that's updated each year. So again, it's one overall audit. There's a mathematical calculation that tells us as the auditor based on the city's schedule of expenditures of federal awards, which we'll go over. That tells us which programs need to be tested that year.

There's a quick, quick the ones you knock off the top. If there's certain rules and they've spent more than 750,000 for one program, and it hasn't been tested in the last two years, automatically a major program. In the last five years, if any federal funding has COVID funding, most of the time it's going to be there's a very hard way to get it not to be considered a tested program. And so that's why this year, you have two FEMA programs that have COVID funding in them and other funding, and they haven't been or one of them hasn't been tested in the last two years. So those are your automatically move move them on the top, and then there are other mathematical calculations that tell us, okay.

After those are off, are there other programs that may need to be tested? And so we have to go through this this process, make sure we have a dollar amount coverage of the schedule of expenditure federal awards, I'm gonna refer to as a CEFA from from this point forward. And so then it tells us because they wanna make sure that we get enough coverage, and there's rules and and regulations that tell us what to do. But really what we're testing to is uniform guidance, which the city is required to follow. So it's kind of a two two sided part.

We have audit rules, but then the city has to follow, some of those. So you can see here that's the this is the uniform guidance overall, the summary. There's a it's part of the, code of federal regulations, CFR, what is it? Section two part 200. And then you can see the titles here, acronyms and definitions, which is the longest part of the it's very interesting.

There's a lot of acronyms and definitions, and then general provision provisions, pre federal award provisions, so that's where it tells the city what it needs to do before it accepts an award. And then post federal award requirements, which included in there is some of the audit requirements, you know, things that have to be followed. Cost principles tell the city and any of its sub grantees what you can and can't spend any of the federal funding on. And so within this guidelines, and then of course, part f audit requirements, that's part we as the auditors care about, but, you know, from the city, you have to be aware of and understand everything. And so this is the overall rules and regulations, then within that each grantor can have more specific requirements.

Just using an example, one of the grants we tested this year was the SAFR grant. Well, it can only be spent on certain components of payroll. Cost principles are gonna have all different things that you can spend grants on, right, in in general or can't spend them on. But specific to the SAFR grant, the grantor said this can only be spent here. You know, they they can't be spent on anything under uniform guidance. It can be more restrictive. The grant agreements can be more restrictive than the uniform guidance, but generally not less restrictive generally. K? So so within the uniform guidance in that within it is what's we look at the auditee's responsibilities. And so that's where we are, why we're here today.

So as part of, after you get all the spending, spending's already happened, then we as the auditors come in and work on the single audit. And so the auditee being the city, the responsibilities prepare appropriate financial statements, including the schedule of federal expenditures of federal awards. So within that, it means not only the ACRA, but then also the CIFA that's included in the single audit, the city's responsible for preparing appropriate and accurate records that include, you know, does it conform to the uniform guidance requirements that tell them what needs to be in it? Are all programs identified by the assistance listing number? That's each grant grant excuse me.

Each federal grant has a specific assistance listing number. It used to be if you've ever heard of something called a CFDA number, maybe in the past, if you've heard of that, that changed. They're always changing things. Assistance listing number and CFDA number, exact same thing if you were to look on an old ThinkAlodit report. You know, a lot of numbers didn't change, over the years, but if the terminology changed, I don't it's not even worth going into the why.

And then, the city's responsible for identifying direct or indirect programs. So until a federal dollar is paid to a vendor, it is considered a federal grant. So when it comes from the federal government, it goes through multiple agencies, come through, could come through the city even to a nonprofit. And until the nonprofit spends it on a vendor or spends it on payroll, it's considered a federal grant. And so it's a pass through that whole time, and so it stays.

And so that's why on the city's scheduled expenditures of federal awards, I said I was gonna say FIFA, and I still keep saying it aloud or long. On the FIFA, the city's required to say, we passed this much through to subgrantees because then from the federal award agency, when they look at their line, they say, okay. The city passed through that much, then I should also see additional single audit reports that show that money coming through on those, you know, let's say nonprofit, if the city passes through, to nonprofit agencies or or another government. There could be other governments. You get some money from the county, you know, that's and so it's on their SAFA, and they pass it through to you.

So it stays as a federal award until it hits vendor or payroll. Is that and then identify cluster programs. That's a fun part of the single audit. There are some programs that are so similar in nature that the federal awarding agencies consider them one program even though they have individual assistance listing numbers. And so from the audit perspective, we test it as one program. So even though there's multiple lines on the CIFA, it's considered one program if it's a cluster, and they have to be identified as such on the CIFA. That can get a little hairy because some of them are not quite straightforward, but there are guidelines that that tell Citi how to do that. So the next component and I didn't think. If have any questions along the way, because I talk way too fast. So if you have any questions along the don't hesitate to to stop me.

Thank you.

So the next section is, you know, kind of what what's our overall audit? Why are we here? So from the single audit perspective, the overall goal of a single audit and federal award programs is did know, were expenditures expended on what were allowable costs? You know, did the city spend the money appropriately? Right? And within grant limitations, because you might overspend in one category and understand in another, sometimes that's allowed by a grantor and other times it's not. Sometimes there's a grant budget that's very restrictive and other times it's not, so it depends. Was reporting accurate and timely? Were procurement standard follow standards followed? Some grants require following the uniform guidance.

Others allow the city to use its own procurement policy, but they can't be in conflict with one another when it comes to federal award programs. And we're subrecipients when the city does pass that money through. We're subrecipients monitored for the same. City has to ensure when it passes money through to another agency that that agency is spending the money in accordance to the grant requirements as well. And the city's any of the city's restrictions, if the city puts additional restrictions on any of the funding as well. So that's kind of the big picture overall.

You said if we're passing that on Mhmm. I thought we were the bottom of the food chain. You know?

Yeah. I know. You're not. It it was interesting.

Would we pass that on to that isn't part of our, you know, the city departments?

Normally, nonprofit agencies. Okay. So, like, the disputed on

the block. Right? Yeah. Yeah. That's where it hits the differences because Yeah. No one's below us as far as government.

Right. So it's when they're subject to a single audit.

Okay.

Like, a nonprofit agency is the easiest example, like your community development block grant, CDBG grant.

Yeah. I that's the one I was thinking of.

In our housing depart department, some

stuff. That's right. I guess you

were also are. Loaves and Fish the Loaves and Fishins or Bill Wilson Center.

Right. So

that's a big one.

Mhmm. Because, well, those are five five six three months. When I was thinking, we are the last government agency, and when we give it out, that would hit

Yeah. The nonprofits. That's a good question because, yeah, you don't think of a nonprofit, but nonprofit agencies are still subject to single audit, and that's so it's any entity that's subject to single audit. With all the COVID money that has been floating around, there actually have been some for profit agencies. You know, we don't audit any of those, but there are some for profit agencies that have been brought in to be subject to single audit because of, you know, all the ARPA money going through. It's pretty rare, but it's a it's a new a thing. It's A wrinkle in

the hole. It is.

It is interesting. Yeah. Because then they said, well, what do we need to do? You know? Yes. So so in fiscal twenty four so that's kind of the big that's the big picture of the single audit and the why and why we're here and why it has that funny name, one audit for all the programs. But it doesn't mean that we've tested every program in every particular year. So the city expended. This year was actually a low last week with all the COVID funding that's been coming through in the ARPA money, it you know, it's a significant dip from the last few years. So you expended $6,872,000 across 13 programs this year. And you can

see federal money.

Just federal money. Only federal. So if you look at in your packet, I didn't know how I'm referring to the so you're on paper. So on page three of the single audit report, I had both references to PDF for Raj who's on electronic. So page seven of the PDF of the single audit report. You don't have to flip then, I don't think. Well, you can. Yeah. Okay. That's fine.

Yeah.

There you go. So the CIFA this is the this is the grand CIFA that I keep referring to. So it shows all of the city programs. We tend to order it in order of assistance listing number just for ease of keeping things in some sort of order. So CDBG housing is usually at the top. And so and you go down, you can see so this year's programs that we tested were both FEMA programs. One was the let's see. A disaster. The 1.2 yeah. The 3.4 lens on there, the safer program, which was for your fire hiring grant program.

Mhmm.

And then the other was the FEMA disaster grant. So 1,200,000, which is an odd one because none of those expenditures were actually incurred during fiscal twenty four. FEMA grants are one of those off. You know, they they tend to be they use the the rules of when the when FEMA obligates the funds. So you've asked for the money back in twenty twenty, twenty one, and, you know, all these years.

Way back when. And when FEMA finally obligates the money, that triggers when it goes on to the CEFA. And so you'll see so about 95% of the money comes on to this fiscal year CEFA, then there are two little components that'll be on next year's CEFA because those weren't obligated until fiscal twenty five. That's I'm working on a '22 and a '23 audit, so please bear with me if I say the wrong fiscal year right now. You don't have to worry it. Yes. So so that's where we get that 6.872, and these are the two tested programs. And, again, the one SAFR hadn't been tested in the last two years, and then FEMA probably also hadn't been tested in the the last two years. I said it was COVID funding, but, well, actually, the FEMA one was. But still, it's Right.

It's not that they hadn't been tested. And so with those two programs, the way the dollars, you can see that it's a significant portion of the 6,800,000. So we were not required. We have to test depending on whether the city's considered high risk or low risk. Again, there's different criteria that go into that. Either 20% or 40% of the total CEFA numbers. It didn't in in a sense, it didn't even matter because those two provided well over that just with the two programs, and none of the other programs were deemed we have to do more assessments, high risk, low risk. We didn't even have to go that far because there were no yeah. It's it's a complex formula, but we didn't have to go farther than that than those two programs. So with that, the results of the audit this year, we had no current year federal award compliance findings.

And there is one prior year compliance finding related to the Community Development Block Grant program, and the current status is included in your packet in what's called the summary schedule of prior year audit findings or SSPAF. And that document so there are two documents that CAP, corrective action plan, which is for current year findings. It's not the corrective. And then SSPAF, which is for prior year findings. And so they hang on until the until the answer is implemented.

And so this said that the prior year CDBG program finding technically has been implemented. It's just that it was accepted by HUD. Was it October or December '24? So it didn't happen before June 30. So we couldn't call it you know, we all know it's been implemented in a sense that HUD accepted the publicity's plan, but it's not something that's gonna happen overnight. You know, it's gonna be something that's gonna happen over time. So we'll have to talk next year. I don't I don't think it needs to hang on in the SSPAF next year, but we'll talk about that when we get to the 25 audit. You know, just from that if HUD's accepted it, that kind of closes the door on it. But You know? And so yeah.

But it's a timing issue.

Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. So my mind, it goes away. We'll we'll talk, you know, and then we always follow-up, you know, did HUD make any more communications, everything on on track, things like that. So then included in our audit in the single audit report are two different audit opinions. And now if you were to look at single audits in different entities, different cities and and entities, the the order of things and the format may be different, but the components are the same. And so our audit approach is or our report approach is, you know, the order you see here, and then two audit opinions. It can be split up into three. You can't you can't combine them into one.

They are still two different audit opinions, but there is a method of splitting them into three. But so we've got the two the two audit opinions. The first one, which is on page seven of the report or 11 of the PDF is what we call the financial statement opinion. So that tells you based on the AFPR, our our main audit of the city as a whole, the you know, whether we had any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in that work. And so it just it provides the the results of that audit again in this what's called this one's called the gas opinion, government auditing standards opinion or yellow book, if you've ever heard reference to the yellow book of federal it's a comp federal compliance compliance guidelines.

And so that our audit is conducted. We call it a yellow book audit. And so we had no from our audit, we had no material weaknesses or significant deficiencies to report. There was a significant deficiency related to SCSA audit. Oh my goodness. The Santa Clara oh my goodness. Stating authority. Wow. To all these acronyms. Yes. And so there was a yes. Exactly. There was a significant deficiency related to that audit report. And because it's in the umbrella of our ACFR audit opinion, we have to pull it in. If it's if there's a significant deficiency or a material weakness related to a component unit of the city that's under the umbrella of ACFR, we have to pull it into our memorandum on internal control.

And so that's why you see reference to that significant deficiency there, And that it's included in the in the CAP, the CAP corrective action plan for the current year. Yeah. But as far as we understand, it's already been implemented. It was implemented as part of that 03/31/2024 audit, but it's still just from timing and it being included in their audit. Have to include it.

And that's the Yes. Corrective notice we have here?

Yes. Got it. Yes.

And any questions on that from me? Sorry. I know staff presented exclusively on that or extensively on that for the last week.

Yes. And then then the second opinion is what is the uniform guidance or opinion on the single or excuse me, the federal award process, whether we had any compliance findings. And so that is on page where is it? I know Lynn is there, but I don't remember my page reference. There we go. Nine of the report or 13 of the PDF. And so we had no ex we had no compliance findings to report. So it's what we call a clean or unmodified opinion for that report.

Where the stadium was

Yeah. I can elaborate. Yeah. So KPM was our auditor for that document or the stadium authority. Yes. There was a implementation of a government ruling or GASB around leases, and so we've had a guidance from KPMG two years ago with regards to how they implement that that new accounting guidance.

So it's a new accounting.

It was two yeah. It was two there was a new accounting standard for leases. We had some guidance from them two years ago. They had some additional information they received. They actually talked to the and restated some of the the guidance that they had provided to us two years ago. So because it was a mistake a miss restatement of some of the numbers, that's that is considered a finding from it from the audit world. And so Okay. So that that'll be, you know, in the report this coming you know, for the next state Stadium Authority audit, just an update on that that that'll stick with us for two years, I think. Yeah. Is this a good time?

Yeah. So you because it was a finding last, you're just gonna stick stick with us. Yes. So that'll we'll talk about it again once before you. But that's that was basically the context of the restating it based on a new accounting standard for

Okay. Business. With the new system. Yes. I see council member Chohal has their his hand up. I apologize. Are you able to hear the entire discussion?

Yes. I'm able to hear. So I have a question on that. Like, how does it fall in the single audit report related to Stadium? Was it under some federal grant? Was it involved in that or that leasing thing we are talking about? Or how did that steady authority items fell into single audit report, basically?

Really good question. So we're required to issue two opinions in the single audit report. One is on government auditing standards related to our overall city financial statement audit, and then the second opinion is specific to the federal award programs. So this finding for the SCSA falls into that overall financial statement audit opinion, so it's related. And if you'll notice on page I think it's page nine or 10, the audit opinion or excuse me, the opinion date on that financial statement opinion is the same as the ACRA opinion.

It's not this March date that the single audit report. So that's why it's got that different opinion date of of November or October. And so that's why it falls in that umbrella. And just so you know, when we have recommendation, we or the SCA auditors have recommendations or findings that we have. They're in three buckets.

There could be material weaknesses, significant deficiencies, or other matters. So when it comes to the single audit report, the only ones that are considered findings in the single audit for financial statement purposes are material weaknesses and significant deficiencies. Other matters are not considered a finding in the single audit report. And then to muddy the waters a little bit, when it comes to federal award programs, if we were to have any findings related to the federal award programs, any finding is considered a finding. So there's financial statement findings, which are just material weaknesses and significant deficiencies, and then federal award compliance findings.

And so any of those are considered a finding, and then they are also put into those same the buckets of material weaknesses, significant deficiencies, or other matters, but it's just it's just a little different when it comes to that.

Thank you.

Sure. I know. It's a lot it's a lot to digest. So another place to go, you know, I brought you to the CEFA. And so my presentation is done. I'm ready for questions, but I wanted to bring you, since you're looking at the report, to page one, which I think is page four of the PDF, I think. I might be off on that one, Lynn.

It was right after the there's

It's the I'm looking for the schedule of findings and question calls this one. Yeah. There you go. That one. So that's always a good place to go. So it's page one of the report. And that's a good place to go that kinda gives you the overall picture Right. Of the results of the single audit report as well. So it's we have to report whether there were any material weaknesses, significant deficiencies, noncompliance material to the financial statements, and then you can see the second section of federal awards, whether there were any findings at all, and we had none to report. And it tells you which programs are the major programs and whether the, the dollar threshold to distinguish between type A and B programs.

Because when the city's CEPA gets very, very large, and I believe it's over $25,000,000, the percentage changes. And so that $750 threshold for major programs changes and then whether the city qualified as a low risk OTT, which it did this year.

And the yes that was marked was the significant deficiency. It was the change for SCA. Yep. Mhmm.

Exactly. That's what I thought. Yep. Right. Any questions? No. This is these are good good results.

Oh, I think usually the questions I ask are the staff, you know, responsive, and it seems like everything

Yes. We ask a lot. There's a lot of transactions to test with these programs, as you can imagine. You spent you spent 1 point was it $1,200,000 with lots of tiny transactions on this FEMA on the FEMA grant.

Just back then.

Yes. Just on the bench

way back in the Yes.

Added up. Yeah.

That added up to a lot

because of back from the Yes. Well Yeah. We're all happy not to be wearing

masks too. Very true.

Very true. When I got hit with a bottle of sanitizer at the high school accidentally, one of the kids threw it.

Oh god. Hit me in the eye. Lovely. So

so, yeah, there were all sorts of problems. Wonderful. Yes. Raj, any questions on this report?

Just not related to report, just from budgeting point of view. This being federal grant audit, who pays? General fund pays, or how do Citi pay for it? That's audit. Paying for the audit. Audit.

Well, we're required. So

Yeah. So so our contract with Mays, which covers our annual financial statement audit, also includes a single audit. It is paid for initially budgeted out of the general fund out of finances department. But through the cost allocation plan or overhead plan, a lot of those costs are spread along with our my accounting team's costs are spread through to all the other funds in the city just based on a fair share study of of overhead costs. And so mostly in the general fund, but I'd say a portion as as it relates to other funds is general audit and accounting services is is spread out.

Part of

our overhead. Yeah. Part of our overhead.

It's It's and I'm just gonna is I'm just gonna give an editorial comment on that. That's the most common way that it is applied because even though some of those grants we didn't test this year, they are still subject. They're being touched. They're being, you know, made sure that the dollar were tracing things to supporting documentation. And then also, even though you can charge audit costs to a lot of the grants, usually, you wanna spend most of the money on the program. So that's that's a decision that the cities Yeah. Will make in that case. Yeah.

Good point. Thanks.

That answered your question? Yes. Wanted to make certain. Now are there any other questions? I think I've got most of mine answered. Then we have for our action items, our general business. The recommendation is to accept the single audit report for the fiscal year ending 06/30/2024 and recommend that the reports are forwarded to note and file to the full council at the March 25 council and authorities concurrent meeting. I would suppose that which those would go on consent. Yes. Yes. Do I have a motion? I move the recommendation. Move the recommendation.

Second.

You'd like to second that. I have a motion on the table. I do have a I'm going to guess a public member. Wonderful. Welcome. Any any questions or comments on the motion?

Mostly, I I was interested in how you transfer my name.

So, typically, enterprise funds

I know what they are. It's what are they

Yeah. So what is it? Yeah. So our we have a separate report, which is our Citi financial statement audit at the end of the fiscal year. So the fiscal year ends June 30. We typically bring that to audit committee in the October November. November time frame, and that includes all our enterprise funds. It includes all the component units of of our city and the much more comprehensive report. That report is available online. But so today today's report is specific to federal grants that the city receives.

Okay. So how many I mean, how how is it chopped up? Your overall audit. Right now, you're you're part of Right. And then we have the enterprise funds will be.

Yeah. So the enterprise funds will be part of our city audit, which is in November. So Amy will also be here before the committee as well. And so Amy is our Amy Myers, our our external auditor from Mays and Associates, and she looks in. So

CPA from? Mhmm.

Yes. It is. Yeah. Yeah. And and so that'll be before this committee in November. And then separately, the Stadium Authority financial statements is also comes before this this

Is there any way that I can get a full deck, the whole audit process, and what's being audited and when?

I think that would be through the city clerk.

Yeah. So so what I what we can do maybe if I could take your contact information, if that's okay with the the chair. And then what I can do is work with the clerks and just what we do is we log all those all our public requests and then provide I think what we could provide is both the comprehensive audit itself and then the presentation that Amy did at the audit committee at the last meeting and and send that to you. Okay. Okay. Wonderful. So stick around, and I'll I'll go through.

And we can do that.

And you probably already know that all the prior audits are on the website and are public. Yes. So we can we can make sure we accept.

Somebody just put this in my case fifteen minutes ago.

Oh, okay. Sounds wonderful. You're welcome.

Well, thank you so much.

I'm excited and thrilled that someone in the public actually cares about the money because it's always all of the money.

I'm a CPA, I

get Okay. There you go.

And, also, wondering about deficit. What's going on there?

Okay. So that's that's we find ourselves. Sure. Sure. So so there question.

Who is the city the official city of Oregon?

Just so you you take. Okay. Now I'll take that.

Okay. So so for your first question, our budget. So I will present actually a budget update to the city council in early April, so in about three weeks to to give an update on the deficit. With regards to city auditors, I mean, we have several city auditors. Right? So we have Amy, who's our external city auditor for financial statements. We have KPMG, who's our Who's who's external In terms of the internal city auditor, currently, David Nose is our acting Yep. Audit manager. And and he also presents a work plan in in this committee as as well. And I think he's scheduled within the next several weeks to present his his work plan and and other reports.

Or if you wanna add anything to that.

Oh, so so I

I just say, this is a little off the topic, and I can see my attorney getting a little uncomfortable. So if we can

Who's the attorney? Yeah.

And that's why I jump in. We'll we'll hang around and pop you up. Yeah. I was just going to suggest if you could stick around for a few minutes so we can get your questions answered. Unfortunately, you missed the public presentation part. Yeah. Well, it's okay. But we wanna make certain your questions get answered. That's important.

And I I've audited multiple municipalities so I won't waste your time. So it'll be quick. Okay. The five questions.

Wonderful. Appreciate you being here. Okay. We have a motion on the table to accept the single audit and send that off to the city council. All in favor? Yes. Yes. And I vote yes, and that is that is accepted and will go on. Thank you so much. We will adjourn, and we will schedule a later date because we have so much fun

here.

Alright. Thank you so much.