2010-02-08 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to the next section, the Financial Section, which includes the Independent Auditors’ Report. Next was the Management’s Discussion and Analysis which gave a condensed financial summary in comparison of this year to the prior year. Mr. Williams stated that overall assets have increased and liabilities have decreased and total net assets have increased. Also noted in this section was Notes to Financial Statements, which included a summary of significant accounting policies, detailed note of cash and investments, capital assets, long term debt, retirement benefit plans, post employment benefits other than pensions, due from and due to other funds, interfund transfers, risk management, contingencies, restricted net assets, prior period adjustment and future accounting pronouncements. Next included in this section was the Required Supplemental Information Section which included revenue, expenditures, and changes in fund balance- budget and actual-general fund-budget basis. The next area was Other Supplemental Information which included special revenue funds of Olive East Tax Increment Financing District, Committee for Access and Local origination Programming (CALOP), University City Loop Special Business District, Parkview Gardens Special Business District, Sewer Lateral, Solid Waste (new), Economic Development and Pension Tax. The final section of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report was the Statistical Section which included financial trends, revenue capacity, debt capacity, demographic and economic information and operating information. The second report from Hochschild, Bloom was a report on Federal awards beginning with a report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on an audit of financial statements performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. Lastly Hochschild, Bloom had a list of schedule of management comments and recommendations. Mr. Price asked Mr. Williams if they stand by their audit when the state comes in to do their audit. Mr. Williams said they do quite a bit of governmental work and is not unusual for them to work with state auditors. He stated the State may take a look at what they did so as not to duplicate. Mr. Crow asked Mr. Williams how many other cities his firm performs this kind of audit. Mr. Williams did not know the actual number but said thirty or so. Mr. Crow asked Mr. Williams how many years his firm has done the City’s audit and he responded with eight or nine years. Mr. Crow asked Mr. Williams if he had worked on the audit all eight or nine years and if he had seen any progress. Mr. Williams stated they always have certain findings and has always been able to get information requested. Mr. Crow said what he was looking for, as the City continues to spend more money on financial software and beefing up the staff, his question was probably an improvement over the product they saw previously. Mr. Williams said this year was unique as we were struggling to get the final information with the implementation of the new software. Mr. Crow asked if Mr. Williams could spend a brief moment on the finding on material adjustments. Mr. Williams stated they did find material adjustments, which is not necessarily unusual. Mr. Crow asked Ms. Watson to supply how much that adjustment was. He asked about the unfunded liability amount on the pension plan as compared to other cities. Mr. Williams said the majority of his clients have seen a hit in the investments of the pension plans. Mr. Crow asked about the un-collateral issue of fifty thousand out of the eleven million three hundred thousand is less than one-half of one percent of all of the cash, so he assumed that it simply was corrected as soon as it was found. Mr. Williams stated he contacted the bank and they felt it was a small system problem and corrected it immediately. 3