Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-16-1982
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1982
>
Agenda - 02-16-1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/30/2017 11:10:29 AM
Creation date
12/14/2016 2:29:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/16/1982
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19820216
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1980's\1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
114
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
. ` ` '', <br /> �� <br /> • ` --`, ,, . ` <br /> 00504 <br /> -- - - - coOary ' - <br /> -� <br /> .'�` BOARD Action. Agenda . ~ � �_ ^" <br /> E-1 <br /> Item No. - <br /> A�iox aocon�` zor�1 ABSTRACT <br /> l <br /> -__-_- <br /> Subject: Audit Contract for Year Ending June 30, 1982 <br /> �p <br /> � rlogt yes_ X . r ] <br /> c�� <br /> oe�� nt: C? o «'^^.' � <br /> • <br /> ^nfor~^ '-� Contact: ' Thompson <br /> At <br /> ��e��i� Y�; <br /> - - 501 <br /> . <br /> PURPOSE: To consider selecting an accounting firm to do the FY 1981-82 audit. <br /> NEED: General Statute 150-34 requires each local government to have its accounts <br /> audited by an independent auditor after the close of each fiscal year. This <br /> way a unit's financial procedures and internal controls can be tested as to <br /> accuracy and reliability and whether they are in conformity with generally <br /> accepted accounting principles, The audit concludes with a report that <br /> contains financial statements showing the unit's financial position together <br /> with the auditor's opinion and comments thereon. There is normally also a <br /> management letter which makes suggestions for improving procedures and <br /> controls. <br /> .-` _-- <br /> The same statute establishes certain requirements which among others induue: <br /> l. The auditors must be selected by and report to the Board. <br /> Z. The Board may select any certified public accountant or <br /> accountant certified by the Local Government Commission. <br /> 3. The audit contract must be in writing, setting out the <br /> terms and conditions including the scupe of the audit. <br /> The audit contract must be submitted to and aoproved by <br /> the secretary of the Local Government Commission. Likewise, <br /> the auditor's bills must be submitted for the secretary's <br /> approval before they may be paid. <br /> To aid in the Board's decision, information has been gathered from two <br /> auditing firms for doing the Orange County audit, They include the <br /> Greensboro office of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company (which has <br /> done the County's audits for the past 6 years) and Thomas, Knight, Trent, <br /> King & Company of 0u,ham. While comparison of the two firms is attached <br /> the Board may desire further information or even to issue a request for <br /> proposal by which still other firms may be contacted. <br /> A representative of each firm will be present to answer questions at the <br /> Board meeting. <br /> IMPACT: While selection of professional service should not be on the basis of <br /> "low bid", Thomas, Knight, Trent, King & Company does propose to develop <br /> all of the expected products at a more cost effective fee. Peat, Marwick, <br /> Mitchell & Company estimates $29,500 with a qualification that the amount <br /> t if actual assistance is other than 'normal' <br /> is "subject to adjustment ac ua n . <br /> l'' . Trent, King & Company, on the other <br /> (Exhibit A, Page 2), Thomas, Knight, ren ` ng d« ^ .� effort <br /> hand, specifies a not to exceed amount of $22,500 and states very e r <br /> would be made to keep our time consistent with the requirements of the <br /> ~ This is to say the amount billed per hour could total less <br /> engagement." <br /> than the limit. <br /> RECOMMENDATION ALTERNATIVES: <br /> 1. Award contract to the firm of Thomas, Knight, Trent, King & Co' , and <br /> authorize the Chairman to execute the contract; or <br /> 2. Authorize invitation of further proposals. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.