Agenda - 02-16-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. ` ` '', �� • ` --`, ,, . ` 00504 -- - - - coOary ' - -� .'�` BOARD Action. Agenda . ~ � �_ ^" E-1 Item No. - A�iox aocon�` zor�1 ABSTRACT l -__-_- Subject: Audit Contract for Year Ending June 30, 1982 �p � rlogt yes_ X . r ] c�� oe�� nt: C? o «'^^.' � • ^nfor~^ '-� Contact: ' Thompson At ��e��i� Y�; - - 501 . PURPOSE: To consider selecting an accounting firm to do the FY 1981-82 audit. NEED: General Statute 150-34 requires each local government to have its accounts audited by an independent auditor after the close of each fiscal year. This way a unit's financial procedures and internal controls can be tested as to accuracy and reliability and whether they are in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, The audit concludes with a report that contains financial statements showing the unit's financial position together with the auditor's opinion and comments thereon. There is normally also a management letter which makes suggestions for improving procedures and controls. .-` _-- The same statute establishes certain requirements which among others induue: l. The auditors must be selected by and report to the Board. Z. The Board may select any certified public accountant or accountant certified by the Local Government Commission. 3. The audit contract must be in writing, setting out the terms and conditions including the scupe of the audit. The audit contract must be submitted to and aoproved by the secretary of the Local Government Commission. Likewise, the auditor's bills must be submitted for the secretary's approval before they may be paid. To aid in the Board's decision, information has been gathered from two auditing firms for doing the Orange County audit, They include the Greensboro office of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company (which has done the County's audits for the past 6 years) and Thomas, Knight, Trent, King & Company of 0u,ham. While comparison of the two firms is attached the Board may desire further information or even to issue a request for proposal by which still other firms may be contacted. A representative of each firm will be present to answer questions at the Board meeting. IMPACT: While selection of professional service should not be on the basis of "low bid", Thomas, Knight, Trent, King & Company does propose to develop all of the expected products at a more cost effective fee. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company estimates $29,500 with a qualification that the amount t if actual assistance is other than 'normal' is "subject to adjustment ac ua n . l'' . Trent, King & Company, on the other (Exhibit A, Page 2), Thomas, Knight, ren ` ng d« ^ .� effort hand, specifies a not to exceed amount of $22,500 and states very e r would be made to keep our time consistent with the requirements of the ~ This is to say the amount billed per hour could total less engagement." than the limit. RECOMMENDATION ALTERNATIVES: 1. Award contract to the firm of Thomas, Knight, Trent, King & Co' , and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract; or 2. Authorize invitation of further proposals.