Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
19 <br /> <br />project to its technical agenda to make improvements to the existing financial <br />reporting model (established via GASB 34). Improvements are meant to <br />enhance the effectiveness of the model in providing information for decision- <br />making and assessing a government’s accountability. <br />- Conceptual Framework is a constant matter being looked at by GASB. <br />Current measurement focus statements (for governmental funds) to change to <br />near-term financial resources measurement. May dictate a period (such as 60 <br />days) for revenue and expenditure recognition. May expense things such as <br />supplies and prepaid assets at acquisition. <br />- Revenue and Expense Recognition is another long-term project where the <br />GASB is working to develop a comprehensive application model for recognition of <br />revenues and expenses from non-exchange, exchange, and exchange-like <br />transactions. <br />- Conduit Debt. The GASB is looking at improving the definition of conduit debt <br />and determining whether a liability should be reported for these transactions. <br /> Other Changes <br />- There continues to be changes to auditing standards relative to the conduct <br />and reporting of Single Audits. This year’s financial and compliance audit <br />recognized the implementation of the new Uniform Grant Guidance (UG), which <br />included significant changes to cost principles and other requirements for <br />auditees receiving Federal funds. These changes are driven based on the grant <br />award date as awarded by the Federal agency. As such, auditors and <br />auditees will follow requirements from both the “old” and “new” guidance for a <br />few years to come. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 11, and asked if this is that just a change in the <br />way things get reported, or is there a substantive change in the County’s overall fiscal health. <br />James Bence said in short no, there was no change, but there is a new audit that the <br />County has to have. He said the State still requires auditors to come in and audit the eligibility <br />determination, but because it is not part of the County’s financial packet, the State requires <br />agreed upon procedures, which was a separate engagement that the Firm did with the County. <br />He said the results of this engagement were submitted to the State in October, citing no <br />instances of determination ineligibility. <br />Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the way things are done has changed, but the <br />underlying substantive outcomes shows that everything is in order. <br />James Bence said yes, in layman’s terms. He said the audit is still clean, and the <br />biggest takeaway would be to know that more of the County’s programs are going to be subject <br />to compliance review now than in the past. <br />Commissioner Marcoplos asked if these changes added additional expense to the <br />County for additional audits. <br />James Bence said yes. <br />Commissioner Greene referred to page 15, and asked if a cyber security risk <br />management program is costly to implement. <br />James Bence said he does not know if he can answer that question. He said the <br />process starts with a study and it may be able to be handled in house. He said his firm’s <br />greatest emphasis is placed on the County getting a policy in place. <br />Commissioner Greene said the County would need to commit to having a policy and <br />then find out how to implement it. <br />James Bence said yes.