[0:23] that% we're pretty small in the big picture.

[0:27] Hang on, hang on, hang on. One thing

[0:50] I sure >> I would like to call this joint workshop

[0:55] with the county commission and the and the MTA board to order at 10:34 on

[1:01] Thursday, August 27th and we will start this meeting and we

[1:05] have in attendance we have our finance director Chantel Lindseay, Commissioner

[1:10] Mccertie, Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner Mcan, Commissioner

[1:13] Winfield, We have our MTAB chair Wendell and uh myself, Commissioner McCless.

[1:21] And the intent for the meeting today is to review the outdoor recreation

[1:24] mitigation grant application with our tourism advisory board.

[1:32] You want to take it away? >> Um no. Well, I'm we have only just been

[1:37] presented with the application um this morning. Um and so going through it very

[1:43] quickly. One of the MTAB um and our letter dated um October the 16th last

[1:50] year, our recommendations to the um commission, our priorities, the number

[1:57] one priority was mitigation. >> Um and um so this is in fitting with our

[2:03] priorities of making sure that priority for the county. And so while

[2:08] with HP456 and the change in H1456 um this new grant allows us additional

[2:15] mitigation of the emergency services funds and so with that I think you guys

[2:20] have been working very diligently on this application and this is the first

[2:23] time we've actually >> cherry do you mind if I give a small

[2:26] background? >> Sure. I do want to note that we have um

[2:29] Councilman Taylor that just joined us. He is also an MTA member.

[2:34] » Perfect. Yeah. Thanks. So the uh um the the grant that we're talking about came

[2:39] about by uh um from HB456. There was an additional quarter% of tax

[2:44] that we passed here as a county. And so part of that quarter% of tax went into

[2:50] this outdoor mitigation grant which is supposed to help out uh uh uh mitigating

[2:55] the impacts of tourism or helping with essential services is kind of the way

[2:59] that I've always looked at it. Um, you know, we started, um, in the MTA board.

[3:05] We had a a presentation on this. We brought department heads in. We talked

[3:09] to folks about making sure that, um, they were collecting the data that was

[3:13] going to be required for this uh, ahead of time. Both the sheriff's office, um,

[3:17] solid waste and um, um, EMS as well were all present at that meeting. Um we had

[3:24] follow-up meetings uh individually with each department head and we also um had

[3:28] a big uh meeting here with all the department heads letting them know um of

[3:33] this grant kind of coming up. Um the the high level of this grant right here is

[3:38] that there's going to be a uh um a d a reimbursement for search and rescue

[3:45] primarily EMS and then um and then any road repairs that were required as of

[3:51] safety cost. Um, the priorities in the grant list those emergency costs first

[3:56] and then there's a second bucket left over. It's about a $6.6 million fund

[4:02] from what I've been told right now. And so if there is anything left over in the

[4:06] state, it will go into a second bucket which will be a visitor related safety

[4:11] cost which would cover your highway um non-emergency solid waste and law

[4:16] enforcement. So that's kind of the the breakdowns of those two buckets. The

[4:21] priority ranking on that will be uh um communities that are smaller in size and

[4:27] then communities that have larger um that have larger uh uh um essential

[4:33] service impacts, right? And then the third criteria on that is um that are

[4:38] unable to meet that financial burden. Uh that's right there. So, you know, as we

[4:43] go through this, we have a couple of uh numbers from this grant that I'll just

[4:47] highlight. So right now um our SAR uh um costs that were identified were 242,367.

[4:57] The EMS um costs that were identified were $695,000.

[5:03] The highway road repairs that were identified as safety cost. And so an

[5:08] example of that is, you know, there's there's road repair that we do and then

[5:12] there's road repair that needs to be done because there could be um safety uh

[5:17] concerns by having to go around that. A good example would be like the Onion

[5:21] Creek, right? Having to go out there and do that emergency repair on Onion Creek,

[5:25] right? Because you had people that were trapped behind their equipment and

[5:28] things like that. So a little bit more geared towards visitor safety than just

[5:33] standard road repair. Um, and that came in at about $250,000.

[5:37] So that's bucket one. That's so that sits at about 1 point 1.2ish

[5:42] million when you add that up. And then bucket two would be uh $750,000

[5:49] that's listed for highway repairs. Um 8.5 million that's listed for solid

[5:54] waste and then 1.6 million that's uh listed for law enforcement services. And

[6:01] that's a a conservative estimate right there on our law enforcement. So that

[6:06] would be considered in there for bucket two right there. Um, one of the things

[6:10] I'd just like to consider or maybe look at putting in this grant. Um, so I think

[6:15] that we all understand that number one, right, we qualify as being a small

[6:19] community, right? 10,000 people. So we are one of the smaller communities that

[6:22] will be eligible for this grant. Um, number two is I think that everybody

[6:27] could see the cost or the size of our uh uh essential services to this community.

[6:32] Um, but I think that the easiest way to to really see the financial uh uh uh uh

[6:38] strain that the county is under with this really is to look to see how we

[6:42] used our TRCCA this year um to fund essential services. Um you know, in

[6:48] previous years we have used our TRCCA for for other services throughout the

[6:52] county. Um, so it's it's it is worth noting this year that we did use our our

[6:56] TRCCA for that. So it shows that that those are growing cost and it's it will

[7:03] be nice to see some of those funds be able to come back and reimburse those

[7:06] costs moving forward. >> Recommended that um in our letter last

[7:11] year be able to use TRCCA towards mitigation. Yeah,

[7:14] » correct. Well, and anyways, I hope that that helps provided and not even

[7:19] tonight.

[7:23] So we're going to go through or I mean the application. So we just

[7:29] went over the all the numbers. Yeah. [laughter]

[7:33] » I just I mean the one obviously solid waste at 8 point if that sounds what

[7:38] kind of funds are available if it's they're asking for 8.5

[7:42] » 6 million dollars available. But I think that what this does is it gives the

[7:47] state a really good idea of what does it cost or communities to hatch their

[7:52] » and so even though we won't be getting $8.5 million but you know our our

[7:57] landfill is about ready to close our one and so we are looking at getting land

[8:03] for our um transfer station and that's I would imagine this is part of that

[8:07] expense is is to expand that transfer station.

[8:10] » So it's a future need just showing the need. Yep. Showing the need. I think

[8:13] it's important too for a lot of people to understand who might be, you know,

[8:16] watching later or that this is um cannot replace anything that we're currently

[8:22] doing. So this is not like basically money that we're trying to replace what

[8:26] we're currently spending. This is in addition to. So we're having to show

[8:29] that um the amount of TRT we're using towards mitigation does not cover

[8:33] everything. So for the general public to know this is an additional funds the

[8:38] state and this is not we're not raising this money. the state is this is that

[8:41] additional TRT that the state is raising and so um it's important to kind of

[8:47] reconcile between the two doesn't change how we're going to recommend our TRTS

[8:51] been for next year it doesn't change how um our recommendations this just allows

[8:55] us that secondary fund um to be able to fund our central services better

[9:00] » yeah I think it's key to show that it sorry Jason it's it's key to show that

[9:04] this is >> unreimbured expenses from visitor

[9:08] visitor so it's unpaid visitor are related expenses when you look at EMS

[9:13] and searching rest. So those are those two pieces that this is money that we

[9:17] spent and that we did not get recouped. >> Yeah. Yeah. Our application is basically

[9:22] to demonstrate need and so that's what this is about. The there are some that

[9:26] are I mean to be determined determine the amount. Um I just know that there's

[9:32] like an EMS to provide it with actual do they is this a general so like under the

[9:37] EMS section it just talks about Grand County will be provided with X number of

[9:41] dollars but it doesn't have a line item there do we something to be determined

[9:45] » that part out maybe yeah that very top line I

[9:50] page five page uh five just has blank so

[9:56] » it says um so this is I think to the county if Um, will any portion of the

[10:01] requested funding be shared with or used by a special service district? And we

[10:04] said yes. So then it said if yes, identify the entity, amount, purpose,

[10:08] and the role. So Grant County MS would be provided with blank. And I think we

[10:12] do need to still fill those in and solid waste would be provided with blank.

[10:16] » I think we need to put percentages of the reimbursement because we don't know

[10:19] how much they're going to give us. So, so I don't know what the commissioners

[10:23] think or or um administrator, but I would imagine that this would be like,

[10:27] you know, em write 100% of their revenue and then special district would also be

[10:32] 100% because if that they're going to give us money for that

[10:36] » uh transfer station, >> how we dedicate uh percentages without

[10:40] knowing the amount and or deciding the amount per

[10:44] » because per groups >> be by each entity. We'd be getting money

[10:48] by each entity by percentage. >> Yeah. And I disagree with that,

[10:51] Commissioner McCandless. Um, you know, the the commission here, we put what was

[10:54] it? $350,000 last year towards EMS costs. We also put another $90,000

[11:00] towards the funding of a new ambulance as well. So, those were costs right here

[11:04] that the that the that the uh commission actually took out of the mitigation

[11:07] right now. So, I would think that, you know, rather than using a percentage

[11:10] that we would say that it is, you know, in excess of these funds right here,

[11:16] something like that. And and same way when we look at solid waste as well. So

[11:19] rather than saying, you know, we're going to give solid waste, you know,

[11:22] $500,000, it would be, you know, we're going to replace the 300, what was it,

[11:27] I'm sorry, 500,000 that we that we uh allocated this year to solid waste right

[11:32] here. So that those funds are available for all of the other mitigation uh uh uh

[11:36] needs that the county has.

[11:40] even if it was to the uh to the tune of solid waste

[11:47] 500,000 back. But we we can go excess of we can we can go past that with the uh

[11:56] with the funds being replaced. We can decide again to give them another

[12:00] 500,000 out of the remaining mitigation past this grant. But

[12:05] » yeah, we can just give put it back into >> or put it back into mitigation as a

[12:10] total work. >> Yep. And then we can allocate our

[12:12] mitigation from there. >> I believe that's why that's still empty.

[12:14] We don't have a specific. >> Yeah,

[12:20] » Jason had a comment. >> I was just going to say exactly what you

[12:23] what you said. So [clears throat]

[12:29] » I can speak on behalf of um EMS when he is doing this research.

[12:33] that in our board meeting the other day, uh we talked about how we've always

[12:38] thought that visitors um calls are 40% and locals are 60%. But as he was doing

[12:43] this research that even though the calls out 40% of the calls are are um tourists

[12:50] and 60% are local, but the time and expenses is actually opposite. So for

[12:54] those 40% of calls, you're getting 60% of the expenses and for those 60% of

[12:59] calls, it's 40% of the expenses. So really it is lopsite. So when the

[13:03] community says, "Well, tourists are costing us more money." It it really is

[13:07] true. Even though we have that 40% call volume to 60% call volume, that expenses

[13:12] are actually different because of the the time spent and the services that are

[13:16] and I'm sure that search well majority is um

[13:20] » sure >> always has shown as majority.

[13:23] » No, I I I don't disagree with that at all. Uh the only thing that I'm saying

[13:27] is is that I think that that our job as the commission is to define where that

[13:31] need is right because right now what we are we were seeing and what we are

[13:35] saying in this is that there is more need than there are funds available

[13:38] right and so if you know search and res I'm sorry if EMS has just gotten a a new

[13:44] tax right and their their need now is less right now than someone else who

[13:49] does not have the ability as a taxing entity to pull something up right we

[13:52] want to make we might want to make sure that we are you're allocating ating

[13:56] those funds to where the need is greatest rather than rather than uh

[14:00] based on a percentage. Do we have the total amount of all these to with the

[14:05] sheriff and the total amounted with the 8.5 and the 1.5

[14:09] » it comes to like 1.18 is what I added up um

[14:14] » and then the total I'm sorry with each one of the amounts that we're requesting

[14:18] the total amount >> the total amount right here would be uh

[14:22] 12 million289,000

[14:26] » and do we have any idea of what other um counties are doing in terms of their

[14:32] requests like are they >> 24 million right now just look because

[14:37] they can look at what people are maybe not haven't submitted yet but what they

[14:41] can look at what they're working on and he mentioned and he's the chair of that

[14:44] board so our uh he mentioned that it was at 24 million okay

[14:48] » for the communities >> 24 million the total of the be required

[14:54] » and that was part of the intent of this as well was to start at a state level to

[14:59] be able to actually get a grip on what the what the emergency service costs are

[15:04] for the state um based on tourism. So that is one of the parts of of this and

[15:09] hopefully you know this will be moving into you know legislation into the

[15:13] future that helps fund some of these services and we start being able to use

[15:16] these numbers a little bit more effectively. So when yeah if I can just

[15:20] say like when we were first like I kind of talked a lot when when this bill was

[15:25] getting created and stuff and um that's why they they put that formula in here

[15:30] you know that it was like for EMS and search and rescue and stuff like how

[15:34] many calls did you go on you know how many of those calls did and then of

[15:37] those calls what were your what were you reimbursed and what were you not

[15:41] reimbursed according to what your costs were and this was supposed to kind of

[15:45] help or make up those costs that weren't recovered. you know, so like EMS,

[15:51] um, someone gets hurt on the white rim or something like that, they have to

[15:54] send an ambulance, but then a helicopter goes and picks them up. We still had to

[15:58] send an they still had to send an ambulance up there. They they're not

[16:00] billing for that. And I was trying to cover those costs of what it would what

[16:05] they spent to drive out there and they had a non-revenue call or whatnot. So,

[16:11] and so that's why I think that yeah, part of that was to have this um this

[16:16] criteria where these where these districts are or people that are

[16:20] applying were supposed to say this is what we this is how many calls we did.

[16:23] This is what we got reimbured and this is the difference and this is what we're

[16:25] asking the state for is that difference. >> Yeah. And also um you know in in in

[16:30] federal discussions as well um one of the discussions right now is so when we

[16:35] look at our mitigation and how our essential services are are funded here

[16:39] in the county right they're funded by folks who stay at hotels right so the

[16:45] the people who stay inside of hotels fund our county's entire essential

[16:49] services or not entirely but the lion share of our essential services are

[16:54] funded by people staying in hotels. However, we have what is that like 6,000

[16:59] campsites inside of Grand County, right? And those folks do not pay anything into

[17:04] essential services. And if you actually think about it, um they are the they are

[17:09] the larger users of the uh of the resource. Uh think of the the garbage

[17:14] that you actually create when you're out camping compared to the garbage that you

[17:17] create when you're staying at a hotel. Um also think of the user groups, right?

[17:21] the people who stay inside of hotels as opposed to the folks that are out uh in

[17:26] the back country, right, camping. They're more likely to be actually using

[17:29] the search and rescue services than folks staying inside the hotels. So, on

[17:34] a larger lay uh uh conversation, this will help give us some numbers when

[17:39] we're having those talks on how do we get folks who are at those campsites to

[17:43] start paying their fair share, right? Because that's what it really all comes

[17:46] down to. We just want to make sure that folks are being able or we have a

[17:49] mechanism to say, hey, we want everyone to pay their fair share about the

[17:52] services. >> I think this is a great first step, too,

[17:55] because this is the first um Sorry, just Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mary.

[18:00] » I just had a question. My understanding is that uh like commercial RV camps and

[18:07] such do pay TRT. It's uh just um >> BLM and Foresters.

[18:15] » That's right. That's >> we have worked I worked really closely

[18:19] with John C and it is >> it's a very difficult to uh

[18:28] get uh [clears throat] federal agencies don't pay taxes.

[18:33] » So it we kept hitting a wall. We spent a lot of time, especially my first few

[18:38] years, trying to get so that we could get more money for our But the nice

[18:43] thing about the BOM campgrounds and such is all the money stays here. None of the

[18:49] money goes out of Grant County, but Okay. I just got you when you were

[18:54] saying that none of the campers I was saying, wait, I thought

[18:57] » I've been on the federal lands. >> Okay, that that I just needed that

[19:00] clarification. >> Yep. Oh, that's good. And then, you

[19:02] know, just just moving that forward, right? It's how do we come up with a

[19:06] formula, right? So that inside of their fee structure, right, we can include

[19:10] those fees in the fee structure that they're paying at the camp at the box,

[19:14] right? And then figuring out a a mechanism that we can retain those fees

[19:18] so that we can provide those services because we are providing services to

[19:22] people that are camping on federal lands, right, to those folks. And that's

[19:26] and that's really what we're trying to figure out. And these numbers, I think I

[19:29] think right here will be very helpful in moving those conversations forward. And

[19:33] I think that's a great idea. I just know it's complicated.

[19:37] » It was tough. Yeah. >> I moved.

[19:39] » I was just gonna say this is probably a long overdue process for all of these

[19:43] departments to kind of now having to have these line items to show, you know,

[19:48] what's what's actual tourist related and what they're being paid for and what

[19:51] they're not. And also um just a this is the first grant. This is the first time

[19:58] it's ever available. So this is I think the state is probably also figuring this

[20:03] out as well in terms of how this is going to work. So it doesn't I don't

[20:07] think everything has to be perfect but I think you know we have to be as close to

[20:10] you know what we want as possible. Um but I think it's a great step towards uh

[20:14] future grants and you just in terms of what we recommend for what TRT is spent

[20:19] on now that we have more of an idea you know that u actual spend on uh choice

[20:24] related costs.

[20:28] Mike, >> with that $1.8 million hand out, uh, we

[20:35] look like we Grant County has the biggest handout to this. I mean, with a

[20:39] 22 22 to $23 million total ask, $24 million ask. Grant County's share of

[20:47] it's going to be or I mean our handout's going to be 12.8 million.

[20:52] » Well, there's only million available. >> Is that horrible?

[20:56] » Yeah. I mean, >> well, the local horrible in a way. Yeah,

[20:58] we're asking for half of the, but I don't know if all of them are done. That

[21:02] was just kind of where it was at right now. So, could that be more money being

[21:05] asked for? >> Well, I just wonder counties. We we they

[21:09] add up, >> but only certain counties are allowed to

[21:11] go for this. You have to have specific uh and and I think Brian lined them out

[21:15] at the beginning. I don't have them memorized, but only specific counties

[21:17] can go for this grant. It's not available to all 29 counties.

[21:21] » Yeah. >> And um

[21:22] » fourth through six class. Four through six class. Go ahead.

[21:25] » Yep. And so we um >> so we don't know what that final goal

[21:31] » and it does seem like a lot. I think $12 million sounds like a huge ask if we're

[21:34] ask if that's half of the amount of all the counties that are asking but I also

[21:38] think it shows a need and that's the purpose in a way is collecting that data

[21:42] to say what is the tourism cost in these >> in this grant application. Are we

[21:47] clearly stating that this is this is the need not the ask? There's it's broken

[21:52] down like into two buckets, right? So bucket one is your uh emergency cost,

[21:57] right? And so those are going to be prioritized first, but every county will

[22:01] have basically their emergency cost in bucket one. Ours comes to about 1.2

[22:07] million on that bucket. Okay. >> Okay. So from that they will go and they

[22:11] will say okay uh Grant County has 1.2. The other I don't know 20 counties that

[22:17] are possibly available for this, right? they have these these funds when they're

[22:21] when they're deciding who gets priority on that. They'll start with the smaller

[22:26] communities go first. Number two will be uh uh and so then they'll come up with

[22:31] all the smaller communities and then the second thing that they'll say is okay

[22:34] who had the largest amount of tourism, right? And so those those numbers are

[22:39] asked inside of here. So we'll put the uh visitation numbers and the uh uh uh

[22:43] the needs inside there next. Right? So that's number two on the criteria. And

[22:48] then if there's still, you know, more demand than there are funds available,

[22:53] they'll look at, hey, whose financial need was unable to meet their mitigation

[22:57] costs. And so that's why when I saying at the beginning of the meeting, we just

[23:00] want to make sure that we highlight the fact that this year we did put $1.5

[23:05] million more than previous years, right, into essential services than we had done

[23:12] in, you know, in in in the years past, right? So that also shows that there is

[23:16] that financial need right there. And then the rest of it, that bucket too,

[23:20] right? It's it's it's going to be huge because it's all kinds of things, road

[23:24] repair, solid waste, all of these other things for these other counties. That

[23:28] that that bucket is going to be large, right? But it will be broken down into

[23:32] those two, you know, visitor related safety cost and then just visitor cost.

[23:38] » It's almost Yeah, it's almost time to wrap up the meeting. We have an 11

[23:41] o'clock, but Okay. Yes. But um I think we make sure the MTAB has we'll go to

[23:45] Stephen next after you've make sure MTAB has the information that you

[23:49] » and just very quickly I don't know if it's applicable anywhere in the

[23:52] application but to mention um how the percentage of of CRT that Grant County

[23:58] brings in is far greater than any of the uh counties will probably be competing

[24:03] with. So I don't know if that's something that is relevant or we can put

[24:06] into the >> That's what I was going to ask like is

[24:08] is there like a formula like you put X amount in are you subject to get X

[24:14] amount out because of that percentage or >> I think that's why there's priority two

[24:18] inside there but yeah I mean so you know we [clears throat] could sit and do the

[24:21] math it's a 0.25% tax right we roughly are are budgeting right around 10

[24:28] million we're budgeting right around 10 million bucks this year in TRT. Okay.

[24:33] And then and 33% of that is going into this grant. So I mean we can tell we can

[24:38] find out exactly what we put into this grant. Right.

[24:41] » Right. And and hopefully we're getting that plus. Yeah.

[24:44] » Right. >> If we go over $10 million we aren't we

[24:46] don't get to qualify for this grant though. Right.

[24:49] » Correct. >> Yeah.

[24:50] » So if our goes up then we would be excluded. And I did and I did do the

[24:56] math actually on that as well if you're interested which is it's it's a it's a

[25:00] from 10 million to 12 million. That's where the delta is if and I and I

[25:04] actually use the 1.2 million right there as far as you know. So between 10

[25:09] million and 12 million is where that delta is at 12 million basically in TRT.

[25:14] Yeah. Then we once again start positive on that.

[25:22] » Okay. Did Chantel did you have a number? No.

[25:27] » Okay. [laughter] Okay.

[25:30] » Just just an inquiry. Do we know what percentage and this may be something

[25:34] that you guys could talk about what percentage of the total pool that we're

[25:38] pulling from >> is generated by the county by county.

[25:46] Once we have that value, I do think that would be an important thing to add to

[25:49] the letter and say Marian County generates X percentage of it just to

[25:52] call it out. Not that that makes us entitled to it, but it does

[25:56] » just points that >> I would hope that that's that board has

[26:00] well when the board's making those decision

[26:07] » but I need to learn. Ask Andy all about it whenever he

[26:11] » It's a quarter% for people.

[26:14] » Yeah. >> 10,250,000.

[26:19] » 250,000. So

[26:21] » then we don't want to figure it out. >> That's all we got.

[26:26] » Okay. >> All right.

[26:28] » Thank you. And then just in terms of whatever

[26:34] we have to move, don't we have? >> Yeah, we're gonna move. So, we're going

[26:36] to take a short recess and we're going to Are we going to do a motion?

[26:40] » No, we don't do a motion this meeting. This is a workshop.

[26:43] » Oh, okay. >> We'll do a motion in our meeting. We're

[26:45] going to move into moving the letter in our meeting.

[26:48] » Oh, okay.

[26:51] » Break down tables.

[26:56] » What?

[29:47] I'd like to call the special meeting of the Grand County Commission to order at

[29:50] 11:03 on August 27th. And with that, I would like to stand for the pledge of

[29:57] allegiance.

[30:02] to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it

[30:07] stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all

[30:16] » and those in attendance today are commission commissioner man commissioner

[30:20] mccertie commissioner bill myself commissioner mas our county attorney

[30:25] Stephen Sts County administrator Mark Tanner our assistant deputy categor.

[30:35] And with that, we'll get to

[30:43] So, our first order of business today is um commission members disclosures and

[30:48] future considerations.

[31:19] Okay, Mike >> disclosure for the sheriff's department.

[31:23] » My son works for uh SP. >> Okay, thank you. And moving on to number

[31:29] three is the consideration of approval of the outdoor recreation mitigation

[31:32] grant application. We just had a workshop with the MTAB as we discussed

[31:38] this grant. Does anyone have any more comments about

[31:41] it? >> Yeah, I just like to see if we there was

[31:46] a way that we could add in a statement that you know uh um for the 2025 budget

[31:52] um that we did allocate all of our TRT mitigation towards essential services as

[31:59] well as our TRCC

[32:03] I'm going to enter the letter. >> Correct. Yeah.

[32:06] » Okay. You can make a motion to that. >> I can

[32:10] » I move to approve submission of the OMG grant application as presented with the

[32:16] addition of Commissioner Martinez's comments. How does that work? Perfect.

[32:24] » That was Chief. >> Okay. Second by Mike.

[32:27] Any other discussion?

[32:33] All in favor

[32:36] that passes. Five2 absent.

[32:42] Moving on to number four is a consideration of our 2025 financial

[32:47] audit results. I believe we have our auditor here with us and oh we have Gabe

[32:52] as well. Our code auditor that joined us. Gabe White Tech. Thank you.

[32:58] What do we want to start with this one? Richie May, do you want to

[33:06] Mike introduce yourself? >> Okay. Hi, my name is Mike Whipple. I'm a

[33:10] director with Richie May and and been involved, you know, throughout the audit

[33:15] process this year for Grand County. And if you're okay with that, I'll go

[33:18] through some highlevel points to the financial statements. and then you know

[33:22] feel free to interrupt me at any time with you know more detailed questions

[33:25] and we can and see where our discussion leads us if that's okay with you.

[33:32] » Okay, wonderful. Okay, I'm going to open up on my open on my screen here a copy

[33:36] of the PDF that we emailed out last night that reflected updates after the

[33:42] you know a couple of minor corrections after the audit committee went through

[33:45] the financials yesterday and we appreciate their input there and may

[33:49] also say you know really appreciate you know Gabe and his team and all that the

[33:53] work and time and you know effort took to respond to all requests and questions

[33:57] as we go through the audit. It's a it is a rigorous pro process and we appreciate

[34:00] all their help and and want to acknowledge that.

[34:05] So going to financials to hit you know the highest level points first you know

[34:08] I'm going to go to page five of the PDF which is the independent auditor's

[34:13] report you know which is um the I mean the really after after all the work and

[34:19] effort this I mean this is kind of the end result of of it all you know and

[34:23] this is you the wording here is pretty is mostly standard for for a government

[34:28] and reflects a clean audit opinion again that's a you know great job to everyone

[34:33] that's a you going through and answering all our

[34:36] questions and getting there and having everything in a state where we can get

[34:40] get comfortable, you know, with the books and get a clean opinion there. One

[34:45] item to call out that's, you know, not standard wording is on page at the

[34:49] bottom of page five, we've emphasis of the matter and we and in in the course

[34:54] of our audit, we looked at, you know, a liability on your books for some

[34:58] deferred revenue. So, an old COVID era grant that been there for a few years.

[35:02] As we look through the grant, look through the requirements of the grant,

[35:05] looked through the, you know, the rules to recognize revenue for that grant, we

[35:11] determined that it should have been recognized as revenue in a previous

[35:13] year. And so these financials have been updated to reflect as if that grant had

[35:18] been recognized in revenue prior to the 2025, you know, year. And so that didn't

[35:24] affect net income this year. It did affect your, you know, beginning net

[35:29] position on the balance sheet. And there there are other parts of financials that

[35:33] refer to this. So we can discuss it more now. We can discuss it more later as I

[35:37] you know come to those sections too if if desired.

[35:41] » Um are you able to discuss that now? >> I'd be happy to.

[35:47] » Okay. So that I think I'm going to go to

[35:55] let's I mean I guess there's not a whole lot more to what to say there other than

[36:00] it I mean it was well let's see I'm going to go to page 20 actually or no

[36:06] page 21 excuse me. So page 21 that has the amount there. It was about it was

[36:10] about $6 million and in a in a past year it had been received and got gone to

[36:16] your you received the cash and so that increased your cash account and the

[36:20] offset was to a liability you know called unearned re revenue where where

[36:23] it will sit where it would sit until it was recognized into revenue. And this

[36:28] particular grant, you know, we looked at the requirements and there's nothing

[36:32] that said that you need to wait, you know, for to for you to spend it for you

[36:37] to recognize that revenue. And so that that was an error in a past year that

[36:41] that wasn't caught that, you know, we >> money was to be spent.

[36:47] » Sorry, could you repeat your question, please, Commissioner?

[36:50] » Microphone. >> Use microphones.

[36:51] » Oh, yep. Thanks, Mike. Can you go over the requirements of how that money was

[36:56] to be spent? I wasn't a commissioner when uh back in COVID when this was

[37:00] awarded. >> Okay. Yeah, I'd be happy to. Brandon,

[37:03] would you I see Brandon Kais from my office is also join us. Brandon, would

[37:06] you be okay to speak to the, you know, purpose of that grant, you know, that

[37:10] had the restatement on the 2025 financial statements.

[37:14] » Um [clears throat] yeah, so I I reviewed it high level, but I the one who

[37:20] reviewed it is not with us right now. uh he's on PTO but my understanding is it's

[37:25] a co relief grant that when the funds were brought in uh back in 22 23 there

[37:32] are different tranches of it uh meant for um just to continue to help with

[37:38] some of the efforts on co uh during that time frame. Uh so we saw the money come

[37:43] in uh we believe the money had been earned because of the triggering

[37:47] requirements in that grant. Um, but if you if we need to get to further

[37:51] details, I can maybe get you a a better synopsis of that maybe after this

[37:56] meeting where where they were actually spent uh because that that individual

[37:59] would have that information.

[38:03] » Yesterday you made a statement that um the county uh uh uh deferred to 20 uh uh

[38:10] the funds from 24 to 25. Um would that have been done in 24? because as a

[38:16] commissioner I never deferred funds from 24 to 25. And so I just want to know

[38:21] where that decision was made or who made that decision. And when you say the

[38:24] county, I I I imagine you're speaking to this body.

[38:31] Uh I we know that it was deferred in 2024.

[38:35] I believe it was deferred prior to that as well, though. Uh if you want to give

[38:39] me just one minute, I can quickly check that for you.

[38:43] And I guess part of what was brought up yesterday when we were discussing it, we

[38:47] you know we as as auditors required to reach out whenever we have a restatement

[38:52] to reach out to the predecessor auditor which in this case was Larson company

[38:55] and bring to their attention you know the you know our reasons for wanting to

[39:00] restate and you know and getting their I mean sort of getting their input on it

[39:07] and you know I don't think he intended it to be necessarily read out loud word

[39:10] for word. We did communicate with John Hatterley who who led the audit last

[39:14] year and brought this to his attention and brought our reasons for restating

[39:18] and his comment was that he agreed on the the recognition and and restatement.

[39:23] you know, he his documentation indicated that indicated that the county preferred

[39:28] to defer until 2025 when they spent the funds to rec recognize it and but he

[39:35] didn't have more detail on that and I guess at this time I don't have more

[39:39] detail on the reason why there was a preference at a time to defer it but

[39:44] that didn't jive with the accounting rules that you know govern

[39:49] » with this commission right here the uh statement yesterday from for Mr. happily

[39:53] was I should have caught this.

[39:57] » The the [clears throat] LA CTF funds, I might have that

[40:04] abbreviation incorrect, were 22 and 23 funds and they were identified my first

[40:11] year as a commissioner that they had come in the first year of those had come

[40:15] into the county and the second year was getting ready to and this came about

[40:18] from some work by some senators. I believe it started in Montana and then

[40:24] of course went to the federal level and this money came back. So I guess I'm a

[40:28] little curious. We received that money the it came in split in two years half

[40:35] and half. So basically 2.5 million one year and 2.5 the next year would have

[40:42] been 2023. Why we're clear pushing receiving that money into 20.

[40:49] So I don't think we need to delve into that. right now, but I think it needs

[40:52] looked into why that's getting pushed two plus years down the road to where

[40:59] we're um accepting or or showing that that revenue came in. It seems uh

[41:04] something seems a little bit off there to me. So,

[41:11] [clears throat] and I did look at the reporting. It

[41:14] looks like this first was reported back in the December 31st, 2023 financials

[41:21] and so it was there for 23 there for 24 and our conclusion was that it should

[41:26] have been recognized prior to that. >> Yeah.

[41:35] » Brian, did you do your answers on that one move along?

[41:39] » Yeah. Yeah, we can we we can continue on unless you guys have anything else you'd

[41:43] like to say about that.

[41:46] » Okay. I I don't have any more detail at this time. So, I will I will move

[41:50] forward and Okay. So, the

[41:56] I think that covers the audit opinion there which you know reflects your

[41:58] financial statement audit the additional compliance testing over the federal

[42:02] funds received you know chiefly for the airport and that's so that's the clean

[42:07] opinion there. I'm going to jump ahead quite a few pages. I'm going to jump

[42:13] ahead to page

[42:18] 90 to and as you're you know our audit report has several I mean several

[42:23] opinion reports in it. Page 90 is our report on intro control over financial

[42:28] reporting and on compliance and other matters you know based on audit in

[42:32] accordance with government auditing standards. So this is an extra report

[42:35] required for you know government audits and and similar audits. So this one goes

[42:40] through um you know if we identified any issues

[42:46] with internal control over compliance over internal control generally for

[42:49] financial reporting and and it defines a few words in there that you know it

[42:56] calls one and the one it defines is material weakness which is you know some

[43:00] kind of you know breakdown in process or where you know something material to

[43:05] financials which material means big enough that it could you know affect

[43:09] financial statement. users decisions would you know would not you know

[43:13] prevent such an error in from happening or or being caught and corrected are the

[43:19] the key words there as far as you know material weaknesses or significant

[43:24] deficit deficiencies. We don't necessarily go looking for those as as

[43:28] part of your audit. do look at your internal controls and processes and

[43:31] consider what effect they will have on our you know our auditing our testing

[43:35] procedures and and adapt our testing pro procedure accordingly. And so in the

[43:40] course of the audit we found a couple matters that you know areas for

[43:45] improvement that were significant enough that we said okay these are you know

[43:49] these would be you know significant these would be material weaknesses and

[43:54] we reference them there but we don't define them further those get defined

[43:57] later on believe on page 98. So that's you not we didn't have any

[44:04] issues with compliance and I'll get more into compliance in a second. So I could

[44:09] talk about those you know deficiencies now now if you would like or I can go

[44:14] through them linearly if you you know what would be your pre preference or how

[44:17] I I shall pro proceed here. >> Uh Mr. Whipple do you mind if I just

[44:22] just make a clarification? I just want to make sure that I that I got that

[44:25] correct of what you just stated. So there are there are two deficiencies

[44:30] basically. There's significant deficiency which is basically what it

[44:34] sounds like and then there is material weakness

[44:39] and material weakness is worse than a significant deficiency. Is that correct?

[44:45] » Correct. >> Okay. And that the county has three of

[44:49] those those material weaknesses. >> That that is correct.

[44:53] And those were persistent through not just 25 but needed to be restated from

[44:59] 24. So we Is that correct? >> The 24 2024 restatement did play into

[45:04] that. Yes. >> Okay. And so that was not the scope of

[45:10] this audit. Correct. That's these are just these were just these were just

[45:14] items that you ran into um during the course of conducting the audit for the

[45:20] state compliance and the federal compliance. Is that correct? Yes, that

[45:23] is correct. >> Okay, thank you very much.

[45:33] » Did you have any more to add, Michael? >> I I do. I just whether I wanted you want

[45:40] to I guess just what the order is we want to talk through things. I guess

[45:43] maybe I'll jump ahead since since we were on the topic. Let's jump to page 90

[45:49] 99. Let's so let's talk about these and then I'll jump backwards in a second.

[45:56] Okay. So you know number one you know prior

[46:00] period statements. So part of our I mean as we go through the audit and I

[46:06] guess in auditing and accounting theory you know in theory you know the auditor

[46:10] should you know not never should find any misstatements you know they they

[46:14] should always be you know corrected and caught before they come to the auditor

[46:18] since we're outside of your organization.

[46:21] If you have small adjustments, you know, even those are, you know, those aren't

[46:26] rise to the level of these matters that we've discussed because many many

[46:31] governance clients, companies have have those kind small adjustments that are

[46:36] not as big a deal. The bigger they are, at some point they get big enough that

[46:39] we, you know, can't ignore them. You know, that, you know, they're just, we

[46:43] have to, we have to bring them to your attention. Have to bring them to your

[46:45] attention in writing. And so that's part of why these are, you know, why these

[46:50] are here. So that co co error money you know 6 million of that you know should

[46:54] have been recognized in the previous year but was but was not and I mean

[46:57] that's part of why that I mean that's just big enough you know it's material

[47:01] enough to your financial statements that it you know it that's material error and

[47:05] it wasn't caught so that's a material weakness you know by by definition and

[47:09] so that is that is just a little more color on finding number one there on

[47:13] page 99 and so we 99 breaks it down and goes

[47:18] through you know the required elements for finding for for government audit

[47:21] going through you know the criteria the condition that led to it what caused it

[47:26] the effect our recommendation and also includes an opportunity for for

[47:30] management to respond there and that's the last one that you know you know Gabe

[47:34] was able to give us yesterday and we incorporated the report there you has

[47:38] his you know you know his response and which you know sometimes the the

[47:44] management can respond say we we disagree with the auditor we disagree

[47:46] with this finding and this is why you know is an option to to respond and in

[47:52] this case that's you know Gabe did not you know give us that response so you

[47:57] acknowledge it here and you've got that there um so that I mean that's finding

[48:02] number one there you know questions or comments

[48:06] or >> I've got a question on three when you

[48:10] get those >> okay and just just still my original

[48:14] question of is is when you say that the county deferred that I still and and I

[48:18] understand that that's not in the scope of of this audit. I I can pass this off

[48:22] to the internal auditor as well. I just want to know who who made that decision

[48:26] to defer that off. Was that where that happened at

[48:30] » and [clears throat] I when I was watching the meeting yesterday, he did

[48:32] say our internal auditor was going was looking into this.

[48:36] » Yeah. >> On 71. I don't know if I don't know if

[48:41] that we on this finding right here. I don't know if we pushed this to the

[48:44] internal auditor or not. He said it was already in his scope when I watched it

[48:48] yesterday >> on on this finding.

[48:50] » Yeah. >> Um I mean I'll I'll read a little bit

[48:55] from John's email which again I I don't know if John you know Hatterly of

[48:59] Larsson intended his email to be read you know out loud word for word but as I

[49:03] that's my only source for the the answer here. You know his his comment was that

[49:08] conversations may have occurred between Squire and

[49:11] Gabe regarding different revenue but he is kind of vague. He wasn't sure on that

[49:15] one. So I I unfortunately can't give you more information at this time on, you

[49:20] know, why that decision was made.

[49:27] » Okay, you want to move on to the next one?

[49:29] » And just an important thing, Mike, from this right here that I did is, you know,

[49:33] the when I look at it, we've had to restate our financials in 2022. We had

[49:38] to restate our financials in 2023 and now we've had to restate our financials

[49:43] in 2024. And you know this was the historical data right here that you know

[49:49] this commission had to build the budget off of for our 2025 budget.

[49:54] » Okay noted and that's good context. Thank you.

[49:58] And maybe I'll just add one little piece to it and and I understand how

[50:03] frustrating that's got to be to have to go through these restatements and having

[50:06] to redo budgets and amend them. Uh, one thing to maybe consider going forward is

[50:12] this does impact your general fund budget. And there is a compliance

[50:17] finding that or not a finding, sorry, a compliance requirement

[50:21] uh that this could potentially cause a problem for next year's audit. um given

[50:26] that we've just added $5.7 million to your general fund budget. And so we got

[50:32] to make sure that we're paying attention to that and that's something I can talk

[50:34] to uh you know Gabe or whoever would like to on this audit committee maybe

[50:39] after this call uh just to make sure you're aware of like the ramifications

[50:42] could potentially come up as you guys are working through the budget for next

[50:46] year because that is a new fund balance number. So just wanted to make sure

[50:50] you're aware of that. something we're we're keeping an eye on and want to make

[50:53] sure we don't run into a a problem for next year's audit with that piece alone.

[50:58] » Yeah. Thanks for that, Randy. >> You're welcome.

[51:04] » Okay, I'll move on to, you know, finding number two, you know,

[51:09] regarding financial records and account reconciliations.

[51:15] Okay. Um, I want to start and say, you know, we

[51:19] really really are appreciative of Gabe and his team and all the effort, all the

[51:22] questions we had, you know, going through all our audit audit inquiries

[51:26] and all the work going there too. There were some challenges and they and they

[51:31] did add up over time. You know, there have been questions posed to us, you

[51:35] know, you know, by the audit committee and you know, why why did the audit take

[51:39] so long? You know, what challenges did your team face? And there's

[51:45] I mean we in this in our finding here kind of reflects that we went you know I

[51:51] guess let me tell you a little bit about how we audit you know we we get a copy

[51:53] of your trial balance you know every material balance requires some kind of

[51:58] audit procedure over it and we you know you know make our audit plan and then

[52:02] and then we audit it you know say you know an example I use is accounts

[52:06] receivable. Well what does an auditor do to audit accounts receivable? You know

[52:10] the first step is ask for you know a schedule showing all those accounts

[52:15] receivable owed to the county. This is all money that you are owed. And the the

[52:19] very first thing we do with that schedule is we see does it tie to the

[52:22] trial balance. Does it tie to the accounts that we are auditing? And if it

[52:26] does not then that presents a problem because we just I mean I still don't

[52:31] know how to it's you know if it doesn't tie and it doesn't tie by a lot it's not

[52:36] auditable. And so then okay well now what do we do? So that you know Gab and

[52:41] team had to work with Cassell on that one. That one was a software issue where

[52:44] Cassell was doing some strange things with applying deposits

[52:49] and so that you know accounts receivable was way different than the bounces on

[52:52] the books and after some back and forth and some time passing you know Gab and

[52:56] his team were able to resolve with Cassell and we were able to get a

[53:00] schedule that you know in tithe and we were able to audit that and get

[53:04] comfortable with that. I mean that's I mean one example and all that you know

[53:08] took time took extra effort and you know you know when we come in there and just

[53:14] the first pass you know the schedule wasn't time you know is a problem and as

[53:19] we as we went through all the audit areas it seems like we'd have kind of

[53:23] similar analogous challenges with almost every audit area that we looked into

[53:29] whether is cash or fixed assets compensated absences

[53:35] and um debt. I'm not sure that we found an area that we just said yet. Yeah,

[53:40] everything clicked here. Went through cleanly, went through here quick. So

[53:44] there, you know, there was a lot of back and forth, a lot of, you know, research

[53:48] by Gabe and his team as to, you know, why things were not tying and how to get

[53:51] there. And so the I mean the aggregate of all this is that you know the the way

[53:56] we look at things when we're tying out the balances to sporting schedules

[53:59] doesn't you know the way things are being reconciled it wasn't you know

[54:04] wasn't in in a good form to make it a you know an easy clean way to work

[54:09] through the through each audit area. We got there and we got there at by the end

[54:14] you know by now and but it it was it was a challenge and it did add a lot of

[54:19] extra time and work there and so that's where we have a kind of fairly broad you

[54:24] know material weakness there about how you know the reconciling of the the

[54:29] period in accounts worked and all the the tying the schedules to period end

[54:32] balances all worked and I'll open that up for questions.

[54:46] Move on to number three. >> Just one quick question. And was this it

[54:49] says significant the uh uh significant uh effort was placed in this portion.

[54:54] Was it significant or the majority of your guys' time that was what that was

[54:58] dealing with uh um reconciliations? I mean I think that you mentioned

[55:03] yesterday I mean that went down all the way down to cash balances. Is that

[55:06] correct? >> That is correct. Yes. Yeah. That this

[55:10] would be this was yeah this significance is good work. This is a lot of this was

[55:15] a lot of extra work we did not originally envision as we you know you

[55:19] know bid on your audit last fall and and were brought on you know on boarded as

[55:23] your as your new auditor. So this was you know beyond above and beyond the the

[55:27] normal scope of you know financial statement audit that we did not

[55:31] originally anticipate. and and and I do once again appreciate

[55:35] Brandon's comments yesterday um in the audit meeting on uh how we'll be moving

[55:40] forward next year and so that those were appreciated.

[55:43] » Oh, thank you.

[55:49] » Finding three. >> Yeah, moving forward. So, finding number

[55:54] three, there was a another restatement of sorts of on the financial statements.

[55:59] » [clears throat] >> So in the course of you know preparing

[56:01] and drafting the financial statements which also involved you know making sure

[56:05] things were consistent with prior year we became aware that there is a

[56:08] fiduciary fund fund number 71 which was you know not included at all in last

[56:14] year's financial statements. So it it has a balance about of about $8 million

[56:20] you know in cash and assets and a balance of about $8 million in

[56:23] liabilities. So on on the one hand, omitting it fun from the financials had

[56:28] no effect on last year's net position or net income, but it is something that's

[56:32] required to be included and and was not there at all last year. And and we we

[56:38] corresponded with with John Hatterley Larson about it and he agreed that it

[56:42] should have been there and it was its omission wasn't oversight, but it was,

[56:48] you know, never caught, you know, at any stage. And so this is that's another

[56:52] material weakness to have a you know an $8 million fund which is on the books.

[56:56] It's on the trial balance but it was not included in the financial state the

[57:00] final financial statements from last year and so that

[57:04] » material weakness here and I'll open up for questions.

[57:09] I've got a question unless I'm stepping on somebody else's toe. Under condition

[57:15] the second sentence it says county personnel. Is that a mistake? Should

[57:20] that be the clerk auditor or are county personnel?

[57:25] What what what's the explanation there is what I'm looking for.

[57:31] » Um I mean, you know, Gabe was the our lead

[57:36] contact and our our questions went through Gabe and so on the one hand you

[57:39] probably could the statement I think would be correct who said county clerk

[57:43] you know you describing it. Um, actually I don't remember or let me Sorry, let me

[57:52] I mean we talked a lot with Gabe about this. I can't remember if the treasurer

[57:55] brought this up or not. No, I'm sorry. I'm mixing up things. I mean, so I mean

[58:00] we disc we discussed with Gabe, so we could putting, you know, county clerk

[58:03] and that would be a correct sentence. I mean, I guess in my mind as I read that

[58:08] sentence, county clerk and county personnel would be fairly synonymous. I

[58:13] mean, we could we could I mean, we change we could change that if you

[58:17] liked. >> It it isn't something whether I like or

[58:21] not. I was just curious if county personnel were involved in this. My my

[58:26] concern is that we're going back and saying that Mr. Hatterley's admitted

[58:32] that he should have had this in last year's audit.

[58:36] And I know that we asked the internal auditor to look into how long this fund

[58:43] has been in existence. So it could be that it should have been in the previous

[58:48] three years audits. And also it's never been on a budget

[58:55] that I've worked on that I'm aware of. So I I don't think that it's just that

[59:00] Mr. Hatterly missed this. There's clearly an issue that this fund 71

[59:06] hasn't been public to the commission and that funds have gone through it. Now,

[59:10] I'm not saying that funds have been misused through it, but

[59:16] I'm hoping this is the only one and that we found it and that it's out now for

[59:20] the commission to work on. But it it seems a little bit odd to me, I guess,

[59:25] is where I'm coming from,

[59:30] » right? >> Yeah. and just, you know, one by one, I

[59:34] think I understand them. But, you know, to me, it's the the the difficulty and

[59:38] and I just applaud you guys for for finding this and then bringing this out

[59:41] into the open. It's it's the way that the whole system plays together, right?

[59:46] It's the environment that that's created inside of it. Um, you know, you have you

[59:51] have 5.7 million dollars that's been floating around since COVID. Um you have

[59:57] uh a lack of of uh of oversight on uh um reconciliations

[1:00:03] um especially as far as the process of how is it put inside there was like due

[1:00:08] to and due from right so the moving around of of money inside there and then

[1:00:14] we find out that there's a a fund that we never knew about that had $ 8.7

[1:00:19] million and I know that it's a custodial fund and that it is uh um you know and

[1:00:25] it nets out to zero but you know a custodial fund still means that this

[1:00:30] commission is responsible for those funds and so to not know about 8.7

[1:00:35] million an 8.7 million fund is concerning to me. So I I just want to

[1:00:40] thank you guys and appreciate you for bringing this forward and and I'm sure

[1:00:44] that we'll be looking forward to some answers and some recommendations coming

[1:00:48] from our internal auditor on on uh some of the things that you've brought to

[1:00:52] light.

[1:00:55] pay for that.

[1:01:01] » Okay. So, you'd mentioned so we went forward into the findings and you wanted

[1:01:04] to go backwards somewhere else in the audit.

[1:01:07] » Yes. I'll go backwards to let's see. So, I'll go backwards to page

[1:01:14] 92 now. So, I think we've addressed everything that was on page 90 91. Page

[1:01:19] 92. >> Can I speak?

[1:01:21] » Yes. Chair, can I may I speak? Chair. >> Okay.

[1:01:26] » So, with with regards to custodial fund fund 71, um it feels to me like the

[1:01:32] conversation's really getting carried away as it relates to how it relates to

[1:01:35] the budget. I I appreciate the the desire to to sort of be aware of all of

[1:01:40] these funds that are coming in and out. Um but the custodial funds ju just to

[1:01:45] give I mean it it seems like we're not speaking directly as to what those funds

[1:01:48] are. And so th those are subdivision bonds held. Those are commissary funds

[1:01:54] that are held from the from jail inmates. I mean, let's talk about how we

[1:01:59] would budget for the amount of commissary funds we're holding from jail

[1:02:03] inmates. I mean, le let's talk in practical sense what we're actually

[1:02:07] talking about and not get carried away with this narrative about how this this

[1:02:12] is some sort of this is some sort of irresponsible budgeting practice. I I'm

[1:02:17] I'm a little bit confused about how this narrative is getting carried away. Thank

[1:02:21] you.

[1:02:25] » Thank I think it's just that it was not in the last year's budget or last year's

[1:02:30] audit report. >> Well, I I would ask that commissioners

[1:02:32] be a little bit more, you know, conscientious about how they're how

[1:02:36] they're choosing to speak about their own organizations books. Thank you.

[1:02:43] » Okay, so we're on page 92. Yes.

[1:02:47] » 92. >> So page 92. As part of our audit of your

[1:02:52] county, we're required to do certain procedures over compliance which are

[1:02:56] published by the state auditor. State auditor gives a a nice guide for all the

[1:03:00] audit firms to go through the various areas of compliance they want us to look

[1:03:04] at and even and even has suggested procedures to look at. And so this

[1:03:08] report is reporting on on the results of that testing. So we there's certain

[1:03:12] areas that we test every single year. we're required to test every year and

[1:03:16] there's certain areas we're you know required to test every three years and

[1:03:19] so we can spread that testing over several years to you know ease the

[1:03:22] burden a little bit on on us and on on on you as you as you work through these

[1:03:26] things and so the the report lists the areas that we looked at this year and

[1:03:30] this report is a clean report you went through the our testing of state

[1:03:34] compliance and we did not have any findings and so great great job great

[1:03:38] job everyone you know this is you know you know this is a clean you opinion on

[1:03:44] on your state compliance. Um, ahead in the financials on the very page 103,

[1:03:51] you know, in following government auditing standards, government

[1:03:54] accounting rules, you know, we do have to repeat, you know, the findings from

[1:03:57] the previous year. And, you know, so those are the two findings that, you

[1:04:02] know, that you had from last year's audit about budgetary compliance and

[1:04:05] deficit fund balance. And I will call attention to the the final clause of

[1:04:09] both those current status, you know, where it says finding has been resolved

[1:04:12] in no repeat finding as of December 31st, 2025, you know, for both of those.

[1:04:16] So So great job. Good job. You know, we didn't we looked at those this year and,

[1:04:21] you know, we concluded that you were compliant and on those and all the other

[1:04:25] areas and for state compliance. So that

[1:04:32] I'll open up for questions or comments on on this report.

[1:04:37] Mary, oh, >> am I I'm hearing you right. You're

[1:04:40] saying that uh there's a clean audit and that uh we are in compliance is

[1:04:47] » am I correct? >> Yes.

[1:04:49] » Thank you.

[1:04:53] » Okay. Any other questions, comments?

[1:05:01] » We have a motion. Well, if I if I could speak chair one more time just to you

[1:05:05] know um so I I guess um I'll just have to say you're welcome for delivering a

[1:05:12] cleared audit. Um I guess it's up to me to say thank you to all the hardworking

[1:05:17] county personnel that w worked over six months through a rigorous process

[1:05:22] onboarding a brand new firm into this audit process. The effort put forth by

[1:05:27] Gran County offices in pushing through and working towards these financial

[1:05:30] statements is a great accomplishment. Gran county continues to show

[1:05:34] improvements year-over-year and continues to do an exemplary job with

[1:05:38] the resources and capacity at its disposal. This audit contains zero

[1:05:42] opinions and zero compliance findings. It is a clean audit. It's the cleanest

[1:05:47] audit we've seen in quite some time. An audit without recommendations or areas

[1:05:51] for improvement that are identified is hardly useful. And I welcome the

[1:05:55] guidance that's identified in this audit to to introduce more improvements and

[1:06:01] interpret the aspects of this audit constructively. So I want to just thank

[1:06:05] in particular I want to name all the folks that have worked tirelessly that

[1:06:09] that are the people that make this county run. I'm talking about Jenny

[1:06:13] Beth. I'm talking about Chantel, Chris Williams, Emily Valentine, Chris

[1:06:17] Kaufman, Lily H. Hotton, Christina Bakis, Tess Barger, Laura Alred, Angie

[1:06:23] Mortonson. These are the people that make this county go and I really thank

[1:06:26] them for all of their tireless effort and what is really a rigorous and not

[1:06:30] easy process. Thank you. >> I appreciate that. Thank you, G. Thanks

[1:06:35] for calling all those people out. Appreciate them. And you

[1:06:40] » Mary I move to approve the 2025 financial audit as presented by uh

[1:06:48] Richie May. And and I wonder chair, maybe the county attorney, but shouldn't

[1:06:53] that verbiage be accept or adopt um rather than approve?

[1:07:01] » That makes more sense. That makes a lot more sense.

[1:07:03] » Yes. So, I will amend my motion to say I move to accept the 2025 financial audit

[1:07:09] as presented by Richie May and to express my appreciation to the staff who

[1:07:16] created a clean uh compliant report uh audit. Thank you.

[1:07:22] » I'll second that. >> Okay. Any other comments?

[1:07:26] » Yeah, I'd like to make comment. >> Okay. I um I think that it's worth going

[1:07:32] back and watching the audit committee meeting for the people that didn't and

[1:07:36] quick auditor. I mean, I understand your frustrations and I understand the hard

[1:07:40] work that you've put in here, but regardless of the fact that this is a

[1:07:45] clean audit, there's some problems in here and we have been working on trying

[1:07:50] to make some changes for the last four years of my commission and I appreciate

[1:07:57] the fact your responses. I read through your responses this morning and I

[1:08:01] appreciate the responses you put in there because they aren't push back.

[1:08:05] They're let's fix this. And that's what I'm about. Let's fix some of the

[1:08:09] mistakes, some of the problems that exist here, some of the weaknesses that

[1:08:14] we have, and some of the lack of transparency. And I'm not saying that

[1:08:18] that came from you, sir. I'm simply saying that there is a lot of homework

[1:08:23] and cleanup that we need to do when we have the previous external auditor admit

[1:08:29] that he made mistakes and left things out and when we change auditors we have

[1:08:34] commissioners who fight tooth and nail to keep that from happening and yet we

[1:08:39] still move forward here. So I I think it's important that we understand and I

[1:08:44] I understand where you're coming from your frustrations Gabe. I truly do. But

[1:08:49] we have frustrations. I have frustrations. And the fact that we're

[1:08:53] here two months after this should have been done, that's a frustration on our

[1:08:59] end. So I I I don't want to push back. I appreciate the staff and the hard work

[1:09:05] that everybody does here. And I don't think you can ever find a time that I

[1:09:09] don't appreciate you or staff, but I also know that we have a job to do. We

[1:09:15] all do. and part of it having this done and having it done on time. And so let

[1:09:21] let's move forward and make those corrections. Again, thank you for your

[1:09:25] responses specifically.

[1:09:29] Okay, we have a first and a second. Paula in favor

[1:09:35] that passes by with two absent. And with that, we can adjourn this meeting at

[1:09:42] 11:42. Thank you. Thank you everybody for your time.

[1:09:46] » Thank you. >> Thank you guys.

Commission Meeting Workshop with MTAB 27 AUG 2026

Transcript