[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.