City staff and commissioners spent substantial time discussing audit options for fiscal procedures and whether to pursue a forensic audit beyond routine audits.

Finance staff presented three audit options proposed by the current auditor: an agreed‑upon procedures review (estimated $15,000–$30,000), a performance/operational audit (estimated $40,000–$60,000), and a forensic audit (estimated $60,000–$100,000 or more). “The agreed upon procedures review, estimated cost of 15 to 30,000, the performance operational audit of 40 to 60,000, and a forensic audit of 60 to 100,000,” Finance Director Kiki said when summarizing the auditors’ estimates.

Staff noted a $60,000 line item is included in the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget to cover audit work; if the commission selects a scope above that amount, a budget resolution or additional appropriation would be required. “We do have a $60,000 line item in the proposed fiscal year 26 budget to cover this,” Finance Director Kiki said.

The finance review committee told the commission it does not recommend a forensic audit and instead proposed targeted review options. Staff offered the commission a practical, staged alternative: the commission could first review all fiscal year 2024 purchase orders above $35,000 (finance staff estimated roughly 90–96 such POs), and then direct additional targeted reviews if needed. “You all could review those 90 to 96 POs and decide… if you’d like more information on [specific] PO[s],” Finance Director Kiki said.

Commissioners asked about procurement policy and whether past auditors measure compliance against the city’s purchasing policy; staff said auditors’ role is to check whether the purchasing policy in effect at the time was followed, not to rewrite policy. “Their task is to make sure the policy is followed, not to say the policy needs changing,” the City Attorney said. Finance staff said they have identified purchasing policy shortcomings—such as change orders not being brought to the commission and dollar limits— and recommended tightening the policy.

The commission discussed procedural options for obtaining an external audit: issue an RFP for an operational or forensic audit (staff suggested meeting 1‑on‑1 with commissioners to develop a scope before advertising) or request a state audit. Staff explained state audits can be requested by the municipality (which requires the municipality to pay), by resident petition, or by a legislator (in which case the state covers costs). Commissioners noted a legislator‑requested audit can take longer and could carry political perceptions; one commissioner said the state option should be a last resort.

Several commissioners emphasized wanting clarity on scope and costs before committing to a forensic audit. One commissioner said they wanted to ensure their name would be cleared if an audit found no issues. Staff proposed meeting with individual commissioners to draft a scope of services and then bring an RFP back for commission approval and advertisement. The commission agreed to remove the forensic audit item from the current agenda, meet with staff to develop scope, and bring a formal RFP and draft scope back for a vote.

Ending: The commission directed staff to provide the FY2024 purchase orders above $35,000 for review, meet individually with commissioners to develop an RFP scope if desired, and return with a proposed RFP and budget options for a future vote.