Audit partner outlines Belmont City FY 2024–25 audit plan; committee schedules follow-ups

Amy Myers, audit partner with Maize and Associates, presented the Belmont City Audit Committee with the planned scope and timing for the fiscal year 2024–25 audit and answered committee questions on standards, compliance testing and fraud considerations.

Myers told committee members the city's audit will be conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards (the "Yellow Book") and described when a single-audit and Transportation Development Act testing would be required. "The city didn't require a single audit" for the prior year, Myers said, while noting the single-audit threshold is $750,000 in federal program spending in a single year.

The presentation outlined the auditor's responsibilities and the separate responsibilities of city management and those charged with governance, the planned transaction and balance testing areas, timelines for interim and year-end fieldwork, and communications the auditor will request from management.

Myers said audit work covers the city's annual comprehensive financial report (ACFR), the Measure I financial statements, and, when applicable, compliance testing for federal awards and Transportation Development Act programs. She described typical transaction cycles selected for testing, including revenues and receivables, disbursements and payables, payroll, journal entries and capital assets. "We test journal entries each year," Myers said, explaining that testing helps address fraud risks such as management override of controls.

She described group-audit considerations because the city's financial statements include investments in joint ventures: San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department and Silicon Valley Clean Water Authority. Myers said Maize and Associates audits Silicon Valley Clean Water Authority internally but does not audit San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department, so the firm communicates with that entity's auditors.

On timing, Myers said interim fieldwork took place in March and early April and that year-end fieldwork is scheduled for the weeks of September. She explained filing deadlines for the ACFR and the single-audit filing requirement (as discussed in the meeting), and said auditors will request written management representations and other confirmations as part of the year-end procedures.

The committee asked clarifying questions about what the auditors do not audit, sample sizes and how the firm handles discovered errors. "We provide reasonable, not absolute assurance," Myers said, noting audits are designed around materiality and risk-based sampling.

No formal action was required of the committee at the meeting. Committee staff noted they will schedule an audit-committee meeting in June to review the budget between introduction and adoption, and a fall meeting after the final audit to review the completed financial statements; Myers will return for the fall review.

The presentation addressed fraud considerations required by standards, including the distinction between error and intentional misstatement and the audit team's approach to fraud risks and internal-control monitoring.

Committee members had no further questions at the conclusion of the presentation and confirmed there were no additional action items related to the audit plan.