Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contract Audit Casita topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses Casita contract language and timing of financial audit; agrees to consult county auditors
Summary
Klamath County commissioners reviewed contract language requiring audited financial statements for Casita, extended the contract for 90 days while Casita’s board can consider the terms, and directed staff to consult the county’s auditors about feasibility, scope and cost of an immediate audit versus audit commencing in 2026.
Klamath County commissioners reviewed contract language requiring Casita to provide audited financial statements and discussed whether to conduct an immediate audit or wait for the contract timetable.
County staff read contract section 8 into the record, which states that Casita acknowledges receiving a substantial portion of operating funds from public sources, references lottery funds distributed pursuant to ORS 461.540, and requires a financial-statement audit for Casita and any subsidiaries for 2026 and every three years thereafter. The contract language requires submission of audited financial statements to the county within 180 days of the end of the audited fiscal year and states the county will procure and pay an auditor of its choice and will contribute up to $50 an hour of Casita staff time not to exceed $5,000 toward audit assistance.
Commissioners said they had provided Casita a contract extension (90 days) so the organization can review the language and decide whether to sign. During the meeting some commissioners expressed that an immediate audit may be unnecessary and would place procurement and financial strain on the county and on Casita if rushed. Others said they wanted to consult the county’s regular auditors, Moss Adams, to determine whether an audit should begin immediately (and whether it would need to include fiscal year 2025 balances) or be scheduled to begin for 2026, which would then set the three-year cadence specified in the contract.
Staff were directed to check whether the county must issue an RFP for an auditor or could amend the county’s existing Moss Adams contract, to ask Moss Adams for recommendations on scope and timing (including whether auditors would need to audit 2025 as well as 2026), and to return with cost and timeline estimates. Commissioners emphasized they did not want the county to rush procurement or auditing processes but said parallel tracks for contract execution and audit planning were appropriate.
No immediate, board-commissioned audit was initiated during the meeting.
