Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Whitewater board accepts lower‑cost auditor and approves draft $2.65M grant budget
Summary
Board reviewed three months of financials, accepted an auditor proposal quoted at a lower rate after market discussion, and approved a draft $2,649,200 budget for Whitewater grant activity to move forward.
At the May 27 meeting the Whitewater Joint Powers Board reviewed financials for February–April, considered audit proposals and approved a draft grant budget that the coordinator presented as a working template.
Sheila reported combined checking and money‑market balances (after removing unincurred funding) of about $121,630 in February rising to about $121,717 by April. She described three audit proposals: Peterson Company initially quoted a baseline $5,000 audit fee, later reduced to $4,500 for this year; another local auditor (Wanda Anderson / Katie Jacobson) proposed a not‑to‑exceed range of $2,500–$3,500. Board members discussed the sharp year‑to‑year increase in audit pricing and the shrinking pool of auditors willing to take small public entities.
A motion was made and seconded to accept the Jacobson/Anderson proposal (the motion was discussed on the record and then put to voice vote). Several members voiced hesitation about rising audit costs and the limited number of small‑entity auditors; the board approved the auditor selection as presented.
Separately, Sheila presented a draft budget for the local advisory team and well grants with a total listed as $2,649,200 and reported total expenses of roughly $47,002.50 in the example packet. Board members requested comparison columns showing 2024 and 2026 figures side by side; the board moved, seconded (motion by Dave; second by Andy) and approved the draft budget to proceed for implementation and tracking.
Members asked for continued oversight on audit selection and for the coordinator to circulate audit engagement correspondence (including the email confirming the proposal amount) to preserve documentation. The board also discussed how payment timing and audit scrutiny from the grantor (referred to in the meeting) affect administrative steps.
The motions approving the auditor and the draft budget were recorded during the meeting; specific roll‑call tallies were not provided in the transcript but both measures were advanced by the board and recorded as carried by voice vote.
