|
City to prohibit its use as contemplated by him; therefore, it was being recommend-
<br />ed that the $200 fee paid by Mr. Schafer for the Variance application regarding 104
<br />sign be refunded.
<br />Moved by Councilman Rios, seconded by Councilwoman Garcia, approving and authorizing
<br />refund of $200 to Mr. Vern Schafer, as outlined by Staff. Unanimous vote.
<br />Audit
<br />City Attorney Edwards reported on written proposals that had been mailed to five
<br />firms inviting proposals for auditing services for the City, and also referred
<br />to an analysis of the proposals received.
<br />Mayor Huntoon stated he was very concerned about the fact that the City has no
<br />audit report for the 1980-81 fiscal year, and the City is about to terminate
<br />another fiscal year period.
<br />Mrs. Ruby Andengaard, Acting Finance Director, stated she is now working on a re-
<br />port that will be given to the Council Members in this regard, however, she has
<br />not completed her inquiries of several employees and the auditing firm.
<br />Mr. Chuck Peters, representing Quezada, Navarro & Company, stated that in July of
<br />1981, his firm was ready to begin the Audit for the City, however, the books were not
<br />given to them until February, 1982, and, at that time, they still did not have the in-
<br />formation concerning the bank reconciliations, only the trial balances. Mr. Peters
<br />said the Audit is usually done 90 days from the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Peters ad-
<br />vised he wrote a management letter on this, that was received by the City last Friday.
<br />Mrs. Andengaard stated she was aware of this letter, however, it was placed on her
<br />Q desk this morning, afterwhich she immediately made copies for the City Council. Mrs.
<br />Q Andengaard further stated she is not saying the letter did not arrive last Friday,
<br />she was merely clarifying that it had not reached her desk until this morning.
<br />Councilman Rios asked Mr. Peters who he had contacted about getting the necessary
<br />information to complete the audit.
<br />Mr. Peters answered he had contacted the City Manager's office.
<br />Councilwoman Cisneros stated that if this information was not being supplied by the
<br />City Manager's office, or the Finance Department, why wasn't the City Council made
<br />aware of this.
<br />Mr. Peters stated he was working with the City Manager's office on this matter,
<br />and relating these problems to him. Mr. Peters said he was not aware of the fact
<br />that the City Council was not cognizant of these facts.
<br />Mayor Huntoon asked about the audit for the R.D.A.
<br />Mr. Peters stated they had decided to hold off on the audit for the R.D.A. until the
<br />audit for the City had been completed.
<br />Mayor Huntoon said he felt the firm of Quezada, Navarro & Company should be required
<br />to complete the audit of the 1980-81 fiscal year, and that their contract, with the
<br />City, which would be renewable June 1, 1982, should be terminated.
<br />A representative from the firm of Conrad & Associates, who had submitted a proposal
<br />for auditing services, asked if the City would be terminating all proposals also,
<br />because if so, he felt this was very unfair for those firms that had already sub-
<br />mitted proposals.
<br />Mayor Huntoon stated this may be true, however, the City is in a rather precarious
<br />position at this point.
<br />Discussion then followed with regard to the proposals that had been submitted, and
<br />it was noted that the proposal from the firm of Quezada, Navarro & Company was ap-
<br />proximately $7,000 less than the others submitted.
<br />Mayor Huntoon said that although this is a very unfortunate set of circumstances, he
<br />would move to terminate the Contract with Quezada, Navarro & Company for auditing
<br />services effective June 1, 1982, require that firm to complete the Audit for the
<br />1980-81 fiscal year, and not to consider other proposals at this time. Motion second-
<br />ed by Councilman Rehrer.
<br />Councilman Rios stated he would have to vote NO on that motion because he felt the
<br />firm of Quezada, Navarro & Company could not be held accountable for what had tran-
<br />spired in the City Manager's Office, or the Finance Department, with regard to not
<br />furnishing the necessary information to complete the Audit, and also their firm had
<br />submitted the most reasonable proposal.
<br />MAY 1 8 1982
<br />
|