County of Woodford Finance and Economic Development Committee met March 10.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call –Chuck Nagel (chairman), Richard Hill, Emily Barker, Bryant Kempf, Josh Davis (v-ch) all present
3. Approval of Minutes
a. Approval of February 11, 2020 Regular Meeting
Motion to approve February 11, 2020 minutes made by Hill, seconded by Barker. Motion passed.
4. Public Input
5. Approval of Claims
Motion to approve March claims made by Davis, seconded by Barker. 1 nay vote. Motion passed.
6. Treasurers Report
There are no concerns with the fund balances. Chip Energy is paying monthly on their loan. The quarterly revenue report is also included. The Treasurer stated that the interest rates are down due to Coronavirus scare. This may decrease the revenue that was projected. She will continue to monitor this.
a. Audit Report and Findings
Adam Pulley from Clifton Larson gave the audit report. The report was given in draft form as there are still a few pieces of information that have not been received. The final report should be issued within the next week or so. The County is responsible for the information within the report and for internal controls that prevent fraud. Clifton Larson is only responsible for the audit opinion, looking to see that the numbers are clean from misstatements, and findings. The do not give an opinion on if the internal controls are effective. The have issued a clean audit report, no misstatements of funds. He noted that the fund balance is down approximately 1.9 million which is due to the revolving loan paid to the state. Last year we had 4 findings. One finding – all bank accounts are on general ledger – has been addressed and resolved. The other three findings – 1) segregation of duties; 2) financial statement preparation; and 3) audit adjustments, are the same findings as last year, and are common to small counties. It was asked how many days we could operate based on the fund balances. Roughly we have 9 months of reserves.
7. Budget
The new 2020/21 budget documents are ready to be sent to department heads in June.
8. New Business
a. Tri-County Dues
Letters were sent to all the municipalities regarding their dues to Tri-County. Bay View Gardens split one seat with the Village of Spring Bay and the Spring Bay Township. They do not want to be part of Tri-County and will not be paying their third of the seat. Where do we go from there? It was asked if they signed the MOU. None of those three had signed the MOU, but the Village of Spring Bay and Spring Bay Township have paid their share of the one seat. The MOU was sent to Mr. Bockler, who represents the three at Tri-County. He has never mailed the MOU back. Discussion that from here on out, the MOU should be signed before we allow an entity to hold a seat. Mr. Davis will reach out to Mr. Bockler.
b. We Care Oversight Policy
We Care had a Federal Audit and there were 4 findings the County had to address. The oversight policy addresses three of those findings. It has to be submitted to the State by April 1. It has been reviewed by State’s Attorney Minger. It was asked who would oversee that the policy was being followed and that would fall on the PCOM, who is currently Ms. Breyman. Motion to send the We Care Oversight Policy to the Board for approval made by Kempf, seconded by Hill. Motion passed.
c. Project Engineers
We received responses from 10 Architectural Engineers. The committee feels that they are all qualified to do the job. The next step will be to send an RFP to the firms we choose. Most of the architectural engineers operate under the same guidelines, so cost responses to the RFP should be pretty close. We cannot hire a firm without going through the RFP process. We have an obligation to choose the lowest responsible bidder. Discussion on how to coordinate this. We do not want 11 different firms showing up at all the sites to inspect at all different times and disrupting business. It was felt the best way would be for Mr. Cummings to send photos of the areas where the projects will take place. They would need to contact Mr. Cummings if they wish to inspect the project locations. Some of the firms may only want to do sidewalks, while others may only want to do construction. We do not want to limit ourselves on how many firms respond to the scope of work. We have to have at least two responses. If a firm responds with the low bid, but they are not a firm we want to hire, we have to have a legitimate reason to reject their bid. If we don’t get enough firms to respond to RFP, we can invite more firms and rebid. We would like to avoid a rebid because of time frame of getting the projects started. After discussion, it was determined that we will send the RFP to the following firms: Mauer Stutz, Hermann, Wendler, Dewberry, Farnsworth, and Midwest. Discussion on how long to give the firms to respond. It was felt 30 days would be adequate. Mr. Cummings would like to run the RFP by the County Engineer, Conrad Moore, before it is sent out. Motion to send letter of RFP to Mauer Stutz, Hermann, Wendler, Dewberry, Farnsworth, and Midwest made by Kempf, seconded by Hill. Motion passed.
We chose these firms based upon their location and their response to our request. The firms’ chosen responded with specific information in response to our request, while the others just submit a blanketed pamphlet with information about their firm.
9. Unfinished Business
a. RLF Grant Update
Mr. Cummings has done all he can do with regard to the environmental review. He has all the sign offs that are required except one. He is still waiting on the Historical Preservation to respond. Mr. Cummings has sent photos of all buildings. They have 30 days to respond. If they do not respond in 45 days, then their opportunity to object is lost and we can proceed.
10. Other
11. Executive Session
12. Any Action Coming Out of Executive Session
13. Adjournment
Motion to adjourn made by Kempf, seconded by Hill. Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 7:25 PM.
https://www.woodford-county.org/AgendaCenter