Laserfiche WebLink
TO: <br />Mayor & Council <br />pR <br />Finance Director <br />r$ TE: <br />July 18, 1985 <br />RE: <br />AUDIT PROPOSALS <br />pursuant to Council direction I have obtained two proposals for the audit of the <br />City's financial records. These proposals are for the audit of financial records for <br />the years ending December 31, 1985, 1986 and 1987. <br />ed <br />The first proposal is from Voto, Reardon, Tautges &Co.# LTaudithandfotheraservidcestto <br />the City audit for the past four years. The firm Provides <br />approximately 17 metropolitan area municipalities,includingefive <br />s is of particular <br />cities. Having conducted nty <br />audits for five Ramsey Y <br />importance in special assessment and property tax areas of the audit. Those areas <br />comprise a major portion of the work of the annual audit. The proposal indicates that <br />approximately 440 hours will be required to complete the audit. Proposed costs are <br />$13,500, $14,200 and $14,900 for 1985, 1986 and 1987 respectively. The he cost of <br />$13,500 is a 4.6% increase over the cost of the 1984 audit of $12,900. The 1986 and <br />1987 costs are increases of 5.1% and 4.9% respectively. <br />The second proposal was received from Pannell, Kerr, Forster, formerly Anfinson, <br />Provides <br />Hendrickson & Co. Pannell, Kerr, Forster is a national C.P.A. firm with over 4 <br />offices in the United States andOxi rely sixff cmetropolitanLoularearmunicipalik. The ties and two <br />audit and other services to approximately approximately 14 school <br />outstate municipalities. They also provide audit services to nt The proposal <br />districts. None of the municipal clients are located in Ramsey County. <br />ou <br />indicates that approximately 290 hours will be required to complete the audit. <br />proposed costs are $9,000, $9,500 and $101000 for 1985, 1986 and 1987 respectively. <br />I recommend that the City accept the proposal of Voto1lRearon, an audit Cof o., LTD. to <br />audit City financial records. I believe that they perform <br />higher quality than Pannell, Kerr, Forster and hasRsubmittedamanagemment�lettersawhich <br />consistently conducted a high quality <br />firm <br />have also been of a high quality. The Voto proposal indicates that <br />approximately 440hours <br />have <br />v beenat spent ono y 290988hourslwill and n bespentour lon4thedThe <br />Pannell proposale <br />of our audit. This is 348 or 150 hours less time than the Veto firm has seen <br />conducting our audits. This leads me to be <br />that a Pannell audit can not be as <br />thorough or complete as a VotO audit. <br />Titan area <br />I also believe that the experience of the Voto firm in auditing municipalities is <br />greater than that of the Pannell firm. The Voto firm audits 17 hasnometropo <br />Pannell fi <br />municipalities versus the Pannell firm's six. T� specialize in sch000l districts. <br />clients. Their client list indicates that they competitive <br />State purchasing policy, as well as our local policy, does not require camps <br />not oi�tstcthe <br />�s <br />rding for <br />oessionalservicesicesand <br />the <br />City <br />is tsofheCitywoth <br />poe EprfesiIthat the best <br />served by selecting the VOtO firm to conduct the audits in spite <br />alit ofprice <br />considerations. <br />rtI believthan e thatPannthell will provide a higher qu Y <br />management repo <br />Staff awaits Council direction in this matter. <br />p8/ds <br />