Notice May 2014 Audit Committee Meeting - Phoenix, Arizona · NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF...

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF PHOENIX AUDIT COMMITTEE

Pursuant to A.R.S. Section 38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the CITY OF PHOENIX AUDIT COMMITTEE and to the general public, that the CITY OF PHOENIX AUDIT COMMITTEE will hold a meeting open to the public on May 8, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. located at Conference Room 12-East, 12th Floor, Phoenix City Hall, 200 West Washington, Phoenix, Arizona. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

1. Call to Order Mr. Zuercher

2. Review and Approval of January 22, 2014 Minutes

3. City of Phoenix Self Insurance Reserve Mr. Young will present information about the City of Phoenix Self Insurance Program. This item is for discussion and information only.

Mr. Young Page 12 Estimated: 15 minutes

4. FY 14/15 Audit Plan Mr. Greene will present the proposed FY 14/15 City Auditor Department Audit Plan. This item is for discussion and action.

Mr. Greene Page 17 Estimated 15 minutes

5. Contract Amendment Mr. Greene will present the draft contract amendment with Grant Thornton LLP to conduct required FY 2013/14 financial statement audits, federal grant audits, and other external audits, as requested. This item is for discussion and action.


6. Continuous Auditing Mr. Greene will discuss the City Auditor Department’s efforts to monitor transactions for fraud and errors through continuous auditing projects.


7. Future Agenda Items Mr. Zuercher

8. Call to the Public Mr. Zuercher

8. Adjournment Estimated: 11:30 a.m.

For further information, please call Ashley Foose Verduzco, City Auditor Department at 602-534-0177. Persons paid to lobby on behalf of persons or organizations other than themselves shall register with the City Clerk prior to lobbying or within five business days thereafter, and must register annually to continue lobbying. If you

have any questions about registration or whether or not you must register, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 602-262-6811. For reasonable accommodations, call Bill Greene at Voice/602-534-9510 or TTY/602-534-5500 as early as possible to coordinate needed arrangements.

DRAFT

1

Audit Committee Summary Minutes – January 22, 2014

Wednesday, January 22, 2014, 10:00 a.m. Phoenix City Hall, 12th Floor 12 Central Conference Room 200 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ Committee Members Present Staff Present Ed Zuercher Bill Greene Councilwoman Williams Irene Larkin Councilman Waring Diane Artrip Mario Paniagua Barbara Coppage Neal Young Ashley Foose-Verduzco Kate Baker Denise Olson Larry De Respino Sean Kindell Richard Kobasic Randy Piotrowski Wendy Simeon Public Grant Thornton Staff Present Dianne Barker Ben Kohnle Marla Hummel Linnette Klinedinst 1. Call to Order Mr. Ed Zuercher called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. 2. Review and Approval of September 5, 2013 Minutes My. Zuercher asked that one correction be made to the September 5, 2013 minutes. With the correction, Mr. Larry De Respino moved approval of the September 5, 2013 minutes; motion was seconded by Ms. Kate Baker and then passed unanimously. 3. FY 12/13 External Audits Mr. Bill Greene introduced the Grant Thornton staff to discuss the final results of the FY 12/13 External Audits. Mr. Ben Kohnle thanked the Audit Committee and City of Phoenix staff. He said the external audit is largely complete, but there are a few outstanding items. Mr. Kohnle introduced Ms. Marla Hummel, the Managing Director, and Ms. Linnette Klinedinst, Director, to present the final results.

DRAFT

2

Ms. Hummel discussed Grant Thornton’s values as is done with every Grant Thornton presentation at the Audit Committee Meetings. She also discussed the roles and responsibilities of Grant Thornton, the Audit Committee, and City Management. Ms. Hummel stated that the goal of the external audit is to form an opinion on the financial statements and not a guarantee. Grant Thornton’s review is performed on an analytical or sample basis, doing as much work as necessary for Grant Thornton to be able to form an opinion. Mr. Zuercher asked if the Grant Thornton staff had unrestricted access to all City staff and if evidence of fraud or illegal acts was found. Ms. Hummel stated that the Grant Thornton staff had unrestricted access and there was no evidence of fraud or illegal acts found. Ms. Hummel outlined the scope of audit services provided as the following:

• CAFR

• Single Audit

• COPERS

• City of Phoenix Highway User Compliance Audit

• City of Phoenix Landfill Financial Responsibility Agreed Upon Procedures

• City of Phoenix Aviation Passenger Facility Charge Report

• Val Vista Water Treatment Plant Annual Report

• Aviation Annual Report

• Phoenix Parks and Preserve Initiative Report

• City of Phoenix Expenditure Limitation Report

• City of Phoenix CIC Annual Financial Report Mr. Greene explained to the new members of the Audit Committee why the length of audit services provided has increased. The City decided to bundle the scope of services into one RFP instead of having it fragmented with the different departments handling each individual area separately. This was done to ensure the audits were completed as required and to get some efficiency gains by not duplicating the work and cost savings by avoiding paying more by having different firms involved. Ms. Hummel presented Grant Thornton’s methodology in performing the audits and how each audit is approached in the planning phase. This includes materiality and how it is defined based on the fund being audited. Ms. Linnette Klinedinst presented the areas of significant audit focus for CAFR, Val Vista, Aviation, CIC, and the Single Audit based on Grant Thornton’s risk assessment. The areas of focus include, but are not limited to the following; grants and expenditures, bonds payable, capital assets, and compliance. The areas of focus specific to COPERS consist of investments, contributions, adequacy of disclosures, and participant data. Ms. Klinedinst described that their review of the areas of focus is to ensure the pension liability calculated is accurate.

DRAFT

3

Ms. Kate Baker asked if there was an actuarial firm that would be performing the pension calculations and would Grant Thornton would perform a review of those calculations. Ms. Klinedinst replied that Grant Thornton obtains copies of the actuarial firm’s reports and she sits in on the firm’s presentation at the COPERS board meetings. Grant Thornton has an actuarial specialist within their firm that reviews the reports to ensure that the methodology used by the actuarial firm appears accurate. Grant Thornton also tests the firm’s data to ensure accuracy of the data that generates those reports. Ms. Klinedinst gave a quick overview of the reports issued. All of the reports relative to the Financial Statement Audits were issued in December 2013, with the exception of one, the CIC Annual Report, that was still in process. The separate reports were also issued in December 2013, with the exception of one, the Expenditure Limitation Report. The two outstanding reports cannot be completed until the CAFR is finished, so the reports will be issued shortly. Ms. Klinedinst presented the results of the Financial Statement Audit. Relative to the CAFR and COPERS, an unqualified “clean” opinion was given, and the City of Phoenix was given the GFOA Certificate for the 36th consecutive year. Mr. Zuercher took a moment to recognize Denise Olson, Assistant Finance Director, and Sean Kindell, Deputy Finance Director, for all of their work on the CAFR to earn the GFOA certificate. Unqualified “clean” opinions were issued for Val Vista, Aviation Fund, and CIC Annual Financial Reports. An unqualified “clean” opinion was also issued for the Single Audit. In addition to the “clean” opinion, there were no instances of non-compliance, and the prior year findings were remediated. No instances of noncompliance were identified for the specific compliance reports, including the Phoenix Parks and Preserve Initiative Report. Ms. Klinedinst presented a summary of adjustments, noting that the first two adjustments were in SAP correctly. There was a reclassification of general ledgers because the mapping was incorrect and should be corrected for financial presentation purposes. The third adjustment is a result of the adoption of GASB 65 that was implemented in the current year. Grant Thornton identified that the City had not written off unamortized debt issuance costs related to the Phoenix Downtown Hotel Corporation. Ms. Klinedinst summarized the three passed adjustments, relating to classification of assets, revenue recognition, and allowance for bad debt.

DRAFT

4

Mr. Zuercher confirmed that in the case of passed adjustments, the City is not required make the adjustment. He asked Mr. Sean Kindell from Finance if the adjustments had indeed been made. Mr. Kindell stated that the decision was made to not make the adjustments because the entries were identified late in the process. Mr. Zuercher added that going forward, the City knows how to correctly make these journal entries. Mr. Kohnle wanted to clarify that the first three adjustments that were considered current were actually made and reflected in the financial statements, but the passed adjustments did not have to be recorded. One internal control finding was presented by Ms. Klinedinst. The one significant deficiency was discussed in the recorded adjustments and related to the implementation of GASB 65 and the accounting for bond issuance costs related to Downtown Phoenix Hotel Corporation. Items of a lesser magnitude than a significant deficiency were communicated informally to management. There were no material weaknesses to report. Ms. Klinedinst presented the list of major programs as determined by Grant Thornton. The list covers 67% of federal program expenditures in the current year and there were no issues with noncompliance or questionable costs. Ms. Baker asked how Grant Thornton was selecting the group of major programs that make up the 67% coverage. Ms. Hummel replied that it is similar to their other audit procedures in that it is a risk based approach. The expenditures are categorized from large dollar programs down to low dollar programs that do not meet the threshold to be selected. From there, a risk assessment process is performed, that will include a review of when a program was last audited to ensure the larger programs are reviewed at least every three years. In addition, Grant Thornton looks to see if there are any past findings or changes in program staffing that would make that particular program higher risk. Ms. Hummel added that they are required to review at least 25 percent of federal expenditures every year. The Federal Transit Cluster that was selected this year was very large and brought the percentage of expenditures audited up higher than it was in previous years. Mr. Larry De Respino asked about claims and claims reserve as it relates to the City and what is reserved for potential lawsuits. Ms. Klindinst replied that in one area of Grant Thornton’s review, they do look at claims reserve. Mr. De Respino asked how high the reserves are currently.

DRAFT

5

Mr. Zuercher stated that Denise Olson or Sean Kindell with the Finance Department would find out and report back to the Audit Committee. Ms. Klinedinst added that the City uses outside companies to look in detail at the actuarial analysis and Grant Thornton also has staff that reviews the claims reserve. Ms. Klinedinst continued with the results of the Single Audit. There were no compliance findings in the current year. She reviewed the status of the prior year compliance findings and the City has resolved and implemented the two findings. Ms. Hummel briefly discussed the other required communications. There were not disagreements with management, Grant Thornton is not aware of any consultations by management, and there were no difficulties encountered by Grant Thornton during the audit. She touched on the quality of accounting practices and stated that the accounting principles used by the City are considered appropriate. Ms. Hummel outlined the new accounting pronouncements effective for fiscal year 2012/2013, GASB 60, 61, 62, 63, and 65. There are a few remaining pronouncements that will be effective in the coming years. Mr. Zuercher asked about a particular City that had problems with accounting transactions relating to funding or not funding reserves and taking care of retirement and whether the auditors would have uncovered such problems in their scope of services. Mr. Kohnle replied that this audit has a different motivation than what Mr. Zuercher is asking, not to say that those problems might not be uncovered during Grant Thornton’s review. While it is not the intent, the issues with funding and retirement could be uncovered as part of the natural audit process. 4. Status of Internal Audit Recommendations Mr. Greene presented information on internal audit recommendation monitoring, explaining how recommendation implementation is monitored. All of the recommendations that are generated throughout the year are input into a web based system for tracking. At the time the recommendation is input into the system, the auditor asks the department to identify their action plan to address the recommendation and when they are going to get it done. Throughout the year, the department updates the status of those recommendations as to whether the action plan is complete or if they need additional time to complete the action plan. City Auditor staff performs ongoing reporting of this process a couple times during the year. The reporting includes a status at a point in time of the recommendations that are outstanding and overdue and how the departments are doing in getting the recommendations completed.

DRAFT

6

Department heads have a goal relating to audit recommendations on their management achievement plan. This measures the percentage of recommendations completed by the original target dates. Mr. Greene discussed two graphs that illustrate audit recommendations for fiscal years 2009/2010 through 2012/2013. The first graph shows the percent of audit recommendations implemented by the target date. There was a little decrease in the percentage from fiscal year 11/12 to 12/13, but the implementation is still well over 90 percent. Mr. Greene added that if a department pushes back a target date because the recommendation will not be implemented in time, the department does not get credit for meeting the original target date. This item would still show up as a missed target date. The graph captures the recommendations implemented by the original target date as stated in the audit report. The second graph summarizes the status of all the recommendations in the four fiscal years included in the first graph. It shows if the recommendations were closed during the year, still open at the end of the year, or still open and older than 2 years old. The City is closing and taking action on approximately 300 recommendations per year. The recommendations still open at the end of the year are largely due to timing issues where the target to implement is after the end of the year. There will always be recommendations that are targeted for a future date. There are some in that category that relate to recommendations that did not get done, but the vast majority were targeted to be done at a later date. The top part of the graph that shows the recommendations that are still open and have been open longer than two years. For fiscal year 12/13, there were just under 500 recommendation in the system and of those 500, 19 items are in the category of being open and older than two years. All the outstanding recommendations have a specific reason, but many of the recommendations deal with the implementation of new systems. In many cases, those systems get delayed due to extra resources needed or a very complex process that takes time. There are cases where a department realizes that they may not be able to implement a change as described in the recommendation, so the staff begins to think about other ways to address it. Mr. De Respino asked if any of the documents provided by Mr. Greene were available to the public so the public would know how the City is doing relative to audit recommendations. Mr. Greene stated that it is all public information. Some of the information is published in the City Auditor Department’s annual report, but if someone asked to see information specific to a particular department, the City Auditor Department would be able to do that.

DRAFT

7

5. City Auditor Independence Mr. Greene described the organizational structure and legal safeguards within the City of Phoenix Charter and Code that ensure the independence of the City Auditor Department. The discussion follows a prior Audit Committee meeting at which there was a discussion about the City of Glendale and some comments their City Auditor made in terms of lack of access to the council and concerns she had about the independence of her office. There are some significant differences in how the City of Phoenix Auditor Department operates compared to the City of Glendale. The report included in the packet presents some of the charter and ordinance safeguards as well as practices the City has implemented in order to preserve City Auditor independence. Summarized at a high level, there are four components that differentiate the City of Phoenix and its independence safeguards from the City of Glendale:

• Government Auditing Standards

• Audit Committee

• City of Phoenix Charter and Code

• Transparency Councilman Waring asked if the City of Phoenix’s safeguards, as described above, would be enough to discover the certain behaviors, similar to those highlighted in the headlines regarding the City of Glendale. Mr. Greene stated that similar to Grant Thornton, the City Auditor Department uses a risk based approach to decide what will be audited. He said that in the case of Glendale, there was in fact an internal audit report that highlighted issues and if that were the City of Phoenix, the Audit Committee and Council would have received that audit report. According to the City Auditor in Glendale, she claimed that she was not allowed by the City Manager to give a copy of the audit report to the council. Mr. Zuercher stated that if a report such as the one in Glendale was issued by the Audit Department in Phoenix, it would be available to the public. Every report is posted online and distributed to the council members and Audit Committee. Mr. Greene added that if a report was issued with such significant information, he would brief the Audit Committee and its members to ensure the information is communicated properly. 6. New Pension Accounting Standards Mr. Zuercher stated that Ms. Gail Strohl was in attendance to discuss the pension related item and also asked Mr. Greene to introduce the staff present from the Audit Department.

DRAFT

8

Mr. Greene briefly described the reason why Grant Thornton was here to discuss the new pension accounting standards. The changes in accounting standards will be significant to the financial statements and that is why Grant Thornton was asked to come and present information on this topic. Mr. Greene also added that Mr. Neal Young and Ms. Strohl were available to discuss this along with Grant Thornton. Mr. Kohnle began to discuss the changes to the pension accounting standards and how the City will have to account for its pension obligation. Employers, post implementation of GASB 67 and 68, are going to have to report the City’s pension liability on the financial statements. Councilman Waring and Councilwoman Williams left because the meeting was running later than the expected and the council members had other obligations. Mr. Greene will update all three Audit Committee Council Members individually, to be scheduled shortly after this Audit Committee meeting. Ms. Dianne Barker, downtown resident, asked if this meeting had a call to the public. Mr. Zuercher stated that a call to the public is not required by open meeting law, but it has been a practice of the City to do that. The call to the public was not posted this time, which was an oversight, but it will be posted to the agenda in future meetings. Ms. Barker stated that she appreciated his accommodation and that she did have a question. Mr. Zuercher asked Ms. Barker if the question was related to the pension agenda item. She stated that her question was related to agenda item 6, New Pension Accounting Standards. Mr. Zuercher asked her to hold off on her question until the external auditors completed their presentation of the changes. Mr. Kohnle continued his presentation of the changes and stated that GASB 68 is the change that the City has to implement and GASB 67 is the change that COPERS has to implement. The current rules are what Mr. Kohnle likes to call an income statement approach. The actuary makes the determination of what the employer should contribute to adequately fund that plan in order for the plan to meet its obligations. Currently, if the actuary said the City should contribute a certain amount, the City contributes that exact amount and does not book a liability on their financial statements. Under the new guidance, it really acts more like a balance sheet approach. It’s one thing to contribute what the actuary says we need to contribute in order to meet its obligations and be able to make payments to retirees, but it’s more complex when you begin to think about how employees actually earn those retirement benefits. The new standards are actually asking the question of whether an employee earned those benefits over the course of employment, not post retirement. If an employer prepared

DRAFT

9

the balance sheet approach, one would actually calculate net present value of the future stream of benefits that one would receive post-employment. Mr. De Respino asked that what happens when the employer comes up with that liability dollar amount. Mr. Kohnle stated that when an employer takes the snapshot and calculates the net present value, that is the amount booked as a liability on the financial statements. Mr. De Respino asked if the employer takes into consideration what has been put into an employee’s pension that would meet any of that obligation. Mr. Kohnle replied that the liability is really the net of what the future obligation is less the amount that has been contributed to date. He continued that GASB 67 is effective plan year ending June 30, 2014 and GASB 68 is effective plan year ending June 30, 2015. The City plans to implement the changes on the dates specified. The net pension liability could be and is expected to be one of the bigger liabilities for governments, City of Phoenix being no different. Ms. Baker asked if this was limited to the defined benefit plan, and not covering other post-employment plans. Mr. Kohnle replied that other post-employment benefits (OPEB) would eventually follow suit and be included in this financial reporting, but it will not be effective when GASB 67 and 68 go into effect. If OPEB did follow, it would have to go through the same process and would be its own GASB standard. Mr. Kohnle added that there is no regulatory funding mandate for governments and GASB has made it clear that their focus is accounting and developing appropriate accounting guidance to be able to account for, measure and report these liabilities. The choices made for accounting don’t always work well for funding purposes. Most of the employers that Mr. Kohnle is familiar with seem to think there will be two actuarial studies. One to determine what the contribution requirement has been and should be, and the second would be looking at how to do the accounting and record the liability. Mr. Kohnle gave the example of a 25 year old person that gets hired and is paid $20,000 a year. This person is expected to work 30 years and retire at age 55, with an assumed compensation of $72,000, and mortality is expected to be at 80. Retirement payments are expected to be made from the age of 55 to 80. In this example, the person is now 45, working as a firefighter for 20 years and is making $55,000 a year now. The math calculation will be determining what the person earns in their service period total, what will be paid out in retirement, and how much has this person earned to date. The challenge will be in the actuarial study, in that whatever actuarial method chosen will determine how the amount is spread over the employee’s working years. The offset to the liability is the contributions made by the employee up to current.

DRAFT

10

Mr. Kohnle concluded and stated that in order to achieve maximum benefit, the City will need to work closely with its pension plan to ensure a smooth transition in reporting approaches while maintaining a clear funding strategy. Mr. De Respino asked what the unintended consequences are going to be. One that comes to his mind is booking the large liability and how that will reflect on the City’s financial position and whether it will appear that the City will not be able to pay and trigger any defaults. Mr. Neal Young replied that at this point the City is not anticipating defaulting on any debt. He said the City is aware that this will be a large liability that will show on the balance sheet. He continued that he feels comfortable in the City’s ability to manage the accounting changes. Just as we would manage our mortgage on a monthly basis, the City will manage this liability on a monthly basis. Mr. Zuercher stated that Finance is working through these types of concerns and added that it seems like a psychological thing. Managing your mortgage on a monthly basis is reasonable with someone’s income stream, but managing the total mortgage liability would be shocking. There will be an adjustment period to seeing the total liability on the financial statements to what is actually due in the current period. Mr. Zuercher added that the City will have to be aware of their financial position as that is very important. Mr. Young stated that he feels comfortable with the Finance staff, along with the COPERS group, and their skills and knowledge as it relates to the accounting changes. Mr. Zuercher added that this will be a nationwide change and everyone will be adjusting. Mr. Kohnle said that it will be about education and realizing that it is a long term liability. Ms. Strohl stated that the pension plan has been aware of this for a while and measures have been taken to start implementation of it. She added that they are ready to implement the changes this fiscal year. The COPERS retirement board actually made some actuarial changes in the fall that made it so that they will have a higher discount rate to use than they would otherwise. The actual impact to the pension plan will be minimal, with maybe three or four additional disclosures or schedules in the CAFR. There is no direct financial impact to the plan. Ms. Baker asked if the City had a feel for what the liability number will be at the next Audit Committee Meeting. Ms. Strohl stated that it would be after year end before they actually had a number. The current liability is approximately $1 billion. Mr. Zuercher asked the citizen at the meeting, Ms. Dianne Barker, to pose her question she had earlier.

DRAFT

11

Ms. Barker asked if she had to go through a formal process in seeking audit information. Mr. Zuercher said it would be best for Ms. Barker to talk with Mr. Greene after the meeting to see what information she needs and what is the best way to get it. 7. Future Agenda Items Mr. Zuercher stated that one future agenda item would be the presentation on the City’s reserves. Mr. Greene added that he will be presenting next year’s audit plan. 9. Adjournment Mr. Zuercher adjourned the meeting at 11:24 a.m.

City of PhoenixSelf Insurance Program

12

• The City of Phoenix is self insured for liability claims up to $7.5

million per claim

• Excess Liability insurance is purchased to cover claims over $7.5

million

• The City currently maintains a reserve of approximately $40 million

to support the payment of claims

13

Liability Coverage in Excess of Self-Insured Retention ($7.5 million/claim)

The City purchases

$150 million in Excess

Liability coverage in

increments of $15 -$25

million

$25,000,000 Excess $115,000,000Allied World National Assurance Co.

$91,981 Including TRIA

$25,000,000 Excess $90,000,000ARCH Insurance Co.


$25,000,000 Excess $65,000,000ACE/Westchester


$25,000,000 Excess $40,000,000Great American Insurance Co. of New York


$25,000,000 Excess of $15,000,000Lexington Insurance Co.$380,000 Including TRIA

$15,000,000 Excess of SIRStarr Indemnity and Insurance Co.


$7,500,000Self-Insured Retention

$10,000,000 Excess of $140,000,000

Endurance American Insurance Company


14

• Total liability payments for the preceding 10 years

have averaged $13- $15 million annually

• The $40 million reserve equates to approximately 3

years of annual claims expenditures; consistent with

industry standards

• The City receives an average of 1200 claims per year,

ranging from minor trip and fall injuries to wrongful

death.

15

Fiscal Management

The City’s Excess Liability premiums for the current fiscal year are

approximately $1.65 million; a slight increase from the prior year;

but below the industry average.

This represented the first uptick in premiums after several years of

declining excess liability costs and was reflective of the global

insurance market.

16

17

To: Ed Zuercher City Manager

Date: May 1, 2014

From: Bill Greene

City Auditor Subject: FY 2014/15 AUDIT PLAN

This report presents the draft City of Phoenix fiscal year (FY) 2014/15 Audit Plan to the Audit Committee for review and approval (Attachments A and B). THE ISSUE In accordance with Phoenix City Code Section 2-16, an audit plan is developed each year and presented to the Audit Committee for approval. The intrinsic nature of auditing dictates that not every program and transaction receives audit coverage. As a result, the City Auditor Department (Department) used a risk based approach to identify potential audit projects. OTHER INFORMATION The Department’s approach to develop the audit plan used data and risk analysis coupled with auditor experience and judgment, the audit staff’s continuous observation of risks throughout the year, and our clients’ self-assessment of risks. Audits were planned using the following categories: (See Attachment D for a detailed description):

• Accounting/Reporting

• Asses/Liabilities

• Expenditures/Capital Improvement Program

• Fees

• Grants

• Information Systems

• Management Systems

• Revenue We performed research and conducted analytical steps, including:

• Determined the population for certain audit focal areas (e.g. contracts, cash accounts, grants, user fees, IT systems). This was performed through the use of City financial system data (SAP), as well as information obtained from department documents and publications including information management

18

plans, Continuity of Operation Plans, Comprehensive Budget Reports, department policies and procedures, and information system inventories.

• Where relevant, we applied and scored risk factors for the audit categories. Risk factors may include: dollar value, change in activity, variances in account balances, time since last audit, results of last audit, control environment, fraud, public perception, and any known changes in regulations or industry;

• Reviewed our database of current and proposed IT systems audits;

• Obtained feedback from auditors who identified risk areas and issues while working on audits;

• Obtained feedback from client departments on their self assessment of risks and audit suggestions;

• Review prior audit recommendations that have been implemented during the year to determine if there is a need for a follow-up audit;

• Reviewed results of continuous auditing projects for potential areas of concern;

• Identified audits that are required to be done by law/ordinance or administrative regulation;

• Contacted department Human Resource representatives to identify any disciplinary actions or concerns regarding fraud issues;

• Evaluated what has been or will be covered in external audits, as well as reviewed external audit reports to identify issues that may need further audit coverage or follow-up;

• Performed internet research to identify areas reviewed by other local government audit agencies;

• Confirmed amount of audit coverage across the City.

In addition to analysis by audit category, we performed a department-specific risk assessment for the Aviation Department (Aviation). Aviation has committed dedicated funding to ensure additional audit coverage of its activities.

Based on the above steps, we judgmentally selected the highest priority audits for the audit plan that we could address with existing audit resources. Audits that could not be accommodated were recorded in our audit planning database to be evaluating during the following year planning process. For information, Attachment C shows 40 of the high priority projects not included in the plan. In addition, we would need to drop projects on the plan to respond to unplanned requests that come from departments and the City Manager’s Office during the year. These are generally high priority issues that cannot be deferred to a subsequent year.

19

The allocation of budgeted audit hours by category for the FY 2014/15 audit plan is shown below:

RECOMMENDATION None. For information only.

Accounting & Reporting

7%

Assets & Liabilities

8%

Expenditures24%

Fees2%

Grants3%

Information Systems

12%

Investigation2%

Management Systems

19%

Revenue23%

CITY AUDITOR DEPARTMENT2014/2015 AUDIT PLAN BY CATEGORY HOURS

20

ATTACHMENT A CITY OF PHOENIX CITY AUDITOR DEPARTMENT PROPOSED FY 2014/15 AUDIT PLAN - CITYWIDE

CATEGORY

DEPARTMENT TITLE SCOPE


Budget & Research Salary & Benefit Forecasting Review the process for forecasting salary and benefit costs for the budget process to determine if it is reasonable, accurate, and documented.

City Auditor External Financial Audits - Grant Manage the external auditor contract to Thornton conduct the City’s annual financial audits.

City Manager City Manager's Performance Dashboard Validate a sample of measurements in the Data Validation City Manager's Performance Dashboard to ensure data integrity.

City Manager Year End Audit Follow-up Provide Executive Management with results for the percent of Citywide audit recommendations implemented by target date.

Finance Continuous Auditing of Monthly Conduct high level review of City's Financial Report Monthly Financial Report sent to Mayor/Council.

Finance Federal Single Audit - Grant Thornton Manage the external auditor contract to conduct the City’s annual audit of federal grant funds.

Finance Municipal Banking Services Agreement Evaluate adequacy of contract compliance and monitoring.

Finance Pension Contribution & Investment Determine if pension contribution and Bookings investment transactions are booked accurately and timely and have adequate back-up.

Finance Year-end Review of Monthly Financial Determine reasons for material changes in Report financial data presented in the Monthly Financial Report and reconcile to the City's audited financial statements.

21

CATEGORY


Fire Certification Compliance Determine adequacy of controls over monitoring Emergency Medical Service, Paramedic, and special skill certification renewals for compliance with state regulations.


City Wide Bank Accounts Maintained by Determine if bank accounts maintained by Departments departments are being properly maintained and reconciled to ensure funds are adequately safeguarded.

City Wide Citywide Review of Infrastructure Evaluate processes used to identify, Management quantify and prioritize required maintenance and repair of critical capital infrastructure.

City Wide Continuous Auditing of Cash Monitor, analyze and test activity in cash accounts maintained by departments.

Fire/Police Inventory Management and Controls Evaluate department inventory to ensure proper custody and control as well as efficiency of operations.

Parks & Recreation Golf Course - Inventory Control and Evaluate controls over inventory for resale Cash Handling and cash receipts to ensure City assets are safeguarded and managed appropriately.

Public Works Solid Waste Billing Follow-up Determine if Public Works has implemented prior audit recommendations aimed at ensuring all customers are billed for the solid waste services received.

Public Works Solid Waste Container Program Verify if adequate controls are in place to Evaluation efficiently and effectively handle order, delivery, inventory control, and billing of refuse and recycle containers.

Water Services Water Billing System Accounts Review status on previous audit Receivable recommendations and perform detailed testing of account adjustments.

Expenditures

City Wide Continuous Auditing of Expenditures Perform ongoing testing of expenditure transactions citywide based on fluctuation analysis and other analytical methods.

City Wide Continuous Auditing of Payroll Perform ongoing testing of payroll transactions citywide based on fluctuation analysis and other analytical methods.

22

CATEGORY


City Wide Procurement Review Evaluate support for non-competitive procurements, City Council approvals and written contracts as defined by City policy.

Finance Central Payroll Processing Procedures Evaluate controls over centralized payroll processing to ensure accurate and timely processing of pay.

Finance Citywide Central Services Cost Review calculation and methodology for Allocations the allocation of citywide central services cost allocations to operating departments.

Finance Lease Purchases Review lease purchase payments to determine if adequately monitored and identify any possible cost savings.

Human Resources Medical Claims / Worker's Perform testing to identify any payments Compensation Billings made under worker's compensation that were also paid by medical insurance providers.

Human Services General Contractual Review Determine if professional service procurements are conducted in accordance with City policy.

Phoenix Convention Ctr Schindler Elevator/Escalator Evaluate compliance with contract Maintenance Contract requirements and adequacy of monitoring.

Planning & Development Contract Services Evaluate contract compliance and contract monitoring efforts regarding third party service agreements for supplemental staff.

Public Transit Contract Audit - First Transit Determine if adequate contract monitoring procures exist and the contractor is complying with contract terms.

Public Works Contract Audit - Green Organics Evaluate compliance with contract requirements and adequacy of monitoring.

Retirement Systems Annual Required Pension Contribution Verify that the ARC as calculated by the COPERS actuary (which is calculated as a percentage of payroll) is being appropriately applied and paid to the COPERS pension fund.

Retirement Systems Pension Benefits & Refunds Conduct testing to ensure that COPERS benefits and refunds are calculated accurately and in accordance with Plan provisions. Evaluate controls for adequacy.

23

CATEGORY


Water Services Water Treatment Supply Contract Review Review chemicals used, quantity and vendor used for water treatment.

Fees

City Manager Annual User Fee Review Conduct high-level analytical review of user fees for reasonableness and to project recovery rates.

Municipal Court Default Fee Cost Model Review cost model to ensure it accurately reflects costs associated with this process.

Grants

Neighborhood Services Neighborhood Stabilization Program Determine if Neighborhood Services (NSP) - Federal Reporting and Housing Departments are accurately reporting grant activity to the US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development.

Neighborhood Services Neighborhood Stabilization Program Determine if US Dept. of Housing and (NSP) Affordability Requirements Urban Development affordability requirements are being met by Neighborhood Services and Housing Departments.

Street Transportation Grants and Other Government Verify proper accounting for state Participation grants and other government participation to ensure funds are received and used as intended.

Information Systems

City Wide Cloud Computing Review how ITS is using cloud services and ensure that appropriate controls, contract wording, and contract monitoring are in place.

City Wide Modem Usage Compliance Identify all modems being used in the City and validate that they are appropriate and not used to circumvent network controls to protect City data.

City Wide Software Application Inventory In coordination with ITS, create an Development application inventory that lists applications used by departments and essential data elements about each application.

24

CATEGORY


City Wide Support of Major IT Systems For major City applications, evaluate the human resources support for those systems and identify instances where there is one or fewer full time equivalents (FTE) supporting part of a major system.

Finance Application Controls - Cashiering for Review the application for basic controls Windows over data input, processing, and output controls, including interfaces and error handling.

Finance eProcurement Implementation Evaluate the adequacy of key controls during the implementation phase of the new eProcurement system.

Information Technology City Privacy Management Evaluate how well City policies align with industry standards and how well the City's Privacy Officer has implemented privacy- related A.R.'s and IT standards.

Information Technology Operating System Configuration & For servers managed by ITS, review Patch Management system configuration, security hardening, and patch management practices ensure ongoing system confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Information Technology Review of Potential IT Continuous Evaluate the different types of security Auditing Capabilities events that could be monitored and how continuous auditing of those events could take place.

Information Technology Security Monitoring & Incident Response Review ITS's practices for monitoring security events and reporting/escalating potential incidents.

Parks & Recreation IT General Controls Determine compliance with IT Governance, Information Security, Computer Operations, Change Management, and Systems Development.

Police Applications Controls - Record Evaluate controls over the RMS Management System (RMS) application (input, processing, and output) and general controls (access and security).

Police Privacy - Information Management Review Police's information management Plan Assessments plan to ensure it addresses all instances of personal identifying information and restricted City information and that appropriate controls are in place.

25

CATEGORY


Investigation

City Manager Integrity Line Administration Perform administrative tasks and reporting for the Integrity Committee, as well as perform investigations as required.

Management Systems

City Wide Light Duty Program Evaluate management controls over the Light Duty Program.

City Wide Solar Projects Ensure solar projects are being adequately coordinated and related contracts monitored by city staff to ensure compliance with contract terms.

Economic Development CED Audit TBD from risk assessment A department risk self-assessment is being performed in FY 2014 which will be used to develop the scope of this audit.

Equal Opportunity Investigations Process Improvement Review EOD's process for prioritizing and investigating complaints for potential improvement.

Fire Key Accountability Review of system controls to ensure security and accuracy of master keys.

Fire Uniform Store Evaluate the operations of the Fire Uniform Store to ensure adequacy of controls, necessity and efficiency of operations, and proper cost recovery.

Housing Affordable Housing Management & Evaluate the management of the City's Oversight Controls affordable housing portfolio and the financial reserves generated from operations.

Housing Housing “Instrumentalities” Review the legal structure created to manage its inventory of public housing (e.g. LLC’s) and verify if controls are adequate to mitigate financial risks to the City.

Law Department Prosecutor's Office Case Management Evaluate the case management process Review and staff caseloads to identify potential efficiencies.

Parks & Recreation Contract Audit - Non- Profit Entity Determine contract compliance and Contracts adequacy of contract monitoring to ensure non-profit entities are providing the contracted services.

26

CATEGORY


Police Property Management Bureau Determine adequacy of controls and processes to ensure proper custody, handling and disposition of seized property and evidence.

Police Use of Force Review Assist Professional Standards Bureau in an evaluation of the Phoenix Police Department's Use of Force policies.

Public Works Equipment Maintenance System Data Validate the Equipment Maintenance Validation System (M5) data that is used for bid certification cost modeling.

Revenue

Economic Development Contract Audit - Sheraton Hotel Evaluate contract compliance and contract monitoring efforts.

Finance Accounting for Restricted Tax Funds Determine if tax revenue is allocated to the proper restricted funds to ensure funds are used in accordance with applicable laws.

Finance Continuous Auditing of Accounts Daily comparison of delinquent accounts Payable to Accounts Receivable receivable customers to warrants being issued to identify payments that should be stopped.

Public Transit Annual Contract Reconciliation Review the accuracy of reconciliation of actual costs to estimated costs paid by Transit partners to ensure the city is reimbursed for costs of services provided.

Public Transit Regional Services Cost Recovery Ensure the accuracy of cost allocation calculations used to obtain reimbursement of costs for regional transit services.

Public Works Contract Audit - RE Community Ensure revenue collection, contract compliance and monitoring is adequate for recycling revenue.

27

ATTACHMENT B CITY OF PHOENIX CITY AUDITOR DEPARTMENT PROPOSED FY 2014/15 AUDIT PLAN - AVIATION DEPT.

CATEGORY


CIP

Aviation CIP Contract Close-Out Process Review Review and map current CIP contract close-out processes.

Expenditures

Aviation CIP - Follow-up on High Priority Audit Follow up on high priority audit Recommendations recommendations from prior CIP audits.

Aviation Contract Audit - Bombardier Review automated train maintenance contract to ensure compliance with contract terms.

Aviation Contract Audit - ISS Facility Services Review custodial contract and performance measures for ISS Facility Services to ensure compliance with contract terms.

Aviation Contract Audit - Renewable Electricity Review renewable electricity contract to ensure compliance with contract terms.

Aviation Contract Audit - Secret Shopper Review contract and performance measures to ensure compliance with contract terms.

Aviation Interterminal/Employee Bus Contract Review of Veolia contract to ensure compliance with contract terms and adequacy of monitoring efforts.

Management Systems

Aviation Part 139 Training Analysis Review training records for FBO fuel handlers, firefighters and Aviation to ensure training files are up to date and accurate for the annual FAA inspection.

Aviation Security Badging Review of Operations Security Portal security badging system to ensure compliance with mandates.

Revenue

Aviation Commercial Use Permit - General Review general compliance with Compliance Commercial Use Permits facility lease, fuel flowage and terminal space to ensure accurate and timely reporting.

28

CATEGORY


Aviation Contract Audit - Alliance Airport Review of contract to ensure compliance Advertising with contract terms.

Aviation Deer Valley Food and Retail Review concession contracts and gross sales reported to ensure compliance with contract terms.

Aviation For Hire Taxi Review of For Hire Taxi compliance with ground transportation contracts and permits.

Aviation Gross Revenue Verification Review Review process, timing and accuracy of gross revenue reconciliations by Aviation's Fiscal Management Division.

Aviation Hangar Rentals Review of hangar rental revenue permits for Deer Valley and Goodyear to ensure compliance with permit terms.

Aviation Phoenix Mesa Gateway Revenue Perform revenue audit for PhxMesa Gateway Airport.

Aviation Rental Car Contract - Enterprise Review rental car contract and land leases to ensure compliance.

Aviation Rental Car Contract - National/Alamo Review rental car contract and land lease to ensure compliance.

Aviation Rental Car Contract - Payless Review rental car contract and land lease to ensure compliance.

Aviation Rental Car Contract - Thrifty Review rental car contract and land leases to ensure compliance.

Aviation Revenue Contract Monitoring Training Prepare and provide revenue contract monitoring training to Aviation staff.

Aviation T-3 Food Concessions Review concession contracts and gross sales reported to ensure compliance with contract terms.

Aviation T-4 Retail Concessions - Phase 1 Review concession contracts and gross sales reported to ensure compliance with contract terms.

29

ATTACHMENT C CITY OF PHOENIX CITY AUDITOR DEPARTMENT CITYWIDE HIGH PRIORITY AUDITS IDENTIFIED - NOT INCLUDED ON PLAN

CATEGORY



City Wide Accuracy of Transaction Posting Determine if general ledger activity is being posted to the proper accounts to ensure accurate reporting of revenue and expenditures.

Finance Clearing Accounts Review clearing suspense accounts to ensure that transactions are appropriately assigned, adequately reviewed and cleared timely.

Police Police Overhead Rate Review Review overhead rate calculations to ensure they accurately reflect costs.


Finance Investment and Cash Management Procure an external consultant to review Analysis policies & internal controls.

Fire Ambulance Billing Evaluate the delinquent and bad debt collection process policies and procedures to determine if they are effective and appropriate.

Retirement Systems COPERS External Evaluation Procure an independent consultant to conduct a review of COPERS' governance.

Street Transportation Inventory Management Determine if controls over inventory are adequate to ensure inventory is safeguarded and accurately recorded in compliance with City policy.

Water Services Inventory Management Follow-up Conduct a follow-up audit on inventory management and control issues noted in a previous audit.

30

CATEGORY


Expenditures

Finance Debt Service Review debt service policies and practices. Debt service presents the largest cumulative expense which has not been previously audited.

Finance Single Use Accounts Determine if controls over newly implemented electronic “single use account” payments are functioning adequately.

Human Resources Fair Labor Standards Act Policy Review Evaluate City's compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act requirements.

Human Services Food Management Services Contract Evaluate compliance with contract requirements and adequacy of monitoring.

Law Department Professional Services - Outside Legal Evaluate contract compliance and Contracts contract monitoring efforts.

Phoenix Convention Ctr Contract Monitoring of Large Contracts Determine if large dollar contracts are compliant with contract terms. Determine if adequate monitoring exists.

Police Photo Radar Contract Review Evaluate compliance with contract requirements and adequacy of monitoring.

Public Transit Property Lease Agreements Determine if lease payments are accurately calculated and leases are being adequately monitored.

Public Works Employee Bus Pass Program Evaluate controls over employee Bus Administration Card/Platinum Pass program including card distribution, invoice processing and policy enforcement.

Public Works Fleet Management Review Review of fleet management to potentially include fuel usage, maintenance costs and vehicle utilization.

Grants

City Wide Effect of Changes in Federal Grant Determine if the City is prepared to Regulations implement changes in the federal regulations related to grants.

City Manager Homeland Security - Grant Funding for Evaluate compliance for grant funding used for the Protection of Critical Infrastructure protection of critical infrastructure.

31

CATEGORY


Information Systems

City Wide Software Management - Oracle Review the software license management and identify management, tracking, compliance and possible savings due to nonuse.

Finance Application Controls - SAP Review the application for basic controls over data input, processing, and output controls, with an emphasis on SAP Basis (security) administration.

Information Technology Application Controls - ePayments Review the application for basic controls over data input, processing, and output controls, including interfaces and error handling.

Management Systems

City Wide Organization wide Segregation of Duties CAD lead a self-assessment process w/ operating departments to identify segregation of duty conflicts and potential solutions or compensating controls.

City Clerk Records Retention Evaluate the effectiveness of controls to ensure electronic records are retained in accordance with legal requirements (e.g. record retention schedules and meeting discovery requirements).

City Manager New Law/Regulation Compliance Review the City’s process (Intergovernmental Programs, Law, Operating Depts.) for ensuring compliance with new laws and regulations passed at the end of each session (State and Federal).

Finance Fiscal Sustainability and Financial Evaluate projected revenue/debt to Condition evaluate the future financial stability of the City.

Fire Fire Prevention Evaluate controls to ensure all required permits are obtained/renewed and that inspections are adequate.

Human Resources Work Force Continuity Identify and evaluate current procedures for continuity. Conduct survey of city departments and other municipalities to identify best practices.

Municipal Court Home Detention Evaluation Evaluate if cost savings are realized through implementation of home detention versus incarceration in jail.

32

CATEGORY


Planning & Development Permit Code Compliance Evaluate internal controls to ensure compliance with code requirements for permits issued.

Police Caseloads for Investigative Details Evaluate detective caseloads for various bureaus and identify potential efficiencies.

Police Crime Lab Review status of previous audit recommendations and perform a current risk assessment.

Police Custody of Seized Property Evaluate adequacy of controls over cash and drugs seized by Police Officers.

Public Works Recycling Goals Evaluate if the City's recycling goals are measurable and achievable.

Revenue

City Wide Cost Recovery Review for Review high dollar revenue generating Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) intergovernmental agreement's to ensure cost recovery, adequacy of controls, and accurate and timely payments.

Planning & Development Building Permit Review Determine how City and County permit funds are tracked and applied to the proper account.

Public Transit CBS Advertising Contract Evaluate whether CBS is paying the city in accordance with contract terms and adequacy of Transit monitoring efforts.

Public Transit Clear Channel Advertising Contract Evaluate whether Clear Channel is paying the city in accordance with contract terms and adequacy of Transit monitoring efforts.

Water Services Unbilled Water Follow-up Follow-up on prior testing of potential unbilled water accounts.

33

ATTACHMENT D CITY OF PHOENIX

CITY AUDITOR DEPARTMENT

AUDIT CATEGORY DEFINITIONS

Accounting & Reporting Audits of reports with accounting, performance, financial, or other key data generated throughout the City to determine accuracy, completeness, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Examples include the City's annual financial statements, federal forfeiture funds reports, and ADA compliance.

Assets & Liabilities Audits to verify accurate recording, compliance with City policy and proper internal controls for custody, management, maintenance, and disposal. Assets may include cash, land, buildings, equipment, machinery, vehicles, leasehold improvements, inventory, and accounts receivables. Liabilities include items such as accounts payable, bonds, trust liabilities and interest payable.

Expenditures/CIP Projects to test payments made to vendors/contractors, employees or retirees through the city's SAP system for accuracy and compliance with applicable contracts, laws and regulations. Audits also include reviews of monitoring and management controls over expenditure of funds. Audits of City CIP expenditures to review areas such as good business practice, adequate management control, proper procurement, contract compliance, and accurate payments. CIP expenditures are made to maintain and expand the public infrastructure (e.g. roads, sewers, water lines, parks, light rail, libraries, and airport taxiways).

Fees Reviews of fees that departments charge internally or to outside users for services provided by the City (e.g. impact, water, fire prevention). Audits include projecting cost recovery and validating and/or creating cost models.

Grants Reviews of grant revenue and expenditures to determine compliance with funding agency requirements. This work is performed in addition to the Single Audit performed by the City’s external auditors each year.

Information Systems Risk assessments and audits of City department technology infrastructures (computer centers, servers, network components, user workstations) and applications/software supporting City business processes.

34

Management Systems Projects to conduct risk assessments and facilitate process improvement reviews used to help achieve management objectives (e.g. improve contract monitoring).

Revenue Audits of City revenue sources (e.g. accounts receivable, concession agreements, taxes, fines, fees) to determine proper accounting, complete payment, compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and contracts and adequate monitoring and control.

35

To: Ed Zuercher City Manager

Date: May 1, 2014

From: Bill Greene

City Auditor Subject: CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR EXTERNAL AUDIT SERVICES

This report requests the Audit Committee to approve a recommendation to extend the term of agreement with Grant Thornton LLP for one (1) year and modify the compensation. THE ISSUE The City of Phoenix Charter and Code require that the City Auditor arrange for an annual audit of the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and the Federal Single Audit. These audits must be conducted by one or more certified public accountants who are not City employees (external auditors). The City has a long standing practice of changing external auditors at least every five years. OTHER INFORMATION Grant Thornton LLP was selected through a competitive request for proposal (RFP) process and recently completed its second year of audits for FY 2012/13. All contract deliverables were met and positive feedback on auditor performance was obtained from Finance Department management. The original contract allows up to four one-year extensions. The proposed contract for FY 2013/14 audits totals $495,070. The fee includes a six percent increase from the current year, as agreed to during the RFP process, and the addition of the Phoenix Parks and Preserve Attestation requested by the City Manager. Other audits include the following: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), Federal Single Audit, Expenditure Limitation Report, Highway User Compliance Audit, Civic Improvement Corporation Annual Report, City of Phoenix Employees’ Retirement System Annual Report, Aviation Annual Report, Aviation Passenger Facility Charge Program, Val Vista Water Treatment Plant and the Phoenix Parks and Preserves Initiative Program.

36

All payments are not-to-exceed amounts as summarized below:

Audit Year 3 Fee

CAFR $242,157

Single Audit 101,665

Expenditure Limit Report 4,266

Highway User Compliance 1,235

Civic Improvement Corp Annual Financial Report

36,146

Employee’s Retirement Financial Statements 35,616

Aviation Annual Report 37,418

Aviation Passenger Facility Charge Audit 4,267

Val Vista Water Treatment Plant 29,500

Phoenix Parks and Preserves Initiative Program

2,800

Total $495,070 RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the Audit Committee recommend City Council approval to extend the term of agreement with Grant Thornton LLP for one (1) year and modify the compensation to not exceed $495,070 for FY 2013/14 audits.

City Auditor Department

May 8, 2014

37

� Citywide/ongoing testing throughout the year

� Review of high risk transactions for errors, misappropriation and fraud

� Uses audit software to analyze “Big Data”

� Often involves follow-up to research discrepancies

� One summary report = less administrative work

38

� Compare all vendor addresses to all employee addresses

� Identify Duplicate Vendor Payments

� Review of Monthly Financial Reports

� Accounts Payable vs. Accounts Receivable

� Analysis of payments using Benford’s Law to identify anomalies

39

Benford’s Law:

40

� Social Security # Validation

� Employee Leave

� Pay Plan Testing

� Specialty Compensation

� Employees with Same Name

� Employee Birth Date Review

� Gross Wage Adjustments

� Replacement Checks

41

� Trends for Petty Cash Use

� Review of Cash Overages/Shortages

� Special Purpose Checking Accounts

� Fuel and Credit Card Purchases

42

Notice May 2014 Audit Committee Meeting - Phoenix, Arizona · NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF...

Documents

Transcript of Notice May 2014 Audit Committee Meeting - Phoenix, Arizona · NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF...