5:30 pm 1. Audit Serv - Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools

Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Finance Committee Meeting

Date: May 11, 2020 Place: Virtual Time: 5:30 p.m.

1. Audit Services RFP Committee Report

Report on the findings of the Audit RFP review committee and discuss best option(s) to bring forward to the BOE as a recommendation for external audit services for the fiscal year ended 6/30/20. A one page summary of the committee’s review and each firm’s proposal is attached.

2. Review of the NC School Business Systems Modernization Office’s MOU

Discussion surrounding the requirement for CHCCS to update the Memorandum of Understanding with NCDPI relating to participation in the State-wide ERP pilot program. In order to receive continued State funding next year to continue our modernization work, NCDPI requires an updated MOU to be executed and brought before the NC State Board ofEducation in June. A summary of the requirements, flowchart, and MOU is attached.

3. Update on the continued work on Base Personnel Allotment Formulas Continued discussion surrounding the adoption of Base Allotment Formulas to be includedin the BOE’s final approved 2020-2021 Budget. Work is continuing, a copy of the most recent draft is attached.

AS&W TPS&A M&J S&P

Audit Year 6/30/2020 47,500$ 49,500$ 39,000$ 50,398$

Audit Year 6/30/2021 48,500 49,500 40,000 51,910

Audit Year 6/30/2022 49,500 49,500 41,000 53,467

3 Year Totals 145,500$ 148,500$ 120,000$ 155,775$

Audit Year 6/30/2020 Cost Ranking 2 3 1 4

3 Year Cummulative Cost Ranking 2 3 1 4

Audit Approach 8.9 8.3 8.9 5.5

Governmental Audit Experience 9.4 8.7 6.7 7.4

Specialized Skills ‐ NC LEA Specific 9.5 8.8 7.6 5.9

Availability During the Year for Consultation 9.1 7.7 2.5 6.0

Ability to Perform Additional Work 9.1 8.1 6.2 5.6

Average Score 9.2 8.3 6.4 6.1

Ranking 1 2 3 4

Jonathan Scott ‐Finance Ellen Hines ‐ Finance

Kelly Glosson ‐ Instructional Services Justin Kiser ‐ Finance/EC

Denise Buckley ‐ Finance Amy Langenderfer ‐ Community Schools

Amanda Bales ‐ Finance Tami Zubler ‐ Pre K/ Headstart

Laverne Riggsbee ‐ East Chapel Hill High School Linda Fyle ‐ Scroggs Elementary School

Julie Walker ‐ McDougle Middle School Marie Williams‐Skinner ‐ Human Resources

Rochell Selvey ‐ Finance

Committee Members:

Bid Tabulation/Comparison for Audit RFP for 6/30/20

May 6, 2020

Base Audit Fees (Including Financial Statements):

Other Decision Factors:

CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO

CITY SCHOOLS

Proposal for Audit Services

First Section

June 30, 2020, 2021 and 2022

Table of contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

Firm Background ..................................................................................................................... 2

Services Requested ................................................................................................................... 3

Audit Approach ........................................................................................................................ 3

Requested Information ............................................................................................................. 4

Most Recent Peer Review Letter .............................................................................................. 13

Independence Policy ................................................................................................................. 14

1 | P a g e

Certified Public Accountants

ANDERSON SMITH & WIKE PLLCA S W

Dear Mr. Scott,

Thank you for giving Anderson Smith & Wike PLLC the opportunity to bid on the audit services

for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. We are a service-oriented accounting firm and our largest

practice area is in providing audit services to school districts. In fact, we audit more school

districts in North Carolina than any other firm. Since we serve so many school districts

throughout the state we are able to ensure that our clients are well-informed relating to any

pending or actual changes in the industry. We truly feel that we are a valuable resource for our

clients.

On behalf of Anderson Smith & Wike PLLC, we are all very pleased to be able to provide you

with this proposal for the audit of the basic financial statements of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City

Schools for the years ending June 30, 2020, 2021 and 2022.

If you have any questions, or would like to discuss the proposal in more detail, do not hesitate to

call. I can be reached at (910) 997-1418.

Sincerely,

Dale Smith, CPA

Anderson Smith & Wike PLLC

2 | P a g e

Firm Background

Anderson Smith & Wike PLLC is a full-service accounting firm serving clients throughout North

Carolina. With offices in Gastonia, Statesville, Rockingham and West End, we are dedicated to

providing our clients with professional, personalized services and guidance in a wide range of

financial and business needs.

Our firm’s five partners (Ken Anderson, Dale Smith, Michael Wike, Adam Scepurek and Vince

Quinn) have an average of over 20 years of public accounting experience, with the majority of

those years spent focusing on providing services to governmental entities. Our current practice,

as you will see in our proposal, includes a strong concentration in audit services provided to

governmental entities, particularly school districts. Unlike most firms, governmental audits and

related services are the key practice area in our firm and is where we focus the majority of our

efforts and training. In addition, Anderson Smith and Wike PLLC is a strong supporter of

NCASBO having presented classes at each of the last seven winter conferences held in

Greensboro.

Anderson Smith and Wike PLLC prides itself in customer service. We are able to combine

extensive experience and industry specific knowledge with hands-on service to provide a

superior level of customer service. At Anderson Smith and Wike PLLC our clients never feel as

if they are simply a number, as we value each and every client – no matter how large or how

small.

The firm is a member of the North Carolina Association of Certified Public Accountants

(NCACPA) and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). As such, we

comply with all peer review requirements of the AICPA.

3 | P a g e

Services Requested

Anderson Smith & Wike PLLC will provide the following services for Chapel Hill-Carrboro

City Schools:

• Audit of the basic financial statements of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools for the years

ending June 30, 2020, 2021 and 2022 in accordance with auditing standards generally

accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits

contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the

United States.

• In conjunction with the audit of the basic financial statements, we will consider Chapel

Hill-Carrboro City Schools’ internal control over financial reporting and test its

compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants as required

by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Uniform Guidance and the State

Single Audit Implementation Act.

• Preparation of the audited basic financial statements for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City

Schools for the years ending June 30, 2020, 2021 and 2022.

• Preparation of the Federal Data Collection Form.

• Issuance of a management letter detailing internal control deficiencies, if any, that are

noted during the course of the audit of the basic financial statements.

• Preparation of an Auditor Communications Letter.

Audit Approach

Our audit approach is designed to make the audit as efficient and effective as possible. We strive

to coordinate and schedule the audit such that the day-to-day work flow of the school board

employees is disrupted as little as possible. In addition, our planning and scheduling efforts

enable us to complete the audit fieldwork efficiently without needing multiple “return visits” to

gather additional information. We feel our extensive school board audit experience coupled with

on-site, partner service is what enables Anderson Smith & Wike PLLC to achieve these

efficiencies.

We will utilize standardized Governmental Audit Programs as well as Federal and State

Compliance Supplements as published by the applicable Federal grantor agency or North

Carolina’s Local Government Commission. Our tests will be performed utilizing various

sampling techniques as deemed appropriate for the specific objective of the test being performed.

4 | P a g e

Requested Information

1. Staffing

Staffing is where Anderson Smith & Wike PLLC rises above the rest. The Chapel Hill-

Carrboro City Schools audit team will include a partner on the account with over 25 years

of school board audit experience and a manager with over 10 years of school board audit

experience. In addition, our staff accountants are well-seasoned school board auditors.

Again, this goes back to our focus being on school board audits. Our staff will not ask

questions that leave members of your finance department wondering “do these auditors

know what they’re doing?” Our highly experienced auditors will ensure the audit runs

smoothly and minimize the disruption of the daily activities of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City

Schools’ staff. The number of people (by level) that we propose will work on the audit of Chapel Hill-

Carrboro City Schools’ basic financial statement audit will be as follows:

Engagement Partner 1

Partner (Consultation and Planning) 1

Audit Manager 1

Staff Accountants 2

2. School Board Audit Clients

Anderson Smith & Wike PLLC is currently engaged to audit the following school

districts:

• Alamance-Burlington School System • Lee County Schools

• Alexander County Schools • Lexington City Schools

• Ashe County Schools

• Bladen County Schools

• Brunswick County Schools

• Cabarrus County Schools

• Carteret County Schools

• Caswell County Schools

• Catawba County Schools

• Chapel Hill – Carrboro City Schools

• Cleveland County Schools

• Clinton City Schools

• Macon County Schools

• Montgomery County Schools

• Mooresville Graded School District

• Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools

• Northampton County Schools

• Onslow County Schools

• Orange County Schools

• Person County Schools

• Polk County Schools

• Buncombe County Schools

• Davie County Schools

• Duplin County Schools

• Richmond County Schools

• Roanoke Rapids City Schools

5 | P a g e

2. School Board Audit Clients (continued)

• Gaston County Schools

• Halifax County Schools

• Haywood County Schools

• Hickory City Schools

• Hoke County Schools

• Kannapolis City Schools

• Johnston County Schools

• Bertie County Schools

• Granville County Schools

• Rockingham County Schools

• Rutherford County Schools

• Scotland County Schools

• Union County Public Schools

• Weldon City Schools

• Chatham County Schools

• Surry County Schools

• Davidson County Schools

• Jackson County Schools

• Yancey County Schools

• Stanly County Schools

• Wilson County Schools

• Madison County Schools

• Graham County Schools

• Arapahoe Charter School

• Currituck County Schools

• Avery County Schools

3. Additional Professional Services

Our auditors have provided additional professional services to numerous school boards

throughout their careers. A brief listing of these past engagements follows. Please

contact Dale Smith if additional information is needed relating to any of these

engagements.

• Analysis of ABC Transfers – waivers

• Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagements

• Assistance with GASB 34/68/75 Implementation

• Assistance with ASBO and GFOA Submissions

• Bank Reconciliations

• Bookkeeping Services

• Budget Consultation and Assistance

• Capital Asset Reconciliation

• Capital Asset Software Consulting

• Fraud Investigations

• Internal Control Assessments

• Modification to Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual

• Meeting with County Commissioners

• Assistance with Sales Tax Refund Claims

• School Bookkeeper and Principal Training

• Set up of Fund 8 – Other Special Revenue Fund

• Training for Board of Education members

6 | P a g e

4. Peer Review

Anderson Smith & Wike PLLC is a member of the North Carolina Association of

Certified Public Accountants (NCACPA) and the American Institute of Certified Public

Accountants (AICPA). As such, we comply with all peer review requirements of the

AICPA and have included a copy of our most recent peer review letter. A copy of our

most recent peer review letter can be found on page 13.

5. Key Audit Team Members

Dale Smith, CPA – Partner Dale began his career with Dixon Hughes PLLC in 1994 and immediately focused on

audits of school boards. Throughout his career he has worked on school board audits of

all sizes and all levels of complexity. Based on his past experience, Dale has the

technical expertise required to audit a school board such as Chapel Hill-Carrboro City

Schools. Equally important as the technical abilities, Dale understands the demands and

pressures the staff of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools encounter on a daily basis. He

will work with your staff to ensure that the audit progresses smoothly. Dale has experience on the audits of the following boards of education (please note that

dates may not be exact):

Scotland County Schools (1995-2007, 2010-2019)

Moore County Schools (1995-2007)

Bladen County Schools (1996-2007, 2011-2015)

Montgomery County Schools (1997-2007, 2010-2019)

Richmond County Schools (1994-2007, 2012-2019)

Harnett County Schools (1998-2007)

Northampton County Schools (1999-2007, 2010-2019)

Onslow County Schools (2004-2007, 2014-2019)

Brunswick County Schools (2007, 2012-2013)

Chatham County Schools (2007, 2015-2019)

Iredell-Statesville Schools (2008)

Alamance-Burlington School System (2008-2013, 2019)

Hoke County Schools (2008-2019)

Orange County Schools (2008-2019)

Roanoke Rapids Graded School District (2008-2015)

Weldon City Schools (2008-2019)

Union County Public Schools (2008-2013)

Polk County Schools (2009)

Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (2009-2019)

7 | P a g e

5. Key Audit Team Members (continued)

Bertie County Schools (2009-2010, 2016-2019)

Ashe County Schools (2010)

Duplin County Schools (2011-2012)

Granville County Schools (2014, 2016-2019)

Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools (2012-2019)

Lee County Schools (2012-2019)

Rockingham County Schools (2013-2019)

Arapahoe Charter School (2017-2019)

Adam Scepurek, CPA – Partner Adam began his career with Dixon Hughes PLLC in 2000 and joined Anderson Smith &

Wike PLLC in 2012. He has focused on audits of school boards for the past 18 years. He

has concentrated primarily in the area of auditing and has developed a strong proficiency

in financial reporting and auditing standards along with an extensive grasp of

governmental accounting, state and federal compliance requirements and business

management. Adam has been involved in the audits of numerous Boards of Education of

various sizes ranging from districts with fewer than 5 schools all the way up to 50+

schools. Adam has broad experience with single audits, special grants, school food

service operations, creation of Fund 8 – Other Special Revenue Fund, fixed asset issues,

and other areas as they pertain to boards of education and individual schools. Adam has experience on the audits of the following boards of education (please note that

the dates may not be exact):

Moore County Schools (2001-2011)

Richmond County Schools (2001-2011)

Montgomery County Schools (2001-2009, 2012-2013)

Harnett County Schools (2003-2011)

Brunswick County Schools (2007-2019)

Beaufort County Schools (2007-2011)

Carteret County Schools (2007-2008, 2012-2019)

Northampton County Schools (2003-2008, 2012-2013)

Scotland County Schools (2004-2008, 2012-2013)

Onslow County Schools (2007-2008, 2012)


Bladen County Schools (2005-2019)

Chatham County Schools (2007-2011)

Cabarrus County Schools (2012-2019)

Halifax County Schools (2011-2013)

8 | P a g e


Roanoke Rapids Graded Schools (2012-2019)


Union County Schools (2012-2019)

Duplin County Schools (2012-2019)

Clinton City Schools (2014-2019)

Johnston County Schools (2015-2019)

Graham County Schools (2016-2019)

Caswell County Schools (2016-2019)

Sampson County Schools (2017-2019)

Yancey County Schools (2017-2019)

Currituck County Schools (2019) Wilson County Schools (2019)

Paul Carson, CPA – Audit Manager Paul began his career with Norris, Stewart & Ralston, P.A .in 2008 and joined Anderson

Smith & Wike PLLC in 2010. He has focused on school board audits for the past 10

years and has developed a strong proficiency in financial reporting, auditing standards,

and accounting principles significant to school districts. Paul has extensive experience

with single audits, special grants, school food service operations, individual school

controls and procedures, fixed asset issues, school district fraud investigations and other

areas as they pertain to school districts. Paul has experience on the audits of the following boards of education (please note that

the dates may not be exact):

Hoke County Schools (2008-2019)


Weldon City Schools (2008-2019)

Alamance-Burlington School System (2008-2013, 2019)

Roanoke Rapids Graded School District (2008, 2010-2013)

Scotland County Schools (2009-2019)

Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (2009-2019)

Onslow County Schools (2009-2010, 2014-2019)

Northampton County Schools (2009-2019)

Mooresville Graded School District (2009-2010, 2016)

Bertie County Schools (2009-2010, 2016-2019)

Halifax County Schools (2010-2017)

Montgomery County Schools (2010-2019)

Union County Public Schools (2010)

Macon County Schools (2010)

9 | P a g e


Bladen County Schools (2011-2013)

Hickory City Public Schools (2011)

Polk County Schools (2011-2012)

Ashe County Schools (2011-2012)

Duplin County Schools (2011)

Richmond County Schools (2012-2019)

Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools (2012-2019)


Brunswick County Schools (2012-2013)

Carteret County Schools (2012)

Rockingham County Schools (2013-2019)

Granville County Schools (2014, 2016-2019)

Chatham County Schools (2015-2019)

Arapahoe Charter School (2017-2019)

6. Educational Background and Professional Memberships of Audit Team

Dale Smith, CPA

Education

UNCC, Bachelor of Science in Accountancy, 1993

Memberships

Member of the AICPA

Member of the NCACPA

Recent Continuing Education Relevant to School Board Audits

Governmental Accounting and Reporting (2016, 2017, 2019)

Auditing Developments (2019)

The Detection and Prevention of Fraud in Financial Statements (2019)

Accounting Fraud – Recent Cases (2019)

Internal Control and Fraud Detection: A Practical Guide (2019)

Accounting for Pensions and Postretirement Benefits (2017)

Government Auditing (2014, 2016, 2017, 2019)

NCASBO Instructor – Internal Audit Function (2014, 2015)

NCASBO Instructor – PTO’s, PTA’s, Booster Clubs & Advertising (2013)

NCASBO Instructor – Fraud and Segregation of Duties (2013, 2015)

NCASBO Instructor – Preparing for an Audit (2015, 2019)

NCASBO Instructor – Central Office & Individual Schools Controls (2011, 2012)

NCASBO Instructor – Individual Schools and PTO Internal Controls (2017)

NCASBO Instructor – Crowdfunding, PTO’s, PTA’s, Booster Clubs (2018)

10 | P a g e

6. Educational Background and Professional Memberships of Audit Team (continued)

Adam Scepurek, CPA

Education

UNCW, Bachelor of Science in Accountancy, 1999

UNCW, Masters of Science in Accountancy, 2000

Memberships

Member of the AICPA

Member of the NCACPA


Local Government Auditing, Reporting & Review (2019)

Government Auditing (2017 & 2018)

Auditing Developments (2018)

Full Disclosure in Financial Reporting (2018)

Detection and Prevention of Fraud in Financial Statements (2018)

Government Auditing – Green Book – Information and Monitoring (2018)

Ethics for NC CPA’s (2017 & 2018)

Governmental GAAP – Fund Accounting (2017)

Introduction to Governmental GAAP (2017)

Governmental Accounting and Reporting (2016)

Accounting for Pension and Post-Retirement Benefits (2016)

Paul Carson, CPA

Education

Appalachian State University, Bachelor of Science in Business Administration in

Accounting, 2007

Memberships

Member of the AICPA


Government Accounting: Principles and Financial Reporting (2019)

Auditing Developments (2017, 2019)

Major Changes to Auditing Standards (2019)

The Detection and Prevention of Fraud in Financial Statements (2019)

Government Auditing (2018)

Internal Control and Fraud Detection (2018)

Assessing the Reliability of Computer-Processed Data (2017)

11 | P a g e

7. Professional Experience of Assigned Personnel

Our auditors have experience in auditing the following governmental funds, federal

programs, and state programs:

• Funds

▪ State Public School Fund

▪ Federal Grants Fund

▪ Current Expense Fund

▪ Capital Outlay Fund

▪ School Food Service Fund

▪ Child Care Fund

▪ Other Special Revenue Fund

▪ Individual Schools Fund

▪ Scholarship and Agency Funds

• Federal Programs

▪ Child Nutrition Cluster

▪ Food Distribution - Commodities

▪ Title I Cluster

▪ Special Education Cluster

▪ Supporting Effective Instruction (Improving Teacher Quality)

▪ Head Start

▪ 21st Century

▪ Reading First

▪ Workforce Investment Act

▪ Magnet Schools

▪ Upward Bound

▪ Migrant Education

▪ Title II, Math and Science Partnership

▪ Impact Aid

▪ Various ARRA Grants

• State Programs

▪ State Public School Fund

▪ School Technology

▪ Driver Training

▪ Career and Technical Education

▪ Textbooks

▪ North Carolina Pre-K Program

▪ Smart Start

▪ Public School Building Capital Fund

▪ Public School Capital Fund - Lottery

12 | P a g e

8. Specialized Skills, Training and Background

Please refer to items 5, 6, and 7.

9. References

We encourage you to contact the Finance Officer at any of the school districts listed

in item #2 above as we are confident that all of the districts we audit are satisfied

with our services. However, we’ve included four finance officers along with their

contact information for your convenience.

• Tina Edmonds, Finance Officer

Richmond County Schools 910-582-5860

• Beth Day, Chief Financial Officer

Granville County Schools

919-693-4613

• Jeff Hollamon, Chief Financial Officer

Onslow County Schools

910-455-2211

• Freyja Cahill, Chief Financial Officer

Brunswick County Schools

910-253-2900

10. Independence Policy

Anderson Smith & Wike PLLC has implemented an independence policy in accordance

with AICPA and Government Auditing Standards requirements. Our Independence,

Integrity and Objectivity policy can be found starting on page 14.

11. Liability Insurance Coverage

Anderson Smith & Wike PLLC has a standard professional liability insurance policy.

Based on discussions with our professional liability insurance provider and legal counsel,

we feel our liability insurance coverage is sufficient.

12. Regulatory Actions

See item 4 for discussion regarding our participation in AICPA peer review program and

see page 13 for our most recent peer review report. There have been no other reviews

during this period.

14 | P a g e

ANDERSON SMITH & WIKE PLLC

I. INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND OBJECTIVITY

It is the policy of our firm that all professional personnel be familiar with and adhere to the

independence, integrity and objectivity rules, regulations, interpretations, and rulings of the

AICPA, the North Carolina State Board of Accountancy, the North Carolina Association of

Certified Public Accountants and state statutes. Furthermore, it is the policy of our firm that, for

engagements that are subject to Government Auditing Standards and other regulatory agencies,

all professional personnel be familiar with and adhere to the independence rules included in

those standards and that personnel will always act in the public interest. In this regard, any

transaction, event, circumstance, or action that would impair the firm’s independence or violates

its integrity and objectivity policy, on a compilation, review, audit, or attestation (including

forecast and projection) engagement is prohibited. Additionally, when the firm and its

professional personnel encounter situations that raise independence concerns, but such situations

are not specifically addressed by independence, integrity, and objectivity rules, the firm will

evaluate the situation by referring to the Conceptual Framework for AICPA Independence

Standards and applying professional judgment to determine whether independence, in fact or

appearance, is affected.

Although not necessarily all-inclusive, the following are considered to be prohibited transactions

and relationships:

1. Investments by any owner or professional employee in a client’s business during the period

of a professional engagement, including a commitment to acquire any direct or material

indirect financial interest in a client.

2. An investment in an entity or property by any of the following individuals and the client (or

the client’s officers or directors, or any owner who has the ability to exercise significant

influence over the client) that enables them to control (as defined by GAAP for consolidation

purposes) the entity or property:

a. An individual on an attest engagement team.

b. An individual in a position to influence the attest engagement by doing any of the

following:

i. evaluating the performance or recommending the compensation of the attest

engagement member,

ii. directly supervising or managing the attest engagement member and all of that

member’s superiors,

iii. consulting with the attest engagement team about technical or industry-related issues

specific to the engagement, or

15 | P a g e

iv. participating in or overseeing quality control activities, including internal monitoring,

with respect to the attest engagement.

c. A member or manager who provides nonattest services to the attest client beginning once

he or she provides ten or more hours of nonattest services to the client within any fiscal

year and ending on the later of the date:

i. the firm signs the report on the financial statements for the fiscal year during

which those services were provided , or

ii. he or she no longer expects to provide ten or more hours of nonattest services to

the attest client on a recurring basis.

d. A member in the office in which the lead attest engagement partner primarily practices

with respect to the attest engagement.

3. Borrowing from or loans to a client, or client’s personnel, during the period of a professional

engagement by any of the individuals listed in items 2.a.-d.

4. Accepting or offering gifts or entertainment from or to a client unless reasonable in the

circumstances and approved by the managing member.

5. Certain family relationships between professional personnel and client personnel. (Consult

the managing member for a ruling on these.)

Notwithstanding the preceding policy and list of prohibited transactions and relationships, at the

managing member’s discretion, certain prohibitions can be waived if it is deemed to be in the

best interest of the firm. However, in so doing, the engagement service performed for the client

must be limited to that allowed by AICPA professional literature.

The procedures listed below are followed to ensure compliance with this policy:

1. All professional personnel are required to sign a representation letter when hired (and

annually thereafter) that acknowledges their familiarity with the firm’s independence,

integrity, and objectivity policy and procedures. Independence and ethics training is provided

for all personnel at least every three years. Such training covers the firm’s independence and

ethics policies and procedures and the independence and ethical requirements of all

applicable regulators.

2. All professional personnel are required to notify the managing member of any potential

prohibited transaction or violation of an independence, integrity or objectivity rule as soon as

they become aware of such a situation. To acknowledge that responsibility, all professional

personnel are required when hired (and annually thereafter) to sign a representation letter and

to list known situations that could impair independence or that violate the firm’s integrity and

objectivity policy. (The firm library contains the authoritative rules on independence,

integrity and objectivity that govern our firm. That literature and the advice of the managing

16 | P a g e

member should be consulted when an employee is not sure if a transaction, event,

circumstance, or action should be reported.)

3. All professional personnel are required to review the firm’s client list annually for possible

violations. The list of clients is maintained by the managing member and additions to the list

are entered as soon as new clients are accepted. When hired (and annually thereafter), all

professional personnel are required to sign a representation that confirms this responsibility.

4. If our firm is engaged as principal auditor and another firm is engaged to audit a subsidiary,

branch, division, governmental component unit, or to perform procedures on an element or

account grouping within a client’s financial statement, the engagement team is required to

obtain a written representation regarding the other firm’s independence with respect to our

client. The auditing manuals used by the firm contain examples of representation letters to

use in such situations. Furthermore, in a review or attestation engagement, if another firm

performs work on a segment of the engagement, a representation (either written or oral)

regarding the other firm’s independence is required. The engagement programs in the

accounting and auditing manuals used by our firm contain steps to ensure compliance with

this procedure.

5. The engagement member (or the in-charge accountant) has the primary responsibility for

determining if there are unpaid fees on any of his clients that would impair the firm’s

independence. The engagement work programs and standard forms used by the firm contain

steps to ensure compliance with this procedure. The firm’s client accounts receivable listing

and the engagement member’s knowledge of unbilled fees should be considered in making

this determination. In addition, the managing member has secondary responsibility to review

the firm’s accounts receivable listing on a periodic basis to identify potential independence

problems.

6. The engagement member has the primary responsibility to identify all nonattest services

performed for an attest service client [including services performed by entities closely

aligned through common employment] and for determining if such nonattest services impair

independence with respect to that client. Reviewing nonattest services performed for attest

clients includes obtaining and documenting an understanding with the client regarding the

client’s responsibilities for the nonattest services performed by the firm. Where applicable,

this includes determining whether such nonattest (nonaudit) services impair independence

under the independence rules in Government Auditing Standards for ongoing, planned, and

future audits. Firm engagement work programs for all attest, as well as compilation

engagements, include steps to ensure compliance with this procedure.

7. The engagement member has the primary responsibility for determining whether actual or

threatened litigation has an effect on the firm’s independence with respect to the client. The

firm’s independence could be impaired by litigation (a) between the client and the firm, (b)

with the client company’s securities holders, and (c) from other third parties.

8. If our firm is engaged as principal auditor to report on the basic financial statements of a

financial reporting entity, all professional personnel must be independent of the financial

reporting entity. If our firm is engaged as principal auditor to report on a major fund,

17 | P a g e

nonmajor fund, internal service fund, fiduciary fund, or component unit of the financial

reporting entity, all professional personnel must be independent of the fund or entity the firm

reports on. The engagement member has the primary responsibility for determining whether

the firm’s relationship with entities in the governmental financial statements has an effect on

independence.

9. The managing member has the primary responsibility for determining whether the firm was a

party to a cooperative arrangement with a client that was material to the firm or the client.

10. The managing member is responsible for obtaining the representation letters, reviewing for

completeness, and for resolving questions relating to independence, integrity, and objectivity

matters (including questions from the representation letters and those from other sources) and

is available to provide guidance. In so doing, the managing member should, when necessary,

consult the AICPA or the North Carolina Association of Certified Public Accountants for

assistance in interpreting independence, integrity and objectivity rules. Documentation of the

resolution of an independence, integrity and objectivity matter should be filed in the client’s

permanent workpaper files. The managing member is also responsible for determining

actions to be taken when professional personnel violate firm independence policies and

procedures. The action for each incident is determined based on its unique circumstances and

may include eliminating a personal impairment, additional training, reprimand letter, or

termination.

11. The managing member is also responsible for monitoring the firm’s independence of attest

clients at which owners or other senior personnel have been offered management positions or

have accepted offers of employment. The independence, integrity, and objectivity

questionnaire used by the firm and the client acceptance checklists used by the firm in attest

engagements include questions to help ensure compliance with this requirement.

12. To ensure that independence is properly considered at the engagement level, the work

programs and standard forms in the accounting and auditing manuals used by the firm

contain steps that require a determination of independence on each new and recurring client.

Furthermore, these manuals contain reporting guidance for those types of engagements where

a lack of independence is allowed.

13. At least annually, the managing member reviews our independence, integrity, and objectivity

policy and procedures to determine if they are appropriate and operating effectively. This

review is performed and documented by reviewing the applicable section of the “Monitoring

Questionnaire” in Chapter 12 of PPC’s Guide to Quality Control. Changes, if necessary, to

the system are made based on the results of the review.

CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO

CITY SCHOOLS

Proposal for Audit Services

Second Section

June 30, 2020, 2021 and 2022

Table of Contents

Type of Audit Programs ........................................................................................................... 1

Audit Sampling ........................................................................................................................ 1

Use of Computer Specialist ...................................................................................................... 1

Organization of the Audit Team ............................................................................................... 1

Information to be Included in the Management Letter .............................................................. 1

Assistance from Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools ................................................................. 2

Tentative Schedule ................................................................................................................... 2

Use of Internal Audit Staff ....................................................................................................... 2

Fee Quote ................................................................................................................................. 3

Other Information .................................................................................................................... 4

Summary of Audit Costs .......................................................................................................... 4

1 | P a g e

1. Type of Audit Programs

We will utilize standardized Governmental Audit Programs as well as Federal and State

Compliance Programs as published by the applicable Federal grantor agency or North

Carolina’s Local Government Commission.

2. Audit Sampling

Our tests will be performed utilizing various sampling techniques as deemed appropriate

for the specific objective of the test being performed. We will use audit sampling for

compliance and cash disbursement testing.

3. Use of Computer Specialist

Our engagement team will evaluate Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools’ information

technology system as required by our professional standards.

4. Organization of the Audit Team

Please see the First Section of the Proposal for Audit Services for detailed information

regarding the audit team. The following schedule details the approximate percentage of

time to be spent on the audit by each member of the audit team.

Partner 25 - 30%

Manager / Staff Accountants 70 - 75%

Clerical 3 – 5%

5. Information to be Included in the Management Letter

Certain items are required by our professional standards, the State Single Audit

Implementation Act, and OMB Uniform Guidance to be reported to management. We

will conform with these requirements. Any items noted during the audit for potential

inclusion in the management letter will be discussed in detail with the Finance Officer

prior to issuance.

2 | P a g e

6. Assistance from Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools

We will prepare a comprehensive listing of requested client prepared items prior to

commencement of interim fieldwork and again prior to commencement of final

fieldwork. In addition to the items detailed in the RFP, we expect the accounting staff to

provide various other items, such as:

• Monthly retirement reports and various other payroll-related reports

• Inventory and capital asset listings

• Various employee payroll information as part of our compliance audit

• Assistance pulling vendor invoices and related documentation

7. Tentative Schedule

We will coordinate the exact scheduling of fieldwork with the Finance Officer.

However, the following schedule is anticipated:

Audit Planning / Compliance / Internal Control Testing Procedures ...... May and June

Year End Audit Fieldwork ...................................................... September and October

Draft of Financial Statements Available ................................ …………………October

Issuance of Audit Report…… .................................................... October or November

8. Use of Internal Audit Specialists

We will evaluate the work of any internal audit staff employed by the Board as part of

our audit planning process.

3 | P a g e

9. Fee Quote

We commit to the following fee schedule for the audit of the basic financial statements

of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. In addition to the amount below, we will bill for

travel, postage and other reasonable out-of-pocket costs. We understand that the first

year is binding while the other years are estimated “not to exceed” amounts.

Year Ending June 30, Audit Fee

2020 47,500$

2021 48,500

2022 49,500

Although not requested, we would also perform the June 30, 2023 and 2024 audits at the

same price as the June, 30 2022 audit if the district wished to continue the relationship

with us. As part of our audit we prepare a budget of anticipated time to be spent on each

individual part of the audit. We utilized our past experience with the district to prepare

our budget for the audit of the basic financial statements of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City

Schools. Accordingly, our proposed audit fee is based on our budget. Listed below is a summary of our hourly budget by audit area.

Partner Manager Staff Total

Audit planning 8 12 5 25

Compliance 20 35 35 90

Risk assessment 3 6 3 12

Year-end Fieldwork 35 85 95 215

Report preparation 30 15 5 50

Review and finalization 10 8 5 23

106 161 148 415

Hourly Rate 175$ 125$ 100$

Budgeted cost 18,550$ 20,125$ 14,800$ 53,475$

Discount offered to the district (5,975)

Fee quote 47,500$

4 | P a g e

10. Other Information

We greatly value our relationship with the school system and sincerely desire to continue

as the district’s external auditors. We have always made Chapel Hill-Carrboro City

Schools a top priority each year when preparing our schedule and feel that we have

provided excellent service to the district. In a good-faith effort to show our desire to

continue this relationship, we have reduced our fee in this proposal by approximately

10% from last year’s audit fee.

While considering these audit proposals, a few other things to keep in mind that we feel

significantly distinguish Anderson Smith & Wike PLLC from other audit firms are:

a. Experience matters, and the partner in charge of the engagement will be on site for

the majority of your audit fieldwork. With most firms, the partner typically spends

very little time on site while the audit work is being completed, primarily due to

budgeting constraints. This results in most firms sending their less-experienced,

lower-rate staff members to do as much of the work as possible.

b. School board auditing is by far our firm’s primary practice area. At most firms,

governmental auditing, including school boards, is not a major focus.

c. As part of the audit each year, we try to incorporate an element of “unpredictability”.

This includes looking at new areas within the district for compliance with local, State

or federal guidelines, and looking deeper at areas for which issues may have been

noted at one of our other school board audit clients. We also encourage suggestions

from administration and Board members for specific areas that they would like us to

address.

d. The partner in charge and manager will both be available throughout the year for

routine consultations and to offer assistance with any accounting and auditing issues

that may arise. We do not believe in “nickel and diming” the district for these routine

consultations and do not charge extra for providing this service unless a significant

time commitment becomes necessary, at which time we would consult with

management before beginning such work.

11. Summary of Audit Costs

For the year ending June 30, 2020, we estimate the base audit fee to comprise $43,000 of

the total fee while financial statement preparation will comprise $4,500 of the fee. In

addition to the amount below, we will bill for travel, postage and other reasonable out-of-

pocket costs. Any extra audit or nonattest services that we may be requested to provide

would be billed at the rates shown in the fee quote in item 9. If we encounter any

unexpected circumstances outside the normal scope of the audit or if the scope of the

audit is modified, we will consult with the management of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City

Schools prior to performing any procedures that would require additional billings.

Chapel Hill-Carrboro

City Schools

Proposal to Provide Auditing Services

Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2020 through 2022 May 6, 2020

Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC

James W. Bence, CPA, Partner Timothy M. Lyons, CPA, Partner 200 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1700 508 Hampton Street, Suite 100 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Columbia, SC 29201 Office: (770) 955‐8600 Office: (803) 799‐5810 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Toll Free Phone No: (800) 277‐0080

Web: www.mjcpa.com

Baker County

Schools

Bartow County Schools

Troup County Schools

City Schools of Decatur

Hamilton County

Department of Ed.

Thomas County Schools Clayton County

Schools

Emanuel County Schools

Savannah Chatham County

Public School System

Dodge County Schools

Paulding County

Schools

Butts County Schools

Marlboro County School District

Hancock County Schools

Bristol City Schools

Buford City Schools

Highland County

Schools

Harris County Schools

Putnam County Schools

Lexington School

District 4

Carroll County Schools

Sumter County

Schools

Atlanta Public Schools

Glynn County

Schools

Forsyth County Schools

Rome City Schools

Douglas County Schools

Cobb County Schools

Polk County

Schools

Peach County Schools

Cherokee County Schools Manatee County

Schools

Twiggs County Schools

Henry County

Schools

DeKalb County Schools

Lee County Schools

Walton County

Schools

Ware County Schools

Marietta City

Schools

Carrollton City Schools

Rockdale County Schools

Camden County

Schools

Gainesville

City Schools

Cartersville City Schools

Jefferson City Schools

Marion County Schools

Clay County Schools

Bleckley County

Schools

Richland County

School District 1

Fayette County Schools

Oconee County Schools

Murray County Schools

Fannin County Schools

Over 500 Governmental Units Served

We Do Things Right & We Do the Right Things

Chapel Hill‐Carrboro City Schools Proposal to Serve

Table of Contents Transmittal Letter ................................................................................................................................ 1

1 Atlanta & Columbia Offices at a Glance ...................................................................................... 3 Serving Governments for A Century Leaders in the Governmental Industry

2 Current and Prior Governmental Audit Clients ............................................................................ 6 What makes us stand apart Experience with Local Governments Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Experience

3 Additional Services Provided ..................................................................................................... 14 Audits of Federally Funded Programs (Single Audits) Governmental Attestation Services Governmental IT Solutions Governmental Advisory Services

4 Mauldin & Jenkins’ Quality Control Program ............................................................................ 18 5 Proposed Engagement Team’s Professional Experience ............................................................ 21

Turnover and Audit Continuity The Mauldin & Jenkins Difference – Depth of Resources Other Staff Resources Other Staff Auditors & Accountants

6 Education and Training of Engagement Team ........................................................................... 32 7 Experience of Engagement Team .............................................................................................. 34 8 Specialized Skills of Engagement Team ..................................................................................... 35 9 Client References ...................................................................................................................... 36 10 Mauldin & Jenkins’ Independence Policies ................................................................................ 38 11 Mauldin & Jenkins’ Insurance Policies ....................................................................................... 38 12 Regulatory Actions ................................................................................................................... 38

Other Information .............................................................................................................................. 39 Free Continuing Education Governmental Newsletters High Percentage of Partner & Manager Involvement Workflow Program – Suralink Remote Audits

Closing ............................................................................................................................................... 43

Appendix A – Copy of Mauldin & Jenkins’ Policy and Procedures Regarding Independence


INDUSTRY EXPERTISE / PROACTIVE SERVICE / PROVEN RESULTS

1

Transmittal Letter May 6, 2020

Chapel Hill‐Carrboro City Schools Attn: Jonathan Scott, Finance Officer 750 S. Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 Ladies and Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit a proposal, to provide annual financial and compliance auditing services for Chapel Hill‐Carrboro City Schools (the “School District” or “CHCCS”). It is our understanding that the School District is requesting proposals from qualified firms of certified public accountants to establish a contract for the audit of the School District’s financial statements. The contract for such audit services will be for three consecutive years beginning with the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020 and ending with the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022. We have read the Request for Proposals (RFP) and fully understand its intent and contents. We understand the time frame for performance of the annual financial audits as stipulated by the School District, and fully intend and expect to satisfy all objectives. As professionals serving the public sector, Mauldin & Jenkins is qualified to serve CHCCS. We believe that Mauldin & Jenkins is the leader in auditing state and local governments in the southeast. This leadership was achieved by recognizing that we are an important part of our client's success, with our objective being to ensure that accurate information is reported to the Board, management, and its citizens. Given the complexities of the School District’s financial operations and the ongoing significant changes in accounting standards, we feel that it is extremely important that you select an accounting firm that is focused and extremely experienced in the governmental industry. We differentiate ourselves from our peers in the following ways:

Experience with Governments. As auditors for more governments in the Southeast than most other firms, our professionals are thoroughly versed in the complex governmental arena, and have consistently provided the highest quality of service to our government clients. We serve approximately:

500 state and local governments across the Southeast.

62 school districts and 40 charter schools.

126 cities and 57 counties.

48 state agencies, authorities, commissions, colleges, and departments.

131 governments currently awarded Certificates of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting by GFOA and/or ASBO.

Mauldin & Jenkins provides over 100,000 hours of service to approximately 500 governmental units in the Southeast on an annual basis, utilizing over 100 professionals.



2

Nationally Recognized. While the focus of our governmental practice remains on each of our state and local clients, we are proud of our national recognition and track record of significant contributions to the governmental industry. Our national service includes the Government Audit Quality Center with the AICPA, an appointment to the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council (GASAC) and, in January 2020, our own Joel Black accepted the nomination to become the next Chairman of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.

Service to North Carolina Governments. We continue to grow our governmental practice in North Carolina, serving the state with teams from our Atlanta and Columbia offices. We recognize the concerns the School District may have in selecting a Firm that does not have a physical location in the State. However, we will strive to allay those concerns in our proposal. Furthermore, we believe that in the current environment and given all of the uncertainty and complexity brought about by the COVID‐19 pandemic, it is far more important for you to select a Firm with governmental expertise that can be combined with technology resources to conduct audits in any environment. We have a team dedicated to serving North Carolina and the School District will be served just as well as if we had an office within a few miles.

Staffing. Our staff retention rates are considered to be among the best in the profession (and much

better than national and other regional firms). This fact, coupled with our vast array of government clients, results in a staff pool highly experienced with governmental entities with the definite capacity to serve CHCCS. We are able to not only provide consistency with the partner and manager on our engagement teams, but seniors as well.

Education. Mauldin & Jenkins’ clients have the opportunity to register and receive approximately

thirty (30) hours of continuing education on an annual basis, free of charge. We take our experience in serving governments, and choose timely and relevant topics to provide ongoing education to our clients. Sessions are limited to clients only.

Chapel Hill‐Carrboro City Schools would be a very important client to Mauldin & Jenkins and one that we would be proud to serve. Again, on behalf of Mauldin & Jenkins, we are excited about this opportunity to work with the School District in order to help meet the continuing challenges you face. Thank you very much for allowing us to present our proposal. This proposal represents a firm offer for 90 days from the date of the proposal. As a partner with Mauldin & Jenkins, Tim Lyons is authorized to bind, and make representations for the Firm. Tim will be the ultimate party responsible for the quality of the report and working papers. Please contact us at (803) 799‐5810, 508 Hampton Street, 1st Floor, Columbia, South Carolina, 29201 if you have any questions about this proposal or any related matters.

Sincerely, MAULDIN & JENKINS, LLC Timothy M. Lyons, CPA, CGMA Partner



3

1. Atlanta & Columbia Offices at a Glance Mauldin & Jenkins was formed in Albany, Georgia in 1918 and has been actively engaged in governmental auditing for over a century. Mauldin & Jenkins is considered to be one of the largest locally owned provider of audit and accounting services in the Southeast, and one of the largest certified public accounting firms in the country. Mauldin & Jenkins services clients throughout the Southeastern United States. Mauldin & Jenkins serves clients whose operations span the entire U.S.A. Mauldin & Jenkins is considered to be a large regional firm with offices in the following eight communities:

Atlanta

Macon

Albany

Savannah

Chattanooga

Columbia

Bradenton

Birmingham

Our current footprint of governmental clients extends as far northeast as Gates County in North Carolina (on the Virginia line) to Gulfport, Mississippi to Islamorada, Florida in the Florida Keys. Other key information relative to the size and experience of Mauldin & Jenkins is as follows:

90 – total number of water and sewer systems being served by the Firm across the southeast

300,000 ‐ approx. total hours of service provided annually to clients of the Firm

85,000 ‐ approx. total hours of service provided annually to governmental clients of the Firm

40% ‐ percentage of governmental practice as compared to Firm’s attestation practice

25% ‐ percentage of governmental practice as compared to Firm’s overall practice

400 ‐ approx. total governmental entities served in past three (3) years

280 ‐ total number of Firm personnel

115 ‐ total clients served who obtain the GFOA / ASBO Certificates

44 ‐ total clients with publicly issued debts in excess of $50 million

52 ‐ total number of Firm partners

11 ‐ total number of governmental partners & directors

11 ‐ total number of governmental managers

90 ‐ total number of professionals with current governmental experience The goal of our government practice is to help governments improve their financial processes and strategies so that they can in turn achieve their goal of improving the lives of their citizens. This shared



4

commitment to the goals of our clients has resulted in a significant government clientele. As noted in our transmittal letter, we currently serve approximately 400 governments in the Southeast.

Serving Governments For A Century Mauldin & Jenkins’ commitment to government began when our firm was established in 1918. Since then, we have viewed service to governments as significant to the overall success of the firm. Today, the governmental sector is an industry that has been specifically identified for our continued growth in professional services. Accordingly, all professionals, from entry‐level accountants to partners (who select the governmental practice spend 100% of their time in this area.

As noted previously, Mauldin & Jenkins employs 22 partners, directors and managers who dedicate 100% of their time serving government clients. We also have numerous additional professionals with current experience in providing services to governmental entities – many of whom spend their time exclusively on government clients. Mauldin & Jenkins’ dedicated professionals can bring a comprehensive understanding of the issues that face government entities as well as “bench strength” at all levels, allowing us to respond swiftly and effectively to your evolving needs.

The goal of our government practice is to help governments improve their financial processes and strategies so that they can in turn achieve their goal of improving the lives of their citizens. This shared commitment to the goals of our clients has resulted in a significant government clientele. As noted in our transmittal letter, we currently serve approximately 500 governments in the Southeast. We know of no other firm that can match our experience. The Columbia Office will act as the lead in providing services to CHCCS, with additional resources coming from Atlanta Office. As we noted in the transmittal letter, we recognize the concern the School District may have in utilizing the services of a certified public accounting firm whose office may be further away from the School District; however, we believe by using the individuals mentioned in this proposal that this problem is 100% mitigated. These individuals, Mr. Tim Lyons, Mr. James Bence, Mr. Adam Fraley, and Mr. Will Derzis, are known for their involvement with governmental units and have significant experience providing services to governments in North Carolina. Furthermore, as the situation continues to evolve regarding the COVID‐19 pandemic and the spread of the novel coronavirus, we are deploying more and more resources into the remote audit environment and the feedback from our clients has been incredibly positive. We have the expertise and experience to conduct the School District’s audit from anywhere – onsite in Chapel Hill, North Carolina or 100% remotely. And, the combination of our expertise with the technological tools in which we have invested, results in significant savings to our governmental clients which is exactly what is needed during times of budgetary uncertainty.



5

Regardless of the location, if requested by the School District, we will be on‐site for the interim procedures, final fieldwork, wrap up meetings with management, and for presentation of the audit to the Board. We are always available to all of our clients through phone calls throughout the year. As our proposed engagement team spends 100% of their year serving governmental clients, you will never have to compete with tax season or other industry seasons for guidance, clarification, or assistance from your proposed team! We find that our local clients do not visit the auditor’s office and having a firm willing to come to you is more valuable than a local office. The Atlanta and Columbia office employs 61 professionals with current experience in providing services to governmental entities and who will meet the continuing professional education requirements set forth in the U.S. General Accounting Office Government Auditing Standards. A further profile of the two offices and the firm’s professional staff as a whole is as found in the table on the following page.

Professional Staff by Level Atlanta Columbia Firm‐Wide

Partners 16 7 46

Managers 22 3 40

Supervisors / Senior 16 2 75

Other Staff & Consultants 56 14 122

Total 110 26 283

Mauldin & Jenkins is a Leader in the Industry

We routinely reinvest in the government industry. Nationally, we are members of the AICPA’s Government Audit Quality Center and we have partners who participated in national task forces for that Center and Joel Black recently appointed the Chair of Governmental Accounting Standards Board. He was recently appointed to the AICPA’s State and Local Government Expert Panel. We have also instructed at several national AICPA government and not‐for‐profits conferences, and Joel is on the AICPA committee for the annual Government and Not for Profit Training Program. This has led to Mauldin & Jenkins being recognized both within the State of Georgia and nationally as leaders in serving government clients.



6

2. Current and Prior Governmental Audit Clients

Mauldin & Jenkins has experienced nearly 500 governmental client transitions in the past seventeen (17) years.

We recognize changing audit organizations creates an opportunity as well as a challenge to governmental units. Fundamental principles and goals of all M&J audits:

Experience. Our experience enables us to focus on the areas of your organization that possess the greatest risk. Each and every person assigned to the engagement will bring extensive governmental experience relative to their time with the firm. Essentially, our youngest staff persons oftentimes have more current governmental experience than higher level people in other firms.

Communication. Our emphasis on planning and communication allows for an efficient and effective audit process in which everyone involved knows their roles and expectations. Further, we like to communicate with our clients, and want to hear their concerns, questions and thoughts as they develop, and address such matters at that time. This helps avoid surprises to all respective parties.

Year‐long Support. We encourage your staff to take advantage of our accessible staff throughout the year for questions that may arise. Our people, working with you and your staff, can provide proactive advice on new accounting or GAAP pronouncements and their potential impact; help with immediate problems including answers to questions; and share insights and best practices to assist you in planning for your future success.

Learning Before Testing. We do not take a cookie‐cutter approach to our audits. Initially, we spend time visiting, inquiring, listening and learning before we ever begin the first audit tests.

Tailoring Our Approach. Once we obtain an understanding of the intricacies of a client’s operations, we tailor our audit approach to minimize unnecessary time and effort in the audit process, and avoid disruptions to client personnel.

Decisions Made in the Field. Issues, as they arise, are dealt with immediately and not accumulated until the end of the audit. This is accomplished by having seasoned governmental partners and managers in the field during the course of the engagement.

Flexible. We understand the demands client personnel have on a daily basis. We have the resources available to accommodate any special requests or timing relative to the conduct of the annual audit, and still meet required specified deadlines. We understand plans can change, and we are open to making any change in scheduling requested by our clients.

Reviews in the Field. Our goal is to conduct and review audits in the field. We find that to be

the most effective and efficient approach to client service. Because our partners and managers

are directly involved in the engagement during fieldwork, we can proactively identify significant issues immediately and resolve them with management so the engagement is essentially complete when fieldwork ends.

Working Toward a Common Goal. Considering all of the above thoughts, our ultimate goal and objective is to provide excellent client service with the least amount of disruption to our clients. We tailor our approach to provide for everyone to work smarter so our clients do not have to work harder.



7

Experience with Local Governments As noted before, the Columbia and Atlanta Offices will be providing the engagement team to serve the School District. Below is a list of the current governmental clients served by these offices. It should be noted that all of our governmental clients report under the most recent and applicable governmental accounting standards as issued by Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

No. Entity Years Served No. Entity Years Served

1) Aiken, South Carolina 2015 ‐ current 27) Hollywood, South Carolina 2018 ‐ current

2) Alpharetta 2005 ‐ current 28) Jefferson 2010 ‐ current

3) Asheville, North Carolina 2019‐current 29) Johns Creek 2008 ‐ current

4) Austell 2008 ‐ current 30) Kennesaw 2008 ‐ current

5) Baldwin 2015 ‐ current 31) Lawrencevil le 2013 ‐ current

6) Ball Ground 2006 ‐ current 32) Lilburn 2005 ‐ current

7) Beaufort, South Carolina 2012 ‐ current 33) Loris, South Carolina 2016 ‐ current

8) Black Mountain, North Carolina 2019‐current 34) Milton 2007 ‐ current

9) Braselton 2015 ‐ current 35) Monroe 2006 ‐ current

10) Brookhaven 2013 ‐ current 36) New Bern, North Carolina 2016 ‐ current

11) Cedartown 2015 ‐ current 37) Orangeburg, South Carolina 2017 ‐ current

12) Chamblee 2010 ‐ current 38) Peachtree Corners 2013 ‐ current

13) Chapin, South Carolina 2017 ‐ current 39) Powder Springs 2009 ‐ current

14) Charleston, South Carolina 2016 ‐ current 40) Riverdale 2011 ‐ current

15) Chattahoochee Hil ls 2008 ‐ current 41) Rockmart 2012 ‐ current

16) Clarkston 2005 ‐ current 42) Rome 2005 ‐ current

17) Clover, South Carolina 2017 ‐ current 43) Roswell 2004 ‐ current

18) College Park 2008 ‐ current 44) Sandy Springs 2006 ‐ current

19) Decatur 2002 ‐ current 45) Selma, North Carolina 2015 ‐ current

20) Doravil le 2011 ‐ current 46) Social Circle 2008 ‐ current

21) Duluth 2007 ‐ current 47) South Fulton 2017 ‐ current

22) Fairburn 2010 ‐ current 48) Stonecrest 2017 ‐ current

23) Forest Park 2008 ‐ current 49) Summervil le, South Carolina 2015 ‐ current

24) Garner, North Carolina 2018 ‐ current 50) Suwanee 2010 ‐ current

25) Goose Creek, South Carolina 2017 ‐ current 51) Toccoa 2010 ‐ current

26) Hardeeville, South Carolina 2018 ‐ current 52) Vil la Rica 2015 ‐ current

Municipalities


1) Athens‐Clarke County 2005 ‐ current 14) Greenville County, South Carolina 2019 ‐ current

2) Barrow County 2011 ‐ current 15) Gwinnett County 2004 ‐ current

3) Beaufort County, South Carolina 2016 ‐ current 16) Halifax County, North Carolina 2018 ‐ current

4) Calhoun County, South Carolina 2019‐current 17) Jackson County 2017 ‐ current

5) Cherokee County 2006 ‐ 2015 18) Lancaster County, South Carolina 2014 ‐ current

6) Colleton County, Sourth Carolina 2014 ‐ current 19) Laurens County, South Carolina 2014 ‐ current

7) Darlington County, South Carolina 2016 ‐ current 20) Lumpkin County 2007 ‐ current

8) DeKalb County 2012 ‐ current 21) Madison County, North Carolina 2018 ‐ current

9) Douglas County 2017 ‐ current 22) Oconee County, South Carolina 2013 ‐ current

10) Edgefield County, South Carolina 2014 ‐ current 23) Orange County, North Carolina 2016 ‐ current

11) Floyd County 2006 ‐ current 24) Paulding County 2010 ‐ current

12) Forsyth County 2009 ‐ current 25) Walton County 2008 ‐ current

13) Gates County, North Carolina 2018 ‐ current 26) Washington County, North Carolina 2018

Counties:



8


1) Atlanta Independent School System 2009 ‐ current 17) Florence 1 School District 2019 ‐ current

2) Atlanta Heights Charter Academy 2015 ‐ current 18) Fulton County Board of Education 2006 ‐ current

3) Bartow County Board of Education 2010 ‐ current 19) Georgia Online Academy 2012 ‐ current

4) Brighten Academy 2008 ‐ current 20) Gwinnett County Board of Education 2007 ‐ current

5) Cherokee Charter Academy 2015 ‐ current 21) International Charter School of Georgia 2019 ‐ current

6) City of Buford Board of Education 2013 ‐ current 22) Jefferson County Schools 2015 ‐ current

7) City of Carrollton Board of Education 2010 ‐ current 23) Lexington School District Four 2019

8) City of Cartersvil le Board of Education 2009 ‐ current 24) Marlboro County School District 1996 ‐ current

9) City of Decatur Board of Education 2004 ‐ current 25) Pataula Charter Academy 2015 ‐ current

10) City of Gainesvil le Board of Education 2015 ‐ current 26) Paulding County Board of Education 2012 ‐ current

11) City of Marietta Board of Education 2009 ‐ current 27) Richland County School District One 1996 ‐ current

12) City of Rome Board of Education 2006 ‐ current 28) Scinti l la Charter Academy 2016 ‐ current

13) Cobb County School District 2010 ‐ current 29) Sumter County School District 2018 ‐ current

14) Coweta Charter Academy 2015 ‐ current 30) Troup County Board of Education 2008 ‐ current

15) Douglas County Board of Education 2008 ‐ current 31) Troup County Col lege & Career Academy 2015 ‐ current

16) Forsyth County Schools 2005 ‐ current 32) Walton County Board of Education 2008 ‐ current

School Districts:


1) Atlanta Development Auth. 2005 ‐ current 23) Gwinnett Convention and Visitors Bureau 2004 ‐ current

2) Austell Natural Gas System 2008 ‐ current 24) Gwinnett County Airport Auth. 2004 ‐ current

3) Barrow County Water & Sewer Authority 2001 ‐ current 25) Gwinnett County BOE Charter Schools 2005 ‐ current

4) Chatsworth Water Works Commission 2007 ‐ current 26) Gwinnett County Development Auth. 2005 ‐ current

5) Chattahoochee River 911 Auth. 2008 ‐ current 27) Gwinnett County Public Facil ities Auth. 2004 ‐ current

6) Cherokee County Airport Auth. 2008 ‐ current 28) Gwinnett County Public Library 2004 ‐ current

7) City of East Point Retirement Plan 2006 ‐ current 29) Gwinnett County Recreation Auth. 2004 ‐ current

8) City of Sandy Springs Development Auth. 2008 ‐ current 30) Gwinnett County Water and Sewerage Auth. 2004 ‐ current

9) Classic Center Auth. of Clarke County 2004 ‐ current 31) Gwinnett Online Campus 2006 ‐ current

10) Cobb County ‐ Marietta Water Authority 2008 ‐ current 32) Halifax Tourism Development Autority 2018 ‐ current

11) Cobb County‐Marietta Water Auth. Pension 2013 ‐ current 33) Halifax‐Northampton Regional Airport Auth. 2018 ‐ current

12) DeKalb County Public Library 2010 ‐ current 34) Heart of Georgia Altamaha Regional Commission 2008 ‐ current

13) Development Auth. of Cherokee County 2004 ‐ current 35) Historic Roswell Convention & Visitors Bureau 2006 ‐ current

14) Development Auth. of City of Roswell,GA 2006 ‐ current 36) Lumpkin County Hospital Auth. 2007 ‐ current

15) Development Auth. of Lumpkin County 2007 ‐ current 37) Lumpkin County Water & Sewerage Auth. 2007 ‐ current

16) Downtown Atlanta Revital ization 2009 ‐ current 38) Madison Tourism Development Authority 2018 ‐ current

17) Evermore Community Improvement District 2015 ‐ current 39) MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement 2008 ‐ current

18) Forsyth County Public Library 2009 ‐ current 40) Northeast Georgia Regional Commission 2012 ‐ current

19) Friends of Bulloch 2006 ‐ current 41) Riverdale Downtown Development Auth. 2011 ‐ current

20) Georgia Charter Educational Foundation 2015 ‐ current 42) Sandy Springs Hospital ity Board 2006 ‐ current

21) Georgia Superior Court Clerk's Coop. Auth. 1995 ‐ current 43) Toccoa‐Stephens County Public Library 2006 ‐ current

22) Gwinnett Civic/Cultural Center Operations 2004 ‐ current 44) Town Center Area Community Imp. District 2012 ‐ current

45) Walton County Water & Sewerage Auth. 2008 ‐ current

Other Governmental Entities

It is important to note that our governmental practice serves governments from our Atlanta, Macon, Albany, Bradenton, Birmingham, Columbia, and Chattanooga Offices as we work together on projects throughout the year and in many instances, utilize partners from both locations depending on the situations and expertise required to ensure that our clients have access to the greatest depth of knowledge and experience. To supplement the lists provided previously (which are clients served exclusively from our Columbia and Atlanta Offices) we would like to provide the following comprehensive list of governmental clients that have been served by our collective governmental practice.



9

School Systems. Boards of Education we are in the process of auditing or have served within the past three years:

Georgia 1) Atlanta Independent Schools 2) Baker County Schools 3) Bartow County Schools 4) Bibb County Schools 5) Bleckley County Schools 6) Brooks County Schools 7) Buford City Schools 8) Butts County Schools 9) Camden County Schools 10) Carroll County Schools 11) Carrollton City Schools 12) Cartersville City Schools 13) Clay County Schools 14) Clayton County Schools 15) Cobb County Schools 16) Coweta County Schools 17) Decatur City Schools 18) DeKalb County Schools 19) Dodge County Schools 20) Douglas County Schools 21) Emanuel County Schools 22) Fannin County Schools

23) Fayette County Schools 24) Floyd County Schools 25) Forsyth County Schools 26) Fulton County Schools 27) Gainesville City Schools 28) Glynn County Schools 29) Gwinnett County Schools 30) Habersham County Schools 31) Hancock County Schools 32) Harris County Schools 33) Henry County Schools 34) Jefferson City Schools 35) Marietta City Schools 36) Marion County Schools 37) Murray County Schools 38) Oconee County Schools 39) Paulding County Schools 40) Peach County Schools 41) Polk County Schools 42) Putnam County Schools 43) Rockdale County Schools 44) Rome City Schools 45) Savannah‐Chatham Co. Schools

46) Thomas County Schools 47) Troup County Schools 48) Twiggs County Schools 49) Union County Schools 50) Walton County Schools 51) Ware County Schools Florida 52) Highland County Schools 53) Manatee County Schools 54) Lee County Schools South Carolina 55) Beaufort County Schools 56) Clarendon Co. School Dist. 1 57) Florence School Dist. 1 58) Lexington Co. School Dist. 1 59) Marlboro County Schools 60) Richland Co. School Dist. 1 61) Sumter County Schools Tennessee 62) Hamilton County Schools

Charter School Systems. Charter schools are in the process of auditing or have served within the past three years:

1) Academy for Classical Education (ACE) 2) Atlanta Heights Charter Academy 3) Brighten Academy 4) Brookhaven Innovation Academy 5) Coastal Empire Montessori Academy 6) Cherokee Charter Academy 7) Coweta Charter Academy 8) East Point Academy of South Carolina 9) Furlow Charter Academy 10) Georgia Online Academy 11) Georgia School for Innovation & Classics 12) Gwinnett County BOE Charter Schools 13) Gwinnett Online Campus 14) Graduation Achievement Charter High School 15) Imagine School at North Port 16) Imagine School at Palmer Ranch 17) Imagine School of East Manatee County 18) Imagine School of Manatee County 19) International Charter School of Atlanta 20) Ivy Preparatory Academy at Gwinnett

21) Ivy Preparatory Academy for Girls 22) Ivy Preparatory Young Men’s Leadership Academy 23) Just for Girls Academy 24) Kendezi School 25) KIPP Metro Atlanta Collaborative 26) KIPP Opportunity Fund 27) KIPP South Fulton Academy 28) Montessori School of Camden, SC 29) NW Florida St. College – Collegiate High School 30) Pataula Charter Academy 31) Phoenix Center Community Service Board 32) Provost Academy of Georgia 33) Scintilla Charter Academy 34) SW Georgia STEM Charter School 35) St. Petersburg Collegiate High School 36) State College of Florida – Collegiate High School 37) Student Leadership Academy of Venice 38) Susie King Taylor Community School 39) Troup County College & Career Academy 40) Tybee Island Maritime Academy



10

Counties. Counties we have audited or are in the process of serving within the past three years:

Georgia 1) Athens‐Clarke 2) Augusta‐Richmond 3) Columbus‐Muscogee 4) Macon‐Bibb 5) Bacon 6) Barrow 7) Chatham 8) Clayton 9) Colquitt 10) Crisp 11) DeKalb 12) Dougherty 13) Douglas 14) Floyd 15) Forsyth

16) Gwinnett 17) Henry 18) Jackson 19) Jeff Davis 20) Jenkins 21) Jones 22) Lamar 23) Lee 24) Liberty 25) Long 26) Lumpkin 27) Macon 28) McIntosh 29) Mitchell 30) Monroe 31) Morgan

32) Newton 33) Paulding 34) Rockdale 35) Spalding 36) Stephens 37) Tattnall 38) Taylor 39) Toombs 40) Union 41) Walton 42) Whitfield North Carolina 43) Gates 44) Halifax 45) Madison

46) Montgomery 47) Orange 48) Washington South Carolina 49) Beaufort 50) Calhoun 51) Colleton 52) Edgefield 53) Greenville 54) Lancaster 55) Laurens 56) Oconee Tennessee 57) Hamilton

Cities. Cities we have audited or are in the process of serving within the past three years:

Georgia 1) Albany 2) Alpharetta 3) Americus 4) Austell 5) Baldwin 6) Ball Ground 7) Bloomingdale 8) Braselton 9) Brookhaven 10) Brunswick 11) Cartersville 12) Cedartown 13) Chamblee 14) Chattahoochee Hills 15) Clarkston 16) College Park 17) Conyers 18) Cordele 19) Covington 20) Decatur 21) Doraville 22) Douglasville 23) Duluth 24) Dunwoody 25) Fairburn 26) Fayetteville 27) Flovilla 28) Forest Park 29) Forsyth 30) Garden City 31) Grantville 32) Grovetown 33) Griffin 34) Hapeville 35) Hinesville

36) Holly Springs 37) Jefferson 38) Jeffersonville 39) Johns Creek 40) Kennesaw 41) Kingsland 42) Lawrenceville 43) Leesburg 44) Lilburn 45) Lyons 46) Milledgeville 47) Milton 48) Monroe 49) Morrow 50) Peachtree City 51) Peachtree Corners 52) Perry 53) Pooler 54) Powder Springs 55) Quitman 56) Port Wentworth 57) Richmond Hill 58) Riverdale 59) Rockmart 60) Rome 61) Roswell 62) Savannah 63) Sharpsburg 64) Social Circle 65) South Fulton 66) St. Marys 67) Stockbridge 68) Stonecrest 69) Suwanee 70) Temple 71) Thunderbolt

72) Tifton 73) Toccoa 74) Tucker 75) Tybee Island 76) Union City 77) Vernonburg 78) Villa Rica 79) Waycross

Alabama 80) Tuscaloosa

Mississippi 81) Gulfport

Florida 82) Arcadia 83) Bradenton 84) Callaway 85) Cooper City 86) Crystal River 87) Ft. Meyers Beach 88) Haines City 89) Hallandale Beach 90) Indiantown 91) Islamorada 92) Lake Placid 93) Longboat Key 94) Marco Island 95) Naples 96) North Port 97) Pensacola 98) Pinecrest 99) Plant City 100) Wildwood

North Carolina 101) Asheville 102) Black Mountain 103) Garner 104) New Bern 105) Selma South Carolina 106) Aiken 107) Beaufort 108) Chapin 109) Charleston 110) Clover 111) Hardeeville 112) Hemingway 113) Hollywood 114) Goose Creek 115) Johnsonville 116) Kiawah Island 117) Loris 118) North Charleston 119) Orangeburg 120) Pamplico 121) Rock Hill 122) Seabrook Island 123) Summerville

Tennessee

124) Bristol 125) Crossville 126) Jamestown



11

State Governmental Entities. States have many entities as part of financial reporting: agencies, departments, colleges, university foundations, and other component units that are audited. Please see the following for a listing of State governmental entities we have audited in the past three years:

1) Abraham Baldwin Agri. College Foundation 2) Aiken Technical College 3) Central Carolina Technical College 4) College of Coastal Georgia Foundation 5) Francis Marion University 6) Ga. Building Authority (GBA) 7) Ga. Business Success Center 8) Ga. College & State Univ. Foundation 9) Ga. Dept. of Community Health (DCH) 10) Ga. Education Authority 11) Ga. Environmental Finance Auth. (GEFA) 12) Ga. Higher Education Assistance Corp. 13) Ga. Higher Education Facilities Authority 14) Ga. Highlands College Foundation 15) Ga. Lottery Corporation (LOTTO) 16) Ga. Military College Foundation 17) Ga. Ports Authority (GPA) 18) Ga. Southern Univ. Athletic Foundation 19) Ga. Southern Univ. Foundation 20) Ga. State Financing & Investment Com. (GSFIC) 21) Ga. State Univ. Athletic Foundation 22) Ga. State Univ. Foundation 23) Ga. Student Finance Authority (GSFA) 24) Ga. Student Finance Commission (GSFC)

25) Ga. Superior Court Clerk’s Cooperative Auth. 26) University of Chattanooga Foundation 27) Trident Technical College 28) Kennesaw State Univ. Athletic Department 29) Kennesaw State Univ. Athletic Foundation 30) Kennesaw State Univ. Research Foundation 31) Kennesaw State Univ. Foundation 32) Medical College of Georgia Foundation 33) New College of Florida 34) Northeastern Technical College 35) Northwest Florida College Foundation 36) Polytechnic Foundation of Kennesaw State Univ. 37) REACH Georgia (of the GSFC) 38) South Carolina Infrastructure Bank 39) South Carolina Department of Transportation 40) Southern Polytechnic Applied Research Foundation 41) State College of Florida Sarasota‐Manatee 42) Stone Mountain Memorial Association 43) Tri County Technical College 44) Trident Technical College 45) University of North Georgia Foundation 46) University of West Georgia Foundation 47) University System of Georgia 48) Williamsburg Technical College



12

Other Governments. Other governmental entities we have audited within the past three years:

1) Albany ‐ Dougherty Inner City Authority 2) Amelia Island Convention & Visitors Bureau 3) Amelia Island Mosquito District 4) Allendale County Hospital 5) Atlanta Development Authority 6) Atlanta Economic Renaissance Corporation 7) Atlanta Housing Opportunity 8) Avita Community Partners 9) Bartram Trail Regional Library 10) Bayshore Gardens Park & Recreation District 11) Bradenton Downtown Development Authority 12) Bristol Public Library 13) Central Community Redevelopment Agency 14) Central Midlands Council of Govts. 15) Central Savannah River Area Regional Comm. 16) Charleston Co. Parks & Recreation Authority 17) Chatham County Jail Complex 18) Chatham County Tax Commissioner 19) Chattahoochee River 911 Authority 20) Chattanooga Area Regional Council of Govts. 21) Citrus County Mosquito District 22) City of Albany‐ Chehaw Park Authority 23) City of East Point Retirement Plan 24) City of North Port, Fl. ‐ Firefighters' Pension 25) City of Sandy Springs Development Authority 26) Classic Center Auth. of Clarke County 27) Clayton Center Community Service Board 28) Clayton Co. Pension Fund 29) Clayton Co. District Attorneys Office 30) Coastal Heritage Society 31) Cobb Center Community Service Board 32) Cobb County‐Marietta Water Auth. Pension 33) Columbia County Board of Health 34) Columbia Development Corp. 35) Columbia Empowerment Zone 36) Columbia Housing Development Corp. 37) Community Housing Services Agency (CHSA) 38) Convention and Visitors Bureau of Dunwoody 39) Crisp Co.‐ Cordele Industrial Development Authority 40) Crisp Co.‐ Cordele Industrial Development Council 41) Decide DeKalb 42) DeKalb County Public Library 43) Dev. Auth. of City of Jeffersonville & Twiggs Co. 44) Development Authority of Cherokee County 45) Development Authority of City of Roswell 46) Development Authority of Lumpkin County 47) Development Authority of Peachtree City 48) Development Authority of Warner Robins 49) Disabilities Board of Charleston County 50) Douglas County Community Service Board 51) Downtown Atlanta Revitalization 52) Eau Development Corporation 53) Ensor Forest Apartments 54) Fifth Circuit Solicitor of Richland County 55) Forsyth County Public Library 56) Friends of Bulloch 57) Georgia Charter Educational Foundation 58) Georgia Pines Community Service Board 59) Georgia Ports Auth. DB & OPEB Plan 60) Georgia Ports Auth. Defined Contribution Plan 61) Griffin Spalding County Land Bank Authority 62) Gwinnett Civic/Cultural Center Operations 63) Gwinnett Convention and Visitors Bureau 64) Gwinnett County Development Authority

65) Gwinnett County Public Facilities Authority 66) Gwinnett County Public Library 67) Gwinnett County Recreation Authority 68) Heart of Georgia Altamaha Regional Commission 69) Historic Roswell Convention & Visitors Bureau 70) Hospital Authority of St. Marys 71) Housing Authority of Clayton County 72) Houston County Library System 73) Islamorada,Village of Islands, Florida 74) Jefferson Co. Economic and Industrial Dev Authority 75) Keep Peachtree City Beautiful Commission 76) Kennesaw State University Athletic Department 77) Lamar County Recycling Authority 78) Legacy Community Health Services 79) Liberty County Development Authority 80) Live Oak Public Library 81) Lumpkin County Hospital Authority 82) Macon‐Bibb County Land Bank Authority 83) Manatee County Mosquito Control Dist 84) Manatee Technical Institute 85) MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement 86) McIntosh Trail Community Service Board 87) McMinn County Library 88) McPherson Implementing Local Redev. Authority 89) McPherson Planning Local Redevelopment Authority 90) Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) 91) Middle Georgia Community Service Board 92) Milledgeville‐Baldwin County Dev. Authority 93) NE Corridor, LLC 94) North Charleston District 95) North Fulton Regional Radio Authority 96) Northeast Georgia Regional Commission 97) Northwest Florida State College Foundation 98) Ocean Highway and Port Auth. of Nassau County 99) Oconee Center Community Service Board 100) Orangeburg Co. Dept. of Disabilities & Special Needs 101) Palm Bay Police & Fire Pension Plan 102) Pathways Center Community Service Board 103) Paulding County Industrial Development Authority 104) Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority 105) Peachtree City Convention & Visitor's Bureau 106) Phoenix Center Community Service Board 107) Pooler Chamber of Commerce 108) Public Bldg. Auth. of Knox Co. & City of Knoxville 109) Riverdale Downtown Development Authority 110) River's Edge Community Service Board 111) Saluda Nursing Center 112) Sandy Springs Hospitality Board 113) Santee‐Lynches Reg. Council of Governments 114) Santee‐Lynches Reg. Development Corp. 115) Sarasota School of Arts & Sciences 116) Savannah Development & Renewal Authority 117) Serenity Behavioral Health Systems 118) South Carolina Centers of Economic Excellence 119) South Island Public Service District 120) Southeast Tennessee Development District 121) SOWEGA Council on Aging 122) Toccoa‐Stephens County Public Library 123) Town Center Area Community Imp. District 124) Trailer Estates (FL) 125) Two Notch Development Corp. 126) Tybee Island Maritime Academy 127) Vidalia Onion Committee 128) Waynesboro Housing Authority Group



13

CAFR Certificates of Achievement & Excellence Mauldin & Jenkins has served approximately 500 governments in the past several years, and 131 governmental units who obtain the GFOA’s Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting (and, or the ASBO’s Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting).

Mauldin & Jenkins’ clients have never failed to obtain the Certificate! Mauldin & Jenkins is

batting 1000%. Every CAFR submitted has received the award. The following are current clients:

Counties: 1) Athens‐Clarke 2) Augusta‐Richmond 3) Barrow 4) Beaufort, SC 5) Cartersville 6) Chatham 7) Clayton 8) Colleton, SC 9) Columbus‐Muscogee

10) Dekalb 11) Douglas 12) Edgefield, SC 13) Floyd 14) Forsyth 15) Glynn 16) Greenville, SC 17) Gwinnett 18) Halifax, NC 19) Hamilton, TN 20) Henry 21) Jackson 22) Lancaster, SC 23) Liberty 24) Macon‐Bibb 25) Morgan 26) Newton

27) Oconee, SC 28) Orange, NC 29) Paulding 30) Rockdale 31) Spalding 32) Walton 33) Washington, NC 34) Whitfield

Cities: 35) Aiken, SC 36) Albany 37) Alpharetta 38) Americus 39) Austell 40) Ball Ground 41) Beaufort, SC 42) Black Mountain, NC 43) Bluffton, SC 44) Bradenton, FL 45) Bristol, TN 46) Brookhaven 47) Brunswick 48) Callaway, FL 49) Cartersville 50) Chamblee 51) Charleston, SC

52) Chamblee 53) College Park 54) Conyers 55) Cooper City, FL 56) Covington 57) Decatur 58) Douglasville 59) Dunwoody 60) Fayetteville 61) Fairburn 62) Forest Park 63) Garden City 64) Griffin 65) Gulfport, MS 66) Haines City, FL 67) Hallandale Bch, FL 68) Hapeville 69) Hardeeville, SC 70) Hinesville 71) Holly Springs 72) John's Creek 73) Kennesaw 74) Kiawah Island 75) Kingsland 76) Marco Island, FL 77) Longboat Key, FL 78) Milledgeville

79) Milton 80) Monroe 81) Morrow 82) Naples, FL 83) New Bern, NC 84) N. Charleston, SC 85) North Port, FL 86) Peachtree City 87) Pensacola, FL 88) Perry 89) Pinecrest, FL 90) Pooler 91) Port Wentworth 92) Riverdale 93) Rockmart 94) Rome 95) Roswell 96) St. Marys 97) Sandy Springs 98) Savannah 99) Suwanee 100) Thunderbolt 101) Tuscaloosa, AL 102) Union City

Boards of Education: 103) Atlanta Public Schools 104) Beaufort County Schools 105) Bibb County Schools 106) Cartersville City Schools 107) Clayton County Schools 108) Cobb County Schools 109) Fayette County Schools 110) Fulton County Schools 111) Gwinnett County Schools 112) Lee County School District 113) Marietta City Schools 114) Richland Co. School District 1 115) Savannah‐Chatham Schools State Governmental Entities: 116) Ga. Environ. Fin. Auth. (GEFA) 117) Ga. Ports Authority

Other Governmental Entities: 118) Central Savannah River Area Regional Comm. 119) Charleston Water System 120) Clayton County Water Authority 121) Cobb County ‐ Marietta Water Authority 122) Greenwood Commissioners of Public Works 123) Greer Commission of Public Works 124) Henry County Water Authority 125) Lowcountry Regional Transportation Authority 126) Macon Water Authority 127) Mount Pleasant Waterworks 128) North Charleston Sewer District 129) Public Building Authority of Knox Co. & Knoxville 130) South Florida Transportation Authority 131) Tampa Bay Water Authority



14

3. Additional Services Provided

Audits of Federally Funded Programs (Single Audits) Based on the most recent data provided by the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) which is for calendar year 2018, Mauldin & Jenkins audits 205 entities representing approximately $1.9 billion in federal expenditures for state, local government, and non‐profit clients which is the:

Highest among public accounting firms in the Southeast as it relates to the number of Single Audits conducted; and

3RD highest among public accounting firms in the Southeast as it relates to total expenditures audited under the Single Audit Act.



15

Governmental Attestation Services Other attestation services beyond financial and compliance audits which Mauldin & Jenkins currently provides to our clients include:

Forensic audits Performance audits Information systems audits Cybersecurity Assessments

Agreed‐upon procedures Bond issuance services Capital asset inventory services

Governmental IT Solutions As noted above, Mauldin & Jenkins performs various IT attestation and non‐attestation services. The following are three (3) such services.

Cybersecurity Framework Engagements

With governments dealing with IT ransoms, cybersecurity is one of the top issues on the minds of nearly every government (large & small). Managing this business issue is especially challenging. A government with a highly mature cybersecurity risk management program still has a residual risk that a material cybersecurity breach could occur and not be detected in a timely manner.

Services can be provided via: 1) attestation engagements or 2) consulting engagements. The AICPA has established standards for performing attestation engagements in this arena with the issuance of the SOC for Cybersecurity as part of its suite of System and Organization Controls (SOC) reporting. Consulting services can be provided while not compromising auditor independence.

System Vulnerability Assessments Engagements

This is the process of defining, identifying, classifying and prioritizing vulnerabilities in computer systems, applications and networks infrastructures, and providing an assessment with necessary knowledge, awareness and risks to understand the threats to determine appropriate reactions. Using specialized tools and applications, we can access networks to scan with automated tools and interrogate every device connected to network with the objective of searching for misconfigurations, unsupported software, missing software updates and patches, etc.



16

“We would like to express our sincere appreciation for the quality

of service provided by the staff of Mauldin & Jenkins. We would

like to thank you for the level of detail and accountability you

have demonstrated on this project and the way you conduct

business as a whole. Our team could not be more satisfied with

your work and we look forward to continuing this relationship."

Angela Jackson, City of Fairburn (GA), Finance Director

Penetration Testing Engagements This is the practice of testing a computer system to find security vulnerabilities that a hacker / attacker could exploit using automation or manual applications. The process involves gathering information about the target before the test, identifying possible entry points, attempting to break in – actually or virtually – and reporting back the findings. Tests come from external or internal angles of entry. Our main objective is to identify security weaknesses. Penetration testing can also be used to: test an organization's security policy; its adherence to compliance requirements; its employees’ security awareness; and, the government’s ability to identify and respond to security incidents.



17

Governmental Advisory Services Beyond traditional audit and accounting services and IT services, we provide advisory services that are wide‐ranging in nature. Our experienced government advisory team helps governments, governmental agencies and special purpose governmental organizations balance fiscal responsibility with the latest business strategies to achieve targeted and overarching objectives. Our advisory services can be summarized via the following bubbles. Specifically, these bubbles can be further expanded as follows:

Strategy:

Innovation

Long‐Term Planning

Organizational Management

Strategy Mapping

Technology & ERP Consulting

Operation Vision

Business Case

Transformation:

Change Management & Organizational Transformation Strategies

Customer Service Optimization

Service Model Delivery

Human Capital Management

Operational Efficiency & Effectiveness:

Cost Containment

Operations Improvement

Program Delivery

Revenue Enhancement

Performance Management:

Budget Forecasting & Design

Cost Accounting

Data Science

Grant Strategy

Internal Controls & Compliance

KPI Design / Benchmarking

Project Management

Management / Dashboard Reporting

Operational Efficiency & Effectiveness: ensure business

processes and service delivery are provided in a manner maximizing

targeted goals.

Strategy: develop & define future visions, goals, and objectives.

Performance & Management:

ensure outputs & outcomes are

producing desired results.

Transformation: allow for the

successful change from current to

desired environment or

outcome.



18

4. The Quality Control Program of Mauldin & Jenkins

External Peer Review

In the mid 70s, the Private Companies Practice Section (PCPS) was founded by the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) to establish a voluntary quality assurance program for CPA firms. There are requirements for membership in the section, which include mandatory continuing education for each member of the professional staff and a key element is a tri‐annual independent review of a firm’s quality control system in its practice of public accounting. Mauldin & Jenkins has been a member of the section from inception.

The peer review aspect has evolved from being voluntary to mandatory and Mauldin & Jenkins is in full compliance with the requirements of having a tri‐annual review. In the peer reviewer’s latest report dated October 30, 2017, our reviewing firm gave a rating of “pass” which is the highest form of assurance they can render on the system of quality control for our accounting and audit practice. A copy of the report on our most recent external quality control review is provided on the next page. The quality control review included a review of specific government engagements. No letter of comment was received as a result of this review. We are quite proud to be one of the few Southeast based firms to have undergone this review and to have received such an excellent opinion from a large reputable national firm. Only one desk review or field review has been performed on Mauldin & Jenkins in many years. In January 2008, as part of the Federal Department of Education’s random testing of the audits of local boards of education, a review was performed by the Federal Office of Inspector General (OIG) regarding a Single Audit engagement of a local board of education. We are quite pleased to note the examiner provided Mauldin & Jenkins a letter of high marks for the performance of the respective Single Audit and this comes at a time when Federal regulators are condemning the profession for poor performance of such Single Audits. Unofficially and orally provided, the examiner noted this Single Audit engagement to be the best such engagement reviewed in his experience.

Finally, we are proud to note that there are no unresolved matters from any federal or state desk review or field reviews. There have been no significant or material findings from such desk reviews, nor has there been any disciplinary or legal action taken or pending against the firm during the past three (3) years with any Federal or state regulatory bodies or professional organizations.



19



20



21

5. Proposed Engagement Team

The proposed engagement team for the District will consist of three (3) partners, one (1) manager, and one (1) staff. The resumes and information on the partners, and supervisor are found in section 4 of the proposal. Engagement Client Service Partner: Tim Lyons, CPA, CGMA Engagement Quality Assurance Partner: Adam Fraley, CPA Engagement Audit Service Partner: James W. Bence, CPA Engagement Manager: Will Derzis, CPA Engagement Supervisor: Brian Nicholson, CPA

Tim Lyons Client Service Partner

Will Derzis Manager

Adam Fraley Quality Assurance Partner

Audit Engagement Team Staff

Kris Trainor Certified Fraud

Examiner

James Bence Audit Service Partner



22

We realize that, regardless of our Firm’s qualifications, the quality of service the District receives will correlate directly to the skill level, dedication, and resourcefulness of your engagement team. The individuals listed below have been selected to serve the District based on their years of hands‐on experience working with government entities, and for their commitment to exceeding client expectations. Your team members are dedicated and resourceful, and among the most talented in their field. We encourage you to contact us whenever you have questions and to view us not just as auditors, but as true advisors.

Tim Lyons, CPA, CGMA Client Service Partner

Tim Lyons is a partner and a certified public accountant as well as a chartered global management accountant. His experience covers a variety of clients throughout the Southeast, working mainly in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia. Tim spends 100% of his time serving clients in this industry, working with all types of governmental entities ranging from large state agencies and institutions of higher education to local counties, school districts, and cities. Tim also serves the firm as the partner‐in‐charge of the Columbia office.

As the Engagement Partner, Tim will be on‐site during the interim procedures and the wrap‐up procedures to ensure the audit starts and ends on a good note. However, when circumstances arise that require the engagement partner’s attention during the course of the audit, the engagement partner will arrange to meet with members of both the engagement team and client personnel at the client’s offices. Therefore, we have strategically selected Tim to fill this role for the District’s audit as he would have availability during the timing of the District’s audit to be on‐site if needed. Furthermore, since late March 2020, Tim has been part of a team of partners spearheading the Firm’s remote audit efforts. As the situation with COVID‐19 worsened and travel to client offices was suspended for on‐going audit engagements, Tim has been part of the team converting many of our governmental engagements into the remote environment to ensure completion of work.

Years of Professional Experience and Years with Firm Tim has more than eleven years of experience in public accounting – a year and a half with a firm based out of Charleston, South Carolina and over ten years with Mauldin & Jenkins serving a wide variety of clients in the public services industry.



23

List of Governmental Clients Served in the Last Three (3) Years

Counties: DeKalb County, Ga. Douglas County, Ga. Floyd County, Ga. Forsyth County, Ga. Gates County, NC. Halifax County, NC. Lumpkin County, Ga. Madison County, NC. Montgomery County, NC. Orange County, NC. Walton County, Ga. Washington County, NC. Cities and Townships: Alpharetta, Ga. Ballground, Ga. Bristol, Tennessee Brookhaven, Ga. Cartersville, Ga. Cedartown, Ga. Chattahoochee Hills, Ga. College Park, Ga. Decatur, Ga. Douglasville, Ga. Forest Park, Ga. Griffin, Ga. Hollywood, SC Kennesaw, Ga. Johns Creek, Ga. Loris, SC Monroe, Ga. Milton, Ga. New Bern, NC. Rockmart, Ga. Rome, Ga. Sandy Springs, Ga. Social Circle, Ga. Selma, NC.

School Districts and Public Charter Schools:

Atlanta Public Schools Atlanta Heights Charter School

Brookhaven Innovation Academy

Carrollton City Schools Cherokee Charter Academy Clarendon County School District 1

Coweta Academy at Senoia Decatur City Schools Douglas County Board of Education

East Point Academy Florence School District 1 Forsyth County Schools Fulton County Board of Education

Georgia School for Innovation and the Classics

Graduation Achievement Charter School

Ivy Preparatory at Gwinnett Ivy Preparatory at Kirkwood

Marietta City Schools Marlboro County School District

Montessori School of Camden

Pataula Charter Academy Richland County School District 1

Scintilla Charter Academy Sumter County School District

State Agencies: Georgia Superior Court Clerks’ Cooperative Authority (GSCCCA)

South Carolina Centers for Economic Excellence (“SmartState”)

South Carolina Department of Transportation South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank

Higher Education: Coker College Francis Marion University Morris College Other Governmental Units: Austell Natural Gas System Central Midlands Regional Council of Governments

Chatsworth Water Works Commission Cobb County‐Marietta Water Authority Cobb County‐Marietta Water Authority Retirement Plan

Disabilities Board of Charleston County Dorchester County Board of Disabilities and Special Needs

Forsyth County Public Library Fulton County School Employees’ Pension Fund

Invest Atlanta Lumpkin County Water & Sewerage Authority Orangeburg County Disabilities and Special Needs Board

Santee‐Lynches Regional Council of Governments

Santee‐Lynches Regional Development Corporation



24

James Bence, CPA Audit Service Partner

James is a partner with Mauldin & Jenkins. His experience with the firm covers a variety of state and local governmental organizations. He spends 100% of his time serving state and local governments.

As the Audit Service Partner for the District’s engagement, James would be on‐site and available to the District personnel for 100% of the time that fieldwork is occurring. As the audit progresses, James would be responsible for the first review of the audit file and work completed and as this would be conducted on‐site, any issues would be resolved with the District prior to our conclusion of fieldwork. We

find that this process eliminates many of the inefficiencies that cause delays between the conclusion of fieldwork and final issuance of our audit reports and a government’s financial statements.

Years of Professional Experience and Years with the Firm: James has sixteen (16) years of experience in public accounting, all with Mauldin & Jenkins, serving a wide range of clients in the public services industry.

The following is a summary of governmental clients served by James in the capacity of audit service or engagement partner or concurring review partner. These clients are also listed below.

List of Audits Performed for Governments in the Last Two Years

Counties:

Cherokee County

Douglas County

Floyd County

Forsyth County

Gates County, NC

Halifax County, NC

Madison County, NC

Jackson County

Lumpkin County

Orange County, NC

Paulding County

Union County

Walton County

Washington County, NC Other Governmental Entities:

Chatsworth Water Works Commission

Chattahoochee River 911 Authority

Cherokee County Airport Authority

Cherokee County Water & Sewerage Authority

Cobb County‐Marietta Water

Cities:

City of Alpharetta

City of Asheville, NC

City of Baldwin

City of Ball Ground

City of Brookhaven

City of Canton

City of Decatur

City of Doraville

City of Dunwoody

City of Grantville

City of Johns Creek

City of Kennesaw

City of Lawrenceville

City of Lilburn

City of Marietta

City of Milton

City of Monroe

City of New Bern, NC

City of Peachtree Corners

City of Powder Springs

City of Roswell

City of Sandy Springs



25

Authority

Development Authority of Walton County

Dunwoody Convention and Visitors Bureau

Evermore Community Impr. District

Forsyth County Public Library

Halifax Co. Tourism Development Authority

Halifax‐Northampton Regional Airport Auth

Madison Co. Tourism Development Authority

Historic Roswell Convention & Visitors Bureau

Lawrenceville Tourism & Trade Association

Town Center Community Improvement District

Walton County Water & Sewer Authority

City of Social Circle

City of Villa Rica

Town of Black Mountain, NC

Town of Garner, NC

Town of Selma, NC School Systems:

Atlanta Heights Charter Academy

Brighten Academy

Cartersville Board of Education

Cherokee County Board of Education

Cherokee County Charter Academy

City of Buford Board of Education

City of Marietta Board of Education

Cobb County Board of Education

Coweta Charter Academy

Forsyth County Board of Education

Gainesville City Schools

Gordon County School District

Pataula Charter Academy

Troup County Board of Education

Walton County Board of Education

Adam Fraley, CPA

Quality Control Partner Adam Fraley is a partner with Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC specializing in serving local and state governmental entities. Adam is a partner who works exclusively in the governmental sector of the Firm’s audit practice. His experience covers a variety of clients in state and local government organizations. He spends 100% of his time serving state and local governments. As the quality control partner on the engagement, it is not anticipated that Adam will be on‐site for the District’s audit. The role of our quality control reviewer is to have a final, independent, review of the file and

the reports to ensure all requirements from the audit and accounting standpoint have been addressed. However, if the situation should arise, where Adam is needed to address an unusual or technical issue during the course of the audit, Adam will coordinate to meet with the audit team and the management team of the District to ensure the proper resolution is reached. Years of Professional Experience and Years with Firm: Adam has nineteen years of experience with the Firm. He has served as Chairman on the Firm’s Partner Advisory Board and currently serves as Chairman on the Firm’s Leadership and Career Development Committee. Adam serves both large and small governmental units, and is involved in serving over fifty (50) such governmental entities. Adam obtained his CPA certificate in 1999.



26

The following is a summary of governmental clients served by Adam in the capacity of engagement partner in‐charge or concurring review partner. These clients are also listed below. List of Audits Performed for Governments in the Last Two Years

Cities:

City of Alpharetta

City of Austell

City of Ball Ground

City of Bristol, TN

City of Brookhaven

City of Canton

City of Chattahoochee Hills

City of Clarkston

City of Decatur

City of Doraville

City of Duluth

City of Dunwoody

City of Grantville

City of Johns Creek

City of Kennesaw

City of Lilburn

City of Marietta

City of Milton

City of Monroe

City of New Bern, NC

City of Peachtree Corners

City of Powder Springs

City of Rockmart

City of Rome

City of Roswell

City of Sandy Springs

City of Social Circle

City of Toccoa

Town of Garner, NC

Town of Selma, NC

Counties:

Cherokee County

DeKalb County

Forsyth County

Gwinnett County

Gates County, NC

Halifax County, NC

Madison County, NC

Lumpkin County

Orange County, NC

Paulding County

Walton County

Washington County, NC

School Systems:

Buford Board of Education

Carrollton Board of Education

Cherokee County Board of Education

Cobb County Board of Education

Decatur Board of Education

Douglas County Board of Education

Forsyth County Board of Education

Gainesville Board of Education

Gwinnett County Board of Education

Other Governmental Units

Austell Natural Gas System


Chattahoochee River 911 Authority

Cobb County‐Marietta Water Authority

Halifax Co. Tourism Development Authority

Halifax‐Northampton Regional Airport Auth

Madison Co. Tourism Development Auth

Lumpkin County Water & Sewer Authority

North Fulton Regional Radio Authority

Walton County Water & Sewer Authority



27

Will Derzis, CPA Manager

Will Derzis is a manager and a certified public accountant with Mauldin & Jenkins specializing in serving local and state governmental entities. Will spends 100% of his time serving state and local governments in Georgia and the Carolinas, and he works exclusively in the governmental sector of the Firm’s audit practice. Will has served a variety of clients including school districts and other educational institutions, cities, counties, and other types of governmental entities.

Years of Professional Experience and Years with Firm Will has over five (5) years of experience in public accounting, all with Mauldin & Jenkins, serving a wide range of governmental clients. The following is a summary of governmental clients served by will in the capacity of staff in‐charge or staff. These clients are also listed below.

List of Governmental Clients Served in the Last Three (3) Years Counties:

Gates County, NC

Halifax County, NC

Lumpkin County

Orange County, NC Other Governmental Units:

Bartow County School District

Carrollton City Schools

Douglas County School District

Murray County School District

Rome City Schools

Atlanta Heights Charter School

Brookhaven Innovation Academy

Cherokee Charter Academy

Coweta Charter Academy

Scintilla Charter Academy

Southwest Georgia STEM Charter School

Austell Natural Gas System


Cobb County‐Marietta Water Authority

Cities:

Brookhaven

Doraville

Jefferson

Kennesaw

Milton

Monroe

New Bern, NC

Peachtree Corners

Powder Springs

Rockmart

Rome

Roswell

Social Circle

Selma, NC

Stonecrest

Toccoa

Tucker



28

Turnover and Audit Continuity Our staff retention rates are considered to be among the best in the profession (and much better than national and other regional firms). This fact, coupled with our vast array of government clients, results in a staff pool highly experienced with governmental entities with the definite capacity to serve the District. We are able to not only provide consistency with the partner and manager on our engagement teams, but seniors and staff as well. Many of our clients will tell you that they routinely have seniors and staff return to serve them year after year. We also have enough resources at the partner, manager, and senior levels to provide for periodic rotations as requested by our clients. Our policy is to try and maintain a consistent audit team throughout the term of each engagement. However, as some of our seniors and managers continue to develop they may be reassigned to other engagements. It is our practice when this occurs to ensure the partner involvement is increased during the transition to other senior team members, which helps to not only avoid any interruptions or retraining, but also keeps our partners highly involved in the audit process, throughout the contract.

The Mauldin & Jenkins Difference – Depth of Resources The personnel assigned to the District’s audit have a significant amount of experience serving governmental entities. We would like to stress the fact that, as shown by the list of entities we have served, that our experience spans a wide variety of entity‐types. We have experience auditing all types of organizations, programs, activities and functions provided by governmental entities. Our governmental practice is the largest niche of our firm and accounts for over 85,000 hours of service on an annual basis.

Other Staff Resources

We have individuals with extensive experience and certifications relative to Information Systems Technology as well Fraud Examinations. The following two (2) individuals are available to be of service to the District should the need arise.

Jameson A. Miller, CPA, CISA Director, Information Technology, Cybersecurity Consulting Services

Jameson Miller is a director and has been with Mauldin and Jenkins since graduation from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He currently leads the firm’s Information Systems and Cybersecurity practice. For over 12 years, Jameson has provided audit services to public and private entities throughout the Southeast. Jameson’s experience includes audits of general controls, application controls, technical audits and security assessments for information systems.

Jameson has extensive experience with Sarbanes Oxley, SSAE18 System and Organization Controls (SOC) Audits, National Automated Clearinghouse Association (NACHA) Compliance with Appendix Eight of the NACHA Operating Rules and Guidelines, and Gramm‐Leach‐Bliley Act (GLBA) compliance program implementation, testing and reporting. His technical expertise includes performing vulnerability



29

assessments and penetration testing of information systems using both technical and social engineering techniques. Further, Jameson has:

Maintained current and relevant information technology and financial accounting continuing professional education credits (CPE);

Obtained the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ (AICPA) “Cybersecurity Advisory Services” Certificate;

Presented a 2018 CPE webinar for the Georgia Governmental Financial Officers Association (GGFOA) members entitled, “Cybersecurity Trends and the AICPA’s Cybersecurity Risk Management Program;” and

Presented a 2018 CPE breakout session entitled, “What is Blockchain and Why Should I Care?” for the GGFOA’s Annual Conference.

Jameson is a member of the AICPA, the Tennessee Society of Certified Public Accountants (TSCPA), and ISACA (formerly the Information Systems Audit and Control Association). In addition, Jameson is an avid outdoor enthusiast and enjoys volunteering as a member of the board of directors and treasurer the of the Cumberland Trail Conference, a 501(c)3 non‐profit organization. Jameson is a licensed Certified Public Accountant with the State of Tennessee and a Certified Information Systems Auditor through ISACA. Jameson plans to obtain the AICPA’s “Blockchain Fundamentals for Accounting and Finance Professionals” Certificate during December 2018. In January 2019, he is registered to take, “Penetration Testing with Kali,” a 40 hour continuing education self‐study course offered through Offensive Security, the creators of the Kali Linux Penetration Testing operating system. Afterwards, Jameson will sit for the Offensive Security Certified Professional (OSCP) 24 hour certification examination. Considering the fact that Jameson only provides non‐traditional consulting‐type services to governmental entities, and he does not (and will not) provide audit and accounting services under the guidance of the Yellow Book educational standards, no such continuing education is required or provided under this proposal to provide services.

Kris Trainor, CPA and CFE Certified Fraud Examiner

Kris Trainor is a partner with Mauldin & Jenkins. Kris received his BBA in Accounting from Georgia Southern University. Since joining Mauldin & Jenkins in 1995, Kris has worked primarily on audit and consulting engagements. His experience ranges from fraud examinations, agreed‐upon procedures, internal audits, financial statement audits, lender compliance, mortgage company audits, governmental audits and loan servicing compliance audits. Kris also has audit and inventory experience in the manufacturing industry. He is available to perform forensic audits should it be determined that such audits are needed in lieu of other traditional audits (financial, compliance, performance, agreed‐upon procedures, etc.)



30

Kris is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Georgia Society of Certified Public Accountants, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Beta Gamma Sigma, and Beta Alpha Psi.

Considering the fact that Kris only provides non‐traditional consulting‐type services to governmental entities, and he does not (and will not) provide audit and accounting services under the guidance of the Yellow Book educational standards, no such continuing education is required or provided under this proposal to provide services.

David Roberts Partner, Governmental Advisory Services

David Roberts is a widely respected leader in providing consulting and advisory services to public‐sector organizations at the federal, state, and local level. David has approximately 20 years at KPMG, one of the “Big 4” international accounting firms, and brings an exceptional understanding of governmental clients’ challenges as well as innovative solutions that fit their unique operating and service delivery environment. David now leads our Government Advisory practice, where he will continue to focus on helping governments and individual agencies fulfill and exceed their financial, operational, and regulatory obligations to the public. David has provided a wide array of advisory services in his career. In the past three (3) years alone, David has performed and supervised approximately 70,000 hours of advisory services which are summarized by type of entity and respective services as follows: Cities & Counties: Respective Services Provided: Austin, Texas Zero Based Budgeting Assessment & Strategic Design Charlotte County, Florida Strategic Planning Assistance, and Utilities Dept. Assessments DeKalb County, Georgia Water / Sewer Utility Billing Assessment Fort Lauderdale, Florida Water / Sewer Utility Billing Assessment New Orleans, Louisiana Zero Based Budgeting Assessment & Strategic Design Riverside County, California Finance Function Assessment Savannah, Georgia Water / Sewer Utility Billing Assessment School Districts: Chicago Public Schools Service Delivery Model Assessment DeKalb County (GA) Schools Human Resources Assessment Human Resources Recommendation Implementation Federal and State Government Entities: District of Columbia Employment Services Dept. Workforce Innovation & Opportunity Act (WIOA) Grant Assistance

Florida Department of Management Services Quality Assurance / Independent Verification & Validation Over SAP Implementation

Florida Turnpike Enterprise Back‐office Project Management Office (PMO) Georgia Department of Administrative Services Human Resources Function Market Scan Georgia Department of Community Health Finance Function Review Georgia Department of Economic Development Workforce Innovation & Opportunity Act (WIOA) Grant Assistance

Georgia Department of Labor Back‐office Assessment & Project Mgmt. Office Support Georgia State Road & Tollway Authority Agency Merger Assessment Cost Allocation Assistance Strategic Planning Assistance



31

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Revenue Control Manager Puerto Rico Dept. of the Treasury Finance Project Management Office Texas Department of Transportation Back‐office SAP Implementation Support Virginia Department of Transportation Workforce Strategy Assessment Special Purpose Entities: Atlanta Housing Authority Human Resources Assessment & Optimization Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Int. Audit Dept. Grants Compliance Review Florida Healthy Kids (NFP) Vendor Selection Assistance

From management consulting and identifying new opportunities, to increasing stakeholder satisfaction and implementing transformational strategies, David and our government advisory team deliver insights and techniques that help government clients leverage public resources efficiently while achieving overarching goals. Our government advisory practice brings to market a team that has direct experience as government employees, change agents, and transformation consultants to help tackle the industry’s toughest issues.

Other Staff Auditors & Accountants

Prior experience with government audits is as important for the staff as it is for management. Experience in governmental accounting and auditing minimizes the amount of time the staff will require to fully understand the complexities of the operations and financial accounting and reporting systems. Prior experience also enables the staff to recognize problems early in the engagement. This, in turn, allows the desired early consideration and resolution of problems. All staff assigned to the District’s engagement will have prior experience serving government clients and/or will have substantial government audit training. All staff assigned to the District will be on‐site throughout the entire engagement.

We would like to stress the fact that the majority of our governmental staff work on state and local governments 100% of their time. This reduces the “learning curve” on most all audits by reducing the amount of “on‐site training” that occurs at most national accounting firms. This is very evident in our proposed hours, which are typically much less than that of other firms. Our staff knows what is required and how to get the work done efficiently and effectively. Our staff members understand the laws and regulations specifically pertinent to North Carolina entities. We also normally have more high‐level hours of service by our partners and managers (in the conduct of fieldwork) than the national firms, thereby reducing redundancy and other audit engagement inequities. We bring our experience to the field where timely decisions can be made.



32

6. Education and Training of Engagement Team

Tim Lyons, CPA, CGMA Client Service Partner

Degree/Certifications and Audit Training: Tim graduated in 2006 from Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina with a Bachelor of Arts in Accounting and subsequently, obtained his Masters of Science in Accountancy from the College of Charleston in 2009. Tim has been licensed as a CPA since 2009 and also holds the Chartered Global Management Accountant designation from the AICPA. Tim has obtained a significant amount of continuing professional education over the last three years including:

2020 South Carolina Association of CPAs Spring Splash – Virtual Conference – Instructor (“GASB Hot Topics” and “The Federal Audit Clearinghouse and the New Data Collection Form”)

2019 Mauldin & Jenkins Government Client CPE – Columbia, South Carolina – Instructor (“All Things IT – Are You Protected”)

2019 South Carolina Association of CPAs Fall Fest – Columbia, South Carolina – Instructor (“Understanding the CAFR from A to Z”)

2019 Mauldin & Jenkins Annual Governmental Conference – Athens, Georgia – Instructor and Participant

2019 Dunwoody Accounting Conference – Dunwoody, Georgia – Instructor

2019 Mauldin & Jenkins Government Client CPE – Savannah, Georgia – Instructor (“GASB Update and Presenting Financial Information to Nonfinancial People”)

2018 Georgia Government Finance Officers’ Association Annual Conference – Lake Lanier, Georgia – Instructor (“The Coming Impact of Blockchain on the Accounting Profession”)

2018 Mauldin & Jenkins Annual Governmental Conference – Lake Lanier, Georgia – Instructor and Participant


2017 Mauldin & Jenkins Government Client CPE – Atlanta and Macon, Georgia – Instructor (“GASB Update and the New Lease Standard”)

2017 Mauldin & Jenkins LEAP Conference – Athens, Georgia – Instructor

2017 Mauldin & Jenkins Annual Governmental Conference – Athens, Georgia – Instructor and Participant

2017 Mauldin & Jenkins Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Training – Atlanta, Georgia ‐ Instructor


2017 Georgia State University Center for State and Local Finance – Governmental Financial Statements and Accounting Expert Panel – Atlanta, Georgia

2016 Grant Professionals Association National Conference – The Uniform Grant Guidance and Changes to the Single Audit Process – Atlanta, Georgia – Instructor



33

James Bence, CPA Audit Service Partner

Degree/Certifications and Audit Training: James graduated from Mercer University with a double B.B.A. in Accounting and Finance and he is a Certified Public Accountant. In addition, James has obtained a significant amount of continuing professional education over the last three years, serving as both an instructor and participant in several seminars and courses including:

2019 North Carolina School Board Association Annual Conference, Greensboro, NC 2019 Risk Assessment Summit, Atlanta, Ga 2019 Government Finance Officers Association of Alabama, Montgomery, AL 2018 CAFR Preparation, Macon, Georgia – Instructor 2018 Grant Reporting and Financial Close‐Out, Tuscaloosa, Alabama – Instructor 2018 Carl Vinson Institute – Internal Controls, Webcast 2018 Georgia Government Finance Officers Association Annual Conference, Augusta,

Georgia 2018 Common Financial Statement Errors, North Carolina Association of CPAs, New Bern,

North Carolina ‐ Instructor 2017 Tennessee Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Fall Conference –

Murfreesboro, Tennessee 2017 North Carolina GFOA Summer Conference – Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina 2017 Georgia Government Finance Officers Association Conference – Savannah, Georgia 2017 CAFR Preparation, Atlanta, Georgia – Instructor 2017 Mauldin & Jenkins Annual Conference, Athens, Georgia ‐ Instructor and Participant 2017 North Carolina GFOA Spring Conference ‐ Raleigh, North Carolina 2016 CAFR Preparation, Covington, Georgia ‐ Instructor 2016 North Carolina Government Finance Officers Association Fall Conference – Winston‐

Salem, North Carolina 2016 CAFR Preparation Class, Atlanta, Georgia – Instructor 2016 Mauldin & Jenkins Annual Conference ‐ Instructor and Participant

Adam Fraley, CPA

Quality Control Partner Degree/Certifications and Audit Training: Adam graduated from Georgia College & State University with a Bachelor of Business Administration in Accounting. He has been a featured speaker at various GGFOA Conferences and other GGFOA workshops, free quarterly CPE provided to our clients, and several internal conferences. Adam has obtained and instructed a significant amount of continuing professional education over the last three years including:

2019 Risk Assessment for Government Financial Statements, Atlanta, Georgia – Participant 2019 M&J Annual Government Conference, Athens, Georgia – Instructor and Participant 2019 Dunwoody Conference, Dunwoody, Georgia – Instructor 2018 M&J Annual Government Conference, Lake Lanier, Georgia – Instructor and

Participant 2018 Dunwoody Conference, Dunwoody, Georgia – Instructor 2018 GASB Update and Footnotes Review, Quarterly Client CPE ‐ Instructor



34

2018 GGFOA Annual Conference, Stone Mountain, Georgia ‐ Instructor 2017 M&J Annual Government Conference, Athens, Georgia – Instructor and Participant 2017 GGFOA Annual Conference, Tybee Island, Georgia ‐ Instructor 2017 Dunwoody Conference, Dunwoody, Georgia – Instructor 2017 CPA Crossings Communicating Financial Information to Non‐Accountants ‐ Participant

Will Derzis, CPA

Manager Degree/Certifications and Audit Training: Will graduated from the University of Alabama with a B.B.A. in Accounting and subsequently obtained his Masters of Accountancy from the University of Alabama. Will has obtained a significant amount of continuing professional education over the last three years including:

2019 Mauldin & Jenkins Annual Governmental Conference – Athens, Ga.

2019 Risk Assessment for Local Governments – Atlanta, Ga

2019 Mauldin & Jenkins Annual LEAP Conference – Athens, Ga. – Instructor

2018 Mauldin & Jenkins Annual Governmental Conference – Athens, Ga.

2018 Thomson Reuters Audit Watch Level 1 – Atlanta, Ga.

2017 CAFR Preparation, Atlanta, Ga.

2017 Mauldin & Jenkins Annual Conference, Athens, Ga.

7. Experience of Engagement Team

Our proposed engagement team provides a combined over fifty years of experience providing financial and compliance audit services to local governments throughout the southeast. Each member of the engagement team spends 100% of their time providing these services to our governmental clients. Each member of the team has previous experience, including services provided in the most recent 2019 fiscal year audits, providing services to governments which have provided services such as utilities, solid waste, transit, airports, health care, and school systems. In section 5 above, we have included the list of all governmental entities for which each proposed member of the engagement team has provided services in the last three (3) years. As we’ve mentioned above, our Mauldin & Jenkins professionals in the governmental practice spend 100% of their time serving governments so it is not uncommon for partners to oversee twenty‐five or more audits each year, with staff members providing direct support or reviewing work related to the same.



35

8. Specialized Skills of Engagement Team

Tim Lyons, CPA

Client Service Partner Professional and Civic Activities: Tim is involved in a variety of organizations to both support the governmental industry and to promote the CPA profession overall. As a member of the Special Review Committee for the Government Finance Officers’ Association (GFOA), Tim reviews CAFR submissions from all across the U.S. for governments seeking to obtain the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. Also at the national level, Tim is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and is a graduate of the AICPA’s Leadership Academy, Class of 2012. At the state level, Tim is involved with the state GFOA organizations as a periodic presenter at the annual conferences as well as with the State CPA societies. Outside of the CPA profession, Tim recently joined the Board of Directors for Children’s Trust of South Carolina whose Board is appointed by the Governor. Children’s Trust is the only statewide organization whose mission is the prevention of child abuse, neglect and injury throughout the State of South Carolina by forming partnerships with local governmental and nonprofit organizations including many counties, school districts, and other governmental organizations.

James Bence, CPA

Audit Service Partner Professional and Civic Activities: James is a Certified Public Accountant and a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Georgia Society of Certified Public Accountants, the Government Finance Officers Association, the Georgia Government Finance Officers Association, and the North Carolina Government Finance Officers Association. James has presented at many state and local conferences, including annual conferences such as the North Carolina Association of CPAs.

Adam Fraley, CPA Quality Control Partner

Professional and Civic Activities: Adam is a Certified Public Accountant and a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Georgia Society of Certified Public Accountants, the Government Finance Officers Association, the Georgia Government Finance Officers Association, the Cobb County Chamber’s Government Affairs Committee, and the Association of Government Accountants (AGA), which he has served as the Director of the AGA’s Audit Committee.

Will Derzis, CPA

Manager Professional and Civic Activities: Will is a Certified Public Accountant and a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and Georgia Society of Certified Public Accountants.



36

9. Client References In addressing the District’s interest in the qualifications and client references of Mauldin & Jenkins, we have elected to report on four (4) School Districts / Boards of Education which most closely resemble CHCCS in size and services. Additionally, we’ve provided a North Carolina County reference to demonstrate the work that we have been doing in the State. Should management of the District need some additional references, we would be happy to provide such data. 1) Richland County School District 1

General Information One of three school districts in Richland County, South Carolina, encompassing the City of Columbia that serves approximately 23,000 students.

Scope & Type of Engagement

Financial audits and compliance audits in accordance with the Uniform Guidance (“Single Audits”); South Carolina Department of Education procurement audits.

Dates June 30, 2013 through present

Partners Tim Lyons and James Bence

Client Contact Sherri Mathews‐Hazel, CFO: (803) 231‐7515

Address 1616 Richland Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201

2) Atlanta Independent School System

General Information School District located in the City of Atlanta with over 51,000 students and approximately 95 schools.


Financial audits and compliance audits in accordance with the Uniform Guidance (“Single Audits”); Performance Audits related to the School System’s projects funded by Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax


Partners Doug Moses and Tim Lyons

Client Contact Tanisha Oliver, Executive Director of Accounting: (404) 802‐3500

Address 130 Trinity Avenue SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.



37

3) Cobb County Board of Education

General Information School District located in the northwest part of the metro Atlanta area with over 110,000 students and 110 schools.


Financial audits and compliance audits in accordance with the Uniform Guidance (“Single Audits”); Performance Audits related to the School System’s projects funded by Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax; Performance Audits related to the District’s Local Schools Accounting Policies and Manuals.


Partners Adam Fraley and Tim Lyons

Client Contact Brad Johnson, CFO: (770) 426‐3310

Address 514 Glover Street, Marietta, Georgia 30060

4) Gwinnett County Board of Education

General Information Largest public school district in the State of Georgia with over 178,000 students and 130 school locations.


Financial audits and compliance audits in accordance with the Uniform Guidance (“Single Audits”); Performance Audits related to the School System’s projects funded by Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax


Partners Adam Fraley and Joel Black

Client Contact Lawanda Hankins, Director of Financial Reporting: (678) 301‐6206

Address 437 Old Peachtree Road, Suwanee, Georgia 30024

Additionally, we have worked with Orange County for the previous five years and have included the County due to its proximity.

5) Orange County, NC

General Information

County with a population of approx. 142,000. The County provides

general governmental services, as well as health and human

services, solid waste, sewer, and the operation of sportsplex.

Scope & Type of

Engagement

Financial audits and compliance audits in accordance with Uniform

Guidance (UG) and the State Single Audit Act. CAFR prepared and

GFOA Certificate awarded.


Partners James Bence and Joel Black

Contact Information Gary Donaldson, CFO ‐ (919) 245‐24253

Address 200 S. Cameron Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278



38

10. Mauldin & Jenkins’ Independence Policies Mauldin & Jenkins is independent of Chapel Hill‐Carrboro City Schools as defined by Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. We are also independent with respect to the District within the meaning of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Ethics of the American Institute of CPAs and the applicable published rules and interpretations thereunder. Our policy and procedures, as attached as Appendix A, require all partners and employees to complete annual independence statements which are maintained in our firm’s central office. Prior to the acceptance of any new client, all partners and employees must manually attest to their independence or explain any potential impairment which is then assessed by our firm’s executive committee, prior to the acceptance of an engagement. This allows the firm to ensure we are both in fact and appearance independent from all clients.

11. Mauldin & Jenkins’ Insurance Policies Mauldin & Jenkins carries sufficient commercial insurance to cover the minimum requirements. Mauldin & Jenkins also agrees to have a Certificate of Insurance properly executed by our insurance company upon notice of award of audit contract, if so desired.

12. Regulatory Actions As a point of reference, we would like to emphasize that there are no unresolved matters from any federal or state desk review or field reviews. There have been no significant or material findings from such desk reviews, nor has there been any disciplinary or legal action taken or pending against the firm during the past three (3) years with any Federal or state regulatory bodies or professional organizations.



39

Other Information

Free Continuing Education We provide free quarterly continuing education for all of our governmental clients. Each quarter, we pick a couple of significant topics tailored to be of interest to governmental entities, and offer the sessions several times per quarter at a variety of client provided locations resulting in greater networking among our governmental clients. We normally see approximately 100 people per quarter. We obtain the input and services of experienced outside speakers along with providing the instruction utilizing our in‐house professionals.

“I’ve been a CPA for 32 years. Today’s CPE class by Mauldin & Jenkins has been the best of my career”. Terry Nall, CPA, City of Dunwoody (GA) Council Member “They are always on top of new accounting pronouncements and provide training well before implementation deadlines. This is a very valuable resource for our organization”. Laurie Puckett, CPA, CPFO, Gwinnett County (GA), Accounting Director

Examples of subjects addressed in the past few quarters include:

Accounting for Debt Issuances American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Updates Best Budgeting Practices, Policies and Processes CAFR Preparation (several times including a two (2) day hands‐on course) Capital Asset Accounting Processes and Controls Collateralization of Deposits and Investments Evaluating Financial and Non‐Financial Health of a Local Government GASB No. 51, Intangible Assets GASB No. 54, Governmental Fund Balance (subject addressed twice) GASB No. 61, the Financial Reporting Entity (webcast) GASB No.’s 63 & 65, Deferred Inflows and Outflows (webcast) GASB No.’s 67 & 68, New Pension Standards (presented several occasions) GASB No. 72, Fair Value Measurement and Application GASB No. 77, Tax Abatement Disclosures GASB Updates (ongoing and several sessions) Grant Accounting Processes and Controls Internal Controls Over Accounts Payable, Payroll and Cash Disbursements Internal Controls Over Receivables & the Revenue Cycle Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Compliance Issues, Primarily Payroll Matters Legal Considerations for Debt Issuances & Disclosure Requirements Segregation of Duties Single Audits for Auditees SPLOST Accounting, Reporting & Compliance Uniform Grant Reporting Requirements and the New Single Audit



40

Governmental Newsletters

We produce newsletters tailored to meet the needs of governments. The newsletters have addressed a variety of subjects and are intended to be timely in their subject matter. The newsletters are authored by Mauldin & Jenkins partners and managers, and are not purchased from an outside agency.

The newsletters are produced and delivered periodically, and are intended to keep you informed of current developments in the government finance environment. In the past several years, the following topics have been addressed in our monthly newsletters:

2011 Legislative Highlights

American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Information and Issues

Are Your Government’s Funds Secure?

Capitalization of Interest

Changes in FDIC Deposit Insurance Coverage

Changes on the Horizon for OMB Circular A‐133

Deposit Collateralization

Employee vs Independent Contractor

Escheat Laws on Unclaimed Property

Federal Funding and Accountability Transparency Act

Forensic Audit or Financial Audit?

Form PT 440

GASB 54, Governmental Fund Balance

GASB 54, Governmental Fund Balance Note Disclosure Requirements

GASB 60, Service Concession Arrangements

GASB 67, New Pension Standard

GASB Standards 63 & 65, Deferred Inflows & Outflows

IRS Delays Implementation of 3% Withholding on Payments for Goods and Services

OMB A‐133 Compliance Supplements

Property Tax Assessments

Refunding Debt

Sales Tax Collections and Remittances by the State

SAS Clarity Standards and Group Audits

Single Audit (July 2010)

Single Audit and ARRA Funds

Social Security Administration (SSA) Incentive Payments

Special Purpose Local Option Sales Taxes (SPLOST) Expenditures

Supplemental Social Security for Inmates

The Return of the Component Unit – GASB 61

What’s Happening with Property Tax Assessments



41

High Percentage of Partner & Manager Involvement Partner and manager involvement varies with different firms. At Mauldin & Jenkins, we believe it is important for our partners and managers to be highly involved in the audit process, including fieldwork. We bring our experience to the field. This is a value‐added concept most firms do not employ. That being said, we believe it is important to note that our proposal includes the following:

Substantial Partner Hours as Compared to Total Hours.

Substantial Manager Hours as Compared to Total Hours.

Approximately 30% of all anticipated hours of service are partner hours which means we bring our experience to the field and not just the front end and back end of the audits.

Workflow Programs ‐ Suralink We utilize many options for our clients in how information is communicated and provided during the audit, but the preferred choice by many of our clients is a web‐based program provided by Suralink. This is a live, interactive program which allows us to setup an engagement’s client assistance letter or PBC letter in a live format. Each request has its own identifier and clients can attach workpapers, details, or other support directly to the request. Clients can also utilize the comments box to respond when items are not applicable or “will be provided at fieldwork.” This has helped reduce the back and forth with uncertainty of when a request has been fulfilled. Once uploaded, the document is retained and can be marked as “accepted” or “rejected” by the audit team to identify when the request has been fulfilled. This program also allows for clients who are ready ahead of their scheduled time to upload information to the audit to help expedite the audit process. Instead of waiting until day 1 of the audit to really get going, information can now be provided as completed and available. Many clients have noted that this has allowed them to specify the team member on the audit side who is responsible for each item, so there is clarity on responsibilities as well as allows for direction when there are questions. While this is not required, it is the preferred method due to the efficiency opportunities as well as the improved, timely communication it provides. Additionally, we offer the use of other repository programs such as Dropbox or LEAP File transfers (similar to what the LGC utilizes).



42

Remote Audits Governmental organizations are choosing remote audits with increasing frequency, and Mauldin & Jenkins is very effective in working from a remote environment. The spring of 2020 brought an increasing demand for remote audits due to the spread of COVID‐19 and the inability for work to be conducted on site. However, even before the complexities brought on by the spread of COVID‐19, many organizations opted for remote audits for a variety of reasons. It will be the District’s preference whether to conduct the audit remotely, but should you desire this service delivery option, Mauldin & Jenkins is trained to conduct remote audits while maintaining all professional standards. Remote audit engagements offer significant advantages over those that follow a more traditional format: faster results, less disruption, and reduced stress for governmental finance personnel. Current technology allows our clients and their audit teams to stay in regular communication, securely share information, and collaborate effectively. Our staff professionals have grown accustomed to being provided read‐only access to client systems to run reports, view purchase orders, invoices, reconciliations, etc. As a result, work that used to require extended on‐site time can be performed anywhere, easing the burden on the audit process for both the auditor and auditee. Though audits can still require some on‐site time, reconfiguring the District’s audit engagement to maximize efficiency and to take advantage of technological tools can dramatically reduce the amount of time spent on‐site. While the remote audit can generate far less disruption for the organization undergoing the audit, it does not necessarily reduce client contact very much – or even at all. As we leverage the technological tools at our disposal (Suralink, Zoom, LeapFile, Google Hangouts, etc.) we maintain consistent contact with our clients throughout the process and find that in many ways, communication between our teams and clients are as good, if not better, in the remote working environment than during traditional onsite engagements. A successful audit experience requires careful planning, timely preparation and strong communication, regardless of where the work takes place. That is especially true for a remote engagement, so preparing for this type of audit sometimes helps organizations identify ways to improve their internal data management strategies – a welcome bonus! We are proud of the strong governmental practice we've built and it's upon that foundation that we can leverage these technological tools to conduct remote audits as the environment demands or the client chooses.



43

Closing We appreciate the opportunity to propose to provide services to Chapel Hill‐Carrboro City Schools. We believe Mauldin & Jenkins is the “right” firm for the District. Our experience and knowledge in the governmental sector of accounting is vast and ever‐improving. We would be very pleased to work with the District and share our experience and understanding of governmental accounting and operations for the benefit of the District. We would greatly appreciate you recommending us for your audit needs. Should you or anyone at the District have any questions with regards to this proposal or about Mauldin & Jenkins, please feel free to contact any of us.

Appendix A

Copy of Mauldin & Jenkins’ Policy and Procedures Regarding Independence

9. At least annually, the Managing Partner reviews the Firm’s leadership responsibilities for quality within the Firm policy and procedures to determine if they are appropriate and operating effectively. See the MONITORING section of this document for further information.

RELEVANT ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS It is the Firm’s policy that all professional personnel be familiar with and follow relevant ethical requirements of the AICPA, contained in the Code of Professional Conduct, the Boards of Accountancy in States in which the Firm provides services, and the State CPA Societies in which the Firm provides services in discharging their professional responsibilities. Furthermore, it is the policy of our Firm that, for engagements subject to Government Auditing Standards, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) standards, and other applicable regulatory agencies, all professional personnel be familiar with and adhere to the relevant ethical requirements included in those standards, including any that may be more restrictive. Any transaction, event, circumstance, or action that would impair independence or violate the Firm’s relevant ethical requirements policy on an audit, attest, review, compilation, or other service subject to the standards of the AICPA Auditing Standards Board or the AICPA Accounting and Review Services Committee (as required under the General Standards and Compliance With Standards Rules) is prohibited. Additionally, when the Firm and its professional personnel encounter situations that raise potential independence threats, but such situations are not specifically addressed by the independence rule of the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct, the situation will be evaluated by referring to the Conceptual Framework for Independence and applying professional judgment to determine whether an independence breach exists. The Firm will take appropriate action to eliminate threats to independence or mitigate them to an acceptable level by applying safeguards. If effective safeguards cannot be applied, the Firm will withdraw from the engagement or take other corrective actions as appropriate to eliminate the breach.

Although not necessarily all-inclusive, the following are considered to be prohibited transactions and relationships:

1. Investments by any partner or professional employee in an attest client’s business during the period of a professional engagement, including a commitment to acquire any direct or material indirect financial interest in a client.

2. An investment in an entity or property by any of the following individuals and the attest client (or the client’s officers or directors, an affiliate or any partner who has the ability to exercise significant influence over the client) that enables them to control (as defined by GAAP for consolidation purposes) the entity or property: a. An individual on an attest engagement team. b. An individual in a position to influence the attest engagement by doing any of the following:

i. evaluating the performance or recommending the compensation of the attest engagement partner/director, ii. directly supervising or managing the attest engagement partner/director and all of that partner’s superiors, iii. consulting with the attest engagement team about technical or industry-related issues specific to the

engagement, or iv. Participating in or overseeing quality control activities, including internal monitoring, with respect to the

attest engagement. c. A partner, director or manager who provides nonattest services to the attest client beginning once he or she

provides ten or more hours of nonattest services to the client within any fiscal year and ending on the later of the date: i. the Firm signs the report on the financial statements for the fiscal year during which those services were

provided, or ii. he or she no longer expects to provide ten or more hours of nonattest services to the attest client on a

recurring basis. d. A partner/director in the office in which the lead attest engagement partner/director primarily practices with

respect to the attest engagement. e. The Firm and its employee benefit plans.

3. Borrowing from or loans to a client, an affiliate, or client’s personnel during the period of a professional engagement by any of the individuals listed in items 2. a.–e., except as grandfathered or permitted.

4. Accepting or offering gifts or entertainment from or to a client unless reasonable in the circumstances or approved by the Managing Partner.

JamesB

Rectangle

5. Certain family relationships between professional personnel and client personnel. (Consult the Assurance Committee for a ruling on such relationships.)

Notwithstanding the preceding policy and list of prohibited transactions and relationships, at the Managing Partner’s discretion, certain prohibitions can be waived if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the Firm. However, in so doing, the engagement service performed for the client must be limited to that allowed by AICPA professional standards.

The Firm ensures compliance with this policy by implementing the following procedures:

1. All personnel have ready access to the relevant ethical requirements to which the Firm is subject. Those requirements include the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct, the State Boards of Accountancy in states where we provide services, and the State CPA Societies ethical requirements in states where we provide services. The Firm provides access to those ethical requirements to all professional personnel. The Firm expects its personnel to be familiar with those relevant ethical requirements.

2. All professional personnel who work on attest engagements and are required to be independent sign an independence statement when hired (and annually thereafter) acknowledging their familiarity with the Firm’s relevant ethical requirements policy and procedures, particularly with regard to independence. The independence statement also lists known circumstances and relationships, if any, that may create a potential threat to independence or violate the Firm’s relevant ethical requirements policy. The Firm keeps a copy of the independence statements, which includes the professional standards of relevant ethical requirements that govern the Firm. Professional standards, including the AICPA’s Conceptual Framework for Independence, and the advice of the Assurance Committee are consulted if an employee is unsure if a threat to independence should be reported to the Managing Partner.

3. All professional personnel review the Firm’s current client list in conjunction with completing the annual independence statement for identification of threats to, or breaches of, independence. The current client list is maintained by Central Office and changes to the list are communicated on a timely basis by a memorandum from Central Office. When hired (and annually thereafter), all professional personnel are required to sign an independence statement, as stipulated in Procedure 2 above, that confirms this responsibility.

4. Ethics training is provided or obtained for professional personnel as required by relevant State Boards of Accountancy. Additional training is provided as needed (or required) that covers the Firm's relevant ethical requirements policy and procedures and the independence and ethical requirements of all applicable regulators.

5. To ensure that independence is properly addressed at the engagement level, as part of the acceptance and continuance decision, the engagement partner/director obtains and considers relevant information about the engagement and evaluates circumstances and relationships that could cause a potential threat to independence, if any. In addition, for audit and review engagements, the engagement partner/director forms a conclusion on compliance with independence requirements. In evaluating potential independence threats, any familiarity threat related to senior personnel recurring on an audit or attest engagement for five years or more will be considered, including any other specific rotation requirements of regulatory agencies or other authorities. Additionally, the work programs and forms in the attest materials used by the Firm contain steps requiring an evaluation of independence on each new and recurring engagement. Furthermore, those materials contain reporting guidance for the types of engagements where a lack of independence is allowed. All professional personnel remain alert for any evidence of noncompliance with relevant ethical requirements during the engagement and are required to promptly notify the engagement partner/director and the Managing Partner or the Assurance Committee of any circumstances or relationships that may create a potential threat to independence (such as a potential prohibited transaction) or an independence breach, so that appropriate action can be taken. For clients of whom the firm is not independent, the only attest service performed is a compilation, and the firm discloses its lack of independence in the related report.

6. If a potential threat to independence is identified, the Assurance Committee accumulates and the Managing Partner communicates relevant information to appropriate personnel so (a) Firm management and the engagement partner/director can determine whether they satisfy independence requirements, (b) the engagement partner/director can take appropriate action to address identified threats to independence, and (c) the Firm can maintain current independence information. For clients of whom the Firm is not independent, only compilation services are performed and the Firm discloses the lack of independence in its accountant’s reports for those clients.

7. If performing a group audit, the Firm is required to obtain a written representation regarding the component auditor's independence with respect to the client. The auditing materials used by the Firm contain examples of representation letters to use in such situations. Furthermore, in a review or attest engagement, if another Firm performs work on a segment of the engagement, a representation (either written or oral) regarding the other Firm’s independence is required. The engagement programs in the attest materials used by the Firm contain steps to ensure compliance with this procedure.

8. The engagement partner/director (or the accountant in charge under the partner’s supervision) has the primary responsibility for determining if there are unpaid fees on any of his or her clients that would impair the Firm’s independence. The engagement work programs and standard forms used by the Firm contain steps to ensure compliance with this procedure. The Firm’s client accounts receivable listing and the engagement partner/director’s knowledge of unbilled fees should be considered in making this determination. In addition, the Managing Partner has secondary responsibility to review the Firm’s accounts receivable listing on a periodic basis to identify potential independence problems.

9. The engagement partner/director has the primary responsibility to identify all nonattest services performed for an attest service client and for determining if such nonattest services threaten independence with respect to that client. Reviewing nonattest services performed for attest clients includes obtaining and documenting an understanding with the client regarding the client’s responsibilities for the nonattest services performed by the Firm (including how the firm was satisfied that client personnel had the skills, knowledge, or experience to oversee the nonattest services). The Firm will only provide nonattest services to an attest client when the client accepts its responsibilities. Where applicable, this includes determining whether such nonattest (nonaudit) services impair independence under the independence rules in Government Auditing Standards. Firm engagement work programs for all attest and compilation engagements include steps to ensure compliance with this procedure.

10. The engagement partner/director has the primary responsibility for determining whether actual or threatened litigation has an effect on the Firm’s independence with respect to the client. The Firm’s independence could be impaired by litigation (a) between the client and the Firm, (b) with the client company’s securities holders, and (c) from other third parties.

11. If the Firm is engaged as principal auditor to report on the basic financial statements of a financial reporting entity, all professional personnel must be independent of the financial reporting entity. If the Firm is engaged as principal auditor to report on a major fund, non-major governmental and enterprise fund, internal service fund, fiduciary fund, or blended component unit of the financial reporting entity, all professional personnel must be independent of the fund or entity the Firm reports on. The engagement partner/director has the primary responsibility for determining whether the Firm’s relationship with entities in the governmental financial statements has an effect on independence.

12. The Managing Partner has the primary responsibility for determining whether the Firm was a party to a cooperative arrangement with a client that was material to the Firm or the client.

13. The Managing Partner is responsible for monitoring the Firm’s independence of attest clients at which partners or other senior personnel have been offered management positions or have accepted offers of employment. The independence, integrity, and objectivity questionnaire used by the Firm, and the client acceptance checklists used by the Firm in attest engagements, include questions to help ensure compliance with this requirement.

14. The Managing Partner and the Assurance Committee are responsible for obtaining the annual employee independence statements, reviewing them for completeness, and accumulating relevant information relating to identified threats in relevant ethical requirements matters (including questions from the annual independence statements and those from other sources). In determining a resolution, the Managing Partner and the Assurance Committee consider the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct, including the Conceptual Framework for Members in Public Practice and the Conceptual Framework for Independence and, when necessary, consults the AICPA or the State CPA Societies for assistance in interpreting independence, integrity, and objectivity rules. Documentation of the resolution of a relevant ethical requirements matter is filed in the client’s workpaper files. The Managing Partner is also responsible for determining actions to be taken when professional personnel violate Firm independence policies and procedures. The action for each incident is determined based on its unique circumstances and may include eliminating a personal impairment, requiring additional training, drafting a reprimand letter, or even termination. The chairman of the Executive Committee will annually review all potential independence matters identified from the annual independence statements and report the results of

his/her review to the Executive Committee. 15. If a breach of independence is identified, the breach and the required corrective actions are promptly

communicated to (a) the Managing Partner, (b) the engagement partner/director, who (along with the Firm) needs to address the breach, and (c) other relevant personnel in the Firm and those subject to the independence requirements who need to take appropriate action and (d) those charged with governance at the attest client. The engagement partner/director confirms to the Managing Partner when required corrective actions related to the independence breach and noncompliance with these policies and procedures have been taken.

16. At least annually, the Assurance Committee reviews the Firm’s RELEVANT ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS policy and procedures to determine if they are appropriate and operating effectively. See the MONITORING section of this document for further information.

ACCEPTANCE AND CONTINUANCE OF CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS AND SPECIFIC ENGAGEMENTS

It is the Firm’s policy that, for all compilation, review, audit, attest and preparation service engagements, the acceptability of the client and the engagement be evaluated before the Firm agrees to provide professional services. The Firm will accept and continue only client relationships and specific engagements when it has determined that the requisite competence and capabilities (including adequate time and resources) exist within the Firm to perform the engagement and the Firm can comply with legal and relevant ethical requirements. Additionally, the Firm will only undertake or continue relationships and engagements when the Firm has considered the integrity of the client and does not obtain information indicating that the client lacks integrity. The Firm ensures compliance with this policy by implementing the following procedures:

1. For each prospective client that requests for the first time a compilation, review, audit, attest or preparation service, the partner/director making initial contact with the client is required to complete an engagement acceptance form. The engagement acceptance form is located in the attest materials used by the Firm. That form documents, among other things, background information, including financial information regarding the client and its operations; an assessment of the apparent integrity of management or its officers based on contacts or discussions with others; possible independence problems or conflicts of interest; an assessment of the Firm’s competence, capabilities, resources and appropriate firm and individual licensure in the state(s) in which the client operates; and the results of communications with the client’s prior accountants (if applicable). The completed form and a client engagement memo are submitted to the Managing Partner who decides whether to accept, reject or elect to submit to the Executive Committee for approval the prospective client and documents that conclusion on the forms. If the prospective client: (1) is a publicly held company or is a broker/dealer; (2) will require the Firms association with a stock or bond offering; (3) annual fee is expected to exceed $25,000 or 250 hours; (4) is a development stage company; (5) is in serious financial difficulty; (6) operates in a high risk industry; or (7) has had recent changes in management, ownership, directors, financial condition, litigation status or nature of business; then approval is required by the Firm’s Executive Committee.

2. For existing attest clients, the engagement partner/director annually reviews their client list and re-evaluates the acceptability of each client and engagement. Furthermore, the engagement work programs used by the Firm (as documented in the engagement performance QC element of the Firm’s QC document) contain steps requiring the engagement team to consider whether the Firm should discontinue providing all or certain services to a client. In making the continuance decision, the Firm considers whether any significant issues or new information has arisen during the course of the relationship with the client and how such issues or information affects the ongoing client relationship. Generally, reasons that might surface in either the Firm wide or individual engagement review that would cause the Firm to consider discontinuing services if the information had been available earlier include the following:

a. Significant changes in the client and its operations, such as retirement of senior management, other ownership

changes, a decline in the perceived integrity of management, or a decline in financial stability; or specific risks associated with the particular engagement.

b. Changes in the nature or scope of the engagement, including requests for additional services the Firm may not be adequately prepared to render.

c. Significant changes in the composition of the Firm, such as a change in the Firm’s professional competence

www.mjcpa.com

MAULDIN & JENKINS, LLC

508 Hampton Street, 1st Floor Columbia, South Carolina 29201

(803) 799‐5810 (866) 799‐5810 (toll free)

Chapel Hill‐Carrboro City Schools

Cost Proposal to Provide Audit Services Fiscal Year June 30, 2020 through 2022

Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC Timothy M. Lyons, CPA, CGMA Partner

Phone: (803) 799‐5810 Email: [email protected]

508 Hampton Street, 1st Floor Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Web: www.mjcpa.com

Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Proposal to Serve

Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC Page 1

Table of Contents Second Section Transmittal Letter ....................................................................................................... 2

1 Type of Audit Programs Used ........................................................................... 3

2 Use of Statistical Sampling ................................................................................ 3

3 Use of Information Systems Audit Specialists ................................................ 4

4 Organization of the Audit Team ........................................................................ 8

5 Information Contained in Management Letters ............................................... 8

6 Assistance from the School District’s Staff ..................................................... 9

7 Expected Audit Schedule................................................................................... 9

8 Audit Cost ......................................................................................................... 13

Completed Summary of Audit Costs Sheet ......................................................... 15

Closing .................................................................................................................... 16



May 6, 2020 Chapel Hill‐Carrboro City Schools Attn: Jonathan Scott, Finance Officer 750 S. Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 Ladies and Gentlemen:

Mauldin & Jenkins is pleased to submit a qualifications package including cost estimates to provide annual financial and compliance auditing services for Chapel Hill‐Carrboro City Schools (the “School District” or “CHCCS”). It is our understanding that the School District is requesting proposals from qualified firms of certified public accountants to establish a contract for the professional services of a Certified Public Accountant (the “auditor”) for financial and compliance audits. The contract for such audit services will be for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, with an option for two (2) subsequent fiscal years, subject to annual review and the annual availability of an appropriation for audit services by the Board of Education. As requested by the School District, we have enclosed on the following pages an all‐inclusive maximum fee for the financial and compliance audit services for the fiscal years noted above. This sealed cost proposal contains all pricing information relative to the performance of the audit. The total all‐inclusive maximum price for the School District’s financial audit for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2020 through 2022 is as follows:

2020 ‐ $39,000

2021 ‐ $40,000

2022 ‐ $41,000 As a partner at Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC, I am certified and authorized to represent Mauldin & Jenkins, empowered to submit the bid, and authorized to sign a contract with the School District. Our total all‐inclusive maximum price for providing annual financial and compliance auditing services to the School District is contained on the following pages. We appreciate the opportunity to propose and we look forward to hearing from you.

Very truly yours,

MAULDIN & JENKINS, LLC

Timothy M. Lyons Partner



1) Type of Audit Programs Used

After performing our review of your present accounting systems, we will use Firm manuals specifically designed for governments to develop audit programs tailored to the School District which incorporate the requirements set forth above. The programs we use are standard governmental audit programs developed by Thompson Reuters Checkpoint. The Practitioner’s Publishing Company, or PPC, programs are able to be tailored to each specific client, given the specific needs and services. The programs will then be used to develop the necessary audit procedures to conduct the School District’s audit. We anticipate that these procedures will enable us to express our professional opinion that the financial statements of the School District present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position and results of operations of the various opinion units in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. If conditions are discovered which lead to the belief that material errors, defalcations, or other irregularities exist which might prohibit us from expressing an unqualified opinion or if any other circumstances are encountered that require extended services, we will promptly advise the School District. No extended services will be performed unless they are authorized in contractual agreement or in an amendment to the agreement. Upon completion of the above phase of planning the audit, we will prepare a letter of items we will need to conduct the final audit fieldwork. The requested items will be tailored to the School District based on our understandings of the School District’s operations. This “letter” is provided through a workflow program called Suralink. This is a secure, cloud based interactive model which allows both sides to comment, upload attachments, and see progress of the files provided. This prevents the duplication of requests or instances where clients have been asked to provide the same item multiple times. We have been using the program over the past year and have received numerous comments from clients on how efficient this has made the process. The list can be modified to show only outstanding items, allowing the preparation listing to transform into a “live” open items list. For final audit fieldwork, we will schedule our visits with the School District’s officials. We will then begin an unfragmented process of auditing the School District. Upon completion of the audit fieldwork, we will draft copies of all respected reports. If the School District would not mind, we like to prepare such reports while continuing to work at the School District’s offices. We find this process to be more efficient than returning to our office. This allows us to incorporate School District officials in various deliberations that are important to the conclusion of the overall process. Meetings with various officials will probably be held at that time. Formal meetings will be conducted with the various parties upon the drafting of all reports. We will meet as needed to everyone’s satisfaction.

2) Use of Statistical Sampling Our approach to auditing relies heavily on the use of audit sampling as provided in Statement on Auditing Standards No. 39, “Audit Sampling” as amended by SAS No. 111. We would plan to utilize audit sampling whenever a decision is made to apply a specific audit procedure to a representative sample of items within the account balance or class of transactions with the objective being reaching a conclusion about the entire balance or class.



We anticipate using audit sampling on the following types of audit tests:

(1) Substantive tests of details of balance sheet account balances. (2) Substantive tests of details of transactions. (3) Tests of controls (4) Tests of compliance with laws and regulations

Our use of audit sampling will be based on the guidance in SAS 39 and SAS 111 and the AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide ‐ Audit Sampling.

3) Use of Computer Audit Specialists The Management Advisory Services (MAS) department of Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC includes certain individuals who have had substantial training in the accounting, auditing, and use of electronic data processing (EDP) Systems. To compliment these highly trained individuals, all members of the audit staff have also had significant training in computer auditing techniques. Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC uses a very detailed and structured approach in using computer auditing techniques, which has been extremely successful for us in our past engagements. At the start of the engagement during our planning phase, we will assess the computer systems used by the School District and determine whether computer aided auditing techniques could be used. This approach would potentially consist of downloading trial balances, detail journals, and selected transaction files into our software through IDEA. This may decrease time spent in initial file setup, trial balance setup, and data integrity testing. The trial balance downloaded will then be used to provide a clean audit trail for review and support of the School District’s financial statements.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Mauldin & Jenkins is excited to be one the first accounting firms in the Southeast to utilize an artificial intelligence tool as part of our audit process – the Ai Auditor from Mindbridge. The Ai Auditor allows for us to scan 100% of your transactions and provide new risk based insights during the audit (such as anomalous transaction patterns found). These risk based insights can be opportunities to correct mistakes or point to areas where there may be malicious activity. As part of our audit methodology, Ai systems are becoming what sampling used to be. Sampling was a coping mechanism for big data; the new coping mechanism for big data is Artificial Intelligence (AI). As the amount of data in the School District increases, tools like these are more and more necessary to ensure we can provide you the highest quality audits and advice.



100% data analysis Redefining reasonable assurance Identify risk, in seconds

The MindBridge Ai Auditor was selected as one of the top new products by Accounting Today Magazine.

The Achilles' heel of auditing has always been sampling —the inability to look at more than a portion

of the information available to the auditor. Advances in artificial intelligence and advanced data

analytics raise the possibility of incorporating more — and eventually all — of a company's data into

the audit, and for pioneering that, MindBridge Auditor Analytics' Ai is a Top New Product this year."

‐ Accounting Today Magazine

Risk Overview Trending Data Table Balance Check Reports

$1.92M $11.85M $3.06M

11% of Trans . $'s 70% of Trans . $'s 19% of Trans . $'s

MindBridge Ai Auditor Provides Unparalleled Insights Across 100% of Transactions

City of Sample / Fiscal Year 2020

High Risk Low RiskMed. Risk

‐

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Audit Testing of Sample

X Reporting Adjustment !! This transaction triggered a reporting adjustment. This transaction is flagged as a reporting adjustment to one or more of these related transactions: J2949

No. by Account

< 10%

< 30%

< 40%

< 50%

> 10%

ViewTransactions

Other transactions triggering reporting adjustment .

4 transactions in this ledger are flagged as reporting adjustments, representing <1% of the ledger

Test Coverage and Depth

Triggered

NotTriggered



At the start of the engagement during our planning phase, we will assess the computer systems used by the School District and plan how to utilize the Ai Auditor along with our trial balance software. This knowledge and utilization of our trial balance software will decrease time spent in initial file setup, trial balance setup, and data integrity testing. This approach and utilization of both programs will allow for more effective audits resulting in a fast sort, filter and analysis of transactions in a population, and provide for drilling down on those items that have the highest risk. Examples of uses of extraction and data analysis in our audit approach are as follows:

Full coverage, 100% transaction analysis;

Use of transaction analysis to provide new risk based insights during the audit (such as anomalous transaction patterns found) and allow for directed audit effort of unusual or outlier transactions;

Analyzing general ledger detail transactions and journal entries for effective and efficient testing of all activity for the fiscal year as compared to the prior year;

Summarizing disbursements for a period by dollar range and compare to policy guidelines for complying with certain attributes (approvals and signature requirements, etc.);

Searching check register listings for unrecorded items or checks written during the fiscal year;

Converting bank or investment activity statements to Excel to provide for a quick listing of deposits for an entire period/year;

Converting vendor file information to Excel and comparing employee files with addresses for any similar or unusual items related to vendor files;

Downloading trial balances, detail journals, and selected transaction files into our software;

Quick reporting and dashboards for the engagement team. The trial balance downloaded will then be used to agree to the ultimate draft of the School District’s financial statements ensuring that all adjustments and balances are brought forward into the financial statements and providing a clean audit trail for review and support of the School District’s financial statements. Should the School District desire a need for our Ai Auditor software for non‐audit purposes, we would be happy to assist management with our expertise in data analysis.

Dynamic Audit Solution in Development Mauldin & Jenkins is one of 38 of the top 100 CPA firms in the nation who have invested in the AICPA’s new revolutionary audit tool and methodology – the Dynamic Audit Solution (DAS). The DAS is a transformational audit methodology brought to life through an innovative, cloud‐based technology solution. It includes the AICPA evolving the auditing standards and creating new innovative audit methodologies to advance the financial statement audit using evolving technologies. This project is on‐going and was started in 2018. It is estimated to be completed in the next two to three years. Below is a picture of how the audit methodology will involve: the addition of a step prior to or during the planning phase of the audit in which we will “tailor and master” the auditee’s data, remove old outdated audit procedures, and add transformational audit procedures (data analytics, AI, and Machine Learning).



The DAS will be an interactive tool with a “guided audit engagement process”. The auditee and auditor will both have access to the tool with requests for information being made through the tool along with responses and uploaded data. The confirmation process, including the use of confirmation.com, will be integrated with the DAS tool. Both auditee and auditor would be able to see progress and status updates using the tool creating a collaborative environment for bringing the audit to conclusion. Many functions, forms, and even financial statements within the tool will be “smart” forms, with data being input only once and populating in many places throughout the audit documentation – making for an efficient and effective audit. Given the timeframe of the request for proposal, it is expected that this transformational new audit tool will be utilized on the audit of the School District in later years of the initial contract period. The following diagram attempts to animate the above thoughts.

Data Analytics

Machine Learning

Planning is bifurcated to have a new

element ‐ "mastering the data", where

all elements are identified that will

drive the tailoring of the audit approach

(industry, regulatory, finanical statement

elements, G/L, S/L, etc.)

Transformative methodologies available in

DAS when data and skills are available to

execute on these.

A data‐driven "understanding of the

entity", in addition to traditional

conceptual understanding.

Throw away

ineffective / bad parts

of old methodology.

New Methodology

New Standards

Less transformative options

remain available (when

needed)

Tailoring and Mastering

of Data

Audit Planning



4) Organization of Audit Team Below is the proposed engagement team and the estimated percentage of the time each member will spend on the audit:

Audit Service Partner 13%

Quality Control Partner 2%

Client Service Partner 8%

Manager 28%

Staff 49%

Total Engagement 100%

5) Information Contained in Management Letter At the conclusion of the audit, we will issue a letter to management that includes our comments and recommendations for improving the School District’s financial management and accounting processes. In addition, we prepare a document that we refer to as our “Auditor’s Discussion and Analysis (AD&A).” In conjunction with the management letter, the AD&A includes many of the required communications that between the independent auditor and management of the government as well as those charged with governance. Information that we prepare in our Auditor’s Discussion and Analysis includes:

(1) A summary of the audit and end result (i.e., type of opinions issued, any reportable conditions found, etc.)

(2) A brief outline of the financial statements and related notes. (3) Some high‐level financial analysis that includes examining revenue and expenditure trends in

the School District’s General Fund as well as some historical information regarding major revenue streams, fund balances, etc.

(4) Recommendations for improvement (these are typically the items communicated in the management letter).

(5) Information for consideration in future periods that will impact the School District’s financial statements and accounting processes. As an example of the type of information we include in this section, we have advised all of our governmental clients about the implementation of GASB 75 and 77 which significantly changed the financial accounting and reported for OPEB plans and tax abatements, respectively.

Overall, our management letters and Auditor’s Discussion and Analysis reflect our belief that we view ourselves as true advisors and not just auditors – our success is tied to yours.



6) Assistance from the School District’s Staff Upon completing the planning phase of the audit, we will prepare a letter of items we will need to conduct the final audit fieldwork. The requested items will be tailored to the School District based on our understanding of the School District’s operations. In addition to providing the items listed in the client assistance letter, we expect the School District’s staff to prepare audit confirmations and locate documents selected by us for testing. In the end, our goal is to utilize information you use routinely to operate the School District and minimize the amount of information accumulated solely for the audit. If we request something that is time consuming to produce, please discuss it with us and we can probably utilze something that you routinely prepare to achieve the same goal.

7) Expected Audit Timeline Upon being notified of obtaining the audit contract with the School District, we would schedule with management of the School District the timing and scheduling of events as needed. At this time, we do not feel that specific scheduling should be considered fixed. All scheduling of the engagement would be conducted at the School District’s convenience. We are aware of the timetable set forth in the request for proposal and fully intend and expect to satisfy the School District’s time requirements. Additionally, we would like to take this opportunity again to point out our capability, willingness, and experience in conducting the School District’s audit in the remote environment. The COVID‐19 pandemic situation has highlighted the need for CPA firms to be able to adapt rapidly to changes in the environment and although the quarantine / social distancing measures are expected to become less stringent over the summer, many experts have expressed concerns regarding a second wave of infections this Fall. As such, we want the District to know that we are ready and willing to conduct the District’s audit remotely. In fact, we believe that planning for a remote audit now will save the District money and time by allowing us to propose on the engagement with a remote audit environment in mind, we expect less hours and thus lower fees. Ultimately, the decision is up to the District and we will adjust accordingly, but we wanted to take a moment to emphasize our ability to work in this environment and to highlight the potential cost savings to the District by going this route.



Proposed Segmentation of Audit Engagement and Level of Staff Assigned The following table attempts to depict the timing and key elements of the planned audit process:

Fiscal Year 2020 Audit Calendar

Timing of Audit Process & Procedures

May

June

Aug

Sept

Oct

Segments

Ongoing consultation on major issues & developments throughout the

year, and greater discussions as year end approaches (such as new GASB

standards).

Meet management to discuss audit risks and scopes.

Engagement team planning meetings and performance of interim audit

procedures

Gain understanding of significant processes & key controls.

Perform testing of key controls with goal of reducing substantive audit

testing.

Detemine nature, timing and extent of substantive tests to be performed.

Finalize audit plan based on results to‐date.

Perform substantive tests (detail testing of respective general ledger /

trial balance accounts, and final analytical procedures & key ratios &

relationship of financial data).

Conduct a final evaluation of risk assessments.

Conduct of progress meetings with management as needed and as often

as desired.

Review and delivery of draft annual financial report, reports, findings,

management letter comments, and any other deliverables.

Meeting with management to discuss draft deliverables and final

completion and presentation time‐frames.

Upon management's review, delivery of Financial Report internal control

reports, and management letter to management.

Presentation of audit deliverables to the Board.

Segment III ‐ Review, Completion & Delivery Procedures

Segment II ‐ Final Audit Fieldwork Procedures

Segment I ‐ Planning and Interim Procedures



The previous timeframes are estimates based on our understandings with the School District as to its desires. We at Mauldin & Jenkins would be flexible in the timing of certain events as requested by the School District. As noted in the above table, we want to work with CHCCS personnel in an effective manner. We intend to do a great deal of planning and tailoring of our approach from our initial visits. Our professionals, who are knowledgeable with respect to audit requirements for governmental entities, will be assigned based on their expertise with respect to each segment. Our audit procedures, related documentation and quality review will be segregated by each segment as follows based on our review of the School District’s prior financial statements, budgets, request for proposal, and other information available: Segment I ‐ Planning and Interim Procedures Segment II ‐ Final Audit Fieldwork Procedures Segment III ‐ Review, Completion & Delivery Procedures Segment I ‐ Planning and Interim Procedures:

Meet with CHCCS management to discuss the scope of the audit, timing of our work, and preparation of client schedules, and to address any concerns;

Review previously issued and interim financial reports, comment letters, monitoring reports, and other supporting workpapers;

Familiarize ourselves with the organizational structure of the School District;

Read minutes of Board meetings;

Review the School District’s current year budget, as adopted and revised;

Review debt agreements, and other various documentation;

Gain an understanding of the School District’s accounting policies and procedures, including the financial and other management information systems utilized by the School District;

Obtain an in‐depth knowledge of the EDP equipment, software and systems in use;

Perform analytical reviews to determine critical areas and assess risks;

Perform a preliminary evaluation of the internal control structure at the account and assertion level;

Make fraud inquiries and assessing the risks of material misstatement;

Obtain a list of cash, investment, debt, and selected revenue accounts for confirmation purposes, as applicable;

Determine audit strategies for balance sheet and operating statement accounts based on audit risk;

Obtain a preliminary schedule of expenditures of Federal awards to initiate planning and internal control testing for the Single Audit;

Prepare year‐end audit programs;

Meet with appropriate School District personnel to discuss the results of our preliminary audit work.

In a remote environment, all “meetings” referenced above will be conducted face to face via our Zoom or Google Meet capabilities. We feel that face‐to‐face communication is key and should not be replaced even while conducting a remote audit.



Segment II ‐ Final Audit Fieldwork Procedures:

Conduct an analytical review of account balances based on closing balances;

Test the valuation, restrictions and cut‐offs of cash and investment balances, as applicable;

Test receivable cut‐offs and balances, including an analysis of subsequent receipts;

Test cut‐off and valuation of inventory;

Review and testing supporting documentation for the allowance for doubtful accounts, prepaid items and other assets;

Vouch capital asset additions and deletions, analyzing charges for appropriate accounting and testing depreciation;

Test accounts payable cut‐offs and balances, including an analysis of subsequent disbursements;

Test accrued payroll, compensated absences, claims payable, and other accrued liability cut‐offs and balances;

Test debt balances and debt covenant compliance;

Test compliance with applicable laws and regulations;

Test the classification of net position (unrestricted, restricted and net investment in capital assets);

Perform analytical procedures and substantive testing of revenues and expenditures/expenses;

Obtain and auditing the final schedule of expenditures of Federal and State awards;

Complete compliance tests for the major programs selected for testing as required by the Uniform Guidance and State Single Audit Act, as applicable;

End of fieldwork exit conference. Segment III ‐ Review, Completion & Delivery Procedures:

Review workpapers to ensure quality and thoroughness of audit procedures;

Summarize the results of audit procedures;

Obtain attorney letters;

Evaluate commitments, contingencies and subsequent events;

Propose audit adjustments;

Summarize and evaluating passed audit adjustments;

Evaluate compliance exceptions;

Review draft financial statements and related note disclosures;

Perform financial condition assessment procedures;

Prepare drafts of audit reports and management letter;

Deliver drafts of audit reports and letters to appropriate client officials;

Finalize all reports and management letter;

Obtain signed representation letter and the School District’s approval of the final financial statements;

Draft the Data Collection Form and obtaining the School District’s approval;

Prepare and provide the School District a PDF document of the audited financial statements;

Hold final exit conferences and presentations with appropriate CHCCS officials.



8) Audit Cost

CHAPEL HILL‐CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS

SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AND EXPENSES

FOR THE AUDIT OF THE 2020 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

On‐site On‐site M&J

Interim Fieldwork Office Total Hourly Rates Total

Partners 16 16 50 82 $270 22,140$

Manager 16 16 65 97 150 14,550

Professional Staff 16 16 140 172 120 20,640

Subtotal 48 48 255 351 57,330

Out‐of‐pocket expenses:

Meals and lodging 2,250

Transportation 1,500

Mauldin & Jenkins discount from standard fees and expenes (22,080)

Total all‐inclusive maximum price for 2020 financial audit 39,000$

$ 40,000

41,000

Fiscal year‐end Estimates

June 30, 2021

June 30, 2022

Important Notes to be Considered:

Note (1) – Unlimited Correspondence: It is Mauldin & Jenkins’ policy to not charge for simple discussions and conversations that occur between the governmental entity and Mauldin & Jenkins that are only simple discussions (i.e., a phone call to ask certain questions that do not require additional research). Our view is that we would rather deal with an issue, understand it, and – in essence – audit it as it occurs and is fresh in your mind, rather than wait until the end of the year and revisit an old issue and audit the details at that time. We view this as auditing year‐round and thus, providing this advice is a part of the audit cost as presented in this section and would not necessitate additional billings. Note (2) – Free Periodic/Quarterly Continuing Education: As noted in our technical proposal, we provide free quarterly continuing education classes to our clients. This could amount to approximately $3,000 of annual savings for the School District’s estimated finance department per person.



Note (3) – No Hidden Fees or Costs: The pricing schedules contain all pricing information relative to performance of the audit as required by the School District including all reimbursement for travel, lodging, communications, etc. Our estimated number of hours and the associated fee estimate indicated are based on our professional judgment and experience with similar governmental entities. So long as there are no significant changes in the operations, major funds, or the number of major programs of the School District and or the scope of services requested or significant problems requiring additional time, our quoted fees will not change. Note (4) – Single Audit: We have reviewed the School District’s Request for Proposal (RFP) as well as the prior year reports available on the School District’s website. It is our understanding that the School District will require a Single Audit for each of the years included in the audit contract. As such, our pricing for the performance and reporting for the Single Audit includes the performance and reporting of three (3) major programs. Note (5) – Service in the Carolinas: We are growing a governmental practice in North Carolina! We have had tremendous success in serving governments in the South Carolina area without an office in that State, until we recently opened an office in Columbia and we have brought that to North Carolina. We have multiple governmental clients in North Carolina that have been served well and, in addition, we are participating in the North Carolina GFOA as well as classes led by the North Carolina Local Government Commission. We have several members of the firm who participate heavily with the AICPA and routinely visit the AICPA’s headquarters in Durham. Additionally we were selected to lead a webcast on behalf of the North Carolina State Controller’s Office. We have a team dedicated to serving North Carolina and the School District will be served just as well as if we had an office within a few miles.



Closing

We appreciate the opportunity to serve Chapel Hill‐Carrboro City Schools. We believe Mauldin & Jenkins is the “right” firm for the School District. Our experience and knowledge will allow us to work with management in the interim audit period to make sure the audit gets off to a great start and that items are avaialble and ready to exceed the deadlines noted in the School District’s RFP. We are committed to providing the resources and skills needed to ensure timely reporting in accordance with the State’s policy as well as the School District’s RFP. We would be very pleased to share our experience and understanding of governmental accounting and operations for the benefit of the School District. We would greatly appreciate you recommending us for your audit needs. Should you or anyone at the School District have any questions with regards to this proposal or about Mauldin & Jenkins, please feel free to contact any of us.

866‐799‐5810

www.mjcpa.com

MAULDIN & JENKINS

ResponsibleOfficeandContactPerson:

Jay E. Sharpe, CPA, CFE

AUDITPARTNER

1109IndianTrailDriveRaleigh,NC27609Phone:(919) 961-7496Email:[email protected]:www.sharpepatelcpa.com

CHAPEL HILL – CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS Response to RFP for Financial Audit Services

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FIRSTSECTION Profile 2

Audit Staffing 3

Governmental Clients 5

Additional Government Services 4

Peer Review 5

Staff Experience 6

Team Biographies 6

Governmental Experience 9

References Insurance Coverage Independence Regulatory Actions

9 10 10 10

SECONDSECTION

Audit Programs 11

Statistical Sampling 11

Computer Audit Specialists 11

Management Letter Content 12

Client Assistance Methodology 12

Audit Plan 13

Fees Other Information

14 15

APPENDICES:Attachment A – Cost Proposal Breakdown

2

Profile

FIRM PROFILE While Sharpe Patel PLLC is a new CPA firm, its team is not. Jay Sharpe and Aaron Patel formed the Firm to give better service to clients across all industries including the governmental sector. Our key objective is to provide superior client service in a timely and efficient manner.

Our Governmental audit team is key to providing great services. The team is made up of a number of seasoned staff at all levels that have experience with a variety of types of clients within the governmental sector.

EXPERIENCE Sharpe Patel PLLC initiated its practice in the governmental service industry in response to our observation that larger firms were devoting fewer and fewer resources to their smaller and mid‐size clients. We have seen more and more firms getting out of the governmental sector. We are quite the opposite, we see this as a growth sector for the Firm. Ever‐changing accounting standards, economic conditions and the continued rise in operating costs have propelled our Governmental Audit Team to help entities alleviate the pressures facing the industries. Our commitment to the governmental sector is reflected in the significant growth of our practice, the retention of those clients and the low turnover of our employees. The experience and capabilities of our Governmental Audit Team include:

Financial Audits, reviews and

compilations

Single Audits, under both Federal and

North Carolina requirements.

Program Specific Audits

Agreed‐upon Procedures

Forensic Audits

Performance Audits

Risk Assessment

Staff Training Seminars

Internal Control Studies

Financial Statement Preparation

Forecasted Financial Statements

Our OMB Uniform Guidance and A‐133 Single Audit experience, which we perform on a recurring basis, includes the following federal and state programs:

Head Start and Early Head Start

Child and Adult Care Food Program

Special Education Cluster:

• Education of the Handicapped

• Children with Disabilities – Risk

Pool

Community Services Block Grant

Improving Teacher Quality

Title II Immigrant & Youth

Race To The Top

National School Lunch Program

School Breakfast Program

3

• Coordinating Early Intervening

Services

• Preschool Handicapped

• IDEA Targeted Assistance for

Preschool Federal Grant

• IDEA VI‐B Special Needs Targeted

Assistance

Weatherization Assistance Program

Workforce Investment Act

N.C. Pre‐K (More At Four)

Community Services Block Grant

Community Development Block Grant

Vocational Education

Education Technology

English Language Acquisition Grants

N.C. State Public School Fund

Public Building Capital Fund

State Buses Appropriation

School Improvement Grants

Parent Training and Information Program

Technical Assistance For Parents

Family to Family Health Information Program

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Program

Home Care Program

Title 1, Part A Cluster Grants

AUDIT STAFFING

The staffing needs are based on the complexity and nature of the organization, timing, the extent of procedures which must be performed to meet the audit objective, and the travel involved. We have designated specific audit associates to the engagement however, our audit associates are interchangeable between our offices and their assignments may change. There will be a minimum of two audit associates, one audit manager, and one partner designated to the engagement at all times. It is very common for two managers to be assigned to an engagement as one will act as an associate. Each member of this team will be fully available to satisfy the needs of the engagement.

4

We understand that professionals who have gained specific governmental knowledge through on site experience are best equipped to serve our clients, so we are committed to returning team members to the same engagements each year. This continuity helps control costs and saves time, by making sure you are working with trusted professionals who have a clear understanding of your goals and strategies. Our partners and managers maintain a high degree of client involvement which minimizes the overhead and reduces the audit costs. This also provides the client a higher level of expertise that is always available. The following indicates the individuals by level and location that will handle the audit: The School System’s Audit will be staffed by the Firm as follows:

Partner (and in charge) Raleigh Manager Raleigh Senior staff / staff Charlotte Senior Staff / staff Raleigh

ADDITIONAL SERVICES The firm from time to time provides other services to not‐for‐profits. A couple of example of these services includes the following:

• Jay Sharpe, CPA, CFE conducted a three‐year forensic audit for the Lumberton Housing Authority.

• Jay Sharpe consulted on the presentation of Foundations related to Cape Fear Community College and Carteret Community College when GASB 61 was introduced. This consultation included the determination of the Foundations as component units and their presentation on the financial statements if they were determined to be component units.

• Jay Sharpe and Jacob Allen have conducted pension testing for several school systems.

• Jay Sharpe conducted a vendor audit for a School System.

Staff Commitment The Firm is fully committed to having the having the same staff on an annual basis on the School System’s audit engagements. We fully understand from previous experience with clients that staff continuity is one of the major reasons organizations become dissatisfied with their CPAs. It is beneficial to the Firm to have the same staff on an engagement on an annual basis as they will have previous knowledge with the client and will be more efficient.

Education It is a policy of the Firm that all audit staff maintain at a minimum of 40 hours of CPE on an annual basis, rather or not that they have at their CPA license. This continuing professional education is accomplished through a combination of conferences, seminars, webinars, self‐study course and internal CPE courses. Every staff assigned to the School System’s audit will have sufficient CPE and Yellow Book credit hours on an ongoing basis.

5

GOVERNMENTAL CLIENTS

Below is a sample of governmental entities our team has worked on throughout the years:

Client Services Years Gasb 34

Wake County Board of Education Financial statement auditSingle audit 6 Yes

Wayne County Board of Education Financial statement auditSingle audit 4 Yes

Jones County Board of Education Financial statement auditSingle audit 4 Yes

Durham County Board of Education Financial statement auditSingle audit 3 Yes

Anson County Board of Education Financial statement auditSingle audit 2 Yes

Newton-Conover School System Financial statement auditSingle audit 2 Yes

Town of Pittsboro Financial statement audit 7 YesTown of Benson Financial statement audit 4 YesCity of Kinston Financial statement audit

Single audit 2 YesTown of Ayden Financial statement audit 1 YesTown of Goldston Financial statement audit

Single audit 6 YesTown of Holden Beach Financial statement audit 2 YesCaldwell Community College Financial statement audit 4Cary EMS Financial statement audit 7Eastern Wake EMS Financial statement audit 7NC Agricultural Finance Authority Financial statement audit 1NC Office of the State Auditor Financial statement audit 1Durham Visitors and Convention Bureau Financial statement audit 1Cape Fear Center for Inquiry (charter school) Financial statement audit

Single audit 15 YesPhoenix Academy (charter school) Financial statement audit

Single audit 13 YesBethany Community Middle School (charter school) Financial statement audit

Single audit 8 YesNeuse Charter School of Johnston County Financial statement audit

Single audit 3 YesHealthy Start Academy (charter school) Financial statement audit

Single audit 3 YesNorth East Carolina Preparatory Academy (charter school) Financial statement audit

Single audit 3 Yes

6

STAFF EXPERIENCE All staff assigned to the School System’s audit will have previous not‐for‐profit audit experience. All staff also have experience preparing financial statements under the new reporting model. The School System’s audit will be staffed by the Firm as follows: Partner in Charge Jay E. Sharpe, CPA, CFE Raleigh 50% or > Audit Manager Jacob Allen, CPA Raleigh 50% or > Senior Staff / Staff Leizl Baker Raleigh 100% Senior Staff / Staff Edward Desausure Charlotte 100% Senior Staff / Staff TBD

TEAM BIOGRAPHIES

SUPERVISING AUDITOR Jay E. Sharpe will be the partner in charge for the School System’s audit. Additional information for each staff is as follows:

Jay E. Sharpe, Partner – Audit Partner Jay E. Sharpe, CPA, CFE is the Raleigh office’s partner and serves as the firm’s Director of Auditor Services. Jay has over 20 years of experience in governmental and not‐for‐profit organizations. His work experience includes working with a variety of Foundations, Towns, Boards of Education, Community Colleges, various types not‐for‐profits, charter schools, EMS Units and HUD properties. Jay previously worked for the Office of the State Auditor. In addition to his auditing experience, Jay performs forensic and fraud investigative services. He has led seminars in the past on preventing fraud and is the past President of the Board of Directors for the Central Carolina Chapter of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. Community Involvement

• Former Treasurer on the Board for the SPCA of Wake County.

• Jay teaches accounting and auditing classes at Wake Tech

7

Jay is a volunteer reviewer for the GFOA. Education and Licenses

• Bachelor of Science in Accountancy – The University of North Carolina at Wilmington

• Masters in Science in Accountancy – The University of North Carolina at Wilmington

• Licensed as a Certified Public Accountant in North Carolina (license # 27818)

• Licensed as a Certified Fraud Examiner Professional Affiliations

• American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)

• North Carolina Association of Certified Public Accountants (NCACPA)

• Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) Continuing Professional Education Jay has maintained required CPE levels over the past three years. He has taken over 40 credit hours per year including annual ethics requirements, annual audit updates, fraud seminars and attended the local government and not‐for‐profit conferences held by the NCACPA. Jay has also led seminars on fraud and auditing techniques during the past three years.

Jacob Allen, Audit Manager Jacob Allen, CPA, is an Audit Manager in the Raleigh office of Sharpe Patel PLLC. Jacob practices in the areas of auditing and attestation. He has over ten years of experience in public accounting and his areas of expertise include: Continuing Professional Education His continuing education includes attendance at courses concentrating on audit services for governmental industry clients. Education

• Bachelor of Business Administration in Accounting – Campbell University

• Masters of Accountancy – North Carolina State University Professional Affiliations


• North Carolina Association of Certified Public Accountants (NCACPA) Accreditations and Licenses Jacob is licensed as a Certified Public Accountant in the State of North Carolina (#37400).

8

Leizl Baker, Senior Associate Leizl Baker, CPA, is an audit senior associate in the Raleigh office of Sharpe Patel PLLC. Leizl practices in the areas of auditing and attestation. Leizl has experience in areas including governments, charter schools, Boards of Education, not‐for‐profit organizations, captive insurance, HUD properties, and EMS units. Education

Bachelor of Science in Accounting – North Carolina State University

Master of Accounting – North Carolina State University Licenses and Accreditations Leizl is licensed as a Certified Public Accountant in the State of North Carolina (#43181). Professional Affiliations

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)

North Carolina Association of Certified Public Accountants (NCACPA)

Central Carolina Chapter of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners Continuing Professional Education Leizl has maintained required CPE levels by taking over 40 credit hours per year including annual ethics requirements, annual audit updates, courses on recently released FASB standards, and attended the local government and not‐for‐profit conferences held by the NCACPA.

Edward Desausure, Senior Associate Edward DeSaussure is a Senior Audit Associate in the Charlotte office of Sharpe Patel PLLC. Edward has 4 years of experience working with governmental, not‐for‐profit, manufacturing and insurance organizations of all sizes. Continuing Professional Education His continuing education includes attendance at courses concentrating on audit services for governmental industry clients. Education

Bachelors of Science in Accountancy – The University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Bachelors of Science in Finance – The University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Masters in Science in Accountancy – The University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Professional Affiliations


• North Carolina Association of Certified Public Accountants (NCACPA)

9

GOVERNMENTAL EXPERIENCE

As noted under our Firm Profile, the Firm has vast experience in auditing governmental agencies. Our governmental experience includes:

• Boards of Education

• Towns and Cities (includes general government and proprietary activities)

• Charter Schools

• Community Colleges

• EMS Units

• Affordable Housing

• Component units including Foundations

REFERENCES We invite you to contact the below personnel of other current audit clients in regards to their audit experience with us. Wayne County Public Schools 2001 E. Royall Avenue Goldsboro, NC 27534 Michael Hayes – Finance Director [email protected] (919) 731‐5900 Wake County Schools 5625 Dillard Drive Cary, NC 27518 Mark Winters – Finance Officer [email protected] John Fletcher Former head of audit committee for the Town of Holden Beach [email protected] 910‐508‐6849 Additional references available upon request.

REGULATORY ACTIONS No regulatory action has been taken against the Firm or any staff members that will be assigned to the audit.

10

INDEPENDENCE In accordance with the quality control document of the Firm all professional personnel must be familiar with and adhere to the independence, confidentiality integrity, and objectivity rules, regulations, interpretations, and Rulings of the AICPA, the State of North Carolina Board of Accounting, the State of North Carolina CPA Society, state statutes, and other State or regulatory agencies where applicable. Independence, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Objectivity Representation is required by all personnel when hired and annually thereafter. Independence on all audit engagements is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure compliance with all rules that govern this topic. We have reviewed our independence in association with this proposed engagement and in all matters relating to the audit of the School System, Sharpe Patel PLLC is independent in fact and appearance.

INSURANCE COVERAGE The Firm presently carries the following insurance policies:

1. Worker’s Compensation ‐ The Firm maintains Worker’s Compensation Insurance, as required by the laws

of North Carolina, as well as employer’s liability coverage.

2. Commercial General Liability –General Liability Coverage on a Comprehensive Broad Form on an occurrence

basis.

3. Automobile ‐ Automobile Liability Insurance, to include liability coverage, covering all owned, hired and

non‐owned vehicles, used in connection with the contract.

4. Professional Liability ‐ Professional Liability Coverage on a Comprehensive Broad Form on an occurrence

basis.

All insurance meets the laws of the State of North Carolina. Insurance coverage is obtained from companies that are authorized to provide such coverage and are authorized by the Commissioner of Insurance to do business in North Carolina. The Firm shall at all times comply with the terms of such insurance policies, and all requirements of the insurer under any such insurance policies, except as they may conflict with existing North Carolina laws or this contract. The limits of coverage under each insurance policy maintained by the Firm shall not be interpreted as limiting the contractor’s liability and obligations under the contract. If awarded the contract, we will be glad to provide a COI.

ResponsibleOfficeandContactPerson:

Jay E. Sharpe, CPA, CFE

AUDITPARTNER

1109IndianTrailDriveRaleigh,NC27609Phone:(919) 961-7496Email:[email protected]:www.sharpepatelcpa.com

CHAPEL HILL – CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS Response to RFP for Financial Audit Services

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FIRSTSECTION Profile 2

Audit Staffing 3

Governmental Clients 5

Additional Government Services 4

Peer Review 5

Staff Experience 6

Team Biographies 6

Governmental Experience 9

References Insurance Coverage Independence Regulatory Actions

9 10 10 10

SECONDSECTION

Audit Programs 11

Statistical Sampling 11

Computer Audit Specialists 11

Management Letter Content 12

Client Assistance Methodology 12

Audit Plan 13

Fees Other Information

14 15

APPENDICES:Attachment A – Cost Proposal Breakdown

11

SECOND SECTION

AUDIT PROGRAMS Our audit programs are combinations of programs made in house and programs which are issued by governmental authorities and private publishers such as Practitioners Publishing Company (PPC). We generate unique programs for each audit based on the client’s industry and our risk assessment software. The use of this risk assessment software allows us to assess risk to each individual section of the financial statements and to generate additional tasks for higher risk areas. We able to customize the programs as needed. We subscribe to the not‐for‐profit industry from PPC and CCH.

STATISTICAL SAMPLING We will use a combination of statistical and non‐statistical sampling in our audit approach. We will determine which method to use based on auditor judgment during planning and creation of procedures. Statistical sampling will include use of either simple random sampling using a random number generator or interval sampling. Non‐statistical sampling will include use of judgmental selection and haphazard selection. Audit procedures performed on selected samples along with analytical procedures will be used to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to afford a reasonable basis for an opinion regarding the financial statements under audit. When appropriate, we will also use Dual‐Purpose Sampling to test the operating effectiveness of controls and tests of the recorded monetary amounts, minimizing the time spent on repetitive tasks, thereby saving audit costs. The sample sizes will be directly related to the assessment of the inherent risk and the control risk of the entity. We will gain an understanding of internal controls through the use of internal control walkthroughs. We typically perform test controls over major areas such as cash disbursement, receipts and payroll. We prefer to conduct internal control testing during interim fieldwork and during the actual year under audit so we can gain an understanding of controls during the year.

COMPUTER AUDIT SPECIALIST We do use a computer audit specialist when a need arises. However, due to the heavy investments that our Firm has made in technology and the knowledge that our staff has, we are typically able to handle computer related issues without the need of a specialist. Our staff will obtain an understanding of the internal controls surrounding the computer systems to identify any potential weakness that may have a direct and material impact on the financial statements and we will make recommendations directly to management in areas where weaknesses are identified.

12

MANAGEMENT LETTER CONTENT During compliance and substantive testing, we may note certain matters involving internal control and other operational procedures. Our job as your auditor will be to ensure that you understand where you have deficiencies or weaknesses so that you can make informed decisions on how best to respond to these risks. We may identify the following types of deficiencies:

• Control Deficiency: A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does

not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to

prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. This type of deficiency is communicated

in the management letter.

• Significant Deficiency: A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in

internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention

by those charged with governance.

• Material Weakness: A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal

control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial

statements will not be prevented or detected and corrected on a timely basis. We will communicate to you orally and in a letter, all deficiencies noted and recommendations for your consideration, intended to improve the internal control and/or the results of the operating efficiencies. The letters are solely for management, those charged with your organization’s governance, others you deem appropriate within your organization and any governmental authorities you need to share this information with. Our Firm operates under a “NO SURPRISE MANDATE”, any issues which arise during the audit will be brought to the attention of management for discussion and analysis. We will NOT be issuing board communication without providing the same information to management. Management, as well as the audit committee will have the opportunity to discuss any issues which come up prior to issuance of Standard Board Communication Letters. In addition, during the audit process; especially as a new auditor, a.k.a. a fresh set of eyes, we will provide verbally any room we observe for improvement to management. Our goal is to be a partner with all of our clients, and work together to make the audit a smooth, and value‐added process.

CLIENT ASSISTANCE METHODOLOGY Our Firm uses state of the art technology in addition to e‐mail and file sharing as much as possible, eliminating all unnecessary paper and removing geographic limitations. We customarily utilize paperless and electronic engagement software in the field to share data with staff working on the same engagement using Virtual Office and Prosystem Engagement. Therefore, the items outlined in the Request for Proposal (RFP) and other requested items are preferred in electronic format whenever possible. In addition to the environmental benefit, this can save significant amounts of time in calculations, sampling, procedures, and record keeping ultimately reducing audit costs. We fully understand that minimizing costs is a high objective of both the Firm and the School System. In order to accomplish this, we do expect complete cooperation from the School System’s staff during the performance of the audit. This includes preparing as many of the schedules and supporting documentation as possible and being available for questions and discussion. We understand the Staff at the School System are very busy in their daily

13

responsibilities. An audit can be a burden for a short period of time, but the better the cooperation, the more efficient the audit can be performed and the quicker the auditors will leave! We can designate specific time to ask questions of staff if needed. In order to input the School System’s trial balances into our audit software, we would need the trial balance transmitted to us in an excel format or a format that could be converted to excel. We will provide a list of items needed ahead of fieldwork.

AUDIT PLAN AUDIT APPROACH Our audit approach is designed to maximize efficiencies, by leveraging staff and technology. We utilize automated processes, and have staff that specializes in certain areas of the audits, such internal control tests and high‐risk areas. We have found that we can complete more efficient audits by utilizing this approach, which also provides a high level of expertise, therefore improving service and recommendations to your organization. Our goal is to provide an efficient high‐quality audit. RISK ASSESMENT We will perform a risk assessment of the School System’s financial reporting process. This assessment will evaluate both inherent and control risks. Based on this risk assessment, we will concentrate our audit procedures on higher risk areas. This is a tentative schedule. Actual dates will be determined in a preliminary meeting with management. May 2020 Sharpe Patel PLLC is awarded the audit.

May Engagement letter / contracts are prepared. Signed engagement letters / contracts are

returned to the Firm and submitted to the LGC for their approval. Sharpe Patel PLLC communicates with the predecessor auditors and sets up a time to review their working papers.

May / June We will conduct preliminary fieldwork. This will include planning and risk assessment procedures. We will conduct internal control testing and start compliance testing. We expect to be on site two to three days for this. We will conduct inventory observation at June 30th (if material) and conduct individual school testing. We will also send the School System a list of the items we will need to complete our regular fieldwork at this time along with any bank, loan (if applicable) and revenue confirmations.

August We will receive trial balances in advance of fieldwork so we can enter into our system and conduct preliminary analysis. We know the staff at the School System are very busy in their routine responsibilities. Our goal is to limit the disruption. We use a paperless engagement system, so documents can be sent ahead of fieldwork.

14

Engagement Fieldwork September / October

The Firm will conduct final fieldwork. The exact dates will be discussed with management. All issues we note during our audit will be discussed with staff before fieldwork is complete. We expect to be on site for final fieldwork for approximately one week.

Engagement Conclusion October The financial statements will be prepared by the Firm. Once completed, we will present

management with a draft. Once draft is approved, we will submit to the LGC for their review and approval.

November / December

We will present the audits to any requested Board and / or committee meetings.

We will present the School System with a more specific time and more exact dates if awarded the audit.

FEES The fees for the audits for the year ended June 30, 2020 are as follows: Total audit fees (breakdown on attachment A) $ 50,398 The following two years June 30, 2021 $ 51,910 June 30, 2022 $ 53,467 Please see Attachment A for a cost proposal breakdown for various costs, rates and timing of hours. This fee includes:

Financial Audit of the School System

Single audit over federal and state programs

Assistance in the Preparation of the financial statements of the School System

Presentation to the board and / or finance committee

Travel costs

Minor technical questions throughout the year * This fee is an estimate based on our expectation of the amount of worked needed to complete the audit services for the School System. If the actual work is less than the fee quoted above, the School System will be charged the lesser amount.

15

Technical Questions We understand the School System may seek consultation on various subjects throughout the year and we encourage our clients to contact us with questions. Routine questions are included in our fees above as part of our service and are encouraged. If the School System has questions or research topics that require extensive time, those services will be billed at our standard billing rates (discounted for not‐for‐profits). We will agree to the cost of this additional work with the School System before beginning any such requests

OTHER INFORMATION Why Choose Us? Service We at Sharpe Patel PLLC pride ourselves on providing a service model that thrives on being more responsive to our clients. We want to serve our clients and work with them, not simply be a vendor that works for the client. We allow our clients access to our most experienced personnel. We believe we are the size the CPA firm that can give those personal services to organizations the size of the School System. We understand that many CPA firms could perform an audit, but it is the personal service that makes the difference. We want all our clients to succeed and we want to assist them in doing so. Staff As noted above, our service model calls for our most experienced personnel to be available to our clients. We have experienced low turnover, therefore we are able to offer staff continuity for the engagements. Technology and sophisticated auditing software systems are nice, but what makes the difference is the people. We believe the experience of our staff is a perfect fit for these engagements. Experience Concentration in the governmental sector, specifically in the education industry. Communication In order to best serve the School System, we believe communication is an overriding factor. We will provide constant communication to management on the audit process. Pricing We based our cost proposal on how much time we think, based on experience, it will take to complete the engagement. Many firms base their cost proposal on what the School System previously paid and try to low bid to win the contract. In the end, as with many services, we believe you get what you pay for. We are not in the business of “winning” engagements, instead we are “creating” relationships.

16

ATTACHMENT A

Cost Proposal Breakdown

Sharpe Patel PLLC | Attachment A

CHAPEL HILL ‐ CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS

Cost Proposal

Audit Services ‐ June 30, 2020

The following is a summary of our cost proposal for the audit services of the School System

for the year ended June 30, 2020. This cost proposal is on a "not‐to‐exceed" basis.

Personnel Costs Audit Senior

Partner Manager Staff Staff Total

Preliminary Fieldwork 20 40 40 40 140

Fieldwork 20 60 60 60 200

Work performed in auditor's office

(planning, wrap up, financial

statements, etc.) 16 24 24 8 72

Total Hours 56 124 124 108 412

Rates 200$ 150$ 130$ 120$

11,200$ 18,600$ 16,120$ 12,960$ 58,880$

Travel 350$

Cost of supplies and materials ‐$

Other costs ‐$

TOTAL COSTS 59,230$

Government discount 15% (8,832)$

COST PROPOSAL June 30, 2020 50,398$ *

June 30, 2021 51,910$ *

June 30, 2022 53,467$ *

* This is a cost not to exceed. If the costs are less than the quoted amount, the School System

will be charged the lesser amount.

SBSM LEA Modernization Information

Document Purpose: define documents necessary and the process steps for beginning a

project modernizing an LEA as well as the costs that are provided by the state of North

Carolina, Department of Public Instruction through allotment policy PRC153.

Document Definitions:

1. Statement of Work (SOW) The legal contract between the software

implementor/provider to deliver the functionality covered in the Master Services

Agreement that SBSM developed with each vendor. (Tyler and CherryRoad). The

SOW also defines any additional functionality that the LEA adds above and beyond

the scope of the NC SBSM Master Services Agreement and is funded by the LEA. The

SOW also defines the schedule of the delivery of the project for the LEA.

2. Memo of Understanding (MOU) The document supported by the allotment policy

PRC153 that defines in detail what funding is provided by the state of North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction via SBSM. Note that this document will be

completed by SBSM with participation by the appropriate LEA staff. The MOU is

signed by the LEA personnel with the appropriate level of authority at the LEA.

Within the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) the approval process and sequence

of approval is the Chief Financial Officer, the State Superintendent of Schools and

finally Agency approvals. Note that within the Memo of Understanding there are

three categories of costs that are covered:

a. Subscription Cost for the software for the first year. Note after the first

year the LEA is responsible for these recurring expenses.

The object code for this category is 418.

b. Implementation Cost that the vendor charges to implement the software.


c. Consulting Cost which covers:

Cost for consulting for a professional Project Manager to assist the LEA with

the implementation. Also, consulting costs necessary to integrate to state

third party systems and local third-party systems. Note that there are

responsibilities in the SOW that require the LEA to perform certain functions

for a successful implementation. If an LEA chooses to use funding for a PM

there is a requirement for the LEA, SBSM and the vendor to agree on the PM

chosen whether internal or external. SBSM will assist the LEA to ensure that

the candidate has the necessary skills to perform the duties necessary for a

successful implementation.


SBSM LEA Modernization Information

LEA Project Start-Up

The requirement for the LEA to pick a vendor/solution by April 1, 2020, which included a

fully executed Statement of Work and a fully executed MOU, is no longer required. The

SBSM Program will now take a budget-based approach to LEA implementations. No LEA

shall start their implementation without having the full funding available for their project,

from a state budget perspective, and an approved MOU, thereby minimizing project

disruption.

Note: if the LEA desires they can start the project without the guarantee of a

reimbursement from the Department of Instruction, but this is done at the LEA’s

financial risk.

1. LEA Project Initiation Steps:

a. Select a vendor/software by having a software demonstration(s) to ensure

the software meets your LEA high level requirements for Finance, HR and

Payroll

b. Complete a Statement of Work (SOW) with your vendor and submit to the

SBSM team for review

c. Verify with SBSM that full funding is available for the project

d. Complete a Memo of Understanding (MOU) provided by SBSM/DPI

e. Finalize the SOW and MOU (SOW is fully executed with the vendor / provider

and the MOU is fully executed within the Department of public Instruction.

CFO, State School Superintendent and the proper Agency approvals)

f. Project can only start after a, b, c, d, e above are complete. A kickoff

is not to be scheduled without permission given to the vendor and the

respective LEA.

Vendor Submits Invoice to the

LEA

Funds Required for Monthly Vendor

Invoice Expenditures are requested from LEA Allotment Total

LEA Receives Vendor Invoice, Reviews and verifies milestone Approvals & Approves if Correct

LEA Submits a copy of Vendor invoices to SBSM for Retention & Audit Purposes

LEA Receives Requested Funds and

Processes Invoice Expenditures

MOU Approval Process – PRC 153

LEA Invoice Process for PRC 153

SBSM PRC 153 Spot Audit Process

start end

start

startend

SBSM PRC 153 / MOU High Level Process Flow

Vendor verifies approvals on project site

SBSM will audit an LEA to determine expenditures follow MOU parameters, documents questions to

the LEA if necessary

LEA Approved MOU Sent One Week in Advance of the Appropriate Agency

Meeting

MOU is Agency Approved and signed by DPI CFO

and State Superintendent of Schools (& Sent to

LEA)

SBSM Sends Fully Executed LEA MOU to

DPI Finance for Allotment to the LEA

SBSM Creates the LEA MOU (based on

PRC153)

SBSM Sends MOU to the LEA for Signature

& Appropriate Approval

LEA Approves MOU, Signs and Returns to

SBSM for Agency Approval

DPI Finance Allots full amount of the MOU(No Funds are Yet

Expended)

end

If appropriate, the LEA takes corrective action, if

necessary, refunds amounts that were expended in error

LEA Documents Response to concerns

and questions and sends to SBSM

SBSM submits questions and

concerns to the LEA for a response

At Month-End Close, SBSM Reviews LEA

Monthly Expenditure Reports from DPI Finance

SBSM & DPI Finance Fiscal Year-End PRC 153 Process

start end

At Fiscal Year End, SBSM Identifies

Unspent Allotments for each LEA (if

necessary)

Unspent Allotted Funds Revert back to

SBSM Budget

Amended MOU follows the MOU Approval Process

(See Above)

SBSM Prepares Amended MOUs for

the unspent funds for the New Fiscal Year

for Approval

New Fiscal Year Balances are

Reviewed to Ensure Accuracy

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is between School Business System Modernization

(“SBSM”), a division of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (“DPI”), and Chapel

Hill-Carrboro City Schools, a local education agency (the “LEA”).

The LEA selected Tyler Technologies, Inc. (the “Vendor”) – a modern business systems vendor

approved by DPI – to implement a modern Enterprise Resource Planning (“ERP”) system. The LEA

wishes to receive funding from DPI for the implementation of the modern ERP system. As a result,

DPI wants to specify the terms and conditions under which the LEA may receive funding for the

implementation of the modern ERP system, as outlined in the Master Service Agreement (“MSA”)

between DPI and the Vendor.

The parties therefore agree as follows:

1. Duration.

1.1 Basic term. This agreement will be effective upon the date of last signature, and

it will remain in effect until the termination of the LEA project as set forth in the

Statement of Work (“SOW”) or unless terminated under Sections 1.2 or 1.3 of this

MOU.

1.2 Termination by SBSM. SBSM may terminate this agreement for convenience

upon thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to the LEA.

1.3 Termination by the LEA. The LEA may terminate this agreement for

convenience upon thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to SBSM.

2. Statement of Work.

2.1 In general. The LEA will sign an SOW with the Vendor. The LEA will ensure that

the SOW incorporates the terms of, and conforms to, the MSA between DPI and the

Vendor (attached and incorporated into this agreement). Before the LEA

executes the SOW with the Vendor, the LEA must receive approval from SBSM.

2.2 Performance. After the LEA accepts a deliverable from the Vendor, the LEA will

provide that deliverable to SBSM for review and approval.

2.3 Documentation. SBSM will establish a Microsoft SharePoint site, which will be

the authoritative source for documentation shared between SBSM and the LEA

related to this project. The LEA will share all documentation received as part of the

SOW with SBSM on the established SharePoint site.

3. Funding.

3.1 Availability. DPI will provide funding to the LEA up to the maximum amounts

by fiscal year, as indicated in Section 4.3 of this MOU. Funding under this MOU

and the MSA between DPI and the Vendor is contingent upon the availability of

funds for the purposes set forth in this MOU and the MSA between DPI and the

Vendor. If funds appropriated are less than the projected requirements for the

fiscal year, then allotments may be reduced accordingly.

3.2 Disbursed funds. DPI will allot funds to the LEA as indicated in Section 4.3 of this

MOU. The LEA shall submit all invoices to SBSM as they are received from the

Vendor. The LEA shall not draw down any allotted funds nor make payments upon

a Vendor invoice prior to receiving notice of SBSM’s approval of the invoice.

4. Allowable Expenditures.

4.1 In general. The LEA may use funds for allowable expenditures up to the amounts

specified in the MSA between DPI and the Vendor. These funds will be used for the

initial transition to the modern ERP system and limited to the rates specified in the

MSA between DPI and the Vendor. The LEA may use funds for other

expenditures only with prior approval of SBSM.

4.2 Limits. Allowable expenditures are limited to the following:

(a) One Time Implementation Fees [1-6400-153-319]

One-time implementation fees for an individual LEA for services associated

with making an individual implementation map to the LEA’s individual or

unique human resources and finance needs.

(b) Year One Subscription Fees [1-6400-153-418]

Fees for Software as a Service (“SaaS”) subscription fees incurred during the

first year during implementation.

(c) Additional Service Fees [1-6400-153-311]

i. Consulting Services

Fees for any necessary and approved consulting services not covered by

the following: 1-6400-153-319 or 1-6400-153-418.

ii. Satellite Software Systems Provider Update Fee

Service fees associated with satellite (i.e., third-party) systems provider

solutions needed to integrate or work with DPI’s modern ERP system or

SBSM Operation Data Store solutions environment (i.e., APIs, SIF, etc.).

4.3 Maximum amounts. Expenditures must not exceed the amounts indicated in the

chart below.

5. Entire Agreement.

5.1 In general. Except as provided in this MOU, this MOU constitutes the entire

understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this

agreement. Any previous MOU between the parties related to this project will

therefore be void.

5.2 Modification. No amendment of this MOU will be effective unless the amendment

is in writing and signed by an authorized representative of each party.

The parties consider this MOU to be signed by their duly authorized representatives on the date

of the last signature.

Jonathan Scott

Chief Financial Officer (Acting)

Chapel Hill-Carrboro County

Schools

[email protected]

Mark Johnson

NC Superintendent of Public

Instruction

Barbara R. Roper, CPM

Chief Financial Officer

NC Department of Public

Instruction

By: _______________________

Date: _____________________

By: _______________________

Date: _____________________

By: ________________________

Date: _______________________

Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools

Draft - Base Personnel Allotment Formulas

Budget Year 2021

POSITION ELEMENTARY MIDDLE HIGH SCHOOL Proposed Changes TBD

Principal 1 for 12 months 1 for 12 months 1 @ 12 months1: up to 600 ADM

1: up to 725 ADM 2: 601- 1250 ADM2: 725+ ADM 3: 1251 -1750 ADM

4: 1751- 2250 ADM

all @12 months

Classroom teachers

Kindergarten-Third 1:21 ADM Fourth-Fifth 1:24 ADM

1: 120 ADM 1:140 ADM (teaching 5 classes at 1:24) (5 sections at 1:28)

1: 120 ADM (teaching five 1:24)

Vocational/ CTE Dictated by the program Dictated by the program MOE

1: 140 ADM 1: 140 ADM(5 sections at 1:28) (teaching 5 sections at 1:28)

Dept. chairNo additional planning period; $1,200 stipend for 10 teachers per high school 08/09

This rate has not kept with inflation--we are 10 years past this. So perhaps more? $1500. They do a lot.

Academy Leader

No additional planning period; $5,000 per Thematic Academy &$5,000 for Finance Academy 09/10

This has been hard to get in past years. I am glad to see it is there.

Small classes 2 FTE per school This is super helpful.

AVID

IFL

Mathematics

AVID teacher must have free coordination period .2 FTE

Electives

.60 FTE per school

Assistant Principal 1 for 12 months

HS: CHS would like to see one more AP or a dean of students. We have the same number of athletic teams and sporting events but have 1-2 less admin than the other 2 schools. More importantly, we need to spend less time on discipline and administrative things and more on instruction. Also, CHHS has 1 AP than East, I think (or that may be counselors?) Either way, East and CHHS should have the same support.

Core subjects

1 FTE per school for math 1 FTE per school for ELA

1 FTE per school ELA 1 FTE per school for Math

Pre-K Program allocation

Pre-school Handicapped Program allocation

ESL (systemwide) 1:40 (systemwide) 1:40 (systemwide) 1:40HS: I know this is federally mandated. Needs to be more like 1:20, esp, at the schools who have Newcomers.

Cultural Arts: Music @1 FTE per 30 classes

Music, PE, Art PE @1 FTE per 20 classes

ART @ 1 FTE per 30 classes

Serving grades 1-5 in 09-10Allocation requires 3 periods @30 minutes per each 1-5 class or 1 FTE per 40 periods 1 FTE per 40 periods

1: up to 1000 ADM

1.5: 1001-1500 ADM

2: 1501+ ADM

Math/Science Teacher .5 FTE per school Is this math/science interventionist? And the next line is literacy?

Intervention Specialist .5 FTE HS could use interventionists.1 FTE per grade CHS ADM=3FTE

CHHS ADM=5FTE

1 @ 11 MOE ECHHS ADM =5FTE

others @ 10.5 MOE 1@ 12 MOE others @11 MOE

1: up to 1000 ADM

1.5: 1001-1500 ADM

2: 1501+ ADM

.5 @ ECHHS 09-10

In School Suspension 1 FTE (PBIS Certified) 1 FTE (Teacher Assistant) per school

CHS has used this position to provide EC separate setting--a huge need--and do not have an ISS position. This happened when we lost an ECTA. I am not sure how this is covered at CHHS and ECH. At one point there was a desire of the board that these positions all be certified?

Media Specialist -- 1 FTE per school 1 FTE per school

Guidance 1 FTE per school

IFL/Math Coach 2 FTE per school for ELA

elective allocation elective allocation HS: What does this mean?

Elem Foreign Language

HS: Instructional growth would not be happening at CHS without these two. ECH and CHHS use these differently, I think.

School Social Worker 1 FTE per school 1 FTE per school

1 FTE @CHHS

.5 FTE @ ECHHS & CHS

9th-10th Grades

Nurses 1 per school 1 per school 1 per school Appreciative of this.

Service Learning 1 district wide I would like to see service learning go away. Favors the privileged.

1 FTE per school @ 11 moe

Assigned 2 teaching periods

1 FTE per school 1 FTE per school 1 FTE per school

(11 MOE) (11 MOE) (12 MOE)

1 per school

.5 FTE @ CHS 09-10 East and CHS should have 1 FTE for 504s--they are so much of the time contentious.

Transition Facilitator 1 per school

Program Facilitator .50 FTE per school .50 FTE per school 1 FTE per school

Ex Ed - resource 1 FTE per 15 - 20 caseload 1 FTE per 20-25 caseload 1 FTE per 20-25 caseload

Speech-language Path 1 FTE per 30 - 35 caseload 1 FTE per 30 - 35 caseload 1 FTE per 30 - 35 caseload

Self-contained AIG (District -wide) district program

Gifted Specialist 1 FTE per school .5 FTE per school High School gifted students need much more support.

Occupational Therapist System allocation System allocation System allocation

Physical Therapist System allocation System allocation System allocation1 FTE per K-3 class @ 210 day school year 2: up to 1000 ADM HS: good.50 FTE per 4-5 @ 210 day school year 3: 1001+ ADM

@ 210 day school year

per total student need per total school need per total school need Isn't this based on the allotment formulas?@ 210 day school year @ 210 day school year @ 210 day school year HS: do we have this?

1 FTE per school 1: up to 1000 ADM@ 210 day school year 1.5: 1001+ ADM

@ 210 day school year

504 Extra duty supplement

Teacher Assistant 1 per school

Ex Ed teacher assistant

Media assistant

Athletic Director Extra duty supplement

This position is full time without the 2 teaching periods. They work 16 hour days and should not have to teach. They also work many, many weekends. I would like to advocate for middle school to have their AD have 2 classes and 3 to do AD. It's an extremely tough position.

Instructional Tech Facilitator

Now that we have a full time mental health coordinator--which has been an amazing addition--I would like for CHS for this .5 to be full 504. Mental health coordinator should be doing the drug and alcohol counseling since their usage is very often linked to mental illness, stress, trauma, etc.

Student Assistance

Technology Assistant 2 @ each H.S. HS: All of these are considered district personnel, not the schools and we don't have 2.

Principal Secretary 1per school @ 12 MOE 1per school @ 12 MOE 1per school @ 12 MOE Reduction of 1 Clerical position per high school for 2016-17

AP Secretary 1 per AP @ 12 MOE

HS: CHS has reduced this to one total admin secretary, instead of the 2 the formula says we shoudl have. East and CHHS are twice as large so they should have 2 for sure.

.50 FTE: up to 500 ADM

1 FTE: 501+ ADM

@11 MOE

Network Support District Allocation

Theater Tech 1 FTE @ 12 MOE

Bookkeeper 1 FTE per school @ 12 MOE

Data Manager 1 FTE per school @ 12 MOE 1 FTE per school @ 12 MOE 1 FTE per school @ 12 MOE

1: up to 1000 ADM2: 1000+ ADM

1 @ 12 months

other = 11 months

Online Learning Asst. 1 FTE HS: I think this person is 12 mos due to summer school

1 FTE 10 month year (August 1- May 30th); 40 hr week

Security Guard2 FTE: school (1 FTE @ 6 hrs daily assigned after-school/ evening hours)

HS: These were reduced at each school--I think we all have one less. If you get a good one, they help with so many things.

Custodian per formula based on square footage and ADM

per formula based on square footage and ADM

per formula based on square footage and ADM

ADM: Average Daily Membership or average student enrollmentFTE: Full Time Equivalent of a positionMOE: Months of Employment

Other position allocations Elementary Middle High

Athletic Coaches 25 positions 49 positionsCo-curricular assignments 12 assignments 24 assignmentsActivity Units ($467 ea.) 5 units 10 units 40 units

1 per school @ 12 MOE

HS: Should be August through June.

Guidance Clerk 1 FTE per school @ 11 MOE

Athletic Trainer

Clerical assistant/ HS receptionist 1 per school @ 11 MOE

5:30 pm 1. Audit Serv - Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools

Documents

Transcript of 5:30 pm 1. Audit Serv - Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools