Doug Ricks — Referenced as the maker of the motion to approve the minutes.
Doug Ricks — Addressed as Co-Chair Ricks while asking about pushback on the July 1 change.
Doug Ricks — Co-Chair Ricks asked about the audit/automation tool, specifically whether the person submitting the information can see the tool or whether it is only visible on the controller's office side.
Doug Ricks — Co-Chair Ricks said the proposal would require a statutory change and suggested the committee could give the nod to explore that direction. He added that if LSO drafts language, cities, counties, and other entities should have an opportunity to provide input, and emphasized that stakeholders should have plenty of time to weigh in as the process moves forward.
Jeff Ehlers — Seconded the motion to approve the minutes.
Jeff Ehlers — Was identified as being especially interested in the submission process automation.
Jeff Ehlers — Representative Ehlers discussed revising the reporting deadline structure, expressing openness to moving the deadline to July 1 and clarifying that unaudited financials should still be submitted by then, with audits allowed to follow later if needed. He also raised concern that an October 1 deadline might be too generous and suggested a shorter post-completion window. Later, he supported moving the audit language from 67-450B into 67-1076 and working with LSO and the controller's office to draft workable language, offering to help with that process.
Scott Smith, Chief Deputy Controller, Office of the State Controller — Introduced as the presenter for the deadline adjustment update.
Scott Smith, Chief Deputy Controller, State Controller's Office — Introduces himself and states he will present progress since the last committee meeting and discussion topics.
Mr. Smith — Asked whether there was any difficulty or pushback regarding the July 1 change.
Deputy Controller Smith / Scott Smith — Explains that reporting fiscal data as of 1 July is not the issue despite differing fiscal year-end dates.
Brandon Wolf — Said he was with the counties at their conference in Lewiston and wanted to echo the concerns about audit timing.
Controller Wolfe — Was thanked for sharing the county clerks' concerns and input.
Chief Deputy Smith — Chief Deputy Smith continued the presentation on the deadline adjustment item, explaining that September 30 was being considered as an audit deadline and transitioning into the automation tool discussion. Smith paused to invite questions about the tool, clarified that it is not visible to end users and operates on the office’s end, and then was invited to continue the presentation after questions concluded.
Controller Wolf — Referenced as having raised concerns about the audit deadline.
Daniel Foreman — Chief Deputy Smith was asked to respond to Representative Ehlers’s comments about audit reporting deadlines and enforcement. He explained that unaudited financials are already due by July 1 under 67-1076 and that the statute includes noncompliance language allowing the State Controller to request submission within 30 days or a vetted compliance plan. He contrasted that with the audited-report provision in 67-450B, which only requires submission within nine months and is otherwise silent on enforcement. Smith said moving the audited-report language into 67-1076 would provide authority to follow up and require a response or plan, but noted that any deadline changes would need to be worked out with LSO. He also cautioned that multiple deadlines based on different fiscal year ends could confuse entities, and said the office would work with LSO to present the most appropriate audit deadlines, while acknowledging federal requirements might require reconsideration. He concluded by saying this was his last topic for the day.
April Renfro — April Renfro, from Legislative Audit, commented on the proposed audit deadline and cautioned against a hard July 1 date. She explained that the current nine-month-from-fiscal-year-end timing aligns with federal audit requirements for entities receiving federal funds, and warned that a fixed July 1 deadline could create compliance confusion for larger entities. She said clarification would likely be needed regarding what audit period applies and when entities would be considered non-compliant. The committee then acknowledged her feedback as helpful.