CC 05-16-2023 Item No. 21 FY 2021-22 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report_Written CommunicationsCC 05-02-2023
Written Communications
Item #21
FY 2021-22 Annual
Comprehensive
Financial Report
From:Peggy Griffin
To:Kristina Alfaro; Jonathan Orozco, CPA; City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2023-05-16 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #21 - FY2021-22 Annual ACFR - QUESTIONS
Date:Monday, May 15, 2023 1:39:58 AM
Attachments:image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE CITY
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA.
Dear Finance Manager Orozco, Director Alfaro and City Council,
Q1: Why do the Expenses for “Law Enforcement” in the ACFR for 2021 and 2022 not match the
Proposed Budget Attachment J-Law Enforcement (5-17-2023) expenditures for the same years?
Q2: Which numbers are correct?
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
2021 2022
ACFR Law Enforcement Expense $15,212,000 $16,100,000
Proposed Budget Att J-Law Enforcement $14,776,409 $15,715,815
ACFR Audit – FY 2021-22 ACFR
Page 28 of 131
Proposed Budget Attachment J – Law Enforcement (May 17, 2023 agenda item 1)
Page 8 of 12 of
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:City Council May 16 Agenda #21 AFCR must be an Action Item, not Informational Item
Date:Sunday, May 14, 2023 12:10:00 AM
Attachments:City Employment.pdf
Importance:High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I am dismayed to see that Agenda #21 AFCR is an informational item. This item must be
discussed as an action item. It is important to note that the auditor, not City staff, found three
deficiencies, one of which could cause UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTIONS.
How can we verify that there have been no unauthorized transactions?
As recommended by the report, please specify what the City has done to ensure the
segregation of duties as recommended in the report and that all issues raised have been
resolved. Please read the letter from Crowe llp.
I attended the Audit Committee wherein an earlier version of this document had been
presented. It contained information that was easily 50 years out of date. It had said that the
City Council appointed the City Treasurer and to my knowledge this has not happened in fifty
years. It is good to know that I was heard and this error was corrected. Does anyone actually
verify these reports?
Nevertheless, other errors remain and some were discussed in the meeting. There is no
mention that Target at Main Street has closed. Doppio Zero restaurant is listed as one of the
successful restaurants but it closed in 2020. The document also mentions Stein Mart as one of
our retailers, which also closed in 2020. Likewise, page 108 mentions Seagate as being the 8th
largest employer in Cupertino – to my knowledge, Seagate moved out around 2020. I am not
about to vet this entire document. What I do know is that it has errors and that worries me.
At the meeting, I also mentioned my concern about the CDTFA audit, which is lacking in this
otherwise rosy report. This statement in the cover letter dated March 31, 2023 simply does not
pass the straight face test: “Given these trends, the City’s sales tax revenue is projected to
show a more modest increase going forward.” The report covers the time period to June 30,
2022 and at that time the CDTFA issues were known. Page 59 of the report mentions the
probable reallocation of sales and use taxes – why was it omitted on the cover letter? As we
know, this is a really big deal.
One of my questions at the audit committee was that the cost of Administration more than
doubled from 2021 to 2022. Although the report makes some mention as to items that
contributed to the increase, I would like to know how we got to double. At the meeting,
Councilmember Mohan was kind enough to assure me that I would receive an answer to my
question. This question remains unanswered. Note also that recreation and community
services expenses quadrupled and I suppose that activities might still have been on hold in
2021.
I also asked about having greater transparency for other amenities that had enterprise funds in
the past. Currently the only recreational facilities that are split out as enterprise funds are golf
and sports center. Blackberry pool/picnic used to be combined with golf. But Blackberry
pool/picnic never got its own fund and capital improvements there have been swallowed up
under special projects, so we have no good visibility for its overall balance sheet. Similarly,
the Senior Center had also operated as an enterprise fund and we have little transparency as to
how much it is being subsidized. Especially now that we’re going to be tightening our
financial belts, we need to have greater transparency.
Question – motor vehicle license fees increased by over 50%. Could that be that there were
new vehicle purchases? If so, what happened to the old vehicles? Were they sold and where
would that show up as income?
Please also take a look at the attached chart that shows City employment. Some areas have
gotten quite fat over the years, especially Administration and Administrative services. This
chart is worth looking at in the context of the budget.
Lastly, here’s my ask. Given that the scope of this report is quite narrow, we really need is a
forensic auditor who can better organize our chart of accounts so that we have better
transparency in order to make sound financial decisions.
Concerned Citizen,
Rhoda Fry