Part 2: Audit Decisions, Financial Oversight, and Risk Planning — 08/09/2023

This second part of the Audit Committee meeting focuses on who raised questions, who moved motions, how votes were recorded, and how the discussion connects back to people living in the County.

The meeting was chaired by Albert Paschkowiak, Environmental Services and Sustainability Supervisor, who guided the committee through agenda approvals, presentations, questions, and motions. His role throughout the meeting was to manage discussion flow, invite questions from members, and confirm formal decisions.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap>

The Audit Findings Report for the year ending December 31, 2022 was presented by Katie Mahan, Audit Partner with KPMG, appearing on behalf of the County’s external auditor. Following questions and discussion, a motion was brought forward to formally receive the audit presentation.

Steve Ferguson, Mayor, moved the motion. Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer seconded it. The motion carried unanimously.

Questions about debt, reserves, and financial trends

Jane Leslie, citizen member, asked detailed questions about the County’s debt growth, especially how it compared to inflation and peer municipalities. She also asked how comparator municipalities are selected and whether the County’s position is typical.

Katie Mahan responded by explaining that debt levels vary widely across municipalities depending on growth and infrastructure needs, and that the key issue is staying within provincial debt limits and having a long term plan.

This exchange matters to residents because debt levels influence future tax rates, borrowing capacity, and major capital projects, including long term care and infrastructure upgrades.

Fraud risk and internal controls

Wilma Briggs, citizen member, asked how the audit tests for fraud risk and whether auditors review segregation of duties within County operations.

Katie Mahan explained that while the audit is not a forensic investigation, it does test controls and includes unpredictable procedures. She confirmed no control weaknesses or fraud risks were identified.

For residents, this provides reassurance that public funds are being managed with oversight and internal checks.

Surplus allocation and what happens to extra funds

Albert Paschkowiak asked what happens to the year end surplus, which exceeded the budgeted amount by several million dollars.

Katie Mahan explained that the surplus is allocated into specific reserves, such as water and sewer reserves and infrastructure related reserves, often due to project timing rather than unused cash.

Amanda Carter, Director of Finance, added clarification that budget surplus and audited surplus are calculated differently, and that operating surpluses are typically transferred to stabilization reserves unless Council directs otherwise.

This matters to residents because it explains why surplus money is not simply sitting idle and how it is earmarked for future infrastructure and service stability.

Debt exemptions and long term care financing

Albert Paschkowiak and Jane Leslie raised questions about how debt related to the

new long term care home project would appear in financial statements.

Amanda Carter confirmed that while the debt will appear in total debt figures, portions tied to provincial capital grants are exempt from certain provincial debt limit calculations.

For residents, this affects how the County can finance major care facilities without breaching provincial rules, while still showing the full financial picture publicly.

Risk management direction and feedback

The risk management presentation was delivered by Aaryn McNichol, Director of Corporate Legislative Services, outlining how the County is building a more structured approach to risk.

Wilma Briggs emphasized the importance of forward looking risk assessment, including climate change, not just past claims history.

Jane Leslie asked questions about environmental liability claims and how climate related risks may affect insurance premiums.

Marcia Wallace, CAO, added that cyber security investments were required to maintain insurance coverage and offered to return with more detail in closed session.

This discussion directly affects residents because risk management influences public safety, service continuity, insurance costs, and long term financial exposure.

Directing staff on future reports

Several motions were passed to guide future work. A motion directing staff to bring back a risk management plan was moved and seconded, then carried.

A separate motion recommending that Council direct staff to provide a cybersecurity report in closed session at a future Audit Committee meeting was also carried unanimously.

Financial statements and Council approval

The committee considered the draft consolidated and trust fund financial statements for 2022. Mayor Steve Ferguson moved the motion to receive the statements and recommend them to Council. The motion carried unanimously.

This action sends the financial statements to Council for final approval, a required step before they become official public records.

Work plan, spending trends, and comparators

A longer discussion followed about the committee’s work plan, particularly around spending trends and comparator municipalities.

Jane Leslie argued for looking at multi year trends to provide better public context rather than focusing only on year to year changes.

Sam Branderhorst noted Council direction around budgeting timelines but agreed there is value in post budget trend analysis.

Wilma Briggs supported refining how comparators are chosen to avoid misleading comparisons. Staff were directed to update the work plan based on the discussion, without passing a separate motion.

What this means for residents

This meeting confirms that the County’s finances were independently reviewed and found to be in good standing. That helps build confidence that public money is being tracked properly and reported accurately.

The discussion around debt, reserves, and surplus funds also gives a clearer picture of how the County manages its money over time. While debt is increasing in some areas, it is being monitored within provincial limits and tied to long term projects like infrastructure and long term care. Surpluses are not extra cash sitting unused, but are moved into reserves to support future needs and keep services stable.

Risk management and cybersecurity were a big part of the conversation. This matters because these areas directly affect service reliability, data protection, and even insurance costs. The committee pushing for stronger planning and future reports means residents can expect more attention on protecting County systems and preparing for risks like climate impacts or cyber threats.

The direction to improve financial reporting, especially looking at multi year trends instead of just yearly changes, could also make it easier for residents to understand where their tax dollars are going and how spending is changing over time.

Overall, the meeting shows a focus on careful financial oversight, better long term planning, and making sure risks are being managed. For residents, that means more transparency, more stability, and a clearer picture of how the County is handling public resources.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:39:31. Due to the length of the meeting, our team was not able to independently review the full recording in its entirety. As a result, we relied on software-generated transcription, automated summarization, and automated recognition of speakers and participants, which may not be entirely accurate. All transcriptions, summaries, and related content are prepared by our team in good faith and on a reasonable best-efforts basis. The content is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended to support public understanding of the topics discussed. While reasonable efforts have been made to present the information accurately, automated processes may result in errors, omissions, or unintended misinterpretations. This article does not constitute an official, certified, or verbatim record of the meeting, and it should not be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult original source materials, official minutes, or recordings where available for confirmation or clarification. Questions, requests for clarification, or suggested corrections may be submitted to hello@pecconnect.ca for review and consideration.