Opinion ID: 2787659
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony of Jim Koerber

Text: ¶36. Finally, the District called Jim Koerber, the District’s own certified public accountant and expert. Koerber had “no problems” with the numbers in Tann, Brown & Russ’s audit, but he disagreed with Tann, Brown & Russ’s exclusion of perpetual park operating costs as contractual obligations, because he believed that decision was a legal conclusion outside the purview of a Certified Public Accountant. He testified that “[t]here [wa]s no accounting basis to exclude those contractual obligations.” ¶37. Koerber also testified that he primarily relied on Financial Accounting Standards concepts to classify the perpetual park operating costs as contractual obligations, and that he looked to Governmental Accounting Board standards when he classified perpetual park operating costs as contractual obligations, finding that those standards also justified his classification. However, Koerber conceded that there was no real difference between the two standards. ¶38. On cross-examination, the District challenged Koerber’s stance on including the perpetual park operating costs as future contractual obligations: Q. My question was, if you went to the Pat Harrison Waterway District on September 6, 2011 and asked for contracts that had these numbers that would be owed, due and payable at some point in the future, there is no contract that contains those numbers. A. Oh. That’s correct . . . . Q. I’m just trying to establish that unlike with contractual obligations and the figures that are there, there are no supporting contracts you could go lay your hands [on] and say [“]here are the amounts that are due and payable under those contracts.[”] 15 A. No, sir, it would not be specified in the contracts . . . [,][b]ut I do want to be clear [ ] that . . . there would be a cost to operate those contracts. ¶39. After Koerber testified, the District rested.