The Grand County Audit Committee voted Sept. 30 to recommend that the county contract with Ritchie May to perform the county's external financial statement audit and related single-audit work, forwarding the recommendation to the full county commission for final approval. The committee chair called for the recommendation after presentations from two bidding firms and a lengthy question-and-answer session.

The recommendation followed presentations from Ritchie May partners Brandon Keyes and Mike Whipple and a separate presentation and discussion with John, a representative of Larson (the incumbent auditor). Committee members and county staff pressed both firms on pricing, whether single-audit work was included, how the firms would staff on-site field work, and how to coordinate audits of four county component units so the county's consolidated report can be filed on time.

Why this matters: the county has missed filing deadlines in prior years when component-unit audits arrived late. Committee members said bundling component-unit audits with the county contract or otherwise coordinating timing is intended to protect the county's June 30 filing schedule with the state auditor.

Committee discussion and vendor presentations
Brandon Keyes, identified in the meeting as a partner with Ritchie May, described his firm's growth and experience and told the committee, "All 3 of these firms, I would say, are reputable. They're very good at what they do, and I honestly don't know if you're gonna be able to go wrong with any 3 of them, when you make your decision." Mike Whipple, identified as the firm's director, confirmed Ritchie May's proposal included single-audit work for the county: "the pricing for Grand County includes a single audit along with it."

John, a representative of Larson (the county's current auditor), said Larson plans field work in a March–April time frame and expected to "wrap up the audit, you know, early June" if schedules and component-unit timing are coordinated. John said Larson has audited the county for the last three years and argued continuity yields efficiency.

Committee members debated factors beyond price. Karen Curtin (participating online) and commissioners asked about: which component units require single audits, whether the county would pay some or all of component-unit fees to control timing, how many auditors would be on-site, travel costs, and what deliverables the firms will produce (financial statements, management letters, and compliance reports). Ritchie May said the county engagement would be staffed primarily from its Salt Lake office with an on-site team of roughly four to five people for the primary fieldwork week; travel costs would be billed separately as part of the engagement. Larson said its fee estimate includes travel and that its typical on-site team is about six people for a four-day field work period.

Independence and consultant conflicts
Committee members also discussed a potential independence conflict if Squire (a consulting firm that has provided year‑end close support to county staff) were retained to provide consulting while simultaneously serving as external auditor. Committee members agreed that retaining a firm in both roles would pose a conflict and stressed the consulting engagement would need to be terminated before any audit contract if that firm were selected.

Formal action and next steps
Commissioner Martinez moved to recommend Ritchie May; Commissioner Winfield seconded. Chair Winfield called for the vote and stated, "Seeing none, I'll call for a vote. Those in favor of Ritchie May, those against." The committee recorded the motion as passing with Commissioner Hadler voting against the recommendation. The committee's vote is a formal recommendation; the full Grand County Commission will consider and approve the auditor contract and engagement letter before any work begins.

Discussion vs. decision: the article reports committee discussion (questions on scope, staffing, single-audit applicability, component-unit timing, consulting conflicts), a formal recommendation (motion and vote), and next steps (referral to the full county commission). The committee did not execute a final engagement letter at this meeting; Ritchie May said it would draft an engagement letter after any formal award.

Ending: Committee members asked staff to follow up with component units about timing and fee responsibility, and to ensure the county has an engagement letter and clear deliverables before field work begins.