Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit And Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brown County auditors report no material weaknesses but flag reporting controls and fund‑balance issues
Summary
Jason Hill, legislator of audit, presented Brown County’s 2022–23 audit closing conference, reporting no material weaknesses but identifying a significant deficiency in controls over financial reporting and flagging high unassigned general‑fund balances and restricted snow‑removal funds.
Get email alerts on the Audit And Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jason Hill, legislator of audit, presented the Brown County Commission with the audit closing conference for the 2022–23 audit period and summarized findings and recommendations.
Hill told commissioners the audit found no material weaknesses in internal controls but identified “the controls over financial reporting” as a significant deficiency, primarily because fund financial statements and business‑type activity information were combined and required adjustments. “We had no material weaknesses in the internal controls,” Hill said. “The only thing we found that resulted in a significant deficiency is the controls over financial reporting.”
Hill said the audit also noted an unassigned general‑fund balance that “exceeded 40% of the total of the next year's appropriations and budget for the general funds,” and recommended that the county assign portions of that balance to planned uses so the public can see intended purposes instead of a large unassigned sum. Hill used a hypothetical example: assigning money to a capital purpose (for example, a $2,000,000 jail project) to show purpose for funds.
The auditors recorded two small overspending instances on department budgets: an IT overspend of $387 and an overspend of $174 in the domestic‑abuse fund. Hill described these as immaterial violations of laws, rules or regulations and said they result from monitoring and recording differences rather than intentional misuse.
Hill also reviewed the snow‑removal levy and Road and Bridge fund balances. He said restricted snow‑removal levy funds were approximately $240,000–$246,000 at year‑end while the Road and Bridge fund cash balance reported about $85,000; the result left the Road and Bridge fund with a negative unassigned fund balance after the restricted amount was accounted for. Hill recommended a cash transfer in 2024 to correct timing and accounting and urged the county to avoid using funds restricted for snow removal for general road and bridge purposes.
On inventory and asset tracking, Hill advised commissioners to maintain a department‑level snapshot of equipment and devices at year‑end, including a basic description and estimated cost, and to have supervisors sign the lists. He noted a state capitalization threshold historically at $5 (the auditor said it may move to $10) and said the county should adopt a practical threshold and retain a simple system so assets purchased with grants or public funds can be accounted for and insured if lost.
Hill also said the auditors would absorb the extra hours incurred while training a new employee and would adjust billing accordingly.
Why it matters: the findings affect financial reporting and public transparency about fund balances and restricted funds; follow‑up steps could include accounting transfers, changes to internal procedures and enhanced inventory controls. The commission did not record a formal vote to accept the audit at the meeting; staff and department heads were advised to implement the recommendations.

