Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the County Finance Audit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

External auditor gives Kane County "unmodified" opinion on 2024 financial statements; highlights pension funding improvements

5787382 · September 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Audit partner from Baker Tilly delivered an overview of Kane County's 2024 annual comprehensive financial report, reporting an unmodified opinion, no federal single-audit findings, and improved IMRF and sheriff pension funded ratios.

An audit partner from Baker Tilly told the Kane County Board on Sept. 9 that the county's 2024 financial statements earned an unmodified (clean) audit opinion and that the county's federal single-audit testing produced no findings. The auditor also highlighted improved pension funded ratios for plans covering county employees.

Michael (Baker Tilly), identified in the meeting as the lead audit partner, told the board the annual comprehensive financial report reflects the county's fiscal year ending Nov. 30, 2024, and that the firm issued an unmodified auditors' opinion, "the highest level of assurance" under auditing standards. He recommended readers view the Management Discussion and Analysis and the transmittal letter for context.

The auditor summarized additional deliverables: a separate audit of the circuit clerk's fiduciary operations, a single audit of federal awards (which tested roughly $13.8 million of about $30 million in federal spending), and related state reporting submissions. He said the single-audit work found no compliance findings related to federal ARPA awards and community development block grants. The partner pointed to improvements in pension funding: the county's regular IMRF plan rose from about 95% to nearly 99% funded and the law-enforcement plan rose from about 85% to 90% funded.

Board members asked technical and forward-looking questions. Board member David Young asked when audit "errors" become "substantial," prompting the auditor to explain the concept of materiality and thresholds used in auditing. Another board member asked whether the audit firm could produce prospective analysis for the county budget; the auditor said that prospectively oriented budget analysis is a service some audit firms provide and suggested the board consult its finance committee and county finance staff to scope such work.

Why it matters: An unmodified audit opinion and a clean single-audit report indicate the county's financial statements are presented fairly in accordance with accounting standards, and the pension funding gains reduce long-term employer contribution pressure. The board received the report; no formal appropriation or policy change was enacted during the presentation.

The auditor and county finance director also discussed timing and process: the audit relies on county staff cooperation and departmental data. The auditor thanked county finance staff and departments for timely cooperation and encouraged board members to contact the firm with questions about the audit reports available on the county finance webpage.