Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Auditors tell Bennett County commissioners to tighten procurement, record-keeping and budget controls
Summary
State auditors presented a management letter to the Bennett County Board of Commissioners citing invoice gaps, bid-law noncompliance, budget overspends and an excessive unassigned fund balance; the auditors recommended procedural changes and offered follow-up help.
Bennett County commissioners heard a report from the county's auditors at their Jan. 8, 2025 meeting that flagged multiple weaknesses in procurement, documentation and budgeting for 2021–22 and recommended changes to internal controls.
The audit representative told commissioners the review found invoices for gravel, hauling and snow removal that lacked required details — such as load tickets, tonnage, roads served and dates — making it “difficult for the county to determine that the services were actually performed,” the auditor reported.
Why it matters: The auditors said the gaps undercut the county’s ability to verify contract compliance and to maintain the highway department’s cost-accounting system required by state law. The management letter also identified instances where the county awarded work or paid projects to vendors that were not the apparent low bidder and said the county did not always document the analysis needed to choose the lowest compliant bid for a given project.
The audit included budgetary findings. The auditors reported that the highway, debt service and rural access infrastructure accounts were overspent in 2022 by amounts the report lists as $80,006.47, about $30,052 and $19,007.60 respectively, and said supplemental budgets must be handled with the hearing and publication procedure required by state statute. The auditors also calculated the county’s unassigned general fund balance exceeded the statutory guidance by roughly $299,007.79 and advised assigning or otherwise managing that balance so it does not exceed limits.
The management letter raised additional compliance items, including: failure to reconcile certain tax-account records as required; missing or late publication of an annual report; and problems with how some court-appointed attorney fees were reported for state reimbursement. The auditors recommended that the county require invoices to include quantities or load tickets, road identifiers, and documentation showing that awarded bid prices were paid; implement independent review of system changes; and improve minute detail for bids and resolutions.
Audit next steps: The auditors offered to accept written responses to the management letter and said they plan follow-up audit work for 2023–24 during the coming summer. The county returned several questions to the auditors during the meeting and was told staff from the audit office would assist as needed.
Quotes at the meeting were attributed to the audit representative and county staff; commissioners did not vote on the audit report itself during the meeting.
