Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Budget Audit Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lancaster County audit delivered clean opinions; one internal control material weakness noted

2260631 · February 11, 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

External auditors issued an unmodified opinion on Lancaster County's fiscal‑year 2023–24 financial statements and an unmodified single‑audit report on federal expenditures, while identifying one internal‑control deficiency described as a material weakness.

Grant Davis, CPA, the audit partner from Malden and Jenkins and Subsidiaries LLC, told Lancaster County Council that the firm issued an unmodified ("clean") opinion on the county’s annual comprehensive financial report (ACFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024.

Davis said the county’s government‑wide totals were about $464 million in assets and $224 million in liabilities, producing a net position of roughly $240 million. He reported $145 million in total revenues and $103 million in expenses, a $42 million increase in net position from 2023 to 2024.

On the general fund, Davis said the county reported about $153 million in assets and $77 million in liabilities, leaving a fund balance of about $76 million. He highlighted that the county’s fund balance equates to roughly 12.5 months of operating expenditures and nearly 8.5 months of unassigned fund balance — figures he described as “an extremely healthy place to be.”

Davis also presented the results of the single audit triggered by federal spending above $750,000. He told council the county spent about $9.8 million in federal funds in fiscal 2024, led by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and an Airport Improvement Grant; those programs received a clean compliance report.

The auditors identified one internal‑control deficiency described as a material weakness, reported in the audit document at page 148; Davis said the county’s response is included at page 150. He said there were no disagreements with management and no significant difficulties in conducting the audit.

Council members asked follow‑up questions about the material‑weakness response and the sources of fund balance; Davis and county staff referred the council to the written management responses and to the auditor’s discussion and analysis section of the ACFR for further detail.