Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Finance And Audit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Auditors give Kane County an unmodified opinion; report flags travel-council controls and quarterly budget-review lapses

5780940 · September 16, 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

Kimball Roberts auditors presented a 2024 financial audit with an unmodified (clean) opinion; they reported a significant deficiency in internal controls over the travel council’s revenue accounting and recommended stronger controls, and a state-compliance finding that governing boards did not document quarterly budget-vs.-actual reviews.

Auditors from the firm Kimball Roberts presented Kane County’s 2024 financial audit to the commission Sept. 16 and said they issued an unmodified (clean) opinion on the county’s financial statements but also identified two notable findings.

Gabe Miller of Kimball Roberts read the independent auditor’s opinion for the record, saying the county financial statements “present fairly in all material respects” under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Miller noted that some component units’ financial statements were audited by other auditors and were incorporated into the county’s report when available.

Rick Roberts, Kimball Roberts, described the audit’s internal-control and compliance work and identified one significant deficiency related to the travel council. The auditors found that “not all funds allocated to or generated by the travel council were properly recorded in the financial records,” citing missing or insufficient supporting documentation and inconsistent cash-handling procedures. The report cited Utah Code 17-15-303 and Utah Administrative Code R123-5 on documentation and transparency as the applicable criteria and recommended standardized procedures for documentation, deposit reconciliation and management oversight. County staff concurred with the recommendation, the auditors said.

On state compliance, the auditors reported a separate finding: governing boards did not consistently review budget-to-actual financial reports at least quarterly and often lacked documentation in meeting minutes showing such reviews, in potential noncompliance with Utah’s uniform fiscal procedures (Utah Code). The auditors recommended boards establish formal quarterly review processes, document reviews in meeting minutes and provide board training on fiscal responsibilities. The county’s response committed to conducting quarterly reviews and documenting them in minutes.

The auditors also reported a single-audit review of federal awards applicable to the county and said they found no material weaknesses or questioned costs in the federal programs they tested (including a local assistance and tribal-consistency fund with expenditures above the single-audit threshold). The audit report was dated May 28, 2025.

Commissioners had no substantive questions and thanked staff and auditors for the work. The presentation served as an informational report; no formal commission action was recorded at the meeting.