Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County auditor outlines audit, flags federal pass‑throughs and state reporting lags
Summary
The county’s independent auditor presented the 2023–24 financial statement highlights, flagged large federal pass‑through grants tied to the new solid waste facility, explained timing lag on pre‑paid property tax receipts from energy producers, and urged stronger documentation of transactions with elected officials and boards.
The county’s independent auditor presented Weston County’s 2023–24 financial statements and audit highlights during the March 18 meeting, focusing on three items the board and staff should note: a tax timing lag tied to prepayments from energy producers, large federal pass‑through grant activity related to the county solid‑waste facility, and internal‑control and disclosure considerations for transactions involving governing‑board members.
The auditor explained that when large energy producers prepay property taxes they often do so many months in advance and remittances flow through the Department of Revenue; for financial‑statement purposes the county must defer recognition of that revenue until the mill levy is fixed, creating a roughly 15‑month timing lag between cash receipt and revenue recognition. The auditor said a similar timing effect will roll into the 2025 and 2026 reporting cycles.
The audit also shows unusually large federal grant totals for 2024 (more than $6 million) because the county acted as a pass‑through to the Central Weston County Solid Waste district for a new facility and related grant draws; the auditor noted that pass‑through accounting inflates both receipts and disbursements in the county statements and requires additional compliance reporting.
On governance and controls, the auditor commended staff work addressing prior findings at the county fair office but recommended clearer documentation and routine disclosures where elected officials or board members transact with county programs. He suggested annual conflict‑of‑interest statements and formal abstentions where officials have financial or family ties to a vendor or recipient.
The auditor also reviewed ARPA and other federal awards reporting (Bankhead‑Jones, airport grants, etc.) and reminded commissioners of upcoming reporting deadlines and the need for evidence to support federal reimbursements. He recommended boards stay "on high alert" for related internal‑control documentation when federal funds flow through the county as pass‑through awards.
Why it matters: The presentation explained why the county’s financial statements can show large swings—timing differences and pass‑through grants—and why commissioners should expect intense documentation and compliance work when federal funds move through county accounts.
Ending: Commissioners asked staff to circulate the full audit package and to schedule a follow‑up review of investments and the county’s cash/reserve locations so the board can confirm where earmarked funds (for example road and bridge reserves) reside and how interest and distributions are allocated.
