Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clay County audit finds no reportable findings; auditors note permit and pass-through accounting items
Summary
James Moore & Company presented an unmodified FY2025 audit for Clay County, reporting no audit or internal-control findings but flagging two management items: building-permit carryforwards and pass-through fund budget procedures. Auditors said key reserves remained above GFOA minimums.
Brennan McKittrick, partner with James Moore & Company, told the Board of County Commissioners on May 12 that the county's fiscal-year 2025 financial statements received an unmodified opinion and that auditors found no reportable internal control deficiencies.
McKittrick highlighted two items in the management letter. First, the county should continue spending down a carryforward balance tied to building permits that the state's statutory timing changes left on the books. "There's progress in spending that carry forward balance down," he said, and staff's written response with next steps appears in the back of the audit report. Second, auditors noted a pass-through fund in which transfers exceeded the budgeted amount and recommended the county review budgetary procedures so transfers are reflected in timely budget amendments.
Why it matters: The audit gives residents assurance that the county's financial statements are reliable and that no material weaknesses were identified. McKittrick also pointed to the county's healthy fund balance metrics: "For 2025, the county was at about 25%," he said, above the Government Finance Officers Association's recommended floor of 16.7% (two months of expenditures).
Details and figures: McKittrick summarized several balance-sheet items and notes included in the audit: approximately $1,700,000 in capital asset additions for fiscal year 2025; governmental funds combined fund balance around $223,000,000 with an overall decrease of about $57,000,000 year-over-year; and a recorded net pension liability of about $159,000,000 under governmental accounting standards, which the auditor emphasized has no direct budgetary impact but does affect government-wide financial reporting.
Commissioner questions focused on internal-control classifications and fund designations. When asked to explain how auditors distinguish a "material weakness" from a lesser deficiency, McKittrick said the determination involves auditor judgment about whether an issue could materially affect financial statements. A commissioner also asked whether the solid-waste fund is restricted; McKittrick replied that the fund has a specific purpose but the "unrestricted portion" discussed in the presentation referred to carryforward balances and whether outside parties impose restrictions.
What happens next: County management provided a written response to the two audit items and told the board staff is working to implement the suggested adjustments. No formal corrective-action vote was required because no control findings were reported; management responses are included in the audit package.
