Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sweetwater County accepts clean 2024 audit but hears two significant control findings
Summary
County auditors delivered clean opinions on financial statements and federal awards but reported two significant deficiencies — a $410,000 duplicate investment entry and gaps in vendor suspension/debarment checks; commissioners accepted the audit and authorized the chairman to sign.
Auditors presented the results of Sweetwater County’s 2024 financial and federal‑award audit and the Board of County Commissioners voted to accept the report.
Stephanie Pickering of McGee, Hearn & Pies told commissioners the independent audit produced unmodified opinions on the county’s financial statements and on compliance for its federal awards. "In our opinion... the accompanying financial statements present fairly in all material respects the financial position of the governmental activities," Pickering said. She also summarized two significant internal‑control deficiencies the auditors identified: a year‑end audit adjustment that removed a duplicate investment entry of about $410,000, and the absence of a documented process to verify suspension and debarment status for some federal vendors.
Pickering said the duplicate investment resulted from a certificate of deposit that had been sold and reinvested but not removed from the balance sheet, and county staff have proposed secondary reviews to reduce the risk of recurrence. On the federal‑award finding, Pickering said the county’s oversight lacked a systematic verification step that vendors were not suspended or debarred before receiving federal funds; auditors found no improper spending in the tested transactions but recommended controls be strengthened.
Commissioner Richards moved that the board accept the audit and authorize the chairman to sign; Commissioner Toman seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Chair West said staff will work on corrective actions identified in the audit committee letter and the county expects to implement additional review steps to improve segregation of duties and vendor vetting.
The audit packet includes the independent auditors’ report, the internal control opinions, and corrective‑action guidance for both findings; commissioners were provided the draft reports in advance and were asked to sign a representation letter before final issuance.
