Auditing Herriman: what the city's latest audit and budget records show

The Utah Ledger is reviewing Herriman's public financial records and reporting only what the documents state. Each story in this series links every figure to its source and names the fiscal years it covers. Herriman's fiscal year runs July 1 through June 30. ^[1][2]

The main records are the city's audited financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2025, its final budget for fiscal 2027 and 2028, and approved minutes of the City Council and of two taxing districts whose boards are made up of the same elected officials. ^[1][2][3]

The budget

Councilmember Matt Basham moved on June 18, 2026, to approve Ordinance 2026-14, which adopts a final budget for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2028, sets the tax rate and adopts a salary plan. Councilmember Jared Henderson seconded, and Councilmembers Terrah Anderson, Basham, Henderson and Teddy Hodges and Mayor Lorin Palmer voted aye. ^[3]

The General Fund is budgeted at $36,849,620 for fiscal 2027 and $38,494,080 for fiscal 2028, including transfers. ^[2]

The budget's consolidated schedule lists $105,697,176 in expenditures for fiscal 2027 and $114,719,536 for fiscal 2028. A note on that page says some money moving between city funds has not been removed from the totals. ^[2]

The audit

HBME's report, dated Dec. 26, 2025, says the financial statements "present fairly, in all material respects" the city's financial position at June 30, 2025. ^[1]

The city's net position, a government-wide measure of assets minus liabilities, was $772,996,585, of which $68,900,087 was unrestricted. Net position rose $66,056,626 during the year; management's discussion attributes much of the increase to donated capital assets and infrastructure. ^[1]

The city's governmental funds ended the year with $70,445,867 in combined fund balances. Management's discussion says most of the year's increase came from unspent bond proceeds for park and transportation projects. The General Fund's own balance was $5,302,731, of which $4,388,875 was unassigned. Fund balance and net position are separate measures and should not be added together. ^[1]

Debt

At June 30, 2025, the city reported $83,576,231 in long-term debt, excluding bond premiums. That included $73,447,000 in bonds secured by specific revenue sources and $4,204,188 in special assessment debt. The report says the city has no general obligation bonds outstanding. ^[1]

During fiscal 2025 the city issued $16,330,000 in sales and franchise tax revenue bonds, which the report says are for city construction projects. ^[1]

The city's Capital Projects Fund also owed its Water Fund $7,609,748 at June 30, 2025, on a 2020 loan used to buy land. That loan is an internal transfer between city funds, not bonded debt, and is reported separately. ^[1]

Redevelopment

The city's Community Development and Renewal Agency is reported as part of the city. For fiscal 2025, the report says the agency collected $7,085,172 in tax increment from other taxing agencies and distributed $4,638,880. ^[1]

The agency's 2016 tax increment revenue bonds had $5,942,000 outstanding at June 30, 2025. ^[1]

Compliance

In the compliance report for fiscal 2024, auditors found that actual General Fund debt service spending exceeded the final appropriation by $14,552, contrary to a state law barring spending above appropriations. Management responded that a landlord's final reconciliation for Animal Services lease space arrived after audit fieldwork had started. ^[4]

The city's audit page links only the financial statements for fiscal 2025, not that year's federal and state compliance reports. The Ledger has not reviewed the fiscal 2025 compliance reports, and this series does not report their results. ^[5]

What this series covers

The stories cover a replacement loan from the city's water rights fund tied to unsold Auto Mall land, planned water bonds and a refunding authorization, payments under redevelopment agreements, the August 2026 tax rates of the city's safety and fire districts, and figures in the adopted budget that differ from each other or from council minutes. ^[1][2][3]

The Ledger has sent no records requests or questions to the city for this series.