Park City's auditors reported spending above budget in FY2023, FY2024 and FY2025

Park City's independent auditors reported that the city spent or transferred more than its final budget allowed in each of fiscal years 2023, 2024 and 2025, according to the state compliance reports bound into the city's annual financial reports. ^[1][2][3]

Our Oct. 15 story on the city's audit opinions noted that the reports available then did not include the auditors' separate compliance reports. This story covers those reports. ^[1]

The three findings

FY2023, finding UT2023-1: "actual expenditures exceeded final appropriated expenditures by $25,692" in the Lower Park Avenue Redevelopment Special Revenue Fund. The finding is marked "Repeat Finding from Prior Year(s): No." The fund's budget schedule shows $708,315 in economic development spending against a final budget of $682,623. ^[3]

FY2024, finding UT2024-1: in the general fund's Library and Recreation department, "actual expenditures exceeded final appropriated expenditures by $177,615." It is marked as a repeat finding. The general fund schedule shows $7,536,657 spent against a final budget of $7,359,042 for that department, while the general fund as a whole spent $3,434,048 less than its final budget. ^[2]

FY2025, finding UT2025-1, also marked as a repeat: Lower Park Avenue redevelopment special revenue spending exceeded final appropriations by $78,214, and "the Sales Tax Revenue and Refunding Bonds Debt Service Fund had transfers out in excess of budget by $1,391,041." ^[1]

What the FY2025 amounts were

The FY2025 budget schedule for the Lower Park Avenue fund shows $866,037 in economic development spending against an original and final budget of $787,823. ^[1]

The same report's notes say the Lower Park Avenue redevelopment agency paid $863,759 in tax increment to another taxing agency and spent $2,278 on economic development during the year. ^[1]

The budget schedule for the sales tax revenue bond debt service fund lists transfers out of $0 in both the original and final budget and $1,391,041 actual. The interfund transfer note says the fund "transferred $1,391,041 to capital project funds for open space, affordable housing and park improvements." ^[1]

Cause, response and opinion

Each of the three findings cites Utah Code 10-6-123, which the auditors say "stipulates that City officers and employees may not make or incur expenditures in excess of total appropriations for any department or fund." Each says the expenses "were higher than anticipated" and the budget was not amended before year-end. ^[1][2][3]

Management's response is the same in all three years: "Management will monitor the status of expenditures throughout the year and will amend the budget as necessary to ensure compliance with State Code." ^[1][2][3]

In each year the auditors also stated the opinion that the city "complied, in all material respects," with the state compliance requirements tested, and said the opinion was not modified by the finding. In FY2025 the auditors reported no deficiencies in internal control over compliance that they considered material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. The reports are dated Dec. 19, 2023, Dec. 11, 2024 and Dec. 17, 2025. ^[3][2][1]

Earlier years

The FY2019 report, by a different audit firm, listed finding 2019-001 after interfund transfer expenses "set higher than what was budgeted" caused the sales tax revenue bond and debt service funds to exceed the final adopted budget. Management said an older version of a spreadsheet had been used for the transfer budgets and said it was adding a senior analyst and updating software. The same report listed finding 2019-002, on posting approved minutes within three days; management said the minutes were posted on time and later replaced with versions that added late attachments. ^[4]

The state compliance reports for FY2020, FY2021 and FY2022 list no budgetary-compliance finding. The FY2020 report separately listed a financial-statement finding, 2020-001, after a $2,000,000 deposit on a land purchase that had not closed was recorded as capital outlay; the city's corrective action plan says new procedures were completed. ^[5][6][7]

In the FY2022 report, the state compliance opinion paragraph reads "In our opinion, the City of Sandy complied, in all material respects," although the report is addressed to Park City Municipal Corporation. ^[7]