Report No. 2026-11: A Performance Audit of Capital and Controlled Asset Management at the Government Center

AUDITOR’S LETTER

November 3, 2026

We have completed a limited-scope performance audit of capital and controlled asset management at the Salt Lake County (“the County”) Government Center. The audit covered the period from January 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025, and looked at Mayor’s Financial Administration (MFA) processes for identifying and reporting capital assets, along with asset management practices at four agencies with assets located at the Government Center: Behavioral Health Services, the Clerk’s Office, the Health Department, and Information Technology.

With the County preparing to relocate government operations to a new campus in Midvale, we undertook this audit to help identify common risks and opportunities to strengthen controls before the move. The audit did not include all assets or all agencies, and we encourage agencies to use the observations in this report to assess their own inventories and records.

One thing is clear from this audit. With an open work environment planned for the new campus, County policy makers should look at investing in a Countywide solution for asset management. The results in this report identified weaknesses in asset tracking, inventory accuracy and recordkeeping across the agencies reviewed. The planned open work environment highlights the importance of accurate and consistent tracking and appropriate physical safeguards. A common system could help the County improve the consistency and reliability of its assets.

This report contains five findings and 14 recommendations. Three of the findings are rated high risk under the classification framework used in this report: countywide oversight of asset management, asset inventories and record accuracy, and asset recording and reconciliation. Two findings are rated medium risk: safeguards over assets and asset systems, and documentation and record retention.

We did not identify evidence of fraud. The opportunities for improvement identified in this report include clearer Countywide guidance, additional centralized oversight, and standardization of procedures across agencies. Addressing these areas would help reduce the risk of asset loss, unauthorized activity, and inaccurate records, and would strengthen the County’s ability to demonstrate accountability for assets purchased with public funds.

What We Found

Countywide oversight of asset management can be strengthened. MFA serves as the County’s centralized oversight and accounting authority for capital assets and has established policies, forms, and guidance to support agencies. The audit identified opportunities to strengthen monitoring, documentation and oversight practices.

MFA did not have a signed 2024 capital asset inventory acknowledgement form on file for any of the four agencies reviewed, although Information Technology retained its own copy. For newly acquired capital assets MFA management did not track when PM-4s were distributed or whether agencies returned them. As a result, MFA could not demonstrate that capital assets were tagged and recorded in a timely and accurate manner. Without tagging and recording accurate information, assets are at greater risk of loss or theft. Countywide Policies and the MFA Accounting Procedures Manual also contain guidance that agencies may interpret differently, including when the PM-2 disposal form is required and when annual inventories are due.

Asset inventories and records can be made more complete and accurate. Behavioral Health Services, the Clerk’s Office, and the Health Department did not complete documented, comprehensive 2024 inventories of capital and controlled assets. After the audit period, in response to MFA’s request, these three agencies took action to complete a 2025 capital asset inventory. During onsite verification, the Health Department could not locate 3 of 12 (25%) sampled capital assets and 17 of 22 (77%) sampled controlled assets. The Clerk’s Office could not locate 5 of 9 (56%) sampled capital assets, while 10 of 11 (91%) capital assets sampled at Information Technology were found at locations different from those recorded.

Recording purchased assets offers another opportunity for improvement. We selected a sample of expenditure transactions and tested whether the assets were recorded in official asset records. All sampled purchases at Behavioral Health Services and the Clerk’s Office were matched to asset records. At the Health Department, 116 of 131 (89%) sampled controlled asset purchases could not be matched to the controlled asset inventory list, and at Information Technology 18 of 39 (46%) could not be matched to the controlled asset inventory list. Separately, the Health Department maintained its own list of 102 iPads, 60 of which (59%) were not recorded in its controlled asset records, and a list of 36 cell phones (assigned to employees who work at the Government Center) that were not included in those records, although County policy classifies cell phones as controlled assets regardless of cost.

Safeguards over assets and asset systems can be strengthened. Across the agencies reviewed, we identified weaknesses involving system access, segregation of asset management responsibilities, and monitoring of changes to asset records. We also noted opportunities to improve physical safeguards over assets at the Health Department and Information Technology.

Documentation supporting asset transactions can be more consistently created and retained. At all four agencies reviewed, we identified instances in which documentation supporting asset acquisition, assignment, transfer, or disposal was not created, was incomplete, or was not retained. We also identified gaps in documentation supporting asset accountability at employee termination. At Behavioral Health Services, documentation demonstrating that assigned assets had been returned was unavailable for one of three (33%) terminations tested. Similarly, at the Clerk’s Office, documentation was unavailable for one of two (50%) terminations tested. At the Health Department, required signed asset inventory forms were not provided for any of the 21 sampled terminated employees who had assigned assets. At Information Technology, management did not provide documentation supporting asset accountability for three of four (75%) applicable terminations tested.

Strengthening inventory completeness, record accuracy, safeguards, and documentation practices before, during, and after the relocation will help ensure that County assets can be located and accounted for and will support an efficient post-move reconciliation.

We appreciate the constructive and open responses we received. MFA, Behavioral Health Services, the Clerk’s Office, Health Department and Information Technology agreed with all of the recommendations directed to them and outlined corrective actions.

In their responses, agencies described corrective actions that were planned, underway, or reported as implemented. MFA plans to update standardized procedures and documentation requirements for new capital assets and establish centralized submission, tracking, and storage of capital asset forms. Additionally, MFA plans to coordinate with Contracts and Procurement to clarify Countywide asset management and disposal requirements, which will be communicated at the 2026 Mayor’s Administration and Finance Year-End Training.

The Health Department is upgrading its inventory management software and plans to issue updated procedures covering inventories, record accuracy, segregation of duties, monitoring, physical safeguards, and documentation by December 30, 2026. The Clerk’s Office reported that several recommendations are already implemented and expects full implementation by December 31, 2026. Behavioral Health Services reported that independent annual inventories and monitoring are in place and outlined planned updates to its inventory policy and staff training. Information Technology reported that additional controls were already in place to mitigate two of the identified risks and that further improvements were planned for the remaining four recommendations.

The Auditor’s Office will conduct a follow-up review no earlier than six months after issuance of this report to assess the status and effectiveness of corrective actions.

This audit was authorized under Utah Code Title 17, Chapter 69, “County Auditor”, Part 3, “Powers and Duties.” We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions.

Thank you to Behavioral Health Services, the Clerk’s Office, the Health Department, Information Technology, and MFA management and staff for their cooperation, openness, and assistance with this audit. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (385) 468-7200.

Chris Harding, CPA, CFE, CIA
Salt Lake County Auditor