Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(36) An independent member of Nexia International <br /> <br />INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Honorable Mayor, Members of the <br />City Council, and Citizens <br />City of Gem Lake, Minnesota <br /> <br />We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of <br />America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards <br />issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental <br />activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information <br />of the City of Gem Lake, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014, and the related notes to the <br />financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements, and have issued <br />our report thereon dated April 29, 2015. <br /> <br />The Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Political Subdivisions promulgated by the State <br />Auditor pursuant to Minn. Stat. §6.65, contains seven categories of compliance to be tested: <br />contracting and bidding, deposits and investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness, claims and <br />disbursements, miscellaneous provisions, and tax increment financing. Our audit considered all of the <br />listed categories, except that we did not test for compliance with tax increment financing because the <br />City did not have any tax increment financing. <br /> <br />In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the City of <br />Gem Lake, failed to comply with the provisions of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for <br />Political Subdivisions, except as described in the Schedule of Findings and Recommendations as items <br />2014-002 and 2014-003. However, our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of <br />such noncompliance. Accordingly, had we performed additional procedures, other matters may have <br />come to our attention regarding the City of Gem Lake’s noncompliance with the above-referenced <br />provisions. <br /> <br />The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the results of <br />that testing, and not to provide an opinion on compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not <br />suitable for any other purpose. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />CliftonLarsonAllen LLP <br />Minneapolis, Minnesota <br />April 29, 2015 <br />