Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Currituck County receives clean audit; reserves and property tax collections rose in FY24
Summary
Carr, Riggs & Ingram issued a clean (unmodified) audit opinion for Currituck County's fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, and reported an increase in net position and a General Fund unassigned balance equal to about 60% of expenditures.
Auditors from Carr, Riggs & Ingram presented an unmodified opinion on Currituck County's FY2023–24 financial statements to the Board of Commissioners on March 3, and highlighted several financial‑statement and fund‑balance trends.
Madonna Stafford, the engagement lead from Carr, Riggs & Ingram, told the board the county's overall net position rose by about $37.7 million for the year, to roughly $313.9 million, driven principally by an increase in property tax receipts and higher investment earnings. Stafford said, "We did conduct our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards ... and I'm pleased to say that we issued an unmodified opinion on the financial statements for 06/30/2024." The audit also produced an unmodified compliance opinion for the county's major federal and state grant programs.
Why it matters: The county's unassigned General Fund balance rose to $41.7 million, about 60% of general fund expenditures, up from 51% the prior year. The Local Government Commission recommends a minimum of 20%; the statewide average is 39%. Stafford told trustees that, at current reserves, the county could operate for roughly seven months without new revenue.
Other findings and follow‑ups: Stafford reported that total governmental expenses decreased by about $4.2 million (education function was the largest driver) and business‑type activities (landfill) incurred higher costs. The auditors also highlighted two performance indicators that require responses to the state Local Government Commission: (1) the water & sewer capital asset condition ratio (county was at 43%, below the 50% target) and (2) the audit was submitted late (submitted in January rather than by the statutory October 31 deadline). Stafford said finance staff will prepare corrective‑action responses for the LGC. Stafford reported no internal control deficiencies or questioned costs.
Board questions: A commissioner noted a factual error on page 16 (an elected official's name/spelling and register of deeds listing); the auditor acknowledged the error and said the report would be corrected.
Ending: Stafford thanked county staff for cooperation during the audit. The board accepted the audit presentation; no formal vote was recorded that night.
