McLennan County posts higher net position in FY2024 audit; auditor projects general fund near $60 million by Sept. 30

McLennan County Auditor Francis Bartlett presented the county’s FY2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and a mid‑year general fund update to the commissioners court on April 28, saying outside auditors issued an unmodified opinion on the financial statements and that the county’s net position rose in 2024.

Bartlett told the court the independent auditor’s report — included in the ACFR — states, “in their opinion, the financial statements present fairly in all material respects, the respective financial position of the county,” language Bartlett read from the auditor’s opinion letter. He said the Governmental Finance Officers Association (GFOA) award application had been submitted and the county was awaiting a decision; McLennan County had earned the GFOA certificate for the prior year.

Key numbers and context: Bartlett summarized that the county’s governmental fund balance totaled just over $195 million as of Sept. 30, 2024, while the general fund had an approximate year‑end fund balance of $102 million. On government‑wide statements that include long‑term assets and liabilities, the auditor said the county’s net position increased by roughly $19 million in 2024 and now stands in the $139–$140 million range. Bartlett also described pension and OPEB liabilities: he said the county’s net pension liability for TCDRS was about $30 million, down from approximately $38 million the prior year, and directed the court to detailed actuarial notes in the ACFR.

Mid‑year outlook and budget implications: Bartlett presented a condensed mid‑year forecast for the 2025 fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2025. Using six months of actuals and reasonable estimates for the remainder of the fiscal year, his office projected the general fund could end the year with roughly $60 million, about 39.2 percent of estimated expenditures — above the county’s 33 percent reserve target. He said projected revenues were slightly higher than budgeted, driven in part by continued sales tax growth, and estimated expenditures were trending below budget by several million dollars based on current activity and a vacancy factor applied across full‑time positions.

Debt, reserves and timing: commissioners and Bartlett discussed the county’s capital financing plans. Bartlett and the court noted uncertainty in state legislation that could affect sale of certificates of obligation and local bond elections; one commissioner said proposed changes that would require a 70 percent vote for some issuances and require November general election timing would be “very detrimental” if enacted. Bartlett suggested the court consider the window for issuing debt later in the fiscal year and noted ongoing coordination with financial advisers.

Audit opinion and governance: Bartlett emphasized that the ACFR complies with Governmental Accounting Standards Board requirements, that outside auditors Priscilla, Brown & Hill issued an unmodified opinion (findable on page 11 of the ACFR), and that the auditor’s office compiles the report with substantial supporting schedules and notes. He encouraged commissioners to request follow‑up briefings if they wanted deeper walks through the statistical or actuarial tables.

Court action and next steps: after discussion the court moved, seconded and voted to record Bartlett’s report for the minutes. Bartlett said his office will continue to update forecasts during budget workshops as the court prepares for the next fiscal year and as appraisal district final valuations and other variables become available.