Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Auditors: No fraud found in Buckfield; recommend general‑ledger cleanup, say town has reserves for capital or tax relief

5416404 · June 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a June 13 Town of Buckfield workshop, auditors reported no evidence of fraud in recent audits but flagged accounting and general‑ledger problems, recommended cleanup work, and said the town’s current fund balances give some flexibility for capital spending or tax relief.

At a Town of Buckfield workshop on June 13 at 5:36 p.m., auditors reported that reviews of recent records uncovered no evidence of fraud but did find significant accounting and general‑ledger problems that need correction to produce reliable year‑end financial statements.

The auditor, Fernando, told town officials the firm did not “see areas of fraud or key fabrication” but found “bad math, bad accounting” and software‑use issues that complicated prior audits. He said the firm plans to submit a management letter and finish the 2024 audit product in the coming weeks.

Why it matters: Fernando said that with the bookkeeping cleaned up, the town will have a clearer baseline for budgets and reserves and be positioned to consider one‑time uses of funds such as capital projects or limited tax relief. He warned that some cleanup is still required before the town can reliably report fiscal year results.

Fernando presented financial snapshots he said came from the audit work: a fund balance of about $1.9 million in February 2023, declining to about $1.7 million in 2024 after moving money into capital‑project and trust accounts. He said the town has “more than $300,000” in capital project funds and “a little more of $500,000” in trust funds, and described the town’s operating budget as “about $500‑ish” (including education costs). He recommended a target of roughly 90 to 120 days of operating reserves and said the town likely has “probably easily 2 or $300,000 to be able to move in the capital” and “probably got 3 to $400,000” available for one‑time uses depending on year‑end closings.

On audit quality and next steps, Fernando said the town and the state auditor had discussed preparing a management letter rather than redoing prior audits “forensically.” He said that after resolving general‑ledger structure and posting issues, the town would have a reproducible baseline for future audits: “You’ve got the blueprint now,” he said.

Town participants and staff discussed how to implement the ledger cleanup. Fernando and others suggested working with Cameron (town staff) and Karen (named by participants) to scope the cost and timeline for correcting account structures and posting practices. The workshop included technical discussion of reconciling tax accounts and liabilities that had been posted unevenly in prior years; the auditor said those areas are identified and fixable but require staff time or outside assistance.

No formal votes or policy actions were taken at the workshop. Participants said an upcoming meeting was rescheduled to a Wednesday and that an RFP deadline for a separate procurement was extended to that meeting so bidders could attend.

The audience was told the auditor will upload the meeting recording and remain available via email for follow‑up questions. The auditor and town staff said they expect to return later in the year with a plan for implementing ledger corrections and to present final audit materials for 2024 once the management letter and audit file are complete.