Centerville accepted results of its fiscal year 2025 financial statement audit on Jan. 8, when the town's independent engagement partner said the auditors issued an unmodified (clean) opinion and identified no instances of fraud or material weaknesses.

"We've issued a clean or unmodified opinion on the financial statements," said Chris Lehman, the engagement partner who led the audit engagement. Lehman told the council that auditors did not identify disagreements with management and received "full cooperation from management" during testing.

Lehman offered several high-level figures: governmental activities had a net position of about $17.6 million at June 30, 2025, up from roughly $15.3 million the prior year, and business-type activities (primarily water and sewer) reported a net position near $23.3 million. He said governmental-activities total revenue was approximately $8.6 million with expenses around $6.3 million, producing an entity-wide positive change in position of about $2.2 million.

Council members asked about a notable increase in deferred outflow resources on the governmental activities schedule. "The biggest part of that deferred outflow has to do with deferral of changes of the net pension liability related to the State of Maryland pension system," Lehman said, explaining the state provides actuarial numbers that are amortized over multiple years.

Lehman advised that some of the year‑to‑year variances reflected standard pension and other-postemployment-benefit (OPEB) accounting adjustments rather than cash spending differences, and offered to supply greater detail on general‑fund comparisons upon request.

He also flagged forthcoming changes in governmental accounting guidance, referencing implementation of new GASB reporting guidance (identified in the presentation as "GASB 103"), which Lehman said would mostly affect disclosures and management discussion and analysis rather than require a major systems overhaul for the town.

The auditors indicated they would follow up with the finance officer on one program‑expense variance the council wanted clarified. Lehman also provided his contact information and encouraged staff to reach out with follow-up questions outside audit season.

The council received the audit presentation and indicated staff would follow up on the detailed general‑fund comparisons requested.