Indian Trail audit: auditors issue clean opinion; town’s unrestricted net position rises about $12 million
Loading...
Summary
External auditors gave Indian Trail an unmodified (clean) opinion on the year ended June 30, 2025, and said total assets rose about $3 million while unrestricted net position increased roughly $12 million; auditors flagged ARPA reporting and noted grant-compliance requirements going forward.
The town’s external auditors presented a clean audit and highlighted several positive financial trends at the Indian Trail Town Council meeting. Danelle Bennett of the audit firm told the council the firm issued “an unmodified opinion which means it is a clean opinion.”
Bennett summarized key figures from the fiscal-year statements for the year ended June 30, 2025: total assets increased by roughly $3,000,000; net position rose about $9,000,000; and the town’s unrestricted net position increased by about $12,000,000 from the prior year. She said some funds showed negative changes in fund balance because the town was spending previously recorded revenues on their intended capital projects (for example, bond capital projects and ARPA-funded projects).
On federal relief reporting, Bennett said the town received $12,000,000 in ARPA funds in two tranches and that costs had to be incurred by specific deadlines; she noted the audit includes an accounting reclassification related to ARPA interest and principal that was reflected as an “error correction” in the statements. “You have had an audit in accordance with GAS, yellow book and uniform guidance,” she said, describing the applicable audit standards.
Bennett also reviewed written compliance letters required by the Local Government Commission and told the council she noted no deficiencies in the internal controls tested for the town’s major federal and state grant programs, including the highway-planning grant (CRTPO) and ARPA; she said the town’s general fund available percentage was 109.49% (well above the 25% threshold cited). She recommended continued attention to grant-administration costs and to the OMB/NC compliance supplements that inform future single-audit requirements.
Council members asked follow-up questions about the portion of fund balance that is restricted versus unassigned and about emerging compliance risks; Bennett directed them to specific exhibits in the financial statements and noted restricted amounts for transportation and economic development. The council acknowledged the presentation and had no requested actions at the meeting.
What’s next: the audit will be filed with the Local Government Commission as required; council and staff will use the audit presentation as a reference for the upcoming budget and for monitoring ARPA spending deadlines.
