Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Auditor issues clean opinion for FY 2024–25; single-audit finds FEMA spending compliant
Summary
Gould & Killian delivered a clean (unmodified) opinion on Highlands' FY 2024–25 financial statements, reported no material internal-control weaknesses, and found the town compliant on about $1 million in FEMA (Helene) expenditures; the Local Government Commission disclosure required for one budgetary crossover was noted.
Gould & Killian CPA Group presented Highlands' fiscal year 2024–25 audit to the Town Board on Feb. 19, issuing a clean (unmodified) opinion on the town's financial statements and finding no material weaknesses in internal control, the auditor said.
"On January 23, 2026, we issued an unmodified — or clean — opinion on the town's 06/30/2025 financial statements," the auditor reported. He also delivered the required governmental auditing standard review (the "yellow book" internal-control assessment) with no reportable deficiencies.
The firm also completed a single-audit scope for about $1,000,000 of FEMA-reimbursable hurricane Helene expenditures and found the town in compliance with the key terms of the grant. "We did not note any deficiencies in internal control over compliance," the auditor said.
The presentation included one required disclosure to the Local Government Commission: the final payout on the Hummingbird Court waterline project crossed fiscal years and produced one instance of an expenditure in excess of budgetary appropriation. That item is not characterized as a systemic finding, the auditor said, but the town must file a response with the LGC.
Board members pressed the auditor on long-term debt and utility finances. The auditor said the water and sewer fund has carried operating losses (about $993,000 reported) for two consecutive years and currently shows a negative unrestricted net position; he said the town has room to finance future improvements in that fund but recommended a combination of rate adjustments and continued pursuit of grants. The electric fund, by contrast, reported strong working capital and operating income.
The auditor fielded questions about cash flow, fund-balance trends, and the town's rainy-day metric. The presentation was accepted by the board with thanks to town staff for cooperating in the audit process.
The next procedural step will be the town's response to the LGC on the single reported budgetary crossover. No formal vote on the audit opinion was required at the meeting.
