Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Dimas audit shows surplus, auditors give clean opinion
Summary
City staff reported a stronger fiscal year driven by higher interest income and use of ARPA funds; auditors issued an unmodified opinion and council received and filed the annual comprehensive financial report.
San Dimas' administrative services director presented the city's annual comprehensive financial report and auditors' findings, telling the City Council that the city closed the fiscal year with an increased net position and no significant audit findings.
"Our net position increased to 13,939,111," said Michael O'Brien, Administrative Services Director, reporting what he characterized as a 3.4 million improvement over the prior year and an unmodified (clean) audit opinion. O'Brien said the city's unassigned general fund balance rose to approximately 44,990,718, an increase of about 2.9 million, with a true unassigned increase of roughly 1,816,186 after carryover adjustments.
O'Brien credited several factors for the gains: the one-time use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds that otherwise would have been general‑fund expenditures; a $3 million transfer to an infrastructure fund earmarked for the loop project; and unusually high interest returns on the city's investments as rates rose. "We averaged over 4% this year," O'Brien said, noting that the city held more than $80 million in cash and investments.
Council members asked whether auditors had identified significant findings and whether ARPA funds had been fully expended. O'Brien said auditors reported no significant findings and that ARPA obligations were either contracted or spent before the deadline. "The Auditors gave an unmodified opinion," he said. "We met the goal to utilize the funds and we're not at risk of losing those funds at this point."
Council member Weber and others praised staff for improvements in internal controls and new financial systems. A council motion to receive and file the audit carried on a voice vote.
The city did not identify any material weaknesses in controls during the presentation. Council members said they would consider an auditor presentation or an audit‑committee briefing next year to review the audited financial statements in more depth.
The council took no additional action beyond receiving and filing the report; staff said it will report back if mid‑year forecasts change.
Next steps: Council endorsed follow‑up briefings between auditors and the audit committee or full council as appropriate.
