Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waite Park auditors deliver clean opinion; council approves transfers to cover 2026 bond payments
Summary
City auditors reported an unmodified opinion on the 2024 financial statements, citing increased cash balances and a roughly nine-month general fund reserve; council approved fund transfers to set aside bond payments for 2026 after staff explained timing and purpose.
Justin McGrath, an auditor with CDS, told the Waite Park City Council that the firm issued an unmodified (clean) opinion on the city’s 2024 financial statements and that those statements “are presented fairly in our opinion.”
The audit presentation, received at the council’s regular meeting, showed a year-over-year increase in the city’s net position driven largely by higher cash balances in utility funds and reimbursements recorded in 2024. McGrath told the council the general fund is holding about nine months of expenditures in reserve, above typical state guidance. On pension obligations, McGrath said the Public Employees Retirement Association (PAR) had stronger investment returns in 2024 and higher required contributions, leaving the plan about 90% funded at year-end and reducing the city’s pension liability.
Councilors asked questions during the presentation. Council member Nick asked what drove the decrease in the pension liability; McGrath replied it was largely actuarial assumptions, better PAR investment returns and increased required contributions. McGrath also explained that a large 2023 land purchase for an amphitheater was reimbursed in 2024, which helped recoup general fund cash that had previously been drawn down.
After the audit presentation, the council approved a funds transfer staff said was needed to set aside bond payments for 2026 and to allow the city to proceed with levy-setting. One councilmember asked for transfers and similar materials to be provided to councilors ahead of meetings so they could review details in advance; staff said they would work on providing more background with future transfers. The motion to approve the transfer was moved, seconded and carried by voice vote.
The auditors also reported no findings of noncompliance with state statutes in areas they reviewed (contracts and bidding, conflicts of interest, deposit of public funds) and said there were no disagreements with city staff; the firm issued a management letter reflecting those results. McGrath left contact information for follow-up questions.
The council took the transfer vote at the same meeting; no individual vote tallies by name were recorded in the transcript.
