Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fremont council receives FY2025 audit; auditors issue unmodified opinion, highlight new GASB guidance
Summary
Forbes Mazars presented the City of Fremont’s FY2025 audited financial statements, issuing a clean (unmodified) opinion while calling attention to implementation of new GASB guidance on compensated absences; council voted 8–0 to receive the report.
The Fremont City Council received the city’s audited financial statements for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2025, after a presentation from audit director Colby of Forbes Mazars and comments from Finance Director Jennifer Knapp.
Colby told the council the firm issued a clean, unmodified opinion on the financial statements but included an emphasis-of-matter paragraph calling attention to the city’s implementation of new GASB guidance related to compensated absences. He said the audit provides reasonable — not absolute — assurance that the statements are free from material misstatement.
Colby also reported a clean compliance result under the Uniform Grant Guidance for the city’s major federal award program, noting the city expended about $3,100,000 related to the Corona state and local fiscal recovery funds and that roughly 78% of the city’s federal expenditures were subject to the single-audit review. He said there were no reportable internal control deficiencies or material weaknesses that required formal communication to the council.
Council members asked about a reported classification ‘‘misstatement’’ of $938,876 that appeared on the business-type activities statement. Colby explained the amount reflected a presentation/classification difference between the city and utilities related to the internal service fund allocation, not missing funds. Finance Director Jennifer Knapp said management had elected to report certain internal service fund balances within the general operations for administrative efficiency and did not believe the presentation choice materially misstated the financial statements.
Knapp summarized implications for the city’s fiscal outlook: FY25 reflected less development activity than FY24 and FY26, the city intends to use some reserves committed to capital purposes in FY26, and costs are rising faster than revenues in some areas. She reaffirmed plans for additional utility rate studies and noted the city and utilities maintain credit ratings (AA for the city, AA‑ for utilities).
After closing public comment, Councilman Horner moved to receive the audited financial statements; the motion carried 8–0. The council did not direct further action other than standard follow-up by staff.
