Auditor issues unmodified opinion on Walker County FY2025, flags two internal‑control deficiencies

Walker County commissioners received a clean year-end audit for fiscal 2025 but were warned of control weaknesses and one‑time cost drivers that pushed expenses higher.

Julie George of Rushton & Company told the board the firm issued an "unmodified opinion," commonly called a clean opinion, on the county’s financial statements for the year ended Sept. 30, 2025. "It is what we call in our profession an unmodified opinion. That's also a clean opinion," she said, adding that the statements "present fairly in all material respects the financial position of Walker County."

The audit shows the county ended fiscal 2025 with a net position of $164,000,000, with $120,000,000 recorded as net investment in capital assets and about $14,000,000 restricted for purpose. George said several events explain the year’s movement: larger public‑works spending (TSPLOST), the county’s ARPA passthroughs, a change in accounting treatment for routine resurfacing, increased personal‑services expense tied to PTO payouts and a pension plan that reopened and added roughly $4.9–5.0 million in net pension liability. "When the pension plan opened back up, that was about a $5,000,000 increase in the liability," she said.

George also described required communications under auditing standards: Rushton noted two significant deficiencies in internal control — a lack of optimal segregation of duties in some offices and an elected official’s office where deposits were not made timely — but reported no material weaknesses and no compliance problems with major federal programs tested in the single audit. "There were no material weaknesses noted by our audit team," she said, while recommending periodic improvements and weekly deposit practices for high‑activity offices.

Christian, the county CFO, summarized the mid‑year outlook for the board and confirmed the audit’s broad conclusions. Commissioners asked about the timing of certain payments tied to reopening benefits and the actuarial valuation that produced the pension liability. George pointed to the audit schedules (net pension liability schedules and pension contribution schedules) for details and offered to provide follow‑up information.

Next steps: Rushton provided two written letters included with the report — one required communication under professional standards and a second with findings and recommendations. The board accepted the presentation and said staff would review and follow up on the control recommendations.

The audit presentation lasted roughly 40 minutes, and commissioners had the report available in the bound FY2025 financial report for detailed line items, including SPLOST and TSPLOST schedules, proprietary fund activity, and the schedule of expenditures of federal awards.