Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Audit: Eatonville CRA’s FY2025 statements receive unqualified opinion but auditors flag two material weaknesses
Summary
An outside audit of the Eatonville Community Redevelopment Agency found an unqualified opinion on FY2025 statements but identified two material weaknesses — unreconciled bank activity/double entry and capital‑asset misclassifications — prompting board requests for documentation and further review.
Heather Mosier, the audit partner who presented the draft FY2025 compliance audit, told the Community Redevelopment Agency that the independent auditor’s opinion on the financial statements was unqualified, meaning the statements were not materially misstated. Mosier said the audit identified two material weaknesses: weaknesses in management’s review of bank reconciliations and a set of capital‑asset accounting errors related to construction‑in‑progress and capital outlay coding.
Mosier said the bank‑reconciliation problem included a duplicated check that produced a large unreconciled balance and that auditors made an adjustment of about $336,000 to remove a double‑recorded cash/building item. She also described roughly $689,000 in capital additions that had been misclassified; auditors reclassified about $400,000 of those amounts to capital outlay to be depreciated going forward. Mosier noted smaller adjustments — about $5,000 for accrued wages and roughly $13,000 for accrued payables — and said those adjustments were identified in the audit adjustments presented to the board.
Board members pressed for detail about a long‑running Due To/Due From balance between the CRA and the town. Several directors pointed out that earlier reductions in a prior Due To balance were described in the audit and that checks totaling about $239,000 cleared in March, raising questions whether the same expenses had already been deducted from that Due To amount. One director summarized the concern as potential "double‑dipping," and asked staff to provide complete backup (invoices, payroll reports and reconciliations) before the board makes any determination.
Mosier also described a statutory compliance requirement: under a Florida statute introduced in recent years, CRAs with revenues or expenditures above $100,000 must have a compliance audit; the audit report flagged that the CRA had not always submitted adopted or amended budgets to the county within the 10‑day window required by that statute.
The board directed staff — including the fiscal coordinator, the town finance director, the CAO and the CRA executive director — to meet, gather requested documentation and return with reconciliations and a proposed resolution for cleaning up prior Due To/Due From balances. Several members recommended that, if questions remain after staff review, the board consider an independent or forensic review to resolve ownership of disputed amounts.
The audit presentation and the board’s questions concluded with an agreement that staff will provide the requested documentation and a reconciliation at an upcoming meeting so directors can determine whether further independent review is needed.
