Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City of Graham auditors issue unmodified opinion; officials report strong reserves and growth
Summary
Independent auditors issued an unmodified opinion on Graham’s FY 2024-25 financial statements, reporting net position of $169,006,297 and General Fund reserves at 62% of expenditures; auditors noted adoption of GASB pronouncements added sick leave to compensated-absence accruals.
City auditors from Stout, Stuart, McGowen & King presented the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025 audit to the Graham City Council on April 14 and reported an unmodified (clean) opinion.
Auditor Patricia Rhodes told the Council that the City’s net position stood at $169,006,297, an increase of $30,369,000 from the prior year. The auditors reported an available General Fund balance of $13,240,000, which the firm said represented roughly 62% of General Fund expenditures — above the City’s fund balance policy target of 30%.
Rhodes said the audit reflected two recent Governmental Accounting Standards Board pronouncements (GASB 101, Compensated Absences; GASB 102, Certain Risk Disclosures). The City added sick leave to its compensated-absence accrual in addition to vacation leave, increasing liabilities reported on the Statement of Net Position as a required change.
The auditors also reported that tax collection remained high at 98.39%. For the Water and Sewer Fund, revenues increased by about $2 million, attributed in the minutes to a 9.5% rate increase; revenues exceeded expenditures by roughly $5.7 million. City cash, including restricted cash and investments, was reported at just over $40 million, and auditors noted the City’s debt decreased by approximately $638,000.
Rhodes said the audit firm encountered no difficulties with management and had no disagreements to report; a management letter noted three small budget overruns (approximately $2,101, $8,272 and $30,113) that staff had already addressed.
Council did not take formal action on the audit at the meeting; the audit package was submitted to the Local Government Commission and remains subject to that office’s approval before official public release.
