Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cameron Park CSD accepts clean FY2024–25 audit, board hears about $282,000 dip in general fund
Summary
The Cameron Park Community Services District board accepted a clean FY2024–25 audit from O'Connor & Company showing an unmodified opinion and roughly $70 million in net position. The general fund showed a roughly $282,000 decrease year over year; staff and the auditor said the variance stems from operating expenses across funds and offered to provide follow-up details.
The Cameron Park Community Services District board on May 20 accepted the district's FY2024–25 financial audit, which auditors said carried an unmodified (clean) opinion and no findings.
Michael O'Connor of O'Connor & Company presented the audit and highlighted the district's overall financial position, saying the district reported “almost $70,000,000 in your net position,” most of it tied up in capital assets and restricted funds. He told the board the general fund had a balance of about $3 million as of June 30, 2025, and that the district showed a decrease of roughly $282,000 in the general fund for the year ending June 30, 2025.
Why the general fund dropped, O'Connor said, is primarily the result of operating expenses: “Expenses over various areas — it's expenses over various departments — and we can compare that in the MD&A,” he said, pointing directors to comparative schedules in the management discussion and analysis and offering to supply additional line-item detail after the meeting.
Board discussion focused on debt and fund balances. Directors asked about the district's outstanding refunding bond, and the auditor explained the June 30, 2025, balance was about $4.2 million and that a scheduled payment of roughly $585,000 would reduce that balance in the coming fiscal year. The auditor also noted the district shows about $9 million in total expenses on a full-accrual statement of activities and reiterated that the audit contained no material weaknesses or recommendations requiring board action.
After public questions and a brief exchange with staff, a director moved to approve the audit; the motion was seconded and the board approved it by voice vote.
The audit presentation and supporting schedules will be posted with the board packet; staff and the auditor said they would provide further explanatory detail on the general fund variance on request.
