Auditor says city shows strong reserves; forensic audit described as costly, used only when fraud suspected

The council invited Bill Sanders, the city's auditor, to discuss the financial statements and the question of a forensic audit.

Sanders said he could provide up-to-date copies of the financials and described the city's position: "about $1,000,000 in the bank," and he characterized the city's current property tax rate as very low compared with earlier decades. He cautioned that a forensic audit is distinct from a routine audit: "A forensic audit is one where you suspect fraud or waste or abuse," he said, adding that he had not seen evidence of fraud in routine audits.

Council members pressed on costs and scope. Members cited posted ranges for forensic-audit hourly rates ($300–$500/hour) and asked how many hours a yearlong review might take; an estimate discussed was on the order of roughly 100 hours and a ballpark total in the tens of thousands of dollars, with travel and expenses additional. Sanders said the scope and hours would depend on the specific requests and suspected issues.

Discussion also covered high-level budget math: members noted the city’s annual revenues were roughly $180,000–$200,000 while the line-item budget approaches $500,000, creating questions about how reserves accumulated and how to align tax rate and spending. Sanders explained the distinction between budgeted amounts (estimates) and actuals (what was spent) and noted that line-item detail and receipts improve oversight and make auditing simpler.

Council did not take a formal vote on commissioning a forensic audit at the meeting; members asked staff and the auditor to provide clearer cost and scope estimates before any decision.