Wright County auditors give unmodified opinion, note new GASB sick‑leave accounting and routine control findings

Gardner & Company presented Wright County’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2025 audit to the Board of Supervisors, delivering an unmodified opinion and explaining one major change: implementation of a Governmental Accounting Standards Board rule that alters how compensated absences, particularly sick leave, are recognized.

The auditor from Gardner & Company (identified in the meeting as Alex) told supervisors the new GASB guidance requires counties to estimate the portion of sick leave more likely than not to be used while an employee remains employed and to record that portion as a liability. The auditor said the county’s payroll staff performed individual assessments and the office recorded material adjustments during audit fieldwork so the final financial statements were properly stated. “In the past we recognized only amounts paid out at termination; this standard changes how we look at sick leave,” the auditor said.

The audit report describes three recurring internal control findings. First, limited staff numbers create segregation‑of‑duties risks; the auditors recommended continued compensating controls such as regular reconciliations and board review of claims. Second, because the auditors assisted with preparing the full‑accrual statements, the report includes the required disclosure about that assistance and the ultimate approval role of the county’s financial reporting official. Third, auditors identified material adjustments for accounts receivable, including items tied to the opioid settlement and deferred revenues; those adjustments were proposed during the audit and incorporated into the statements.

On statutory reporting, the auditors noted that some non‑program function budget amounts were insufficient, producing over‑appropriations in limited departments during the year. The auditor advised departments and the auditor’s office to coordinate proactively on amendments when large expenditures or purchases are expected.

The presentation also outlined the county’s financial position: a change in net position driven largely by $2.6 million in infrastructure recorded as capital assets tied to a farm‑to‑market contribution; the auditor reviewed the county’s multiple sets of financial statements (cash‑basis budgetary, modified‑accrual and full‑accrual) and the related reconciling exhibits.

The board asked several technical questions about the subjectivity of sick‑leave probability estimates and the auditor said the guidance and implementation notes provided a methodology; payroll staff used local knowledge to classify employees into likely, unlikely and 50/50 categories for recognition. The auditor concluded the audit was “really clean” overall and thanked county staff for cooperation.

The board received the audit; no formal board action was recorded other than acknowledgment and questions. The county auditor and staff were directed to continue work on budget communication and to monitor the open findings for remediation.