Town audit returns clean opinion; auditors flag control weakness in conservation commission leases

CBiz managing director Laura Stone presented Groveland’s fiscal 2025 audit at the Select Board meeting on May 26, saying the independent auditor’s report contained a clean opinion with no modifications. "It is a clean opinion," Stone said, noting that the municipal light department is audited separately.

Stone walked the board through the financial statements and supporting schedules, highlighting entity‑wide statements, fund statements and enterprise funds for water, sewer and the electric light department. She said the town has about $1.6 million in the other post‑employment benefit (OPEB) trust and that the town’s portion of its regional retirement liability was about $10.7 million this year. She emphasized that actuarial assumptions underlying pension and OPEB disclosures are sensitive to changes in discount rates and other estimates.

The audit packet also recorded about $500,000 in recognized revenue in 2025 tied to ongoing class‑action settlements for PFAS (often described as "forever chemicals"). Stone cautioned the board that additional settlement amounts are anticipated but not yet known.

In the required communication on internal controls, Stone said auditors identified one significant deficiency related to the conservation commission: that commission staff had executed leases and been involved in collecting payments without appropriate segregation of duties. "There is one significant deficiency in here," Stone said. She said auditors tested samples of revenues and found no material misstatement, but recommended improved controls so collections are remitted through the town treasurer and duties are separated.

Board members asked for clarification about whether the conservation commission had authority to execute leases; staff said that a subsequent town meeting vote had authorized leases, which changes the governance context for the control recommendation but not the auditors’ advice on segregation of duties. The board discussed online payment options and remittance procedures as practical ways to tighten controls.

The board did not take a formal vote on audit findings during the meeting. The Select Board requested follow‑up from staff on implementation of recommended controls and further documentation on the conservation commission’s processes.