Laurel council accepts 2024 audit after auditor flags bookkeeping weakness; members ask for workshop

The Laurel Town Council voted to accept the town's audited financial statements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, after an auditor reported a clean (unmodified) opinion but also identified accounting corrections and a material weakness in internal controls.

Brandon Tall, the town's independent auditor from Johnson and Taul CPAs, told the council the firm had issued "an unmodified opinion," the highest level of assurance, and that total net position increased by about $3.1 million compared with the prior year. He said most of the improvement came from one‑time capital grant funding and loan forgiveness tied to projects including the Dunbar Police Station renovation and water‑main replacements. "Most of that improvement came from one‑time grant and loan forgiveness revenue tied specifically to those capital projects," Tall said.

Tall also described two technical issues the audit team corrected: prior years' reporting of certain grant funds and loan draws that required restating the beginning net position, and a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting. On the latter he said the town's bookkeeping "was not kept current during the year," requiring a significant number of adjusting journal entries and that the condition was driven largely by turnover in the finance manager position.

Council member Mary urged more time to study the report before voting. "I don't feel that I can vote to accept the audit at this time," she said during the meeting, asking for a dedicated workshop so members and residents could review the 60‑page draft more closely. Jonathan seconded the motion to hold a workshop; council discussed tentative dates and the auditor's availability. The motion to schedule a workshop for further review was put to a voice vote and carried.

Despite the request for additional review, the council subsequently moved to accept the audit "as presented." Tall recommended that council compile specific questions for efficient follow‑up; he offered to research detailed inquiries and return with answers rather than attempting to address every technical question on the spot.

The audit also included a required single‑audit component because federal expenditures exceeded the threshold; the auditor reported clean compliance results for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program and federal ARPA (State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds) testing with no findings.

Next steps: council members agreed to coordinate with town staff to gather questions for the auditor and to set a workshop date based on his availability. The audit notes and recommendations (including the management response and corrective measures) are in the final report and will serve as the basis for follow‑up.