CliftonLarsonAllen issued an unmodified opinion on Howard County's financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, and county finance staff were asked to provide additional detail on an unusually large variance in investment income during the council's January monthly meeting.

The audit covered the period July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024, and included an in-process single audit of federal awards that is due March 31, 2025. CliftonLarsonAllen reported no material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control related to financial reporting, and the auditors said management cooperated throughout the engagement.

"We have issued an unmodified opinion," said Jonathan Griffin, manager with CliftonLarsonAllen, summarizing the audit outcome. Griffin told the council that auditors examined significant accounting estimates such as pension liabilities, OPEB (other postemployment benefits), and incurred-but-not-reported claims, and reviewed the actuary's inputs and census data used by the county.

Council members focused their questioning on a single large variance in interest income. "We estimated that there would be $4,000,000 in interest and our actual revenues in interest were $43,000,000," Griffin said. Rafi Healy, Howard County's director of finance, explained the department's investment approach and market uncertainty and described the county's priorities: "We don't pursue yield, we just wanna make sure our money is safe and liquid," Healy said. Healy told the council that the county invests only in government securities, typically holds investments to maturity, and monitors market signals when setting investment duration.

Healy said the county had realized a total return of about $54,000,000 across all funds for the year and that the general fund alone accounted for roughly $43,000,000 of interest income. Council members asked the finance office to provide a chart showing budgeted versus actual interest income for recent years; Healy agreed to provide that data and the council asked for an extended multi-year view (council members discussed five to eight years, and one member requested pre-pandemic years for context).

The auditors also briefed the council on recently implemented and upcoming GASB standards relevant to local governments. Griffin highlighted GASB 100 (disclosures related to changes in accounting principle and errors), GASB 101 (compensated absences reporting), GASB 102 (risk-related disclosures effective for fiscal year ending June 30, 2025), and GASB 103 (changes to presentation of certain fund types effective for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026). Griffin said the county uses an external actuary for pension and OPEB assumptions and that auditors reviewed discount rates, health-care trends and census data as part of their procedures.

Council members asked for additional audit-related materials. One councilor requested a chart comparing budgeted and actual investment income for recent years; another asked auditors to provide industry guidance on typical budget-to-actual variance. The finance director said monthly investment reports are public and that the administration will deliver the requested comparative chart.

The council did not take formal action related to the audit at the meeting; auditors stood for questions and the administration agreed to provide the requested additional reporting.

The council also pressed finance staff on the composition and categorization of fund balance, and auditors and finance staff directed members to specific pages in the financial report where fund-balance categories (nonspendable, restricted, committed, assigned, unassigned) and the government-wide net position roll-up are presented.