Comparing and Contrasting Comprehensive annual Reports of the Selected Local Governments

Publication Method for the CAFR

The report compares annual report for City of Austin and Ohio. First, it is imperative to indicate that City of Austin and Ohio have similar introductory, statistical and financial section (Naughton, Petacchi & Weber, 2015). However, as it can be seen, Ohio has a more extensive report, especially, when one focuses on counties such as Montgomery. In particular, CAFR for Montgomery contains about 409 pages in length while that of Austin City is almost half.

Audit and Budget Information in the CAFR

The CAFR report for both entities contains audit and budget information which is disclosed in a transparent way according to the United States accounting standards and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and practices. In Montgomery, Ohio, there is a variation in the actual and budget CAFR. Looking at the budget and actual figures for the expenditures and revenue generated, Montgomery management has a higher chance of obtaining more revenue as compared to Austin City (Naughton, Petacchi & Weber, 2015).  In other words, comparison of the actual and budgeted figures for the City of Austin, it evident that there is a variation in both since the actual revenue is negative. As a result, the analysis demonstrates that Austin City is unable to generate enough revenue in actual terms. Therefore, it can be inferred that there is a need for improving the management of City of Austin to increase the avenue for generation of revenue (Naughton, Petacchi & Weber, 2015). However, the most notable thing about Austin City, it is possible for the local government to control expenditure.

Type of Audit Report Issues and internal Audit Function within the Government Entity

The City of Austin issue single audit report according to the accounting practices. Deloitte often audits the financial statement of the city and the government produces an independent audit report. In the same way, Montgomery, Ohio, present similar audit report. Also, it is imperative to states that have no existence of internal audit function within the government entity (Turpen, 2012). In other words, I could not find information regarding the existence of internal audit report for both Austin City and Montgomery from the given CAFRs.

Question 2: Analysis of Selected Local Government Entity

Montgomery County has taken considerable initiatives since 2014. In particular, the county’s outflow of asset and resources is more than liabilities. At the same time, Montgomery has deferred inflow of resources that amount to approximately $1,236,593,814. A considerable portion is used in terms of unrestricted money. Also, some of the funds are utilized to meet the government obligations. More specifically, unrestricted amount of $100,627,002 has recently be used to finance the county’s ongoing business activities (Turpen, 2012). In 2014, Montgomery total net position decreased by about $6,174,379. At the end of that year, the government reported a balance of about $260, 200. The current years has a unassigned fund balance of 71.109 million which represent approximately 58.76% of the general fund expenditure (Turpen, 2012). Overall, it is imperative to indicate that the government activities of the county have gone up by 3.14%. Conversely, the business activities have decreased by about 9.30% in 2016.

Question 3: Analysis of the Methods used to select the Local Government Entity

Ohio represents the schedule of revenue, expenditures, and change in balances both in terms of actual and budget for general funds, individuals debt funds and individuals budgeted special revenue funds (Turpen, 2012). In layman terms, the method used for analysis or accounting practices is GAAP and non-GAAP.

Question 4: Analysis of the Revenue on the selected local Government

Property taxes and how they are accounted for

The property taxes in Ohio are accounted whenever they are due. Therefore, there are considerable dollars identified in terms of property tax receivable.

Other sources identified as primary revenue for the entity

Also, the county of Ohio has intergovernmental revenues which can be classified as other sources of primary revenue for the state. More importantly, an intergovernmental income is basis \ major foundation for the generation of money being used in the counties.

Deferred Revenue

There is no deferred revenue for most of the counties in Ohio State. In other words, I could not find information for this parameter even when in Montgomery County.

Year-to-year variation in the tax level of income

On the other hand, there is an increases variation in terms of tax level income from year-to-year.

Various management discussion and analysis item of note

There are items such as financial highlight listed under the head of management discussion and analysis section that provide an overview regarding the financial statement including those relayed to the government spending (Turpen, 2012). Specifically, the state of Ohio has information associated with fiduciary funds.

Information about the general fund

The general funds are used as the primary money to carter for the county. In 2016, the original estimation of the general funds was approximately 134.3 million dollars. At the end of that year, the expected revenue was less than the actual funds that were realized.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *