Ligonier Township ends 2013 in the black
Ligonier Township finished 2013 with about $9,000 in revenues over expenses, according to an audit completed by Wessel & Co. of Johnstown.
“All in all, you were able to spend less than you took in, which is always a good thing,” said Michael V. Lamb of Wessel & Co. “You have funds to carry into 2014 to get through operations.”
Last year, the township commissioned an independent financial audit.
On Tuesday, Lamb and Stephanie A. Stohon presented a summary of the audit at the supervisors' meeting. The township's cash balance at the end of the year was about $945,000, with about $131,000 in restricted funds for items such as the liquid fuels account and the K9 fund.
Stohon said they did not have any significant difficulties during the audit, but the township has room for improvement in its internal control processes and financial statement preparation.
Stohon's suggestions for improvement included updating the township investment policy, personnel files and the employee handbook. The handbook was last updated in 2006, she said.
Stohon and Lamb specialize in government auditing.
Secretary Bruce Robinson said this year's audit was more thorough than in previous years.
“This was kind of a new thing for the township,” Lamb said. “I think it's good. It provides some transparency and accountability to the citizens.”
The supervisors voted unanimously to approve the audit, as well as its state Department of Community and Economic Development report for 2013.
During supervisors' comments, Supervisor Scott Matson said he was pleased with the audit.
“Looks like we're moving forward,” he said.
The supervisors' next meeting will be held 7 p.m. July 8.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.