New York City Local Government vs. Austin, TX Local Government

Austin is situated in the eastern region of the Texas Hill Country. Although it is not the central city of the state, it can be described as the worlds live music capital center. Austin is globally renowned for its film industry, and it is also the home of the Formula 1s Circuit and the University of Texas. The city boasts of numerous lakes and parks that offer favorite sites for biking, swimming, boating and hiking among other numerous outdoor functions. The economic success of Austin is attributed to the excellent financial budget desired by the citys local government. This essay is a financial statement and audit review comparison, between the New York City local government and Austin, Texas local government in the financial period that ended in 2014.

If this sample essay on"New York City Local Government vs. Austin, TX Local Government" doesn’t help,
our writers will!

Trust an expert

Comparison and Contrast the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)

Publication method of the CAFR

The CAFR for the two local governments were publicized and distributed to the public via the local governments online platforms. The CAFR for Austin, TX Local Government, was featured on the austintexas.gov, which is the official website for Texas Local Government. The CAFR for the New York City local government was featured on the New York City Controller online platform. The public can access all the publications in the form of a downloadable journal document.

Audit and Budget Information in the CAFR

The CAFR for Austin, TX contained the revenue capacity data, capacity debt data, demographic and economic statistical data and operating information. Also, it featured the computation and sums of government funds, enterprise funds, fiduciary funds, and discretely presented component units. On the other hand, the CAFR for New York City local government featured government-wide financial statements, fund financial statements, reconciliation statements, fiduciary funds and component units.

The Type of Audit Report Issued

The type of audit issued for Austins CAFR is the comprehensive annual financial report. All statistical and financial data used were for the fiscal year 2014. The New York Citys CAFR offered was also a comprehensive financial report for the governments fiscal period. The period ended on June 30, 2014. The citys CAFR report was released by the appointed financial controller, Scott M. Stringer.

Existence or Non-Existence of an Internal Audit Function within the Government Entity

Austin has an internal audit function that controls and regulates the financial reports employed in the creation of the annual fiscal comprehensive audit report. The function employs the generally accepted governments auditing standards and offers credible information to the city management, the Council as well as the Austin citizens. Comparatively, there is also an internal audit function for the New York Citys Local Government. The function unit is subdivided into the audit management unit, financial audit unit, IT and Engineering audit unit, quality assurance unit and non-GAGAS financial unit.

Analysis of the Selected Local Government

Both the New York City and Austin, Texas local governments portrayed a difference in the financial statements for the monetary period ending on June 30, 2014. Nevertheless, the two have a similar type of audit reporting methodology. They also have internal auditing functions aimed at streamlining the accuracy of the annual fiscal report published for the public. However, there exists a slight dissimilarity in the audit and budgetary information used in the CAFR of two local governments. The chart illustrated below is a summary of the principal financial records for the New York City for the period that ended on June 2014.

Financial SectionSelection Net Attained Revenue Expressed in Thousands

Net Assets $38, 522,874

Liabilities $23,380,457

Deferred inflow of resources $10,694,753

Funds balances $4,447,664

Statement of activities (Net position) ($194,744,634) Loss

Balance sheet data ($194,744,634) Loss