McFarland Recreation’s Cash Warning Extends Beyond Its Old Audit

Did borrowing resolve the financial warning?

McFarland Recreation and Park District’s published financial statements disclosed a fully drawn $200,000 credit line in August 2025 after an operating-loss warning. Later public records do not support treating that borrowing as proof of financial recovery. The district’s fiscal 2025–26 budget lists $209,861 more in expenses than income, while a county treasury record reports a negative $245,080.23 average daily balance for its pool fund during the quarter ending March 31, 2026.

What’s the Scoop With Broach matched the audit, the district’s posted budget and the county’s fund-level interest table to test whether the warning was confined to the older audit. The records show continued pressure in later planning and treasury measures. They do not establish today’s consolidated cash, whether the bank loan was repaid or refinanced, or whether any scheduled program will be cut.

The distinction is consequential for residents who use the district’s parks and recreation programs. A cash-flow loan can bridge a timing gap. It does not, on its own, eliminate a gap between recurring resources and spending. Each record needs its own date and accounting label.

The audit’s deficit was not the same as negative total net position

For June 30, 2024, the audited governmental-fund balance was negative $73,640. The fund statement reports $1,078,585 in revenue and $1,562,163 in expenditures, a $483,578 decline from the $409,938 beginning balance. These figures are in the general-fund statements, not a present-day bank statement.

The government-wide statement, by contrast, reported positive net position of $52,061. That measure includes capital assets and longer-term obligations, including pension accounting. It does not contradict the fund deficit: the statements answer different questions. Presenting the positive number alone as spendable cash would be as misleading as treating the fund deficit as proof that the district owned no valuable assets.

Note 11 described operating losses and declining cash reserves and said continued operations depended on the success of management’s plan. Management’s stated measures included reductions in discretionary spending, salaried positions and capital expenditures, alongside additional liquidity from borrowing. The publication did not conduct that audit or independently establish whether each planned reduction occurred.

The later budget still contains a calculable gap

The budget file, marked updated July 22, 2025, has several columns, including preliminary, recommended and adopted figures. We used the rightmost column labeled adopted for fiscal 2025–26. Its total income is $1,008,000 and total expenses are $1,217,861. Subtracting income from expenses yields $209,861, equal to 20.8% of the listed income.

That calculation describes the published plan, not a completed-year operating loss. The same adopted column shows negative $40,000 in equity/carryover and zero in the separately labeled program-reserve and general-reserve categories. Those entries do not identify a positive reserve appropriation covering the calculated gap. They also do not provide a complete financing reconciliation for subsequent amendments or actual results.

The budget’s historical income-and-expense columns differ from the later audited figures for 2024. We therefore did not splice them into one audited trend or subtract the budget’s figures from the audit to manufacture a precise year-to-year change. The headline finding rests on the clearly labeled adopted income and expense totals, while the audited statements remain the source for audited 2024 results.

The county record adds a later liquidity signal

The Treasurer-Tax Collector’s interest-apportionment table identifies fund 42409 as McFarland Recreation & Park. For the quarter ending March 31, 2026, it displays an average daily balance of negative $245,080.23, total interest of negative $2,201.93 and a first apportionment of negative $743.59. The minus signs appear after the numbers in the county’s display; omitting them would reverse the meaning.

The page says the first interest apportionment occurred September 14, 2026. That posting-related date does not turn the underlying March quarter into a September cash snapshot. Nor is an average daily pool balance the same as the district’s balance on March 31 or the sum of every outside bank account.

This is nevertheless a later, independent public-accounting signal than the June 2024 fund deficit. We cannot calculate the change in total liquidity by subtracting one from the other because the measures differ. The comparison establishes continued negative readings in the relevant later records, not an exact worsening of a single balance.

What the credit-line disclosure does—and does not—settle

The audit’s subsequent-events note says the district obtained a $200,000 non-revolving Umpqua Bank line on July 1, 2025, initially at a variable 6.11% rate, and had drawn the full amount by August 14. It describes the purpose as short-term liquidity and gives a June 30, 2026 final maturity date.

That maturity date is now past, but the reviewed note is historical. It cannot establish default, an unpaid current balance or the absence of replacement financing. We have not obtained a later payoff or renewal record and do not make any of those claims. Borrowed funds and operating income also are not interchangeable measures of financial recovery.

As checked October 4, the district’s dedicated budget page linked the fiscal 2025–26 file. That observation does not prove no newer budget was adopted or appears elsewhere. Current adopted revisions, a completed 2025–26 financial statement and the bank obligation’s disposition would answer questions beyond this cross-record finding.

Method and limits

We read the audited financial statements and notes, recalculated the fund-balance bridge and the rightmost adopted budget column’s income-expense gap, and matched the district’s name to county treasury fund 42409. The original contribution is the reconciliation showing that the older going-concern warning is accompanied by later budget and treasury pressure, without collapsing three accounting measures into one cash figure.

We did not examine private bank statements, audit the district’s books, interview officials or establish a current inability to pay a particular bill. The management plan disclosed in the audit is included as counterevidence and context, not assumed to have failed. The documents support scrutiny of financial recovery; they do not establish fraud, insolvency or a present service closure.