Audit: Mobile County schools’ financials receive unmodified opinion; auditors identify $3,700 overpayment and Davis‑Bacon compliance gaps

An audit firm representative told the Mobile County Board of School Commissioners that the district’s fiscal‑year financial statements were presented fairly but that auditors found two significant compliance issues.

“We issued an unmodified opinion on your financial statements as of and for the period ended 09/30/2024,” the audit firm representative said, and noted an unmodified opinion on the board’s major federal financial assistance programs.

The audit firm representative said the district’s major federal programs for the year ending Sept. 30, 2024, were the special education cluster and the education stabilization funds. Local schools selected for comprehensive testing were Sims Elementary, Burrows Elementary, Alba Middle and Baker High School; all other schools received limited testing.

In Finding 2024‑1, auditors said the board and the superintendent had a professional employment contract that required written amendments for any future salary adjustments under Code of Alabama section 45‑49‑103.1. During the audit period, the board granted two additional payments totaling $3,700 to all full‑time employees without a written amendment to the superintendent’s contract, and “the superintendent received compensation that he was not entitled to receive,” the audit firm representative said. The superintendent repaid the overpayment after the matter was brought to management’s attention.

Finding 2024‑2 addresses Davis‑Bacon Act requirements (Title 29, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 5, subpart A). The auditor said the act requires prevailing wage clauses in construction contracts funded in whole or part with federal dollars and weekly certified payroll submissions from contractors. Auditors found that six contracts tested did not include the prevailing‑wage clause and that contractors failed to submit weekly certified payrolls for three of those six contracts.

The audit report states the board lacked controls to ensure Davis‑Bacon wage‑rate requirements were included in construction contracts, and therefore the district was not in compliance with the Davis‑Bacon Act as it pertains to wage‑rate requirements. Auditors noted this finding had been previously reported as finding 02/1931 and included recommendations to correct the deficiencies.

The superintendent prepared a corrective action plan; the audit firm representative said it is included in the audit report as Exhibit 19 beginning on page 76. The audit presentation concluded with a request that any questions be directed to the audit firm’s main office in Montgomery.

No formal board vote on the audit findings is recorded in the provided transcript; the presentation ended after the auditor thanked staff for their assistance.