Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Audit Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Independent audit gives Lower Moreland clean opinion; district spent capital reserves on new high school
Summary
Auditor Greg Schenk reported a clean (unmodified) opinion on the district's 2023-24 financial statements and single audit, noted a $20 million planned cash drawdown for capital costs tied to the new high school, and said the general fund remains healthy.
Greg Schenk, partner in charge of the audit, presented the district's 2023-24 audit summary to the board on Nov. 3 and reported an unmodified (clean) opinion on the financial statements and the single audit required for federal funds.
Schenk told the board the audit found the district's financial statements compliant with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and GASB standards. He said the audit would be accompanied by a SAS 114 letter describing the auditors' procedures and that the auditors were not issuing a management letter under SAS 115 because no reportable deficiencies were identified.
On the financial details, Schenk said cash and investments decreased by roughly $20 million during the year "which was planned and is essentially part of the capital costs that were sitting in cash and the capital reserves that were spent on the new facility." He said about $45.7 million of construction in progress was placed into service during the year and approximately $14 million of additional capital expenditures were capitalized, reflecting the new high school project being placed in service.
Schenk also highlighted that the district's general fund balance remained healthy. On a government-fund basis the district reported about $5.18 million in general fund balance and a planned net deficit of about $1.9 million for the year, consistent with budgeting to use reserves for planned operations. Schenk noted pension liabilities and OPEB as factors that typically cause districts to show government-wide deficits but said such results are not unusual.
Board members asked about transportation expense growth. Schenk and district staff explained a 25% increase in student transportation spending reflected both higher special education transportation costs and a correction by the Pennsylvania Department of Education to a subsidy calculation from the prior year; the district also discussed shifting some routes to a lower-cost alternate carrier while retaining an IU provider for in-district special-needs transport.
The district expects to post final audited financial statements after the board approves them at a public meeting; Schenk praised district staff for providing timely information and said the audit encountered "no difficulties."
