Auditor issues modified opinion, flags segregation-of-duties and enrollment variances
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
TrustPoint auditor Nick Stanley reported a modified opinion on the district’s financial statements, citing a segregation‑of‑duties internal control deficiency and certified enrollment variances; he also presented revenue/expenditure totals and recommended policy reviews and additional oversight.
TrustPoint auditor Nick Stanley told the Ogden Community School District board that the firm issued a modified opinion on the district’s financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2025, and identified several internal‑control findings the district should address.
Stanley said total revenues for the fiscal year were just under $12.7 million, an increase of about $137,000 from the prior year, while total expenditures were about $12,549,008.75 — roughly $200,000 higher than the prior year. He said local property‑tax revenue increased (noting a $212,000 local tax increase in one line item) and federal resources decreased as COVID‑era funds wound down. The auditor explained that facilities acquisitions and capital additions drove expenditure changes and noted principal and interest expense trends tied to outstanding debt.
On internal controls, Stanley identified a key deficiency related to segregation of duties: “a good system of internal control provides adequate segregation of duties so no one in the vehicle handles the transaction of circulation,” and that the district, due to its size, has “primarily have 1 employee who handles all financial transactions.” He recommended using existing resources — board members or other school employees — to augment review procedures and mitigate risk.
The audit also recorded variances in certified enrollment and recommended the district review its policies and registration procedures to confirm accurate enrollment certification. Stanley pointed the board to the findings and recommended follow‑up procedures; staff acknowledged the issues and committed to reviewing and improving documentation and reporting processes.
Board members asked clarifying questions about specific schedules and peer‑scoring processes elsewhere on the agenda; the auditor clarified the schedule of findings and recommended steps to address weaknesses. No formal board action was required at the audit presentation, but staff said they will return with corrective steps and documentation updates.
