Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seaman USD 345 receives clean regulatory‑basis audit; auditors note GAAP differences
Summary
An outside auditor presented an unmodified opinion on Seaman USD 345's regulatory‑basis financial statements and an unmodified single‑audit for federal awards, while noting an adverse GAAP opinion is required given the district's use of the Kansas Municipal Audit and Accounting Guide (KMAG). The board praised business office improvements.
The Seaman USD 345 Board of Education heard an independent audit presentation from Kyle of Jared Gilmore & Phillips, who said the auditors issued an unmodified opinion on the district’s regulatory‑basis financial statements and an unmodified opinion on federal awards testing but must issue an adverse opinion on GAAP financials because the district uses the Kansas Municipal Audit and Accounting Guide (KMAG) rather than GAAP.
“KMAG is a regulatory basis of accounting,” Kyle said, explaining that GAAP statements require recognition of receivables, debt and prepaids that are not included on the regulatory statements. He told the board auditors believe the regulatory‑basis numbers “are a material, accurate representation of what happened during the year for the district,” and that the district’s single audit of federal grants received an unmodified opinion.
Kyle called out one negative cash balance in a grant fund, which he said is allowable in many grant scenarios because the district sometimes spends grant dollars before receipts are recorded. He also noted the required footnote disclosures, including a net pension liability disclosed in the audit packet (listed in the packet as about $35,000,000).
Lisa, the district staff member who led the finance team, told the board the clean regulatory‑basis opinion reflects several years of work to improve internal controls and reconcile activity funds. “We’ve worked through a lot together,” Lisa said, thanking business office staff, building principals and administrative personnel for their role in the improvements. She noted receipt audits and staff training that were completed during spring break to address prior activity‑fund documentation issues.
Board members asked clarifying questions about the audit packet, footnotes and long‑term debt schedules. The auditor pointed members to page 57 of the packet as a concise summary of the audit opinions and explained the district’s obligations under the single audit for sizable federal grant receipts.
The board offered formal thanks to the auditor and district finance staff. No formal board action was required; the board accepted the report and moved on to other agenda items.
What’s next: staff and the business office will continue implementing recommended controls and monitoring the one negative grant fund; auditors noted prior year findings shown as resolved in the packet.
