Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County audit gets clean opinion but flags school budgeting and federal‑grant procedures, auditor says
Summary
The county’s 2025 independent audit returned an unmodified (clean) opinion on the financial statements but included five state compliance findings related to school reimbursement timeliness, treasurer reconciliations, Head Start appropriation and school overspending, the auditor told supervisors.
Scott County received a clean independent opinion on its 2025 financial statements but the audit also identified several compliance issues that the board should monitor, the county’s auditor told supervisors.
"You all received an unmodified opinion," Scott Wickham, partner in charge of the audit, told the board during a presentation of the results. He said implementation of the new GASB 101 standard increased the county’s compensated‑absences liability by about $355,000 and increased the schools’ liability by about $1.3 million, an accounting change that did not affect operations.
Wickham said the single audit of federal programs had no findings this year after corrective work, and he highlighted about $13.2 million in federal funds administered in the county, including nearly $2.0 million in ARPA monies that local officials should monitor.
However, Wickham listed five findings in the state compliance report. Among them: the school board failed to submit some federal reimbursement requests in a timely way (auditors noted there is a 27‑month window to submit reimbursement claims); the school health‑insurance bank account required catch‑up reconciliations; Head Start funds had not been formally appropriated by the board in a prior year (a technical compliance step that has since been remedied); and the school board had, at points, spent beyond appropriations set by the board of supervisors.
Wickham recommended improved controls and coordination between the county and school finance staff to ensure timely federal reimbursement claims and more robust monitoring when grants and capital projects increase expenditures. He also suggested a school finance director position could help centralize grant and budget oversight.
Board members asked follow‑up questions about the county’s fund balance and the potential credit‑rating effects of being below the Government Finance Officers Association recommended minimum reserve (roughly 16.67% of expenditures). Wickham said the county’s reserve level—lower than that guideline—does not present an immediate emergency but should be addressed over multiple budget cycles.
The auditor closed by reiterating that the county’s financial statements were materially correct and that many of the findings were recurring process items that take time to resolve.
The board did not take immediate action during the presentation but asked staff to follow up on recommended process changes and the items the auditor flagged.
