Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elko County School District audit finds four significant deficiencies; board accepts single audit
Summary
An independent single audit found four significant deficiencies in Title I allocation, documentation of Title I level‑of‑effort, graduation cohort reporting, and procurement for nutrition/recovery funds; auditors said the district spent about $10.2 million in federal funds in fiscal 2025. The board accepted the report.
Terry Gage, an assurance partner with Eide Bailly, presented the Elko County School District's single audit for the year ended June 30, 2025, saying the district received and spent about $10.2 million in federal funds this past year, down from about $16 million in 2024. "The school district received and spent about $10.2 million in federal funds this past year," Gage said.
Gage said auditors tested three major programs subject to single‑audit requirements: Title I grants to local educational agencies, the child nutrition cluster and state and local fiscal recovery (COVID) funds. The audit identified four significant deficiencies but no material weaknesses in the single‑audit portion. Two Title I findings related to allocation and documentation: an amended allocation of $6,228 was not equitably distributed among 11 eligible Title I schools and roughly $32,000 was not dispersed in accordance with the allocation. Auditors also reported that the district did not retain documentation proving it met Title I's level‑of‑effort requirement, though auditors said their redetermination showed the district had met that requirement once records were reconstructed.
The auditors flagged reporting gaps in graduation cohort records: in a sample, 17 of 68 cohort removals lacked approval or supporting documentation, which auditors recorded as a significant deficiency. Procurement controls were also cited: for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, two vendors exceeded $10,000 in purchases without rate‑quotation documentation, and auditors found four of 20 sampled state and local recovery transactions missing required contract provisions.
Board members asked whether the district qualified as a low‑risk auditee. Gage explained the distinction turns on several criteria, notably whether there are material weaknesses; because material weaknesses appeared in the district's financial statement audit for the prior fiscal year, the district did not qualify as low risk even though the single audit did not include material weaknesses.
A trustee moved and seconded a motion to accept the single audit report. The board approved the motion by voice vote. Chair President Durham cast an affirmative vote and the motion passed.
The audit presentation included numerical detail and recommendations for tightening documentation and procurement controls; district staff said they were already addressing several items identified by auditors. The single audit and accompanying management letter will be posted with the district's public records and staff indicated work is underway to remedy the documented deficiencies.
