Notes to SEFA
Title: Note 1—Basis of presentation
Accounting Policies: Basis of Accounting - Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”). Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement.
De Minimis Rate Used: N
Rate Explanation: Indirect Cost Rate - The Catalytic Fund has elected not to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance.
The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (the “Schedule”) includes the federal grant activity of Catalytic Development Funding Corp of Northern Kentucky (the “Catalytic Fund “) under programs of the federal government for the year ended December 31, 2023. The information in this Schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (“Uniform Guidance”). Because the Schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of the Catalytic Fund, it is not intended to, and does not, present the financial position, changes in net assets, or cash flows of the Catalytic Fund.
Title: Note 3—Single audit status
Accounting Policies: Basis of Accounting - Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”). Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement.
De Minimis Rate Used: N
Rate Explanation: Indirect Cost Rate - The Catalytic Fund has elected not to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance.
The Catalytic Fund has not been subject to the requirements of Uniform Guidance for each of the past two successive years and, therefore, did not meet the criteria to qualify as a low-risk auditee.