FAC Explorer

Audit 402618

FY End
2025-09-30
Total Expended
$5.66M
Findings
1
Programs
12
Organization: Dale County Board of Education (AL)
Year: 2025 Accepted: 2026-05-29
Auditor: ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF EXAMINERS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Organization Exclusion Status:

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
1216150 2025-001 Material Weakness Yes I

Programs

ALN Program Spent Major Findings
10.553 SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM $955,800 Yes 0
84.027 SPECIAL EDUCATION GRANTS TO STATES $915,333 Yes 0
84.010 TITLE I GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES $849,113 Yes 0
16.071 SCHOOL VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAM $500,000 Yes 1
84.424 STUDENT SUPPORT AND ACADEMIC ENRICHMENT PROGRAM $182,821 Yes 0
84.367 SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION STATE GRANTS (FORMERLY IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY STATE GRANTS) $145,703 Yes 0
10.555 NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM $81,129 Yes 0
10.582 FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM $73,019 Yes 0
84.048 CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION -- BASIC GRANTS TO STATES $52,004 Yes 0
84.173 SPECIAL EDUCATION PRESCHOOL GRANTS $14,712 Yes 0
10.560 STATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FOR CHILD NUTRITION $6,476 Yes 0
96.001 SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE $880 Yes 0

Contacts

Name Title Type
RBK5X4LV16N9 Vivian Miller Auditee
3347742355 Lynn Otto Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (the “Schedule”) includes the federal award activity of the Dale County Board of Education under programs of the federal government for the year ended September 30, 2025. 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 Dale County Board of Education, it is not intended to and does not present the financial position or changes in net position of the Dale County Board of Education.
Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the modified accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement.
The Dale County Board of Education has elected not to use the 15-percent de minimis indirect cost rate as allowed in the Uniform Guidance.

Finding Details

Finding 2025-001
The U. S. Code of Federal Regulations Title 2, Part 200.318, of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) states that non-Federal entities must have and use their own documented procurement procedures which reflect State and local laws and regulations provided that the procurements conform to applicable Federal law and the standards identified within that section. The Code of Alabama 1975, Title 39, commonly referred to as the “Public Works Law”, contains various legal requirements related to public works projects. Public works projects include the construction, installation, repair, renovation or maintenance of public buildings to be paid, in whole or in part, with public funds. Contracts that exceed $100,000.00, materials and labor combined, are required to be competitively bid as provided by the Code of Alabama 1975, Section 39-2-2. Additionally, Title 39 does not provide city and county boards of education authority to use a purchasing cooperative for public works contracts. The Dale County Board of Education (the “Board”) entered into a public works contract for the purchase and installation of intercom and mass notification systems in the amount of $686,804.00, of which $500,000.00 in federal funds were expended during the fiscal year. However, the Board utilized a purchasing cooperative for the purchase and installation of the intercom and mass notification systems. The Board did not ensure public works contracts were bid in accordance with the Uniform Guidance and the Public Works Law. As a result, the Board failed to comply with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance and the Public Works Law.