- 📄This is the self-report, not the audit. The FY25 numbers below are the district's own unaudited filing. The independent FY25 audit is still pending, so nothing here is a confirmed finding — these are early-warning signs.
- ⚠️Four things look off, and each one lines up with a problem the FY24 audit already flagged: a fund forced to exactly zero, a wave of prior-year corrections, an unaudited starting point, and the same heavy capital spending that broke the budget last year.
- 🧩Why it matters now. Controls weren't fixed until partway through FY26, so FY25's whole year ran under the same practices — including, by the district's own account, no monthly reconciliations. The signs below are what that looks like on paper.
The four things worth watching
The Student Activity Fund — the money behind clubs, athletics, and dozens of individual student accounts — reports spending that equals every dollar available to the penny, landing on a perfectly round zero:
| Starting balance | $384,374.40 |
| + Money in (incl. a $341,425.99 transfer in) | $3,463,385.20 |
| = Total available | $3,847,759.60 |
| − Money out | $3,847,759.60 |
| = Ending balance | $0.00 |
A fund made of hundreds of separate club balances essentially never nets to zero on its own. And the balance sheet is stranger still: the fund holds $1,010,365.92 of assets (almost all cash) that are exactly offset by $1,010,365.92 of liabilities — mostly a $974,854.33 IOU back to the General Fund — leaving zero equity. The district even moved $341K into the fund during the year, and it still lands on zero.
Last year's filing recorded $0 in adjustments to its starting balances. This year's filing is full of them:
| Upward corrections to opening balances | +$1,191,121.74 |
| — incl. a round $1,111,050.00 in the self‑insurance fund | |
| Downward corrections to opening balances | −$1,634,216.84 |
| Gross corrections pushed through FY25 | ~$2.8M |
Money was being added back to some funds and taken out of others to fix what the books said at the start of the year. The single largest piece is a suspiciously round $1,111,050.00 — the kind of number that comes from an estimate, not a reconciliation.
The FY25 filing was prepared Nov 20, 2025 — roughly seven months before the FY24 audit was even finished (auditor's report dated June 10, 2026). So every opening balance is a self-reported carry-forward that no auditor had checked. The General Fund opens at the unaudited figure:
| FY25 opening balance used (self-reported) | $19,366,903.52 |
| What the FY24 audit later found was correct | $19,053,053 |
| Overstated starting point | ~$314,000 |
None of the $2.8M in corrections above moved the General Fund toward that audited number.
FY24's headline violation was spending about $19.5M over the legal budget in the construction/capital category. FY25 shows the same spend-down intensity:
| SAVE (penny-sales-tax construction fund) | $45.8M → $9.2M |
| — spent $55.7M on $19.1M of revenue | −$36.6M |
| PPEL (physical plant & equipment) | $15.3M → $8.4M |
| — spent $20.2M on $13.2M of revenue | −$6.9M |
FY24 finding → FY25 clue, side by side
How each early-warning sign lines up with something the FY24 audit already documented.
| What the FY24 audit found | What the FY25 self-report shows |
|---|---|
| Student activity fund was $983K in the red, and mis-stated | Activity fund forced to exactly $0.00; its $1.0M of cash is fully offset by an IOU to the General Fund |
| Material weaknesses in year-end closing & bank reconciliations (no monthly recs) | ~$2.8M of prior-year corrections flowing both ways, including a round $1.11M plug |
| Self-reported figures revised by the audit (General Fund overstated ~$314K) | FY25 opens on that same unaudited, overstated figure — filed 7 months before the FY24 audit was done |
| ~$19.5M spent over the legal budget in the capital category | SAVE and PPEL drawn down ~$43M combined — same capital-spending intensity (budget schedule still to be checked) |
| $38M moved between funds without the required board approval | Improved: interfund transfers now balance ($14.16M in = $14.16M out); see below |
What actually looks better in FY25 credit where due
- ✓Transfers between funds balance to the penny: $14,162,186.64 in = $14,162,186.64 out. That's a real contrast with FY24's $38M of unapproved interfund loans.
- ✓The amounts funds owe each other also tie: $974,854.33 receivable = $974,854.33 payable.
The catch: that same $974,854.33 is the IOU the General Fund holds against the Student Activity Fund — i.e., the mechanism that zeroed the activity fund in clue #1. The plumbing balances; how it was made to balance is the question.
On its face, the FY25 self-report is clean and adds up — there's no missing money visible, and the General Fund still shows a healthy ~$18.3M balance. But it carries the same DNA as the problems the FY24 audit documented: a fund forced to zero instead of reconciled, a pile of prior-year corrections, an unaudited starting point, and the same capital-spending pace that broke the budget once already.
Because the district didn't correct its controls until the back half of FY26, all of FY25 ran under those same practices. The realistic expectation is that the still-pending FY25 audit surfaces much of what FY24 did — repeat material weaknesses in closing and reconciliations, another look at the activity fund, and a real chance of a budget-authority or capital-fund correction. Worth asking management now: the FY25 budget-vs.-actual schedule, why the activity fund nets to zero, and what the $1.11M round-number adjustment represents.