grantcheck

Arizona · Local government · under $2M in federal spending

City of Sedona

Sedona, AZ

The FY2025 single audit reports no findings. Audits on file for FY2023–FY2025: FY2023, FY2025.

Score: 0 of 100 (FY2025 audit)

The sum of eight parts, each read from the audit. How the score works.

PartRulePointsMax
Material weaknesses8 points each024
Significant deficiencies3 points each09
Repeat findings5 points each015
Longest repeat chain2 years 3, 3 years 6, 4 years 9, 5+ years 12012
Modified major-program opinionsqualified 8 each; any adverse or disclaimer 15015
Questioned costsknown amount of $25,000 or more, by share and dollars015
Going concernauditor included a going-concern paragraph05
Prior-year latenessprior-year audit late or not filed, scored only with a finding05
Score0100

Federal funding, FY2025

$1,312,880 in federal awards spent, across 3 programs. Largest funding agencies:

AgencySpent
Department of the Treasury$1,217,000
Department of Transportation$95,880

FY2025 audit

FAC record
2025-06-GSAFAC-0000411462
Fiscal year end
June 30, 2025
Accepted by FAC
April 1, 2026
Federal spending
$1,312,880 · 3 programs
Major programs
1
Score
0 of 100

No findings reported.

FY2023 audit

FAC record
2023-06-GSAFAC-0000030583
Fiscal year end
June 30, 2023
Accepted by FAC
March 15, 2024
Federal spending
$1,609,057 · 3 programs
Major programs
1
Score
3 of 100

Finding 2023-001

significant deficiency

Program
CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUNDS (21.027)
Compliance requirement
Procurement and suspension and debarment
FAC record
FY2023 audit on fac.gov
Finding text from the filing

Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Award requires compliance with the provisions of procurement, suspension, and debarment. The City should have internal controls designed to ensure compliance with those provisions.

Condition: During our testing, we noted the City did not have adequate internal controls designed to ensure vendors were not suspended or debarred.

Questioned costs: None

Context: During our testing, it was noted that the City was not reviewing vendors prior to entering into a contract with a vendor to ensure the vendor was not on the suspended or debarred vendor list maintained by the General Services Administration.

Cause: The contract was signed prior to the City's decision to use federal funds for the project, thus there was no verification that the contractor was not suspended or debarred at contract inception.

Effect: The auditor noted no instanced of noncompliance with the provisions of procurement, suspension, and debarment; however, the lact of internal controls over these compliance requirements provides an opportunity for noncompliance.

Repeat Finding: None

Recommendation: We recommend the City design controls to ensure an adequate review process is in place to review potential contractors to determine they are not suspended or debarred.

Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.