EIN: 010493897
UEI: Q2KKFA8U27J5
Data as of August 20, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on June 30, 2026. Under 2 CFR 200.521(d), a pass-through entity that provided federal funds to this organization for this audit period must issue a management decision on these findings by December 30, 2026 (132 days from today).
What is a management decision? →2025-002 Internal Controls over Accuracy of Pay Rates in Payroll Processing for Paying Out Sick Time for Salaried Employees (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: Management is responsible for paying salaried employees at their correct salary rate in their personnel file. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted two individuals that had more than 80 hours in a pay period with sick time in that pay period that were paid out sick time based on their hourly equivalent rate on top of their salary rather than paying the correct salary amount. Cause: Insufficient review of the setup of the sick time pay code in the payroll system. Effect: One employee was overpaid by $20.10 in a pay period while another employee was overpaid by $2.85 in a pay period, and there could be more instances of overpayments. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should consider implementing a better review procedure whenever new pay codes are set up and when any changes are made to how pay codes are set up.
SCEC contracts with a third-party payroll provider to process our payroll. Upon discovery of this error, we reviewed all pay periods again, but found no other error regarding sick time overpayment, or any other time paid incorrectly. The payroll provider had merged companies in a prior year and had several system updates that caused this error. SCEC had other issues with this provider’s system. SCEC cancelled our contract with this payroll provider and contracted with a new payroll provider by the end of the 2025 fiscal year. Payroll is reviewed extensively before it is processed to ensure staff are being paid at their correct rates and other elements of payroll are correct.
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on April 7, 2025. Under 2 CFR 200.521(d), a pass-through entity that provided federal funds to this organization for this audit period must issue a management decision on these findings by October 7, 2025, which was (317 days ago).
What is a management decision? →Noncompliance with Procurement, Suspension, & Debarment Standard (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: 21.027 COVID-19: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, §200.214 prohibits non-federal entities from contracting with parties that are suspended or debarred under covered transactions. Condition and Context: Audit procedures revealed that there was not a policy or process in place to formally document the review of the contracted entity for suspension and debarment prior to entering into the agreement. Cause: The Organization does not have a formal process to document suspension and debarment. Management was unaware of the requirement, though it was clear the management thoughtfully considered the contractor’s reputation and determined that the contractor was suited for the agreement. Effect: The Organization did not perform its review of suspension and debarment for this agreement, though the contractor was found to not be on prohibited lists at annual review. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should strengthen their processes, controls, and review over suspension and debarment processes, and develop a written policy on such items to ensure compliance with Uniform Administrative Requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: As stated by the auditor, SCEC is selective about who to enter contracts with and has long-standing relationships with the organizations we were working with on these efforts, who also had other Federal contracts in process that we were aware of. We have instituted a finance procedure to check all contractors and sub-contractors on the Sam.gov’s verification of debarment and suspension tool before the first payment under the contract is issued and a policy that all SCEC contracts or subawards over $25,000 that utilize federal or state funds must include a suspension and debarment certification.
As stated by the auditor, SCEC is selective about who to enter contracts with and has long standing relationships with the organizations we were working with on these efforts, who also had other Federal contracts in process that we were aware of. We have instituted a finance procedure to check all contractors and sub-contractors on the Sam.gov’s verification of debarment and suspension tool before the first payment under the contract is issued and a policy that all SCEC contracts or subawards over $25,000 that utilize federal or state funds must include a suspension and debarment certification.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
2023-002
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on June 28, 2024. Under 2 CFR 200.521(d), a pass-through entity that provided federal funds to this organization for this audit period must issue a management decision on these findings by December 28, 2024, which was (600 days ago).
What is a management decision? →f Expenditures of Federal Awards (Material Weakness – All Awards) Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principals, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508 (b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The NOAA Mission-Related Education Awards was mislabeled and the CFDA # was missing. • The Highway Planning and Construction CFDA # was incorrect. • The State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds expenditures were overstated by $86,304. • The Highway Planning and Construction expenditures were overstated by $6,282. • The SEFA did not include the State Small Business Credit Initiative program of $310,000. • COVID-19 labels were missing from two programs. • Award term was not included for any agreements. Questioned Costs – None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: We provided the NOAA Award label and CFDA# as soon as we were able to obtain it from the program manager. We corrected the CFDA# for the Highway Planning and Construction as soon as we were able to obtain them from the MEDOT. The contract documents did not include that information. We reported the revenue for the State and Local Recovery Funds in the award column. We now know to put the unspent revenue in deferred. We did not know the $310,000 was Federal Funds, we will know for the future. We will be sure to include Covid-19 labels and all the award dates in the future. We will for training to prepare a SEFA document, it will be on our professional development list in this year.
We provided the NOAA Award label and CFDA# as soon as we were able to obtain it from the program manager. We corrected the CFDA# for the Highway Planning and Construction as soon as we were able to obtain them from the MEDOT. The contract documents did not include that information. We reported the revenue for the State and Local Recovery Funds in the award column. We now know to put the unspent revenue in deferred. We did not know the $310,000 was Federal Funds, we will know for the future. We will be sure to include Covid-19 labels and all the award dates in the future. We will look for training to prepare a SEFA document, it will be on our professional development list in this year.
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on June 29, 2022. Under 2 CFR 200.521(d), a pass-through entity that provided federal funds to this organization for this audit period must issue a management decision on these findings by December 29, 2022, which was (1330 days ago).
What is a management decision? →2021-002 Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency ? All Awards) Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principals, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, #200.508 (b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with #200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: ? The SEFA did not include USDA Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending program ? USDA Intermediary Relending program expenditures were understated by $216,963 ? U.S. Department of Treasury State Small Business Credit initiative expenditures were understated by $79,755 ? The SEFA did not include the Community Development Block Grants ? The SEFA did not include the Northern Border Regional Commission Development grant Questioned Costs ? None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: In the prior two fiscal years the SEFA was prepared with extensive assistance from the auditors since FY19 was our first single audit. In the current audit for FY21 the SEDA and SEFA were provided to the auditors as a DRAFT as we had never prepared one and we expected to hear back from the current auditors if there was a correction needed. Sunrise County Economic Council Finance Director will obtain additional training on Uniform Guidance requirements and consider contracting with a consultant to assist in preparing the SEFA.
June 30, 2022 Oversight Agency for Audit: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Sunrise County Economic Council respectfully submits the following corrective action plan for the year ended September 30, 2021. Name and address of independent public accounting firm: One River, CPAs 46 First Park Dr. Oakland, ME 04963 Audit period: September 30, 2021 The finding from the September 30, 2021 schedule of findings and questioned costs is discussed below. The finding is numbered consistently with the number assigned in the schedule. FINDING ? FEDERAL AWARD PROGRAMS AUDIT 2020-002 Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency: Audit procedures noted several errors in the SEFA. The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: ?The SEFA did not include USDA Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending program ?USDA Intermediary Relending program expenditures were understated by $216,963 ?U.S. Department of Treasury State Small Business Credit initiative expenditures were understated by $79,755 ?The SEFA did not include the Community Development Block Grants ?The SEFA did not include the Northern Border Regional Commission Development grant Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services September 30, 2021 Page 2 Action Taken/to be Taken: Gabriela Eyerman, Sunrise County Economic Council?s Finance Director, will be responsible for corrective action. The corrective action planned is: The SEFA errors occured because the finance director did not realize the long-term liabilities for the USDA RMAP, IRP, and U.S. Treasury SSBCI loan accounts were supposed to be included in the Federal Expenses for the SEFA report, but was fully aware of the liability account balances. In the two prior years the auditors provided the SEFA to SCEC for our review. This will be corrected in future SEFA report submissions. For the CDBG and NBRC funds, we had been previously told by the prior contract holder, as we were a sub of a sub-recipient for the contract, that the service payments were not considered to be federal funds for SCEC so we did not include them in the SEFA. SCEC will get additional training on the SEFA preparation and process for the next fiscal year?s audit and get assistance from an accounting consultant prior to submitting the report to the auditor. If the U.S Department of Health and Human Services has questions regarding this plan, please call Gabriela Montoya-Eyerman at 207-259-5111. Sincerely, Gabriela Eyerman Sunrise County Economic Council Finance Director
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on April 6, 2020. Under 2 CFR 200.521(d), a pass-through entity that provided federal funds to this organization for this audit period must issue a management decision on these findings by October 6, 2020, which was (2144 days ago).
What is a management decision? →Finding 2019-1: Finding Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Subpart F, ?.512, requires Sunrise County Economic Council to submit its single audit reporting package to the federal audit clearinghouse no later than 9 months after fiscal year-end. Condition and context: The federal reporting deadline for the State?s single audit reporting package was June 30, 2019; however, the organization did not issue its single audit reporting package until September 2019. Effect: This finding results in a deficiency in internal control over compliance as the program?s management should have a system in place to ensure audits are filed timely. Cause: Prior auditors were unable to perform the audit and submit before the due date. Recommendation: The organization should start their audit process earlier so that it can submit its single audit reporting package to the federal audit clearinghouse no later than 9 months after fiscal year-end. Agency Response: Concur The organization has new auditors in the current year and expects to submit the single audit reporting package no later than 9 months after fiscal year-end.
Agency Response: Concur The organization has new auditors in the current year and expects to submit the single audit reporting package no later than 9 months after fiscal year-end.
Data source: This information comes from the Federal Audit Clearinghouse, the official repository of Single Audit data. All data is public domain. Verify this organization's audit history at fac.gov.
Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.
Start tracking findings →Monitor subrecipient audit findings and compliance status.
Start monitoring →Single Audit Intelligence is an independent tool powered by Federal Audit Clearinghouse data. Not affiliated with GSA, OMB, or any federal agency.