EIN: 466000425
UEI: YRPLVUUZ1FN5
Audited by: Eide Bailly LLP
Cognizant agency: 66 [Environmental Protection Agency]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of August 28, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on May 18, 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 November 18, 2026 (79 days from today).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on May 29, 2025 — management decision was due November 29, 2025.
FAC accepted this audit on April 8, 2024 — management decision was due October 8, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on May 17, 2023 — management decision was due November 17, 2023.
The City did not include all required contract provisions in a Construction Manager at Risk contract. Cause: The City does not have an internal control system designed to identify missing contract provisions. Effect: The results in the City potentially failing to detect or prevent four missing contract provisions out of the ten required. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context/Sampling: One instance of noncompliance out two contracts tested. Population of two contracts. Repeat Finding from Prior Year(s): Yes, 2021-003. Recommendation: It is the responsibility management and those charged with governance to develop a system of internal control that will ensure all required contract provisions are included in all contracts. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Department of Treasury, Passed Through the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, FFAL Number 21.027, COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Procurement, Suspension, Debarment Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria: A good system of internal controls requires that a review of contracts to ensure all required contract provisions required under 2 CFR 200 Subpart D Appendix II - Contract Provisions for Non-Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Awards are included. Condition: The City did not include all required contract provisions in a Construction Manager at Risk contract. Cause: The City does not have an internal control system designed to identify missing contract provisions. Effect: The results in the City potentially failing to detect or prevent four missing contract provisions out of the ten required. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context/Sampling: One instance of noncompliance out two contracts tested. Population of two contracts. Repeat Finding from Prior Year(s): Yes, 2021-003. Recommendation: It is the responsibility management and those charged with governance to develop a system of internal control that will ensure all required contract provisions are included in all contracts. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Corrective Action Plan: The City is in agreement to the above finding. The City will implement additional monitoring and control procedures over the all contracts that include federal funds and will ensure that all are reviewed and prepared with required Uniform Guidance contract provisions. This will include a secondary review by someone outside of the individuals writing the contract. Anticipated Completion Date: June 30, 2023
2021-003
FAC accepted this audit on March 30, 2022 — management decision was due September 30, 2022.
The City misreported a revenue number on the annual UDS report, as well as other portions of data being omitted including the amount of COVID funds received for the year. Cause: The City does not have an internal control system designed to provide for a review of the annual UDS report prior to submission. Effect: The results in the City potentially failing to detect or prevent a material error in reporting. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context/Sampling: The entirety of the annual UDS report was tested. Repeat Finding from Prior Year(s): No Recommendation: It is the responsibility management and those charged with governance to develop a system of internal control what will ensure that the revenues received and expenditures incurred are properly reported. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Criteria: A good system of internal controls requires that a review of reported information occurs to ensure that the financial information submitted is correct. Condition: The City misreported a revenue number on the annual UDS report, as well as other portions of data being omitted including the amount of COVID funds received for the year. Cause: The City does not have an internal control system designed to provide for a review of the annual UDS report prior to submission. Effect: The results in the City potentially failing to detect or prevent a material error in reporting. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context/Sampling: The entirety of the annual UDS report was tested. Repeat Finding from Prior Year(s): No Recommendation: It is the responsibility management and those charged with governance to develop a system of internal control what will ensure that the revenues received and expenditures incurred are properly reported. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
The City is in agreement to the above finding. The City will implement additional monitoring and control procedures over the review of health reporting. This will include ensuring a proper review of the annual UDS report by a member of the Health department management staff outside of the individual preparing the report. In addition, the City will implement a secondary review from an experienced member of the Finance department to ensure, to the furthest extent possible, all financial information is reported accurately. In addition, the Health department will make corrections to the information inaccurately reported on the 2021 UDS report and submit no later than March 31, 2022
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2020-002
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2020-003
FAC accepted this audit on March 29, 2021 — management decision was due September 29, 2021.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
FAC accepted this audit on March 23, 2020 — management decision was due September 23, 2020.
FAC accepted this audit on April 23, 2019 — management decision was due October 23, 2019.
FAC accepted this audit on April 15, 2018 — management decision was due October 15, 2018.
FAC accepted this audit on June 18, 2017 — management decision was due December 18, 2017.
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.
Browse other Single Audit organizations in South Dakota →
Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.
Start tracking findings →Monitor subrecipient audit findings and filing records.
Start monitoring →© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.
