Here’s how much Fayette County Public Schools has spent on audits, investigations
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- District has allocated $269,605 to date for three audits or investigations.
- District budget cuts exceed $20 million from the $711.3 million general fund.
- VanAntwerp probe of Liggins and the State Auditor's exam are currently ongoing.
Fayette County Public Schools has spent more than $269,000 on investigations and audits over the past 12 months as it tries to right its finances and determine what went wrong and when.
To date, the district has allocated or spent a total of $269,605 on three audits or special investigations, according to information provided by the district and Fayette County School Board of Education documents.
But that bill will soon climb. Two other investigations and audits are still pending.
The investigations and special audits were launched after the district began to discover significant budget issues last year. More recently, FCPS discovered its finances have been misstated for decades and its budgeting process was in disarray. The district has cut more than $20 million from its $711.3 million general fund budget for the current fiscal year, which began July 1. That includes eliminating 120 positions and cutting work days for other employees.
But not all the special investigations involve finances.
The district hired VanAntwerp Attorneys in June to begin an investigation into the conduct of Superintendent Demetrus Liggins, who was placed on paid administrative leave on June 10. That investigation is ongoing and the amount VanAntwerp will charge the cash-strapped district is not yet known.
That’s not the only special investigation the district will be billed for in coming months.
State Auditor Allison Ball is currently undergoing a special examination of the district and has told school officials FCPS will also be charged for the state office’s work. It’s not known when that audit will be completed.
“We initially told the district that we would try to ask the General Assembly to pay for it,” said Olivia McKown, a spokeswoman for Ball. “We then found out that the district was getting a duplicative audit to do the work we were doing. We sent the district a letter telling them to rescind the RFP (bid) for that duplicative audit and that if they didn’t, we wouldn’t ask the (General Assembly) for the money. It’s not fair to ask the Kentucky taxpayers outside of FCPS to foot the bill since it is something that the district feels they can afford.”
McKown said it’s too soon to say how much that audit will cost.
Miranda Scully, a spokeswoman for Fayette County Public Schools, said the district has budgeted $350,000 for audits for the current fiscal year.
An audit and two investigations
The audit Ball’s office wanted FCPS to cancel is being done by Weaver and Tidwell, a Texas-based firm the district signed a contract with on Jan. 7.
The initial contract was for $121,560, according to board documents. However, the Fayette County Board of Education recently approved an additional $35,000 for that contract bringing the total to $156,560.
Weaver and Tidwell asked for the additional funds after discovering the district’s financial problems were complex.
“Due to the complexity of the audit and the many changes since the inception of the contract, the firm needs approximately one hundred more hours to complete the audit, at a cost not to exceed $35,000,” according to a document included in the board’s June 21 agenda.
The Weaver and Tidwell audit should be completed in coming weeks, school officials have said.
In addition to the Weaver and Tidwell audit, the board also hired Tueth Keeney Cooper Mohan Jackstadt P.C., a Missouri-based law firm, in 2025 to review its budgeting and other practices.
That review found systemic failures in financial forecasting and unauthorized use of the “rainy day” contingency fund, though no intentional misconduct was found.
District officials said that review, which was released in March, cost the district $75,220.
The district first hired VanAntwerp Attorneys in 2025 after many of the district’s financial problems came to light, including a potential $16 million shortfall and a rapidly draining contingency fund.
The report, released in February 2026, said Liggins should have looked deeper into the district’s financial situation by at least May 2025, which is when school board members first discussed the $16 million budget gap during a meeting. The report also said Liggins did not have an effective budgeting process in place to monitor expenses and how they affected the district’s budget. The report also said Liggins didn’t have the personnel and systems needed in place to either avoid financial issues or alert him to those issues.
That investigation cost the district $37,825.80.
VanAntwerp is also the firm investigating Liggins’ employment after the board voted unanimously to place Liggins on paid administrative leave. The district has remained mum on why Liggins was placed on administrative leave.
According to the contract obtained by the Lexington Herald-Leader through an Open Records Act request, the law firm will bill the district $200 an hour for lawyers and $100 for paralegals. In addition, VanAntwerp can charge the district for travel and other expenses, according to the June 11 contract.
However, the Ashland law firm was hired after Rep. Adrielle Camuel, D-Lexington, who is also an administrative assistant with the district, reported finding an email reportedly from a Louisville-based law firm warning that criticism of Liggins could be considered defamation. The law firm has denied writing the email.
A video shows Liggins placing something underneath Camuel’s office door at the administrative building. Liggins has said that he only gave staff encouraging notes. Liggins has since asked the state’s Office of Education Accountability to open an investigation and also has asked the Kentucky Attorney General’s office to rule the board violated the state’s Open Meetings Act when they placed him on administrative leave. The district has said it followed the state’s open meetings laws.
The attorney general’s office is expected to rule soon.
