Audit 15194

FY End
2023-06-30
Total Expended
$9.89M
Findings
2
Programs
14
Organization: Gibson County, Tennessee (TN)
Year: 2023 Accepted: 2024-02-02

Organization Exclusion Status:

Checking exclusion status...

Contacts

Name Title Type
UFMUEU6JDQK8 Leslie Milligan Auditee
7318557612 Greg Worley Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Title: 3. SUBRECIPIENT INFORMATION Accounting Policies: Presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles using the modified accrual basis of accounting. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: Gibson County elected not to use the 10% de minimis cost rate permitted in the Uniform Guidance. No amounts ($0) were passed-through to subrecipients.
Title: 4. CLUSTER TOTALS Accounting Policies: Presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles using the modified accrual basis of accounting. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: Gibson County elected not to use the 10% de minimis cost rate permitted in the Uniform Guidance. Aging Cluster total $60,852; Health Center Program Cluster total $79,429.
Title: 5. PASS-THROUGH INFORMATION FAL 20.106 Accounting Policies: Presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles using the modified accrual basis of accounting. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: Gibson County elected not to use the 10% de minimis cost rate permitted in the Uniform Guidance. AERO-22-384-00: $16,465; AERO-22-398-00: $18,030; AERO-22-231-00: $2,980.
Title: 6. PASS-THROUGH INFORMATION Accounting Policies: Presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles using the modified accrual basis of accounting. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: Gibson County elected not to use the 10% de minimis cost rate permitted in the Uniform Guidance. Information not available.
Title: 7. FAL NO. TOTALS Accounting Policies: Presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles using the modified accrual basis of accounting. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: Gibson County elected not to use the 10% de minimis cost rate permitted in the Uniform Guidance. Total for FAL. No. 20.106 is $46,317.

Finding Details

During the 2019-2020 audit year, Gibson County received $109,463 in Provider Relief Funds (PRF) (FAL No. 93.498) from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Subsequently, Gibson County failed to submit the required report on the uses of the PRF funds to HRSA by the reporting deadline of September 30, 2021. As a result, Gibson County was notified on January 20, 2023, that they were in noncompliance with the reporting requirements for the PRF funds and that they would be required to return $109,463 in grant funds unless they disputed the information and provided an explanation within 60 days of the notice. The county failed to respond to the notice and must repay the grant funds. As of the date of our audit report, $109,463 had been withheld by the U.S. Department of Treasury from other grants due the county to satisfy this obligation. This finding was a result of a lack of management oversight and the failure to comply with the grant guidance
During the 2019-2020 audit year, Gibson County received $109,463 in Provider Relief Funds (PRF) (FAL No. 93.498) from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Subsequently, Gibson County failed to submit the required report on the uses of the PRF funds to HRSA by the reporting deadline of September 30, 2021. As a result, Gibson County was notified on January 20, 2023, that they were in noncompliance with the reporting requirements for the PRF funds and that they would be required to return $109,463 in grant funds unless they disputed the information and provided an explanation within 60 days of the notice. The county failed to respond to the notice and must repay the grant funds. As of the date of our audit report, $109,463 had been withheld by the U.S. Department of Treasury from other grants due the county to satisfy this obligation. This finding was a result of a lack of management oversight and the failure to comply with the grant guidance