FAC Explorer

Audit 27959

FY End
2022-03-31
Total Expended
$979,925
Findings
2
Programs
5
Organization: Richland County Housing Authority (MT)
Year: 2022 Accepted: 2022-12-06
Auditor: Niewedde & Wiens Cpa's

Organization Exclusion Status:

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
21916 2022-005 Material Weakness Yes N
598358 2022-005 Material Weakness Yes N

Programs

ALN Program Spent Major Findings
10.415 Rural Rental Housing Loans $405,155 Yes 1
14.850 Public and Indian Housing $201,081 - 0
14.871 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers $197,959 - 0
10.427 Rural Rental Assistance Payments $89,439 - 0
14.872 Public Housing Capital Fund $86,291 - 0

Contacts

Name Title Type
NMLBXHFJJG69 Missy Smies Auditee
4064331978 Jeff Wiens Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Title: Loan/loan guarantee outstanding balances Accounting Policies: 1. The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards includes the federal grant activity of Richland County Housing Authority and is presented on the accrual basis of accounting. The information in this schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Costs Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The auditee did not use the de minimis cost rate. RURAL RENTAL HOUSING LOANS (10.415) - Balances outstanding at the end of the audit period were 369761.

Finding Details

Finding 2022-005
Finding 2022-005: Special Tests and Provisions Rural Rental Housing Loan ? Assistance Listing 10.415 Repeat Finding 2022-002 Noncompliance Criteria: The Authority?s Rural Development Properties are required to make a $20,000 deposit into the replacement reserve annually until the balance in the account is at $200,000 or higher. Further, the Rural Development Properties should have adequate cash balances which exceed the security deposit liability. Condition: During our audit, we noted the program had a shortfall in replacement reserve deposits from the prior year of $14,000 and had a current year deposit requirement of $20,000. The Authority did contribute $24,056.05 which left a cumulative deficit in required deposits of $9,943.95. Cause: As noted in Finding 2022-001, the Rural Development Properties are struggling financially and have limited cash flow. Effect or Potential Effect: The Authority was in noncompliance with the Special Tests and Provisions that govern the program. Recommendation: The Authority must review the financial condition of the program and make budget cuts where possible so the program cash flows. The program should be financially viable on its own but the Authority could use other nonfederal funds to help fund the program at the discretion of the Board of Commissioners. View of the Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The auditee?s management agrees with the finding.
Finding 2022-005
Finding 2022-005: Special Tests and Provisions Rural Rental Housing Loan ? Assistance Listing 10.415 Repeat Finding 2022-002 Noncompliance Criteria: The Authority?s Rural Development Properties are required to make a $20,000 deposit into the replacement reserve annually until the balance in the account is at $200,000 or higher. Further, the Rural Development Properties should have adequate cash balances which exceed the security deposit liability. Condition: During our audit, we noted the program had a shortfall in replacement reserve deposits from the prior year of $14,000 and had a current year deposit requirement of $20,000. The Authority did contribute $24,056.05 which left a cumulative deficit in required deposits of $9,943.95. Cause: As noted in Finding 2022-001, the Rural Development Properties are struggling financially and have limited cash flow. Effect or Potential Effect: The Authority was in noncompliance with the Special Tests and Provisions that govern the program. Recommendation: The Authority must review the financial condition of the program and make budget cuts where possible so the program cash flows. The program should be financially viable on its own but the Authority could use other nonfederal funds to help fund the program at the discretion of the Board of Commissioners. View of the Responsible Officials of the Auditee: The auditee?s management agrees with the finding.