FAC Explorer

Audit 304795

FY End
2023-12-31
Total Expended
$1.40M
Findings
2
Programs
2
Organization: L.w. Fraser Independent Living Project Ii, Inc., Lyndale Court (MN)
Year: 2023 Accepted: 2024-04-26
Auditor: Bouley Pllp

Organization Exclusion Status:

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
394940 2023-001 - - P
971382 2023-001 - - P

Programs

ALN Program Spent Major Findings
14.134 Mortgage Insurance_rental Housing $1.17M Yes 0
14.195 Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program $221,864 - 1

Contacts

Name Title Type
UG1XTKGVVWP3 James Olson Auditee
6127988320 Jadin C. Bragg Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Title: Basis of Presentation Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. The 10-percent de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance is not applicable to the Organization since the Organization has no cost reimbursable grants or contracts. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The auditee did not use the de minimis cost rate The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the “Schedule”) includes the federal award activity of L. W. Fraser Independent Living Project II, Inc., Lyndale Court, HUD Project No. 092-11228 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, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Because the Schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of the Project, it is not intended to and does not present the financial position, changes in net deficit, or cash flows of L. W. Fraser Independent Living Project II, Inc., Lyndale Court.
Title: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Loan Program Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. The 10-percent de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance is not applicable to the Organization since the Organization has no cost reimbursable grants or contracts. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The auditee did not use the de minimis cost rate Lyndale Court has received a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development direct loan under Section 207 pursuant to Section 223(f) of the National Housing Act. The loan balance outstanding at the beginning of the year is included in the federal expenditures presented in the Schedule. Lyndale Court received no additional loans during the year.

Finding Details

Finding 2023-001
Statement of Condition: The Project is required by HUD to follow Minnesota State laws to either refund tenant security deposits or notify the tenant of a balance owed in excess of the security deposit within 21 days of the tenant moving out. Of the two units tested, the Project did not refund one tenant their security deposit within 21 days of move-out as required by HUD and the State of Minnesota. Criteria: The Project is required by HUD and the State of Minnesota to either refund the tenant security deposit or to notify the tenant of the balance owed in excess of the security deposit within 21 days of the tenant moving out. Effect: The Project is not in compliance with the HUD or State of Minnesota requirements for tenant security deposit refunds. Cause: The Project returned the security deposit during 2023; however, it failed to refund one tenant their security deposit within 21 days of the tenant moving out of the Project. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: We recommend that management review the HUD and State of Minnesota security deposit requirements with its staff and provide its staff with the proper training regarding these requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Project agrees that it did not refund the tenant their security deposit within 21 days of move-out. Auditor’s Summary of Auditee’s Comments: The Project did not refund the tenant their security deposit within 21 days of move-out. The Project agrees that it did not refund the tenant their security deposit within 21 days of move-out. Management’s Response: The Project agrees that it did not refund the tenant their security deposit within 21 days of move-out. We have discussed and reviewed the HUD and State of Minnesota security deposit requirements with our staff. The staff understands the 21-day requirement and will process security deposit refunds or notify the tenant of the balance owed in excess of the deposit within 21 days of the tenant moving out.
Finding 2023-001
Statement of Condition: The Project is required by HUD to follow Minnesota State laws to either refund tenant security deposits or notify the tenant of a balance owed in excess of the security deposit within 21 days of the tenant moving out. Of the two units tested, the Project did not refund one tenant their security deposit within 21 days of move-out as required by HUD and the State of Minnesota. Criteria: The Project is required by HUD and the State of Minnesota to either refund the tenant security deposit or to notify the tenant of the balance owed in excess of the security deposit within 21 days of the tenant moving out. Effect: The Project is not in compliance with the HUD or State of Minnesota requirements for tenant security deposit refunds. Cause: The Project returned the security deposit during 2023; however, it failed to refund one tenant their security deposit within 21 days of the tenant moving out of the Project. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: We recommend that management review the HUD and State of Minnesota security deposit requirements with its staff and provide its staff with the proper training regarding these requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Project agrees that it did not refund the tenant their security deposit within 21 days of move-out. Auditor’s Summary of Auditee’s Comments: The Project did not refund the tenant their security deposit within 21 days of move-out. The Project agrees that it did not refund the tenant their security deposit within 21 days of move-out. Management’s Response: The Project agrees that it did not refund the tenant their security deposit within 21 days of move-out. We have discussed and reviewed the HUD and State of Minnesota security deposit requirements with our staff. The staff understands the 21-day requirement and will process security deposit refunds or notify the tenant of the balance owed in excess of the deposit within 21 days of the tenant moving out.