Criteria: The County is required to perform monitoring activities on any funds that are passed down to subrecipients as listed in 2 C.F.R. section 200.332 including verification that the recipient is audited as required by 2 C.F.R. section 200.501.
Condition: During our test for subrecipient monitoring, the County did not have documented monitoring processes for monitoring subrecipients. Additionally, for the two subrecipients that required single audits, the County did not obtain and review those single audit reports as required by the above referenced criteria. The County did review the subrecipients expenditures to ensure that those expenditures met the requirements of the subrecipient agreement.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County is required to document and follow its monitoring process for subrecipients to ensure that the subrecipient is adhering to the terms of the agreement and to ensure that the subrecipient has designed and implemented effective internal controls that prevent noncompliance.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the requirement therefore did not complete it.
Effect: Not following through on monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with
program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program expenditures
reported by the County.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a checklist for each subrecipient to ensure all monitoring activities are performed. In addition, CLA recommends that the County conduct cross training to ensure that knowledge is shared among team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: The County is required to perform monitoring activities on any funds that are passed down to subrecipients as listed in 2 C.F.R. section 200.332 including verification that the recipient is audited as required by 2 C.F.R. section 200.501.
Condition: During our test for subrecipient monitoring, the County did not have documented monitoring processes for monitoring subrecipients. Additionally, for the two subrecipients that required single audits, the County did not obtain and review those single audit reports as required by the above referenced criteria. The County did review the subrecipients expenditures to ensure that those expenditures met the requirements of the subrecipient agreement.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County is required to document and follow its monitoring process for subrecipients to ensure that the subrecipient is adhering to the terms of the agreement and to ensure that the subrecipient has designed and implemented effective internal controls that prevent noncompliance.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the requirement therefore did not complete it.
Effect: Not following through on monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with
program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program expenditures
reported by the County.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a checklist for each subrecipient to ensure all monitoring activities are performed. In addition, CLA recommends that the County conduct cross training to ensure that knowledge is shared among team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: The County is required to perform monitoring activities on any funds that are passed down to subrecipients as listed in 2 C.F.R. section 200.332 including verification that the recipient is audited as required by 2 C.F.R. section 200.501.
Condition: During our test for subrecipient monitoring, the County did not have documented monitoring processes for monitoring subrecipients. Additionally, for the two subrecipients that required single audits, the County did not obtain and review those single audit reports as required by the above referenced criteria. The County did review the subrecipients expenditures to ensure that those expenditures met the requirements of the subrecipient agreement.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County is required to document and follow its monitoring process for subrecipients to ensure that the subrecipient is adhering to the terms of the agreement and to ensure that the subrecipient has designed and implemented effective internal controls that prevent noncompliance.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the requirement therefore did not complete it.
Effect: Not following through on monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with
program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program expenditures
reported by the County.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a checklist for each subrecipient to ensure all monitoring activities are performed. In addition, CLA recommends that the County conduct cross training to ensure that knowledge is shared among team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: The County is required to perform monitoring activities on any funds that are passed down to subrecipients as listed in 2 C.F.R. section 200.332 including verification that the recipient is audited as required by 2 C.F.R. section 200.501.
Condition: During our test for subrecipient monitoring, the County did not have documented monitoring processes for monitoring subrecipients. Additionally, for the two subrecipients that required single audits, the County did not obtain and review those single audit reports as required by the above referenced criteria. The County did review the subrecipients expenditures to ensure that those expenditures met the requirements of the subrecipient agreement.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County is required to document and follow its monitoring process for subrecipients to ensure that the subrecipient is adhering to the terms of the agreement and to ensure that the subrecipient has designed and implemented effective internal controls that prevent noncompliance.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the requirement therefore did not complete it.
Effect: Not following through on monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with
program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program expenditures
reported by the County.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a checklist for each subrecipient to ensure all monitoring activities are performed. In addition, CLA recommends that the County conduct cross training to ensure that knowledge is shared among team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: The County is required to perform monitoring activities on any funds that are passed down to subrecipients as listed in 2 C.F.R. section 200.332 including verification that the recipient is audited as required by 2 C.F.R. section 200.501.
Condition: During our test for subrecipient monitoring, the County did not have documented monitoring processes for monitoring subrecipients. Additionally, for the two subrecipients that required single audits, the County did not obtain and review those single audit reports as required by the above referenced criteria. The County did review the subrecipients expenditures to ensure that those expenditures met the requirements of the subrecipient agreement.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County is required to document and follow its monitoring process for subrecipients to ensure that the subrecipient is adhering to the terms of the agreement and to ensure that the subrecipient has designed and implemented effective internal controls that prevent noncompliance.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the requirement therefore did not complete it.
Effect: Not following through on monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with
program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program expenditures
reported by the County.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a checklist for each subrecipient to ensure all monitoring activities are performed. In addition, CLA recommends that the County conduct cross training to ensure that knowledge is shared among team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires the County to submit to the State various reports throughout the term of the agreement. Based on terms of the agreement in Exhibit D item 22, the County must submit quarterly financial, activity and program income reports, semi-annual labor and compliance reports and annual performance reports.
Condition: During our test of the reporting requirements, we determined that only the program income report was submitted by the County, and it was submitted on an annual basis rather than the required quarterly basis, However, we did conclude that the program income report was complete and accurate. The other reports were not submitted by the County.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County’s agreement with the State requires that various reports are submitted at various times during the year. Based on the agreement, the County should submit a total of 15 reports during the year, however, only one report, the Program Income report was submitted and that was submitted for the entire year rather than on the required quarterly basis.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the reporting requirements and therefore was unable to complete them.
Effect: Not following through on the reporting requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and meet. Additionally, CLA recommends that the County perform cross training with employees to ensure that knowledge is shared among the team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires the County to submit to the State various reports throughout the term of the agreement. Based on terms of the agreement in Exhibit D item 22, the County must submit quarterly financial, activity and program income reports, semi-annual labor and compliance reports and annual performance reports.
Condition: During our test of the reporting requirements, we determined that only the program income report was submitted by the County, and it was submitted on an annual basis rather than the required quarterly basis, However, we did conclude that the program income report was complete and accurate. The other reports were not submitted by the County.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County’s agreement with the State requires that various reports are submitted at various times during the year. Based on the agreement, the County should submit a total of 15 reports during the year, however, only one report, the Program Income report was submitted and that was submitted for the entire year rather than on the required quarterly basis.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the reporting requirements and therefore was unable to complete them.
Effect: Not following through on the reporting requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and meet. Additionally, CLA recommends that the County perform cross training with employees to ensure that knowledge is shared among the team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires the County to submit to the State various reports throughout the term of the agreement. Based on terms of the agreement in Exhibit D item 22, the County must submit quarterly financial, activity and program income reports, semi-annual labor and compliance reports and annual performance reports.
Condition: During our test of the reporting requirements, we determined that only the program income report was submitted by the County, and it was submitted on an annual basis rather than the required quarterly basis, However, we did conclude that the program income report was complete and accurate. The other reports were not submitted by the County.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County’s agreement with the State requires that various reports are submitted at various times during the year. Based on the agreement, the County should submit a total of 15 reports during the year, however, only one report, the Program Income report was submitted and that was submitted for the entire year rather than on the required quarterly basis.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the reporting requirements and therefore was unable to complete them.
Effect: Not following through on the reporting requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and meet. Additionally, CLA recommends that the County perform cross training with employees to ensure that knowledge is shared among the team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires the County to submit to the State various reports throughout the term of the agreement. Based on terms of the agreement in Exhibit D item 22, the County must submit quarterly financial, activity and program income reports, semi-annual labor and compliance reports and annual performance reports.
Condition: During our test of the reporting requirements, we determined that only the program income report was submitted by the County, and it was submitted on an annual basis rather than the required quarterly basis, However, we did conclude that the program income report was complete and accurate. The other reports were not submitted by the County.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County’s agreement with the State requires that various reports are submitted at various times during the year. Based on the agreement, the County should submit a total of 15 reports during the year, however, only one report, the Program Income report was submitted and that was submitted for the entire year rather than on the required quarterly basis.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the reporting requirements and therefore was unable to complete them.
Effect: Not following through on the reporting requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and meet. Additionally, CLA recommends that the County perform cross training with employees to ensure that knowledge is shared among the team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires the County to submit to the State various reports throughout the term of the agreement. Based on terms of the agreement in Exhibit D item 22, the County must submit quarterly financial, activity and program income reports, semi-annual labor and compliance reports and annual performance reports.
Condition: During our test of the reporting requirements, we determined that only the program income report was submitted by the County, and it was submitted on an annual basis rather than the required quarterly basis, However, we did conclude that the program income report was complete and accurate. The other reports were not submitted by the County.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County’s agreement with the State requires that various reports are submitted at various times during the year. Based on the agreement, the County should submit a total of 15 reports during the year, however, only one report, the Program Income report was submitted and that was submitted for the entire year rather than on the required quarterly basis.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the reporting requirements and therefore was unable to complete them.
Effect: Not following through on the reporting requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and meet. Additionally, CLA recommends that the County perform cross training with employees to ensure that knowledge is shared among the team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires that Community Development Block Grant loans be monitored for compliance with the loan provisions on a regular basis. Such loan requirements are required to ensure CDBG loan funds are used in accordance with all program requirements. The requirements are noted in the OMB 24 CFR Part 570.483 and 570.490. This requirement states the participating jurisdiction “has committed and expended CDBG funds, as required, and has met CDBG program requirements particularly as they relate to eligible activities, income targeting, affordability, and matching contribution requirement."
Condition: During our test of the outstanding loans for continuing compliance, we noted the County did not have adequate documentation to support monitoring of program loans to ensure compliance with loan provisions for eight of the loans.
Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $667,118, the value of the eight loans.
Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected twelve loans which is the entire population to test continuing compliance and found that eight of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unable to perform foreclosure filing procedures in a timely manner after realizing loans were not in compliance.
Effect: Not following through on continual monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program loan receivables reported by the County. The department was not aware of any other loans requiring foreclosure procedures.
Repeat Finding: 2021-001
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a compliance checklist in the receivables listing sent to the auditor’s office, to ensure that outstanding loan continuing compliance is performed timely and documented in accordance with the CDBG grant loan provision.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires that Community Development Block Grant loans be monitored for compliance with the loan provisions on a regular basis. Such loan requirements are required to ensure CDBG loan funds are used in accordance with all program requirements. The requirements are noted in the OMB 24 CFR Part 570.483 and 570.490. This requirement states the participating jurisdiction “has committed and expended CDBG funds, as required, and has met CDBG program requirements particularly as they relate to eligible activities, income targeting, affordability, and matching contribution requirement."
Condition: During our test of the outstanding loans for continuing compliance, we noted the County did not have adequate documentation to support monitoring of program loans to ensure compliance with loan provisions for eight of the loans.
Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $667,118, the value of the eight loans.
Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected twelve loans which is the entire population to test continuing compliance and found that eight of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unable to perform foreclosure filing procedures in a timely manner after realizing loans were not in compliance.
Effect: Not following through on continual monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program loan receivables reported by the County. The department was not aware of any other loans requiring foreclosure procedures.
Repeat Finding: 2021-001
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a compliance checklist in the receivables listing sent to the auditor’s office, to ensure that outstanding loan continuing compliance is performed timely and documented in accordance with the CDBG grant loan provision.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires that Community Development Block Grant loans be monitored for compliance with the loan provisions on a regular basis. Such loan requirements are required to ensure CDBG loan funds are used in accordance with all program requirements. The requirements are noted in the OMB 24 CFR Part 570.483 and 570.490. This requirement states the participating jurisdiction “has committed and expended CDBG funds, as required, and has met CDBG program requirements particularly as they relate to eligible activities, income targeting, affordability, and matching contribution requirement."
Condition: During our test of the outstanding loans for continuing compliance, we noted the County did not have adequate documentation to support monitoring of program loans to ensure compliance with loan provisions for eight of the loans.
Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $667,118, the value of the eight loans.
Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected twelve loans which is the entire population to test continuing compliance and found that eight of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unable to perform foreclosure filing procedures in a timely manner after realizing loans were not in compliance.
Effect: Not following through on continual monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program loan receivables reported by the County. The department was not aware of any other loans requiring foreclosure procedures.
Repeat Finding: 2021-001
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a compliance checklist in the receivables listing sent to the auditor’s office, to ensure that outstanding loan continuing compliance is performed timely and documented in accordance with the CDBG grant loan provision.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires that Community Development Block Grant loans be monitored for compliance with the loan provisions on a regular basis. Such loan requirements are required to ensure CDBG loan funds are used in accordance with all program requirements. The requirements are noted in the OMB 24 CFR Part 570.483 and 570.490. This requirement states the participating jurisdiction “has committed and expended CDBG funds, as required, and has met CDBG program requirements particularly as they relate to eligible activities, income targeting, affordability, and matching contribution requirement."
Condition: During our test of the outstanding loans for continuing compliance, we noted the County did not have adequate documentation to support monitoring of program loans to ensure compliance with loan provisions for eight of the loans.
Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $667,118, the value of the eight loans.
Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected twelve loans which is the entire population to test continuing compliance and found that eight of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unable to perform foreclosure filing procedures in a timely manner after realizing loans were not in compliance.
Effect: Not following through on continual monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program loan receivables reported by the County. The department was not aware of any other loans requiring foreclosure procedures.
Repeat Finding: 2021-001
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a compliance checklist in the receivables listing sent to the auditor’s office, to ensure that outstanding loan continuing compliance is performed timely and documented in accordance with the CDBG grant loan provision.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires that Community Development Block Grant loans be monitored for compliance with the loan provisions on a regular basis. Such loan requirements are required to ensure CDBG loan funds are used in accordance with all program requirements. The requirements are noted in the OMB 24 CFR Part 570.483 and 570.490. This requirement states the participating jurisdiction “has committed and expended CDBG funds, as required, and has met CDBG program requirements particularly as they relate to eligible activities, income targeting, affordability, and matching contribution requirement."
Condition: During our test of the outstanding loans for continuing compliance, we noted the County did not have adequate documentation to support monitoring of program loans to ensure compliance with loan provisions for eight of the loans.
Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $667,118, the value of the eight loans.
Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected twelve loans which is the entire population to test continuing compliance and found that eight of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unable to perform foreclosure filing procedures in a timely manner after realizing loans were not in compliance.
Effect: Not following through on continual monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program loan receivables reported by the County. The department was not aware of any other loans requiring foreclosure procedures.
Repeat Finding: 2021-001
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a compliance checklist in the receivables listing sent to the auditor’s office, to ensure that outstanding loan continuing compliance is performed timely and documented in accordance with the CDBG grant loan provision.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires that Home Investment Partnership Program loans be monitored for compliance with the loan provisions on a regular basis. Such loan requirements are required to ensure HOME loan funds are used in accordance with all program requirements. The requirements are noted in the OMB 24 CFR Part 92.500 and 92.201(b). This requirement states the participating jurisdiction “has committed and expended HOME funds, as required, and has met HOME program requirements particularly as they relate to eligible activities, income targeting, affordability, and matching contribution requirement."
Condition: During our test of the outstanding loans for continuing compliance, we noted the County did not have adequate documentation to support monitoring of program loans to ensure compliance with loan provisions for one loan.
Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $99,570, the value of the loan.
Context: HOME loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected six loans of a population of eighteen HOME Program loans to test continuing compliance and found that one of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unable to perform foreclosure filing procedures in a timely manner after realizing loans were not in compliance.
Effect: Not following through on continual monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program loan receivables reported by the County. The department was not aware of any other loans requiring foreclosure procedures.
Repeat Finding: 2021-002
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a compliance checklist in the receivables listing sent to the auditor’s office, to ensure that outstanding loan continuing compliance is performed timely and documented in accordance with the HOME grant loan provision.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: The County is required to perform monitoring activities on any funds that are passed down to subrecipients as listed in 2 C.F.R. section 200.332 including verification that the recipient is audited as required by 2 C.F.R. section 200.501.
Condition: During our test for subrecipient monitoring, the County did not have documented monitoring processes for monitoring subrecipients. Additionally, for the two subrecipients that required single audits, the County did not obtain and review those single audit reports as required by the above referenced criteria. The County did review the subrecipients expenditures to ensure that those expenditures met the requirements of the subrecipient agreement.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County is required to document and follow its monitoring process for subrecipients to ensure that the subrecipient is adhering to the terms of the agreement and to ensure that the subrecipient has designed and implemented effective internal controls that prevent noncompliance.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the requirement therefore did not complete it.
Effect: Not following through on monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with
program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program expenditures
reported by the County.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a checklist for each subrecipient to ensure all monitoring activities are performed. In addition, CLA recommends that the County conduct cross training to ensure that knowledge is shared among team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: The County is required to perform monitoring activities on any funds that are passed down to subrecipients as listed in 2 C.F.R. section 200.332 including verification that the recipient is audited as required by 2 C.F.R. section 200.501.
Condition: During our test for subrecipient monitoring, the County did not have documented monitoring processes for monitoring subrecipients. Additionally, for the two subrecipients that required single audits, the County did not obtain and review those single audit reports as required by the above referenced criteria. The County did review the subrecipients expenditures to ensure that those expenditures met the requirements of the subrecipient agreement.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County is required to document and follow its monitoring process for subrecipients to ensure that the subrecipient is adhering to the terms of the agreement and to ensure that the subrecipient has designed and implemented effective internal controls that prevent noncompliance.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the requirement therefore did not complete it.
Effect: Not following through on monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with
program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program expenditures
reported by the County.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a checklist for each subrecipient to ensure all monitoring activities are performed. In addition, CLA recommends that the County conduct cross training to ensure that knowledge is shared among team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: The County is required to perform monitoring activities on any funds that are passed down to subrecipients as listed in 2 C.F.R. section 200.332 including verification that the recipient is audited as required by 2 C.F.R. section 200.501.
Condition: During our test for subrecipient monitoring, the County did not have documented monitoring processes for monitoring subrecipients. Additionally, for the two subrecipients that required single audits, the County did not obtain and review those single audit reports as required by the above referenced criteria. The County did review the subrecipients expenditures to ensure that those expenditures met the requirements of the subrecipient agreement.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County is required to document and follow its monitoring process for subrecipients to ensure that the subrecipient is adhering to the terms of the agreement and to ensure that the subrecipient has designed and implemented effective internal controls that prevent noncompliance.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the requirement therefore did not complete it.
Effect: Not following through on monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with
program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program expenditures
reported by the County.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a checklist for each subrecipient to ensure all monitoring activities are performed. In addition, CLA recommends that the County conduct cross training to ensure that knowledge is shared among team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: The County is required to perform monitoring activities on any funds that are passed down to subrecipients as listed in 2 C.F.R. section 200.332 including verification that the recipient is audited as required by 2 C.F.R. section 200.501.
Condition: During our test for subrecipient monitoring, the County did not have documented monitoring processes for monitoring subrecipients. Additionally, for the two subrecipients that required single audits, the County did not obtain and review those single audit reports as required by the above referenced criteria. The County did review the subrecipients expenditures to ensure that those expenditures met the requirements of the subrecipient agreement.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County is required to document and follow its monitoring process for subrecipients to ensure that the subrecipient is adhering to the terms of the agreement and to ensure that the subrecipient has designed and implemented effective internal controls that prevent noncompliance.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the requirement therefore did not complete it.
Effect: Not following through on monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with
program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program expenditures
reported by the County.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a checklist for each subrecipient to ensure all monitoring activities are performed. In addition, CLA recommends that the County conduct cross training to ensure that knowledge is shared among team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: The County is required to perform monitoring activities on any funds that are passed down to subrecipients as listed in 2 C.F.R. section 200.332 including verification that the recipient is audited as required by 2 C.F.R. section 200.501.
Condition: During our test for subrecipient monitoring, the County did not have documented monitoring processes for monitoring subrecipients. Additionally, for the two subrecipients that required single audits, the County did not obtain and review those single audit reports as required by the above referenced criteria. The County did review the subrecipients expenditures to ensure that those expenditures met the requirements of the subrecipient agreement.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County is required to document and follow its monitoring process for subrecipients to ensure that the subrecipient is adhering to the terms of the agreement and to ensure that the subrecipient has designed and implemented effective internal controls that prevent noncompliance.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the requirement therefore did not complete it.
Effect: Not following through on monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with
program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program expenditures
reported by the County.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a checklist for each subrecipient to ensure all monitoring activities are performed. In addition, CLA recommends that the County conduct cross training to ensure that knowledge is shared among team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires the County to submit to the State various reports throughout the term of the agreement. Based on terms of the agreement in Exhibit D item 22, the County must submit quarterly financial, activity and program income reports, semi-annual labor and compliance reports and annual performance reports.
Condition: During our test of the reporting requirements, we determined that only the program income report was submitted by the County, and it was submitted on an annual basis rather than the required quarterly basis, However, we did conclude that the program income report was complete and accurate. The other reports were not submitted by the County.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County’s agreement with the State requires that various reports are submitted at various times during the year. Based on the agreement, the County should submit a total of 15 reports during the year, however, only one report, the Program Income report was submitted and that was submitted for the entire year rather than on the required quarterly basis.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the reporting requirements and therefore was unable to complete them.
Effect: Not following through on the reporting requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and meet. Additionally, CLA recommends that the County perform cross training with employees to ensure that knowledge is shared among the team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires the County to submit to the State various reports throughout the term of the agreement. Based on terms of the agreement in Exhibit D item 22, the County must submit quarterly financial, activity and program income reports, semi-annual labor and compliance reports and annual performance reports.
Condition: During our test of the reporting requirements, we determined that only the program income report was submitted by the County, and it was submitted on an annual basis rather than the required quarterly basis, However, we did conclude that the program income report was complete and accurate. The other reports were not submitted by the County.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County’s agreement with the State requires that various reports are submitted at various times during the year. Based on the agreement, the County should submit a total of 15 reports during the year, however, only one report, the Program Income report was submitted and that was submitted for the entire year rather than on the required quarterly basis.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the reporting requirements and therefore was unable to complete them.
Effect: Not following through on the reporting requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and meet. Additionally, CLA recommends that the County perform cross training with employees to ensure that knowledge is shared among the team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires the County to submit to the State various reports throughout the term of the agreement. Based on terms of the agreement in Exhibit D item 22, the County must submit quarterly financial, activity and program income reports, semi-annual labor and compliance reports and annual performance reports.
Condition: During our test of the reporting requirements, we determined that only the program income report was submitted by the County, and it was submitted on an annual basis rather than the required quarterly basis, However, we did conclude that the program income report was complete and accurate. The other reports were not submitted by the County.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County’s agreement with the State requires that various reports are submitted at various times during the year. Based on the agreement, the County should submit a total of 15 reports during the year, however, only one report, the Program Income report was submitted and that was submitted for the entire year rather than on the required quarterly basis.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the reporting requirements and therefore was unable to complete them.
Effect: Not following through on the reporting requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and meet. Additionally, CLA recommends that the County perform cross training with employees to ensure that knowledge is shared among the team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires the County to submit to the State various reports throughout the term of the agreement. Based on terms of the agreement in Exhibit D item 22, the County must submit quarterly financial, activity and program income reports, semi-annual labor and compliance reports and annual performance reports.
Condition: During our test of the reporting requirements, we determined that only the program income report was submitted by the County, and it was submitted on an annual basis rather than the required quarterly basis, However, we did conclude that the program income report was complete and accurate. The other reports were not submitted by the County.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County’s agreement with the State requires that various reports are submitted at various times during the year. Based on the agreement, the County should submit a total of 15 reports during the year, however, only one report, the Program Income report was submitted and that was submitted for the entire year rather than on the required quarterly basis.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the reporting requirements and therefore was unable to complete them.
Effect: Not following through on the reporting requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and meet. Additionally, CLA recommends that the County perform cross training with employees to ensure that knowledge is shared among the team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires the County to submit to the State various reports throughout the term of the agreement. Based on terms of the agreement in Exhibit D item 22, the County must submit quarterly financial, activity and program income reports, semi-annual labor and compliance reports and annual performance reports.
Condition: During our test of the reporting requirements, we determined that only the program income report was submitted by the County, and it was submitted on an annual basis rather than the required quarterly basis, However, we did conclude that the program income report was complete and accurate. The other reports were not submitted by the County.
Questioned costs: None
Context: The County’s agreement with the State requires that various reports are submitted at various times during the year. Based on the agreement, the County should submit a total of 15 reports during the year, however, only one report, the Program Income report was submitted and that was submitted for the entire year rather than on the required quarterly basis.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the reporting requirements and therefore was unable to complete them.
Effect: Not following through on the reporting requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance.
Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and meet. Additionally, CLA recommends that the County perform cross training with employees to ensure that knowledge is shared among the team members.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires that Community Development Block Grant loans be monitored for compliance with the loan provisions on a regular basis. Such loan requirements are required to ensure CDBG loan funds are used in accordance with all program requirements. The requirements are noted in the OMB 24 CFR Part 570.483 and 570.490. This requirement states the participating jurisdiction “has committed and expended CDBG funds, as required, and has met CDBG program requirements particularly as they relate to eligible activities, income targeting, affordability, and matching contribution requirement."
Condition: During our test of the outstanding loans for continuing compliance, we noted the County did not have adequate documentation to support monitoring of program loans to ensure compliance with loan provisions for eight of the loans.
Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $667,118, the value of the eight loans.
Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected twelve loans which is the entire population to test continuing compliance and found that eight of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unable to perform foreclosure filing procedures in a timely manner after realizing loans were not in compliance.
Effect: Not following through on continual monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program loan receivables reported by the County. The department was not aware of any other loans requiring foreclosure procedures.
Repeat Finding: 2021-001
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a compliance checklist in the receivables listing sent to the auditor’s office, to ensure that outstanding loan continuing compliance is performed timely and documented in accordance with the CDBG grant loan provision.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires that Community Development Block Grant loans be monitored for compliance with the loan provisions on a regular basis. Such loan requirements are required to ensure CDBG loan funds are used in accordance with all program requirements. The requirements are noted in the OMB 24 CFR Part 570.483 and 570.490. This requirement states the participating jurisdiction “has committed and expended CDBG funds, as required, and has met CDBG program requirements particularly as they relate to eligible activities, income targeting, affordability, and matching contribution requirement."
Condition: During our test of the outstanding loans for continuing compliance, we noted the County did not have adequate documentation to support monitoring of program loans to ensure compliance with loan provisions for eight of the loans.
Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $667,118, the value of the eight loans.
Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected twelve loans which is the entire population to test continuing compliance and found that eight of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unable to perform foreclosure filing procedures in a timely manner after realizing loans were not in compliance.
Effect: Not following through on continual monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program loan receivables reported by the County. The department was not aware of any other loans requiring foreclosure procedures.
Repeat Finding: 2021-001
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a compliance checklist in the receivables listing sent to the auditor’s office, to ensure that outstanding loan continuing compliance is performed timely and documented in accordance with the CDBG grant loan provision.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires that Community Development Block Grant loans be monitored for compliance with the loan provisions on a regular basis. Such loan requirements are required to ensure CDBG loan funds are used in accordance with all program requirements. The requirements are noted in the OMB 24 CFR Part 570.483 and 570.490. This requirement states the participating jurisdiction “has committed and expended CDBG funds, as required, and has met CDBG program requirements particularly as they relate to eligible activities, income targeting, affordability, and matching contribution requirement."
Condition: During our test of the outstanding loans for continuing compliance, we noted the County did not have adequate documentation to support monitoring of program loans to ensure compliance with loan provisions for eight of the loans.
Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $667,118, the value of the eight loans.
Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected twelve loans which is the entire population to test continuing compliance and found that eight of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unable to perform foreclosure filing procedures in a timely manner after realizing loans were not in compliance.
Effect: Not following through on continual monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program loan receivables reported by the County. The department was not aware of any other loans requiring foreclosure procedures.
Repeat Finding: 2021-001
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a compliance checklist in the receivables listing sent to the auditor’s office, to ensure that outstanding loan continuing compliance is performed timely and documented in accordance with the CDBG grant loan provision.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires that Community Development Block Grant loans be monitored for compliance with the loan provisions on a regular basis. Such loan requirements are required to ensure CDBG loan funds are used in accordance with all program requirements. The requirements are noted in the OMB 24 CFR Part 570.483 and 570.490. This requirement states the participating jurisdiction “has committed and expended CDBG funds, as required, and has met CDBG program requirements particularly as they relate to eligible activities, income targeting, affordability, and matching contribution requirement."
Condition: During our test of the outstanding loans for continuing compliance, we noted the County did not have adequate documentation to support monitoring of program loans to ensure compliance with loan provisions for eight of the loans.
Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $667,118, the value of the eight loans.
Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected twelve loans which is the entire population to test continuing compliance and found that eight of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unable to perform foreclosure filing procedures in a timely manner after realizing loans were not in compliance.
Effect: Not following through on continual monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program loan receivables reported by the County. The department was not aware of any other loans requiring foreclosure procedures.
Repeat Finding: 2021-001
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a compliance checklist in the receivables listing sent to the auditor’s office, to ensure that outstanding loan continuing compliance is performed timely and documented in accordance with the CDBG grant loan provision.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires that Community Development Block Grant loans be monitored for compliance with the loan provisions on a regular basis. Such loan requirements are required to ensure CDBG loan funds are used in accordance with all program requirements. The requirements are noted in the OMB 24 CFR Part 570.483 and 570.490. This requirement states the participating jurisdiction “has committed and expended CDBG funds, as required, and has met CDBG program requirements particularly as they relate to eligible activities, income targeting, affordability, and matching contribution requirement."
Condition: During our test of the outstanding loans for continuing compliance, we noted the County did not have adequate documentation to support monitoring of program loans to ensure compliance with loan provisions for eight of the loans.
Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $667,118, the value of the eight loans.
Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected twelve loans which is the entire population to test continuing compliance and found that eight of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unable to perform foreclosure filing procedures in a timely manner after realizing loans were not in compliance.
Effect: Not following through on continual monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program loan receivables reported by the County. The department was not aware of any other loans requiring foreclosure procedures.
Repeat Finding: 2021-001
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a compliance checklist in the receivables listing sent to the auditor’s office, to ensure that outstanding loan continuing compliance is performed timely and documented in accordance with the CDBG grant loan provision.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires that Home Investment Partnership Program loans be monitored for compliance with the loan provisions on a regular basis. Such loan requirements are required to ensure HOME loan funds are used in accordance with all program requirements. The requirements are noted in the OMB 24 CFR Part 92.500 and 92.201(b). This requirement states the participating jurisdiction “has committed and expended HOME funds, as required, and has met HOME program requirements particularly as they relate to eligible activities, income targeting, affordability, and matching contribution requirement."
Condition: During our test of the outstanding loans for continuing compliance, we noted the County did not have adequate documentation to support monitoring of program loans to ensure compliance with loan provisions for one loan.
Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $99,570, the value of the loan.
Context: HOME loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected six loans of a population of eighteen HOME Program loans to test continuing compliance and found that one of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred.
Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unable to perform foreclosure filing procedures in a timely manner after realizing loans were not in compliance.
Effect: Not following through on continual monitoring requirements could result in noncompliance with program requirements and could potentially cause an overstatement of program loan receivables reported by the County. The department was not aware of any other loans requiring foreclosure procedures.
Repeat Finding: 2021-002
Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as including a compliance checklist in the receivables listing sent to the auditor’s office, to ensure that outstanding loan continuing compliance is performed timely and documented in accordance with the HOME grant loan provision.
Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.