FINDING 2024-001 – Reporting – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance
See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Prime grant recipients awarded a federal contract greater than or equal to $30,000 are subject to Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) subaward reporting requirements. The prime awardee is required to file a FFATA subaward report by the end of the month following the month in which the prime contractor awards any subcontract greater than or equal to $30,000. In addition, as a condition of the award, the County is required to submit cash-on-hand reports quarterly. Condition: During our testing, the County did not file a FFATA report for one of its subrecipients that was granted the sub-award during the fiscal year. In addition, we were provided with documentation that indicated the County did not file two of its quarterly cash-on-hand reports by the due date specified in the award document.
Context: Of the six subrecipients that received funding, only one subrecipient was awarded funds in the current fiscal year, and no FFATA report was filed. Of the four cash-on-hand reports, two of four reports was not filed by the due date.
Effect: The FFATA report was not filed within 30 days of the sub-award. The failure to have the FFATA reports submitted could result in the submission of inaccurate or incomplete information to federal agencies, potentially leading to non-compliance with federal requirements, mismanagement of funds, and jeopardizing future funding. In addition, two cash-on-hand reports were not filed by the due date specified in the award document.
Cause: The County does not have an effective control in place to monitor reporting timelines and submission.
Repeat finding: No.
Recommendation: We recommend the County work to establish an internal tracking system to memorialize reporting deadlines and track the submission of required reports under the program.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-001 – Reporting – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance
See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Prime grant recipients awarded a federal contract greater than or equal to $30,000 are subject to Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) subaward reporting requirements. The prime awardee is required to file a FFATA subaward report by the end of the month following the month in which the prime contractor awards any subcontract greater than or equal to $30,000. In addition, as a condition of the award, the County is required to submit cash-on-hand reports quarterly. Condition: During our testing, the County did not file a FFATA report for one of its subrecipients that was granted the sub-award during the fiscal year. In addition, we were provided with documentation that indicated the County did not file two of its quarterly cash-on-hand reports by the due date specified in the award document.
Context: Of the six subrecipients that received funding, only one subrecipient was awarded funds in the current fiscal year, and no FFATA report was filed. Of the four cash-on-hand reports, two of four reports was not filed by the due date.
Effect: The FFATA report was not filed within 30 days of the sub-award. The failure to have the FFATA reports submitted could result in the submission of inaccurate or incomplete information to federal agencies, potentially leading to non-compliance with federal requirements, mismanagement of funds, and jeopardizing future funding. In addition, two cash-on-hand reports were not filed by the due date specified in the award document.
Cause: The County does not have an effective control in place to monitor reporting timelines and submission.
Repeat finding: No.
Recommendation: We recommend the County work to establish an internal tracking system to memorialize reporting deadlines and track the submission of required reports under the program.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-001 – Reporting – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance
See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Prime grant recipients awarded a federal contract greater than or equal to $30,000 are subject to Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) subaward reporting requirements. The prime awardee is required to file a FFATA subaward report by the end of the month following the month in which the prime contractor awards any subcontract greater than or equal to $30,000. In addition, as a condition of the award, the County is required to submit cash-on-hand reports quarterly. Condition: During our testing, the County did not file a FFATA report for one of its subrecipients that was granted the sub-award during the fiscal year. In addition, we were provided with documentation that indicated the County did not file two of its quarterly cash-on-hand reports by the due date specified in the award document.
Context: Of the six subrecipients that received funding, only one subrecipient was awarded funds in the current fiscal year, and no FFATA report was filed. Of the four cash-on-hand reports, two of four reports was not filed by the due date.
Effect: The FFATA report was not filed within 30 days of the sub-award. The failure to have the FFATA reports submitted could result in the submission of inaccurate or incomplete information to federal agencies, potentially leading to non-compliance with federal requirements, mismanagement of funds, and jeopardizing future funding. In addition, two cash-on-hand reports were not filed by the due date specified in the award document.
Cause: The County does not have an effective control in place to monitor reporting timelines and submission.
Repeat finding: No.
Recommendation: We recommend the County work to establish an internal tracking system to memorialize reporting deadlines and track the submission of required reports under the program.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-001 – Reporting – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance
See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Prime grant recipients awarded a federal contract greater than or equal to $30,000 are subject to Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) subaward reporting requirements. The prime awardee is required to file a FFATA subaward report by the end of the month following the month in which the prime contractor awards any subcontract greater than or equal to $30,000. In addition, as a condition of the award, the County is required to submit cash-on-hand reports quarterly. Condition: During our testing, the County did not file a FFATA report for one of its subrecipients that was granted the sub-award during the fiscal year. In addition, we were provided with documentation that indicated the County did not file two of its quarterly cash-on-hand reports by the due date specified in the award document.
Context: Of the six subrecipients that received funding, only one subrecipient was awarded funds in the current fiscal year, and no FFATA report was filed. Of the four cash-on-hand reports, two of four reports was not filed by the due date.
Effect: The FFATA report was not filed within 30 days of the sub-award. The failure to have the FFATA reports submitted could result in the submission of inaccurate or incomplete information to federal agencies, potentially leading to non-compliance with federal requirements, mismanagement of funds, and jeopardizing future funding. In addition, two cash-on-hand reports were not filed by the due date specified in the award document.
Cause: The County does not have an effective control in place to monitor reporting timelines and submission.
Repeat finding: No.
Recommendation: We recommend the County work to establish an internal tracking system to memorialize reporting deadlines and track the submission of required reports under the program.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-001 – Reporting – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance
See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Prime grant recipients awarded a federal contract greater than or equal to $30,000 are subject to Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) subaward reporting requirements. The prime awardee is required to file a FFATA subaward report by the end of the month following the month in which the prime contractor awards any subcontract greater than or equal to $30,000. In addition, as a condition of the award, the County is required to submit cash-on-hand reports quarterly. Condition: During our testing, the County did not file a FFATA report for one of its subrecipients that was granted the sub-award during the fiscal year. In addition, we were provided with documentation that indicated the County did not file two of its quarterly cash-on-hand reports by the due date specified in the award document.
Context: Of the six subrecipients that received funding, only one subrecipient was awarded funds in the current fiscal year, and no FFATA report was filed. Of the four cash-on-hand reports, two of four reports was not filed by the due date.
Effect: The FFATA report was not filed within 30 days of the sub-award. The failure to have the FFATA reports submitted could result in the submission of inaccurate or incomplete information to federal agencies, potentially leading to non-compliance with federal requirements, mismanagement of funds, and jeopardizing future funding. In addition, two cash-on-hand reports were not filed by the due date specified in the award document.
Cause: The County does not have an effective control in place to monitor reporting timelines and submission.
Repeat finding: No.
Recommendation: We recommend the County work to establish an internal tracking system to memorialize reporting deadlines and track the submission of required reports under the program.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-002 – Procurement, Suspension and Debarment – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Federal regulations require that grantees have controls in place to verify that vendors are not suspended or debarred prior to entering into contracts for goods and services exceeding $25,000.
Condition: For two of the contracts tested, there was no evidence of verification from sam.gov being obtained to verify vendors were not suspended or debarred prior to conducting business. There was also no evidence in the County’s contract with the vendor that the appropriate language had been included.
Context: Of the 39 vendors that had expenditures greater than $25,000, we selected four vendors for procurement testing.
Effect: The County could be transacting with parties that are suspended or debarred and may be subject to questioned costs or other sanctions from funding agencies. However, during the course of the audit we verified these vendors were not previously suspended or debarred.
Cause: There were ineffective controls in place during the period, along with lack of management oversight.
Repeat finding: No
Recommendation: We recommend that before the County executes contracts with vendors that exceed $25,000, the vendor is compared to the listing of suspended and debarred vendors on the sam.gov website and that this verification is properly documented.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-002 – Procurement, Suspension and Debarment – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Federal regulations require that grantees have controls in place to verify that vendors are not suspended or debarred prior to entering into contracts for goods and services exceeding $25,000.
Condition: For two of the contracts tested, there was no evidence of verification from sam.gov being obtained to verify vendors were not suspended or debarred prior to conducting business. There was also no evidence in the County’s contract with the vendor that the appropriate language had been included.
Context: Of the 39 vendors that had expenditures greater than $25,000, we selected four vendors for procurement testing.
Effect: The County could be transacting with parties that are suspended or debarred and may be subject to questioned costs or other sanctions from funding agencies. However, during the course of the audit we verified these vendors were not previously suspended or debarred.
Cause: There were ineffective controls in place during the period, along with lack of management oversight.
Repeat finding: No
Recommendation: We recommend that before the County executes contracts with vendors that exceed $25,000, the vendor is compared to the listing of suspended and debarred vendors on the sam.gov website and that this verification is properly documented.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-003 – Allowable Costs – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Recipients may use State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) for any eligible expenses subject to the restrictions set forth in sections 602 and 603 of the Social Security Act as added by section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, codified at 42 USC sections 802 and 803, and as amended by the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act. In general, recipients may use payments from SLFRF to respond to the public health and negative economic impacts of the pandemic, replace lost public sector revenue, provide premium pay for essential workers, invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure, provide emergency relief from natural disasters or the negative economic impacts of natural disasters, fund projects eligible under certain programs administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and fund projects eligible under the programs established in Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Condition: For nine of the items tested, we noted the County had charged contracted services for temporary employees to assist with either accounting or Ballot Measure 108, neither of which are considered allowable in accordance with the regulations.
Context: Of the 35 disbursements that were tested, 9 items were identified that included detail that did not support that the expenditure was allowable in accordance with the regulations.
Effect: The County charged expenditures that were unallowable.
Cause: Journal entries were posted to charge the expenditures to the grant without proper review of the supporting documentation, including timesheets, to verify whether the expenditure would be considered allowable in accordance with the regulations.
Repeat finding: No
Recommendation: We recommend that the County thoroughly review all supporting documentation prior to charging expenditures to a Federal grant to ensure the amount is allowable in accordance with the respective regulations.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-003 – Allowable Costs – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Recipients may use State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) for any eligible expenses subject to the restrictions set forth in sections 602 and 603 of the Social Security Act as added by section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, codified at 42 USC sections 802 and 803, and as amended by the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act. In general, recipients may use payments from SLFRF to respond to the public health and negative economic impacts of the pandemic, replace lost public sector revenue, provide premium pay for essential workers, invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure, provide emergency relief from natural disasters or the negative economic impacts of natural disasters, fund projects eligible under certain programs administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and fund projects eligible under the programs established in Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Condition: For nine of the items tested, we noted the County had charged contracted services for temporary employees to assist with either accounting or Ballot Measure 108, neither of which are considered allowable in accordance with the regulations.
Context: Of the 35 disbursements that were tested, 9 items were identified that included detail that did not support that the expenditure was allowable in accordance with the regulations.
Effect: The County charged expenditures that were unallowable.
Cause: Journal entries were posted to charge the expenditures to the grant without proper review of the supporting documentation, including timesheets, to verify whether the expenditure would be considered allowable in accordance with the regulations.
Repeat finding: No
Recommendation: We recommend that the County thoroughly review all supporting documentation prior to charging expenditures to a Federal grant to ensure the amount is allowable in accordance with the respective regulations.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-001 – Reporting – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance
See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Prime grant recipients awarded a federal contract greater than or equal to $30,000 are subject to Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) subaward reporting requirements. The prime awardee is required to file a FFATA subaward report by the end of the month following the month in which the prime contractor awards any subcontract greater than or equal to $30,000. In addition, as a condition of the award, the County is required to submit cash-on-hand reports quarterly. Condition: During our testing, the County did not file a FFATA report for one of its subrecipients that was granted the sub-award during the fiscal year. In addition, we were provided with documentation that indicated the County did not file two of its quarterly cash-on-hand reports by the due date specified in the award document.
Context: Of the six subrecipients that received funding, only one subrecipient was awarded funds in the current fiscal year, and no FFATA report was filed. Of the four cash-on-hand reports, two of four reports was not filed by the due date.
Effect: The FFATA report was not filed within 30 days of the sub-award. The failure to have the FFATA reports submitted could result in the submission of inaccurate or incomplete information to federal agencies, potentially leading to non-compliance with federal requirements, mismanagement of funds, and jeopardizing future funding. In addition, two cash-on-hand reports were not filed by the due date specified in the award document.
Cause: The County does not have an effective control in place to monitor reporting timelines and submission.
Repeat finding: No.
Recommendation: We recommend the County work to establish an internal tracking system to memorialize reporting deadlines and track the submission of required reports under the program.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-001 – Reporting – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance
See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Prime grant recipients awarded a federal contract greater than or equal to $30,000 are subject to Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) subaward reporting requirements. The prime awardee is required to file a FFATA subaward report by the end of the month following the month in which the prime contractor awards any subcontract greater than or equal to $30,000. In addition, as a condition of the award, the County is required to submit cash-on-hand reports quarterly. Condition: During our testing, the County did not file a FFATA report for one of its subrecipients that was granted the sub-award during the fiscal year. In addition, we were provided with documentation that indicated the County did not file two of its quarterly cash-on-hand reports by the due date specified in the award document.
Context: Of the six subrecipients that received funding, only one subrecipient was awarded funds in the current fiscal year, and no FFATA report was filed. Of the four cash-on-hand reports, two of four reports was not filed by the due date.
Effect: The FFATA report was not filed within 30 days of the sub-award. The failure to have the FFATA reports submitted could result in the submission of inaccurate or incomplete information to federal agencies, potentially leading to non-compliance with federal requirements, mismanagement of funds, and jeopardizing future funding. In addition, two cash-on-hand reports were not filed by the due date specified in the award document.
Cause: The County does not have an effective control in place to monitor reporting timelines and submission.
Repeat finding: No.
Recommendation: We recommend the County work to establish an internal tracking system to memorialize reporting deadlines and track the submission of required reports under the program.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-001 – Reporting – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance
See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Prime grant recipients awarded a federal contract greater than or equal to $30,000 are subject to Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) subaward reporting requirements. The prime awardee is required to file a FFATA subaward report by the end of the month following the month in which the prime contractor awards any subcontract greater than or equal to $30,000. In addition, as a condition of the award, the County is required to submit cash-on-hand reports quarterly. Condition: During our testing, the County did not file a FFATA report for one of its subrecipients that was granted the sub-award during the fiscal year. In addition, we were provided with documentation that indicated the County did not file two of its quarterly cash-on-hand reports by the due date specified in the award document.
Context: Of the six subrecipients that received funding, only one subrecipient was awarded funds in the current fiscal year, and no FFATA report was filed. Of the four cash-on-hand reports, two of four reports was not filed by the due date.
Effect: The FFATA report was not filed within 30 days of the sub-award. The failure to have the FFATA reports submitted could result in the submission of inaccurate or incomplete information to federal agencies, potentially leading to non-compliance with federal requirements, mismanagement of funds, and jeopardizing future funding. In addition, two cash-on-hand reports were not filed by the due date specified in the award document.
Cause: The County does not have an effective control in place to monitor reporting timelines and submission.
Repeat finding: No.
Recommendation: We recommend the County work to establish an internal tracking system to memorialize reporting deadlines and track the submission of required reports under the program.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-001 – Reporting – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance
See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Prime grant recipients awarded a federal contract greater than or equal to $30,000 are subject to Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) subaward reporting requirements. The prime awardee is required to file a FFATA subaward report by the end of the month following the month in which the prime contractor awards any subcontract greater than or equal to $30,000. In addition, as a condition of the award, the County is required to submit cash-on-hand reports quarterly. Condition: During our testing, the County did not file a FFATA report for one of its subrecipients that was granted the sub-award during the fiscal year. In addition, we were provided with documentation that indicated the County did not file two of its quarterly cash-on-hand reports by the due date specified in the award document.
Context: Of the six subrecipients that received funding, only one subrecipient was awarded funds in the current fiscal year, and no FFATA report was filed. Of the four cash-on-hand reports, two of four reports was not filed by the due date.
Effect: The FFATA report was not filed within 30 days of the sub-award. The failure to have the FFATA reports submitted could result in the submission of inaccurate or incomplete information to federal agencies, potentially leading to non-compliance with federal requirements, mismanagement of funds, and jeopardizing future funding. In addition, two cash-on-hand reports were not filed by the due date specified in the award document.
Cause: The County does not have an effective control in place to monitor reporting timelines and submission.
Repeat finding: No.
Recommendation: We recommend the County work to establish an internal tracking system to memorialize reporting deadlines and track the submission of required reports under the program.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-001 – Reporting – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance
See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Prime grant recipients awarded a federal contract greater than or equal to $30,000 are subject to Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) subaward reporting requirements. The prime awardee is required to file a FFATA subaward report by the end of the month following the month in which the prime contractor awards any subcontract greater than or equal to $30,000. In addition, as a condition of the award, the County is required to submit cash-on-hand reports quarterly. Condition: During our testing, the County did not file a FFATA report for one of its subrecipients that was granted the sub-award during the fiscal year. In addition, we were provided with documentation that indicated the County did not file two of its quarterly cash-on-hand reports by the due date specified in the award document.
Context: Of the six subrecipients that received funding, only one subrecipient was awarded funds in the current fiscal year, and no FFATA report was filed. Of the four cash-on-hand reports, two of four reports was not filed by the due date.
Effect: The FFATA report was not filed within 30 days of the sub-award. The failure to have the FFATA reports submitted could result in the submission of inaccurate or incomplete information to federal agencies, potentially leading to non-compliance with federal requirements, mismanagement of funds, and jeopardizing future funding. In addition, two cash-on-hand reports were not filed by the due date specified in the award document.
Cause: The County does not have an effective control in place to monitor reporting timelines and submission.
Repeat finding: No.
Recommendation: We recommend the County work to establish an internal tracking system to memorialize reporting deadlines and track the submission of required reports under the program.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-002 – Procurement, Suspension and Debarment – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Federal regulations require that grantees have controls in place to verify that vendors are not suspended or debarred prior to entering into contracts for goods and services exceeding $25,000.
Condition: For two of the contracts tested, there was no evidence of verification from sam.gov being obtained to verify vendors were not suspended or debarred prior to conducting business. There was also no evidence in the County’s contract with the vendor that the appropriate language had been included.
Context: Of the 39 vendors that had expenditures greater than $25,000, we selected four vendors for procurement testing.
Effect: The County could be transacting with parties that are suspended or debarred and may be subject to questioned costs or other sanctions from funding agencies. However, during the course of the audit we verified these vendors were not previously suspended or debarred.
Cause: There were ineffective controls in place during the period, along with lack of management oversight.
Repeat finding: No
Recommendation: We recommend that before the County executes contracts with vendors that exceed $25,000, the vendor is compared to the listing of suspended and debarred vendors on the sam.gov website and that this verification is properly documented.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-002 – Procurement, Suspension and Debarment – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Federal regulations require that grantees have controls in place to verify that vendors are not suspended or debarred prior to entering into contracts for goods and services exceeding $25,000.
Condition: For two of the contracts tested, there was no evidence of verification from sam.gov being obtained to verify vendors were not suspended or debarred prior to conducting business. There was also no evidence in the County’s contract with the vendor that the appropriate language had been included.
Context: Of the 39 vendors that had expenditures greater than $25,000, we selected four vendors for procurement testing.
Effect: The County could be transacting with parties that are suspended or debarred and may be subject to questioned costs or other sanctions from funding agencies. However, during the course of the audit we verified these vendors were not previously suspended or debarred.
Cause: There were ineffective controls in place during the period, along with lack of management oversight.
Repeat finding: No
Recommendation: We recommend that before the County executes contracts with vendors that exceed $25,000, the vendor is compared to the listing of suspended and debarred vendors on the sam.gov website and that this verification is properly documented.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-003 – Allowable Costs – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Recipients may use State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) for any eligible expenses subject to the restrictions set forth in sections 602 and 603 of the Social Security Act as added by section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, codified at 42 USC sections 802 and 803, and as amended by the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act. In general, recipients may use payments from SLFRF to respond to the public health and negative economic impacts of the pandemic, replace lost public sector revenue, provide premium pay for essential workers, invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure, provide emergency relief from natural disasters or the negative economic impacts of natural disasters, fund projects eligible under certain programs administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and fund projects eligible under the programs established in Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Condition: For nine of the items tested, we noted the County had charged contracted services for temporary employees to assist with either accounting or Ballot Measure 108, neither of which are considered allowable in accordance with the regulations.
Context: Of the 35 disbursements that were tested, 9 items were identified that included detail that did not support that the expenditure was allowable in accordance with the regulations.
Effect: The County charged expenditures that were unallowable.
Cause: Journal entries were posted to charge the expenditures to the grant without proper review of the supporting documentation, including timesheets, to verify whether the expenditure would be considered allowable in accordance with the regulations.
Repeat finding: No
Recommendation: We recommend that the County thoroughly review all supporting documentation prior to charging expenditures to a Federal grant to ensure the amount is allowable in accordance with the respective regulations.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.
FINDING 2024-003 – Allowable Costs – Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Instance of Noncompliance See the Notes to the SEFA for chart/table. Criteria or specific requirement: Recipients may use State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) for any eligible expenses subject to the restrictions set forth in sections 602 and 603 of the Social Security Act as added by section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, codified at 42 USC sections 802 and 803, and as amended by the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act. In general, recipients may use payments from SLFRF to respond to the public health and negative economic impacts of the pandemic, replace lost public sector revenue, provide premium pay for essential workers, invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure, provide emergency relief from natural disasters or the negative economic impacts of natural disasters, fund projects eligible under certain programs administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and fund projects eligible under the programs established in Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Condition: For nine of the items tested, we noted the County had charged contracted services for temporary employees to assist with either accounting or Ballot Measure 108, neither of which are considered allowable in accordance with the regulations.
Context: Of the 35 disbursements that were tested, 9 items were identified that included detail that did not support that the expenditure was allowable in accordance with the regulations.
Effect: The County charged expenditures that were unallowable.
Cause: Journal entries were posted to charge the expenditures to the grant without proper review of the supporting documentation, including timesheets, to verify whether the expenditure would be considered allowable in accordance with the regulations.
Repeat finding: No
Recommendation: We recommend that the County thoroughly review all supporting documentation prior to charging expenditures to a Federal grant to ensure the amount is allowable in accordance with the respective regulations.
Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the auditor recommendation.