Audit 359906

FY End
2024-09-30
Total Expended
$823,686
Findings
4
Programs
3
Organization: Haynesville Housing Authority (LA)
Year: 2024 Accepted: 2025-06-25
Auditor: Mike Estes PC

Organization Exclusion Status:

Checking exclusion status...

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
567008 2024-001 Material Weakness - N
567009 2024-005 Material Weakness - L
1143450 2024-001 Material Weakness - N
1143451 2024-005 Material Weakness - L

Programs

ALN Program Spent Major Findings
14.872 Public Housing Capital Fund $409,335 Yes 2
14.850 Public Housing Operating Fund $339,667 - 0
14.870 Resident Opportunity and Supportive Services - Service Coordinators $74,684 - 0

Contacts

Name Title Type
C868CENWBJJ5 Yolanda Coleman Auditee
3186241272 Mike Estes Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The Housing Authority did not elect to use the 10-precent de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance.

Finding Details

Capital Fund-CDFA#14.872 Finding 2024-001-Capital Funding Program Not Adequately Administered-Procurement and Special Tests Criteria and Condition The authority is not fully complying with (a)- the May 2024 Compliance Supplement regarding the Capital Fund, (b)-Federal Uniform Grants Guidance Section 200.320, (c)-Louisiana State Bid Law R.S. 38:2212.1, and (d) the authority’s adopted Procurement Policy. Context $367,717 was paid in total to two contractors in fourteen payments for various types of repairs and substantial renovations. $259,032 and $108,685 was paid respectively to the two contractors. We note the following that should be corrected: (a)-federal regulations require that Independent Cost Estimates (ICE) be obtained on all expenditures above the Micro Purchases Amount, which is $5,000 per the authority’s Procurement Policy. Only one of the fourteen expenditures noted above were less than $5,000. No ICE’s were made available to us. To the extent that one type of renovation required more than one of the fourteen expenditures, an ICE is only required for that renovation. (b)-management did not document the attempts to solicit or advertise for other quotes. In addition, no other quotes were made available. (c)-monitoring notes on the progress or lack of or issues noted with construction were not available to us (d)-efforts by management to obtain the contractor payrolls and check for Davis-Bacon compliance were not documented. The contractor payrolls were not available to us. Effect (a) and(b)- the documentation is not sufficient to prove that the authority performed due diligence to obtain the most favorable price and quality for the expenditures of dollars for repairs and renovations. (c)- the Authority employees may have monitored the work but should have documented this in writing. (d)- the Authority did not document that the contractor payrolls were checked for Davis-Bacon compliance. Cause We are not aware of the reasons the above were not done. The requirements have been discussed with management in prior years, when the level of these expenditures were much less. In the prior years, management usually provided other quotes for non-emergency expenditures. Questioned Costs None Recommendation The deficiencies noted above should be corrected. View of Responsible Officials I am Yolonda Coleman, Executive Director and Designated Person to answer these findings. We will comply with the auditor’s recommendations.
Low Rent Program-CDFA#-14.850 and Capital Fund Program-CDFA#14.872 Finding-2024-005-Late Filing of Report- Reporting Criteria and Condition The audit report was due to the Legislative Auditor by March 31, 2025, six months after audit year end. Context The audit report was not timely filed. Effect State regulations were not complied with. Cause We, the auditors, did not receive the necessary accounting information in time for us to complete the audit and deliver the audit report by March 31, 2025. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation Audit reports should be timely filed in the future. View of Responsible Official We will comply with the auditor’s recommendation.
Capital Fund-CDFA#14.872 Finding 2024-001-Capital Funding Program Not Adequately Administered-Procurement and Special Tests Criteria and Condition The authority is not fully complying with (a)- the May 2024 Compliance Supplement regarding the Capital Fund, (b)-Federal Uniform Grants Guidance Section 200.320, (c)-Louisiana State Bid Law R.S. 38:2212.1, and (d) the authority’s adopted Procurement Policy. Context $367,717 was paid in total to two contractors in fourteen payments for various types of repairs and substantial renovations. $259,032 and $108,685 was paid respectively to the two contractors. We note the following that should be corrected: (a)-federal regulations require that Independent Cost Estimates (ICE) be obtained on all expenditures above the Micro Purchases Amount, which is $5,000 per the authority’s Procurement Policy. Only one of the fourteen expenditures noted above were less than $5,000. No ICE’s were made available to us. To the extent that one type of renovation required more than one of the fourteen expenditures, an ICE is only required for that renovation. (b)-management did not document the attempts to solicit or advertise for other quotes. In addition, no other quotes were made available. (c)-monitoring notes on the progress or lack of or issues noted with construction were not available to us (d)-efforts by management to obtain the contractor payrolls and check for Davis-Bacon compliance were not documented. The contractor payrolls were not available to us. Effect (a) and(b)- the documentation is not sufficient to prove that the authority performed due diligence to obtain the most favorable price and quality for the expenditures of dollars for repairs and renovations. (c)- the Authority employees may have monitored the work but should have documented this in writing. (d)- the Authority did not document that the contractor payrolls were checked for Davis-Bacon compliance. Cause We are not aware of the reasons the above were not done. The requirements have been discussed with management in prior years, when the level of these expenditures were much less. In the prior years, management usually provided other quotes for non-emergency expenditures. Questioned Costs None Recommendation The deficiencies noted above should be corrected. View of Responsible Officials I am Yolonda Coleman, Executive Director and Designated Person to answer these findings. We will comply with the auditor’s recommendations.
Low Rent Program-CDFA#-14.850 and Capital Fund Program-CDFA#14.872 Finding-2024-005-Late Filing of Report- Reporting Criteria and Condition The audit report was due to the Legislative Auditor by March 31, 2025, six months after audit year end. Context The audit report was not timely filed. Effect State regulations were not complied with. Cause We, the auditors, did not receive the necessary accounting information in time for us to complete the audit and deliver the audit report by March 31, 2025. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation Audit reports should be timely filed in the future. View of Responsible Official We will comply with the auditor’s recommendation.