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 six of the loans. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $565,610, the value of the six loans. Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected six loans to test continuing compliance and found that six of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred. Cause: The inspections of properties are not conducted due to staffing and funding constraints so proof of compliance with HUD standards is unavailable. 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: 2023-004 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 six of the loans. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $565,610, the value of the six loans. Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected six loans to test continuing compliance and found that six of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred. Cause: The inspections of properties are not conducted due to staffing and funding constraints so proof of compliance with HUD standards is unavailable. 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: 2023-004 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 six of the loans. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $565,610, the value of the six loans. Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected six loans to test continuing compliance and found that six of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred. Cause: The inspections of properties are not conducted due to staffing and funding constraints so proof of compliance with HUD standards is unavailable. 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: 2023-004 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 six of the loans. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $565,610, the value of the six loans. Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected six loans to test continuing compliance and found that six of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred. Cause: The inspections of properties are not conducted due to staffing and funding constraints so proof of compliance with HUD standards is unavailable. 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: 2023-004 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 six of the loans. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $565,610, the value of the six loans. Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected six loans to test continuing compliance and found that six of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred. Cause: The inspections of properties are not conducted due to staffing and funding constraints so proof of compliance with HUD standards is unavailable. 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: 2023-004 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 six of the loans. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $565,610, the value of the six loans. Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected six loans to test continuing compliance and found that six of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred. Cause: The inspections of properties are not conducted due to staffing and funding constraints so proof of compliance with HUD standards is unavailable. 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: 2023-004 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 six of the loans. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $565,610, the value of the six loans. Context: CDBG loans must be monitored annually to ensure recipients are still living in the residence covered by the loan. CLA haphazardly selected six loans to test continuing compliance and found that six of those loans did not have adequate documentation to show continued monitoring occurred. Cause: The inspections of properties are not conducted due to staffing and funding constraints so proof of compliance with HUD standards is unavailable. 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: 2023-004 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: Grantees must formally certify that they have fulfilled the citizen participation requirements outlined in 24 CFR 91.115 and 570.486, as applicable, prior to submitting their annual grant application to HUD. The objective is to ensure that residents—particularly those with low and moderate incomes—are given meaningful opportunities to engage in the planning, execution, and evaluation of projects funded through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Condition: During our test of the special test and provision requirements, we noted the County did not submit the required reports to certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $565,610, the value of the six loans. Context: Prior to the submission to HUD for its annual grant, a grantee must certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements for grantees in 24 CFR 91.115 and 570.486 for local governments. However, none of the required reports are submitted to certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements. Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the special tests and provision requirements and therefore was unable to complete them. Effect: Not following through on the special tests and provision requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a checklist to ensure that special tests and provision requirements are tracked and met. 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: Grantees must formally certify that they have fulfilled the citizen participation requirements outlined in 24 CFR 91.115 and 570.486, as applicable, prior to submitting their annual grant application to HUD. The objective is to ensure that residents—particularly those with low and moderate incomes—are given meaningful opportunities to engage in the planning, execution, and evaluation of projects funded through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Condition: During our test of the special test and provision requirements, we noted the County did not submit the required reports to certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $565,610, the value of the six loans. Context: Prior to the submission to HUD for its annual grant, a grantee must certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements for grantees in 24 CFR 91.115 and 570.486 for local governments. However, none of the required reports are submitted to certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements. Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the special tests and provision requirements and therefore was unable to complete them. Effect: Not following through on the special tests and provision requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a checklist to ensure that special tests and provision requirements are tracked and met. 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: Grantees must formally certify that they have fulfilled the citizen participation requirements outlined in 24 CFR 91.115 and 570.486, as applicable, prior to submitting their annual grant application to HUD. The objective is to ensure that residents—particularly those with low and moderate incomes—are given meaningful opportunities to engage in the planning, execution, and evaluation of projects funded through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Condition: During our test of the special test and provision requirements, we noted the County did not submit the required reports to certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $565,610, the value of the six loans. Context: Prior to the submission to HUD for its annual grant, a grantee must certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements for grantees in 24 CFR 91.115 and 570.486 for local governments. However, none of the required reports are submitted to certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements. Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the special tests and provision requirements and therefore was unable to complete them. Effect: Not following through on the special tests and provision requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a checklist to ensure that special tests and provision requirements are tracked and met. 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: Grantees must formally certify that they have fulfilled the citizen participation requirements outlined in 24 CFR 91.115 and 570.486, as applicable, prior to submitting their annual grant application to HUD. The objective is to ensure that residents—particularly those with low and moderate incomes—are given meaningful opportunities to engage in the planning, execution, and evaluation of projects funded through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Condition: During our test of the special test and provision requirements, we noted the County did not submit the required reports to certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $565,610, the value of the six loans. Context: Prior to the submission to HUD for its annual grant, a grantee must certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements for grantees in 24 CFR 91.115 and 570.486 for local governments. However, none of the required reports are submitted to certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements. Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the special tests and provision requirements and therefore was unable to complete them. Effect: Not following through on the special tests and provision requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a checklist to ensure that special tests and provision requirements are tracked and met. 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: Grantees must formally certify that they have fulfilled the citizen participation requirements outlined in 24 CFR 91.115 and 570.486, as applicable, prior to submitting their annual grant application to HUD. The objective is to ensure that residents—particularly those with low and moderate incomes—are given meaningful opportunities to engage in the planning, execution, and evaluation of projects funded through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Condition: During our test of the special test and provision requirements, we noted the County did not submit the required reports to certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $565,610, the value of the six loans. Context: Prior to the submission to HUD for its annual grant, a grantee must certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements for grantees in 24 CFR 91.115 and 570.486 for local governments. However, none of the required reports are submitted to certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements. Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the special tests and provision requirements and therefore was unable to complete them. Effect: Not following through on the special tests and provision requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a checklist to ensure that special tests and provision requirements are tracked and met. 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: Grantees must formally certify that they have fulfilled the citizen participation requirements outlined in 24 CFR 91.115 and 570.486, as applicable, prior to submitting their annual grant application to HUD. The objective is to ensure that residents—particularly those with low and moderate incomes—are given meaningful opportunities to engage in the planning, execution, and evaluation of projects funded through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Condition: During our test of the special test and provision requirements, we noted the County did not submit the required reports to certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $565,610, the value of the six loans. Context: Prior to the submission to HUD for its annual grant, a grantee must certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements for grantees in 24 CFR 91.115 and 570.486 for local governments. However, none of the required reports are submitted to certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements. Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the special tests and provision requirements and therefore was unable to complete them. Effect: Not following through on the special tests and provision requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a checklist to ensure that special tests and provision requirements are tracked and met. 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: Grantees must formally certify that they have fulfilled the citizen participation requirements outlined in 24 CFR 91.115 and 570.486, as applicable, prior to submitting their annual grant application to HUD. The objective is to ensure that residents—particularly those with low and moderate incomes—are given meaningful opportunities to engage in the planning, execution, and evaluation of projects funded through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Condition: During our test of the special test and provision requirements, we noted the County did not submit the required reports to certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $565,610, the value of the six loans. Context: Prior to the submission to HUD for its annual grant, a grantee must certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements for grantees in 24 CFR 91.115 and 570.486 for local governments. However, none of the required reports are submitted to certify to HUD that it has met the citizen participation requirements. Cause: Due to an empty employment position at the time of monitoring, the County was unaware of the special tests and provision requirements and therefore was unable to complete them. Effect: Not following through on the special tests and provision requirements may cause the State to require increased monitoring or result in increased challenges in obtaining funding due to continued noncompliance. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as a checklist to ensure that special tests and provision requirements are tracked and met. 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 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 six loans. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $1,145,575, the value of the six loans. 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 nineteen HOME Program loans to test continuing compliance and found that six 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: 2023-005 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: Charges for Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Condition: During testing of allowable costs, CLA noted that three of the forty payroll expenditures selected for testing were missing a supervisor’s signature on the monthly timesheet. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Three of the forty expenditures selected were missing indication of supervisor approval. Cause: Management did not properly review the timesheets for accuracy prior to submission. Effect: Not following through on allowable cost requirements could result in noncompliance with program requirements and could result in unallowable costs being charged to the grant. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement controls to ensure that all timesheets are properly approved by a supervisor prior to submittal. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.334, recipients and subrecipients of federal awards are required to retain all records pertinent to a federal award for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure or financial report. These records include, but are not limited to, financial records, supporting documentation, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to the federal award. The County is expected to retain copies of all grant agreements to ensure it can identify and comply with all applicable terms, conditions, and regulatory requirements associated with the funding. Condition: CLA observed that the County did not retain copies of the grant agreements for the Home Partnership Investment Program, and the Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund Program. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: CLA was unable to obtain the grant agreements for the Home Partnership Investment Program, and the Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund Program, as the County was unable to provide copies upon request. Cause: The management was unable to retain copies of the grant agreements due to the considerable passage of time since their issuance. Effect: Due to the absence of the original grant agreements, the County may not be fully aware of, or in compliance with, all applicable grant requirements. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management establish and maintain a formal process for the retention and organization of all grant-related documentation. This process should ensure that key documents are securely stored, easily accessible, and periodically reviewed to support ongoing compliance with grant requirements. Additionally, the County should work with granting agencies to obtain copies of any missing agreements and perform a comprehensive review to identify and address any outstanding compliance requirements. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.334, recipients and subrecipients of federal awards are required to retain all records pertinent to a federal award for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure or financial report. These records include, but are not limited to, financial records, supporting documentation, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to the federal award. The County is expected to retain copies of all grant agreements to ensure it can identify and comply with all applicable terms, conditions, and regulatory requirements associated with the funding. Condition: CLA observed that the County did not retain copies of the grant agreements for the Home Partnership Investment Program, and the Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund Program. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: CLA was unable to obtain the grant agreements for the Home Partnership Investment Program, and the Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund Program, as the County was unable to provide copies upon request. Cause: The management was unable to retain copies of the grant agreements due to the considerable passage of time since their issuance. Effect: Due to the absence of the original grant agreements, the County may not be fully aware of, or in compliance with, all applicable grant requirements. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management establish and maintain a formal process for the retention and organization of all grant-related documentation. This process should ensure that key documents are securely stored, easily accessible, and periodically reviewed to support ongoing compliance with grant requirements. Additionally, the County should work with granting agencies to obtain copies of any missing agreements and perform a comprehensive review to identify and address any outstanding compliance requirements. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.309 and §200.403(g), only costs incurred during the period of performance specified in the federal award are allowable. Costs incurred outside this period are unallowable unless specifically authorized by the awarding agency. Condition: The County lacked sufficient documentation to demonstrate that all payroll costs charged to the grant were incurred within the grant’s period of performance. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $33,314. Context: Grant 20-CDBG-CV1-00122 had a period of performance ending February 28, 2024. The County charged $31,314 in payroll costs to this grant using the same allocation method described in Finding 2024-013. However, the allocation was based on hours worked throughout FY24, and the County could not provide a detailed transaction listing to isolate costs incurred within the grant’s performance period. While $25,755 in nonpayroll costs were confirmed to be within the allowable period, the payroll costs could not be verified. Cause: The County did not maintain detailed records of expenditures by grant and relied on an allocation method that did not align with the grant’s performance period. Effect: Payroll costs totaling $33,314 may have been charged outside the allowable period, resulting in questioned costs and a material weakness in internal controls. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should implement procedures to ensure that all expenditures are tracked by grant and incurred within the specified period of performance. Detailed transaction listings should be maintained to support compliance testing. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.309 and §200.403(g), only costs incurred during the period of performance specified in the federal award are allowable. Costs incurred outside this period are unallowable unless specifically authorized by the awarding agency. Condition: The County lacked sufficient documentation to demonstrate that all payroll costs charged to the grant were incurred within the grant’s period of performance. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $33,314. Context: Grant 20-CDBG-CV1-00122 had a period of performance ending February 28, 2024. The County charged $31,314 in payroll costs to this grant using the same allocation method described in Finding 2024-013. However, the allocation was based on hours worked throughout FY24, and the County could not provide a detailed transaction listing to isolate costs incurred within the grant’s performance period. While $25,755 in nonpayroll costs were confirmed to be within the allowable period, the payroll costs could not be verified. Cause: The County did not maintain detailed records of expenditures by grant and relied on an allocation method that did not align with the grant’s performance period. Effect: Payroll costs totaling $33,314 may have been charged outside the allowable period, resulting in questioned costs and a material weakness in internal controls. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should implement procedures to ensure that all expenditures are tracked by grant and incurred within the specified period of performance. Detailed transaction listings should be maintained to support compliance testing. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.309 and §200.403(g), only costs incurred during the period of performance specified in the federal award are allowable. Costs incurred outside this period are unallowable unless specifically authorized by the awarding agency. Condition: The County lacked sufficient documentation to demonstrate that all payroll costs charged to the grant were incurred within the grant’s period of performance. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $33,314. Context: Grant 20-CDBG-CV1-00122 had a period of performance ending February 28, 2024. The County charged $31,314 in payroll costs to this grant using the same allocation method described in Finding 2024-013. However, the allocation was based on hours worked throughout FY24, and the County could not provide a detailed transaction listing to isolate costs incurred within the grant’s performance period. While $25,755 in nonpayroll costs were confirmed to be within the allowable period, the payroll costs could not be verified. Cause: The County did not maintain detailed records of expenditures by grant and relied on an allocation method that did not align with the grant’s performance period. Effect: Payroll costs totaling $33,314 may have been charged outside the allowable period, resulting in questioned costs and a material weakness in internal controls. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should implement procedures to ensure that all expenditures are tracked by grant and incurred within the specified period of performance. Detailed transaction listings should be maintained to support compliance testing. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.309 and §200.403(g), only costs incurred during the period of performance specified in the federal award are allowable. Costs incurred outside this period are unallowable unless specifically authorized by the awarding agency. Condition: The County lacked sufficient documentation to demonstrate that all payroll costs charged to the grant were incurred within the grant’s period of performance. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $33,314. Context: Grant 20-CDBG-CV1-00122 had a period of performance ending February 28, 2024. The County charged $31,314 in payroll costs to this grant using the same allocation method described in Finding 2024-013. However, the allocation was based on hours worked throughout FY24, and the County could not provide a detailed transaction listing to isolate costs incurred within the grant’s performance period. While $25,755 in nonpayroll costs were confirmed to be within the allowable period, the payroll costs could not be verified. Cause: The County did not maintain detailed records of expenditures by grant and relied on an allocation method that did not align with the grant’s performance period. Effect: Payroll costs totaling $33,314 may have been charged outside the allowable period, resulting in questioned costs and a material weakness in internal controls. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should implement procedures to ensure that all expenditures are tracked by grant and incurred within the specified period of performance. Detailed transaction listings should be maintained to support compliance testing. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.309 and §200.403(g), only costs incurred during the period of performance specified in the federal award are allowable. Costs incurred outside this period are unallowable unless specifically authorized by the awarding agency. Condition: The County lacked sufficient documentation to demonstrate that all payroll costs charged to the grant were incurred within the grant’s period of performance. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $33,314. Context: Grant 20-CDBG-CV1-00122 had a period of performance ending February 28, 2024. The County charged $31,314 in payroll costs to this grant using the same allocation method described in Finding 2024-013. However, the allocation was based on hours worked throughout FY24, and the County could not provide a detailed transaction listing to isolate costs incurred within the grant’s performance period. While $25,755 in nonpayroll costs were confirmed to be within the allowable period, the payroll costs could not be verified. Cause: The County did not maintain detailed records of expenditures by grant and relied on an allocation method that did not align with the grant’s performance period. Effect: Payroll costs totaling $33,314 may have been charged outside the allowable period, resulting in questioned costs and a material weakness in internal controls. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should implement procedures to ensure that all expenditures are tracked by grant and incurred within the specified period of performance. Detailed transaction listings should be maintained to support compliance testing. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.309 and §200.403(g), only costs incurred during the period of performance specified in the federal award are allowable. Costs incurred outside this period are unallowable unless specifically authorized by the awarding agency. Condition: The County lacked sufficient documentation to demonstrate that all payroll costs charged to the grant were incurred within the grant’s period of performance. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $33,314. Context: Grant 20-CDBG-CV1-00122 had a period of performance ending February 28, 2024. The County charged $31,314 in payroll costs to this grant using the same allocation method described in Finding 2024-013. However, the allocation was based on hours worked throughout FY24, and the County could not provide a detailed transaction listing to isolate costs incurred within the grant’s performance period. While $25,755 in nonpayroll costs were confirmed to be within the allowable period, the payroll costs could not be verified. Cause: The County did not maintain detailed records of expenditures by grant and relied on an allocation method that did not align with the grant’s performance period. Effect: Payroll costs totaling $33,314 may have been charged outside the allowable period, resulting in questioned costs and a material weakness in internal controls. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should implement procedures to ensure that all expenditures are tracked by grant and incurred within the specified period of performance. Detailed transaction listings should be maintained to support compliance testing. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.309 and §200.403(g), only costs incurred during the period of performance specified in the federal award are allowable. Costs incurred outside this period are unallowable unless specifically authorized by the awarding agency. Condition: The County lacked sufficient documentation to demonstrate that all payroll costs charged to the grant were incurred within the grant’s period of performance. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $33,314. Context: Grant 20-CDBG-CV1-00122 had a period of performance ending February 28, 2024. The County charged $31,314 in payroll costs to this grant using the same allocation method described in Finding 2024-013. However, the allocation was based on hours worked throughout FY24, and the County could not provide a detailed transaction listing to isolate costs incurred within the grant’s performance period. While $25,755 in nonpayroll costs were confirmed to be within the allowable period, the payroll costs could not be verified. Cause: The County did not maintain detailed records of expenditures by grant and relied on an allocation method that did not align with the grant’s performance period. Effect: Payroll costs totaling $33,314 may have been charged outside the allowable period, resulting in questioned costs and a material weakness in internal controls. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should implement procedures to ensure that all expenditures are tracked by grant and incurred within the specified period of performance. Detailed transaction listings should be maintained to support compliance testing. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Grant compliance requires the County to submit accurate obligation and expenditure reports throughout the agreement term. These reports must reflect actual costs incurred within the reporting period, as required by the grant terms and federal regulations. Condition: CLA observed that $2 million in expenditures reported on the SEFA were not incurred during the current fiscal year. Consequently, the performance report overstated total expenditures by $2 million. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: The total expenditures reported on the performance report were overstated by $2 million, as the amount included costs were not incurred during the current fiscal year. Cause: The cause is due to varied interpretations of the requirements in the standard and the related application to revenue streams. Effect: Total expenditures reported on the submitted performance reports for the Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund (LATCF) program were overstated by $2 million. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the County refine its understanding and interpretation of the standards and ensure that the County policies and procedures are consistent with that understanding and interpretation. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200 Appendix II (H) Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689)—A contract award (see 2 CFR 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Condition: During our testing, we noted that management’s review of contracts did not include a review to ensure that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: Audit procedures included a review of the six agreements during the year ended June 30, 2024. For all of the items reviewed management did not obtain verification that the party was not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded, prior to entering into the transactions. However, upon subsequent review, no parties were determined to be debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Cause: The County’s procurement process did not include a requirement that required a verification of debarred or suspended status. Effect: Amounts could be paid to parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management enhance the procurement controls to ensure that all required parties are reviewed for suspension and debarment prior to entering the transaction. 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 the County did not submit the required reports under Reporting of the Compliance Supplement. 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, none of the reports were submitted during the year. 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: 2023-003 Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and met. 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 the County did not submit the required reports under Reporting of the Compliance Supplement. 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, none of the reports were submitted during the year. 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: 2023-003 Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and met. 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 the County did not submit the required reports under Reporting of the Compliance Supplement. 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, none of the reports were submitted during the year. 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: 2023-003 Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and met. 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 the County did not submit the required reports under Reporting of the Compliance Supplement. 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, none of the reports were submitted during the year. 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: 2023-003 Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and met. 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 the County did not submit the required reports under Reporting of the Compliance Supplement. 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, none of the reports were submitted during the year. 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: 2023-003 Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and met. 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 the County did not submit the required reports under Reporting of the Compliance Supplement. 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, none of the reports were submitted during the year. 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: 2023-003 Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and met. 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 the County did not submit the required reports under Reporting of the Compliance Supplement. 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, none of the reports were submitted during the year. 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: 2023-003 Recommendation: CLA recommends the County develop procedures, such as reporting checklist to ensure that reporting requirements are tracked and met. 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: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.