FINDING 2022-005 Subject: CDBG - Entitlement Grants Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Program Income Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Programs: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants, COVID-19 - Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Assistance Listings Number: 14.218 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): B-19-MC-18-0015, B-20-MC-20-0015, B-20-MW-18-0015, B-21-MC-18-0015, B-22-MC-18-0015 Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Program Income Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Program Income - Use Payroll The City charged employee salaries for Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants (grant) activities to the grant based on fixed percentages. Adequate time and effort records were not maintained to support the percentages charged to the federal award. Two employees were paid from the grant funds during the audit period: ? The first employee's salary and benefits were being paid 50 percent from federal grant funds. However, documentation to support the distribution of the employee's pay (i.e., time and effort logs) did not begin until November 19, 2022. The amount paid from the beginning of the audit period until November 19, 2022, was $48,677. As this amount was not adequately supported, it is considered questioned costs. ? The second employee was paid 100 percent from the federal grant. The City made a payroll correction to remove the employee's pay for the months of July through December. After the payroll adjustment, there was a remaining amount of payroll and benefits of $5,611 for the period of July through December charged to the grant which lacked supporting documentation that the costs were appropriate for the grant. This amount, $5,611, is considered questioned costs. Vendor Late fees and taxes were paid from the federal grant funds. A total of $51 was paid in late fees and sales tax during the audit period. This amount was determined to be a questioned cost. Program Income - Determining or Assessing and Recording Program income is gross income earned by a non-federal entity that is directly generated by a supported activity or earned as a result of the federal award during the period of performance. Program income is to be recorded in the unit's financial system along with the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) nationwide database, the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS). The City recorded program income in the accounting ledger for the sale of a Neighborhood Stabilization Property. After determining an approval process would be necessary to consider this program income, a request was sent to the HUD. Prior to receiving permission to include the sale as program income to the federal grant, an adjustment was made to transfer this program income to another fund. It was later recorded in the IDIS as program income but was never adjusted back into the unit's federal grant fund designated for this grant. The internal controls in place were not effective to ensure the amounts recorded in the accounting ledger and the amounts recorded in the IDIS agree and are accurate. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1) states in part: "Charges to 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; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." 24 CFR 570.504(a) states: "Recording program income. The receipt and expenditure of program income as defined in ? 570.500(a) shall be recorded as part of the financial transactions of the grant program." 24 CFR 570.504(b)(2) states in part: "If the recipient chooses to retain program income, that program income shall be disposed of as follows: . . . (ii) Substantially all other program income shall be disbursed for eligible activities before additional cash withdrawals are made from the U.S. Treasury. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payments were made that resulted in questioned costs. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were known questioned costs of $54,288. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would provide segregation of duties to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place over payroll, benefits, and vendor payments, as well as the proper recording of program income for the grant. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-006 Subject: CDBG - Entitlement Grants Cluster - Period of Performance Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Program: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Assistance Listings Number: 14.218 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): B-22-MC-18-0015 Compliance Requirement: Period of Performance Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context A non-federal entity may charge to the federal award only allowable costs incurred during the period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Grant number B-22-MC-18-0015 had a period of performance which began on July 1, 2022. Two of the four claims tested, or 50 percent, were for services provided prior to the beginning of the period of performance. The City did not receive approval from the federal awarding agency to charge costs incurred before the period of performance to the federal grant. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to grant B-22-MC-18-0015. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.1 states in part: ". . . Period of performance means the total estimated time interval between the start of an initial Federal award and the planned end date, which may include one or more funded portions, or budget periods. Identification of the period of performance in the Federal award per ? 200.211(b)(5) does not commit the awarding agency to fund the award beyond the currently approved budget period. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, costs incurred before the beginning of the period of performance were charged to the grant. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would provide segregation of duties to ensure costs charged to the grant occur within the proper period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-007 Subject: CDBG - Entitlement Grants Cluster - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Programs: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants, COVID-19 - Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Assistance Listings Number: 14.218 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): B-19-MC-18-0015, B-20-MC-20-0015, B-20-MW-18-0015, B-21-MC-18-0015, B-22-MC-18-0015 Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-004. Condition and Context Financial Reporting For each CDBG award, the City is required to submit financial reports to Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The financial reports to be submitted are a quarterly CDBG Cash on Hand (PR29) report and an annual CDBG Financial Summary (PR26). The Community Development Specialist prepared the annual PR26 and quarterly PR29 reports without evidence of a review or an approval process to ensure accuracy of the reports submitted. During the audit period, there were three PR26 reports and six PR29 reports due. Four reports were selected for testing, two PR26 reports and two PR29 reports. One of the two PR26 reports was not supported by the City's records, and one of the two PR29 reports contained errors when reporting cash on hand. Performance Reporting The City is required to enter HUD 60002, Section 3 Summary Report, Economic Opportunities for Low- and Very Low-Income Persons report (Section 3) activities on the closeout screens in the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS), as well as within the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). The Section 3 report was not submitted on the closeout screens in the IDIS as part of the closeout process. The City did submit the Section 3 information within the CAPER; however, the Section 3 information was not supported by the City's records. The City was not able to provide documentation supporting the Section 3 information in the CAPER. Special Reporting for Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (Pub. L. No. 109-282) (Transparency Act), recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements who make first tier subawards of $30,000 or more are required to register in the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) and report subaward data through the FSRS. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 CITY OF ELKHART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) There were two subawards that required submission in the FSRS during the audit period. The due date for the information was August 31, 2022, and November 30, 2022, respectively. The information was completed and submitted by the City; however, there was no documentation of the review or oversight process in place to ensure the accuracy of the information submitted. (See Report PDF for Schedule.) The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in ?? 200.328 and 200.329. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required reports were not accurate nor submitted timely. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal control, including policies and procedures that would provide segregation of duties to ensure required reports are submitted timely and accurately. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-005 Subject: CDBG - Entitlement Grants Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Program Income Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Programs: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants, COVID-19 - Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Assistance Listings Number: 14.218 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): B-19-MC-18-0015, B-20-MC-20-0015, B-20-MW-18-0015, B-21-MC-18-0015, B-22-MC-18-0015 Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Program Income Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Program Income - Use Payroll The City charged employee salaries for Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants (grant) activities to the grant based on fixed percentages. Adequate time and effort records were not maintained to support the percentages charged to the federal award. Two employees were paid from the grant funds during the audit period: ? The first employee's salary and benefits were being paid 50 percent from federal grant funds. However, documentation to support the distribution of the employee's pay (i.e., time and effort logs) did not begin until November 19, 2022. The amount paid from the beginning of the audit period until November 19, 2022, was $48,677. As this amount was not adequately supported, it is considered questioned costs. ? The second employee was paid 100 percent from the federal grant. The City made a payroll correction to remove the employee's pay for the months of July through December. After the payroll adjustment, there was a remaining amount of payroll and benefits of $5,611 for the period of July through December charged to the grant which lacked supporting documentation that the costs were appropriate for the grant. This amount, $5,611, is considered questioned costs. Vendor Late fees and taxes were paid from the federal grant funds. A total of $51 was paid in late fees and sales tax during the audit period. This amount was determined to be a questioned cost. Program Income - Determining or Assessing and Recording Program income is gross income earned by a non-federal entity that is directly generated by a supported activity or earned as a result of the federal award during the period of performance. Program income is to be recorded in the unit's financial system along with the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) nationwide database, the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS). The City recorded program income in the accounting ledger for the sale of a Neighborhood Stabilization Property. After determining an approval process would be necessary to consider this program income, a request was sent to the HUD. Prior to receiving permission to include the sale as program income to the federal grant, an adjustment was made to transfer this program income to another fund. It was later recorded in the IDIS as program income but was never adjusted back into the unit's federal grant fund designated for this grant. The internal controls in place were not effective to ensure the amounts recorded in the accounting ledger and the amounts recorded in the IDIS agree and are accurate. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1) states in part: "Charges to 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; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." 24 CFR 570.504(a) states: "Recording program income. The receipt and expenditure of program income as defined in ? 570.500(a) shall be recorded as part of the financial transactions of the grant program." 24 CFR 570.504(b)(2) states in part: "If the recipient chooses to retain program income, that program income shall be disposed of as follows: . . . (ii) Substantially all other program income shall be disbursed for eligible activities before additional cash withdrawals are made from the U.S. Treasury. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payments were made that resulted in questioned costs. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were known questioned costs of $54,288. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would provide segregation of duties to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place over payroll, benefits, and vendor payments, as well as the proper recording of program income for the grant. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-007 Subject: CDBG - Entitlement Grants Cluster - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Programs: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants, COVID-19 - Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Assistance Listings Number: 14.218 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): B-19-MC-18-0015, B-20-MC-20-0015, B-20-MW-18-0015, B-21-MC-18-0015, B-22-MC-18-0015 Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-004. Condition and Context Financial Reporting For each CDBG award, the City is required to submit financial reports to Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The financial reports to be submitted are a quarterly CDBG Cash on Hand (PR29) report and an annual CDBG Financial Summary (PR26). The Community Development Specialist prepared the annual PR26 and quarterly PR29 reports without evidence of a review or an approval process to ensure accuracy of the reports submitted. During the audit period, there were three PR26 reports and six PR29 reports due. Four reports were selected for testing, two PR26 reports and two PR29 reports. One of the two PR26 reports was not supported by the City's records, and one of the two PR29 reports contained errors when reporting cash on hand. Performance Reporting The City is required to enter HUD 60002, Section 3 Summary Report, Economic Opportunities for Low- and Very Low-Income Persons report (Section 3) activities on the closeout screens in the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS), as well as within the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). The Section 3 report was not submitted on the closeout screens in the IDIS as part of the closeout process. The City did submit the Section 3 information within the CAPER; however, the Section 3 information was not supported by the City's records. The City was not able to provide documentation supporting the Section 3 information in the CAPER. Special Reporting for Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (Pub. L. No. 109-282) (Transparency Act), recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements who make first tier subawards of $30,000 or more are required to register in the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) and report subaward data through the FSRS. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 CITY OF ELKHART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) There were two subawards that required submission in the FSRS during the audit period. The due date for the information was August 31, 2022, and November 30, 2022, respectively. The information was completed and submitted by the City; however, there was no documentation of the review or oversight process in place to ensure the accuracy of the information submitted. (See Report PDF for Schedule.) The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in ?? 200.328 and 200.329. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required reports were not accurate nor submitted timely. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal control, including policies and procedures that would provide segregation of duties to ensure required reports are submitted timely and accurately. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number or Year (or Other Identifying Number): CY2021 Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The City received a total State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) allocation of $18,042,360. The City enlisted a non-profit, Heart City Health Center, Inc., to assist with public health information and paid them $50,000. The payment was made under the Responding to Public Health and Economic Impacts of COVID-19 eligible use category. Documentation to support the payment included an invoice from the Heart City Health Center, Inc., Board of Works Resolution 21-R-19, and Ordinance 5861. The Board of Works approved Resolution 21-R-19 on December 28, 2021. The resolution states in part, "Heart City Health Center is a separate legal entity from the City of Elkhart and as a separate legal entity, requires the formation of a subrecipient agreement to transfer funds from the City's ARPA Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds allocation to Heart City Health . . . now, therefore be it resolved, the Board of Public Works approves Heart City Health Center Inc. as a subrecipient of fifty thousand dollars in ARPA state and local fiscal recovery funds, and authorizes the Department of Law to prepare an appropriates subrecipient agreement for execution by the Board of Works and Heart City Health Center Inc. for the purposes approved herein . . ." The City provided SLFRF award funds to the Heart City Health Center, Inc. to carry out a program on the City's behalf, making the Heart City Health Center, Inc. a subrecipient of the City, as noted in their resolution, and, therefore, subject to subrecipient monitoring. The City was unable provide a copy of the subaward agreement or other supporting documentation to show evaluation of the subrecipient's risk of noncompliance or monitoring activities demonstrating compliance with the subrecipient monitoring requirement. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.331(a) states in part: "Subrecipients. A subaward is for the purpose of carrying out a portion of a Federal award and creates a Federal assistance relationship with the subrecipient. . . . Characteristics which support the classification of the non-Federal entity as a subrecipient include when the non- Federal entity: (1) Determines who is eligible to receive what Federal assistance; (2) Has its performance measured in relation to whether objectives of a Federal program were met; (3) Has responsibility for programmatic decision-making; (4) Is responsible for adherence to applicable Federal program requirements specified in the Federal award; and . . ." 2 CFR 200.332 states in part: "All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward . . . (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient name (which must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal award date in ? 200.1 of this part) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated by this action by the pass-through entity to the subrecipient; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the passthrough entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the passthrough entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required to be responsive to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the Pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the award is R&D; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is charged) per ? 200.414. (2) All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports; (4) (i) An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the passthrough entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: (A) The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; which can be based on a prior negotiated rate between a different PTE and the same subrecipient. If basing the rate on a previously negotiated rate, the pass-through entity is not required to collect information justifying this rate, but may elect to do so; (B) The de minimis indirect cost rate. (ii) The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. Subrecipients can elect to use the cost allocation method to account for indirect costs in accordance with ? 200.405(d). (5) A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient's records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. . . . (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring . . . (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the passthrough entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by ? 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. . . ." Cause The system of internal controls as established by management of the City was not properly designed nor implemented. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. The City was responsible for providing a subaward agreement and monitoring the nonprofit. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure subrecipients are provided with an adequate subaward agreement and monitored as appropriate. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-004 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number or Year (or Other Identifying Number): CY2021 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The City received a total State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) allocation of $18,042,360. During the audit period, transactions expended under the Responding to Public Health and Economic Impacts of COVID-19 eligible use category, totaling $248,899, were subject to suspension and debarment provisions. Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with SLFRF award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), collecting a certification from that person or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Upon inquiry of the City in order to review procedures in place for verifying an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the City was unable to provide a specific policy related to suspension and debarment requirements. Two covered transactions for the City's public health communication campaign that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were selected for testing. For the noted transactions, the City did not verify the vendor's suspension and debarment status prior to payment due to the City not having any policies or procedures in place to verify that contractors were neither suspended nor debarred, or otherwise excluded or disqualified, from participating in federal assistance programs or activities. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 31 CFR 19.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the EPLS; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person if allowed by this rule; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were paid were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City establish a proper system of internal controls, including strengthening their policies and procedures to ensure contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-005 Subject: CDBG - Entitlement Grants Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Program Income Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Programs: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants, COVID-19 - Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Assistance Listings Number: 14.218 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): B-19-MC-18-0015, B-20-MC-20-0015, B-20-MW-18-0015, B-21-MC-18-0015, B-22-MC-18-0015 Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Program Income Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Program Income - Use Payroll The City charged employee salaries for Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants (grant) activities to the grant based on fixed percentages. Adequate time and effort records were not maintained to support the percentages charged to the federal award. Two employees were paid from the grant funds during the audit period: ? The first employee's salary and benefits were being paid 50 percent from federal grant funds. However, documentation to support the distribution of the employee's pay (i.e., time and effort logs) did not begin until November 19, 2022. The amount paid from the beginning of the audit period until November 19, 2022, was $48,677. As this amount was not adequately supported, it is considered questioned costs. ? The second employee was paid 100 percent from the federal grant. The City made a payroll correction to remove the employee's pay for the months of July through December. After the payroll adjustment, there was a remaining amount of payroll and benefits of $5,611 for the period of July through December charged to the grant which lacked supporting documentation that the costs were appropriate for the grant. This amount, $5,611, is considered questioned costs. Vendor Late fees and taxes were paid from the federal grant funds. A total of $51 was paid in late fees and sales tax during the audit period. This amount was determined to be a questioned cost. Program Income - Determining or Assessing and Recording Program income is gross income earned by a non-federal entity that is directly generated by a supported activity or earned as a result of the federal award during the period of performance. Program income is to be recorded in the unit's financial system along with the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) nationwide database, the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS). The City recorded program income in the accounting ledger for the sale of a Neighborhood Stabilization Property. After determining an approval process would be necessary to consider this program income, a request was sent to the HUD. Prior to receiving permission to include the sale as program income to the federal grant, an adjustment was made to transfer this program income to another fund. It was later recorded in the IDIS as program income but was never adjusted back into the unit's federal grant fund designated for this grant. The internal controls in place were not effective to ensure the amounts recorded in the accounting ledger and the amounts recorded in the IDIS agree and are accurate. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1) states in part: "Charges to 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; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." 24 CFR 570.504(a) states: "Recording program income. The receipt and expenditure of program income as defined in ? 570.500(a) shall be recorded as part of the financial transactions of the grant program." 24 CFR 570.504(b)(2) states in part: "If the recipient chooses to retain program income, that program income shall be disposed of as follows: . . . (ii) Substantially all other program income shall be disbursed for eligible activities before additional cash withdrawals are made from the U.S. Treasury. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payments were made that resulted in questioned costs. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were known questioned costs of $54,288. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would provide segregation of duties to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place over payroll, benefits, and vendor payments, as well as the proper recording of program income for the grant. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-006 Subject: CDBG - Entitlement Grants Cluster - Period of Performance Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Program: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Assistance Listings Number: 14.218 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): B-22-MC-18-0015 Compliance Requirement: Period of Performance Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context A non-federal entity may charge to the federal award only allowable costs incurred during the period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Grant number B-22-MC-18-0015 had a period of performance which began on July 1, 2022. Two of the four claims tested, or 50 percent, were for services provided prior to the beginning of the period of performance. The City did not receive approval from the federal awarding agency to charge costs incurred before the period of performance to the federal grant. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to grant B-22-MC-18-0015. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.1 states in part: ". . . Period of performance means the total estimated time interval between the start of an initial Federal award and the planned end date, which may include one or more funded portions, or budget periods. Identification of the period of performance in the Federal award per ? 200.211(b)(5) does not commit the awarding agency to fund the award beyond the currently approved budget period. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, costs incurred before the beginning of the period of performance were charged to the grant. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would provide segregation of duties to ensure costs charged to the grant occur within the proper period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-007 Subject: CDBG - Entitlement Grants Cluster - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Programs: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants, COVID-19 - Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Assistance Listings Number: 14.218 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): B-19-MC-18-0015, B-20-MC-20-0015, B-20-MW-18-0015, B-21-MC-18-0015, B-22-MC-18-0015 Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-004. Condition and Context Financial Reporting For each CDBG award, the City is required to submit financial reports to Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The financial reports to be submitted are a quarterly CDBG Cash on Hand (PR29) report and an annual CDBG Financial Summary (PR26). The Community Development Specialist prepared the annual PR26 and quarterly PR29 reports without evidence of a review or an approval process to ensure accuracy of the reports submitted. During the audit period, there were three PR26 reports and six PR29 reports due. Four reports were selected for testing, two PR26 reports and two PR29 reports. One of the two PR26 reports was not supported by the City's records, and one of the two PR29 reports contained errors when reporting cash on hand. Performance Reporting The City is required to enter HUD 60002, Section 3 Summary Report, Economic Opportunities for Low- and Very Low-Income Persons report (Section 3) activities on the closeout screens in the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS), as well as within the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). The Section 3 report was not submitted on the closeout screens in the IDIS as part of the closeout process. The City did submit the Section 3 information within the CAPER; however, the Section 3 information was not supported by the City's records. The City was not able to provide documentation supporting the Section 3 information in the CAPER. Special Reporting for Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (Pub. L. No. 109-282) (Transparency Act), recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements who make first tier subawards of $30,000 or more are required to register in the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) and report subaward data through the FSRS. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 CITY OF ELKHART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) There were two subawards that required submission in the FSRS during the audit period. The due date for the information was August 31, 2022, and November 30, 2022, respectively. The information was completed and submitted by the City; however, there was no documentation of the review or oversight process in place to ensure the accuracy of the information submitted. (See Report PDF for Schedule.) The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in ?? 200.328 and 200.329. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required reports were not accurate nor submitted timely. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal control, including policies and procedures that would provide segregation of duties to ensure required reports are submitted timely and accurately. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-005 Subject: CDBG - Entitlement Grants Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Program Income Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Programs: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants, COVID-19 - Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Assistance Listings Number: 14.218 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): B-19-MC-18-0015, B-20-MC-20-0015, B-20-MW-18-0015, B-21-MC-18-0015, B-22-MC-18-0015 Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Program Income Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Program Income - Use Payroll The City charged employee salaries for Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants (grant) activities to the grant based on fixed percentages. Adequate time and effort records were not maintained to support the percentages charged to the federal award. Two employees were paid from the grant funds during the audit period: ? The first employee's salary and benefits were being paid 50 percent from federal grant funds. However, documentation to support the distribution of the employee's pay (i.e., time and effort logs) did not begin until November 19, 2022. The amount paid from the beginning of the audit period until November 19, 2022, was $48,677. As this amount was not adequately supported, it is considered questioned costs. ? The second employee was paid 100 percent from the federal grant. The City made a payroll correction to remove the employee's pay for the months of July through December. After the payroll adjustment, there was a remaining amount of payroll and benefits of $5,611 for the period of July through December charged to the grant which lacked supporting documentation that the costs were appropriate for the grant. This amount, $5,611, is considered questioned costs. Vendor Late fees and taxes were paid from the federal grant funds. A total of $51 was paid in late fees and sales tax during the audit period. This amount was determined to be a questioned cost. Program Income - Determining or Assessing and Recording Program income is gross income earned by a non-federal entity that is directly generated by a supported activity or earned as a result of the federal award during the period of performance. Program income is to be recorded in the unit's financial system along with the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) nationwide database, the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS). The City recorded program income in the accounting ledger for the sale of a Neighborhood Stabilization Property. After determining an approval process would be necessary to consider this program income, a request was sent to the HUD. Prior to receiving permission to include the sale as program income to the federal grant, an adjustment was made to transfer this program income to another fund. It was later recorded in the IDIS as program income but was never adjusted back into the unit's federal grant fund designated for this grant. The internal controls in place were not effective to ensure the amounts recorded in the accounting ledger and the amounts recorded in the IDIS agree and are accurate. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1) states in part: "Charges to 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; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." 24 CFR 570.504(a) states: "Recording program income. The receipt and expenditure of program income as defined in ? 570.500(a) shall be recorded as part of the financial transactions of the grant program." 24 CFR 570.504(b)(2) states in part: "If the recipient chooses to retain program income, that program income shall be disposed of as follows: . . . (ii) Substantially all other program income shall be disbursed for eligible activities before additional cash withdrawals are made from the U.S. Treasury. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payments were made that resulted in questioned costs. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were known questioned costs of $54,288. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would provide segregation of duties to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place over payroll, benefits, and vendor payments, as well as the proper recording of program income for the grant. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-007 Subject: CDBG - Entitlement Grants Cluster - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Programs: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants, COVID-19 - Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Assistance Listings Number: 14.218 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): B-19-MC-18-0015, B-20-MC-20-0015, B-20-MW-18-0015, B-21-MC-18-0015, B-22-MC-18-0015 Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-004. Condition and Context Financial Reporting For each CDBG award, the City is required to submit financial reports to Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The financial reports to be submitted are a quarterly CDBG Cash on Hand (PR29) report and an annual CDBG Financial Summary (PR26). The Community Development Specialist prepared the annual PR26 and quarterly PR29 reports without evidence of a review or an approval process to ensure accuracy of the reports submitted. During the audit period, there were three PR26 reports and six PR29 reports due. Four reports were selected for testing, two PR26 reports and two PR29 reports. One of the two PR26 reports was not supported by the City's records, and one of the two PR29 reports contained errors when reporting cash on hand. Performance Reporting The City is required to enter HUD 60002, Section 3 Summary Report, Economic Opportunities for Low- and Very Low-Income Persons report (Section 3) activities on the closeout screens in the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS), as well as within the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). The Section 3 report was not submitted on the closeout screens in the IDIS as part of the closeout process. The City did submit the Section 3 information within the CAPER; however, the Section 3 information was not supported by the City's records. The City was not able to provide documentation supporting the Section 3 information in the CAPER. Special Reporting for Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (Pub. L. No. 109-282) (Transparency Act), recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements who make first tier subawards of $30,000 or more are required to register in the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) and report subaward data through the FSRS. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 CITY OF ELKHART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) There were two subawards that required submission in the FSRS during the audit period. The due date for the information was August 31, 2022, and November 30, 2022, respectively. The information was completed and submitted by the City; however, there was no documentation of the review or oversight process in place to ensure the accuracy of the information submitted. (See Report PDF for Schedule.) The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in ?? 200.328 and 200.329. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required reports were not accurate nor submitted timely. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal control, including policies and procedures that would provide segregation of duties to ensure required reports are submitted timely and accurately. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number or Year (or Other Identifying Number): CY2021 Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The City received a total State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) allocation of $18,042,360. The City enlisted a non-profit, Heart City Health Center, Inc., to assist with public health information and paid them $50,000. The payment was made under the Responding to Public Health and Economic Impacts of COVID-19 eligible use category. Documentation to support the payment included an invoice from the Heart City Health Center, Inc., Board of Works Resolution 21-R-19, and Ordinance 5861. The Board of Works approved Resolution 21-R-19 on December 28, 2021. The resolution states in part, "Heart City Health Center is a separate legal entity from the City of Elkhart and as a separate legal entity, requires the formation of a subrecipient agreement to transfer funds from the City's ARPA Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds allocation to Heart City Health . . . now, therefore be it resolved, the Board of Public Works approves Heart City Health Center Inc. as a subrecipient of fifty thousand dollars in ARPA state and local fiscal recovery funds, and authorizes the Department of Law to prepare an appropriates subrecipient agreement for execution by the Board of Works and Heart City Health Center Inc. for the purposes approved herein . . ." The City provided SLFRF award funds to the Heart City Health Center, Inc. to carry out a program on the City's behalf, making the Heart City Health Center, Inc. a subrecipient of the City, as noted in their resolution, and, therefore, subject to subrecipient monitoring. The City was unable provide a copy of the subaward agreement or other supporting documentation to show evaluation of the subrecipient's risk of noncompliance or monitoring activities demonstrating compliance with the subrecipient monitoring requirement. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.331(a) states in part: "Subrecipients. A subaward is for the purpose of carrying out a portion of a Federal award and creates a Federal assistance relationship with the subrecipient. . . . Characteristics which support the classification of the non-Federal entity as a subrecipient include when the non- Federal entity: (1) Determines who is eligible to receive what Federal assistance; (2) Has its performance measured in relation to whether objectives of a Federal program were met; (3) Has responsibility for programmatic decision-making; (4) Is responsible for adherence to applicable Federal program requirements specified in the Federal award; and . . ." 2 CFR 200.332 states in part: "All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward . . . (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient name (which must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal award date in ? 200.1 of this part) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated by this action by the pass-through entity to the subrecipient; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the passthrough entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the passthrough entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required to be responsive to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the Pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the award is R&D; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is charged) per ? 200.414. (2) All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports; (4) (i) An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the passthrough entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: (A) The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; which can be based on a prior negotiated rate between a different PTE and the same subrecipient. If basing the rate on a previously negotiated rate, the pass-through entity is not required to collect information justifying this rate, but may elect to do so; (B) The de minimis indirect cost rate. (ii) The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. Subrecipients can elect to use the cost allocation method to account for indirect costs in accordance with ? 200.405(d). (5) A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient's records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. . . . (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring . . . (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the passthrough entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by ? 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. . . ." Cause The system of internal controls as established by management of the City was not properly designed nor implemented. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. The City was responsible for providing a subaward agreement and monitoring the nonprofit. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure subrecipients are provided with an adequate subaward agreement and monitored as appropriate. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-004 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number or Year (or Other Identifying Number): CY2021 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The City received a total State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) allocation of $18,042,360. During the audit period, transactions expended under the Responding to Public Health and Economic Impacts of COVID-19 eligible use category, totaling $248,899, were subject to suspension and debarment provisions. Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with SLFRF award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), collecting a certification from that person or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Upon inquiry of the City in order to review procedures in place for verifying an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the City was unable to provide a specific policy related to suspension and debarment requirements. Two covered transactions for the City's public health communication campaign that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were selected for testing. For the noted transactions, the City did not verify the vendor's suspension and debarment status prior to payment due to the City not having any policies or procedures in place to verify that contractors were neither suspended nor debarred, or otherwise excluded or disqualified, from participating in federal assistance programs or activities. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 31 CFR 19.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the EPLS; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person if allowed by this rule; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were paid were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City establish a proper system of internal controls, including strengthening their policies and procedures to ensure contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.