Audit 51285

FY End
2022-06-30
Total Expended
$4.78M
Findings
2
Programs
6
Year: 2022 Accepted: 2023-01-31

Organization Exclusion Status:

Checking exclusion status...

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
48068 2022-001 Significant Deficiency - E
624510 2022-001 Significant Deficiency - E

Contacts

Name Title Type
MEDTCCBD8J66 Sharon Tolbert Auditee
3348212262 Dale R. Rector Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Title: BASIS OF PRESENTATION Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. Negative amounts shown on the Schedule represent adjustments or credits made in the normal course of business to amounts reported as expenditures in prior years. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The auditee did not use the de minimis cost rate. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the Schedule) includes the federal award activity of the Authority under programs of the federal government for the year ended June 30, 2022. The information in this Schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Because the Schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of the Authority, it is not intended to and does not present the financial position, changes in net assets, or cash flows of the Authority.
Title: SUBRECIPIENTS Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. Negative amounts shown on the Schedule represent adjustments or credits made in the normal course of business to amounts reported as expenditures in prior years. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The auditee did not use the de minimis cost rate. The Authority provided no federal awards to subrecipients during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022.
Title: DISCLOSURE OF OTHER FORMS OF ASSISTANCE Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. Negative amounts shown on the Schedule represent adjustments or credits made in the normal course of business to amounts reported as expenditures in prior years. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The auditee did not use the de minimis cost rate. ?The Housing Authority of the City of Auburn, Alabama received no federal awards of non-monetary assistance that are required to be disclosed for the year ended June 30, 2022.?The Housing Authority of the City of Auburn, Alabama had no loans, loan guarantees, or federally restricted endowment funds required to be disclosed for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022.?The Housing Authority of the City of Auburn, Alabama maintains the following limits of insurance as of June 30, 2022:Property$33,217,208Liability$2,000,000Commercial Auto$ 50,000/vehicleWorker Compensation StatutorySettled claims have not exceeded the above commercial insurance coverage limits over the past three years.

Finding Details

Finding 2022-001 ? Moving to Work Tenant Files ? Eligibility ? Annual Recertifications ? Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency ? CFDA #14.881 Criteria: The Code of Federal regulations, the Housing Authority Administrative Plan and specific HUD guidelines in documenting and maintaining Moving to Work tenant files. Federal Regulations and Local policies require that reexaminations be done on a timely basis. Condition & cause: We examined forty (40) tenant files from the Moving to Work program. Twenty (20) of these files were project-based while the remaining twenty (20) files were tenant based. Of the project-based voucher files that were examined eighteen (18) of these did not contain an updated annual reexamination. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic the Authority adopted waivers that allowed for annual reexaminations to be postponed, but these should have been completed by the end of the calendar year that they were due. Once the waivers expired these recertifications became due. Consequently, our review concluded that they were not completed in a timely manner. We note that these project-based files were administered by a consulting firm assisting the agency. All files that we examined which were administered by the Housing Authority did not have this deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend that the authority conduct a review of all files administered by the consulting firm and implement corrective actions to the files as deemed necessary. We also recommend that the Housing Authority monitor on a consistent monthly basis all client files to determine which ones should be scheduled for reexamination. Questioned Costs: None Repeat Finding: No Was sampling statistically valid? Yes
Finding 2022-001 ? Moving to Work Tenant Files ? Eligibility ? Annual Recertifications ? Noncompliance & Significant Deficiency ? CFDA #14.881 Criteria: The Code of Federal regulations, the Housing Authority Administrative Plan and specific HUD guidelines in documenting and maintaining Moving to Work tenant files. Federal Regulations and Local policies require that reexaminations be done on a timely basis. Condition & cause: We examined forty (40) tenant files from the Moving to Work program. Twenty (20) of these files were project-based while the remaining twenty (20) files were tenant based. Of the project-based voucher files that were examined eighteen (18) of these did not contain an updated annual reexamination. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic the Authority adopted waivers that allowed for annual reexaminations to be postponed, but these should have been completed by the end of the calendar year that they were due. Once the waivers expired these recertifications became due. Consequently, our review concluded that they were not completed in a timely manner. We note that these project-based files were administered by a consulting firm assisting the agency. All files that we examined which were administered by the Housing Authority did not have this deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend that the authority conduct a review of all files administered by the consulting firm and implement corrective actions to the files as deemed necessary. We also recommend that the Housing Authority monitor on a consistent monthly basis all client files to determine which ones should be scheduled for reexamination. Questioned Costs: None Repeat Finding: No Was sampling statistically valid? Yes