Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name: Assistance Listing Number 64.033, Department of Veteran Affairs, VA Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 21-MI-221, 22-MI-221, 20-MI-221-SS, 20-MI-221-LT, 20-MI-221 Pass-through Entity – N/A Finding Type – Significant deficiency in internal control over compliance Repeat Finding – No Criteria – Per 2 CFR 200.332 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 and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: (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 pass-through entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity;(x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414) Condition – During our test work, we noted one instance where the subaward was not clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and did not include the information as noted in 2 CFR 200.332. The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, was included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed – N/A Questioned Costs – None Cause/Effect – The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, were included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. As a result, required information was omitted.Recommendation – We recommend that management review its procedures and controls to ensure the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, is included in all subawards to subrecipients. View of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan –The Agency agrees with the finding. When granting funds as a subaward to a pass-through entity, the Agency will update its master templates for subawards to include the required information. In addition, when the sub agreements are routed for signature and reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer, they will be double-checked to ensure compliance with this requirement
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name: Assistance Listing Number 64.033, Department of Veteran Affairs, VA Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 21-MI-221, 22-MI-221, 20-MI-221-SS, 20-MI-221-LT, 20-MI-221 Pass-through Entity – N/A Finding Type – Significant deficiency in internal control over compliance Repeat Finding – No Criteria – Per 2 CFR 200.332 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 and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: (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 pass-through entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity;(x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414) Condition – During our test work, we noted one instance where the subaward was not clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and did not include the information as noted in 2 CFR 200.332. The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, was included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed – N/A Questioned Costs – None Cause/Effect – The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, were included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. As a result, required information was omitted.Recommendation – We recommend that management review its procedures and controls to ensure the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, is included in all subawards to subrecipients. View of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan –The Agency agrees with the finding. When granting funds as a subaward to a pass-through entity, the Agency will update its master templates for subawards to include the required information. In addition, when the sub agreements are routed for signature and reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer, they will be double-checked to ensure compliance with this requirement
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name: Assistance Listing Number 64.033, Department of Veteran Affairs, VA Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 21-MI-221, 22-MI-221, 20-MI-221-SS, 20-MI-221-LT, 20-MI-221 Pass-through Entity – N/A Finding Type – Significant deficiency in internal control over compliance Repeat Finding – No Criteria – Per 2 CFR 200.332 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 and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: (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 pass-through entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity;(x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414) Condition – During our test work, we noted one instance where the subaward was not clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and did not include the information as noted in 2 CFR 200.332. The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, was included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed – N/A Questioned Costs – None Cause/Effect – The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, were included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. As a result, required information was omitted.Recommendation – We recommend that management review its procedures and controls to ensure the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, is included in all subawards to subrecipients. View of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan –The Agency agrees with the finding. When granting funds as a subaward to a pass-through entity, the Agency will update its master templates for subawards to include the required information. In addition, when the sub agreements are routed for signature and reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer, they will be double-checked to ensure compliance with this requirement
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name: Assistance Listing Number 64.033, Department of Veteran Affairs, VA Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 21-MI-221, 22-MI-221, 20-MI-221-SS, 20-MI-221-LT, 20-MI-221 Pass-through Entity – N/A Finding Type – Significant deficiency in internal control over compliance Repeat Finding – No Criteria – Per 2 CFR 200.332 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 and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: (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 pass-through entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity;(x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414) Condition – During our test work, we noted one instance where the subaward was not clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and did not include the information as noted in 2 CFR 200.332. The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, was included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed – N/A Questioned Costs – None Cause/Effect – The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, were included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. As a result, required information was omitted.Recommendation – We recommend that management review its procedures and controls to ensure the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, is included in all subawards to subrecipients. View of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan –The Agency agrees with the finding. When granting funds as a subaward to a pass-through entity, the Agency will update its master templates for subawards to include the required information. In addition, when the sub agreements are routed for signature and reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer, they will be double-checked to ensure compliance with this requirement
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name: Assistance Listing Number 93.569, Department of Health and Human Services, Community Services Block Grant Federal Award Identification Number and Year: E20230009-001, E20230816-01/E20242466-10, E20234409-002, E20234742-00 Pass-through Entity – Michigan Department of Human Services Finding Type – Significant deficiency in internal control over compliance Repeat Finding – No Criteria – Per 2 CFR 200.332 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 and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: (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 pass-through entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414) Condition – During our test work, we noted one instance where the subaward was not clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and did not include the information as noted in 2 CFR 200.332. The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, was included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed – N/A Questioned Costs – None Cause/Effect – The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, were included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. As a result, required information was omitted. Recommendation – We recommend that management review its procedures and controls to ensure the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, is included in all subawards to subrecipients. View of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan –The Agency agrees with the finding. When granting funds as a subaward to a pass-through entity, the Agency will update its master templates for subawards to include the required information. In addition, when the sub agreements are routed for signature and reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer, they will be double-checked to ensure compliance with this requirement.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name: Assistance Listing Number 93.569, Department of Health and Human Services, Community Services Block Grant Federal Award Identification Number and Year: E20230009-001, E20230816-01/E20242466-10, E20234409-002, E20234742-00 Pass-through Entity – Michigan Department of Human Services Finding Type – Significant deficiency in internal control over compliance Repeat Finding – No Criteria – Per 2 CFR 200.332 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 and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: (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 pass-through entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414) Condition – During our test work, we noted one instance where the subaward was not clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and did not include the information as noted in 2 CFR 200.332. The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, was included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed – N/A Questioned Costs – None Cause/Effect – The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, were included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. As a result, required information was omitted. Recommendation – We recommend that management review its procedures and controls to ensure the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, is included in all subawards to subrecipients. View of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan –The Agency agrees with the finding. When granting funds as a subaward to a pass-through entity, the Agency will update its master templates for subawards to include the required information. In addition, when the sub agreements are routed for signature and reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer, they will be double-checked to ensure compliance with this requirement.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name: Assistance Listing Number 93.569, Department of Health and Human Services, Community Services Block Grant Federal Award Identification Number and Year: E20230009-001, E20230816-01/E20242466-10, E20234409-002, E20234742-00 Pass-through Entity – Michigan Department of Human Services Finding Type – Significant deficiency in internal control over compliance Repeat Finding – No Criteria – Per 2 CFR 200.332 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 and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: (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 pass-through entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414) Condition – During our test work, we noted one instance where the subaward was not clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and did not include the information as noted in 2 CFR 200.332. The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, was included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed – N/A Questioned Costs – None Cause/Effect – The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, were included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. As a result, required information was omitted. Recommendation – We recommend that management review its procedures and controls to ensure the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, is included in all subawards to subrecipients. View of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan –The Agency agrees with the finding. When granting funds as a subaward to a pass-through entity, the Agency will update its master templates for subawards to include the required information. In addition, when the sub agreements are routed for signature and reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer, they will be double-checked to ensure compliance with this requirement.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name: Assistance Listing Number 93.569, Department of Health and Human Services, Community Services Block Grant Federal Award Identification Number and Year: E20230009-001, E20230816-01/E20242466-10, E20234409-002, E20234742-00 Pass-through Entity – Michigan Department of Human Services Finding Type – Significant deficiency in internal control over compliance Repeat Finding – No Criteria – Per 2 CFR 200.332 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 and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: (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 pass-through entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414) Condition – During our test work, we noted one instance where the subaward was not clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and did not include the information as noted in 2 CFR 200.332. The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, was included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed – N/A Questioned Costs – None Cause/Effect – The controls in place did not ensure that the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, were included in the grant agreement of its subrecipient. As a result, required information was omitted. Recommendation – We recommend that management review its procedures and controls to ensure the required information as prescribed by 2 CFR 200.332, Requirements for Pass-through Entities, is included in all subawards to subrecipients. View of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan –The Agency agrees with the finding. When granting funds as a subaward to a pass-through entity, the Agency will update its master templates for subawards to include the required information. In addition, when the sub agreements are routed for signature and reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer, they will be double-checked to ensure compliance with this requirement.
2023-014 Period of Performance Assistance Listing No.: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Condition: The Organization was unable to demonstrate consistent controls over the period of performance requirement. Criteria: The requirements for the period of performance are contained in 2 CFR section 200.1 Definitions for “budget period,” “financial obligations,” “period of performance,” 2 CFR section 200.308 (revision of budget and program plans), 2 CFR section 200.309 (modifications to period of performance), 2 CFR section 200.344 (closeout), program legislation, federal awarding agency regulations; and the terms and conditions of the award. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs. Cause: The Organization did not have good controls on ensuring the period of performance requirement was met due to staff turn over. Effect: The Organization could have grant expenditures outside the grant period. Perspective: Thirty-one of forty items selected for testing did not have documentation of the control over compliance with the period of performance requirement. Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding. See finding 2022-017. Recommendation: In order to prevent future occurences of this deficiency, we recommend that management expand controls to ensure that they are able to demonstrate that all expenses meet their procurement policy. Auditee's Response: The Organization agrees with the finding. See attached corrective action plan.
2023-014 Period of Performance Assistance Listing No.: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Condition: The Organization was unable to demonstrate consistent controls over the period of performance requirement. Criteria: The requirements for the period of performance are contained in 2 CFR section 200.1 Definitions for “budget period,” “financial obligations,” “period of performance,” 2 CFR section 200.308 (revision of budget and program plans), 2 CFR section 200.309 (modifications to period of performance), 2 CFR section 200.344 (closeout), program legislation, federal awarding agency regulations; and the terms and conditions of the award. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs. Cause: The Organization did not have good controls on ensuring the period of performance requirement was met due to staff turn over. Effect: The Organization could have grant expenditures outside the grant period. Perspective: Thirty-one of forty items selected for testing did not have documentation of the control over compliance with the period of performance requirement. Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding. See finding 2022-017. Recommendation: In order to prevent future occurences of this deficiency, we recommend that management expand controls to ensure that they are able to demonstrate that all expenses meet their procurement policy. Auditee's Response: The Organization agrees with the finding. See attached corrective action plan.
2023-014 Period of Performance Assistance Listing No.: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Condition: The Organization was unable to demonstrate consistent controls over the period of performance requirement. Criteria: The requirements for the period of performance are contained in 2 CFR section 200.1 Definitions for “budget period,” “financial obligations,” “period of performance,” 2 CFR section 200.308 (revision of budget and program plans), 2 CFR section 200.309 (modifications to period of performance), 2 CFR section 200.344 (closeout), program legislation, federal awarding agency regulations; and the terms and conditions of the award. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs. Cause: The Organization did not have good controls on ensuring the period of performance requirement was met due to staff turn over. Effect: The Organization could have grant expenditures outside the grant period. Perspective: Thirty-one of forty items selected for testing did not have documentation of the control over compliance with the period of performance requirement. Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding. See finding 2022-017. Recommendation: In order to prevent future occurences of this deficiency, we recommend that management expand controls to ensure that they are able to demonstrate that all expenses meet their procurement policy. Auditee's Response: The Organization agrees with the finding. See attached corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-004 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Reporting 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 and Year (or Other Identifying Number): 2023 Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context Recipients are required to quarterly or annually submit Project and Expenditure (P&E) reports to the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury). The reporting periods, as well as the respective due dates, are based upon type of recipient and its population, as well as the recipient's allocation amount. Information to be reported includes projects funded, expenditures, and contracts for the appropriate reporting period. The City was classified as a metropolitan city with a population below 250,000 residents that received an allocation of less than $10 million in COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF). As such, the initial P&E report, covering the period from March 3, 2021 to March 31, 2022, was required to be submitted to the Treasury by April 30, 2022. The subsequent annual reports are to cover one calendar year and must be submitted to the Treasury by April 30 each year. The City submitted one P&E report during the audit period; however, the internal controls in place were not effective and did not prevent, or detect and correct, errors. As a result, errors in reporting were identified. The total cumulative expenditures and current period expenditures were incorrectly reported and were overstated in the amounts of $780,740 and $308,766, respectively, based on the City's financial records. 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). . . ." Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Compliance and Reporting Guidance, page 10, states in part: ". . . 10. Reporting. All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Your organization should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. . . ." 31 CFR 35.4(c) states in part: "Reporting and requests for other information. During the period of performance, recipients shall provide to the Secretary periodic reports providing detailed accounting of the uses of funds, . . ." Cause The City's management did not have properly designed internal controls in place to review reports prior to submission. Due to the lack of a proper oversight process for filing the P&E report for the period April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023, the errors note in the Condition and Context were not detected. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the City did not report total cumulative expenditures and current period expenditures properly when filing the P&E report for the period April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023. 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. In addition, not meeting the SLFRF reporting requirements increases the likelihood that the public will not have access to transparent and accurate information regarding expenditures of federal awards. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City strengthen its system of internal controls to provide for a segregation of duties in the preparation and review of federal reports to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place. We also recommended the development of policies and procedures to ensure the City provides the Treasury with complete and accurate information for the P&E report. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
CONDITION: The City of McKeesport inadvertently charged as eligible expenditures two (2) purchases totaling $144,000 on the third quarter financial report required to be filed with the Department of Treasury that had already been claimed as eligible expenditures in the second quarter financial report. CRITERIA: Section 2 CFR 200.1 of the Uniform Guidance defines a disallowed cost as a charge to a Federal Award that is determined to be unallowable under the Award’s terms, which would include duplicate payments. Section 2 CFR 200.339 of the Uniform Guidance gives the federal agency the authority to disallow costs if the recipient fails to comply with the aforementioned Award terms and conditions. CAUSE: The City inadvertently claimed two vendor payments on both the second and third quarter financial reports required to be submitted to the Department of Treasury which were not detected as part of the oversight process. EFFECT: The City of McKeesport did not comply with the requirements of Sections 2 CFR 200.1 and 200.339 of the Uniform Guidance by inadvertently claiming two vendor payments twice as eligible program costs during calendar year 2023.QUESTIONED COST: Soundthinking, Inc. $99,000 and Butler Township Volunteer Fire Company $45,000. Total - $144,000. RECOMMENDATION: I am recommending that City management reallocate the duplicate payments for other allowable expenditures and update its financial reporting to the Department of Treasury to reflect this reallocation. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: The City concurs with the above noted finding and addresses this issue in the ‘Corrective Action Plan’ included within this report.
FINDING 2023-004 Subject: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Cluster - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Environmental Protection Agency Federal Program: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Assistance Listings Number: 66.468 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): DW23150901 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Finance Authority Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not designed or implemented at the City to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement - Policy The City had not established a purchasing policy that reflected applicable state laws and regulations, including procedures to avoid the acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items and procedures to ensure that all solicitations incorporate a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements for the material, product, or service to be procured. Additionally, the City did not maintain a policy that prohibits the use of statutorily or administratively imposed state, local, or tribal geographical preferences in evaluation of bids or proposals. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 CITY OF LOGANSPORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Procurement - Small Purchases The City expended federal funds to pay 12 separate vendors to provide goods and services for the duration of the City's Lead Service Line Replacement project. A population of 5 vendors had aggregated expenditures for the audit period that were less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000 but exceeded the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. All 5 vendors were tested; for 2 of the 5 vendors, the City was unable to provide any documentation that the procurement method used was appropriate or that the procurement provided full and open competition or rationale to support the determination to limit competition. The history of the procurement, including rationale for the method of procurement, selection of the vendor, and the basis for the price, was not adequately documented. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with award funds, recipients are required to verify that vendors are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement 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. Due to the agreement with the Indiana Finance Authority (IFA), the City was not required to perform testing over suspension and debarment for a majority of the vendors used; however, several drawdowns from the State Revolving Funds (SRF) program were used to reimburse the City for payments made to specific vendors. The vendors paid directly by the City were not included in the IFA's procedures for checking suspension and debarment, therefore, the City was obligated to meet the requirement. The City did not maintain a set of procedures for checking suspension and debarment status of vendors for expenditures related to the SRF awards. A total of two vendors paid directly by the City exceeded the suspension and debarment threshold of $25,000 and were subject to testing. No documentation to show that suspension and debarment was verified prior to entering into the contract could be provided for either vendor. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was a systemic issue 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). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 CITY OF LOGANSPORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases– (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 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 SAM.gov Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." 2 CFR 200.214 states: "Non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. The regulations in 2 CFR part 180 restrict awards, subawards, and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs or activities." 2 CFR 200.318(a) states: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The nonfederal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 CITY OF LOGANSPORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.318(d) states: "The non-Federal entity's procedures must avoid acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items. Consideration should be given to consolidating or breaking out procurements to obtain a more economical purchase. Where appropriate, an analysis will be made of lease versus purchase alternatives, and any other appropriate analysis to determine the most economical approach." 2 CFR 200.319(c) states: "The non-Federal entity must conduct procurements in a manner that prohibits the use of statutorily or administratively imposed state, local, or tribal geographical preferences in the evaluation of bids or proposals, except in those cases where applicable Federal statutes expressly mandate or encourage geographic preference. Nothing in this section preempts state licensing laws. When contracting for architectural and engineering (A/E) services, geographic location may be a selection criterion provided its application leaves an appropriate number of qualified firms, given the nature and size of the project, to compete for the contract." 2 CFR 200.319(d) states: "The non-Federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. These procedures must ensure that all solicitations: (1) Incorporate a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements for the material, product, or service to be procured. Such description must not, in competitive procurements, contain features which unduly restrict competition. The description may include a statement of the qualitative nature of the material, product or service to be procured and, when necessary, must set forth those minimum essential characteristics and standards to which it must conform if it is to satisfy its intended use. Detailed product specifications should be avoided if at all possible. When it is impractical or uneconomical to make a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements, a 'brand name or equivalent' description may be used as a means to define the performance or other salient requirements of procurement. The specific features of the named brand which must be met by offers must be clearly stated; and (2) Identify all requirements which the offerors must fulfill and all other factors to be used in evaluating bids or proposals." Cause The City did not maintain a procurement policy that would demonstrate the appropriate procedures to be followed when procuring with federal funding and were not aware of the need to follow federal guidelines for procurement or suspension and debarment for expenditures associated with the SRF awards. Effect Without a proper system of internal controls in place that operated effectively, noncompliance remained undetected. As a result, proper procurement procedures were not adhered to for all vendors. Without following the required methods for procurement, the City could be overpaying for services or providing federal funds to an entity that is suspended or debarred. 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 funds to the City. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 CITY OF LOGANSPORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the City's management establish a proper system of internal controls to ensure expenditures made from federal awards use the appropriate procurement method and retain the documentation to support the procurement methods used in order to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the federal award and ensure that vendors paid from federal funds are neither suspended nor debarred. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Federal Award Identification Numbers: MN0087L5K052114, MN0014L5K002114, MN0186L5K112110 Award Periods: 4/1/22-3/31/23; 7/1/22-6/30/23; 8/1/22-7/31/23 Type of Finding: • Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance • Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR 200.1 defines period of performance as the total estimated time interval between the start of an initial Federal award and the planned end date. Costs recorded to a grant must not be incurred prior to the start of the period of performance unless authorized by the federal awarding agency. Costs recorded to a grant must also not be incurred after the period of performance. Condition: During our audit testing, we noted costs were charged outside of the period of performance for three different awards. Questioned costs: $5,645 Context: We tested 40 transactions from the beginning of the period of performance, noting 2 exceptions where grants were charged for costs incurred prior to the period of performance. We tested 40 transactions from the ending of the period of performance, noting 3 exceptions where grants were charged after the period of performance. Cause: Invoices were charged based on payment date instead of the incurred date. Effect: Grants were charged for costs outside the period of performance. Management repaid the questioned costs to the grantor during the audit. Repeat finding: Not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend the Organization put procedures in place to identify the performance period when charging invoices to grants, particularly during the start and end of the period of performance. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Federal Award Identification Numbers: MN0087L5K052114, MN0014L5K002114, MN0186L5K112110 Award Periods: 4/1/22-3/31/23; 7/1/22-6/30/23; 8/1/22-7/31/23 Type of Finding: • Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance • Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR 200.1 defines period of performance as the total estimated time interval between the start of an initial Federal award and the planned end date. Costs recorded to a grant must not be incurred prior to the start of the period of performance unless authorized by the federal awarding agency. Costs recorded to a grant must also not be incurred after the period of performance. Condition: During our audit testing, we noted costs were charged outside of the period of performance for three different awards. Questioned costs: $5,645 Context: We tested 40 transactions from the beginning of the period of performance, noting 2 exceptions where grants were charged for costs incurred prior to the period of performance. We tested 40 transactions from the ending of the period of performance, noting 3 exceptions where grants were charged after the period of performance. Cause: Invoices were charged based on payment date instead of the incurred date. Effect: Grants were charged for costs outside the period of performance. Management repaid the questioned costs to the grantor during the audit. Repeat finding: Not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend the Organization put procedures in place to identify the performance period when charging invoices to grants, particularly during the start and end of the period of performance. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Finding 2023-002: Preparation and Maintenance of Equipment Population Program Name: National Railroad Passenger Corporation Grants COVID-19 National Railroad Passenger Corporation Grants Assistance Listing No. 20.315 Federal Award No.: FR-AMT-0020-20 FR-AMT-0022-21 FR-AMT-0026-22 FR-AMT-0028-22 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Criteria The code of federal regulations – 2 CFR 200.1 provides the following definition of Equipment: - Equipment means tangible personal property (including information technology systems) having a useful life of more than one year and a per-unit acquisition cost which equals or exceeds the lesser of the capitalization level established by the non-Federal entity for financial statement purposes, or $5,000. The code of federal regulations – 2 CFR 200.313 Equipment requires that: - Property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the federal award identification number), who holds title, the acquisition date, cost of the property, percentage of federal participation in the project costs for the federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data, including the date of disposal and sales price of the property (2 CFR 200.313(d)(1)). The code of federal regulations – 2 CFR 200.303 – Internal Controls requires that non-Federal entities must: - 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). Condition The following exceptions to the criteria were observed during the performance of the audit procedures as it relates to completeness and accuracy of equipment population: 1. In reviewing the equipment population provided to EY as part of the audit for FY23, we noted the Company mapped FY23 equipment activity relating to FR-AMT-0020-20, FR-AMT-0022-21 and FR-AMT-0026-22 grants to older funding sources. Per inquiry of management, FY23 Overhauled equipment activity was originally mapped incorrectly to prior year grant awards and fund source years. 2. Population contained an asset that could not be observed as the nature of the purchased equipment was a combination of tools with each individually costing less than $5,000. 3. Population contained an asset that had been replaced in 2021, and as such should not have been included in the equipment listing. Questioned Costs None. Context Population of single audit equipment records is manually prepared each period where funding sources are assigned to each asset based on the unique asset identifier. The data source used by the Capital Accounting team did not take into consideration overhaul activity during the FY23 period that was undertaken over equipment assets acquired in 2014-2016 fiscal years. (Condition 1) One of the 60 selections made for testing could not be observed, as the underlying equipment maintenance systems did not have a record of this item due to the fact that items purchased consisted of tools that were individually less than $5,000 and as such did not meet the definition of Equipment as defined by 2 CFR 200.1. The population provided to EY incorrectly included an exception as described in the Condition section above, indicating that following internal control was not functioning as designed: “Monthly, Lead Accountant, Capital Accounting exports equipment data from PP into an Excel spreadsheet (the Equipment Spreadsheet) and manually determines the eligibility of the equipment. The determination is subsequently reviewed by the Senior Manager, Capital Accounting.” (Condition 2) In the initial population provided, we noted that one of the assets had been retired and replaced in 2021 and should have not been included within the population. This was an error that was not corrected during timely updates of the maintenance records. (Condition 3) Effect Amtrak’s control procedures in place as it relates to the preparation of equipment population were not designed in such a manner that would timely identify the conditions noted. Cause The exception from the criteria noted is attributed to the following cause: 1. Highly manual process required to reconcile data between multiple systems in order to maintain a complete and accurate record for each equipment asset. 2. Internal control procedures as designed are not detailed enough to review equipment purchases to be able to determine eligibility of the asset to be classified as equipment under 2 CFR equipment valuation thresholds. Identification as a Repeat Finding Not a repeat finding. Recommendation To address the Condition identified above, we recommend Amtrak to continue integration of the systems in such a way that appropriate funding source would be tagged to each asset automatically and that required property records would automatically be consolidated into one system of record and updated in that system. Ensure that adequate IT interface and business process application controls over the completeness, accuracy, validity, confidentiality, and availability of transactions and data during application processing (input, processing, output, etc.) are in place. Additionally, management should consider breaking out large purchase orders containing multiple items of equipment and tools under one purchase request, by creating separate level 2 WBSE codes in order to distinguish between different types of items being acquired, in order to be able to provide more appropriate classification. Views of Responsible Officials Amtrak agrees with the finding related to the equipment population and believes that strengthening procedures around the preparation and review of the population is needed to prevent errors in future populations. Amtrak recognizes that remediation of this finding will require enhancing documentation around the preparation of the population and documenting a set of procedures to follow for reviewing the population. Some of these efforts have already been enacted while others will be developed and implemented prior to September 30, 2024.
Finding 2023-002: Preparation and Maintenance of Equipment Population Program Name: National Railroad Passenger Corporation Grants COVID-19 National Railroad Passenger Corporation Grants Assistance Listing No. 20.315 Federal Award No.: FR-AMT-0020-20 FR-AMT-0022-21 FR-AMT-0026-22 FR-AMT-0028-22 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Criteria The code of federal regulations – 2 CFR 200.1 provides the following definition of Equipment: - Equipment means tangible personal property (including information technology systems) having a useful life of more than one year and a per-unit acquisition cost which equals or exceeds the lesser of the capitalization level established by the non-Federal entity for financial statement purposes, or $5,000. The code of federal regulations – 2 CFR 200.313 Equipment requires that: - Property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the federal award identification number), who holds title, the acquisition date, cost of the property, percentage of federal participation in the project costs for the federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data, including the date of disposal and sales price of the property (2 CFR 200.313(d)(1)). The code of federal regulations – 2 CFR 200.303 – Internal Controls requires that non-Federal entities must: - 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). Condition The following exceptions to the criteria were observed during the performance of the audit procedures as it relates to completeness and accuracy of equipment population: 1. In reviewing the equipment population provided to EY as part of the audit for FY23, we noted the Company mapped FY23 equipment activity relating to FR-AMT-0020-20, FR-AMT-0022-21 and FR-AMT-0026-22 grants to older funding sources. Per inquiry of management, FY23 Overhauled equipment activity was originally mapped incorrectly to prior year grant awards and fund source years. 2. Population contained an asset that could not be observed as the nature of the purchased equipment was a combination of tools with each individually costing less than $5,000. 3. Population contained an asset that had been replaced in 2021, and as such should not have been included in the equipment listing. Questioned Costs None. Context Population of single audit equipment records is manually prepared each period where funding sources are assigned to each asset based on the unique asset identifier. The data source used by the Capital Accounting team did not take into consideration overhaul activity during the FY23 period that was undertaken over equipment assets acquired in 2014-2016 fiscal years. (Condition 1) One of the 60 selections made for testing could not be observed, as the underlying equipment maintenance systems did not have a record of this item due to the fact that items purchased consisted of tools that were individually less than $5,000 and as such did not meet the definition of Equipment as defined by 2 CFR 200.1. The population provided to EY incorrectly included an exception as described in the Condition section above, indicating that following internal control was not functioning as designed: “Monthly, Lead Accountant, Capital Accounting exports equipment data from PP into an Excel spreadsheet (the Equipment Spreadsheet) and manually determines the eligibility of the equipment. The determination is subsequently reviewed by the Senior Manager, Capital Accounting.” (Condition 2) In the initial population provided, we noted that one of the assets had been retired and replaced in 2021 and should have not been included within the population. This was an error that was not corrected during timely updates of the maintenance records. (Condition 3) Effect Amtrak’s control procedures in place as it relates to the preparation of equipment population were not designed in such a manner that would timely identify the conditions noted. Cause The exception from the criteria noted is attributed to the following cause: 1. Highly manual process required to reconcile data between multiple systems in order to maintain a complete and accurate record for each equipment asset. 2. Internal control procedures as designed are not detailed enough to review equipment purchases to be able to determine eligibility of the asset to be classified as equipment under 2 CFR equipment valuation thresholds. Identification as a Repeat Finding Not a repeat finding. Recommendation To address the Condition identified above, we recommend Amtrak to continue integration of the systems in such a way that appropriate funding source would be tagged to each asset automatically and that required property records would automatically be consolidated into one system of record and updated in that system. Ensure that adequate IT interface and business process application controls over the completeness, accuracy, validity, confidentiality, and availability of transactions and data during application processing (input, processing, output, etc.) are in place. Additionally, management should consider breaking out large purchase orders containing multiple items of equipment and tools under one purchase request, by creating separate level 2 WBSE codes in order to distinguish between different types of items being acquired, in order to be able to provide more appropriate classification. Views of Responsible Officials Amtrak agrees with the finding related to the equipment population and believes that strengthening procedures around the preparation and review of the population is needed to prevent errors in future populations. Amtrak recognizes that remediation of this finding will require enhancing documentation around the preparation of the population and documenting a set of procedures to follow for reviewing the population. Some of these efforts have already been enacted while others will be developed and implemented prior to September 30, 2024.
Finding: 2023-002-Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Timing between the transfer of funds and disbursement of costs Federal Program: 93.XXX U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Condition: The Institute was not able to provide us detailed support showing that time elapsing between the receipt of funds from the federal agency or pass-through entity and disbursement of funds for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of allowable indirect costs was minimized. Criteria: In accordance with the Compliance Supplement, non-federal entities must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury or pass-through entity and disbursement by the non-federal entity for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of allowable indirect costs, whether the payment is made by electronic funds transfer, or issuance or redemption of checks, warrants, or payment by other means (2 CFR Section 200.305(b)). Under the advance payment method, federal awarding agency or pass-through entity payment is made to the non-federal entity before the non-federal entity disburses the funds for program purposes (2 CFR Section 200.1). A non-federal entity must be paid in advance provided that it maintains, or demonstrates the willingness to maintain, both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury and disbursement by the non-federal entity, as well as a financial management system that meets the specified standards for fund control and accountability (2 CFR Section 200.305(b)(1)). Cause: The Institute received funds in accordance with fixed price payment schedules and did not maintain documentation of the time elapsing between the receipt and disbursement of such funds. Effect: The Institute may have earned interest on federal funds during the time elapsed between receipt and disbursement of federal funds. Questioned Costs: None noted. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the Institute establish an internal control in which an individual review the time elapsing between receipt and disbursement of federal funds. Corrective Action Plan: The Institute implemented the recommendations in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2024.
Finding: 2023-002-Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Timing between the transfer of funds and disbursement of costs Federal Program: 93.XXX U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Condition: The Institute was not able to provide us detailed support showing that time elapsing between the receipt of funds from the federal agency or pass-through entity and disbursement of funds for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of allowable indirect costs was minimized. Criteria: In accordance with the Compliance Supplement, non-federal entities must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury or pass-through entity and disbursement by the non-federal entity for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of allowable indirect costs, whether the payment is made by electronic funds transfer, or issuance or redemption of checks, warrants, or payment by other means (2 CFR Section 200.305(b)). Under the advance payment method, federal awarding agency or pass-through entity payment is made to the non-federal entity before the non-federal entity disburses the funds for program purposes (2 CFR Section 200.1). A non-federal entity must be paid in advance provided that it maintains, or demonstrates the willingness to maintain, both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury and disbursement by the non-federal entity, as well as a financial management system that meets the specified standards for fund control and accountability (2 CFR Section 200.305(b)(1)). Cause: The Institute received funds in accordance with fixed price payment schedules and did not maintain documentation of the time elapsing between the receipt and disbursement of such funds. Effect: The Institute may have earned interest on federal funds during the time elapsed between receipt and disbursement of federal funds. Questioned Costs: None noted. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the Institute establish an internal control in which an individual review the time elapsing between receipt and disbursement of federal funds. Corrective Action Plan: The Institute implemented the recommendations in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2024.
Finding: 2023-002-Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Timing between the transfer of funds and disbursement of costs Federal Program: 93.XXX U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Condition: The Institute was not able to provide us detailed support showing that time elapsing between the receipt of funds from the federal agency or pass-through entity and disbursement of funds for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of allowable indirect costs was minimized. Criteria: In accordance with the Compliance Supplement, non-federal entities must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury or pass-through entity and disbursement by the non-federal entity for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of allowable indirect costs, whether the payment is made by electronic funds transfer, or issuance or redemption of checks, warrants, or payment by other means (2 CFR Section 200.305(b)). Under the advance payment method, federal awarding agency or pass-through entity payment is made to the non-federal entity before the non-federal entity disburses the funds for program purposes (2 CFR Section 200.1). A non-federal entity must be paid in advance provided that it maintains, or demonstrates the willingness to maintain, both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury and disbursement by the non-federal entity, as well as a financial management system that meets the specified standards for fund control and accountability (2 CFR Section 200.305(b)(1)). Cause: The Institute received funds in accordance with fixed price payment schedules and did not maintain documentation of the time elapsing between the receipt and disbursement of such funds. Effect: The Institute may have earned interest on federal funds during the time elapsed between receipt and disbursement of federal funds. Questioned Costs: None noted. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the Institute establish an internal control in which an individual review the time elapsing between receipt and disbursement of federal funds. Corrective Action Plan: The Institute implemented the recommendations in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2024.
Finding: 2023-002-Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Timing between the transfer of funds and disbursement of costs Federal Program: 93.XXX U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Condition: The Institute was not able to provide us detailed support showing that time elapsing between the receipt of funds from the federal agency or pass-through entity and disbursement of funds for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of allowable indirect costs was minimized. Criteria: In accordance with the Compliance Supplement, non-federal entities must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury or pass-through entity and disbursement by the non-federal entity for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of allowable indirect costs, whether the payment is made by electronic funds transfer, or issuance or redemption of checks, warrants, or payment by other means (2 CFR Section 200.305(b)). Under the advance payment method, federal awarding agency or pass-through entity payment is made to the non-federal entity before the non-federal entity disburses the funds for program purposes (2 CFR Section 200.1). A non-federal entity must be paid in advance provided that it maintains, or demonstrates the willingness to maintain, both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury and disbursement by the non-federal entity, as well as a financial management system that meets the specified standards for fund control and accountability (2 CFR Section 200.305(b)(1)). Cause: The Institute received funds in accordance with fixed price payment schedules and did not maintain documentation of the time elapsing between the receipt and disbursement of such funds. Effect: The Institute may have earned interest on federal funds during the time elapsed between receipt and disbursement of federal funds. Questioned Costs: None noted. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the Institute establish an internal control in which an individual review the time elapsing between receipt and disbursement of federal funds. Corrective Action Plan: The Institute implemented the recommendations in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2024.
Finding: 2023-002-Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Timing between the transfer of funds and disbursement of costs Federal Program: 93.XXX U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Condition: The Institute was not able to provide us detailed support showing that time elapsing between the receipt of funds from the federal agency or pass-through entity and disbursement of funds for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of allowable indirect costs was minimized. Criteria: In accordance with the Compliance Supplement, non-federal entities must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury or pass-through entity and disbursement by the non-federal entity for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of allowable indirect costs, whether the payment is made by electronic funds transfer, or issuance or redemption of checks, warrants, or payment by other means (2 CFR Section 200.305(b)). Under the advance payment method, federal awarding agency or pass-through entity payment is made to the non-federal entity before the non-federal entity disburses the funds for program purposes (2 CFR Section 200.1). A non-federal entity must be paid in advance provided that it maintains, or demonstrates the willingness to maintain, both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury and disbursement by the non-federal entity, as well as a financial management system that meets the specified standards for fund control and accountability (2 CFR Section 200.305(b)(1)). Cause: The Institute received funds in accordance with fixed price payment schedules and did not maintain documentation of the time elapsing between the receipt and disbursement of such funds. Effect: The Institute may have earned interest on federal funds during the time elapsed between receipt and disbursement of federal funds. Questioned Costs: None noted. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the Institute establish an internal control in which an individual review the time elapsing between receipt and disbursement of federal funds. Corrective Action Plan: The Institute implemented the recommendations in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2024.
Finding: 2023-002-Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Timing between the transfer of funds and disbursement of costs Federal Program: 93.XXX U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Condition: The Institute was not able to provide us detailed support showing that time elapsing between the receipt of funds from the federal agency or pass-through entity and disbursement of funds for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of allowable indirect costs was minimized. Criteria: In accordance with the Compliance Supplement, non-federal entities must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury or pass-through entity and disbursement by the non-federal entity for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of allowable indirect costs, whether the payment is made by electronic funds transfer, or issuance or redemption of checks, warrants, or payment by other means (2 CFR Section 200.305(b)). Under the advance payment method, federal awarding agency or pass-through entity payment is made to the non-federal entity before the non-federal entity disburses the funds for program purposes (2 CFR Section 200.1). A non-federal entity must be paid in advance provided that it maintains, or demonstrates the willingness to maintain, both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury and disbursement by the non-federal entity, as well as a financial management system that meets the specified standards for fund control and accountability (2 CFR Section 200.305(b)(1)). Cause: The Institute received funds in accordance with fixed price payment schedules and did not maintain documentation of the time elapsing between the receipt and disbursement of such funds. Effect: The Institute may have earned interest on federal funds during the time elapsed between receipt and disbursement of federal funds. Questioned Costs: None noted. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the Institute establish an internal control in which an individual review the time elapsing between receipt and disbursement of federal funds. Corrective Action Plan: The Institute implemented the recommendations in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2024.
Finding: 2023-002-Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Timing between the transfer of funds and disbursement of costs Federal Program: 93.XXX U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Condition: The Institute was not able to provide us detailed support showing that time elapsing between the receipt of funds from the federal agency or pass-through entity and disbursement of funds for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of allowable indirect costs was minimized. Criteria: In accordance with the Compliance Supplement, non-federal entities must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury or pass-through entity and disbursement by the non-federal entity for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of allowable indirect costs, whether the payment is made by electronic funds transfer, or issuance or redemption of checks, warrants, or payment by other means (2 CFR Section 200.305(b)). Under the advance payment method, federal awarding agency or pass-through entity payment is made to the non-federal entity before the non-federal entity disburses the funds for program purposes (2 CFR Section 200.1). A non-federal entity must be paid in advance provided that it maintains, or demonstrates the willingness to maintain, both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury and disbursement by the non-federal entity, as well as a financial management system that meets the specified standards for fund control and accountability (2 CFR Section 200.305(b)(1)). Cause: The Institute received funds in accordance with fixed price payment schedules and did not maintain documentation of the time elapsing between the receipt and disbursement of such funds. Effect: The Institute may have earned interest on federal funds during the time elapsed between receipt and disbursement of federal funds. Questioned Costs: None noted. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the Institute establish an internal control in which an individual review the time elapsing between receipt and disbursement of federal funds. Corrective Action Plan: The Institute implemented the recommendations in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2024.
2023-005 2023-005 Accuracy over Federal Reporting Requirements (Repeat Finding 2022-004) Program Name: State Opioid Response Federal Assistance Listing No.: 93.788 Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award Identification: Unknown Pass-Through Entity Number: Unknown Applicable Pass-Through Entity: Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and Cuyahoga County, Ohio Type of Finding: Material Weakness Compliance Requirement: Reporting Criteria: Under Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance, a non-federal entity must maintain effective internal controls to ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and award terms. Point of Freedom needs to establish and document policies and procedures to meet control objectives outlined in 2 CFR Section 200.1, particularly ensuring accurate recording and accounting of transactions for reliable financial statements and federal reports. Condition: Our federal reports testing revealed inaccuracies in the reports, with supporting documentation failing to corroborate the submitted information. Additionally, management has not provided adequate support to verify the accuracy of these reports. Cause of Condition: The Organization's lack of developed policies and procedures for compliance has led to the identified deficiencies in federal reports. Effect: Inadequate controls in this compliance area pose a significant risk that the Organization may fail to meet federal award reporting requirements. Questioned Cost: Not Quantifiable Context: We selected three months' worth of monthly reports for ADAMHS and one closeout report for OHMAS. Recommendation: We recommend that management develop and implement policies and procedures that address compliance requirements. Additionally, provide comprehensive training to employees on these policies and ensure consistent monitoring to maintain accuracy and timeliness in federal reporting. We also suggest a review process. Views of Responsible Officials: POF's initial and current exposure a few months later to Single Audit compliance requirements have sharpened its focus on the need to purposefully identify and maintain corroborating evidence regarding its timely submission and acceptance by each of the respective funding sources. While POF believes that all these reporting requirements were timely met and accepted by all funding sources, it did not consistently maintain either the report itself, or the related documentation such as copies of the emails sent or the associated read-receipts as evidence of these reports. Effective July 1, POF routinely and consistently accumulated and organized these documents as well as ancillary evidence of their transmission to, receipt by, and acknowledgement of acceptance by the federal agency. POF will be more diligent in its transmissions to funders. POF noted that the 2022 Closeout Report was inexplicably re-submitted instead of the correct 2023 Closeout Report. This is unacceptable, and POF will add a second set of reviews by a second person to improve quality control in this area. As necessary, POF will seek professional education and advice in implementing policies, practices, and procedures in addition to those already described herein.
Criteria or Specific Requirement 2 CFR 200.303 requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control over the federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards. One of the objectives of internal control over compliance as found in 2 CFR section 200.1 include that transactions should be properly recorded and accounted for in order to permit the preparation of reliable financial statements and federal reports. Condition This deficiency is related to the financial statements finding 2023-01, as listed in Part II above. The City’s financial statements required material audit adjusting journal entries for the financial statements to be presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The financial statements are required to be the product of a financial reporting system that offers reasonable assurance that management is able to produce financial statements in accordance with GAAP. A portion of the adjustments were related to expenditures which were paid by and applied to funding provided by the ARPA Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Program. The issue pertained to the financial statement assertion of cutoff; the expenditures were allowable expenditures in accordance with the federal award requirements. Cause The City’s year-end procedures did not identify certain necessary adjustments in a timely manner in order to remove capital outlay expenditures that were incorrectly recorded during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023. Effect or Potential Effect Adjusting journal entries were proposed as certain accounts were misstated on the unadjusted financial statements, resulting in expenditures being incorrectly included in the unadjusted schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Questioned Costs None. Context During testing of subsequent disbursements and the potential for unrecorded liabilities and during internal control and compliance testing of the major Federal program, it was noted there were two invoices, amounting to a total of $415,821, recorded within accounts payable as capital outlay expenditures which were improperly recorded in the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023. As evidenced by the invoice date and ship date within the invoices, the equipment was not shipped, and the equipment was not received by the City, until after year-end. The expenditures should be recorded in the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024. Repeat Finding This is a variation of a prior year finding from 2022. See summary schedule of prior audit findings. Recommendation Management should ensure year-end closing procedures are completed in a timely manner and are sufficient to assure accounts and financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP. Management should assess the risk associated with this condition and identify any additional processes that can be incorporated into their existing controls to improve the deficiency; such as, minimizing the likelihood of year-end material audit adjustments through review of transactions and balances for general propriety and accuracy within one month after year-end. Follow-up and inquiries can be made timely for any transactions for which proper recording is unclear to management, if any. The Grants Administrator should maintain an up-to-date listing of expenditures by award (for all federal, state, and local awards) and should communicate with the Finance Department on a monthly basis to review the listing and determine the proper period in which the expenditures should be recorded and presented.
Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Federal Award Identification Numbers: MN0087L5K052114, MN0014L5K002114, MN0186L5K112110 Award Periods: 4/1/22-3/31/23; 7/1/22-6/30/23; 8/1/22-7/31/23 Type of Finding: • Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance • Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR 200.1 defines period of performance as the total estimated time interval between the start of an initial Federal award and the planned end date. Costs recorded to a grant must not be incurred prior to the start of the period of performance unless authorized by the federal awarding agency. Costs recorded to a grant must also not be incurred after the period of performance. Condition: During our audit testing, we noted costs were charged outside of the period of performance for three different awards. Questioned costs: $5,645 Context: We tested 40 transactions from the beginning of the period of performance, noting 2 exceptions where grants were charged for costs incurred prior to the period of performance. We tested 40 transactions from the ending of the period of performance, noting 3 exceptions where grants were charged after the period of performance. Cause: Invoices were charged based on payment date instead of the incurred date. Effect: Grants were charged for costs outside the period of performance. Management repaid the questioned costs to the grantor during the audit. Repeat finding: Not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend the Organization put procedures in place to identify the performance period when charging invoices to grants, particularly during the start and end of the period of performance. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Federal Award Identification Numbers: MN0087L5K052114, MN0014L5K002114, MN0186L5K112110 Award Periods: 4/1/22-3/31/23; 7/1/22-6/30/23; 8/1/22-7/31/23 Type of Finding: • Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance • Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR 200.1 defines period of performance as the total estimated time interval between the start of an initial Federal award and the planned end date. Costs recorded to a grant must not be incurred prior to the start of the period of performance unless authorized by the federal awarding agency. Costs recorded to a grant must also not be incurred after the period of performance. Condition: During our audit testing, we noted costs were charged outside of the period of performance for three different awards. Questioned costs: $5,645 Context: We tested 40 transactions from the beginning of the period of performance, noting 2 exceptions where grants were charged for costs incurred prior to the period of performance. We tested 40 transactions from the ending of the period of performance, noting 3 exceptions where grants were charged after the period of performance. Cause: Invoices were charged based on payment date instead of the incurred date. Effect: Grants were charged for costs outside the period of performance. Management repaid the questioned costs to the grantor during the audit. Repeat finding: Not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend the Organization put procedures in place to identify the performance period when charging invoices to grants, particularly during the start and end of the period of performance. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - N/A Pass-through Entity - N/A Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.1 defines ‘‘financial obligation’’ when referencing a recipient’s or subrecipient’s use of funds under a federal award as orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. The Treasury Interim Final Rule on “Obligation” further clarifies - This definition aligns with a plain language understanding of ‘‘incur’’ as meaning to become liable or subject to something. Subrecipient monitoring Section under Part 3 of the 2023 Compliance Supplement notes that transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship, and, therefore, funds are not considered obligated at the time they are transferred to a component unit of an auditee. Condition - The County did not have adequate controls in place to ensure funds transferred to a component unit were not reported to the Treasury until the component unit met the criteria for obligated the funds. As a result, the County reported to the Treasury $10,000,000 as obligated based on an agreement between the County and a discreetly presented component unit of the County prior to those funds meeting the definition of obligated. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable, as there were no questioned costs identified Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, the County awarded $10,000,000 of CSLFRF to a discreetly presented component unit and reported this as obligated to Treasury in its report for the quarter ended March 31, 2023. For the year ended September 30, 2023, the discreetly presented component unit incurred expenses of approximately $207,000. Cause and Effect - The County considered the executed agreement with its discreetly presented component unit to create an obligation. As such, the County reported the entire award, i.e., $10,000,000, as obligated for the year ended September 30, 2023. The County’s conclusion resulted in the SEFA being initially overstated by approximately $9.8 million, i.e., the difference between the award and the actual expenditures of approximately $207,000. The SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2023 was corrected for this error. Recommendation - We recommend the County correct its Treasury reporting and continue to evaluate the substance and form of its agreements to determine the impact on reporting to the Treasury. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - Management has updated the determination of the relationship with the Drains Commission, a separate legal entity, and subsequently adjusted the SEFA to report the current expenditures of the project. The Treasury report will be adjusted in the next reporting period.