EIN: 311612278
UEI: VX9HHFM6HJM8
Audited by: WHARTON CPA, LLC
Oversight agency: 14 [Department of Housing and Urban Development]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of September 2, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on September 24, 2023. Under 2 CFR 200.521(d), a pass-through entity that provided federal funds to this organization for this audit period must issue a management decision on these findings by March 24, 2024 (894 days ago).
What is a management decision? →Management failed to utilize restricted funds for the purpose in which they were designated. Criteria: The management company expended $9,000 of funds restricted for use in furnishing tenant common areas and the management office, on daily operating expenses. Cause: Site managers did not expend funds for their intended use. Effect: Restricted funds were not spent appropriately and therefore, should be returned to donor. Recommendation: I recommend management comply with all donor restrictions.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2022 ?1 Restricted Fund Usage Questioned Costs: $9,000 Condition: Management failed to utilize restricted funds for the purpose in which they were designated. Criteria: The management company expended $9,000 of funds restricted for use in furnishing tenant common areas and the management office, on daily operating expenses. Cause: Site managers did not expend funds for their intended use. Effect: Restricted funds were not spent appropriately and therefore, should be returned to donor. Recommendation: I recommend management comply with all donor restrictions.
2022 ?1 Restricted Fund Usage Questioned Cost: $9,000 Condition: Management failed to utilize restricted funds for the purpose in which they were designated. Criteria: The management company expended $9,000 of funds restricted for use in furnishing tenant common areas and the management office, on daily operating expenses. Cause: Site managers did not expend funds for their intended use. Effect: Restricted funds were not spent appropriately and therefore, should be returned to donor. Recommendation: I recommend management comply with all donor restrictions. Management Response: - Initially the funds were not restricted. The funds were earned by the property because the property was used as a set for a movie. - The money did not come from the Board. The money was generated by the property and is considered to be other income. Given the financial needs of the property there was no way that funds could be set aside for the operations. The Debt owed to the Management Company as of 12/31/2022 was $59,401. Given the severe cash flow issues at the property all resources had to be directed to resolve the financial situation of Boyd Manor. The funds were used for the benefit of Boyd Manor. The management company was also owed $59,401.
A local water utility company has a recorded unpaid water bill in excess of $113,000 for the property. Criteria: The local utility company measures water usage each month and invoices the customer for that supposed usage. Cause: The cause of the excessive water bill is undeterminable. Effect: Management is unable to pay a water bill in excess of $113,000 when the property?s usual water bill is approximately $2,000 each month. Recommendation: I recommend management continue to work with the local water utility company to get the bill adjusted to an appropriate amount or determine the cause for the excessive bill.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2022 ?2 Excessive Utility (Water) Bill Condition: A local water utility company has a recorded unpaid water bill in excess of $113,000 for the property. Criteria: The local utility company measures water usage each month and invoices the customer for that supposed usage. Cause: The cause of the excessive water bill is undeterminable. Effect: Management is unable to pay a water bill in excess of $113,000 when the property?s usual water bill is approximately $2,000 each month. Recommendation: I recommend management continue to work with the local water utility company to get the bill adjusted to an appropriate amount or determine the cause for the excessive bill.
2022 ?2 Excessive Utility (Water) Bill Condition: A local water utility company has a recorded unpaid water bill in excess of $113,000 for the property. Criteria: The local utility company measures water usage each month and invoices the customer for that supposed usage. Cause: The cause of the excessive water bill is undeterminable. Effect: Management is unable to pay a water bill in excess of $113,000 when the property?s usual water bill is approximately $2,000 each month. Recommendation: I recommend management continue to work with the local water utility company to get the bill adjusted to an appropriate amount or determine the cause for the excessive bill. Management Response: - This issue is ongoing. The local newspaper is full of stories of incorrect or conflict about the utility company. This is a local issue that should be addressed by the Chairman of the Board, as the property is located in his area and needs to be addressed at the highest level. This is not a problem that can be solved by the staff, it can only be solved by the Board.
FAC accepted this audit on April 29, 2022 — management decision was due October 29, 2022.
Management failed to collect monthly lease payments resulting in tenants accruing large amounts of past due rent. Criteria: Monthly tenant lease payments should be collected and payable according to the terms of the HUD model lease. Cause: Site managers did not carry out the terms of the HUD-model lease and collect rent due. Effect: Tenant accounts receivables included significant amounts of unpaid rent for current residents. Recommendation: I recommend management develop and implement a collection policy.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2021 ?1 Collection of Tenant Accounts Receivable Condition: Management failed to collect monthly lease payments resulting in tenants accruing large amounts of past due rent. Criteria: Monthly tenant lease payments should be collected and payable according to the terms of the HUD model lease. Cause: Site managers did not carry out the terms of the HUD-model lease and collect rent due. Effect: Tenant accounts receivables included significant amounts of unpaid rent for current residents. Recommendation: I recommend management develop and implement a collection policy.
Management has a collection policy in place. However, it was difficult to enforce filing of eviction due to the rent moratorium over the past two years due to COVID-19.
FAC accepted this audit on April 29, 2021 — management decision was due October 29, 2021.
FAC accepted this audit on September 15, 2020 — management decision was due March 15, 2021.
There was one tenant whose security deposit was not refunded within the 30 day timeframe required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Criteria: According to the Consolidated Audit Guide for Audits of HUD Program Handbook 2000.04 REV-2 Change 1, Chapter 3, tenant security deposits must be refunded within 30 days of move-out. Cause: Management did not process move-out documents in a timely manner to facilitate proper and timely processing of refund. Effect: The Project is not in compliance with the Consolidated Audit Guide for Audits of HUD Program as it relates to tenant security deposits. Recommendation: I recommend management implement stronger internal controls related to the refund process to ensure compliance with Consolidated Audit Guide for Audits of HUD Program. Management Corrective Action: Management will implement stronger internal controls related to the refund process to ensure compliance with Consolidated Audit Guide for Audits of HUD Program.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Condition: There was one tenant whose security deposit was not refunded within the 30 day timeframe required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Criteria: According to the Consolidated Audit Guide for Audits of HUD Program Handbook 2000.04 REV-2 Change 1, Chapter 3, tenant security deposits must be refunded within 30 days of move-out. Cause: Management did not process move-out documents in a timely manner to facilitate proper and timely processing of refund. Effect: The Project is not in compliance with the Consolidated Audit Guide for Audits of HUD Program as it relates to tenant security deposits. Recommendation: I recommend management implement stronger internal controls related to the refund process to ensure compliance with Consolidated Audit Guide for Audits of HUD Program. Management Corrective Action: Management will implement stronger internal controls related to the refund process to ensure compliance with Consolidated Audit Guide for Audits of HUD Program.
Management Corrective Action: Management will implement stronger internal controls related to the refund process to ensure compliance with Consolidated Audit Guide for Audits of HUD Program.
FAC accepted this audit on March 25, 2019 — management decision was due September 25, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2017-001
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2017-002
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2017-004
FAC accepted this audit on August 16, 2018 — management decision was due February 16, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴FAC accepted this audit on April 30, 2017 — management decision was due October 30, 2017.
Data source: This information comes from the Federal Audit Clearinghouse, the official repository of Single Audit data. All data is public domain. Verify this organization's audit history at fac.gov.
Browse other Single Audit organizations in Louisiana →
Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.
Start tracking findings →Add it to a monitored group and get alerted when a new audit, finding, repeat finding, or management-decision deadline shows up — instead of checking back.
Checking several at once? Portfolio view →
© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.
