EIN: 541443036
UEI: GSA_MIGRATION
Data as of August 26, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on June 14, 2021. 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 December 14, 2021 (1717 days ago).
What is a management decision? →The security deposit for Unit 217 was not refunded within the 30-days. Criteria: HUD requires tenant security deposits be refunded within 30 days, or the statute set by the state, whichever is shorter. Effect: The tenant security deposit was not refunded within the required timeframe. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The management agent should establish procedures to make sure to refund all security deposits within the 30-day timeframe. Questioned Costs: N/A
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2020-001 Finding Resolution Status: In Progress Population Size: 3 Sample Size: 2 Noncompliance Information: I tested two tenant move-outs and found noncompliance in one move-out. Condition: The security deposit for Unit 217 was not refunded within the 30-days. Criteria: HUD requires tenant security deposits be refunded within 30 days, or the statute set by the state, whichever is shorter. Effect: The tenant security deposit was not refunded within the required timeframe. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The management agent should establish procedures to make sure to refund all security deposits within the 30-day timeframe. Questioned Costs: N/A
Dolan Manor Apartments St. Pius X Housing, Inc. 2211 Golden Gate Drive Greensboro, NC 27405 Office: (336) 379-1411 Name of auditee: Dolan Manor II Apartments HUD auditee identification number: FHA/Contract #053-EE072 Name of audit firm: O. Douglas Covington, C.P.A., P.A. Period covered by the audit: January 1, 2020 thru December 31, 2020 CAP prepared by: Name: Deborah Wright Position: Compliance Manager Telephone: 336-337-5006. 1. Finding 2020-001 a. Comments on the Finding and Each Recommendation We are in agreement with the finding. b. Action(s) Taken or planned on the finding The security deposit was late for Unit 217 due to the paperwork was lost in the mail. By the time the manager sent a copy in, it was late. We are now having the managers email the move- outs into the office so this does not occur again.
FAC accepted this audit on July 7, 2020 — management decision was due January 7, 2021.
Tenant files did not contain required or correct documentation. DMII-114 Missing 60-day recertification notice. DMII-317 Missing 90-day EIV and Move-In Inspection. Criteria: As part of the tenant certification and recertification, HUD requires certain documentation be maintained in the tenant files. Effect: Project was not in compliance with HUD rules and regulations. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The management agent should maintain copies of the recertification notices and EIV reports in the tenant files. In addition, the management agent should conduct move-in inspections during each move-in. Questioned Costs: N/A
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2019-001 Finding Resolution Status: In Progress Population Size: 24 Sample Size: 5 Noncompliance Information: I tested five tenant files and found noncompliance in two files. Condition: Tenant files did not contain required or correct documentation. DMII-114 Missing 60-day recertification notice. DMII-317 Missing 90-day EIV and Move-In Inspection. Criteria: As part of the tenant certification and recertification, HUD requires certain documentation be maintained in the tenant files. Effect: Project was not in compliance with HUD rules and regulations. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The management agent should maintain copies of the recertification notices and EIV reports in the tenant files. In addition, the management agent should conduct move-in inspections during each move-in. Questioned Costs: N/A
We are in agreement with the finding. The previous manager did not make a copy for the file prior to giving the tenant the 60-day notice for Unit 114. The EIV and the Move in inspection was not in the file for Unit 317. When the previous manager quit, a temporary manager came to fill in until we hired a new manager. She did not know that there had been a move in right before she started and never knew there was a new move in file with some things left undone. There is a report in our software that we can print showing dates of new move ins that we can double check to make sure everything is completed that will be used in the future.
The waitlist was being used to admit tenants into the property, based upon an incorrect date. Although the date and time the application was received was correctly being entered into the application program, the wait list was using the date the application was accepted instead of the date the application was received to determine the order of admittance. Criteria: HUD rules and regulations require that the waiting list be maintained in a manner in which the move-in order can be determined. Effect: Applicants could be moved-in in an incorrect order. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The management agent should correct the acceptance date in the system to match the date the application was received and going forward the site manager should use the date the application was received as the acceptance date. Questioned Costs: N/A
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2019-002 Finding Resolution Status: In Progress Population Size: 38 Sample Size: 19 Noncompliance Information: I tested 19 applications and found noncompliance in nine of them. Condition: The waitlist was being used to admit tenants into the property, based upon an incorrect date. Although the date and time the application was received was correctly being entered into the application program, the wait list was using the date the application was accepted instead of the date the application was received to determine the order of admittance. Criteria: HUD rules and regulations require that the waiting list be maintained in a manner in which the move-in order can be determined. Effect: Applicants could be moved-in in an incorrect order. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The management agent should correct the acceptance date in the system to match the date the application was received and going forward the site manager should use the date the application was received as the acceptance date. Questioned Costs: N/A
We are in agreement with the finding. The new compliance assistant was trying to update the waiting list, and as she made some changes some of the dates were changed to the date she was entering the information in. Only one person was missed and that person has now been called and informed that they are in line for the next available apartment. All managers have now been alerted that some of the changes made to the applicants to bring information up to date, can change their waiting list date. They are to check all the dates after their updates to make sure that doesn?t happen to their lists.
The tenant in DMII-114 was not available to sign the annual recertification and the recertification documentation was signed by the tenant and manager after the tenant?s recertification anniversary date. The tenant had not signed the 30-day Rate Adjustment notice. Criteria: HUD rules and regulations require that annual recertifications be completed by the tenant?s recertification anniversary date in order to recalculate the tenant?s Total Tenant Payment and tenant rent and the assistance payment provided by HUD. Effect: Because the documentation had not been timely signed by the recertification date, the rent adjustment was not enforceable until signed. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The management agent should complete and sign all recertifications in a timely manner and have the tenant sign the 30-day Rate Adjustment notice. Questioned Costs: N/A
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2019-003 Finding Resolution Status: In Progress Population Size: 24 Sample Size: 5 Noncompliance Information: I tested five tenant files and found noncompliance in one file. Condition: The tenant in DMII-114 was not available to sign the annual recertification and the recertification documentation was signed by the tenant and manager after the tenant?s recertification anniversary date. The tenant had not signed the 30-day Rate Adjustment notice. Criteria: HUD rules and regulations require that annual recertifications be completed by the tenant?s recertification anniversary date in order to recalculate the tenant?s Total Tenant Payment and tenant rent and the assistance payment provided by HUD. Effect: Because the documentation had not been timely signed by the recertification date, the rent adjustment was not enforceable until signed. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The management agent should complete and sign all recertifications in a timely manner and have the tenant sign the 30-day Rate Adjustment notice. Questioned Costs: N/A
We are in agreement with the finding. The tenant signed the 50059 late due to her being out of town for a couple weeks visiting her daughter. She had previously filled out the paperwork and when we needed her to sign, we could not find her. We later learned she was out of town. In talking to HUD, there was no problem with the late signing this time, but we were to instruct her to remember to let the office know when she was leaving town. However, in our haste to get her to sign the 50059, we did forget to have her sign the rate adjustment sheet. We will have her sign the adjustment sheet.
FAC accepted this audit on September 18, 2018 — management decision was due March 18, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2016-003, 2016-005
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
FAC accepted this audit on September 24, 2017 — management decision was due March 24, 2018.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2015-001
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2015-004
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2015-002
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
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.
Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.
Start tracking findings →Monitor subrecipient audit findings and compliance status.
Start monitoring →© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.