EIN: 581443036
UEI: MNQFN9EAAF63
Audited by: O. DOUGLAS COVINGTON CPA
Oversight agency: 14 [Department of Housing and Urban Development]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of August 31, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on August 25, 2026. 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 February 25, 2027 (176 days from today).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on August 25, 2026 — management decision was due February 25, 2027.
FAC accepted this audit on July 24, 2025 — management decision was due January 24, 2026.
The Project claimed duplicate expenses (PTAC Units for Unit #112 and #214 and hot water heater for #211) in the March 25, 2024, replacement withdrawal request and again in the July 8, 2024, replacement withdrawal request. Criteria: As part of the HUD regulations, reserve withdrawals for repairs and capital purchases must be supported by checks and invoices and can only be requested once. Effect: Project erroneously withdrew $2,077.59 for these duplicate items. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The management agent should reimbursement the replacement reserve account for the excess withdrawal of $2,077.59. Questioned Costs: $2,077.59
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2024-001 Finding Resolution Status: Resolved Population Size: 7 Sample Size: 7 Noncompliance Information: I tested seven replacement reserve withdrawals and found noncompliance in two withdrawals. Condition: The Project claimed duplicate expenses (PTAC Units for Unit #112 and #214 and hot water heater for #211) in the March 25, 2024, replacement withdrawal request and again in the July 8, 2024, replacement withdrawal request. Criteria: As part of the HUD regulations, reserve withdrawals for repairs and capital purchases must be supported by checks and invoices and can only be requested once. Effect: Project erroneously withdrew $2,077.59 for these duplicate items. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The management agent should reimbursement the replacement reserve account for the excess withdrawal of $2,077.59. Questioned Costs: $2,077.59
Name of auditee: Dolan Manor II 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, 2024 thru December 31, 2024 CAP Prepared By: Name: Kenya Owens Position: Vice President of Operations Telephone: 336-944-5847 1. Finding 2024-001 a. Comments on the Finding and Each Recommendation At the time of audit, we are in agreement with the findings. b. Action(s) Taken or planned on the finding Due to an oversight on management duplicate invoices was submitted and approve through HUD. We have since corrected and returned the duplicated funds in the amount of $2,077.59 from the operating account back to the reserves account. *Regional Compliance Manager will review prior RFR previously submitted.
FAC accepted this audit on July 24, 2025 — management decision was due January 24, 2026.
The Project claimed duplicate expenses (PTAC Units for Unit #112 and #214 and hot water heater for #211) in the March 25, 2024, replacement withdrawal request and again in the July 8, 2024, replacement withdrawal request. Criteria: As part of the HUD regulations, reserve withdrawals for repairs and capital purchases must be supported by checks and invoices and can only be requested once. Effect: Project erroneously withdrew $2,077.59 for these duplicate items. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The management agent should reimbursement the replacement reserve account for the excess withdrawal of $2,077.59. Questioned Costs: $2,077.59
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2024-001 Finding Resolution Status: Resolved Population Size: 7 Sample Size: 7 Noncompliance Information: I tested seven replacement reserve withdrawals and found noncompliance in two withdrawals. Condition: The Project claimed duplicate expenses (PTAC Units for Unit #112 and #214 and hot water heater for #211) in the March 25, 2024, replacement withdrawal request and again in the July 8, 2024, replacement withdrawal request. Criteria: As part of the HUD regulations, reserve withdrawals for repairs and capital purchases must be supported by checks and invoices and can only be requested once. Effect: Project erroneously withdrew $2,077.59 for these duplicate items. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The management agent should reimbursement the replacement reserve account for the excess withdrawal of $2,077.59. Questioned Costs: $2,077.59
Name of auditee: Dolan Manor II 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, 2024 thru December 31, 2024 CAP Prepared By: Name: Kenya Owens Position: Vice President of Operations Telephone: 336-944-5847 1. Finding 2024-001 a. Comments on the Finding and Each Recommendation At the time of audit, we are in agreement with the findings. b. Action(s) Taken or planned on the finding Due to an oversight on management duplicate invoices was submitted and approve through HUD. We have since corrected and returned the duplicated funds in the amount of $2,077.59 from the operating account back to the reserves account. *Regional Compliance Manager will review prior RFR previously submitted.
FAC accepted this audit on June 25, 2024 — management decision was due December 25, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on June 25, 2024 — management decision was due December 25, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on May 29, 2023 — management decision was due November 29, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on May 29, 2023 — management decision was due November 29, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on July 10, 2022 — management decision was due January 10, 2023.
At December 31, 2021 the replacement reserve account was underfunded by $78. Criteria: HUD rules and regulations require the Project to increase the deposit to the replacement reserve when there is an increase in the contract rents allowed by HUD. Effect: The Project?s replacement reserve account was underfunded by $78. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The Management Agent should establish procedures to ensure that increases in the reserve for replacement deposit due to rent increases are timely made even when not properly billed by the mortgage company. Questioned Costs: $78
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2021-001 Finding Resolution Status: In Progress Population Size: 12 Sample Size: 12 Noncompliance Information: As part of a rent increase effective September 24, 2021, the Project timely prepared and submitted to HUD a form HUD 9250 reflecting an increase in the deposit to the replacement reserve account from $1,023 per month to $1,049 per month. However, the mortgage company did not properly bill the increase of $26 on the October 1, 2021 through December 1, 2021, mortgage payments and the required increase in the deposit to the replacement reserve account was not made for the three months. Condition: At December 31, 2021 the replacement reserve account was underfunded by $78. Criteria: HUD rules and regulations require the Project to increase the deposit to the replacement reserve when there is an increase in the contract rents allowed by HUD. Effect: The Project?s replacement reserve account was underfunded by $78. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The Management Agent should establish procedures to ensure that increases in the reserve for replacement deposit due to rent increases are timely made even when not properly billed by the mortgage company. Questioned Costs: $78
Dolan Manor Apartments St. Pius X Housing, Inc. 2211 Golden Gate Drive Greensboro, NC 27405 Name of auditee: Dolan Manor I Apartments HUD auditee identification number: FHA/Contract #053-11219 Name of audit firm: O. Douglas Covington, C.P.A., P.A. Period covered by the audit: January 1, 2021 thru December 31, 2021 CAP prepared by: Name: Deborah Wright Position: Compliance Manager Telephone: 336-337-5006 1. Finding 2021-001 a. Comments on the Finding and Each Recommendation We are in agreement with the finding. b. Action(s) Taken or planned on the finding This has been corrected as the mortgage company billed us for the shortfall of $78 in March and has been charging us the correct reserve amount since then.
FAC accepted this audit on July 10, 2022 — management decision was due January 10, 2023.
At December 31, 2021 the replacement reserve account was underfunded by $78. Criteria: HUD rules and regulations require the Project to increase the deposit to the replacement reserve when there is an increase in the contract rents allowed by HUD. Effect: The Project?s replacement reserve account was underfunded by $78. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The Management Agent should establish procedures to ensure that increases in the reserve for replacement deposit due to rent increases are timely made even when not properly billed by the mortgage company. Questioned Costs: $78
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2021-001 Finding Resolution Status: In Progress Population Size: 12 Sample Size: 12 Noncompliance Information: As part of a rent increase effective September 24, 2021, the Project timely prepared and submitted to HUD a form HUD 9250 reflecting an increase in the deposit to the replacement reserve account from $1,023 per month to $1,049 per month. However, the mortgage company did not properly bill the increase of $26 on the October 1, 2021 through December 1, 2021, mortgage payments and the required increase in the deposit to the replacement reserve account was not made for the three months. Condition: At December 31, 2021 the replacement reserve account was underfunded by $78. Criteria: HUD rules and regulations require the Project to increase the deposit to the replacement reserve when there is an increase in the contract rents allowed by HUD. Effect: The Project?s replacement reserve account was underfunded by $78. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The Management Agent should establish procedures to ensure that increases in the reserve for replacement deposit due to rent increases are timely made even when not properly billed by the mortgage company. Questioned Costs: $78
Dolan Manor Apartments St. Pius X Housing, Inc. 2211 Golden Gate Drive Greensboro, NC 27405 Name of auditee: Dolan Manor I Apartments HUD auditee identification number: FHA/Contract #053-11219 Name of audit firm: O. Douglas Covington, C.P.A., P.A. Period covered by the audit: January 1, 2021 thru December 31, 2021 CAP prepared by: Name: Deborah Wright Position: Compliance Manager Telephone: 336-337-5006 1. Finding 2021-001 a. Comments on the Finding and Each Recommendation We are in agreement with the finding. b. Action(s) Taken or planned on the finding This has been corrected as the mortgage company billed us for the shortfall of $78 in March and has been charging us the correct reserve amount since then.
FAC accepted this audit on June 14, 2021 — management decision was due December 14, 2021.
The security deposit for Unit 204 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: NIA
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2020-001 Finding Resolution Status: In Progress Population Size: 2 Sample Size: 2 Noncompliance Information: I tested two tenant move-outs and found noncompliance in one move-out. Condition: The security deposit for Unit 204 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: NIA
Dolan Manor Apartments St. Pius X Housing, Inc. 2211 Golden Gate Drive Greensboro, NC 27405 Name of auditee: Dolan Manor I Apartments HUD auditee identification number: FHA/Contract #053-11219 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 Move out for 204 was completed late due to the manager. The manager is no longer there and the new manager has been made aware of the timeliness of these move outs.
FAC accepted this audit on July 7, 2020 — management decision was due January 7, 2021.
Tenant files did not contain required or correct documentation. DMI-101 Missing 90-day and 60-day recertification notices DMI-104 Missing 120-day, 90-day and 60-day recertification notices. DMI-306 Missing 120-day, 90-day and 60-day recertification notices. DMI-210 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.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2019-001 Finding Resolution Status: In Progress Population Size: 30 Sample Size: 6 Noncompliance Information: I tested six tenant files and found noncompliance in four files. Condition: Tenant files did not contain required or correct documentation. DMI-101 Missing 90-day and 60-day recertification notices DMI-104 Missing 120-day, 90-day and 60-day recertification notices. DMI-306 Missing 120-day, 90-day and 60-day recertification notices. DMI-210 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.
We are in agreement with the finding. Units 101, 104, 306, and 210 did receive their letters. Unfortunately, the previous manager did not make the copies to show they were printed and given to the residents. During this audit, the new manager has been made aware on how important these letters were to copy and put into the file to ensure that HUD knew we sent them. Unit 210 ? was a new move in processed by the previous manager that the temporary manager did not know there had been a move in. 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. We will print the EIV and get a move in sheet filled out immediately.
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 that moved into unit DMI-210 did not have a credit/criminal background check in the file. Criteria: HUD rules and regulations and the Project?s policies require that applicants have a credit/criminal background check requested as part of the move-in procedures. Effect: Applicants could be moved-in that do not meet the eligibility requirements. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The management agent should establish procedures to make sure credit/criminal background checks are requested on all applicants as part of the move-in process. Questioned Costs: N/A
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2019-003 Finding Resolution Status: In Progress Population Size: 30 Sample Size: 6 Noncompliance Information: I tested six tenant files and found noncompliance in one file. Condition: The tenant that moved into unit DMI-210 did not have a credit/criminal background check in the file. Criteria: HUD rules and regulations and the Project?s policies require that applicants have a credit/criminal background check requested as part of the move-in procedures. Effect: Applicants could be moved-in that do not meet the eligibility requirements. Cause: Management agent oversight. Recommendation: The management agent should establish procedures to make sure credit/criminal background checks are requested on all applicants as part of the move-in process. Questioned Costs: N/A
We are in agreement with the finding. Unit 210 did not have a credit/criminal report done prior to move in. We are not sure why this was not done and put in the file. It is our policy that a credit/criminal report must be run on all applicants as part of the move-in process. This was an application processed by the previous manager. The new manager has been instructed to be sure to run a credit/criminal report on every applicant as part of the move-in process.
Concurrent with the rent increase effective October 1, 2019, the deposit to the reserve for replacement account was to be increased from $976 per month to $997 per month. The monthly deposit to the replacement reserve account was not increased until April 1, 2020. Criteria: The regulatory agreement with HUD requires that monthly deposits to the replace reserve account must be made in accordance with HUD rules and regulations and increases to the amount of the monthly reserve deposit can increase in conjunction with rent increases. Effect: The replacement reserve was underfunded by $63 at December 31, 2019. Cause: The mortgage company lost or did not get the form 9250 reflecting the increase to the replacement reserve requirement. Recommendation: Although the management agent became aware of the underfunding of the monthly deposit to the replacement reserve account and notified the mortgage company in February 2020 that the deposit to the replacement reserve account needed to be corrected, the management company should establish procedures to make sure that increases in replacement reserve deposits are done timely. Questioned Costs: $63
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2019-004 Finding Resolution Status: Completed - April 1, 2020 Population Size: 12 Sample Size: 12 Noncompliance Information: I tested twelve months and found non-compliance in 3 months. Condition: Concurrent with the rent increase effective October 1, 2019, the deposit to the reserve for replacement account was to be increased from $976 per month to $997 per month. The monthly deposit to the replacement reserve account was not increased until April 1, 2020. Criteria: The regulatory agreement with HUD requires that monthly deposits to the replace reserve account must be made in accordance with HUD rules and regulations and increases to the amount of the monthly reserve deposit can increase in conjunction with rent increases. Effect: The replacement reserve was underfunded by $63 at December 31, 2019. Cause: The mortgage company lost or did not get the form 9250 reflecting the increase to the replacement reserve requirement. Recommendation: Although the management agent became aware of the underfunding of the monthly deposit to the replacement reserve account and notified the mortgage company in February 2020 that the deposit to the replacement reserve account needed to be corrected, the management company should establish procedures to make sure that increases in replacement reserve deposits are done timely. Questioned Costs: $63
We are in agreement with the finding. In reconciling the mortgage balances as part of our year end procedures, we became aware that the increase in the replacement reserve deposit had not been done. We notified the mortgage company in February 2020 and they collected all unpaid amounts from October 1, 2019 and adjusted the monthly deposit to the correct amount going forward in April 2020. In the future, we will check that the deposit has been increased on a timely basis.
FAC accepted this audit on August 19, 2019 — management decision was due February 19, 2020.
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
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
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
2015-003
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.
Browse other Single Audit organizations in North Carolina →
Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.
Start tracking findings →Monitor subrecipient audit findings and filing records.
Start monitoring →© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.
