EIN: 616000718
UEI: HDLQK6112JQ3
Audited by: CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP
Oversight agency: 14 [Department of Housing and Urban Development]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of September 7, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on March 26, 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 September 26, 2026 (13 days from today).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on May 21, 2026 — management decision was due November 21, 2026.
FAC accepted this audit on July 8, 2025 — management decision was due January 8, 2026.
FAC accepted this audit on March 31, 2025 — management decision was due October 1, 2025.
FAC accepted this audit on March 29, 2024 — management decision was due September 29, 2024.
Name of Federal Agency and Pass-Through Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance Requirements: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency Amount of Questioned Costs: None Identification of Questioned Costs and How Computed: None identified COVID Related: Yes Repeat Finding: Repeat finding of 2022-004. When submitting required quarterly project and expenditure reports, the county improperly identified two entities as being subrecipients instead of contractors. Those responsible for the federal awards did not have a clear understanding of the difference between a subrecipient and a contractor. The reporting guidance was not clear on the definition of a subrecipient versus a contractor and resulted in a misunderstanding. Two entities could potentially be identified as subrecipients and therefore be subject to a single audit when they should not be. Per 2 CFR § 200.331, “a pass-through entity must make case-by-case determinations whether each agreement it makes for the disbursements of Federal program funds casts the party receiving the funds in the role of a subrecipient or a contractor.” We recommend the county review the requirements for determining whether a disbursement qualifies as a payment to a subrecipient or a contractor and ensure all of those that administer federal funding have an understanding of the terms.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Name of Federal Agency and Pass-Through Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance Requirements: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency Amount of Questioned Costs: None Identification of Questioned Costs and How Computed: None identified COVID Related: Yes Repeat Finding: Repeat finding of 2022-004. When submitting required quarterly project and expenditure reports, the county improperly identified two entities as being subrecipients instead of contractors. Those responsible for the federal awards did not have a clear understanding of the difference between a subrecipient and a contractor. The reporting guidance was not clear on the definition of a subrecipient versus a contractor and resulted in a misunderstanding. Two entities could potentially be identified as subrecipients and therefore be subject to a single audit when they should not be. Per 2 CFR § 200.331, “a pass-through entity must make case-by-case determinations whether each agreement it makes for the disbursements of Federal program funds casts the party receiving the funds in the role of a subrecipient or a contractor.” We recommend the county review the requirements for determining whether a disbursement qualifies as a payment to a subrecipient or a contractor and ensure all of those that administer federal funding have an understanding of the terms.
Already corrected in Q4 CY23 ARPA Report.
2022-004
FAC accepted this audit on November 26, 2024 — management decision was due May 26, 2025.
Name of Federal Agency and Pass-Through Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance Requirements: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency Amount of Questioned Costs: None Identification of Questioned Costs and How Computed: None identified COVID Related: Yes Repeat Finding: Repeat finding of 2022-004. When submitting required quarterly project and expenditure reports, the county improperly identified two entities as being subrecipients instead of contractors. Those responsible for the federal awards did not have a clear understanding of the difference between a subrecipient and a contractor. The reporting guidance was not clear on the definition of a subrecipient versus a contractor and resulted in a misunderstanding. Two entities could potentially be identified as subrecipients and therefore be subject to a single audit when they should not be. Per 2 CFR § 200.331, “a pass-through entity must make case-by-case determinations whether each agreement it makes for the disbursements of Federal program funds casts the party receiving the funds in the role of a subrecipient or a contractor.” We recommend the county review the requirements for determining whether a disbursement qualifies as a payment to a subrecipient or a contractor and ensure all of those that administer federal funding have an understanding of the terms.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Name of Federal Agency and Pass-Through Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance Requirements: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency Amount of Questioned Costs: None Identification of Questioned Costs and How Computed: None identified COVID Related: Yes Repeat Finding: Repeat finding of 2022-004. When submitting required quarterly project and expenditure reports, the county improperly identified two entities as being subrecipients instead of contractors. Those responsible for the federal awards did not have a clear understanding of the difference between a subrecipient and a contractor. The reporting guidance was not clear on the definition of a subrecipient versus a contractor and resulted in a misunderstanding. Two entities could potentially be identified as subrecipients and therefore be subject to a single audit when they should not be. Per 2 CFR § 200.331, “a pass-through entity must make case-by-case determinations whether each agreement it makes for the disbursements of Federal program funds casts the party receiving the funds in the role of a subrecipient or a contractor.” We recommend the county review the requirements for determining whether a disbursement qualifies as a payment to a subrecipient or a contractor and ensure all of those that administer federal funding have an understanding of the terms.
Already corrected in Q4 CY23 ARPA Report.
2022-004
FAC accepted this audit on February 15, 2024 — management decision was due August 15, 2024.
When submitting required quarterly reports, the County improperly identified two entities as being subrecipients instead of contractors. Cause: The reporting guidance was not clear on the definition of subrecipient vs contractor and therefore resulted in a misunderstanding. Effect: The two entities could potentially be identified as subrecipients and therefore subject to single audit when they should not be. Questioned Costs: None identified. Context: Those responsible for the Federal awards did not have a clear understanding of the difference between subrecipient and contractor. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the County review the requirements for determining whether a disbursement qualifies as a payment to a subrecipient or a contractor and ensure all those that administer Federal funding have an understanding of the terms. Additionally, we recommend the County ensure they are aware of all compliance requirements surrounding subrecipient monitoring. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: The guidance was unclear when reporting began in 2021. The delineation is now understood and will be corrected in the next quarterly report to the Treasury Department.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2022-004 Reporting and Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Program: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds [AL #21.027] Criteria: Per CFR 200.331 “a pass-through entity must make case-by-case determinations whether each agreement it makes for the disbursement of Federal program funds casts the party receiving the funds in the role of a subrecipient or a contractor.” Condition: When submitting required quarterly reports, the County improperly identified two entities as being subrecipients instead of contractors. Cause: The reporting guidance was not clear on the definition of subrecipient vs contractor and therefore resulted in a misunderstanding. Effect: The two entities could potentially be identified as subrecipients and therefore subject to single audit when they should not be. Questioned Costs: None identified. Context: Those responsible for the Federal awards did not have a clear understanding of the difference between subrecipient and contractor. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the County review the requirements for determining whether a disbursement qualifies as a payment to a subrecipient or a contractor and ensure all those that administer Federal funding have an understanding of the terms. Additionally, we recommend the County ensure they are aware of all compliance requirements surrounding subrecipient monitoring. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: The guidance was unclear when reporting began in 2021. The delineation is now understood and will be corrected in the next quarterly report to the Treasury Department.
The guidance was unclear when reporting began in 2021. The delineation is now understood and will be corrected in the next quarterly report to the Treasury Department. Anticipated Completion Date: January 31, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on September 28, 2023 — management decision was due March 28, 2024.
When submitting required quarterly reports, the County improperly identified two entities as being subrecipients instead of contractors. Cause: The reporting guidance was not clear on the definition of subrecipient vs contractor and therefore resulted in a misunderstanding. Effect: The two entities could potentially be identified as subrecipients and therefore subject to single audit when they should not be. Questioned Costs: None identified. Context: Those responsible for the Federal awards did not have a clear understanding of the difference between subrecipient and contractor. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the County review the requirements for determining whether a disbursement qualifies as a payment to a subrecipient or a contractor and ensure all those that administer Federal funding have an understanding of the terms. Additionally, we recommend the County ensure they are aware of all compliance requirements surrounding subrecipient monitoring. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: The guidance was unclear when reporting began in 2021. The delineation is now understood and will be corrected in the next quarterly report to the Treasury Department.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2022-004 Reporting and Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Program: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds [AL #21.027] Criteria: Per CFR 200.331 “a pass-through entity must make case-by-case determinations whether each agreement it makes for the disbursement of Federal program funds casts the party receiving the funds in the role of a subrecipient or a contractor.” Condition: When submitting required quarterly reports, the County improperly identified two entities as being subrecipients instead of contractors. Cause: The reporting guidance was not clear on the definition of subrecipient vs contractor and therefore resulted in a misunderstanding. Effect: The two entities could potentially be identified as subrecipients and therefore subject to single audit when they should not be. Questioned Costs: None identified. Context: Those responsible for the Federal awards did not have a clear understanding of the difference between subrecipient and contractor. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the County review the requirements for determining whether a disbursement qualifies as a payment to a subrecipient or a contractor and ensure all those that administer Federal funding have an understanding of the terms. Additionally, we recommend the County ensure they are aware of all compliance requirements surrounding subrecipient monitoring. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: The guidance was unclear when reporting began in 2021. The delineation is now understood and will be corrected in the next quarterly report to the Treasury Department.
The guidance was unclear when reporting began in 2021. The delineation is now understood and will be corrected in the next quarterly report to the Treasury Department. Anticipated Completion Date: January 31, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on January 8, 2024 — management decision was due July 8, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on January 8, 2023 — management decision was due July 8, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on August 11, 2023 — management decision was due February 11, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on June 29, 2021 — management decision was due December 29, 2021.
For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, the Community Development Block Grant for the Ridgeview/Evergreen Sanitation Connection Project reported $200,652 in expenditures that were also reported for reimbursement under the Performance Partnership Grant for the same project. Cause: Multiple funding sources were received for the Ridgeview/Evergreen Sanitation Connection Project, which were being administered by different personnel. As such, there was no one reviewing to ensure expenses under the project were being submitted to the multiple funding sources. Effect: The County reported the same expenditures under two Federal programs. As such, the costs are not considered allowable and are reported as questioned costs. Context: Under current controls, there is no one designated with oversight of Federal awards to ensure expenditures are not reported for reimbursement under multiple programs. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the County designate an individual with oversight responsibility for all Federal award programs. This individual would be responsible for reviewing and approving expenditures to ensure they are only being reported once. The accounting system should be used to track expenditures that have been submitted for reimbursement to assist with this review. Additionally, this individual would be responsible for the preparation of the SEFA. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: The Finance Department is in the process of assigning the duties of a Grants Administrator to be a single point-of-contact for all award activity. This person will also prepare the SEFA.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2020-005 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Program: Community Development Block Grant [AL #14.228 and Pass-through Grantor #19-053] and Performance Partnership Grants [AL #66.605 and Pass-through Grantor #PON2 129 1900003259] Criteria: Per CFR 200.403(f), in order to be allowable under Federal awards, costs must ?not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period.? Condition: For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, the Community Development Block Grant for the Ridgeview/Evergreen Sanitation Connection Project reported $200,652 in expenditures that were also reported for reimbursement under the Performance Partnership Grant for the same project. Cause: Multiple funding sources were received for the Ridgeview/Evergreen Sanitation Connection Project, which were being administered by different personnel. As such, there was no one reviewing to ensure expenses under the project were being submitted to the multiple funding sources. Effect: The County reported the same expenditures under two Federal programs. As such, the costs are not considered allowable and are reported as questioned costs. Context: Under current controls, there is no one designated with oversight of Federal awards to ensure expenditures are not reported for reimbursement under multiple programs. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the County designate an individual with oversight responsibility for all Federal award programs. This individual would be responsible for reviewing and approving expenditures to ensure they are only being reported once. The accounting system should be used to track expenditures that have been submitted for reimbursement to assist with this review. Additionally, this individual would be responsible for the preparation of the SEFA. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: The Finance Department is in the process of assigning the duties of a Grants Administrator to be a single point-of-contact for all award activity. This person will also prepare the SEFA.
The Fiscal Court is in the process of assigning the duties of a Grants Administrator to be a single point-of-contact for all award activity. This person will also prepare the SEFA.
FAC accepted this audit on October 31, 2022 — management decision was due May 1, 2023.
For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, the Community Development Block Grant for the Ridgeview/Evergreen Sanitation Connection Project reported $200,652 in expenditures that were also reported for reimbursement under the Performance Partnership Grant for the same project. Cause: Multiple funding sources were received for the Ridgeview/Evergreen Sanitation Connection Project, which were being administered by different personnel. As such, there was no one reviewing to ensure expenses under the project were being submitted to the multiple funding sources. Effect: The County reported the same expenditures under two Federal programs. As such, the costs are not considered allowable and are reported as questioned costs. Context: Under current controls, there is no one designated with oversight of Federal awards to ensure expenditures are not reported for reimbursement under multiple programs. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the County designate an individual with oversight responsibility for all Federal award programs. This individual would be responsible for reviewing and approving expenditures to ensure they are only being reported once. The accounting system should be used to track expenditures that have been submitted for reimbursement to assist with this review. Additionally, this individual would be responsible for the preparation of the SEFA. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: The Finance Department is in the process of assigning the duties of a Grants Administrator to be a single point-of-contact for all award activity. This person will also prepare the SEFA.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2020-005 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Program: Community Development Block Grant [AL #14.228 and Pass-through Grantor #19-053] and Performance Partnership Grants [AL #66.605 and Pass-through Grantor #PON2 129 1900003259] Criteria: Per CFR 200.403(f), in order to be allowable under Federal awards, costs must ?not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period.? Condition: For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, the Community Development Block Grant for the Ridgeview/Evergreen Sanitation Connection Project reported $200,652 in expenditures that were also reported for reimbursement under the Performance Partnership Grant for the same project. Cause: Multiple funding sources were received for the Ridgeview/Evergreen Sanitation Connection Project, which were being administered by different personnel. As such, there was no one reviewing to ensure expenses under the project were being submitted to the multiple funding sources. Effect: The County reported the same expenditures under two Federal programs. As such, the costs are not considered allowable and are reported as questioned costs. Context: Under current controls, there is no one designated with oversight of Federal awards to ensure expenditures are not reported for reimbursement under multiple programs. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the County designate an individual with oversight responsibility for all Federal award programs. This individual would be responsible for reviewing and approving expenditures to ensure they are only being reported once. The accounting system should be used to track expenditures that have been submitted for reimbursement to assist with this review. Additionally, this individual would be responsible for the preparation of the SEFA. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: The Finance Department is in the process of assigning the duties of a Grants Administrator to be a single point-of-contact for all award activity. This person will also prepare the SEFA.
The Fiscal Court is in the process of assigning the duties of a Grants Administrator to be a single point-of-contact for all award activity. This person will also prepare the SEFA.
FAC accepted this audit on March 29, 2022 — management decision was due September 29, 2022.
FAC accepted this audit on August 18, 2020 — management decision was due February 18, 2021.
FAC accepted this audit on February 18, 2020 — management decision was due August 18, 2020.
FAC accepted this audit on March 28, 2019 — management decision was due September 28, 2019.
FAC accepted this audit on March 26, 2018 — management decision was due September 26, 2018.
FAC accepted this audit on March 29, 2017 — management decision was due September 29, 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 Kentucky →
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.
