EIN: 943111736
UEI: QN2CQ2JKXDR7
Audited by: LOVERIDGE HUNT & CO., PLLC
Oversight agency: 10 [Department of Agriculture]
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 February 23, 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 August 23, 2026 (9 days ago).
What is a management decision? →As part of our review of the Economic Development program, we noted there were no procurement process performed during the selection of the architect. Questioned Costs: It is not practicable to estimate questioned costs. Cause: The Organization relied on developer, a third party, for compliance with requirements, the developer, a third party, did not have a procurement policy and was not aware of compliance requirements related to procurement. Effect or Possible Effect and Perspective: The Organization did not comply with procurement requirements in the selection of the architect. Repeat Finding: A repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization review all compliance requirements with the Economic Development Initiative grant program themselves and not rely on developer, a third party, to ensure all compliance requirements are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: Paula Maden, agrees, via the corrective action plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Assisted Listing Number/Federal Program/Granting Agency: 14.251 Economic Development Initiative Criteria: The Organization must have adequate controls in place over compliance with procurement requirements. Statement of Condition: As part of our review of the Economic Development program, we noted there were no procurement process performed during the selection of the architect. Questioned Costs: It is not practicable to estimate questioned costs. Cause: The Organization relied on developer, a third party, for compliance with requirements, the developer, a third party, did not have a procurement policy and was not aware of compliance requirements related to procurement. Effect or Possible Effect and Perspective: The Organization did not comply with procurement requirements in the selection of the architect. Repeat Finding: A repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization review all compliance requirements with the Economic Development Initiative grant program themselves and not rely on developer, a third party, to ensure all compliance requirements are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: Paula Maden, agrees, via the corrective action plan.
Finding Reference #: 2025-001 Federal Award Agency: Housing and Urban Development Name of Contact Person: Karen Long Corrective Action: The Organization has familiarized itself with all requirements with the Economic Development Initiative EDI) grant program, including the procurement requirements under EDI grant Article IV – General Federal Requirements, Section F. In the future, it will ensure that this requirement is complied with before contracting for goods and services or passing funds to a subrecipient. It will take the following steps: 1. Review the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements in 2 CFR part §200.317-§200.327. 2. Create procedures policy for procurement transactions under a Federal award or subaward. 3. Ensure CCHC compliance and subrecipient compliance with procurement standards outlined in 2 CFR part §200.317-§200.327. Date of Planned Corrective Action: 01/14/2026 Submitted by: Karen Long
2024-002
FAC accepted this audit on February 26, 2025 — management decision was due August 26, 2025.
As part of our review of replacement reserve accounts required by RD, we noted there were 3 properties, Carson Springs, White Caps, and Wy East, which were inadequately funding RD required replacement reserve accounts during the year. The RD properties Carson Springs, White Caps, and Wy East were underfunded by $9,100, $11,500, and $16,034, respectively during 2024. Questioned Costs: It is not practicable to estimate questioned costs. Cause: Management failed to request abatement of RD replacement reserve deposits for three properties. Two of the properties (Carson Springs and White Caps) made no deposits during the year, and one property, Wy East Vista, only had 5 deposits during the year. The failure to request abatement or decrease in the reserve deposits resulted in underfunded RD replacement reserves. Effect or Possible Effect and Perspective: The replacement reserve accounts are underfunded for 3 of the properties (Carson Springs, White Caps, and Wy East), properties are out of compliance with RD replacement reserve account required deposits. The replacement reserves may not have sufficient funds to maintain repair costs. Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization request from RD an a reduction in deposit amounts for properties struggling for cash, or an entire pause of deposits. We recommend the Organization receive approval from RD prior to reducing or stopping any RD replacement reserve deposits. Views of Responsible Officials: Paula Maden, agrees, via the corrective action plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Assisted Listing Number/Federal Program/Granting Agency: 10.415 Criteria: The Organization must have adequate controls over replacement reserve in place to ensure accurate and timely deposits are executed to the reserve accounts. Statement of Condition: As part of our review of replacement reserve accounts required by RD, we noted there were 3 properties, Carson Springs, White Caps, and Wy East, which were inadequately funding RD required replacement reserve accounts during the year. The RD properties Carson Springs, White Caps, and Wy East were underfunded by $9,100, $11,500, and $16,034, respectively during 2024. Questioned Costs: It is not practicable to estimate questioned costs. Cause: Management failed to request abatement of RD replacement reserve deposits for three properties. Two of the properties (Carson Springs and White Caps) made no deposits during the year, and one property, Wy East Vista, only had 5 deposits during the year. The failure to request abatement or decrease in the reserve deposits resulted in underfunded RD replacement reserves. Effect or Possible Effect and Perspective: The replacement reserve accounts are underfunded for 3 of the properties (Carson Springs, White Caps, and Wy East), properties are out of compliance with RD replacement reserve account required deposits. The replacement reserves may not have sufficient funds to maintain repair costs. Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization request from RD an a reduction in deposit amounts for properties struggling for cash, or an entire pause of deposits. We recommend the Organization receive approval from RD prior to reducing or stopping any RD replacement reserve deposits. Views of Responsible Officials: Paula Maden, agrees, via the corrective action plan.
Finding Reference #: 2024-001 Federal Award Agency: Department of Agriculture Rural Housing Service Name of Contact Person: Paula Maden Corrective Action: 1) Establish workout plan with RD for Carson Springs, White Cap and Wy East Vista. Plan will include pause of reserve deposits. Date of Planned Corrective Action: 1/1/2025 Submitted by: Paula Maden
As part of our review of the Economic Development program, we noted there were no suspension and debarment tests performed on any vendors, and no procurement process performed during the selection of the architect. Questioned Costs: It is not practicable to estimate questioned costs. Cause: The Organization relied on developer for compliance with requirements, the developer did not have a procurement policy and was not aware of compliance requirements related to suspension and debarment. Effect or Possible Effect and Perspective: Vendors could be suspended or debarred. The Organization did not comply with procurement requirements in the selection of the architect. Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization review all compliance requirements with the Economic Development Initiative grant program themselves and not rely on developer to ensure all compliance requirements are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: Paula Maden, agrees, via the corrective action plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Assisted Listing Number/Federal Program/Granting Agency: 14.251 Economic Development Initiative Criteria: The Organization must have adequate controls in place over compliance with procurement, suspension, and debarment requirements. Statement of Condition: As part of our review of the Economic Development program, we noted there were no suspension and debarment tests performed on any vendors, and no procurement process performed during the selection of the architect. Questioned Costs: It is not practicable to estimate questioned costs. Cause: The Organization relied on developer for compliance with requirements, the developer did not have a procurement policy and was not aware of compliance requirements related to suspension and debarment. Effect or Possible Effect and Perspective: Vendors could be suspended or debarred. The Organization did not comply with procurement requirements in the selection of the architect. Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization review all compliance requirements with the Economic Development Initiative grant program themselves and not rely on developer to ensure all compliance requirements are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: Paula Maden, agrees, via the corrective action plan.
Finding Reference #: 2024-002 Federal Award Agency: Housing and Urban Development Name of Contact Person: Paula Maden Corrective Action: The Organization has familiarized itself with all compliance requirements with the Economic Development Initiative grant program (and future grants), including federal suspension and debarment requirements. In the future, it will ensure that this requirement is complied with before contracting for goods or services or passing funds along to a subrecipient when the contract that exceed $25,000. It will take one of these steps: Obtain a signed certificate from the contractor attesting it is not suspended or debarred. Insert a clause in the contract stating the contractor is not suspended or debarred. Check the contractor’s status on the US General Administration website before contracting or purchasing. Documentation for the search will be retained by the Organization (including the date of the search). Date of Planned Corrective Action: 12/23/2024 Submitted by: Paula Maden
FAC accepted this audit on March 5, 2024 — management decision was due September 5, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on March 15, 2023 — management decision was due September 15, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on April 20, 2022 — management decision was due October 20, 2022.
As part of our review of cash receipts, we noted the RD form 3560-29 did not agree to the General Ledger specifically related to the recording of tenant payment of rent and tenant accounts receivable. Questioned Costs: It is not practicable to estimate questioned costs. Cause: Management was understaffed during the year and did not have adequate staff to reconcile the revenue and receivable accounts timely. Effect or Possible Effect and Perspective: The tenant rent revenue and accounts receivable is either under or over stated, collection on accounts may not be timely. Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization designate a staff to reconcile the accounts receivable with proper accrual basis entries where needed. In addition, we recommend the Organization reconcile gross potential rent at least monthly and implement and document the reconciliation of the accounts receivable. Views of Responsible Officials: Joel Madsen, Executive Director, agrees the accounts were not reconciled timely, via the corrective action plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2021-001: Assisted Listing Number/Federal Program/Granting Agency: 10.415 Criteria: The Organization must have adequate controls over cash receipts in place to ensure accurate and timely reconciliation of accounts receivable and reporting to RD form 3560-29. Statement of Condition: As part of our review of cash receipts, we noted the RD form 3560-29 did not agree to the General Ledger specifically related to the recording of tenant payment of rent and tenant accounts receivable. Questioned Costs: It is not practicable to estimate questioned costs. Cause: Management was understaffed during the year and did not have adequate staff to reconcile the revenue and receivable accounts timely. Effect or Possible Effect and Perspective: The tenant rent revenue and accounts receivable is either under or over stated, collection on accounts may not be timely. Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization designate a staff to reconcile the accounts receivable with proper accrual basis entries where needed. In addition, we recommend the Organization reconcile gross potential rent at least monthly and implement and document the reconciliation of the accounts receivable. Views of Responsible Officials: Joel Madsen, Executive Director, agrees the accounts were not reconciled timely, via the corrective action plan.
Corrective Action Plan for Finding #2021-001 CFDA Number/Federal Program/Granting Agency: 10.415/USDA Rural Development Name of Contact Person: Joel Madsen, Executive Director 541.296.5462 Ext 116 1) The Organization has dedicated a staff member to a position to reconcile the revenue and receivable accounts. 2) The Organization has reconciled the accounts receivable to the general ledger and will continue to do so monthly. Additionally, reconciliation of gross potential rent will be performed monthly. 3) Monthly review of the accounts receivable reconciliation and gross potential rent will be performed and documented monthly. Date of Planned Corrective Action: 2/1/2022.
FAC accepted this audit on March 7, 2021 — management decision was due September 7, 2021.
FAC accepted this audit on November 19, 2019 — management decision was due May 19, 2020.
FAC accepted this audit on January 29, 2019 — management decision was due July 29, 2019.
FAC accepted this audit on January 28, 2018 — management decision was due July 28, 2018.
FAC accepted this audit on January 30, 2017 — management decision was due July 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 Oregon →
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.