EIN: 946000293
UEI: VJ1LM7QMGEL3
Audited by: Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Oversight agency: 21 [Department of the Treasury]
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 January 8, 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 July 8, 2026 (61 days ago).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on January 17, 2025 — management decision was due July 17, 2025.
FAC accepted this audit on March 21, 2024 — management decision was due September 21, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on February 5, 2023 — management decision was due August 5, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on January 27, 2022 — management decision was due July 27, 2022.
FAC accepted this audit on March 15, 2021 — management decision was due September 15, 2021.
FAC accepted this audit on May 3, 2020 — management decision was due November 3, 2020.
During our audit, we noted that the City had federal awards expended in fiscal year 2018 which were not reported on the Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards covering fiscal year 2018. Cause: The Federal awards expenditures were reported on the SEFA when the reimbursement requests were submitted rather than when the activity related to the Federal award occurred. Questioned Costs: Total federal awards expended under HCP Planning Grants program but not reported on the SEFA in fiscal year 2018 were $187,425.52. Context and Effect: The Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards for fiscal year 2018 did not report all federal awards expended during this fiscal years as per the criteria above. These expenditures were also excluded in the current year SEFA. Recommendation: We recommend that the City change its process of preparing the SEFA to ensure that all federal awards expended are reported accurately and timely as prescribed per federal regulations.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Condition: During our audit, we noted that the City had federal awards expended in fiscal year 2018 which were not reported on the Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards covering fiscal year 2018. Cause: The Federal awards expenditures were reported on the SEFA when the reimbursement requests were submitted rather than when the activity related to the Federal award occurred. Questioned Costs: Total federal awards expended under HCP Planning Grants program but not reported on the SEFA in fiscal year 2018 were $187,425.52. Context and Effect: The Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards for fiscal year 2018 did not report all federal awards expended during this fiscal years as per the criteria above. These expenditures were also excluded in the current year SEFA. Recommendation: We recommend that the City change its process of preparing the SEFA to ensure that all federal awards expended are reported accurately and timely as prescribed per federal regulations.
The Finance Department has communicated to City departments with grants the process for notifying Finance in a timely manner of grant expenditures and the processing of grant invoices through the Finance Department and working with Finance regularly throughout the fiscal year to ensure expenditures are monitored. Departments that use any third parties to assist with grant reporting will regularly monitor the third party contractor and provide Finance information in a timely manner to ensure accurate reporting of grant expenditures occurs.
During our audit, we noted that per the agreement between the State of California as the pass-through entity and the City, only expenditures relating to vendor ICF Jones & Stokes can be reimbursed by the Federal HCP Grant. However, the City claimed and received reimbursement of $22,377 from the Federal HCP Grants for expenditures relating to a different vendor not authorized per the grant agreement. We have also noted that the same situation occurred in prior years and the amount reimbursed in prior years that was not authorized was $13,618.87 Caused: The City did not have sufficient controls in place to ensure that only allowable expenditures are claimed for reimbursement against the Federal grant Questioned Costs: Total federal awards expenditure incurred, claimed and reimbursed relating to unauthorized vendors under the HCP Planning Grants program was $22,377 during fiscal year 2019. In addition, $13,618.87 of expenditures incurred in fiscal year 2018 and claimed and reimbursed during fiscal year 2019 were also relating to unauthorized vendors Context and Effect: The City was not in full compliance with the allowable costs and cost principles compliance requirement of the program. Recommendation: We recommend the City establish more effective internal control to ensure the compliance requirements of the allowable costs are met.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Condition: During our audit, we noted that per the agreement between the State of California as the pass-through entity and the City, only expenditures relating to vendor ICF Jones & Stokes can be reimbursed by the Federal HCP Grant. However, the City claimed and received reimbursement of $22,377 from the Federal HCP Grants for expenditures relating to a different vendor not authorized per the grant agreement. We have also noted that the same situation occurred in prior years and the amount reimbursed in prior years that was not authorized was $13,618.87 Caused: The City did not have sufficient controls in place to ensure that only allowable expenditures are claimed for reimbursement against the Federal grant Questioned Costs: Total federal awards expenditure incurred, claimed and reimbursed relating to unauthorized vendors under the HCP Planning Grants program was $22,377 during fiscal year 2019. In addition, $13,618.87 of expenditures incurred in fiscal year 2018 and claimed and reimbursed during fiscal year 2019 were also relating to unauthorized vendors Context and Effect: The City was not in full compliance with the allowable costs and cost principles compliance requirement of the program. Recommendation: We recommend the City establish more effective internal control to ensure the compliance requirements of the allowable costs are met.
For this grant, the City?s Community Development Department had utilized a consultant to compile all federal portion and grant match expenditures as well as prepare the reimbursement requests to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The City?s Finance and Community Development Department have since met and established procedures to ensure all grant expenditures are reviewed closely against grant requirements by City staff before reimbursement requests are submitted.
The City did not submit the Final Report before the report due date. The final report was submitted on Feb 28, 2019 Caused: The City does not have effective controls in place to ensure the grant reporting compliance requirement are met. Questioned Costs: No questioned costs were noted for noncompliance with the reporting compliance requirement. Context and Effect: Because of this deficiency, the City is not in full compliance with the reporting compliance requirement. Recommendation: We recommend the City implement effective controls over grant reporting to ensure all program reports are submitted in a timely manner.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Condition: The City did not submit the Final Report before the report due date. The final report was submitted on Feb 28, 2019 Caused: The City does not have effective controls in place to ensure the grant reporting compliance requirement are met. Questioned Costs: No questioned costs were noted for noncompliance with the reporting compliance requirement. Context and Effect: Because of this deficiency, the City is not in full compliance with the reporting compliance requirement. Recommendation: We recommend the City implement effective controls over grant reporting to ensure all program reports are submitted in a timely manner.
City departments working with grants will outline key dates in grant documents when received to ensure all reporting is done timely and accurately.
FAC accepted this audit on March 12, 2019 — management decision was due September 12, 2019.
FAC accepted this audit on March 12, 2018 — management decision was due September 12, 2018.
FAC accepted this audit on January 18, 2017 — management decision was due July 18, 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 California →
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.
