EIN: 956000764
UEI: QLK7V1HAF1J2
Audited by: Badawi & Associates
Cognizant agency: 14 [Department of Housing and Urban Development]
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 June 29, 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 December 29, 2026 (113 days from today).
What is a management decision? →The City did not submit the audited Financial Data Schedule (FDS) report for fiscal year 2024 within the required reporting deadline for HUD program 14.881. The audited FDS for FY2024 was due 3/31/2025 but was not submitted until 7/22/2025. Cause: The audited FDS submission was delayed due to the delayed completion of the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), which affected the timing of the City’s audit reporting and related submission process. Effect: Failure to submit the audited FDS timely constitutes noncompliance with program reporting requirements and may impair HUD’s ability to monitor the City’s financial condition and program compliance. Recommendation: Management should establish timelines and interim milestones for completion of the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) that support timely completion and submission of the City’s audited FDS by the 3/31 deadline. Management's Responses:: The City concurs with the importance of timely reporting and compliance. Both FY2024 and FY2025 have reporting delays due to staffing turnover and due to the implementation of new accounting software replacing legacy software that was over 30 years old. The implementation process consumed more time than the City anticipated thus delaying timely reporting. The City expects FY2026 to show significant improvement.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding SA2025-001 (Significant Deficiency) Grantor: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Moving to Work Demonstration Assistance Listing No: 14.881 Criteria: Program participants are required to submit audited financial reporting, including the FDS when applicable, in accordance with established deadlines and reporting requirements. Timely submission is necessary to demonstrate compliance with program reporting obligations and to support effective monitoring and oversight. Condition: The City did not submit the audited Financial Data Schedule (FDS) report for fiscal year 2024 within the required reporting deadline for HUD program 14.881. The audited FDS for FY2024 was due 3/31/2025 but was not submitted until 7/22/2025. Cause: The audited FDS submission was delayed due to the delayed completion of the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), which affected the timing of the City’s audit reporting and related submission process. Effect: Failure to submit the audited FDS timely constitutes noncompliance with program reporting requirements and may impair HUD’s ability to monitor the City’s financial condition and program compliance. Recommendation: Management should establish timelines and interim milestones for completion of the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) that support timely completion and submission of the City’s audited FDS by the 3/31 deadline. Management's Responses:: The City concurs with the importance of timely reporting and compliance. Both FY2024 and FY2025 have reporting delays due to staffing turnover and due to the implementation of new accounting software replacing legacy software that was over 30 years old. The implementation process consumed more time than the City anticipated thus delaying timely reporting. The City expects FY2026 to show significant improvement.
Finding Reference Number: SA2025-001 Late Submission of FDS (Significant Deficiency) Contact Person: Raul Marquez, Accounting Supervisor Corrective Action Plan: Management will establish timelines and interim milestones for completion of the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) that support timely completion and submission of the City’s audited FDS by the 3/31 deadline. Anticipated Completion Date: June 30, 2026
FAC accepted this audit on July 14, 2025 — management decision was due January 14, 2026.
FAC accepted this audit on August 18, 2026 — management decision was due February 18, 2027.
FAC accepted this audit on March 28, 2024 — management decision was due September 28, 2024.
The City did not perform the required quality control re-inspections on any units during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Cause: The City had only one inspector available to inspect units during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Effect: The City is not in compliance with the housing quality standards inspections requirements of the Housing Voucher Cluster program. Recommendation: We recommend the City commence quality control re-inspections as soon as possible, either by contracting with another public housing agency, or by hiring or contracting with a part-time inspector. Management’s Response: Pomona Housing Authority (PHA) acknowledges and understands CFR 982.405(b) and the requirement to conduct supervisory quality control housing quality standards inspections on tenant units. PHA had limited staff and was not able to perform all the required inspections. Since the pandemic, the PHA made it a priority to bring and keep all inspections current, including hiring a third party. In addition, an inspector retired and the other inspector moved over to a new role within the Agency. PHA has since hired another inspector as well as filled the Housing Supervisor position in order to satisfy the requirement of inspections.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Criteria: Public housing agencies such as the Pomona Housing Authority run by the City, per CFR § 982.405(b), must conduct supervisory quality control housing quality standards inspections on tenant units. Condition: The City did not perform the required quality control re-inspections on any units during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Cause: The City had only one inspector available to inspect units during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Effect: The City is not in compliance with the housing quality standards inspections requirements of the Housing Voucher Cluster program. Recommendation: We recommend the City commence quality control re-inspections as soon as possible, either by contracting with another public housing agency, or by hiring or contracting with a part-time inspector. Management’s Response: Pomona Housing Authority (PHA) acknowledges and understands CFR 982.405(b) and the requirement to conduct supervisory quality control housing quality standards inspections on tenant units. PHA had limited staff and was not able to perform all the required inspections. Since the pandemic, the PHA made it a priority to bring and keep all inspections current, including hiring a third party. In addition, an inspector retired and the other inspector moved over to a new role within the Agency. PHA has since hired another inspector as well as filled the Housing Supervisor position in order to satisfy the requirement of inspections.
The City will commence quality control re-inspections as soon as possible, either by contracting with another public housing agency, or by hiring or contracting with a part-time inspector.
FAC accepted this audit on March 29, 2023 — management decision was due September 29, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on March 29, 2022 — management decision was due September 29, 2022.
FAC accepted this audit on June 23, 2021 — management decision was due December 23, 2021.
During our testing, we noted the programs financial reporting was not submitted in a timely manner. The fiscal year 2020 Annual Unaudited Financial Submission Report for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program was submitted on January 5, 2021. Criteria: Under the Uniform Financial Reporting Requirements (UFRS), PHAs are required to submit their financial data electronically in a manner prescribed by HUD. PHAs administering the HCV program must submit their Annual Financial Statements through the Financial Assessment Sub-System for Public Housing (FASS-PH) or commonly known as the Financial Data Schedule (FDS). And, their monthly leasing and cost data must be submitted through the Voucher Management System (VMS). Failure to do so by the deadlines required by HUD may result in a withholding or a permanent reduction to a PHA?s administrative fees in accordance with 24 CFR ? 982.152. The normal due date is August 31, however, HUD extended the due date to October 30, 2020 for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 for the Annual Unaudited Financial Submission Report. Cause of Condition: The City does not have sufficient monitoring control over the reporting requirements. Effect or Potential Effect of Condition: The delay in filing the report resulted in noncompliance.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 14.871 CFDA Title: Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number and Award Year: CA123VO Reference Number: 2020-003 Condition: During our testing, we noted the programs financial reporting was not submitted in a timely manner. The fiscal year 2020 Annual Unaudited Financial Submission Report for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program was submitted on January 5, 2021. Criteria: Under the Uniform Financial Reporting Requirements (UFRS), PHAs are required to submit their financial data electronically in a manner prescribed by HUD. PHAs administering the HCV program must submit their Annual Financial Statements through the Financial Assessment Sub-System for Public Housing (FASS-PH) or commonly known as the Financial Data Schedule (FDS). And, their monthly leasing and cost data must be submitted through the Voucher Management System (VMS). Failure to do so by the deadlines required by HUD may result in a withholding or a permanent reduction to a PHA?s administrative fees in accordance with 24 CFR ? 982.152. The normal due date is August 31, however, HUD extended the due date to October 30, 2020 for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020 for the Annual Unaudited Financial Submission Report. Cause of Condition: The City does not have sufficient monitoring control over the reporting requirements. Effect or Potential Effect of Condition: The delay in filing the report resulted in noncompliance.
The City acknowledges the late submission of the unaudited REAC report to HUD. The report was delayed due to the late filing of the prior year?s report. The prior year?s filing was late due to complications with the reporting of new funding sources. The City was in constant contact with HUD during this process of updating the report and HUD was aware of the late filing. The City has since implemented internal control measures to prevent late filings in the future.
2019-005
FAC accepted this audit on August 23, 2020 — management decision was due February 23, 2021.
During our audit on the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, we noted four out of forty samples selected for testing were missing department head approvals on the vendor invoices. Furthermore, we noted one out of forty samples selected for testing was mistakenly charged to the grant, which was subsequently corrected after our testing. During our audit on the Equitable Sharing Program, we noted two out of ten samples selected for testing were missing the Asset Seizure Expenditure Request form, which was used by the City to obtain proper approvals for purchases. Cause: At the beginning of the fiscal year, the City changed its invoice approval and payment process from physically filling out the Demand for Payment to on-line approvals. During the transition period, departments were adapting to the new process and some invoices were not appropriately approved. Furthermore, the City did not have an adequate internal control to ensure Asset Seizure Expenditure Request Form were prepared and approved before the purchase was made due to the turnover of staff at the responsible department. Effect or Potential Effect: Without proper approval, expenditures charged to the federal awards may be for unallowed activities/costs. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: We selected 40 nonpayroll charges out of over 250 nonpayroll charges, and 10 nonpayroll charges out of 104 nonpayroll charges for the Section 8 Housing Vouchers Program and the Equitable Sharing Program, respectively. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommended the City timely inform departments the changes on the internal control procedures and policies to ensure the departments properly follow the new procedures and policies. In addition, we recommended the City enhance the internal control procedures to ensure the Asset Seizure Expenditure Request is properly prepared and approved prior to procuring goods or services.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Identification of the Federal Program: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA?) Number: 14.871 CFDA Title: Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number and Award Year: CA123VO Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA?) Number: 16.922 CFDA Title: Equitable Sharing Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Justice Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number and Award Year: CA0195500 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): 2 CFR section 200.303 requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal control over the Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. 2 CFR section 200.514 requires auditors to obtain an understanding of the non-Federal entity?s internal control over Federal programs sufficient to plan the audit to support a low assessed level of control risk of noncompliance for major programs, and, unless internal control is likely to be ineffective, plan the testing of internal control over major programs to support a low assessed level of control risk for the assertions relevant to the compliance requirements for each major program and perform testing of internal control as planned. Condition: During our audit on the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, we noted four out of forty samples selected for testing were missing department head approvals on the vendor invoices. Furthermore, we noted one out of forty samples selected for testing was mistakenly charged to the grant, which was subsequently corrected after our testing. During our audit on the Equitable Sharing Program, we noted two out of ten samples selected for testing were missing the Asset Seizure Expenditure Request form, which was used by the City to obtain proper approvals for purchases. Cause: At the beginning of the fiscal year, the City changed its invoice approval and payment process from physically filling out the Demand for Payment to on-line approvals. During the transition period, departments were adapting to the new process and some invoices were not appropriately approved. Furthermore, the City did not have an adequate internal control to ensure Asset Seizure Expenditure Request Form were prepared and approved before the purchase was made due to the turnover of staff at the responsible department. Effect or Potential Effect: Without proper approval, expenditures charged to the federal awards may be for unallowed activities/costs. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: We selected 40 nonpayroll charges out of over 250 nonpayroll charges, and 10 nonpayroll charges out of 104 nonpayroll charges for the Section 8 Housing Vouchers Program and the Equitable Sharing Program, respectively. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommended the City timely inform departments the changes on the internal control procedures and policies to ensure the departments properly follow the new procedures and policies. In addition, we recommended the City enhance the internal control procedures to ensure the Asset Seizure Expenditure Request is properly prepared and approved prior to procuring goods or services.
2019-001 Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles ? Internal Control over Program Expenditures City?s Corrective Action Plan: The City?s process to pay invoices against Purchase Orders changed during the fiscal year. The physical approval of the invoices was an oversight during the process of transition. Procedures have been put in place to ensure all required signatures are obtained prior to payment. The Police Department is aware of the requirement for approval prior to use of Asset Forfeiture funds. The Asset Seizure form mentioned is an internally generated document and is not required by DOJ. The City will continue to use the form and ensure it is completed prior to use of funds. Responsible Person: George Montano and Yecenia Ross Expected Implementation Date: June 30, 2020
During our testing on the payroll related expenditures, we noted some inconsistency in payroll cost charged to the programs: ? CDBG ? Entitlement Grants: We noted: 1) Eight administrative employees charged to the grant based on the adopted budget instead of actual hours worked. 2) Non-administrative employees charged their regular hours based on the actual hours worked. However, their leave hours and other benefit payments were allocated based on the percentage adopted by budget. 3) For three out of forty samples selected for testing, allocations were not consistently applied either by the actual hours worked or the adopted budget. Cause: The allocation method of leave hours and certain benefit payments were set up in the system based on the adopted budget percentage. The system set-up made it difficult to adjust the allocation method per pay period. However, the City did not have procedures to adjust between the adopted budget and the actual hours worked to update allocation method/plan. Effect or Potential Effect: The City did not comply with programs? requirements for allowable costs. There is an increased risk that employees? compensation charged to the program may not have represented an actual time and/or effort expended on the programs? activities. Questioned Costs: Cannot be reasonably determined. Context: We selected 40 payroll charges out of over 250 payroll charges for our testing. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: It is a repeat finding from prior year finding 2018-001. Recommendation: We recommended the City follow its payroll allocation policies and Uniform Guidance when charging payroll costs to federal awards.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Identification of the Federal Programs: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA?) Number: 14.218 CFDA Title: CDBG - Entitlement Grants Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number and Award Year: B-18-MC-06-0527 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): Total salaries charged to Federal awards (including extra service pay) are subject to the Standards of Documentation as described by 2 Code of Federal Regulations (?CFR?) ?200.430(i). Per this section, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: ? Be incorporated into the organization?s official records; ? Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensating across all grant related and non-grant related activities (100% effort); ? Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives (for example, effort spent on multiple federal awards, spent on general/or administrative activities, vacation, sick leave, leave without pay, etc.); and ? Utilize an "after-the-fact" review of the employee?s actual hours worked during the reporting period for identifying and correcting significant changes (as defined by the organization?s written policies). Condition: During our testing on the payroll related expenditures, we noted some inconsistency in payroll cost charged to the programs: ? CDBG ? Entitlement Grants: We noted: 1) Eight administrative employees charged to the grant based on the adopted budget instead of actual hours worked. 2) Non-administrative employees charged their regular hours based on the actual hours worked. However, their leave hours and other benefit payments were allocated based on the percentage adopted by budget. 3) For three out of forty samples selected for testing, allocations were not consistently applied either by the actual hours worked or the adopted budget. Cause: The allocation method of leave hours and certain benefit payments were set up in the system based on the adopted budget percentage. The system set-up made it difficult to adjust the allocation method per pay period. However, the City did not have procedures to adjust between the adopted budget and the actual hours worked to update allocation method/plan. Effect or Potential Effect: The City did not comply with programs? requirements for allowable costs. There is an increased risk that employees? compensation charged to the program may not have represented an actual time and/or effort expended on the programs? activities. Questioned Costs: Cannot be reasonably determined. Context: We selected 40 payroll charges out of over 250 payroll charges for our testing. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: It is a repeat finding from prior year finding 2018-001. Recommendation: We recommended the City follow its payroll allocation policies and Uniform Guidance when charging payroll costs to federal awards.
2019-002 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles? Internal Control and Compliance over Payroll Expenditures City?s Corrective Action Plan: For the Federal CDBG Program, employee?s document actual time spent on eligible activities through time/activity log sheets. Time/activity logs support the distribution of the employee?s salary across multiple activities and cost objectives. Timesheets correspond to the time/activity logs. Vacation, sick leave, holidays, etc. are noted based on a current payroll allocation method as there are no actual hours worked to note on the time/activity logs. Going forward the City will consistently apply the allocation of time and benefits. Responsible Person: Beverly Johnson Expected Implementation Date: June 30, 2020
2018-001
During our testing of equipment management, we noted: ? Inventory counts were not performed in a timely manner. Inventory counts were performed on October 17, 2019 for the equipment purchased. ? No indication of proper approvals on inventory count sheets. Cause: The City developed the internal control policy over physical inventory during the later part of the fiscal year and the count was not performed until after the end of the fiscal year. Effect or Potential Effect: Equipment purchased with federal funds would not be properly safeguarded and cause noncompliance with federal law. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: See condition above for context of the finding. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: It is a repeat finding from prior year finding 2018-002. Recommendation: We recommended the City follow its internal control procedures and timely perform the physical inventory every two years as well as review and sign off the physical inventory count and reconciliation to ensure that the equipment purchased with the Equitable Sharing Program are fully accounted for.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Identification of the Federal Programs: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA?) Number: 16.922 CFDA Title: Equitable Sharing Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Justice Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number and Award Year: CA0195500 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): Pursuant to CFR Title 2, Chapter II, Section 200.313 Equipment, (2) a physical inventory of the property must be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every two years and (3) a control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated. Condition: During our testing of equipment management, we noted: ? Inventory counts were not performed in a timely manner. Inventory counts were performed on October 17, 2019 for the equipment purchased. ? No indication of proper approvals on inventory count sheets. Cause: The City developed the internal control policy over physical inventory during the later part of the fiscal year and the count was not performed until after the end of the fiscal year. Effect or Potential Effect: Equipment purchased with federal funds would not be properly safeguarded and cause noncompliance with federal law. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: See condition above for context of the finding. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: It is a repeat finding from prior year finding 2018-002. Recommendation: We recommended the City follow its internal control procedures and timely perform the physical inventory every two years as well as review and sign off the physical inventory count and reconciliation to ensure that the equipment purchased with the Equitable Sharing Program are fully accounted for.
2019-003 Equipment/Real Property Management ? Internal Control and Compliance over Physical Inventory of Equipment City?s Corrective Action Plan: The Police Department currently maintains a listing of items purchased with asset forfeiture funds and understood that additional information was required to be tracked to be compliant with the federal guidelines. The process was not implemented in time for the Police Department to correct the finding. The Police Department Staff will work to implement procedures that will maintain an inventory listing of all items purchased with federal funds and inspect the inventory according to federal guidelines. The finding was discovered in FY 18/19 for the FY 17/18 Single Audit. Naturally this finding would be carried over since half the fiscal year was underway. Responsible Person: Yecenia Ross Expected Implementation Date: June 30, 2020
2018-002
During our audit, we noted that the City did not timely perform and maintain documentation on verifying the vendors against the SAM to ensure that they were not suspended or debarred from federally-funded purchases. Cause: Due to the management turnover, the City does not have adequate internal control to perform and maintain documentation on the suspension or debarment check over vendors that provide goods or services to the City?s federally-funded programs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without verifying whether vendors are suspended or debarred from working on federally-funded projects, the City could be contracting with vendors that are prohibited from providing goods or services to federally-funded programs. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: See condition above for context of the finding. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: It is a repeat finding from prior year finding 2018-003. Recommendation: We recommended that the Program enhance internal control procedures to timely verify vendors against the SAM in order to ensure vendors are not suspended or debarred from federally-funded purchases.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Identification of the Federal Program: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA?) Number: 16.922 CFDA Title: Equitable Sharing Program Federal Agency: Department of Justice Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number and Award Year: CA0195500 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): Suspension and Debarment, Non-Federal entities are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. ?Covered transactions? include those procurement contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (e.g., grant or cooperative agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000 or meet certain other criteria as specified in 2 CFR section 180.220. All nonprocurement transactions entered into by a recipient (i.e., subawards to subrecipients), irrespective of award amount, are considered covered transactions, unless they are exempt as provided in 2 CFR section 180.215. When a non-Federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non-Federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by (1) checking the System for Award Management (SAM) Exclusions maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and available at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ (Note: The OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 180 and agency implementing regulations still refer to the SAM Exclusions as the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS)), (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that entity (2 CFR section 180.300). Condition: During our audit, we noted that the City did not timely perform and maintain documentation on verifying the vendors against the SAM to ensure that they were not suspended or debarred from federally-funded purchases. Cause: Due to the management turnover, the City does not have adequate internal control to perform and maintain documentation on the suspension or debarment check over vendors that provide goods or services to the City?s federally-funded programs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without verifying whether vendors are suspended or debarred from working on federally-funded projects, the City could be contracting with vendors that are prohibited from providing goods or services to federally-funded programs. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: See condition above for context of the finding. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: It is a repeat finding from prior year finding 2018-003. Recommendation: We recommended that the Program enhance internal control procedures to timely verify vendors against the SAM in order to ensure vendors are not suspended or debarred from federally-funded purchases.
2019-004 Procurement and Suspension, and Debarment ? Internal Control over Verification Against the System for Award Management (?SAM?) City?s Corrective Action Plan: The City?s Purchasing code Sec 2-976 requires the checking of debarred vendors prior to using federal funds. The Police Department has been educated on the required procedures and will work prudently to ensure the code is followed. Responsible Person: Yecenia Ross Expected Implementation Date: June 30, 2020
2018-003
During our testing, we noted the programs financial reporting was not submitted in a timely manner. The fiscal year 2019 Annual Unaudited Financial Submission Report for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program was submitted on September 12, 2019. The fiscal year 2019 ESAC was submitted on January 31, 2020. Due dates for the 2019 Annual Unaudited Financial Submission Report and the fiscal year 2019 ESAC were August 31, 2019 and August 30, 2019, respectively. Cause: The City does not have sufficient monitoring control over the reporting requirements. Effect or Potential Effect: The delay in filing the report resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: See condition above for context of the finding. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: It is a repeat finding from prior year finding 2018-004 Recommendation: We recommended that the City follows its policies and procedures and specify the deadlines for all required reporting for all City employees to follow.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Identification of the Federal Programs: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA?) Number: 14.871 CFDA Title: Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number and Award Year: CA123VO Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA?) Number: 16.922 CFDA Title: Equitable Sharing Program Federal Agency: Department of Justice Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number and Award Year: CA0195500 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): Under the Uniform Financial Reporting Requirements (UFRS), PHAs are required to submit their financial data electronically in a manner prescribed by HUD. PHAs administering the HCV program must submit their Annual Financial Statements through the Financial Assessment Sub-System for Public Housing (FASS-PH) or commonly known as the Financial Data Schedule (FDS). And, their monthly leasing and cost data must be submitted through the Voucher Management System (VMS). Failure to do so by the deadlines required by HUD may result in a withholding or a permanent reduction to a PHA?s administrative fees in accordance with 24 CFR ? 982.152. August 31 is the due date of Annual Unaudited Financial Submission Report. In accordance with the Guide to Equitable Sharing for State & Local Law, the grantee shall have reporting controls in place to ensure 1) maintain a record of all expenditures from the revenue account or account code, 2) the expenditures must be in accordance with eligible items, 3) issue quarterly and yearly reports that detail the actual amounts and uses of the federal asset sharing funds and property within their jurisdictions, and 4) submit annual Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification form (?ESAC?). Agencies must submit the ESAC within two months after the end of their fiscal year. No extensions to this deadline will be granted. Condition: During our testing, we noted the programs financial reporting was not submitted in a timely manner. The fiscal year 2019 Annual Unaudited Financial Submission Report for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program was submitted on September 12, 2019. The fiscal year 2019 ESAC was submitted on January 31, 2020. Due dates for the 2019 Annual Unaudited Financial Submission Report and the fiscal year 2019 ESAC were August 31, 2019 and August 30, 2019, respectively. Cause: The City does not have sufficient monitoring control over the reporting requirements. Effect or Potential Effect: The delay in filing the report resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: See condition above for context of the finding. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: It is a repeat finding from prior year finding 2018-004 Recommendation: We recommended that the City follows its policies and procedures and specify the deadlines for all required reporting for all City employees to follow.
2019-005 Reporting ? Internal Control and Compliance over Reporting City?s Corrective Action Plan: The City is aware of the due for Annual Unaudited Financial Submission Report for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The City submitted it late due to turnover in staff. Informal procedures have been put into place to ensure a timely submission going forward. The Police Department acknowledges they submitted the ESAC late. Informal procedures have been put in place to ensure timely submission. Responsible Person: Dustin Andolsen and Yecenia Ross Expected Implementation Date: June 30, 2020
2018-004
During our audit, we noted that seventeen of forty samples selected for HQS deficiencies did not meet the 30 calendar days correction requirement. Cause: The City did not have sufficient monitoring control over the HQS Enforcement compliance requirement. Effect or Potential Effect: The City was not in compliance with the HQS Enforcement compliance requirement. In addition, the HQS may not be timely corrected and the City could have continued paying unallowable HAP to those recipients failed to correct the HQS. Questioned Costs: $5,735 know questioned costs and the projected questioned costs were $131,905 based on the total units receiving rents (920) divided by 40 samples tested times $5,735 known costs. Context: See condition above for context of the finding. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: It is a repeat finding from prior year finding 2018-005 Recommendation: We recommended the City enhance its internal control over the HQS compliance requirements.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Identification the Federal Program: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA?) Number: 14.871 CDFA Title: Section 8 housing Choice Vouchers Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number and Award Year: CA123VO Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): Pursuant to the Uniform Guidance August 2019 Compliance Supplement, Housing Voucher Cluster, Housing Quality Standards (?HQS?) Enforcement: For units under Housing Assistance Payment (?HAP?) contract that fail to meet HQS, the Public Housing Agency (?PHA?) must require the owner to correct any life threatening HQS deficiencies within 24 hours after the inspections and all other HQS deficiencies within 30 calendar days or within a specified PHA-approved extension. If the owner does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must stop (abate) HAPs beginning no later than the first of the month following the specified correction period or must terminate the HAP contract. The owner is not responsible for a breach of HQS as a result of the family?s failure to pay for utilities for which the family is responsible under the lease or for tenant damage. For family-caused defects, if the family does not correct the cited HQS deficiencies within the specified correction period, the PHA must take prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations (24 CFR sections 982.158(d) and 982.404). Condition: During our audit, we noted that seventeen of forty samples selected for HQS deficiencies did not meet the 30 calendar days correction requirement. Cause: The City did not have sufficient monitoring control over the HQS Enforcement compliance requirement. Effect or Potential Effect: The City was not in compliance with the HQS Enforcement compliance requirement. In addition, the HQS may not be timely corrected and the City could have continued paying unallowable HAP to those recipients failed to correct the HQS. Questioned Costs: $5,735 know questioned costs and the projected questioned costs were $131,905 based on the total units receiving rents (920) divided by 40 samples tested times $5,735 known costs. Context: See condition above for context of the finding. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: It is a repeat finding from prior year finding 2018-005 Recommendation: We recommended the City enhance its internal control over the HQS compliance requirements.
2019-006 Special Tests and Provision ? Internal Control and Compliance over Housing Quality Standards Enforcement City?s Corrective Action Plan: Effective September 2019, the Housing Authority updated its Administrative Plan outlining the policies and procedures for carrying out the program requirements including Housing Quality Standards (HQS). Prior Year audit found that all inspections not meeting HQS were assigned to one inspector. The one Inspector was provided with technical assistance to ensure that units meet Housing Quality Standards within the required time frame. However, this years? audit found that all inspections not meeting HQS were assigned to another inspector. On November 20, 2019, both Inspectors were provided with a three day training by industry trainer on all Inspection processes. Inspectors were tested and certified. Responsible Person: George Montano Expected Implementation Date: June 30, 2020
2018-005
FAC accepted this audit on March 11, 2019 — management decision was due September 11, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2017-002
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
FAC accepted this audit on March 21, 2018 — management decision was due September 21, 2018.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
FAC accepted this audit on February 15, 2017 — management decision was due August 15, 2017.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2015-001
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.
