EIN: 956005897
UEI: M3QQN2CCJ7P7
Audited by: CliftonLarsonAllen LLP
Oversight agency: 21 [Department of the Treasury]
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 (18 days from today).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on March 14, 2025 — management decision was due September 14, 2025.
FAC accepted this audit on March 27, 2024 — management decision was due September 27, 2024.
The PR29 (SF-425) quarterly reports contained the following errors as compared to the general ledger detail and other supporting schedules: See chart in pdf for this report. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: All four of the CDBG quarterly PR29 (SF-425) reports contained errors as noted in the condition section above. Cause: The City did not utilize the appropriate reports and supporting schedules to prepare the quarterly PR29 (SF-425) reports. Effect: The PR29 (SF-425) quarterly reports filed with HUD were inaccurate and did not show federal cash on hand. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the City implement revised policies and procedures when preparing the CDBG PR29 (SF-425) quarterly reports to ensure proper reporting of program income on hand and the appropriate federal expenditures utilizing both federal grant and program income.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Federal Program Name: CDBG Entitlement Grants Cluster: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Assistance Listing Number: 14.218 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: B-21-MC-06-0509; B-22-MC-06-0509; Award Years 2021 and 2022 Award Period: Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Type of Finding: • Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Reporting) • Other Matter (Reporting) Criteria or Specific Requirement: Reporting: PR29 (SF-425) reports are due to HUD quarterly and should reflect the amount of federal funds on hand as of the beginning and end of the quarter. The reports should also include the quarter's drawdowns, program income received, and federal expenditures that utilized this funding. Amounts should agree to the City's general ledger and supporting schedules. Condition: The PR29 (SF-425) quarterly reports contained the following errors as compared to the general ledger detail and other supporting schedules: See chart in pdf for this report. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: All four of the CDBG quarterly PR29 (SF-425) reports contained errors as noted in the condition section above. Cause: The City did not utilize the appropriate reports and supporting schedules to prepare the quarterly PR29 (SF-425) reports. Effect: The PR29 (SF-425) quarterly reports filed with HUD were inaccurate and did not show federal cash on hand. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the City implement revised policies and procedures when preparing the CDBG PR29 (SF-425) quarterly reports to ensure proper reporting of program income on hand and the appropriate federal expenditures utilizing both federal grant and program income.
The City was not aware of the CDBG quarterly PR29 (SF-425) reporting errors. The City has trained staff and implemented revised policies and procedures when preparing the CDBG PR29 (SF-425) quarterly reports to ensure proper reporting of program income on hand and the appropriate federal expenditures utilizing both federal grant and program income.
The City had incorrectly identified themselves as a subrecipient for four projects: Senior Outreach, Project SHUE, Summer Youth, and Family Resource Center. The monthly/quarterly invoices from the City that charged CDBG for these project costs included City employee payroll costs. The City employees did not document time spent on these projects on their City timesheets. Therefore, we were unable to verify the allowability of the hours charged to CDBG for these projects. Questioned Costs: $144,219 of payroll and benefit costs. Context: Each of the four City projects (Senior Outreach, Project SHUE, Summer Youth, and Family Resource Center) had monthly or quarterly invoices including payroll costs. All monthly or quarterly invoices were inspected and payroll costs were aggregated and included as questioned costs. Cause: The City believed that these projects were subrecipients and that payroll charges did not require the same supporting documentation as City employees that directly charge their hours to CDBG throughout the year. Effect: The amount of payroll charges relating to these projects may be overstated. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the City implement policies and procedures to ensure that the City itself is not identified as a subrecipient and that all City payroll charges be supported by timesheets and other supporting documentation as required by the Uniform Guidance.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Federal Program Name: CDBG Entitlement Grants Cluster: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Assistance Listing Number: 14.218 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: B-21-MC-06-0509; B-22-MC-06-0509; COVID-19 CDBG, Award Years 2021 and 2022 Award Period: Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Type of Finding: • Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance (Allowable Costs) • Other Matter (Allowable Costs) Criteria or Specific Requirement: Allowable Costs: Uniform Guidance Title 2, Subtitle A, Chapter II, Part 200, Subpart E, §200.430 requires payroll records to support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one federal award; a federal award and nonfederal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Condition: The City had incorrectly identified themselves as a subrecipient for four projects: Senior Outreach, Project SHUE, Summer Youth, and Family Resource Center. The monthly/quarterly invoices from the City that charged CDBG for these project costs included City employee payroll costs. The City employees did not document time spent on these projects on their City timesheets. Therefore, we were unable to verify the allowability of the hours charged to CDBG for these projects. Questioned Costs: $144,219 of payroll and benefit costs. Context: Each of the four City projects (Senior Outreach, Project SHUE, Summer Youth, and Family Resource Center) had monthly or quarterly invoices including payroll costs. All monthly or quarterly invoices were inspected and payroll costs were aggregated and included as questioned costs. Cause: The City believed that these projects were subrecipients and that payroll charges did not require the same supporting documentation as City employees that directly charge their hours to CDBG throughout the year. Effect: The amount of payroll charges relating to these projects may be overstated. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the City implement policies and procedures to ensure that the City itself is not identified as a subrecipient and that all City payroll charges be supported by timesheets and other supporting documentation as required by the Uniform Guidance.
The City will implement policies and procedures to ensure the City itself is not identified as a subrecipient and that all City payroll charges are supported by timesheets and other supporting documentation required by the Uniform Guidance. The City staff have been trained regarding these policies and procedures and the proper coding of their timesheets to support payroll charges.
FAC accepted this audit on March 29, 2023 — management decision was due September 29, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on April 6, 2022 — management decision was due October 6, 2022.
FAC accepted this audit on March 29, 2021 — management decision was due September 29, 2021.
FAC accepted this audit on November 19, 2019 — management decision was due May 19, 2020.
FAC accepted this audit on March 10, 2019 — management decision was due September 10, 2019.
FAC accepted this audit on December 6, 2017 — management decision was due June 6, 2018.
FAC accepted this audit on December 11, 2016 — management decision was due June 11, 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.
