Loading...
Miami Beach Community Development CorporationMIAMI BEACH BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT Internal Audit Division (~1 TO: VIA: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager ¢"iJ Kathie G. Brooks, Budget and Performan,ce Improvement Director/?;!"'"" FROM: James J. Sutter, Internal Auditor,,#~ / DATE: August 24, 2009 ("" AUDIT: Miami Beach Community Development Corporation Audit PERIOD: October 1, 2005 through February 28, 2009 This report is the result of a regularly scheduled audit of the Miami Beach Community Development Corporation covering the receipt and disbursement of grant monies administered through the City. Our agreed upon audit scope was to focus on the administrative services contracts for CDBG (Community Development Block Grants) and HOME (Home Investment Partnerships Program) be reviewed and not the capital projects. INTRODUCTION According to the organization's website, Miami Beach Community Development Corporation or MBCDC was created as a neighborhood community development agency committed to the preservation of the Miami Beach Architectural District and the economic revitalization of South Beach. Founded in 1981 by the Miami Design Preservation League, MBCDC spearheaded the economic revitalization of the Art Deco District, public and private investment on Ocean Drive and Lincoln Road and the re-emergence of South Beach as a world class tourist destination. MBCDC's corporate offices are located at 945 Pennsylvania Avenue in Miami Beach. According to minutes provided and discussion with MBCDC management, the organization is governed by a fourteen member Board of Directors that meet at least quarterly to discuss such items as the status of the programs, outstanding issues, etc. Additionally, MBCDC's Finance Committee convenes quarterly to discuss the organization's cash flow, audit results, financial status, etc. The City and MBCDC sign annual grant agreements for each Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) or HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) detailing the responsibilities of each party and the associated funding. Among other items, MBCDC is to submit monthly program progress reports to the City by the tenth day of each month accompanied by the corresponding invoices and checks of all expenditures submitted for reimbursement. This documentation is received and reviewed by the City's Housing and Community Development Division so that any expenditure that does not satisfy the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines can be disallowed. HUD typically informs the City early in the fiscal year as to the amount of any CDBG and HOME monies to be received for the following fiscal year. The City Administration will then issue a Request for Proposals typically in February for next fiscal year funds with a March submission deadline. The received written proposals for CDBG funds are reviewed by the Administration and the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) and ranked according to their impact on the Five Year Consolidated Plan, project description, specific goals, budget analysis, and leveraging of funds. All agencies submitting response proposals were then asked to make presentations. These presentations are followed by a question and answer session which allowed CDAC members and City staff the opportunity to learn additional information about the agencies and their respective programs. All of this information is utilized to rank and make appropriate funding recommendations I'Ve ore commitlr;J:/ to providing m.cellent public service one/ sofety to oil who live, work, one/ ploy in our vibront, tropicol, hi.1toric community. Internal Audit Report Miami Beach Community Development Corporation Audit August24,2009 which form the basis of the One Year Action Plan, which HUD requires participating jurisdictions to submit to describe how the city will utilize funding and resources to address priority needs identified in the Five Year Consolidated Plan. The Five Year Consolidated Plan is a federal requirement for all HUD entitlement cities and is Miami Beach's long-term plan on how it intends to use federal CDBG and HOME funding for the next five years. Once notified of the recommendations proposed by CDAC and the Administration, the City Commission determines how to disburse these monies through the passage of annual resolutions. These resolutions authorized the payment of the following administrative monies to MBCDC for the listed specified grants and programs during the audit period: Grant CDBG CDBG CDBG CDBG HOME Total * Program FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 Total 2005-25974 2006-26253 2007-26585 2008-26847 * Housing $40,000 $38,200 $38,000 $160,000 $276,200 Counseling Multi-Family $125,000 $152,800 $150,000 $185,000 $612,800 Housing Tenant Services $20,000 $19,100 $19,000 $40,000 $98,100 Coordinator Scattered Site $160,000 $119,375 $119,000 $0 $398,375 Home Buyer Assistance CHDO $61,918 $58,381 $57,957 $56,400 $234,656 Expenses $406,918 $387,856 $383,957 $441,400 $1,620,131 CDBG's Housing Counseling figures were combined with the Scattered Site Home Buyer Assistance Program-Acquisition/Disposition program for the 2008/09 fiscal year. These monies are retained by HUD until MBCDC's monthly program progress report's listed expenditures are approved by the City's Housing and Community Development Division. At this time, the Community Development Technician requests or draws down the monies from HUD which typically arrives in about three days via wire transfer. Once received, a Request for Direct Payment is prepared so that the City's Finance Department can issue the grantee's reimbursement check in the appropriate amount. Eligible grant funds are disbursed monthly until either all the received grant monies are reimbursed or the fiscal year (October 1 through September 30) has concluded. The above referenced annual City Resolutions stated that the primary objective of CDBG monies is the development of viable urban communities, including decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities principally for persons of low and moderate income. A brief description of the CDBG funded programs mentioned in the table above is provided in the following bullet points: • The Housing Counseling Program provides housing counseling to participants in the homebuyer assistance program. • The Multi-Family Housing Program provides operational funds to acquire, rehabilitate, and manage eleven existing rental buildings and thirteen scattered sites targeted for a combined total of one hundred eighty-six housing units for income-eligible persons. • The Tenant Services Coordinator funds a coordinator that brings together existing program services for approximately 220 low and very low income elderly and special needs tenants. • The Scattered Site Home Buyer Assistance Program-Acquisition/Disposition provides Page 2 of 9 Internal Audit Report Miami Beach Community Development Corporation Audit August24, 2009 scattered site home ownership opportunities to a number of eligible first time homebuyers in Miami Beach. Furthermore, the reviewed above City Resolutions state that HOME grant monies intent is to expand the supply of housing for income-eligible households and to encourage partnerships with the private sector and not-for-profit housing providers. Meanwhile, Community Housing Development Organizations or CHDOs are private, nonprofit organizations that meet certain qualifications that have been defined in the HOME regulations. The designation is for a one year term that is renewable annually if the organization continues to meet the eligibility criteria. CHDO expenses are allowed to equal 5% of the total HOME funds received by the City with MBCDC currently being the only organization approved to receive these monies. They are eligible to be used to pay salaries, wages, and other employee compensation and benefits; as well as rent, utilities, employee education, travel, training, communication costs, insurance, equipment, materials and supplies. MBCDC provided documentation showing that they are the current proprietor of eleven operating and six under construction apartment buildings and thirteen scattered site units that provide affordable housing for low income individuals, families, the elderly and people with special needs in Miami Beach. They stated that each building purchased by MBCDC undergoes substantial rehabilitation to bring the building up to code and return the building to its original condition as much as possible. Studios, one, two and three bedroom apartments are equipped with new appliances, air conditioning and several units are handicapped accessible. The following table contains a listing of those buildings which are currently inhabited and the number of units in each available for rent: 1. Inhabited apartment buildings owned entirely by MBCDC Developer/Project Building Address Number of Units Jefferson Apts. 542 Jefferson Avenue 27 Crespi Park Apts. 1 023 79"' Street 8 Crespi Park Apts. 7900 Crespi Blvd 4 Crespi Park Apts. 7920 Crespi Blvd 4 Sabrina Apts. 1551 Pennsylvania Avenue 20 Michigan 530 530 Michigan Avenue 9 Shelbourne 710 Jefferson Avenue 24 Madison Apts. 259 Washington Avenue 17 Fernwood Apts. 935 Penns~vania Avenue 18 Michigan 532 532 Michigan Avenue 18 The Westchester 516 15m Street 24 Total 173 2. Scattered sites whereby MBCDC owns individual units in a larger building that has other owners Develo[2er/Project Building Address Number of Units Knightsbridge Condominium 7133 Bay Drive 9 Bay Road 1673 Bay Road 1 West Ave 1245 West Avenue #203 1 Marseilles 1255 Marseilles Avenue #1 1 Meridian 734 Meridian Avenue #1 1 Total 13 Page 3 of 9 Internal Audit Report Miami Beach Community Development Corporation Audit August24, 2009 3. Finally, MBCDC has purchased the following six buildings which are presently under construction and when finished expect to contain the listed number of units for rent Developer/Project * Building Name Number of Units Meridian Place 530 Meridian Avenue 34 Villa Maria 2800 Collins Avenue 34 Villa Matti 221 28m Street 36 The Allen 2001 Washing_ton Avenue 39 The London 1965-75 Washington Avenue 33 The Barclay 1940 Park Avenue 66 Total 242 * .. These s1x buJidmgs represent cap1tal proJects and were not Included m our audit scope as determined previously in conversations with the Assistant City Manager and City staff. OVERALL OPINION The Miami Beach Community Development Corporation (MBCDC) stages a number of projects to benefit the Miami Beach community. Internal controls were found to be generally sufficient and the documentation maintained was well organized and complete. Sampled vendor invoices submitted for reimbursement were properly allocated and were not also submitted to other grantors for repayment. Finally, tested grant monies were deposited intact into the grantee's bank account during the audit period. However, the following items were noted during testing and are in need of improvement: • Sampled grant agreements were not signed timely at or near the beginning of the fiscal year thereby among other things delaying reimbursement to the grantee. • Identified ineligible administrative expenditures totaling $42.63 that were submitted for reimbursement by MBCDC are listed. MBCDC had other administrative expenditures that were not reported to another grantor that could substitute and justify the City's full reimbursement during the designated period. • The grantee's monthly documentation was not submitted timely for the three months tested during the 2005/06 and 2006/07. Additionally, the City's Housing and Community Development Division did not maintain complete documentation for these same three months. • The nine units owned and rented at the Knightsbridge Condominium were not registered and reported to the Finance Department's Resort Tax Division. Upon notification, MBCDC promptly complied by registering and filing four years of delinquent resort tax returns along with the agreed upon $125 payment. • Consolidated financial statement audits were not completed within the time specified in section 20 of the signed grant agreements between the City and MBCDC. PURPOSE The purpose of this audit was to determine whether the Miami Beach Community Development Corporation complied with tested requirements listed in the signed grant agreements during the audit period of October 1, 2005 through February 28,2009; whether maintained accounting records and supporting documentation are properly organized, complete and sufficient; whether monies received from various sources were properly safeguarded and deposited intact; whether eligible Page 4 of 9 Internal Audit Report Miami Beach Community Development Corporation Audit August24,2009 expenditures for reimbursement were submitted timely, sufficiently documented and properly approved; and whether sampled permits, business tax receipts and resort taxes were current. SCOPE 1. Confirm that grant revenues received from the City were deposited intact, properly documented and correctly recorded. 2. Confirm that supporting documentation maintained is complete, well organized and sufficient. 3. Confirm that monies were properly expended for the grantee's specified programs in accordance with the grant agreements and were not duplicated in expenditures reported to other funding agencies. 4. Confirm that the grantee's overhead allocation falls within acceptable standards designated by applicable federal, state, and City guidelines. 5. Confirm that the annual certified financial statements were timely submitted and the amounts reported therein agree with corresponding amounts previously reported to reports submitted to the City. 6. Confirm that the non-profit organization is current on tested City permits and taxes. FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSES 1. Finding: Grant Agreements The City Commission authorized the Miami Beach Community Development Corporation or MBCDC to receive grant funds for designated administrative costs incurred during the audit period. As a result, grant agreements were signed by both the grantor (City) and the grantee (MBCDC) detailing the responsibilities of each party for each approved program before any monies are disbursed. For the most part, these grant agreements were almost identical for the 2006/07 and 2007/08 fiscal years but they were frequently not completed and signed until well into the fiscal year. For example, three of the four tested 2007/08 fiscal year Community Development Block Grant agreements were not signed until 01/15/08 and the Home Investment Partnerships Program's Community Housing Development Organization's (HOME CHDO) expense grant agreement was not signed until 05/21/08. All associated grant funds received by the City for the 2007/08 fiscal year were properly disbursed to MBCDC. Furthermore, the HOME CHDO expenses grant agreement totaling $56,400 for the 2008/09 fiscal year was not signed as of the completion of this audit so no monies have been disbursed to date. Inquiries discovered that the Legal Department is currently revising the grant agreement and it has not yet been completed. Although outside the scope of this audit, the HOME construction grant agreement for $958,000 for the current fiscal year has not yet been signed due to ongoing discussions about the grantee's scope of work. Since HUD retains all authorized grant monies until the City requests these funds to reimburse MBCDC for approved expenditures, they are aware that these monies have not been used to date. If these grant agreements are not signed and the monies disbursed in accordance with CDBG and HOME guidelines then they may be lost and future funding Page 5 of 9 Internal Audit Report Miami Beach Community Development Corporation Audit August24,2009 could possibly be affected. CDBG's rule is that the grantee cannot have more than 1.5 times their annual allocation sitting in their line of credit at the U.S. Treasury. Meanwhile, HOME CHDO expenses must be spent within twenty-four months after the last day of the month in which such funds are deposited in Miami Beach's HOME Investment Trust Fund. Recommendation(s): Although there is typically extenuating circumstances delaying the annual completion and signing of the grant agreements attributable to both parties, the grantee still has underlying expenditures associated with the programs that need to be paid. This delay could cause the grantee economic hardship unless they have sufficient reserves and capital to pay these expenses first, knowing that reimbursement will come at a later date. Finally, future grant agreements should be drafted and approved close to the beginning of the year so that the monies can be made available more quickly to the grantee and the City can be assured that all monies received are disbursed. Management Response: Housing and Community Development Division -We agree that future grant agreements should be drafted and approved close to the beginning of the year. MBCDC-We agree with the recommendation. 2. Finding: Unqualified Expenditures The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) maintains strict rules as to what expenditures are eligible for reimbursement with their grant funds. In accordance, the City's Housing and Community Development Division personnel review MBCDC's monthly submitted program progress reports and disallow any noted expenditures that do not meet the required criteria. Examples of correctly disallowed expenditures by the division include $1,640.00 in food purchases for Thanksgiving 2008 (the entire invoice was submitted) and two allocated utility bills for non-MBCDC offices for November and December 2008. Internal Audit reviewed seven randomly selected months of submitted expenditures during the audit period and found three invoices from Office Depot containing purchases of coffee, candy and sweeteners in March and July 2008 totaling $42.63. These invoices were approved and reimbursed when we believe that these items should have been disallowed. Housing and Community Development Division personnel stated that as long as the total allocated to the City's programs was less than the eligible cost (the total cost less the disallowed amount) that they authorized MBCDC to receive full reimbursement. Given the documentation received from MBCDC, the Housing and Community Development Division staff would be unable to determine if the program allocation amounts were based on the total cost or the eligible cost. Furthermore, MBCDC's allocated amounts provided to other grantors (i.e. City of Miami's HOPWA and the Miami-Dade Housing Counseling Program) are not supplied to Miami Beach so the City's Housing and Community Development Division would have no knowledge as to what was submitted to them for reimbursement. Internal Audit performed this analysis at their request and found that MBCDC's allocated expenditures correctly did not exceed 100% of submitted eligible expenditures to all funding agencies. Recommendation(s): Going forward, MBCDC should list the eligible costs, as well as the corresponding program Page 6 of 9 Internal Audit Report Miami Beach Community Development Corporation Audit August24,2009 calculations so that City personnel can periodically check their accuracy to help ensure that HUD eligibility guidelines are satisfied. Management Response: Housing and Community Development Division -We agree that MBCDC should list the eligible costs, as well as the corresponding program calculations so that City personnel can periodically check their accuracy to help ensure that HUD eligibility guidelines are satisfied. MBCDC -We agree that when items on a check that we wrote are not eligible for reimbursement that we will total what is eligible and show what we are billing the City of Miami Beach. 3. Finding: Documentation Shortcomings MBCDC is required to submit monthly documentation (vendor invoices, checks, progress reports, etc.) to the City by the tenth of each month requesting reimbursement for the listed expenditures. These documents are reviewed and approved by the City's Housing and Community Development Division before a corresponding check is issued by the Finance Department. Review of seven months' documentation found the following shortcomings: a. Of the seven months reviewed, MBCDC submitted the first three months' (February 2006, December 2006 and June 2007) documentation after the due date by 27, 62 and 8 days respectively. Meanwhile, the last four months reviewed (March 2008, July 2008, November 2008 and December 2008) were all found to have been submitted timely. It appears that the filing issue in the past has been resolved. It is beneficial to MBCDC to submit this documentation timely so that they can be reimbursed quicker but there are no corresponding provisions in the grant agreement for late submittal. b. The City maintained documentation was incomplete for the first three sampled months but improved greatly for the most recent sampled months. For example, there were no invoices, checks, etc. provided for June 2007 and other tested months' program Cash Basis Expenses Reports, which are prepared by MBCDC to report the amount of the invoice allocated to that particular program, were missing. Internal Audit could not determine whether these records were initially provided by the grantee or were received and subsequently misplaced by the City's Housing and Community Development Division. However, all documentation was present in their files for the three most recent sampled months. c. MBCDC did not provide evidence verifying that the presented invoices were actually paid during the audit period. Instead, they only provided the City with a copy of the drafted check which may or may not have been issued and cashed. Subsequent testing showed that 24 of the 25 invoices selected for review or 96% were confirmed to have been actually paid upon review of cancelled checks and bank statements. The remaining item, check numbered 343217 dated 02/24/06 for $379.00, was written off on 03/10/09 and was not cashed. MBCDC does have additional administrative expenditures that they could have submitted for reimbursement in its place. Recommendation(s): The Housing and Community Development Division should maintain complete documentation supporting any grant funds disbursed. If any documents are found to be missing, then they should be requested from MBCDC. The agency should remit replacement documentation to support the $379.00 expenditure requested. In addition, Page 7 of 9 Internal Audit Report Miami Beach Community Development Corporation Audit August24,2009 MBCDC should remit copies of cancelled checks, bank statements, etc. going forward to verify that the checks were actually issued and paid to the corresponding vendors. Management Response: Housing and Community Development Division -While the audit report acknowledges that submittal of the most recent (March 2008 through the present) documentation has "improved greatly", we agree that MBCDC bank documentation should be submitted monthly with future reimbursement requests. MBCDC-Bank statements showing cancelled checks were sent to the City of Miami Beach for June and will be submitted monthly with the future reimbursement requests. Bank statements for October through May will be submitted by the end of July. 4. Finding: Resort Tax In summary, City Code Section 102 Division 4 states that a tax of three percent is due on the rent received of every building where four or more units are rented to transient guests (do not occupy the premises on a current basis for longer than six months). It continues to state that if these tenants are permanent residents and continually live on the premises for longer than six months than they are exempt from taxation. However, they would still need to register with the Finance Department's Resort Tax Division and at a minimum remit annual returns due by May 201h. Testing found that MBCDC had properly registered with the Finance Department's Resort Tax Division and was current in their filings with no outstanding balances for twelve of their thirteen currently inhabited buildings. The one exception is the nine units presently owned in the Knightsbridge Condominium located at 7133 Bay Drive, which to date has not registered or filed. Upon notification by Internal Audit, MBCDC contacted the Resort Tax Division and complied by remitting a $25 registration fee and the settlement of $25 per year late filing fee for the past four years of returns for a total payment of $125. These locations will be included in the standard rotation of audits scheduled by the City's resort tax auditors. Recommendation(s): No further action necessary. Management Response: MBCDC-Completed. 5. Finding: Annual Financial Statement Audits Section 20 of the four Community Development Block Grant agreements signed between the City and MBCDC states "Audits shall be conducted annually and shall be submitted to the City 180 days after the end of the Provider's fiscal year {September 301h}". MBCDC properly had audits of their consolidated financial statements for the 2005/06 and 2006/07 fiscal years by the independent accounting firm of Sharpton, Bronson & Company, P.A. Both of these audits contained unqualified opinions which summarized means that the financial statements were presented fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of MBCDC and its subsidiaries for the audited periods. However, the aforementioned fiscal year audits were completed on 05/04/07 and 06/06/08 which is 36 and 70 days respectively past the due dates specified in the signed grant agreements' section 20. Furthermore, the 2007/08 fiscal year audit is ongoing by Sharpton, Brunson & Company, P.A. and can already be considered late as it is past the designated Page 8 of 9 Internal Audit Report Miami Beach Community Development Corporation Audit August 24, 2009 03/29/09 due date. Recommendation(s): In the future, MBCDC should submit their annual audits within the time frame specified in section 20 of the signed grant agreements. If the audit deadline is deemed unobtainable and acceptable to both parties, then next year's grant agreements should be revised to extend the audit's due date for the grantor. Whatever the due dates specified in future grant agreements, MBCDC (if awarded grant monies) should make a more concerted effort to comply. Management Response: Housing and Community Development Division -We agree that MBCDC should submit their annual audits within the time frame specified in the agreements, or if the deadlines are deemed unobtainable, future year agreements should be revised to extend the audit's due date for the grantor. MBCDC-We have been internally been prepared for audits to start earlier than they have in the past; however, audit companies, who provide reduced prices for non-profit companies, generally want to start later for these companies. We would like to change the audit due date in future contract agreements and require the auditor to meet the contracted date. EXIT CONFERENCE An exit conference was held on July 2, 2009 at the Housing and Community Development Division's offices. Participants included Anna Parekh (Director Real Estate, Housing and Community Development), Annette Ayala (Housing Specialist), James Sutter (Internal Auditor) and Mark Coolidge (Senior Auditor). Minor revisions were made and the audit report was subsequently sent to MBCDC for their review. A telephone discussion of the findings was held with the grantee on July 27, 2009 following management's return from vacation. Management responses were solicited from both the Housing and Community Development Division and MBCDC. They were received shortly thereafter and were included in this report. JS:MC:mc (Audit performed by Mark Coolidge, Senior Auditor) F:lobpii$AUD\INTERNAL AUDIT FILES\DOCOB-09\REPORTS-FINAL\MBCDC.doc cc: Hilda Fernandez, Assistant City Manager Anna Parekh, Director Real Estate, Housing and Community Development Patricia Walker, Chief Financial Officer Roberto Datorre, President, Miami Beach Community Development Corporation Page 9 of 9