Remove Skyline Crest Enterprises, LLC, as the operator and replace it with a HUD-approved independent operator.
Publication Report
2017-LA-1004 | Junio 13, 2017
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
We audited Cypress Meadows Assisted Living based on a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Departmental Enforcement Center, referral. The referral asserted that the owner took distributions from Cypress Meadows for expenses... másRelated Recommendations
General Counsel
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-AOpenClosedClosed on Mayo 29, 2019$15,000.00Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A] resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B] that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost]; or (C] that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
SummaryDetermine legal sufficiency and if legally sufficient, pursue civil and administrative remedies against Cypress Meadows, LLC; Skyline Crest Enterprises, LLC; the project’s owner; or all three for inappropriately disbursing funds in violation of the project’s regulatory agreement, operating lease agreement, and HUD requirements.
- Summary
Pursue appropriate civil money penalties and administrative actions, up to and including debarment, against Cypress Meadows LLC; Skyline Crest Enterprises LLC; the project’s owner; or all three for violating the project’s regulatory agreement, operating lease agreement, and HUD requirements.
Housing
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-COpenClosedClosed on Febrero 01, 2018$263,289.00Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A] resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B] that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost]; or (C] that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
SummaryRepay the project from non-project funds $263,289 for ineligible salary expenses.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-DOpenClosedClosed on Febrero 01, 2018$283,307.00Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
SummaryRemove $283,307 in ineligible accrued salary fees payable from its financial statements and records and ensure that these expenses are not accrued or paid for with project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-EOpenClosedClosed on Febrero 01, 2018$110,710.00Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A] resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B] that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost]; or (C] that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
SummaryRepay the project from non-project funds $110,710 for ineligible offsite accounting expenses.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-FOpenClosedClosed on Febrero 01, 2018$129,416.00Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
SummaryRemove $129,416 in ineligible accrued offsite accounting fees payable from its financial statements and records and ensure that these expenses are not accrued or paid for with project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-GOpenClosedClosed on Febrero 01, 2018$99,160.00Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A] resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B] that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost]; or (C] that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
SummaryRepay the project from non-project funds $99,160 for ineligible personal health insurance expenses of the owner.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-HOpenClosedClosed on Febrero 01, 2018$4,179.00Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A] resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B] that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost]; or (C] that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
SummaryRepay the project from non-project funds $4,179 for excessive bank fees.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-IOpenClosedClosed on Febrero 01, 2018$1,352.00Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A] resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B] that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost]; or (C] that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
SummaryRepay the project from non-project funds $1,352 for expenses related to the identity-of-interest hair salon.
- Summary
Obtain approval from HUD for a lease agreement with the hair salon.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-KOpenClosedClosed on Febrero 01, 2018$65,232.00Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A] resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B] that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost]; or (C] that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
SummaryProvide documentation to support that $65,232 in disbursements was used on reasonable and necessary operating expenses or repay the project from non-project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-LOpenClosedClosed on Febrero 01, 2018$620,937.00Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A] resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B] that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost]; or (C] that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
SummaryPay the project $620,937 in uncollected rent from non-project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-MOpenClosedClosed on Febrero 01, 2018$162,462.00Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A] resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B] that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost]; or (C] that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
SummaryPay the project from non-project funds $162,462 in lease agreement charges not deposited into Cypress Meadows’ bank account.
- Summary
Develop and implement written policies and procedures for the management of the project, including but not limited to financial policies for cash disbursements, cash receipts, and documentation requirements.