SR 06:125 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton Recommendations to Management For the year ended June 30, 2005 Overstatement in the reauest for reimbursement for West Las Positas Blvd Proied Observation We noted during our audit of the Caltrans grant used by the City to fund West Las Positas Boulevard Project that the City billed Caltrans using a ratio higher than the reimbursement ratio stated in the grant agreement between the City and Caltrans. Recommendation We recommend that the City observe all clauses in its grant agreements to ensure compliance and continuity of the funding. We also recommend that the City contact Caltrans to determine if it needs to reimburse Caltrans for the over billed amount. City Response The City will contact Caltrans and request written confirmation to document that the City is in compliance with all provisions of this grant agreement. During the audit this observation was brought to the attention of Finance and Engineering. Engineering produced documentation showing that the agreement with Caltrans referenced the 88.53% reimbursement. According to Engineering staff, road rehabilitation projects are always reimbursed at the 88.53% rate. Phase I of the project went to Council March 7, 2000 with Resolution #00-017. Phase II of the project went to Council January 9, 2001 with Resolution #01-001. Both resolutions reference the 88.53% rate. The auditors are referring to a Caltrans document E-76 as the grant agreement. This document did not have a percentage rate mentioned in it. Instead, it had the total estimated project cost as $1,137,000 (number provided by the City) and the federal portion as $963,000 which is 84.68% of the estimated project cost. According to Engineering, the E-76 agreement actually reflects the fact that although Caltrans would reimburse us for 88.53% of the project costs, they had a reimbursement cap of $963,000. As the final billing to Caltrans shows, the actual total Federal Participating costs were $916,082.17 and we were reimbursed for 88.53% of those costs ($811,007.55). Communication with HODsin!! Authoritv Observation We noted during our audit that the Housing Authority received and expended several grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Those grants were not disclosed to us by the City's Finance Department because the Finance Department was not aware of them. This situation also occurred in previous years. Recommendation We recommend that the City improve its communication with the Housing Authority to ensure the completeness and accuracy of its accounting records. City Response Finance agrees that the City needs to take an active oversight role in the recording of the financial activities of the Housing Authority. Unfortunately, staffing levels necessary to accomplish this have not been available. 1