Numbered findings
7
Control and compliance issues in the report
Independent municipal audit · CY2015
7 control and compliance findings.
Here is what they mean.
The regulatory-basis opinion was clean, but HUD accounting remained a material weakness. A HUD inspector-general review identified questioned costs and funds that could be put to better use, which the City partly disputed.
At a glance
Material weaknesses
1
The highest financial-reporting control category
Repeat findings
4
Issues reported in at least one earlier audit
Opinion scope
See report opinion
Opinion scope varies by report year and accounting basis
The opinion is not a pass/fail grade
Most regulatory statements received clean opinions—with an important exception.
Unmodified regulatory-basis opinion; qualified CDBG compliance opinion; adverse GAAP-basis opinion.
Read the three opinion scopes
- New Jersey regulatory basis: Unmodified.
- U.S. GAAP: Adverse because the mandated regulatory basis differs from GAAP.
- Fixed assets: None
Every numbered finding
What needs to change
“Material weakness” is an audit-control classification, not an allegation of fraud. Open a finding for the condition, why it matters, the auditor's recommendation, repeat history, and the City's separately labeled response.
2015-001 · noncompliance material to basic financial statements
· Repeat since 2012
Aged unfunded capital costs
Unfinanced costs totaling $25,990,520 for capital projects over five years old remained on the City's books, including the report's printed components of $15,969,457 for general and school projects and $10,021,603 for water projects.
2015-001 · noncompliance material to basic financial statements
· Repeat since 2012
Aged unfunded capital costs
Unfinanced costs totaling $25,990,520 for capital projects over five years old remained on the City's books, including the report's printed components of $15,969,457 for general and school projects and $10,021,603 for water projects.
Why it matters
The aged balances created cash-flow concerns and did not comply with State capital-funding requirements.
Auditor recommendation
Fund all Unfunded Deferred Charges to Future Taxation and Water Rents over five years old for which unfinanced costs have been paid.
City response · unaudited
The City stated that it would continue working to fund all unfunded projects.
Official report p. 306 · Includes a compliance issue
2015-002 · significant deficiency
· Repeat since 2013
Fixed-asset inventory and tracking
Five of 50 sampled assets could not be located, four disposed assets remained listed, vehicle-auction activity had no corresponding disposals, and tagging, transfer, and disposal policies were not followed.
2015-002 · significant deficiency
· Repeat since 2013
Fixed-asset inventory and tracking
Five of 50 sampled assets could not be located, four disposed assets remained listed, vehicle-auction activity had no corresponding disposals, and tagging, transfer, and disposal policies were not followed.
Why it matters
The inventory did not comply with N.J.A.C. 5:30-5.6 and could become materially misstated and unreliable.
Auditor recommendation
Make every asset traceable through tags or other identifiers and enforce existing disposal and transfer procedures.
City response · unaudited
The City stated that it assigned a Fixed Asset Manager to make assets traceable and enforce disposal and transfer policies.
Official report pp. 307–308 · Includes a compliance issue
2015-003 · material weakness
· Repeat since 2011
HUD grant reconciliations
CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG receivable and reserve balances were not reconciled to IDIS, subsidiary ledgers, and related reports, and HOME receipts could not be reconciled.
2015-003 · material weakness
· Repeat since 2011
HUD grant reconciliations
CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG receivable and reserve balances were not reconciled to IDIS, subsidiary ledgers, and related reports, and HOME receipts could not be reconciled.
Why it matters
Grant balances and disbursements could not be validated or traced to HUD records.
Auditor recommendation
Adopt monthly reporting, reconciliation, and closing procedures for CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG records.
City response · unaudited
The City stated that the CFO assigned an individual to reconcile IDIS with the City's FOW system and that monthly reporting, reconciliation, and closing procedures would be established.
Official report pp. 308–310
2015-004 · significant deficiency
CDBG allowable costs, program income, and controls
A HUD inspector-general audit found uncollected or unsupported program income, unsupported and ineligible costs, noncompliant activities, unnecessary drawdowns, and IDIS information that was inaccurate or not traceable to City accounting records.
2015-004 · significant deficiency
CDBG allowable costs, program income, and controls
A HUD inspector-general audit found uncollected or unsupported program income, unsupported and ineligible costs, noncompliant activities, unnecessary drawdowns, and IDIS information that was inaccurate or not traceable to City accounting records.
Why it matters
HUD identified $16,206,508 of funds to be put to better use, including $11,532,769 of uncollected program income, in addition to questioned costs.
Auditor recommendation
Implement HUD's recommendations to reimburse and record program income, support questioned costs, protect HUD's mortgage interests, repay ineligible costs, reclassify IDIS activity, and strengthen controls.
Questioned costs: $1,941,618: $9,813 ineligible, $1,830,823 unsupported, and $100,982 unreasonable or unnecessary.
City response · unaudited
The City stated that it appealed the requested reimbursement of more than $11.5 million, recorded Section 108 income, instituted receipt and disbursement procedures, planned a mortgage-recording policy, and strengthened staff oversight and recordkeeping controls.
Official report pp. 310–312 · Includes a compliance issue
2015-005 · compliance finding
· Repeat since 2014
Purchases exceeding bid threshold
Four vendors were paid more than the bid threshold without public bidding or a documented Local Public Contracts Law exception.
2015-005 · compliance finding
· Repeat since 2014
Purchases exceeding bid threshold
Four vendors were paid more than the bid threshold without public bidding or a documented Local Public Contracts Law exception.
Why it matters
The report does not state a separate effect.
Auditor recommendation
Monitor aggregate vendor payments and advertise publicly when expected payments reach bid thresholds.
Official report p. 321 · Includes a compliance issue
2015-006 · control deficiency
Unverified parking receipts and unreconciled account
Three parking receipts totaling $30,190 could not be traced to bank statements, prompting a Special Confidential Report, and a Parking Enforcement account with a $106,553 balance was not reconciled.
2015-006 · control deficiency
Unverified parking receipts and unreconciled account
Three parking receipts totaling $30,190 could not be traced to bank statements, prompting a Special Confidential Report, and a Parking Enforcement account with a $106,553 balance was not reconciled.
Why it matters
The report does not state a separate effect.
Auditor recommendation
Immediately investigate the potential $30,190 shortage and reconcile the Parking Enforcement bank account promptly.
Official report p. 322
2015-007 · compliance finding
Required vendor 1099 forms not filed
Sixteen of 60 tested vendors appeared to require 1099 forms that were not filed, and the City relied on vendors to request filing rather than determining the federal requirement.
2015-007 · compliance finding
Required vendor 1099 forms not filed
Sixteen of 60 tested vendors appeared to require 1099 forms that were not filed, and the City relied on vendors to request filing rather than determining the federal requirement.
Why it matters
The report does not state a separate effect.
Auditor recommendation
File 1099 forms as required by Internal Revenue Service regulations.
Official report p. 322 · Includes a compliance issue
Historical audits
Choose a report year
CY is a calendar year, FY is the older June-ending fiscal year, and TY2010 is the transition period. Comparative CY2022 also represents CY2021.
Official PDF archive
Supporting source evidence, not the primary reading experience. Independent audits only; budgets and Annual Financial Statements are separate.
| Report | Years covered | Source |
|---|---|---|
| CY2025 | 2025, 2024 | Open official PDF |
| CY2024 | 2024, 2023 | Open official PDF |
| CY2023 | 2023, 2022 | Open official PDF |
| CY2022 |
2022, 2021
No separate CY2021 report was published; this comparative audit covers both 2022 and 2021.
|
Open official PDF |
| CY2020 | 2020, 2019 | Open official PDF |
| CY2019 | 2019, 2018 | Open official PDF |
| CY2018 | 2018, 2017 | Open official PDF |
| CY2017 | 2017, 2016 | Open official PDF |
| CY2016 | 2016, 2015 | Open official PDF |
| CY2015 | 2015, 2014 | Open official PDF |
| CY2014 | 2014, 2013 | Open official PDF |
| CY2013 | 2013, 2012 | Open official PDF |
| CY2012 | 2012, 2011 | Open official PDF |
| CY2011 |
2011, 2010
This report covers CY2011 and the 2010 transition year.
|
Open official PDF |
| TY2010 |
2010
Transition-year report for the period ending December 31, 2010; it also compares the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010.
|
Open official PDF |
| FY2010 | 2010 | Open official PDF |
| FY2009 | 2009 | Open official PDF |
| FY2008 | 2008 | Open official PDF |
| FY2007 | 2007 | Open official PDF |
| FY2006 | 2006 | Open official PDF |
Project Solomon is independent of the City of Jersey City. Structured audit facts are manually source-checked; City management responses are unaudited.