Provide documentation to show that project funds are segregated in the project’s name, in accordance with the regulatory agreement and HUD requirements.
2018-PH-1006 | Septiembre 21, 2018
The Owner of Luther Towers II, Wilmington, DE, Did Not Manage Its HUD-Insured Project in Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
Housing
- Status2018-PH-1006-001-BOpenClosed
- Status2018-PH-1006-001-COpenClosed$100,000Funds 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.
Take immediate action to remove project bank accounts as security for the owner’s line of credit and, thereby put up to $100,000 to better use.
- Status2018-PH-1006-001-DOpenClosed
Submit a project owner’s or management agent’s certification, management entity profile, current budget and other required documentation to HUD for review and approval.
- Status2018-PH-1006-001-EOpenClosed
Develop and implement controls to ensure that the project complies with the regulatory agreement and applicable HUD requirements, including but not limited to policies and procedures for maintaining project funds in separate bank accounts in the project’s name, using project funds only for necessary expenses of the project, and reconciling bank accounts to the project’s computerized accounting records.
- Status2018-PH-1006-001-FOpenClosed
Provide training and technical assistance to the owner’s executive director and staff to ensure compliance with the terms of its regulatory agreement and applicable HUD requirements.
2018-KC-0004 | Septiembre 20, 2018
HUD Did Not Always Identify and Collect Partial Claims Out of Surplus Proceeds From Nonconveyance Foreclosures
Housing
- Status2018-KC-0004-001-AOpenClosed$5,690,000Questioned 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.
Pursue the collection of the $5,690,000 in surplus proceeds that HUD was entitled to receive from 2017 loan terminations.
- Status2018-KC-0004-001-BOpenClosed
Implement a policy to require servicers to send surplus proceeds notifications to the HUD Secretary-held assets servicing contractor and establish procedures to improve HUD’s surplus proceeds collection efforts.
- Status2018-KC-0004-001-COpenClosed$6,770,000Funds 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.
Redesign the partial claim program to eliminate its weaknesses and ensure that partial claims benefit from a stronger lien position to put $6,770,000 to better use.
2018-BO-1005 | Septiembre 19, 2018
The State of Connecticut Did Not Ensure That Its Grantees Properly Administered Their Housing Rehabilitation Programs
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-BO-1005-001-AOpenClosed$1,190,977Questioned 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.
Repay from non-Federal funds the $1,190,977 in ineligible costs charged to the program.
- Status2018-BO-1005-001-BOpenClosed$434,970Questioned 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.
Repay from non-Federal funds the $434,970 in unreasonable costs charged to the program
- Status2018-BO-1005-001-COpenClosed$249,015Questioned 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.
Support $249,015 in program costs spent on a 2014 grant for which the grantee was unable to provide a tier one environmental review record or repay from non-Federal funds any amount that cannot be supported
- Status2018-BO-1005-001-DOpenClosed$676,922Questioned 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.
Support $676,922 for contracts that were improperly procured or repay from non-Federal funds any amount that cannot be supported.
- Status2018-BO-1005-001-EOpenClosed$422,600Questioned 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.
Support $422,600 in program income that was not used before additional grant fund drawdowns or repay from non-Federal funds any amount that cannot be supported
- Status2018-BO-1005-001-FOpenClosed
Strengthen controls over program oversight to ensure that grantees comply with their agreements and program requirements, including tier two environmental reviews, contract procurements, and homeowner and project eligibility, to ensure that (1) all income, including rental income, is considered; (2) loan-to-value ratios do not exceed 90 percent without State approval; and (3) projects do not exceed the program limits without State approval.
- Status2018-BO-1005-001-GOpenClosed
Strengthen controls over monitoring to ensure that onsite monitoring and monitoring letters are completed in a timely manner and sufficient supporting documentation is required and reviewed by those responsible for grant oversight.
- Status2018-BO-1005-002-AOpenClosed
Develop and implement policies and procedures to assess the validity of all program complaints to ensure that they are addressed and resolved in a timely manner.
- Status2018-BO-1005-002-BOpenClosed
Provide additional guidance to its grantees regarding its policy stating that the repair or replacement of paved surfaces should be minimal in cost and incidental to the rehabilitation of the dwelling, including whether grantees are required to consult with the State before starting the work.
2018-PH-1005 | Septiembre 19, 2018
The Adams County Housing Authority, Gettysburg, PA, Did Not Administer Its Housing Choice Voucher Program According to HUD Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-PH-1005-001-AOpenClosed$279Questioned 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.
Reimburse its program $279 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible payment it made due to the conflict-of-interest situation identified by the audit.
- Status2018-PH-1005-001-BOpenClosed
Develop and implement controls to prevent and detect conflict-of-interest situations.
- Status2018-PH-1005-001-COpenClosed$225,182Questioned 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.
Provide documentation to show that indirect payroll expenses totaling $225,182 charged to the program were reasonable and necessary or repay its program from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support.