Reimburse its program $34,666 from non-Federal funds ($21,990 $12,676 in administrative fees) for the overpayment of housing assistance due to inappropriate calculations of housing assistance.
2017-CH-1002 | Julio 07, 2017
The Youngstown Metropolitan Housing Authority, Youngstown, OH, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-CH-1002-002-AOpenClosed$34,666Questioned 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.
- Status2017-CH-1002-002-BOpenClosed$1,265Funds 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.
Reimburse the appropriate households $1,265 from program funds for the underpayment of housing assistance due to inappropriate calculations.
- Status2017-CH-1002-002-COpenClosed$9,644Questioned 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 collection from the applicable households or reimburse its program $9,644 from non-Federal funds for the overpayment of housing assistance due to unreported or underreported income.
- Status2017-CH-1002-002-DOpenClosed$1,666Questioned 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 or reimburse its program $1,666 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported payments of housing assistance cited in this finding.
- Status2017-CH-1002-002-EOpenClosed$322,550Funds 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.
Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that (1) housing assistance payments are appropriately calculated and supported, (2) repayment agreements are created to recover overpaid housing assistance when unreported income is discovered during the examination process, and (3) annual reexaminations are completed in a timely manner to ensure that $322,550 in program funds is appropriately used for future payments.
2017-FW-1009 | Junio 29, 2017
Beverly Place Apartments Subsidized Nonexistent Tenants, Unqualified Tenants, and Tenants With Questionable Qualifications
Housing
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-AOpenClosed$574,930Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing require Beverly Place’s owner to repay HUD $574,930 for subsidized units that were not occupied by qualified tenants. Repayment must be from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-BOpenClosed$150,082Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing require Beverly Place’s owner to provide support to show that the subsidies for 11 tenants with falsified income were accurate or repay HUD $150,082 for those subsidies. Repayment must be from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-COpenClosed$77,621Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing require Beverly Place’s owner to provide support to show that the subsidies for 18 tenants without files or without adequate income documentation in their files were accurate or repay HUD $77,621 for those subsidies. Repayment must be from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-DOpenClosed
We further recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing require its contract administrator for Beverly Place to verify that the owner’s recently implemented quality control program is working as designed.
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-EOpenClosed
We further recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing ensure that the project-based contract administrator’s review process includes steps to obtain reasonable assurance that tenants being reported as subsidized at Beverly Place live in the subsidized units.
2017-FW-1008 | Junio 28, 2017
The Weslaco Housing Authority, Weslaco, TX, Paid Travel Costs That Did Not Comply With Federal, State, and Local Requirements
General Counsel
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-FOpenClosed
Take appropriate administrative sanctions, including suspension, limited denial of participation, or debarment, against the commissioners.
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-AOpenClosed$11,172Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to repay from non-Federal funds $11,172 paid for ineligible travel costs of which $6,904 was Housing Choice Voucher and $4,268 was operating subsidy funds.
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-BOpenClosed$2,946Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to repay from non-Federal funds $2,946 paid for excessive lodging rates, extra trip days, and car rental costs of which $1,214 was Housing Choice Voucher and $1,732 was operating subsidy funds.
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-COpenClosed$9,020Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to support or repay its HUD programs from non-Federal funds $9,020 for unsupported meals, incidental expenses, lodging costs, and travel for training of which $2,978 was Housing Choice Voucher and $6,041 was operating subsidy funds.
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-DOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to adopt policies and procedures that contain current Federal and State guidance.
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-EOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide training to commissioners and employees on travel requirements and their responsibilities and duties.
2017-PH-1802 | Junio 28, 2017
Final Civil Action Borrower Settled Allegations of Making False Statements to HUD for a Home Purchase Under the Federal Housing Administration Mortgage Insurance Program
General Counsel
- Status2017-PH-1802-001-AOpenClosed$10,000Questioned 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.
Acknowledge that the attached settlement agreement for $10,000 represents an amount due HUD.
2017-LA-1005 | Junio 16, 2017
The City of Huntington Park, CA, Did Not Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-AOpenClosed$7,323Questioned 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 the program $7,323 from non-Federal funds for ineligible code enforcement costs.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-BOpenClosed$576,997Questioned 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 the $576,997 in code enforcement costs (activities 499, 512, and 531), including meeting code enforcement and cost allocation requirements, or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-COpenClosed$328,918Funds 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.
Implement revised code enforcement program policies and procedures to meet CDBG requirements. This will help ensure that the remaining $328,918 budgeted for code enforcement activity 531 is put to better use.