Submit required certifications and supporting documentation showing that residents of escrow-funded activities met the established income limit requirements. Any amounts determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the escrow account from non-Federal funds.
2017-AT-1003 | Marzo 01, 2017
The Puerto Rico Department of Housing, San Juan, PR, Did Not Properly Administer Its Multifamily Special Escrow Funds
Housing
2017-AT-1003-002-B
2017-NY-1005 | Enero 12, 2017
Union County, NJ’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program Was Not Always Administered in Compliance With Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
2017-NY-1005-001-A
$3,536,974Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to reimburse $3,536,974 to the County’ HOME program line of credit for assistance spent on the four activities that were partially terminated or noncompliant with program requirements.
2017-NY-1005-001-E
$435,094Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide disbursement documentation to support the eligibility of the $435,094 made for the two activities or repay the County’s HOME program line of credit from non-Federal source.
2017-NY-1005-001-G
$354,750Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documentation to support that laborers associated with the activity are compensated in compliance with Davis-Bacon wage rates. If documentation cannot be provided, $567,767 needs to be reimbursed to the County’s HOME line of credit from non-Federal sources.
2017-NY-1005-001-K
$242,269Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to reimburse $242,269 to the County’s HOME program line of credit for CHDO reserve fund disbursed to the ineligible CHDO.
2017-NY-1005-001-L
$227,903Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documentation to support that at least one-third of the Homefirst board were representatives of a low-income community. If documentation cannot be provided, reimburse the $227,903 to the County’s HOME program line of credit from non-Federal sources.
2017-NY-1005-001-M
$536,507Funds Put to Better UseRecommendations 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to reimburse the $536,507 in program income to the County’s HOME program local bank account and record the income in IDIS.
2017-NY-1005-001-Q
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documentation, such as pay stubs and leases, to support compliance with HOME program rent limit and income eligibility requirements for the six tenants who occupied HOME-assisted units.
2017-NY-1005-001-R
$260,736Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documents, such as pay stubs and bank statements, to support the eligibility of the two home buyers. If documentation cannot be provided, reimburse $260,736 from non-Federal sources to the County’s HOME program line of credit.
2017-NY-1004 | Diciembre 20, 2016
The City of New York, NY, Lacked Adequate Controls To Ensure That the Use of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds Was Always Consistent With the Action Plan and Applicable Federal and State Regulations
Community Planning and Development
2017-NY-1004-001-A
$18,274,054Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 HUD’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs instruct City officials to reimburse the Program from non-Federal funds $18,274,054 in exempt State sales tax on repairs and maintenance services.
2017-NY-1004-001-B
We recommend that HUD’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs instruct City officials to strengthen controls over disbursements to ensure that all costs charged to the Program are allowable, reasonable, and necessary in compliance with the HUD-approved action plan and Federal and State regulations.
2017-KC-1001 | Diciembre 15, 2016
Majestic Management, LLC, a Multifamily Housing Management Agent in St. Louis, MO, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements When Disbursing Project Funds
Housing
2017-KC-1001-001-A
$17,414Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 support showing that $17,414 in management fees charged to the projects using a budgeted amount represented actual amounts or repay the difference to each affected project.
2017-KC-1001-001-B
$447,345Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 support that it paid itself $447,345 for eligible purposes or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
2017-KC-1001-001-D
Verify all management fees charged to the projects from 2013 through 2015 were appropriate.
2017-KC-1001-002-A
$231,091Questioned CostsRecommendations 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.
Require Majestic Management to reimburse the appropriate projects their portion of $231,091 for work not completed or overbilled.
2017-KC-1001-002-B
$462,281Questioned CostsRecommendations 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.
Require Majestic Management to provide support that $462,281 paid for procurements was reasonable or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
2017-KC-1001-003-A
$11,184Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 the appropriate projects their portion of $11,184 that it charged for ineligible items.
2017-KC-1001-003-B
$48,891Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 support that $48,891 was spent for eligible purposes or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
2017-NY-1001 | Noviembre 02, 2016
The City of New York, NY, Implemented Policies That Did Not Always Ensure That Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds Were Disbursed in Accordance With Its Action Plan and Federal Regulations
Community Planning and Development
2017-NY-1001-001-C
$32,107Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 HUD’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs instruct City officials to repay the Program from non-Federal funds $32,107 in overpaid grants to homeowners whose grant amounts (1) were not revised to show recalculated duplication of benefits and (2) exceeded the Program’s 60 percent reimbursement rate.
2017-NY-1001-001-D
$101,398Funds Put to Better UseRecommendations 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.
We recommend that HUD’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs instruct City officials to reimburse $101,398 in additional grants owed to the 11 homeowners whose grant amounts should have been materially increased as a result of recalculated duplication of benefits.