We recommend that the Director, Office of Public Housing, New York, instruct Authority officials to seek repayment of $50,237 in ineligible housing assistance payments.
2009-NY-1011 | Mayo 15, 2009
North Hempstead Housing Authority, Great Neck, New York, Had Weaknesses in Its Housing Choice Voucher and Family Self-Sufficiency Programs
Public and Indian Housing
2009-NY-1011-002-G
$50,237Questioned 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.
2008-CH-1013 | Septiembre 24, 2008
The Highland Park Housing Commission, Highland Park, Michigan, Lacked Adequate Controls Over Unit Conditions and Maintenance Program
Public and Indian Housing
2008-CH-1013-001-A
$46,478Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its program $46,478 from nonfederal funds for the 34 units cited in this finding that were in material noncompliance.
2008-CH-1013-002-A
$29,148Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its program $29,148 from nonfederal funds for the seven long-term vacant units it inappropriately included in its program operating subsidy calculations.
2008-CH-1006 | Abril 15, 2008
The Indianapolis Housing Agency, Indianapolis, Indiana, Did Not Effectively Operate Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
Public and Indian Housing
2008-CH-1006-002-E
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Cleveland Office of Public Housing require the Agency to determine the appropriate administrative fees for the applicable households for which it is unable to provide supporting documentation cited in recommendation 2D and reimburse its program the applicable amount from nonfederal funds.
2008-CH-1003 | Febrero 14, 2008
The Highland Park Housing Commission, Highland Park, Michigan, Did Not Effectively Administer Its Public Housing and Capital Fund Programs
Public and Indian Housing
2008-CH-1003-001-A
$153,223Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to provide supporting documentation or reimburse its Public Housing program $153,223 ($22,092 for household eligibility and $131,131 for continued occupancy) from nonfederal funds for the unsupported operating subsidies related to the 36 household files cited in this finding.
2008-CH-1003-001-B
$28,663Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its Public Housing program $28,663 ($16,262 plus $12,401) from nonfederal funds for the lost total household payments for 23 households cited in this finding.
2008-CH-1003-001-C
$13,070Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse the appropriate households $13,070 for the underpayment of housing assistance and utility allowance payments cited in this finding.
2008-CH-1003-001-F
$7,932Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its Public Housing program $7,932 in operating subsidies from nonfederal funds for the two properties sold by the City.
2008-CH-1003-002-A
$61,202Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to provide supporting documentation for the use of $61,202 for work performed under its Public Housing Capital Fund program or reimburse its program from nonfederal funds for the applicable amount.
2008-CH-1003-002-B
$82,774Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to provide support that the use of $82,774 ($27,286 to three family members, $23,418 to two independent contractors, $22,150 to CLM Architects, and $9,920 to Harold Dunne, Attorney at Law) in Public Housing program funds for housing maintenance, cleaning, and professional services were reasonable or reimburse its program from nonfederal funds for the applicable amount.
2007-NY-1006 | Mayo 24, 2007
Housing Authority of the City of Asbury Park, New Jersey
Public and Indian Housing
2007-NY-1006-001-A
$692,990Questioned 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 Office of Public Housing instruct the Authority to reimburse HUD for the excessive administrative fee charge of $692,990 in capital funds in accordance with the procedures described in 24 CFR 905.120.
2007-CH-1005 | Marzo 23, 2007
The Housing Authority of the City of Gary, Indiana, Lacked Adequate Controls over Refunding Savings
Public and Indian Housing
2007-CH-1005-001-A
$913,365Questioned 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 Cleveland Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to support that the $913,365 in refunding savings cited in this finding was used to provide affordable, decent, safe, and sanitary housing to very low-income households or reimburse from nonfederal funds its refunding savings account(s), as appropriate, to be able to trace its use of the savings.
2007-CH-1002 | Enero 24, 2007
Benton Harbor Housing Commission, Benton Harbor, Michigan, Did Not Effectively Manage Its Public Housing Program and Has Not Used Special Purpose Grant Funds It Received More Than Nine Years Ago
Public and Indian Housing
2007-CH-1002-002-A
$166,782Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to provide supporting documentation or reimburse its program $166,782 from nonfederal funds for the unsupported operating subsidies related to the 51 household files cited in this finding.
2006-CH-1018 | Septiembre 28, 2006
Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, Michigan Improperly Used Public Housing Funds to Purchased Property
Public and Indian Housing
2006-CH-1018-001-A
$535,903Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to Reimburse its program $535,903 from nonfederal funds ($507,860 for the property purchase plus $28,043 for legal costs) for the improper use of program funds to pay for the property’s acquisition costs.
2006-PH-1013 | Septiembre 18, 2006
The Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, Did not Ensure HOME Funds Were Disbursed and Used in Accordance with Federal Regulations
Community Planning and Development
2006-PH-1013-001-B
$150,000Questioned 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 the Commonwealth to provide documentation to substantiate the eligibility of $150,000 provided to Southampton or repay the HOME program from nonfederal funds.
2006-BO-0001 | Junio 11, 2006
HUD Incorrectly Approved $42 Million in Operating Subsidies for Phase-Down for Demolition Add-On Funding
Public and Indian Housing
2006-BO-0001-001-B
$17,891,782Questioned 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.
Obtain and review support (as identified in recommendation 1D) for $15.1 million in unsupported phase-down funding in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, determine the correct amount of phase-down funding, and require the public housing agencies to reimburse HUD for any ineligible funding received.
2006-BO-0001-001-C
$32,864,306Questioned 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.
For the overpayments of phase-down funding identified in appendix C, recover $20.6 million in ineligible phase-down funding requests from the public housing agencies for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
2006-CH-1010 | Mayo 18, 2006
Benton Harbor Housing Commission Public Housing Capital Fund Program, Benton Harbor, Michigan
Public and Indian Housing
2006-CH-1010-001-A
$206,224Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to provide documentation to support the $206,224 in unsupported program disbursements cited in this finding or reimburse its program from nonfederal funds for the applicable amount.
2005-CH-1020 | Septiembre 29, 2005
Housing Authority of the City of Gary Section 8 Housing Program, Gary, IN
Public and Indian Housing
2005-CH-1020-004-A
$812,967Questioned 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 Public Housing Hub, Cleveland Field Office, require the Authority to provide support or reimburse its Section 8 program $812,967 ($738,708 in housing assistance payments plus $74,259 in related administrative fees) from nonfederal funds for unsupported housing assistance payments and unearned administrative fees related to the 65 tenants cited in this finding.
2005-AT-1013 | Septiembre 15, 2005
Corporacion para el Fomento EcoNmico de la Ciudad Capital, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Did not Administer Its Independent Capital Fund in Accordance with HUD Requirements.
Community Planning and Development
2005-AT-1013-002-A
$1,011,801Questioned 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 the Municipality to obtain and submit all supporting documentation and HUD determine the eligibility and propriety of $1,011,801 in administrative costs the Corporation charged to the Block Grant revolving fund. Any amounts determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the Block Grant program from nonfederal funds.