Repay the project from non-project funds $99,160 for ineligible personal health insurance expenses of the owner.
2017-LA-1004 | Junio 13, 2017
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
Housing
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-GOpenClosed$99,160Questioned 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-LA-1004-001-HOpenClosed$4,179Questioned 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 project from non-project funds $4,179 for excessive bank fees.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-IOpenClosed$1,352Questioned 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 project from non-project funds $1,352 for expenses related to the identity-of-interest hair salon.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-JOpenClosed
Obtain approval from HUD for a lease agreement with the hair salon.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-KOpenClosed$65,232Questioned 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 support that $65,232 in disbursements was used on reasonable and necessary operating expenses or repay the project from non-project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-LOpenClosed$620,937Questioned 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.
Pay the project $620,937 in uncollected rent from non-project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-MOpenClosed$162,462Questioned 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.
Pay the project from non-project funds $162,462 in lease agreement charges not deposited into Cypress Meadows’ bank account.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-NOpenClosed
Remove Skyline Crest Enterprises, LLC, as the operator and replace it with a HUD-approved independent operator.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-OOpenClosed
Develop and implement written policies and procedures for the management of the project, including but not limited to financial policies for cash disbursements, cash receipts, and documentation requirements.
2017-KC-0005 | Junio 12, 2017
Owners of Cooperative Housing Properties Generally Charged More for Their Section 8 Units Than for Their Non-Section 8 Units
Housing
- Status2017-KC-0005-001-AOpenClosed$3,144,894Funds 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.
Create and implement policies and procedures or change program regulations to prevent multifamily housing properties from charging more for Section 8 units than for comparable non-Section 8 units. For the 25 properties reviewed, this measure would prevent as much as $3,144,894 of Section 8 funds from subsidizing non-Section 8 units in the next year.
2017-AT-1006 | Junio 09, 2017
The Housing Authority of DeKalb County, Decatur, GA, Generally Administered RAD Appropriately but Did Not Accurately Report on Its Capital Fund Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-AOpenClosed$542,289Funds 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.
Deobligate $542,289 in fiscal year 2015 capital funds in HUD’s system until binding agreements are executed for eligible and reasonable purposes, or coordinate with HUD for terminating its funding.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-BOpenClosed$398,022Funds 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.
Reclassify $398,022 in fiscal year 2016 capital funds as authorized in HUD’s system to an eligible and reasonable activity, or coordinate with HUD for terminating its funding.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-COpenClosed$217,553Funds 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.
Coordinate with HUD for terminating the allocation of the remaining $217,553 funds given the Authority’s current intentions to not build or purchase public housing units.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-DOpenClosed
Develop and implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that the reporting of allocated capital funds in HUD’s system is accurate.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-EOpenClosed
Provide adequate training to staff responsible for making entries into HUD’s system to ensure accurate reporting on allocated funds. The training should include but not be limited to ensuring that its staff understands all of HUD’s reporting requirements for obligations and authorizations.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-FOpenClosed
Confirm the replacement of program units was appropriate for the number of units demolished at Johnson Ferry East, and submit a development proposal to construct new public housing units, transfer public housing assistance to another public housing agency, or terminate its annual contributions contract and return all unobligated and unexpended capital funds to HUD.
2017-PH-1004 | Junio 09, 2017
The Loudoun County Department of Family Services, Leesburg, VA, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-PH-1004-001-AOpenClosed
Certify, along with the owners of the 11 units cited in this finding, that the applicable housing quality standards violations have been corrected.
- Status2017-PH-1004-001-BOpenClosed$9,715Questioned 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 $9,715 from non-Federal funds ($9,660 for housing assistance payments and $55 in associated administrative fees) for the unit that materially failed to meet HUD’s housing quality standards.
- Status2017-PH-1004-001-COpenClosed
Provide training to its inspectors on conducting housing quality standards inspections.
2017-KC-0004 | Junio 02, 2017
CPD Did Not Follow the Departmental Clearance Process When It Issued the July 25, 2013, Guidance for Duplication of Benefits Requirements
Office of the Secretary
- Status2017-KC-0004-001-COpenClosed
Develop improved procedures and provide training to appropriate staff regarding the departmental clearance process requirements, including • Determining which guidance is considered to be a directive, including public communications, and • Ensuring that HUD program participants have clear, instructive, and helpful information to comply with the applicable requirements and procedures for HUD programs.