We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to reconcile the County’s carryover balance of HOME match as of September 30, 2015, for the ineligible HOME match contributions and the understated HOME match contributions.
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
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-NOpenClosedClosed on Noviembre 18, 2019
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-OOpenClosedClosed on Julio 11, 2018$92,557Funds 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to disburse the $92,557 to pay eligible HOME costs before making additional drawdowns from LOCCS.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-POpenClosedClosed on Enero 23, 2020
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to strengthen the County’s financial controls over reconciling bank records to ensure that HOME funds in the local bank account are spent before drawdowns are made from LOCCS.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-QOpenClosed
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.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-ROpenClosed$260,736Questioned 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 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.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-SOpenClosedClosed on Enero 23, 2020
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to strengthen the County’s administrative controls to ensure that County staff adequately monitors its subgrantee for compliance with HOME program requirements and provide HOME program training to the County subgrantee’s staff.
2017-PH-1801 | Enero 05, 2017
Final Civil Action Borrower Settled Alleged Violations of Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Program
General Counsel
- Status2017-PH-1801-001-AOpenClosedClosed on Octubre 01, 2018$1,500Questioned 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 $1,500 represents an amount due HUD.
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
- Status2017-NY-1004-001-AOpenClosed$18,274,054Questioned 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 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.
- Status2017-NY-1004-001-BOpenClosed
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
- Status2017-KC-1001-001-AOpenClosed$17,414Questioned 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 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.
- Status2017-KC-1001-001-BOpenClosed$447,345Questioned 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 it paid itself $447,345 for eligible purposes or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
- Status2017-KC-1001-001-DOpenClosed
Verify all management fees charged to the projects from 2013 through 2015 were appropriate.
- Status2017-KC-1001-002-AOpenClosed$231,091Questioned 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.
Require Majestic Management to reimburse the appropriate projects their portion of $231,091 for work not completed or overbilled.
- Status2017-KC-1001-002-BOpenClosed$462,281Questioned 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.
Require Majestic Management to provide support that $462,281 paid for procurements was reasonable or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
- Status2017-KC-1001-003-AOpenClosed$11,184Questioned 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 the appropriate projects their portion of $11,184 that it charged for ineligible items.
- Status2017-KC-1001-003-BOpenClosed$48,891Questioned 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 $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
- Status2017-NY-1001-001-COpenClosed$32,107Questioned 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 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.
- Status2017-NY-1001-001-DOpenClosed$101,398Funds 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.
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.
- Status2017-NY-1001-002-COpenClosed$833,199Questioned 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 HUD’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs coordinate with the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control to provide technical assistance and instruct City officials to provide supporting documentation that lead-based paint testing was performed, identified hazards were removed, and clearance was achieved for the 41 properties for which homeowners received $833,199 in CDBG-DR assistance. If supporting documentation is not provided, City officials should repay the $833,199 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-NY-1001-002-DOpenClosed
We recommend that HUD’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs coordinate with the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control to provide technical assistance and instruct City officials to advise homeowners of their obligation under the terms of the reimbursement grant agreement to allow the Program to perform lead-based paint testing or hazard removal. Homeowners who refuse to allow the Program to complete lead hazard work or provide evidence that the property achieved clearance must repay the grant.