Provide documentation to support program accomplishment data related to disbursements totaling $292,611 or repay HUD from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support.
2016-PH-1006 | Agosto 31, 2016
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Administer Its Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency Program in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-PH-1006-001-AOpenClosed$292,611Questioned 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.
2016-AT-1012 | Agosto 29, 2016
The Municipality of Bayamon, PR, Did Not Always Ensure Compliance With HUD Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2016-AT-1012-001-AOpenClosed
Complete the implementation of the new accounting system and ensure it tracks program funds to a level that supports compliance with HUD requirements.
- Status2016-AT-1012-001-BOpenClosed$944,687Questioned 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 that $944,687 (Footnote 2: Emergency funds of more than $1.1 million drawn between July 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015, were adjusted to consider $158,800 questioned in recommendation 1C and $38,164 questioned in recommendation 1D.) in Emergency funds drawn from HUD is reconciled with the accounting records and that such funds have not been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes or reimburse the Emergency programs from non-Federal funds.
- Status2016-AT-1012-001-COpenClosed$189,227Questioned 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 $189,227 to the Emergency programs from non-Federal funds for ineligible charges made to the programs.
- Status2016-AT-1012-001-DOpenClosed$38,164Questioned 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.
Submit supporting documentation showing the eligibility, reasonableness, and allocability of $38,164 charged to the Emergency programs for unsupported drawdowns and equipment cost allocations or reimburse the programs from non-Federal funds.
2016-AT-1008 | Julio 19, 2016
The Sanford Housing Authority, Sanford, NC, Did Not Comply With Procurement and Financial Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-AT-1008-001-AOpenClosed$408,958Questioned 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 cost reasonableness of the nine contracts or reimburse $408,958 to the appropriate Operating Fund, Capital Fund, and Housing Choice Voucher programs from non-Federal funds.
2016-PH-0001 | Junio 30, 2016
HUD Did Not Always Provide Adequate Oversight of Property Acquisition and Disposition Activities
Community Planning and Development
- Status2016-PH-0001-001-AOpenClosed$4,959,911Questioned 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.
Direct the New Orleans, LA, field office to enforce its monitoring findings and require the grantee to provide documentation to support costs totaling $4,959,911 or the grantee must reimburse its program from non-Federal funds for any costs that it cannot support.
- Status2016-PH-0001-001-BOpenClosed$1,161,616Questioned 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.
Enforce the Miami, FL, field office’s monitoring findings and require the grantee to provide documentation to support costs totaling $1,161,616 or the grantee must reimburse its program from non-Federal funds for any costs that it cannot support.
- Status2016-PH-0001-001-EOpenClosed$1,766,778Questioned 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.
Direct the Washington, DC, field office to require the grantee to provide documentation to support the $1,766,778 in unsupported payments identified or the grantee must reimburse its program from non-Federal funds for any costs that it cannot support.
- Status2016-PH-0001-001-FOpenClosed$4,214Questioned 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.
Direct the Washington, DC, field office to require the grantee to repay its program $4,214 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible costs associated with activity 1515.
- Status2016-PH-0001-001-GOpenClosed
Direct field offices to include property acquisition and disposition activities as an area of special emphasis when assessing grantee risk and establishing their monitoring plans and grantee monitoring strategies.
2016-NY-1007 | Marzo 30, 2016
The City of Jersey City, NJ’s Community Development Block Grant Program Had Administrative and Financial Control Weaknesses
Community Planning and Development
- Status2016-NY-1007-001-AOpenClosed$11,532,769Funds 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 City officials to reimburse the City’s CDBG local bank account for the $11,532,769 in uncollected program income generated from the disposition of real property previously assisted with CDBG funds, thus ensuring that these funds can be used for eligible activities.
- Status2016-NY-1007-001-EOpenClosed$148,000Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to support whether $148,000 in CDBG program income was generated from the disposition of real properties acquired with CDBG funds so that HUD can determine eligibility. Any recognized program income should be reimbursed to the City’s local bank account and recorded in IDIS, thus ensuring that these funds can be put to better use.
- Status2016-NY-1007-001-IOpenClosed$1,475,674Funds 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 City officials to record the mortgages on the five CDBG-assisted properties that were demolished and acquired with CDBG assistance of $1,475,674, thus ensuring that these properties are administered in compliance with program requirements.
- Status2016-NY-1007-001-JOpenClosed$270,959Questioned 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 City officials to provide documentation, such as proof of advertising, bids received, bid analysis reports, cost estimates, contracts, and other applicable records, to support compliance with Federal procurement regulations in the awarding of the five contracts.
- Status2016-NY-1007-001-KOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to support compliance with Federal procurement regulations when contracts were awarded to the three single bidders.
- Status2016-NY-1007-001-LOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to support the eligibility of the three tenants occupying low- to moderate-income housing units at a residential property assisted with CDBG funds.
- Status2016-NY-1007-001-NOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to support that those laborers employed by the four contractors are compensated in accordance with Davis-Bacon wage rates. If documentation cannot be provided, the City’s line of credit should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds for disbursements made to the four contractors.
- Status2016-NY-1007-001-POpenClosed$30,600Questioned 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 City officials to provide documentation to support the income eligibility of the homeowner who received $30,600 in CDBG funds related to the rebate program. If documentation cannot be provided, the City’s CDBG program line of credit should be reimbursed $30,600 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2016-NY-1007-001-ROpenClosed$9,730Questioned 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 City officials to reimburse $9,730 from non-Federal funds to the City’s CDBG program line of credit for the ineligible homeowner rehabilitation assistance provided that exceeded the subsidy limit.