Establish and implement procedures to reassess the management and bookkeeping fees periodically to ensure that they are reasonable. HUD should retain the documentation justifying the calculation of the rates.
2014-LA-0004 | Junio 30, 2014
HUD Could Not Support the Reasonableness of the Operating and Capital Fund Programs’ Fees and Did Not Adequately Monitor Central Office Cost Centers
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2014-LA-0004-001-COpenClosed
- Status2014-LA-0004-001-HOpenClosed
Develop, document, and implement written procedures to ensure that fees charged to the asset management projects and Capital Fund program and expenses from the central office cost center are used to support HUD’s mission.
2014-AT-1005 | Mayo 29, 2014
The City of Huntsville Community Planning and Development Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnerships Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2014-AT-1005-001-AOpenClosed$1,183,642Questioned 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 $1,183,642 in HOME and CHDO funds to the HOME Investment Trust Fund treasury account from non-Federal funds.
2014-FW-1002 | Mayo 27, 2014
The Truth or Consequences Housing Authority’s Financial Controls Were Not Adequate To Ensure That It Used Its Low-Rent Funds Appropriately
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2014-FW-1002-001-BOpenClosed$178,893Questioned 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.
Discontinue using its low-rent public housing fund as a general fund to pay costs associated with its business activities until it has established appropriate controls.
2014-NY-1004 | Mayo 20, 2014
The City of Elmira, NY, Did Not Always Administer Its CDBG Program in Accordance with HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2014-NY-1004-001-GOpenClosed$597,048Questioned 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 Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to support the reasonableness and eligibility of the administrative program delivery costs charged to the CDBG program, including $597,048 in program delivery costs that could have been allocated to the State program, and repay the CDBG program from non-Federal funds any amounts determined to be unreasonable or ineligible.
2014-ITED-0001 | Abril 30, 2014
HUD Privacy Program Evaluation Report
Chief Information Officer
- Status2014-ITED-0001-32OpenClosedSensitiveSensitive
Sensitive information refers to information that could have a damaging import if released to the public and, therefore, must be restricted from public disclosure.
The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.
2014-FW-1802 | Marzo 31, 2014
The Management of the Housing Authority of the City of Nixon, Nixon, TX, Did Not Exercise Adequate Oversight and Allowed Ineligible and Unsupported Costs
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2014-FW-1802-001-BOpenClosed$109,861Questioned 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 the Authority to support or repay its various program accounts $109,861 from nonfederal funds for unsupported payroll, other compensation, bonuses, travel, supplies, contractor payments and petty cash disbursements.
2014-AT-1801 | Marzo 20, 2014
Vieques Sports City Complex, Office of the Commissioner for Municipal Affairs, San Juan, PR, Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2014-AT-1801-001-BOpenClosed$10,838,880Questioned 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 all supporting documentation associated with the $10,838,880 (Footnote 13) Total disbursements of $10,876,095 were adjusted to consider $37,215 questioned in recommendation 1D. in State CDBG, Section 108, and program income proceeds disbursed for the development of the sports complex, if HUD determines the plan to be feasible (recommendation 1A). HUD must determine the eligibility, reasonableness, and allocability of the funds disbursed. OCMA must reimburse its State CDBG program from non-Federal funds any amount determined ineligible.
- Status2014-AT-1801-001-DOpenClosed$37,215Questioned 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 and propriety of $37,215 drawn from HUD or reimburse the State CDBG program from non-Federal funds.
2014-NY-0001 | Febrero 18, 2014
HUD Did Not Provide Effective Oversight of Section 202 Multifamily Project Refinances
Housing
- Status2014-NY-0001-001-BOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director, Office of Multifamily Asset Management, require that each Hub or field office review its refinanced Section 202/223(f) projects for debt service savings amounts, utilizing data provided from this audit for possible additional debt service savings. Where legally possible each Hub or field office should identify, account for by project, and use these amounts for current and future opportunities benefiting tenants or to fund reductions in housing assistance payments.
2014-FO-0003 | Diciembre 15, 2013
Additional Details To Supplement Our Report on HUD’s Fiscal Years 2013 and 2012 (Restated) Financial Statements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2014-FO-0003-002-COpenClosed
Implement a cost-effective method for automating the cash management process to include an electronic interface of transactions to the standard general ledger.
Chief Financial Officer
- Status2014-FO-0003-002-EOpenClosed
Review the cash management process to identify all financial events to be recognized in accordance with GAAP. Establish procedures to account for the cash management activity in a timely manner in compliance with GAAP.
- Status2014-FO-0003-002-GOpenClosed
Ensure that PIH’s automation of its cash management process complies with Federal financial management requirements.
2013-CH-1011 | Septiembre 30, 2013
The Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Lansing, MI, Did Not Follow HUD’s Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Program
Housing
- Status2013-CH-1011-001-AOpenClosed$31,148,477Funds 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 Detroit Office of Multifamily Housing Programs require the Authority to ensure that $31,148,477 in residual receipts for the 15 projects as of May 31, 2013, is used to reduce or offset housing assistance payments in accordance with HUD’s requirements.
- Status2013-CH-1011-002-AOpenClosed$608,337Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Multifamily Housing Programs require the Authority to reimburse the U.S. Treasury $608,337 ($77,856 436,759 $93,722) for the three projects with terminated program contracts.
- Status2013-CH-1011-002-COpenClosed$12,830Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Multifamily Housing Programs require the Authority to reimburse the U.S. Treasury $12,830 from non-Federal funds for the lost interest.
2013-NY-1010 | Septiembre 26, 2013
The City of Auburn, NY Community Development Block Grant Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-NY-1010-001-AOpenClosed$2,451,645Funds 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 Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to expend or reprogram to other eligible program activities the $2,451,645 in CDBG program income maintained in the City’s community development bank accounts as of June 30, 2013, so the City can assure HUD that these funds have been put to better use.
- Status2013-NY-1010-001-DOpenClosed$177,923Questioned 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 Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to Provide documentation to justify the $177,923 unsupported difference between the City’s CDBG program income balance in IDIS and its bank account balances as of June 30, 2013. Any portion of the unsupported difference determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
2013-LA-1010 | Septiembre 20, 2013
The City of Hawthorne, CA, Did Not Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program Cost Allocations in Accordance With HUD Rules and Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-LA-1010-001-AOpenClosed$1,628,130Questioned 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 adequate supporting documentation for the $1,628,130 in unsupported salary and benefit costs or repay the CDBG program from non-Federal funds.
2013-LA-1009 | Septiembre 13, 2013
The City of Hawthorne, CA, Inappropriately Used Nearly $1.6 Million in HOME Funds for Section 8 Tenants
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-LA-1009-001-AOpenClosed$1,595,113Questioned 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 HOME program $1,595,113 from non-Federal funds for HOME funds that were inappropriately used on Section 8 housing assistance payments.