We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to provide supporting documentation or reimburse its program $17,008 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported payments cited in this finding.
2012-CH-1012 | Septiembre 27, 2012
The Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, MI, Did Not Always Administer Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2012-CH-1012-001-HOpenClosed$17,008Questioned 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.
2012-AT-1009 | Mayo 23, 2012
The Municipality of Bayamón, PR, Did Not Always Ensure Compliance With HOME Investment Partnerships Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2012-AT-1009-001-AOpenClosed$3,213,572Questioned 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 Municipality to develop and implement a financial management system in accordance with HUD requirements and ensure that $3,213,572 in HOME funds drawn from HUD between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2011, can be traced to a level which ensures that such funds have not been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes or reimburse the HOME program from non-Federal funds.(Footnote 2) Total disbursements of $3,523,723 were adjusted to consider $173,978 questioned in recommendation 1B, $86,567 questioned in recommendation 1D, and $49,606 questioned in recommendation 2B.
- Status2012-AT-1009-001-COpenClosed$114,139Questioned 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 Municipality to submit supporting documentation showing the allocability and eligibility of $114,139 charged to the HOME program for project delivery costs or reimburse the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2012-AT-1009-002-BOpenClosed$537,773Questioned 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.
Determine the eligibility of the $537,773 disbursed for the Ciudad de Ensueño project and reevaluate the feasibility of the activity. (Footnote 9) Total disbursements of $538,973 were adjusted to consider $1,200 questioned in recommendation 1F. The Municipality must reimburse its HOME program from non-Federal funds if HUD determines the activity to have been terminated.
2012-CH-1002 | Enero 25, 2012
The Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, MI, Did Not Administer Its Grant in Accordance With Recovery Act, HUD’s, and Its Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2012-CH-1002-006-AOpenClosed$11,289Questioned 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 Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse $11,289 (the difference between the contract paid price of $33,638 and the lesser calculated cost of $ 22,349) from non-Federal funds to HUD for transmission to the U.S. Treasury for the cost savings cited in this finding.
2012-LA-0001 | Noviembre 15, 2011
HUD Did Not Adequately Support the Reasonableness of the Fee-for-Service Amounts or Monitor the Amounts Charged
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2012-LA-0001-001-AOpenClosed
Establish and implement procedures to reassess the safe harbor percentage and rates periodically to ensure that they are reasonable. HUD should retain the documentation justifying the calculation of those percentages and rates. In addition, HUD should assess the feasibility of requiring the agencies to periodically justify and retain documentation showing the reasonableness of using the maximum rates, or lower them as appropriate.
2012-PH-0001 | Octubre 31, 2011
HUD Needed to Improve Its Use of Its Integrated Disbursement and Information System To Oversee Its Community Development Block Grant Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2012-PH-0001-001-BOpenClosed$66,849,658Questioned 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 responsible grantees to justify the use of $66,849,658 that it disbursed for cancelled Block Grant program activities or repay HUD from non-Federal funds.
2012-NY-1002 | Octubre 18, 2011
The City of New York, NY, Charged Questionable Expenditures to Its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2012-NY-1002-001-AOpenClosed$93,436Questioned 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 New York City Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to reimburse from non-Federal funds $93,436 for ineligible costs charged to HPRP; specifically, $59,430 related to payments for rental arrears over the 6-month eligibility requirement and $34,006 for payments issued directly to participants.
- Status2012-NY-1002-001-BOpenClosed$329,937Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York City Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to justify the $329,937 in unsupported salary costs incurred between June and September 2010. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
2011-AT-1018 | Septiembre 28, 2011
The Municipality of San Juan Did Not Properly Manage Its HOME Investment Partnerships Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2011-AT-1018-001-AOpenClosed$2,399,428Questioned 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.
Determine the eligibility of the $2,399,428 disbursed for four projects with signs of slow progress and reevaluate the feasibility of the activities. Total disbursements of $3,483,086 were adjusted to consider $713,008 questioned in recommendation 2C and $370,650 in recommendation 2A. The Municipality must reimburse its HOME program from non-Federal funds for activities that HUD determines to have been terminated.
- Status2011-AT-1018-001-COpenClosed$766,480Questioned 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 Municipality to reimburse its HOME program from non-Federal funds $766,480 for disbursements associated with terminated activities that did not meet HOME objectives.
- Status2011-AT-1018-002-BOpenClosed$46,213Questioned 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 Municipality to submit supporting documentation showing the allocability of $39,338 and any additional payroll costs charged to the HOME program between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2011, associated with the three employees performing other functions not related to the program, or reimburse the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2011-AT-1018-002-COpenClosed$4,629,347Questioned 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 Municipality to reimburse the HOME program from non-Federal funds $2,263,799 paid for ineligible costs.
- Status2011-AT-1018-002-DOpenClosed$2,854,395Funds 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.
Require the Municipality to put to better use $2,854,395 associated with unexpended funds maintained in its local bank account.
- Status2011-AT-1018-002-FOpenClosed$17,081Questioned 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 Municipality to update its accounting records and ensure that receipts and expenditures are properly accounted for, are reconciled with HUD’s information system, and comply with HUD requirements.
- Status2011-AT-1018-002-GOpenClosed
Require the Municipality to develop and implement a financial management system in accordance with HUD requirements, including that HOME funds can be traced to a level which ensures that such funds have not been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes and that funds are disbursed in a timely manner.
2011-CH-1012 | Agosto 09, 2011
The Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, MI, Did Not Fully Implement Prior Audit Recommendations and Continued To Use Its Public Housing Program Funds for Ineligible Purposes
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2011-CH-1012-002-AOpenClosed$1,539,629Questioned 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 Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its Capital Fund $1,539,629 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible payments cited in this finding.
- Status2011-CH-1012-002-BOpenClosed$411,288Questioned 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 Public Housing require the Commission to return the $411,228 in excess capital fund draws cited in this finding.
- Status2011-CH-1012-002-DOpenClosed$394,683Questioned 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 Public Housing require the Commission to provide supporting documentation or reimburse its Capital Fund $394,683 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported costs cited in this finding.
- Status2011-CH-1012-002-FOpenClosed$13,085Questioned 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 Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its Capital Fund $13,085 from non-Federal funds for the inappropriately earned interest cited in this finding.