Provide procurement training to its staff members who work on CDBG program activities and ensure that staff members comply with HUD requirements and use its current procurement policy.
2018-LA-1006 | Julio 25, 2018
The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, Sacramento, CA, Did Not Always Use Community Development Block Grant Funds in Accordance with HUD Requirements or Its Own Policies
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-FOpenClosed
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-GOpenClosed$55,200Questioned 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 that the entrepreneur center feasibility study met a final cost objective or repay its program $55,200 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-HOpenClosed$283Questioned 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 $283 from non-Federal funds for unallowable bottled water costs.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-IOpenClosed$141Questioned 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.
Review all invoices provided from its minor repair subrecipient between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, and repay the program from non-Federal funds for all bottled water service payments not identified in this audit report.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-JOpenClosed
Provide training to its employees regarding allowable costs to ensure that all costs submitted by contractors and subrecipients are eligible for reimbursement.
2017-OE-0014 | Julio 24, 2018
HUD’s Oversight of the Alexander County Housing Authority
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-OE-0014-01OpenClosed
Create agreements and strategies with other program offices that describe when cross-programmatic reviews and enforcement actions against PHAs are required.
- Status2017-OE-0014-02OpenClosed
Train PIH officials on the authority and processes for declaring PHAs in substantial default and for taking PHAs into HUD possession.
- Status2017-OE-0014-03OpenClosed
Update and strengthen the training program for HUD receivers of PHAs.
- Status2017-OE-0014-04OpenClosed
Update procedures for receiverships to include specific guidance on when initiating a receivership may be appropriate.
2018-FW-0002 | Julio 23, 2018
Final Audit Report - HUD’s Office of Block Grant Assistance Had Not Codified the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-FW-0002-001-AOpenClosed
We recommend that the Acting Director of OBGA work with HUD’s Office of General Counsel to create a codified Disaster Recovery program.
2018-AT-1009 | Julio 23, 2018
The Pell City Housing Authority, Pell City, AL, Did Not Always Administer Its and the Ragland Housing Authority, Ragland, AL’s Funds in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-AOpenClosed$1,188Questioned 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.
The Pell City Housing Authority to reimburse its public housing fund from non-Federal funds $1,188 for payments made for ineligible credit card expenditures.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-BOpenClosed$12,874Questioned 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.
The Pell City Housing Authority to support or reimburse its public housing fund $12,874 ($4,709 $8,165) for unsupported disbursements.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-COpenClosed
The Pell City Housing Authority to fully implement adequate internal controls over its credit card purchases and disbursements to ensure that it complies with Federal requirements and its own policies and procedures.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-DOpenClosed
The Pell City Housing Authority to revise its policies and procedures for its review of expenditures to ensure that its board of commissioners documents its enforcement of and the Authority’s compliance with the requirements during its review process to ensure that the Authority’s disbursements are supported and used for eligible expenditures.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-EOpenClosed
The Pell City Housing Authority’s board of commissioners to receive training to ensure the proper review and approval of expenditures and to understand the requirements relevant to the Authority’s financial operations.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-FOpenClosed$105Questioned 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.
The Ragland Housing Authority to reimburse its public housing fund from non-Federal funds $105 for credit card payments made for ineligible expenditures.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-GOpenClosed$31,580Questioned 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.
The Ragland Housing Authority to support or reimburse its public housing fund $31,580 ($1,320 $11,887 $18,373) for unsupported disbursements.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-HOpenClosed
The Ragland Housing Authority to develop and implement adequate internal controls over its credit card purchases and disbursements to ensure that it complies with Federal requirements and its own policies and procedures.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-IOpenClosed
The Ragland Housing Authority to develop and implement its own policies and procedures for its review of expenditures to ensure that its board of commissioners documents its enforcement of and the Authority’s compliance with the requirements during its review process to ensure that the Authority’s disbursements are supported and used for eligible expenditures.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-JOpenClosed
The Ragland Housing Authority’s board of commissioners to receive training to ensure the proper review and approval of expenditures and to understand the requirements relevant to the Authority’s financial operations.