The Pell City Housing Authority to comply with conflict-of-interest requirements or obtain a waiver from HUD or its board of commissioners.
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-1009-002-AOpenClosed
- Status2018-AT-1009-002-BOpenClosed
The Pell City Housing Authority to develop and implement a policy for the review and approval of timesheets and credit card purchases, which ensures a proper segregation of duties and is approved by its board of commissioners.
- Status2018-AT-1009-003-AOpenClosed
The Pell City Housing Authority to fully implement procedures and controls to ensure that waiting list applicants are selected in accordance with HUD requirements.
- Status2018-AT-1009-003-BOpenClosed
The Ragland Housing Authority to fully implement procedures and controls to ensure that waiting list applicants are selected in accordance with HUD requirements.
2018-AT-1007 | Julio 13, 2018
The Pinellas County Housing Authority, Largo, FL, Generally Administered Its Rental Assistance Demonstration Conversion but Did Not Fully Comply With HUD’s Rent Reasonableness Determinations After Conversion
Housing
- Status2018-AT-1007-001-AOpenClosed$379Questioned 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 supporting documentation for subsequent review to show that it properly calculated relocation rental assistance payments for the 10 tenants and if there is an overpayment, reimburse the applicable RAD relocation account from non-Federal funds.
2018-AT-1006 | Julio 13, 2018
The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority, Lexington, KY, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-AT-1006-001-AOpenClosed$124,075Questioned 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 Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program $124,075 ($108,687 in housing assistance payments and $15,388 in associated administrative fees) from non-Federal funds for the payments related to the Authority-owned units’ inspections not conducted by an independent entity.
- Status2018-AT-1006-001-BOpenClosed
Ensure that HUD-approved independent third parties complete unit inspections and determine the rent reasonableness determinations for units it owns or seek an appropriate exemption of program requirements from the HUD Secretary.
- Status2018-AT-1006-001-COpenClosed
Provide adequate training to its staff to ensure compliance with Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program requirements for unit inspections and rent reasonableness determinations.
- Status2018-AT-1006-002-AOpenClosed$37,508Questioned 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 $37,508 ($33,085 in housing assistance payments and $4,423 in associated administrative fees) from non-Federal funds for failing to perform unit inspections in a timely manner.
- Status2018-AT-1006-002-BOpenClosed
Develop and implement procedures, including but not limited to software upgrades, and staff training to ensure that unit inspections are conducted in a timely manner.
- Status2018-AT-1006-002-COpenClosed
Develop and implement adequate oversight to ensure that unit inspections are conducted in a timely manner.
- Status2018-AT-1006-003-AOpenClosed$6,084Questioned 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 $6,084 ($5,553 in housing assistance payments and $531 in associated administrative fees) from non-Federal funds for the units that materially failed to meet HUD’s housing quality standards.
- Status2018-AT-1006-003-BOpenClosed
Certify, along with the owners of the 26 units cited in the finding, that the applicable housing quality standards violations have been corrected.
- Status2018-AT-1006-003-COpenClosed
Perform all required quality control housing quality standards inspections in compliance with its HUD-approved MTW plan, thus helping to ensure that its inspectors perform housing quality standards inspections in accordance with HUD’s requirements.
2018-AT-1008 | Julio 13, 2018
The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority, Lexington, KY, Did Not Fully Comply With HUD’s Program Requirements After the Completion of Its Rental Assistance Demonstration Program Conversion
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-AT-1008-001-AOpenClosed$443,204Questioned 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 Section 8 Project-Based Voucher program $443,204 ($394,190 in housing assistance payments and $49,014 in associated administrative fees) from nonproject funds for the payments related to the 206 Authority-owned units’ inspections not conducted by a HUD-approved independent entity and for compliance with housing quality standards for the period January 1, 2016, through August 5, 2016.
- Status2018-AT-1008-001-BOpenClosed
Ensure that HUD-approved independent third parties complete the unit inspections and determine the rent reasonableness for units it owns or seek an appropriate exemption of program requirements from the HUD Secretary.
- Status2018-AT-1008-001-COpenClosed
Ensure that in future RAD conversions, if any, unit inspections are conducted for compliance with HUD’s housing quality standards after rehabilitation and construction is completed and before tenants move in.
- Status2018-AT-1008-001-DOpenClosed
Provide adequate training to its staff to ensure compliance with Section 8 Project-Based Voucher program requirements for unit inspections and rent reasonableness determinations.
2018-LA-1005 | Julio 03, 2018
The City of Modesto, CA, Did Not Use Community Development Block Grant Funds in Accordance with HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-LA-1005-001-AOpenClosed$592,266Questioned 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 $592,266 spent on the HACS rental rehabilitation projects was reasonable or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1005-001-BOpenClosed$401,614Questioned 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 $401,614 spent on STANCO rental rehabilitation projects was reasonable and met one of HUD’s national objectives and that it completed an environmental review or repay the program from non-Federal funds.