We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its Capital Fund $127,050 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible payments cited in this finding.
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-1012-004-AOpenClosed$127,050Questioned 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.
- Status2011-CH-1012-004-BOpenClosed$107,692Questioned 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 operating fund $107,692 from non-Federal funds for ineligible payments cited in this finding.
2011-AO-0001 | Junio 22, 2011
The Lafayette Parish Housing Authority, Lafayette, LA, Violated HUD Procurement Requirements and Executed Unreasonable and Unnecessary Contracts
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2011-AO-0001-001-AOpenClosed$2,541,371Questioned 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 or repay from non-Federal funds any amounts that it cannot support, including $1,568,245 to its operating fund and $973,126 to its capital fund paid for (1) contracts that were improperly procured, (2) contract overpayments, or (3) contract payments made outside of the contract effective dates.
2011-NY-1010 | Abril 15, 2011
The City of Buffalo Did Not Always Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2011-NY-1010-001-BOpenClosed$162,923Questioned 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 reimburse from non-Federal funds $162,923 ($134,711 $28,212) expended on ineligible costs pertaining to street improvement projects not done and a duplicate reimbursement.
- Status2011-NY-1010-001-COpenClosed$1,982,988Questioned 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 further recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to provide documentation to justify the $1,982,988 in unsupported costs associated with street improvement expenditures incurred between June 2007 and October 2009. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
- Status2011-NY-1010-002-BOpenClosed$20,143,219Questioned 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 the City to provide documentation to justify the $20,143,219 ($4,902,754 $15,240,465) in unsupported transactions recorded in the CDBG program income account. Any receipts determined to be unrecorded program income should be returned to the CDBG program, and any expenditures determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
- Status2011-NY-1010-003-BOpenClosed$609,012Questioned 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 further recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to reimburse from non-Federal funds the $304,506 related to ineligible clean and seal code enforcement costs.
- Status2011-NY-1010-003-COpenClosed$716,622Questioned 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 further recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to provide documentation to justify the $716,622 ($545,607 $24,069 $146,946) in unsupported clean and seal costs incurred so that HUD can make an eligibility determination. Any costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
2011-PH-1005 | Diciembre 22, 2010
The District of Columbia, Washington DC, Did Not Administer Its HOME Program in Accordance With Federal Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2011-PH-1005-003-BOpenClosed$279,245Funds 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.
Deobligate $279,245 in available funds associated with the ineligible CHDO and reprogram the funds for other eligible HOME activities, thereby putting the funds to better use.
2010-AT-1010 | Agosto 23, 2010
The Housing Authority of DeKalb County Improperly Used Its Net Restricted Assets
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2010-AT-1010-001-BOpenClosed$2,591,854Questioned 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 reimburse the net restricted assets fund account from non-Federal funds the $2,583,244 or the current amount owed.
2010-AT-1003 | Abril 28, 2010
The Housing Authority of Whitesburg, Kentucky, Mismanaged Its Operations
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-DOpenClosed$134,889Questioned 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 account for $134,889 in tenant rent receipts or repay any unsupported amounts to its public housing operating program from nonfederal funds.
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-FOpenClosed$264,229Questioned 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 provide support for $264,229 in disbursements or repay any unsupported costs to its public housing operating and capital improvement program from nonfederal funds.
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-GOpenClosed$2,250Questioned 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 reimburse its public housing program $2,250 for ineligible costs using non-federal funds.
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-HOpenClosed$27,097Questioned 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 the $27,097 in unreasonable costs or reimburse its public housing and capital improvement program from nonfederal funds.
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-IOpenClosed$446,918Questioned 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 provide support that $446,918 in contracts were fairly and openly competed or reimburse its public housing and capital improvement program from nonfederal funds.
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-JOpenClosed$275,282Questioned 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 provide support for the $275,282 in capital fund drawdowns or reimburse its capital improvement program from nonfederal funds.
2009-NY-1011 | Mayo 15, 2009
North Hempstead Housing Authority, Great Neck, New York, Had Weaknesses in Its Housing Choice Voucher and Family Self-Sufficiency Programs
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2009-NY-1011-002-GOpenClosed$50,237Questioned 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, Office of Public Housing, New York, instruct Authority officials to seek repayment of $50,237 in ineligible housing assistance payments.
2008-CH-1006 | Abril 15, 2008
The Indianapolis Housing Agency, Indianapolis, Indiana, Did Not Effectively Operate Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2008-CH-1006-002-EOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Cleveland Office of Public Housing require the Agency to determine the appropriate administrative fees for the applicable households for which it is unable to provide supporting documentation cited in recommendation 2D and reimburse its program the applicable amount from nonfederal funds.
2007-NY-1006 | Mayo 24, 2007
Housing Authority of the City of Asbury Park, New Jersey
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2007-NY-1006-001-AOpenClosed$692,990Questioned 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 Office of Public Housing instruct the Authority to reimburse HUD for the excessive administrative fee charge of $692,990 in capital funds in accordance with the procedures described in 24 CFR 905.120.
2007-CH-1005 | Marzo 23, 2007
The Housing Authority of the City of Gary, Indiana, Lacked Adequate Controls over Refunding Savings
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2007-CH-1005-001-AOpenClosed$913,365Questioned 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 Cleveland Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to support that the $913,365 in refunding savings cited in this finding was used to provide affordable, decent, safe, and sanitary housing to very low-income households or reimburse from nonfederal funds its refunding savings account(s), as appropriate, to be able to trace its use of the savings.