We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to adopt policies and procedures that contain current Federal and State guidance.
2017-FW-1008 | Junio 28, 2017
The Weslaco Housing Authority, Weslaco, TX, Paid Travel Costs That Did Not Comply With Federal, State, and Local Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
2017-FW-1008-001-D
Closed on Noviembre 22, 20172017-FW-1008-001-E
Closed on Noviembre 22, 2017We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide training to commissioners and employees on travel requirements and their responsibilities and duties.
2017-LA-1005 | Junio 16, 2017
The City of Huntington Park, CA, Did Not Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With Requirements
Community Planning and Development
2017-LA-1005-001-A
Closed on Agosto 18, 2020$7,323Questioned CostsRecommendations 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.
Repay the program $7,323 from non-Federal funds for ineligible code enforcement costs.
2017-LA-1005-001-B
$576,997Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 the $576,997 in code enforcement costs (activities 499, 512, and 531), including meeting code enforcement and cost allocation requirements, or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
2017-LA-1005-001-C
$328,918Funds Put to Better UseRecommendations 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.
Implement revised code enforcement program policies and procedures to meet CDBG requirements. This will help ensure that the remaining $328,918 budgeted for code enforcement activity 531 is put to better use.
2017-LA-1005-001-D
$110,000Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 the reasonableness of the $110,000 Graffiti Removal program (activities 504 and 520) cost allocations or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
2017-LA-1005-001-E
$31,186Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 the $31,186 After School program (activity 501) costs, including the reasonableness of the contract costs and meeting the limited clientele national objective, or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
2017-LA-1005-001-F
$95,736Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 the reasonableness of the $95,736 in cost allocations charged as CDBG administrative (activity 522) costs or repay the costs from non-Federal funds.
2017-LA-1005-001-G
Closed on Agosto 18, 2020Implement additional policies and procedures to ensure that salaries and wages and cost allocations are charged in compliance with HUD requirements.
2017-LA-1005-001-H
Closed on Agosto 18, 2020Implement additional procedures and controls to ensure that documentation is obtained to support that the limited clientele national objective was met.
2017-LA-1005-001-I
Closed on Julio 15, 2024Obtain training or technical assistance on CDBG program requirements.
2017-LA-1004 | Junio 13, 2017
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
General Counsel
2017-LA-1004-001-A
Closed on Mayo 29, 2019$15,000Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 legal sufficiency and if legally sufficient, pursue civil and administrative remedies against Cypress Meadows, LLC; Skyline Crest Enterprises, LLC; the project’s owner; or all three for inappropriately disbursing funds in violation of the project’s regulatory agreement, operating lease agreement, and HUD requirements.
2017-LA-1004-001-B
Closed on Septiembre 19, 2018Pursue appropriate civil money penalties and administrative actions, up to and including debarment, against Cypress Meadows LLC; Skyline Crest Enterprises LLC; the project’s owner; or all three for violating the project’s regulatory agreement, operating lease agreement, and HUD requirements.
Housing
2017-LA-1004-001-C
Closed on Febrero 01, 2018$263,289Questioned CostsRecommendations 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.
Repay the project from non-project funds $263,289 for ineligible salary expenses.
2017-LA-1004-001-D
Closed on Febrero 01, 2018$283,307Funds Put to Better UseRecommendations 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.
Remove $283,307 in ineligible accrued salary fees payable from its financial statements and records and ensure that these expenses are not accrued or paid for with project funds.
2017-LA-1004-001-E
Closed on Febrero 01, 2018$110,710Questioned CostsRecommendations 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.
Repay the project from non-project funds $110,710 for ineligible offsite accounting expenses.
2017-LA-1004-001-F
Closed on Febrero 01, 2018$129,416Funds Put to Better UseRecommendations 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.
Remove $129,416 in ineligible accrued offsite accounting fees payable from its financial statements and records and ensure that these expenses are not accrued or paid for with project funds.
2017-LA-1004-001-G
Closed on Febrero 01, 2018$99,160Questioned CostsRecommendations 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.
Repay the project from non-project funds $99,160 for ineligible personal health insurance expenses of the owner.
2017-LA-1004-001-H
Closed on Febrero 01, 2018$4,179Questioned CostsRecommendations 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.
Repay the project from non-project funds $4,179 for excessive bank fees.
2017-LA-1004-001-I
Closed on Febrero 01, 2018$1,352Questioned CostsRecommendations 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.
Repay the project from non-project funds $1,352 for expenses related to the identity-of-interest hair salon.