Reimburse $189,227 to the Emergency programs from non-Federal funds for ineligible charges made to the programs.
2016-AT-1012 | Agosto 29, 2016
The Municipality of Bayamon, PR, Did Not Always Ensure Compliance With HUD Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
2016-AT-1012-001-C
$189,227Questioned 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.
2016-AT-1012-001-D
$38,164Questioned 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.
Submit supporting documentation showing the eligibility, reasonableness, and allocability of $38,164 charged to the Emergency programs for unsupported drawdowns and equipment cost allocations or reimburse the programs from non-Federal funds.
2016-PH-0001 | Junio 30, 2016
HUD Did Not Always Provide Adequate Oversight of Property Acquisition and Disposition Activities
Community Planning and Development
2016-PH-0001-001-A
$4,959,911Questioned 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.
Direct the New Orleans, LA, field office to enforce its monitoring findings and require the grantee to provide documentation to support costs totaling $4,959,911 or the grantee must reimburse its program from non-Federal funds for any costs that it cannot support.
2016-PH-0001-001-B
$1,161,616Questioned 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.
Enforce the Miami, FL, field office’s monitoring findings and require the grantee to provide documentation to support costs totaling $1,161,616 or the grantee must reimburse its program from non-Federal funds for any costs that it cannot support.
2016-PH-0001-001-E
$1,766,778Questioned 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.
Direct the Washington, DC, field office to require the grantee to provide documentation to support the $1,766,778 in unsupported payments identified or the grantee must reimburse its program from non-Federal funds for any costs that it cannot support.
2016-PH-0001-001-F
$4,214Questioned 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.
Direct the Washington, DC, field office to require the grantee to repay its program $4,214 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible costs associated with activity 1515.
2016-PH-0001-001-G
Direct field offices to include property acquisition and disposition activities as an area of special emphasis when assessing grantee risk and establishing their monitoring plans and grantee monitoring strategies.
2016-NY-1007 | Marzo 30, 2016
The City of Jersey City, NJ’s Community Development Block Grant Program Had Administrative and Financial Control Weaknesses
Community Planning and Development
2016-NY-1007-001-A
$11,532,769Funds 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to reimburse the City’s CDBG local bank account for the $11,532,769 in uncollected program income generated from the disposition of real property previously assisted with CDBG funds, thus ensuring that these funds can be used for eligible activities.
2016-NY-1007-001-E
$148,000Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to support whether $148,000 in CDBG program income was generated from the disposition of real properties acquired with CDBG funds so that HUD can determine eligibility. Any recognized program income should be reimbursed to the City’s local bank account and recorded in IDIS, thus ensuring that these funds can be put to better use.
2016-NY-1007-001-I
$1,475,674Funds 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to record the mortgages on the five CDBG-assisted properties that were demolished and acquired with CDBG assistance of $1,475,674, thus ensuring that these properties are administered in compliance with program requirements.
2016-NY-1007-001-J
$270,959Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation, such as proof of advertising, bids received, bid analysis reports, cost estimates, contracts, and other applicable records, to support compliance with Federal procurement regulations in the awarding of the five contracts.
2016-NY-1007-001-K
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to support compliance with Federal procurement regulations when contracts were awarded to the three single bidders.
2016-NY-1007-001-L
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to support the eligibility of the three tenants occupying low- to moderate-income housing units at a residential property assisted with CDBG funds.
2016-NY-1007-001-N
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to support that those laborers employed by the four contractors are compensated in accordance with Davis-Bacon wage rates. If documentation cannot be provided, the City’s line of credit should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds for disbursements made to the four contractors.
2016-NY-1007-001-P
$30,600Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to support the income eligibility of the homeowner who received $30,600 in CDBG funds related to the rebate program. If documentation cannot be provided, the City’s CDBG program line of credit should be reimbursed $30,600 from non-Federal funds.
2016-NY-1007-001-R
$9,730Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to reimburse $9,730 from non-Federal funds to the City’s CDBG program line of credit for the ineligible homeowner rehabilitation assistance provided that exceeded the subsidy limit.
2016-NY-1007-001-S
$83Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to reimburse $83 from non-Federal funds to the City’s CDBG program line of credit for disbursements made for the two contracts exceeding 10 percent of the cost estimate.
2016-NY-1007-002-B
$100,982Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to reimburse the City’s CDBG program line of credit for $100,982, which was used to pay costs that had been paid with CDBG program income, thus ensuring that these funds can be used for eligible activities.
2016-NY-1801 | Febrero 10, 2016
The City of Jersey City’s Administration of Its Lead Paint Activities Did Not Comply With Federal and New Jersey State Requirements
Community Planning and Development
2016-NY-1801-001-B
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to collect and test lead dust samples from the floors and window sills of the 27 homeowner units that received CDBG funds in program years 2012 and 2013 to ensure that the lead dust does not exceed the allowable lead dust standards. If the tests reveal the existence of excessive lead dust, City officials need to reduce the lead dust to the allowable limit, or reimburse the City’s CDBG line of credit from non-Federal funds for disbursements previously made to repair those 27 units.
2016-NY-1003 | Febrero 04, 2016
The City of Rochester, NY Did Not Always Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
2016-NY-1003-001-A
$153,279Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to reimburse from non-Federal funds $153,279 spent on ineligible costs for duplicate and preaward costs of an economic development loan ($99,616), non-Federal City salary costs ($46,324), and duplicate subrecipient costs ($7,339).