Require the Municipality to submit supporting documentation showing the allocability of $39,338 and any additional payroll costs charged to the HOME program between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2011, associated with the three employees performing other functions not related to the program, or reimburse the program from non-Federal funds.
2011-AT-1018 | Septiembre 28, 2011
The Municipality of San Juan Did Not Properly Manage Its HOME Investment Partnerships Program
Community Planning and Development
2011-AT-1018-002-B
$46,213Questioned 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.
2011-AT-1018-002-C
$4,629,347Questioned 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.
Require the Municipality to reimburse the HOME program from non-Federal funds $2,263,799 paid for ineligible costs.
2011-AT-1018-002-D
$2,854,395Funds 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.
Require the Municipality to put to better use $2,854,395 associated with unexpended funds maintained in its local bank account.
2011-AT-1018-002-F
$17,081Questioned 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.
Require the Municipality to update its accounting records and ensure that receipts and expenditures are properly accounted for, are reconciled with HUD’s information system, and comply with HUD requirements.
2011-AT-1018-002-G
Require the Municipality to develop and implement a financial management system in accordance with HUD requirements, including that HOME funds can be traced to a level which ensures that such funds have not been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes and that funds are disbursed in a timely manner.
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
2011-CH-1012-002-A
$1,539,629Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its Capital Fund $1,539,629 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible payments cited in this finding.
2011-CH-1012-002-B
$411,288Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to return the $411,228 in excess capital fund draws cited in this finding.
2011-CH-1012-002-D
$394,683Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to provide supporting documentation or reimburse its Capital Fund $394,683 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported costs cited in this finding.
2011-CH-1012-002-F
$13,085Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its Capital Fund $13,085 from non-Federal funds for the inappropriately earned interest cited in this finding.
2011-CH-1012-003-A
$180,649Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its appropriate programs $180,649 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible payments cited in this finding.
2011-CH-1012-003-B
$30,236Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to provide supporting documentation or reimburse its appropriate programs $30,236 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported costs cited in this finding.
2011-CH-1012-004-A
$127,050Questioned 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 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-1012-004-B
$107,692Questioned 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 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
2011-AO-0001-001-A
$2,541,371Questioned 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 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
2011-NY-1010-001-B
$162,923Questioned 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 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.
2011-NY-1010-001-C
$1,982,988Questioned 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 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.
2011-NY-1010-002-B
$20,143,219Questioned 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 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.
2011-NY-1010-003-B
$609,012Questioned 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 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.
2011-NY-1010-003-C
$716,622Questioned 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 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
2011-PH-1005-003-B
$279,245Funds 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.
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.