We audited the City of Rochester’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to address our audit plan priority to improve financial management controls over CDBG grants. We selected this grantee based on a risk analysis of grantees administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Buffalo field office, which considered funds received and the risk score assigned by HUD. The City received more than $32.7 million in CDBG funds in program years 2011 through 2014. The audit objective was to determine whether City officials established and implemented adequate controls to ensure that the CDBG program was administered in accordance with applicable requirements.
City officials had not established and implemented adequate controls to ensure that CDBG funds were always administered in accordance with applicable requirements. Specifically, they did not always spend CDBG funds for eligible and supported costs, draw down and disburse Section 108 loan funds in a timely manner, make adequate efforts to collect a delinquent float loan, execute a procurement in compliance with Federal procurement regulations, and adequately monitor subrecipients. As a result, the City spent $153,279 and more than $8.1 million for ineligible and unsupported costs, respectively, and did not ensure that $1.5 million was spent for its intended use.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to (1) reimburse from non-Federal funds the $153,279 spent for ineligible costs, (2) provide documentation for the eligibility of $291,236 in unsupported costs, (3) justify the untimely drawdown and disbursement of more than $6.7 million of Section 108 loan funds, (4) reimburse the $1.5 million disbursed for a delinquent float loan through one of the options identified in HUD regulations, (5) support that a $1.2 million contract was fair and reasonable and that the sole-source method was appropriate, (6) develop and implement controls and comprehensive procedures to ensure the proper administration of the CDBG program, and (7) request CDBG program training from the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development field office.
Recommendations
Community Planning and Development
-
Status2016-NY-1003-001-AOpenClosed$153,279.00Questioned 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 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).
-
Status2016-NY-1003-001-COpenClosed$291,236.00Questioned 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 City officials to provide documentation to justify the $291,236 in unsupported costs related to disbursements made to the City’s public services subrecipient. Any costs determined to be inadequately supported should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
-
Status2016-NY-1003-001-EOpenClosed$6,724,820.00Questioned 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 City officials to provide documentation in the loan file that HUD approved the withdrawal of funds after the required deadline, and provide an explanation and obtain approval for the untimely disbursement of the $6,724,820 after it had been drawn down. Any costs determined to be inadequately supported should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
-
Status2016-NY-1003-001-FOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to strengthen controls to ensure compliance with Section 108 contract provisions and regulations requiring disbursement of funds in a timely manner after drawdown.
-
Status2016-NY-1003-001-GOpenClosed$1,500,000.00Funds 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to reimburse the $1,500,000 in CDBG funds spent for the delinquent float loan that defaulted in 1998 through one of the options identified in HUD regulations so that it can be closed out as bad debt, thereby making the funds available for use on other eligible activities.
-
Status2016-NY-1003-001-HOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to implement procedures to ensure that any future CDBG float-funded activities are administered in accordance with HUD regulations requiring that the annual action plan identify the float-funded activity and a commitment to undertake one of the options listed in the regulations if the funds are unable to be repaid within the required timeframe.
-
Status2016-NY-1003-001-IOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to develop and implement procedures to ensure that the City’s liens related to HUD-funded loans are not released without repayment or evidence of due diligence to address delinquent, outstanding loans.
-
Status2016-NY-1003-001-JOpenClosed$1,166,000.00Questioned 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 City officials to provide documentation to support that the $1,166,000 public facilities and improvements procurement contract price was fair and reasonable and that the sole-source method used was justified. Any costs determined not to be fair and reasonable should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
-
Status2016-NY-1003-001-KOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to implement procedures to ensure that all HUD-funded procurement is performed in accordance with regulations at 24 CFR 85.36, which require that sealed bid procurements be adequately advertised and involve at least two bids and that independent estimates be documented before bids or proposals are received.
-
Status2016-NY-1003-001-LOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to strengthen procedures over subrecipient monitoring to ensure that onsite visits are conducted for all CDBG subrecipients annually as specified in the agreements and that monitoring efforts are adequately tracked.