Provide adequate training to its staff to ensure compliance with HUD’s requirements for program units.
Publication Report
2017-AT-1010 | August 04, 2017
The Louisville Metro Housing Authority, Louisville, KY, Did Not Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
We audited the Louisville Metro Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program based on our risk assessment of all Kentucky public housing agencies and as part of the activities in our annual audit plan. Our audit objective was to… moreRelated Recommendations
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-AT-1010-001-AOpenClosedClosed on March 15, 2019$70,992.00Questioned 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.
Reimburse the program $70,992 ($63,312 $7,680) from non-Federal funds for housing assistance payments made and administrative fees received for the units that materially failed to meet HUD’s housing quality standards.
Certify, along with the owners of the 103 units cited in the finding, that the applicable housing quality standards violations have been corrected.
Develop and implement adequate policies and procedures for conducting quality control inspections in accordance with HUD’s requirements.
- Status2017-AT-1010-001-DOpenClosedClosed on March 15, 2019$20,566,345.00Funds 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.
Develop and implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that its quality control inspection program functions properly to include adequately monitoring the inspection contractor to prevent $20,566,345 in program funds from being spent over the next year on units that do not materially comply with requirements.
- Status2017-AT-1010-002-AOpenClosedClosed on March 15, 2019$2,492.00Questioned 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.
Reimburse the program $2,492 ($2,286 in housing assistance payments and $206 in administrative fees received) from non-Federal funds for rental subsidies not abated on four units.
Complete a review of rental subsidy abatements for all current units for which a retroactive abatement was not conducted. The Authority should reimburse the program from non-Federal funds for any overpaid rental subsidy.
Develop and implement written procedures and a process for retroactively abating housing assistance payments.
Complete a rent reasonableness determination for all current units for which a determination was required but not completed. The Authority should reimburse the program from non-Federal funds for any overpaid rental subsidy.
Develop and implement written procedures to ensure that a rent reasonableness determination is performed before rent increases are approved.
Complete a review that owners of current assisted units are not debarred, suspended, or subject to a limited denial of participation.
Develop and implement written procedures for conducting a complete owner eligibility determination.