We recommend that the Director, Office of Multifamily Asset Management, require that each Hub or field office review its refinanced Section 202/223(f) projects for debt service savings amounts, utilizing data provided from this audit for possible additional debt service savings. Where legally possible each Hub or field office should identify, account for by project, and use these amounts for current and future opportunities benefiting tenants or to fund reductions in housing assistance payments.
2014-NY-0001 | February 18, 2014
HUD Did Not Provide Effective Oversight of Section 202 Multifamily Project Refinances
Housing
- Status2014-NY-0001-001-BOpenClosed
2013-CH-1011 | September 30, 2013
The Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Lansing, MI, Did Not Follow HUD’s Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Program
Housing
- Status2013-CH-1011-001-AOpenClosed$31,148,477Funds 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 Detroit Office of Multifamily Housing Programs require the Authority to ensure that $31,148,477 in residual receipts for the 15 projects as of May 31, 2013, is used to reduce or offset housing assistance payments in accordance with HUD’s requirements.
- Status2013-CH-1011-002-AOpenClosed$608,337Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Multifamily Housing Programs require the Authority to reimburse the U.S. Treasury $608,337 ($77,856 436,759 $93,722) for the three projects with terminated program contracts.
- Status2013-CH-1011-002-COpenClosed$12,830Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Multifamily Housing Programs require the Authority to reimburse the U.S. Treasury $12,830 from non-Federal funds for the lost interest.
2004-BO-1002 | November 04, 2003
Family Living Adult Care Center FHA Project Number 024-22019 Biddeford and Saco, Maine
Housing
- Status2004-BO-1002-001-AOpenClosed$2,687,822Questioned 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.
Recover from owner $2,687,822, the difference between $3,662,822 owed to HUD by owner and $975,000 proceeds of foreclosure sale.
2002-PH-1005 | September 30, 2002
Philadelphia Regional Alliance of HUD Tenants, OTAG and ITAG, Philadelphia PA
Housing
- Status2002-PH-1005-001-COpenClosed$121,500Questioned 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.
Support unsupported expenditures of $60,750 that were drawn down for the grant. For any unsupported expenditures require grantee reimburse HUD.