The Ragland Housing Authority to fully implement procedures and controls to ensure that waiting list applicants are selected in accordance with HUD requirements.
2018-AT-1009 | July 23, 2018
The Pell City Housing Authority, Pell City, AL, Did Not Always Administer Its and the Ragland Housing Authority, Ragland, AL’s Funds in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-AT-1009-003-BOpenClosed
2018-AT-1006 | July 13, 2018
The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority, Lexington, KY, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-AT-1006-001-AOpenClosed$124,075Questioned 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 its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program $124,075 ($108,687 in housing assistance payments and $15,388 in associated administrative fees) from non-Federal funds for the payments related to the Authority-owned units’ inspections not conducted by an independent entity.
- Status2018-AT-1006-001-BOpenClosed
Ensure that HUD-approved independent third parties complete unit inspections and determine the rent reasonableness determinations for units it owns or seek an appropriate exemption of program requirements from the HUD Secretary.
- Status2018-AT-1006-001-COpenClosed
Provide adequate training to its staff to ensure compliance with Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program requirements for unit inspections and rent reasonableness determinations.
- Status2018-AT-1006-002-AOpenClosed$37,508Questioned 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 its program $37,508 ($33,085 in housing assistance payments and $4,423 in associated administrative fees) from non-Federal funds for failing to perform unit inspections in a timely manner.
- Status2018-AT-1006-002-BOpenClosed
Develop and implement procedures, including but not limited to software upgrades, and staff training to ensure that unit inspections are conducted in a timely manner.
- Status2018-AT-1006-002-COpenClosed
Develop and implement adequate oversight to ensure that unit inspections are conducted in a timely manner.
- Status2018-AT-1006-003-AOpenClosed$6,084Questioned 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 its program $6,084 ($5,553 in housing assistance payments and $531 in associated administrative fees) from non-Federal funds for the units that materially failed to meet HUD’s housing quality standards.
- Status2018-AT-1006-003-BOpenClosed
Certify, along with the owners of the 26 units cited in the finding, that the applicable housing quality standards violations have been corrected.
- Status2018-AT-1006-003-COpenClosed
Perform all required quality control housing quality standards inspections in compliance with its HUD-approved MTW plan, thus helping to ensure that its inspectors perform housing quality standards inspections in accordance with HUD’s requirements.
2018-AT-1008 | July 13, 2018
The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority, Lexington, KY, Did Not Fully Comply With HUD’s Program Requirements After the Completion of Its Rental Assistance Demonstration Program Conversion
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-AT-1008-001-AOpenClosed$443,204Questioned 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 its Section 8 Project-Based Voucher program $443,204 ($394,190 in housing assistance payments and $49,014 in associated administrative fees) from nonproject funds for the payments related to the 206 Authority-owned units’ inspections not conducted by a HUD-approved independent entity and for compliance with housing quality standards for the period January 1, 2016, through August 5, 2016.
- Status2018-AT-1008-001-BOpenClosed
Ensure that HUD-approved independent third parties complete the unit inspections and determine the rent reasonableness for units it owns or seek an appropriate exemption of program requirements from the HUD Secretary.
- Status2018-AT-1008-001-COpenClosed
Ensure that in future RAD conversions, if any, unit inspections are conducted for compliance with HUD’s housing quality standards after rehabilitation and construction is completed and before tenants move in.
- Status2018-AT-1008-001-DOpenClosed
Provide adequate training to its staff to ensure compliance with Section 8 Project-Based Voucher program requirements for unit inspections and rent reasonableness determinations.
2018-CH-0002 | June 14, 2018
HUD Lacked Adequate Oversight of Lead-Based Paint Reporting and Remediation in Its Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher Programs
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-CH-0002-001-AOpenClosed
Obtain documentation from the remaining 55 potential cases (34 cases in the public housing program 21 cases in the Housing Choice Voucher program) reported by the public housing agencies that failed to provide supporting documentation to determine compliance with HUD’s requirements.
- Status2018-CH-0002-001-BOpenClosed
Obtain documentation from the remaining 195 potential cases involving children with EIBLLs reported by the public housing agencies (35 reported cases in the public housing program 160 reported cases in the Housing Choice Voucher program) that we did not review during the audit to determine whether the public housing agencies and owners, as applicable, complied with HUD’s requirements or whether action is required under the requirements.
- Status2018-CH-0002-001-COpenClosed
Require the public housing agencies to support that the lead hazards were appropriately abated for the 11 cases (3 public housing program 8 Housing Choice Voucher program) that lacked adequate clearance reports or lacked documentation showing that the identified lead hazards had been corrected.
- Status2018-CH-0002-001-DOpenClosed
Ensure that the owners for the two Housing Choice Voucher program units, in which the families were relocated and abatement was not performed, do not provide housing for families with children under 6 years of age until the lead hazards are abated.
- Status2018-CH-0002-001-EOpenClosed
Obtain documentation of a lead-based paint inspection or exemption for the 222 public housing developments that failed to provide evidence of compliance with HUD’s lead-based paint inspection requirements.
- Status2018-CH-0002-001-FOpenClosed
Work with the Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes to update HUD’s regulations to expand the inspection and abatement requirements of 24 CFR Part 35 to housing completed after 1977 in cases in which a child with an elevated blood lead level is reported.