We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to support or repay its HUD program accounts from non-Federal funds $97,170 paid for unsupported legal services, of which $29,111 was paid with Housing Choice Voucher Program funds and $68,059 was paid with operating funds.
2019-FW-1002 | May 15, 2019
The Weslaco Housing Authority, Weslaco, TX, Did Not Follow Federal, State, and Authority Requirements for Legal Services
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2019-FW-1002-001-AOpenClosed$97,170Questioned 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.
- Status2019-FW-1002-001-BOpenClosed$21,000Questioned 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 the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to support or repay its HUD program accounts from non-Federal funds $21,000 paid for unreasonable and unnecessary retainer fees for those months when the Authority did not hold a regular meeting, of which $7,112 was paid with Housing Choice Voucher Program funds and $13,888 was paid with operating funds.
- Status2019-FW-1002-001-COpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to revise its procurement policies to include, either in their entirety or by reference, the current Federal cost principles.
- Status2019-FW-1002-001-DOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide training to commissioners and employees on Federal procurement and cost principles requirements and have them certify that they understand and will comply with the requirements.
2019-AT-1003 | May 08, 2019
The Talladega Housing Authority, Talladega, AL, Generally Administered Its Rental Assistance Demonstration Conversion in Accordance With HUD Requirements but Did Not Comply With Critical Renovations Regulations
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2019-AT-1003-001-AOpenClosed$65,240Questioned 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.
Repay to the public housing program from non-Federal funds the $32,620 in ineligible housing assistance it received from HUD.
- Status2019-AT-1003-001-BOpenClosed$3,402Questioned 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.
Repay to the Treasury from non-Federal funds the $3,402 in ineligible administrative fees it received from HUD.
- Status2019-AT-1003-001-COpenClosed
Establish effective procedures and controls to verify that it receives correct products from its vendors and ensures the proper completion of renovation work by its contractors.
2019-BO-1002 | May 07, 2019
The Housing Authority of the City of Woonsocket, RI, Did Not Always Comply With Capital Fund Program and Procurement Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-AOpenClosed$1,864,914Questioned 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.
Repay from non-Federal sources the $1,864,914 in ineligible costs related to environmental deficiencies
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-BOpenClosed$85,204Questioned 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.
Repay from non-Federal sources the $85,204 in ineligible costs related to payments made beyond the contract terms.
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-COpenClosed$101,052Questioned 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 that the $101,052 spent for one activity followed Federal environmental review requirements or repay this amount from non-Federal funds.
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-DOpenClosed$1,325,967Questioned 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 that the $1,325,967 spent for activities was fair and reasonable in accordance with Federal procurement requirements or repay from non-Federal funds any amounts that cannot be supported
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-EOpenClosed$113,710Funds 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.
Deobligate $113,710 in funds not yet spent on ineligible activities with environmental review deficiencies and work with HUD to determine whether these funds can be reobligated to eligible activities.
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-FOpenClosed$11,781Funds 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.
Deobligate $11,781 in funds not yet spent on ineligible activities related to activities that exceeded contract terms and work with HUD to determine whether these funds can be reobligated to eligible activities
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-GOpenClosed
Develop and implement adequate policies and procedures to address the environmental deficiencies identified.
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-HOpenClosed
Strengthen their policies and procedures to address the procurement and contract administration deficiencies identified.
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-IOpenClosed
Strengthen their procedures to obligate capital funds in a timely manner.
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-JOpenClosed
Provide technical assistance to Authority officials to ensure that responsible staff receives necessary procurement and environmental review training.
2019-BO-1001 | April 25, 2019
The City of Bridgeport, CT, Did Not Properly Administer Its HOME Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2019-BO-1001-001-AOpenClosed$422,768Questioned 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.
Repay from non-Federal funds the $422,768 in ineligible funds related to the City’s failure to meet HOME CHDO commitment deadlines and complete activities in accordance with the HOME agreement and HOME regulations.
- Status2019-BO-1001-001-DOpenClosed$487,483Funds 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.
Reallocate the $487,483 in unspent funds to ensure that they will be put to their intended use or, if the activities remain open, maintain support to show that the HOME funds disbursed were reasonable and Reallocate the $487,483 in unspent funds to ensure that they will be put to their intended use or, if the activities remain open, maintain support to show that the HOME funds disbursed were reasonable and supported in accordance with Federal requirements.
- Status2019-BO-1001-001-EOpenClosed$254,215Funds 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.
Identify, review, and approve a CHDO to work with the City to ensure that $254,215 in CHDO funds will be properly committed to avoid being deobligated.