Take appropriate administrative action against FTB for violations of the settlement agreement.
2018-CF-0802 | September 28, 2018
HUD Failed To Enforce the Terms of a Settlement Agreement With Fifth Third Bank Because It Did Not Record Indemnified Loans in Its Tracking System
Housing
- Status2018-CF-0802-001-DOpenClosed
2018-CH-1009 | September 28, 2018
The Owner and Management Agent for Rainbow Terrace Apartments, Cleveland, OH, Did Not Always Operate the Project in Accordance With the Regulatory Agreement and HUD’s Requirements
Housing
- Status2018-CH-1009-001-AOpenClosed$2,232,004Questioned 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 the reasonableness of or reimburse the project $2,232,004 ($1,719,736 $484,615 $27,653) from nonproject funds for the project funds disbursed without sufficient procurement or contract documentation.
- Status2018-CH-1009-001-BOpenClosed$7,091Questioned 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 or reimburse the project from nonproject funds $7,091, as appropriate, for the project funds disbursed without sufficient supporting documentation.
- Status2018-CH-1009-001-COpenClosed$46,024Questioned 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 project from nonproject funds $46,024 for the project funds that were not used for reasonable operating expenses or necessary repairs of the project.
- Status2018-CH-1009-001-DOpenClosed$39,690Questioned 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 or reimburse the project from nonproject funds $39,690, as appropriate, for the project funds disbursed without sufficient documentation supporting that the invoices were not for duplicate work.
- Status2018-CH-1009-001-EOpenClosed
Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that project funds are used for only reasonable operating expenses or necessary repairs when the project is in a non-surplus-cash position.
- Status2018-CH-1009-001-FOpenClosed$95,174Questioned 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 project $95,174 from nonproject funds for management fees in excess of the maximum yield.
- Status2018-CH-1009-001-GOpenClosed$70,632Questioned 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 or reimburse the project $70,632 from nonproject funds, as appropriate, for the project funds disbursed to Vesta Corporation for bookkeeping fees without documentation showing that the bookkeeping fees charged were reasonable.
- Status2018-CH-1009-001-HOpenClosed
Implement adequate procedures and controls, including but not limited to ensuring that the project receives HUD’s communications to ensure that its management and bookkeeping fees comply with HUD’s requirements.
- Status2018-CH-1009-001-IOpenClosed
Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that its bookkeeping fees are based on actual costs.
- Status2018-CH-1009-001-JOpenClosed
Use the project’s security deposits bank account to deposit and disburse security deposits.
2018-AT-0801 | September 28, 2018
HUD’s Improper Approvals Resulted in Invalid Exemptions and an Ineligible Capital Funds Expenditure for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-AOpenClosed$1,385,791Questioned 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.
Ensure that $1,385,791 ($1,229,684 in housing assistance payments and $156,107 in associated administrative fees) used by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority is supported through a valid and retroactive exemption from HUD’s third-party requirements. If a retroactive exemption cannot be issued, HUD should follow recovery procedures prescribed in HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-4.
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-BOpenClosed
Revise the standard MTW agreement for all existing 39 MTW housing agencies to clearly and specifically support which provision(s) waive the third-party inspection requirements.
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-COpenClosed
Issue clarifying guidance to all existing 39 MTW housing agencies advising that HUD intended to waive the third-party inspection requirements via attachment C to the standard agreement.
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-DOpenClosed
Ensure that reviews of MTW annual plans are thorough by verifying that the MTW plan accurately identifies the appropriate exemptions as authorized in the MTW agreements.
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-EOpenClosed
Verify that the Office of Public Housing Investments’ approvals of all MTW public housing agencies’ MTW plans’ exemptions from HUD’s third-party requirements were valid and appropriate.
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-FOpenClosed$38,411Questioned 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.
Require the Authority to reimburse its Public Housing Capital Fund program $38,411 from nonproject funds for the inappropriate use of funds for the Section 8 Project-Based Voucher Program units.
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-GOpenClosed
Ensure that the Louisville, KY, PIH field office sends to the Office of Recapitalization any requests it receives for approving capital funds expenditures after the RAD conversion is complete.
- Status2018-AT-0801-001-HOpenClosed
Require the Authority to ensure that capital funds are used in accordance with the program requirements for any future RAD conversions.
2018-NY-1008 | September 28, 2018
The Newark Housing Authority, Newark, NJ, Did Not Ensure That Units Met Housing Quality Standards and That It Accurately Calculated Abatements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-NY-1008-001-AOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public and Indian Housing require the Authority to certify, along with the owners of the 25 units cited in the finding, that the applicable housing quality standards violations have been corrected.