Determine legal sufficiency and if legally sufficient, pursue civil and administrative remedies against Cypress Meadows, LLC; Skyline Crest Enterprises, LLC; the project’s owner; or all three for inappropriately disbursing funds in violation of the project’s regulatory agreement, operating lease agreement, and HUD requirements.
2017-LA-1004 | June 13, 2017
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
General Counsel
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-AOpenClosed$15,000Questioned 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.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-BOpenClosed
Pursue appropriate civil money penalties and administrative actions, up to and including debarment, against Cypress Meadows LLC; Skyline Crest Enterprises LLC; the project’s owner; or all three for violating the project’s regulatory agreement, operating lease agreement, and HUD requirements.
Housing
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-COpenClosed$263,289Questioned 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 the project from non-project funds $263,289 for ineligible salary expenses.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-DOpenClosed$283,307Funds 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.
Remove $283,307 in ineligible accrued salary fees payable from its financial statements and records and ensure that these expenses are not accrued or paid for with project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-EOpenClosed$110,710Questioned 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 the project from non-project funds $110,710 for ineligible offsite accounting expenses.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-FOpenClosed$129,416Funds 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.
Remove $129,416 in ineligible accrued offsite accounting fees payable from its financial statements and records and ensure that these expenses are not accrued or paid for with project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-GOpenClosed$99,160Questioned 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 the project from non-project funds $99,160 for ineligible personal health insurance expenses of the owner.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-HOpenClosed$4,179Questioned 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 the project from non-project funds $4,179 for excessive bank fees.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-IOpenClosed$1,352Questioned 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 the project from non-project funds $1,352 for expenses related to the identity-of-interest hair salon.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-JOpenClosed
Obtain approval from HUD for a lease agreement with the hair salon.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-KOpenClosed$65,232Questioned 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.
Provide documentation to support that $65,232 in disbursements was used on reasonable and necessary operating expenses or repay the project from non-project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-LOpenClosed$620,937Questioned 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.
Pay the project $620,937 in uncollected rent from non-project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-MOpenClosed$162,462Questioned 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.
Pay the project from non-project funds $162,462 in lease agreement charges not deposited into Cypress Meadows’ bank account.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-NOpenClosed
Remove Skyline Crest Enterprises, LLC, as the operator and replace it with a HUD-approved independent operator.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-OOpenClosed
Develop and implement written policies and procedures for the management of the project, including but not limited to financial policies for cash disbursements, cash receipts, and documentation requirements.
2017-KC-0005 | June 12, 2017
Owners of Cooperative Housing Properties Generally Charged More for Their Section 8 Units Than for Their Non-Section 8 Units
Housing
- Status2017-KC-0005-001-AOpenClosed$3,144,894Funds 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.
Create and implement policies and procedures or change program regulations to prevent multifamily housing properties from charging more for Section 8 units than for comparable non-Section 8 units. For the 25 properties reviewed, this measure would prevent as much as $3,144,894 of Section 8 funds from subsidizing non-Section 8 units in the next year.
2017-AT-1006 | June 09, 2017
The Housing Authority of DeKalb County, Decatur, GA, Generally Administered RAD Appropriately but Did Not Accurately Report on Its Capital Fund Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-AOpenClosed$542,289Funds 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 $542,289 in fiscal year 2015 capital funds in HUD’s system until binding agreements are executed for eligible and reasonable purposes, or coordinate with HUD for terminating its funding.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-BOpenClosed$398,022Funds 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.
Reclassify $398,022 in fiscal year 2016 capital funds as authorized in HUD’s system to an eligible and reasonable activity, or coordinate with HUD for terminating its funding.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-COpenClosed$217,553Funds 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.
Coordinate with HUD for terminating the allocation of the remaining $217,553 funds given the Authority’s current intentions to not build or purchase public housing units.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-DOpenClosed
Develop and implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that the reporting of allocated capital funds in HUD’s system is accurate.