We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to strengthen the County’s financial controls over reconciling bank records to ensure that HOME funds in the local bank account are spent before drawdowns are made from LOCCS.
2017-NY-1005 | January 12, 2017
Union County, NJ’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program Was Not Always Administered in Compliance With Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-POpenClosed
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-QOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documentation, such as pay stubs and leases, to support compliance with HOME program rent limit and income eligibility requirements for the six tenants who occupied HOME-assisted units.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-ROpenClosed$260,736Questioned 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 Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documents, such as pay stubs and bank statements, to support the eligibility of the two home buyers. If documentation cannot be provided, reimburse $260,736 from non-Federal sources to the County’s HOME program line of credit.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-SOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to strengthen the County’s administrative controls to ensure that County staff adequately monitors its subgrantee for compliance with HOME program requirements and provide HOME program training to the County subgrantee’s staff.
2017-PH-1801 | January 05, 2017
Final Civil Action Borrower Settled Alleged Violations of Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Program
General Counsel
- Status2017-PH-1801-001-AOpenClosed$1,500Questioned 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.
Acknowledge that the attached settlement agreement for $1,500 represents an amount due HUD.
2017-NY-1004 | December 20, 2016
The City of New York, NY, Lacked Adequate Controls To Ensure That the Use of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds Was Always Consistent With the Action Plan and Applicable Federal and State Regulations
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-NY-1004-001-AOpenClosed$18,274,054Questioned 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 HUD’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs instruct City officials to reimburse the Program from non-Federal funds $18,274,054 in exempt State sales tax on repairs and maintenance services.
- Status2017-NY-1004-001-BOpenClosed
We recommend that HUD’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs instruct City officials to strengthen controls over disbursements to ensure that all costs charged to the Program are allowable, reasonable, and necessary in compliance with the HUD-approved action plan and Federal and State regulations.
2017-KC-1001 | December 15, 2016
Majestic Management, LLC, a Multifamily Housing Management Agent in St. Louis, MO, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements When Disbursing Project Funds
Housing
- Status2017-KC-1001-001-AOpenClosed$17,414Questioned 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 support showing that $17,414 in management fees charged to the projects using a budgeted amount represented actual amounts or repay the difference to each affected project.
- Status2017-KC-1001-001-BOpenClosed$447,345Questioned 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 it paid itself $447,345 for eligible purposes or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
- Status2017-KC-1001-001-DOpenClosed
Verify all management fees charged to the projects from 2013 through 2015 were appropriate.
- Status2017-KC-1001-002-AOpenClosed$231,091Questioned 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.
Require Majestic Management to reimburse the appropriate projects their portion of $231,091 for work not completed or overbilled.
- Status2017-KC-1001-002-BOpenClosed$462,281Questioned 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 Majestic Management to provide support that $462,281 paid for procurements was reasonable or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
- Status2017-KC-1001-003-AOpenClosed$11,184Questioned 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 appropriate projects their portion of $11,184 that it charged for ineligible items.
- Status2017-KC-1001-003-BOpenClosed$48,891Questioned 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 $48,891 was spent for eligible purposes or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
2017-KC-0001 | October 14, 2016
FHA Paid Claims for an Estimated 239,000 Properties That Servicers Did Not Foreclose Upon or Convey on Time
Housing
- Status2017-KC-0001-001-AOpenClosed$2,238,721,464Funds 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.
PriorityPriorityWe believe these open recommendations, if implemented, will have the greatest impact on helping HUD achieve its mission to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.
Issue a change to regulations at 24 CFR Part 203, which would avoid unnecessary costs to the FHA insurance fund, allowing an estimated $2.23 billion to be put to better use. These changes include (1) a maximum period for filing insurance claims and (2) disallowance of expenses incurred beyond established timeframes.
Status
This audit recommendations cannot be closed out without the publication of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Maximum Claim Rule. The proposed changes have been on HUD’s regulatory agenda since Spring 2020 but, as of June 2024, the Office of Single Family Housing does not have an estimated publication date.
Analysis
To fully address this recommendation, HUD must publish the FHA Maximum Claim Rule.
Implementation of this rule should result in HUD putting $2.23 billion to better use.
2016-CF-1813 | September 30, 2016
Final Civil Action - Owner and Management Agents Settled Allegations of Failing To Comply With the Regulatory Agreements for Multifamily Projects Willow Run I and Willow Run II
General Counsel
- Status2016-CF-1813-001-AOpenClosed$510,000Questioned 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.
Acknowledge that the attached settlement agreement for $510,000 represents an amount due HUD.
2016-FW-1010 | September 30, 2016
The State of Oklahoma Did Not Obligate and Spend Its Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds in Accordance With Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2016-FW-1010-001-AOpenClosed$81,982,712Funds 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 Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the State to develop and implement policies and procedures to document and perform detailed review and testing to establish eligibility, existence, disaster event qualifications, reasonableness of cost estimates, prioritization, and fund allocation, both retroactively and prospectively, which would put $81,982,712 to better use.
- Status2016-FW-1010-001-BOpenClosed$11,717,288Questioned 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 Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the State to support or properly obligate $11,717,288 in unsupported obligations.
2016-AT-1014 | September 30, 2016
The Broward County Housing Authority, Lauderdale Lakes, FL, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-AT-1014-001-AOpenClosed$28,199Questioned 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 $28,199 ($19,771 $7,793 $635) from non-Federal funds for the overpayment of housing assistance and ineligible administrative fees it received for the deficiencies cited in this report.
2016-NY-0001 | September 19, 2016
Operating Fund Calculations Were Not Always Adequately Verified
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-NY-0001-001-AOpenClosed$3,630,286Questioned 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 Public Housing Financial Management Division determine whether any of the overpayment of $3,630,286 was ineligible and take appropriate actions to recoup the ineligible payments.