We further recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to reimburse from non-Federal funds the $304,506 related to ineligible clean and seal code enforcement costs.
2011-NY-1010 | April 15, 2011
The City of Buffalo Did Not Always Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2011-NY-1010-003-BOpenClosed$609,012Questioned 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.
- Status2011-NY-1010-003-COpenClosed$716,622Questioned 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 further recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to provide documentation to justify the $716,622 ($545,607 $24,069 $146,946) in unsupported clean and seal costs incurred so that HUD can make an eligibility determination. Any costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
2011-PH-1005 | December 22, 2010
The District of Columbia, Washington DC, Did Not Administer Its HOME Program in Accordance With Federal Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2011-PH-1005-003-BOpenClosed$279,245Funds 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 $279,245 in available funds associated with the ineligible CHDO and reprogram the funds for other eligible HOME activities, thereby putting the funds to better use.
2010-AT-1010 | August 23, 2010
The Housing Authority of DeKalb County Improperly Used Its Net Restricted Assets
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2010-AT-1010-001-BOpenClosed$2,591,854Questioned 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 the net restricted assets fund account from non-Federal funds the $2,583,244 or the current amount owed.
2010-AT-1003 | April 28, 2010
The Housing Authority of Whitesburg, Kentucky, Mismanaged Its Operations
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-DOpenClosed$134,889Questioned 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 account for $134,889 in tenant rent receipts or repay any unsupported amounts to its public housing operating program from nonfederal funds.
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-FOpenClosed$264,229Questioned 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 provide support for $264,229 in disbursements or repay any unsupported costs to its public housing operating and capital improvement program from nonfederal funds.
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-GOpenClosed$2,250Questioned 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 program $2,250 for ineligible costs using non-federal funds.
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-HOpenClosed$27,097Questioned 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 support the $27,097 in unreasonable costs or reimburse its public housing and capital improvement program from nonfederal funds.
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-IOpenClosed$446,918Questioned 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 provide support that $446,918 in contracts were fairly and openly competed or reimburse its public housing and capital improvement program from nonfederal funds.
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-JOpenClosed$275,282Questioned 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 provide support for the $275,282 in capital fund drawdowns or reimburse its capital improvement program from nonfederal funds.
2009-NY-1011 | May 15, 2009
North Hempstead Housing Authority, Great Neck, New York, Had Weaknesses in Its Housing Choice Voucher and Family Self-Sufficiency Programs
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2009-NY-1011-002-GOpenClosed$50,237Questioned 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, Office of Public Housing, New York, instruct Authority officials to seek repayment of $50,237 in ineligible housing assistance payments.
2008-CH-1006 | April 15, 2008
The Indianapolis Housing Agency, Indianapolis, Indiana, Did Not Effectively Operate Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2008-CH-1006-002-EOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Cleveland Office of Public Housing require the Agency to determine the appropriate administrative fees for the applicable households for which it is unable to provide supporting documentation cited in recommendation 2D and reimburse its program the applicable amount from nonfederal funds.
2007-NY-1006 | May 24, 2007
Housing Authority of the City of Asbury Park, New Jersey
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2007-NY-1006-001-AOpenClosed$692,990Questioned 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 Office of Public Housing instruct the Authority to reimburse HUD for the excessive administrative fee charge of $692,990 in capital funds in accordance with the procedures described in 24 CFR 905.120.
2007-CH-1005 | March 23, 2007
The Housing Authority of the City of Gary, Indiana, Lacked Adequate Controls over Refunding Savings
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2007-CH-1005-001-AOpenClosed$913,365Questioned 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 Cleveland Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to support that the $913,365 in refunding savings cited in this finding was used to provide affordable, decent, safe, and sanitary housing to very low-income households or reimburse from nonfederal funds its refunding savings account(s), as appropriate, to be able to trace its use of the savings.
2006-CH-1018 | September 28, 2006
Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, Michigan Improperly Used Public Housing Funds to Purchased Property
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2006-CH-1018-001-AOpenClosed$535,903Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to Reimburse its program $535,903 from nonfederal funds ($507,860 for the property purchase plus $28,043 for legal costs) for the improper use of program funds to pay for the property’s acquisition costs.
2006-PH-1013 | September 18, 2006
The Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, Did not Ensure HOME Funds Were Disbursed and Used in Accordance with Federal Regulations
Community Planning and Development
- Status2006-PH-1013-001-BOpenClosed$150,000Questioned 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.
Require the Commonwealth to provide documentation to substantiate the eligibility of $150,000 provided to Southampton or repay the HOME program from nonfederal funds.
2006-BO-0001 | June 11, 2006
HUD Incorrectly Approved $42 Million in Operating Subsidies for Phase-Down for Demolition Add-On Funding
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2006-BO-0001-001-BOpenClosed$17,891,782Questioned 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.
Obtain and review support (as identified in recommendation 1D) for $15.1 million in unsupported phase-down funding in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, determine the correct amount of phase-down funding, and require the public housing agencies to reimburse HUD for any ineligible funding received.
- Status2006-BO-0001-001-COpenClosed$32,864,306Questioned 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.
For the overpayments of phase-down funding identified in appendix C, recover $20.6 million in ineligible phase-down funding requests from the public housing agencies for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
2005-CH-1020 | September 29, 2005
Housing Authority of the City of Gary Section 8 Housing Program, Gary, IN
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2005-CH-1020-004-AOpenClosed$812,967Questioned 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.
We recommend that the director of HUD’s Public Housing Hub, Cleveland Field Office, require the Authority to provide support or reimburse its Section 8 program $812,967 ($738,708 in housing assistance payments plus $74,259 in related administrative fees) from nonfederal funds for unsupported housing assistance payments and unearned administrative fees related to the 65 tenants cited in this finding.
2005-AT-1013 | September 15, 2005
Corporacion para el Fomento EcoNmico de la Ciudad Capital, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Did not Administer Its Independent Capital Fund in Accordance with HUD Requirements.
Community Planning and Development
- Status2005-AT-1013-002-AOpenClosed$1,011,801Questioned 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 Municipality to obtain and submit all supporting documentation and HUD determine the eligibility and propriety of $1,011,801 in administrative costs the Corporation charged to the Block Grant revolving fund. Any amounts determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the Block Grant program from nonfederal funds.