Request that HUD’s Quality Assurance Division continue reviewing the Agency’s (1) writeoff of accounts receivable, (2) deleted adjustments to accounts payable and receivable, and (3) adjustments to accounts payable and receivable as part of its financial and program management and operations review.
2018-CH-1002 | August 01, 2018
The Indianapolis Housing Agency, Indianapolis, IN, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Regulations and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Financial Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-CH-1002-001-HOpenClosed
2018-LA-1006 | July 25, 2018
The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, Sacramento, CA, Did Not Always Use Community Development Block Grant Funds in Accordance with HUD Requirements or Its Own Policies
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-AOpenClosed$272,569Questioned 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 59 contracts awarded for the emergency repair program were fair and reasonable or repay its program $272,569 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-BOpenClosed
Obtain technical assistance from HUD to revise its Emergency Repair Program to meet CDBG requirements.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-COpenClosed$50,000Questioned 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.
Support that the contract awarded for the food incubator study was fair and reasonable and met a final cost objective or repay its program $50,000 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-DOpenClosed$48,895Questioned 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 change orders executed outside the scope of the Colonial Heights Library contract were fair and reasonable or repay its program $48,895 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-EOpenClosed$13,950Questioned 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 contract awarded for the Boys and Girls Club feasibility study was fair and reasonable and met a final cost objective or repay its program $13,950 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-FOpenClosed
Provide procurement training to its staff members who work on CDBG program activities and ensure that staff members comply with HUD requirements and use its current procurement policy.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-GOpenClosed$55,200Questioned 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 entrepreneur center feasibility study met a final cost objective or repay its program $55,200 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-HOpenClosed$283Questioned 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 $283 from non-Federal funds for unallowable bottled water costs.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-IOpenClosed$141Questioned 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.
Review all invoices provided from its minor repair subrecipient between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, and repay the program from non-Federal funds for all bottled water service payments not identified in this audit report.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-JOpenClosed
Provide training to its employees regarding allowable costs to ensure that all costs submitted by contractors and subrecipients are eligible for reimbursement.
2017-OE-0014 | July 24, 2018
HUD’s Oversight of the Alexander County Housing Authority
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-OE-0014-01OpenClosed
Create agreements and strategies with other program offices that describe when cross-programmatic reviews and enforcement actions against PHAs are required.
- Status2017-OE-0014-02OpenClosed
Train PIH officials on the authority and processes for declaring PHAs in substantial default and for taking PHAs into HUD possession.
- Status2017-OE-0014-03OpenClosed
Update and strengthen the training program for HUD receivers of PHAs.
- Status2017-OE-0014-04OpenClosed
Update procedures for receiverships to include specific guidance on when initiating a receivership may be appropriate.
2018-FW-0002 | July 23, 2018
Final Audit Report - HUD’s Office of Block Grant Assistance Had Not Codified the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-FW-0002-001-AOpenClosed
We recommend that the Acting Director of OBGA work with HUD’s Office of General Counsel to create a codified Disaster Recovery program.
2018-AT-1009 | July 23, 2018
The Pell City Housing Authority, Pell City, AL, Did Not Always Administer Its and the Ragland Housing Authority, Ragland, AL’s Funds in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-AOpenClosed$1,188Questioned 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.
The Pell City Housing Authority to reimburse its public housing fund from non-Federal funds $1,188 for payments made for ineligible credit card expenditures.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-BOpenClosed$12,874Questioned 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.
The Pell City Housing Authority to support or reimburse its public housing fund $12,874 ($4,709 $8,165) for unsupported disbursements.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-COpenClosed
The Pell City Housing Authority to fully implement adequate internal controls over its credit card purchases and disbursements to ensure that it complies with Federal requirements and its own policies and procedures.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-DOpenClosed
The Pell City Housing Authority to revise its policies and procedures for its review of expenditures to ensure that its board of commissioners documents its enforcement of and the Authority’s compliance with the requirements during its review process to ensure that the Authority’s disbursements are supported and used for eligible expenditures.