Update its quality control plan to include the performance of physical inspections of the properties in its inventory.
2017-CH-1004 | August 10, 2017
Alpine First Preston Joint Venture II, LLC, Alpine, UT, Did Not Always Comply With Its Contract With HUD and Its Own Requirements for the Marketing and Sale of HUD-Owned Properties in the State of IL
Housing
- Status2017-CH-1004-001-BOpenClosedClosed on December 05, 2017
2017-LA-1006 | August 08, 2017
The City of Fresno, CA, Did Not Administer Its Community Development Block Grant in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-LA-1006-001-AOpenClosed$6,529,501Questioned 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.
Closed on September 27, 2022Support the eligibility of $6,529,500 in code enforcement costs, including meeting code enforcement requirements, preparing time distribution reports, and supporting vehicle costs, or repay the program from non-Federal funds (appendix D).
- Status2017-LA-1006-001-BOpenClosedClosed on May 21, 2018
Suspend funding to its code enforcement program until it can show that it has implemented controls, addressed its capacity issues, and understands and abides by HUD requirements.
- Status2017-LA-1006-001-COpenClosed$4,565Questioned 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.
Closed on June 29, 2018Repay the program $4,565 from non-Federal funds for ineligible code enforcement program costs.
- Status2017-LA-1006-001-DOpenClosed$139,071Questioned 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.
Closed on August 02, 2018Repay the program $139,071 from non-Federal funds for ineligible tire team code enforcement program costs.
- Status2017-LA-1006-001-EOpenClosed$19,919Questioned 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.
Closed on October 02, 2018Repay the program $19,919 from non-Federal funds for ineligible antigraffiti program salary costs.
- Status2017-LA-1006-001-FOpenClosed$1,107,000Questioned 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.
Closed on December 06, 2018Support the eligibility of the $1,107,000 in after school program costs, including meeting the limited clientele national objective, or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-LA-1006-001-GOpenClosed$218,028Questioned 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.
Closed on October 02, 2018Support the eligibility of the $218,028 in antigraffiti costs or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-LA-1006-001-HOpenClosed$55,000Questioned 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.
Closed on June 04, 2019Support the eligibility of the $55,000 subrecipient drawdown or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-LA-1006-001-IOpenClosed$428,373Funds 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.
Closed on October 02, 2018Develop and implement written code enforcement policies and procedures to meet CDBG requirements or amend the funding for another CDBG-eligible project. Improving code enforcement controls will result in $428,373 in funds to be put to better use.
- Status2017-LA-1006-001-JOpenClosedClosed on June 29, 2018
Execute contractual agreements with each CDBG recipient department to ensure compliance with all Federal guidelines.
- Status2017-LA-1006-001-KOpenClosedClosed on August 02, 2018
Develop and implement written policies and procedures for specific departments, update and implement CDBG-specific written policies and procedures, and provide formal training and technical assistance to the Development and Resource Management Department employees to ensure that they understand and follow CDBG requirements.
- Status2017-LA-1006-001-LOpenClosedClosed on August 02, 2018
Develop and implement a monitoring program within the City’s Development and Resource Management Department to ensure that it periodically monitors and provides guidance to its subrecipient(s) and City departments on how to administer CDBG funds.
2017-AT-1010 | August 03, 2017
The Louisville Metro Housing Authority, Louisville, KY, Did Not Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-AT-1010-001-AOpenClosed$70,992Questioned 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.
Closed on March 15, 2019Reimburse the program $70,992 ($63,312 $7,680) from non-Federal funds for housing assistance payments made and administrative fees received for the units that materially failed to meet HUD’s housing quality standards.
- Status2017-AT-1010-001-BOpenClosedClosed on March 15, 2019
Certify, along with the owners of the 103 units cited in the finding, that the applicable housing quality standards violations have been corrected.
- Status2017-AT-1010-001-COpenClosedClosed on March 27, 2019
Develop and implement adequate policies and procedures for conducting quality control inspections in accordance with HUD’s requirements.
- Status2017-AT-1010-001-DOpenClosed$20,566,345Funds 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.
Closed on March 15, 2019Develop and implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that its quality control inspection program functions properly to include adequately monitoring the inspection contractor to prevent $20,566,345 in program funds from being spent over the next year on units that do not materially comply with requirements.
- Status2017-AT-1010-002-AOpenClosed$2,492Questioned 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.
Closed on March 15, 2019Reimburse the program $2,492 ($2,286 in housing assistance payments and $206 in administrative fees received) from non-Federal funds for rental subsidies not abated on four units.
- Status2017-AT-1010-002-BOpenClosedClosed on August 06, 2019
Complete a review of rental subsidy abatements for all current units for which a retroactive abatement was not conducted. The Authority should reimburse the program from non-Federal funds for any overpaid rental subsidy.
- Status2017-AT-1010-002-COpenClosedClosed on March 15, 2019
Develop and implement written procedures and a process for retroactively abating housing assistance payments.