Provide training to its employees regarding allowable costs to ensure that all costs submitted by contractors and subrecipients are eligible for reimbursement.
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-JOpenClosed
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.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-EOpenClosed
The Pell City Housing Authority’s board of commissioners to receive training to ensure the proper review and approval of expenditures and to understand the requirements relevant to the Authority’s financial operations.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-FOpenClosed$105Questioned 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 Ragland Housing Authority to reimburse its public housing fund from non-Federal funds $105 for credit card payments made for ineligible expenditures.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-GOpenClosed$31,580Questioned 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 Ragland Housing Authority to support or reimburse its public housing fund $31,580 ($1,320 $11,887 $18,373) for unsupported disbursements.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-HOpenClosed
The Ragland Housing Authority to develop and 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-IOpenClosed
The Ragland Housing Authority to develop and implement its own 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.
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-JOpenClosed
The Ragland Housing Authority’s board of commissioners to receive training to ensure the proper review and approval of expenditures and to understand the requirements relevant to the Authority’s financial operations.
- Status2018-AT-1009-002-AOpenClosed
The Pell City Housing Authority to comply with conflict-of-interest requirements or obtain a waiver from HUD or its board of commissioners.
- Status2018-AT-1009-002-BOpenClosed
The Pell City Housing Authority to develop and implement a policy for the review and approval of timesheets and credit card purchases, which ensures a proper segregation of duties and is approved by its board of commissioners.
- Status2018-AT-1009-003-AOpenClosed
The Pell City Housing Authority to fully implement procedures and controls to ensure that waiting list applicants are selected in accordance with HUD requirements.
- Status2018-AT-1009-003-BOpenClosed
The Ragland Housing Authority to fully implement procedures and controls to ensure that waiting list applicants are selected in accordance with HUD requirements.
2018-AT-1007 | July 13, 2018
The Pinellas County Housing Authority, Largo, FL, Generally Administered Its Rental Assistance Demonstration Conversion but Did Not Fully Comply With HUD’s Rent Reasonableness Determinations After Conversion
Housing
- Status2018-AT-1007-001-AOpenClosed$379Questioned 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 supporting documentation for subsequent review to show that it properly calculated relocation rental assistance payments for the 10 tenants and if there is an overpayment, reimburse the applicable RAD relocation account from non-Federal funds.
2018-AT-1006 | July 13, 2018
The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority, Lexington, KY, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-AT-1006-001-AOpenClosed$124,075Questioned 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 Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program $124,075 ($108,687 in housing assistance payments and $15,388 in associated administrative fees) from non-Federal funds for the payments related to the Authority-owned units’ inspections not conducted by an independent entity.
- Status2018-AT-1006-001-BOpenClosed
Ensure that HUD-approved independent third parties complete unit inspections and determine the rent reasonableness determinations for units it owns or seek an appropriate exemption of program requirements from the HUD Secretary.
- Status2018-AT-1006-001-COpenClosed
Provide adequate training to its staff to ensure compliance with Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program requirements for unit inspections and rent reasonableness determinations.