Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that (1) housing assistance payments are appropriately calculated and supported, (2) repayment agreements are created to recover overpaid housing assistance when unreported income is discovered during the examination process, and (3) annual reexaminations are completed in a timely manner to ensure that $322,550 in program funds is appropriately used for future payments.
2017-CH-1002 | July 06, 2017
The Youngstown Metropolitan Housing Authority, Youngstown, OH, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-CH-1002-002-EOpenClosed$322,550Funds 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.
2017-FW-1008 | June 27, 2017
The Weslaco Housing Authority, Weslaco, TX, Paid Travel Costs That Did Not Comply With Federal, State, and Local Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-AOpenClosed$11,172Questioned 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 San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to repay from non-Federal funds $11,172 paid for ineligible travel costs of which $6,904 was Housing Choice Voucher and $4,268 was operating subsidy funds.
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-BOpenClosed$2,946Questioned 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 San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to repay from non-Federal funds $2,946 paid for excessive lodging rates, extra trip days, and car rental costs of which $1,214 was Housing Choice Voucher and $1,732 was operating subsidy funds.
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-COpenClosed$9,020Questioned 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 San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to support or repay its HUD programs from non-Federal funds $9,020 for unsupported meals, incidental expenses, lodging costs, and travel for training of which $2,978 was Housing Choice Voucher and $6,041 was operating subsidy funds.
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-DOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to adopt policies and procedures that contain current Federal and State guidance.
- Status2017-FW-1008-001-EOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide training to commissioners and employees on travel requirements and their responsibilities and duties.
2017-LA-1005 | June 15, 2017
The City of Huntington Park, CA, Did Not Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-AOpenClosed$7,323Questioned 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.
Repay the program $7,323 from non-Federal funds for ineligible code enforcement costs.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-BOpenClosed$1,153,995Questioned 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 the $576,997 in code enforcement costs (activities 499, 512, and 531), including meeting code enforcement and cost allocation requirements, or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-COpenClosed$328,918Funds 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.
Implement revised code enforcement program policies and procedures to meet CDBG requirements. This will help ensure that the remaining $328,918 budgeted for code enforcement activity 531 is put to better use.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-DOpenClosed$225,000Questioned 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 the reasonableness of the $110,000 Graffiti Removal program (activities 504 and 520) cost allocations or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-EOpenClosed$31,186Questioned 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 the $31,186 After School program (activity 501) costs, including the reasonableness of the contract costs and meeting the limited clientele national objective, or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-FOpenClosed$95,736Questioned 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.
Support the reasonableness of the $95,736 in cost allocations charged as CDBG administrative (activity 522) costs or repay the costs from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-GOpenClosed
Implement additional policies and procedures to ensure that salaries and wages and cost allocations are charged in compliance with HUD requirements.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-HOpenClosed
Implement additional procedures and controls to ensure that documentation is obtained to support that the limited clientele national objective was met.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-IOpenClosed
Obtain training or technical assistance on CDBG program requirements.
2017-AT-1006 | June 08, 2017
The Housing Authority of DeKalb County, Decatur, GA, Generally Administered RAD Appropriately but Did Not Accurately Report on Its Capital Fund Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-AOpenClosed$542,289Funds 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 $542,289 in fiscal year 2015 capital funds in HUD’s system until binding agreements are executed for eligible and reasonable purposes, or coordinate with HUD for terminating its funding.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-BOpenClosed$398,022Funds 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.
Reclassify $398,022 in fiscal year 2016 capital funds as authorized in HUD’s system to an eligible and reasonable activity, or coordinate with HUD for terminating its funding.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-COpenClosed$217,553Funds 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.
Coordinate with HUD for terminating the allocation of the remaining $217,553 funds given the Authority’s current intentions to not build or purchase public housing units.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-DOpenClosed
Develop and implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that the reporting of allocated capital funds in HUD’s system is accurate.
- Status2017-AT-1006-002-EOpenClosed
Provide adequate training to staff responsible for making entries into HUD’s system to ensure accurate reporting on allocated funds. The training should include but not be limited to ensuring that its staff understands all of HUD’s reporting requirements for obligations and authorizations.