We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct Palladia officials to provide source documentation to substantiate that the $584,579 in required non-Federal cash matching funds for five of the six program projects reviewed were met.
2014-NY-1008 | July 25, 2014
Palladia, Inc., New York, NY, Did Not Administer Its Supportive Housing Program in Accordance with HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2014-NY-1008-001-EOpenClosed$584,579Funds 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.
- Status2014-NY-1008-001-FOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct Palladia officials to reconcile its accounting records to ensure that total revenues and expenditures in its general ledgers reconcile to the revenues and expenditures reported in its annual performance reports and LOCCS.
2014-NY-1004 | May 20, 2014
The City of Elmira, NY, Did Not Always Administer Its CDBG Program in Accordance with HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2014-NY-1004-001-GOpenClosed$597,048Questioned 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 Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to support the reasonableness and eligibility of the administrative program delivery costs charged to the CDBG program, including $597,048 in program delivery costs that could have been allocated to the State program, and repay the CDBG program from non-Federal funds any amounts determined to be unreasonable or ineligible.
2014-AT-1801 | March 20, 2014
Vieques Sports City Complex, Office of the Commissioner for Municipal Affairs, San Juan, PR, Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2014-AT-1801-001-BOpenClosed$10,838,880Questioned 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 all supporting documentation associated with the $10,838,880 (Footnote 13) Total disbursements of $10,876,095 were adjusted to consider $37,215 questioned in recommendation 1D. in State CDBG, Section 108, and program income proceeds disbursed for the development of the sports complex, if HUD determines the plan to be feasible (recommendation 1A). HUD must determine the eligibility, reasonableness, and allocability of the funds disbursed. OCMA must reimburse its State CDBG program from non-Federal funds any amount determined ineligible.
2014-FO-0003 | December 15, 2013
Additional Details To Supplement Our Report on HUD’s Fiscal Years 2013 and 2012 (Restated) Financial Statements
Chief Financial Officer
- Status2014-FO-0003-002-EOpenClosed
Review the cash management process to identify all financial events to be recognized in accordance with GAAP. Establish procedures to account for the cash management activity in a timely manner in compliance with GAAP.
- Status2014-FO-0003-002-GOpenClosed
Ensure that PIH’s automation of its cash management process complies with Federal financial management requirements.
2013-NY-1010 | September 26, 2013
The City of Auburn, NY Community Development Block Grant Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-NY-1010-001-AOpenClosed$2,451,645Funds 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to expend or reprogram to other eligible program activities the $2,451,645 in CDBG program income maintained in the City’s community development bank accounts as of June 30, 2013, so the City can assure HUD that these funds have been put to better use.
- Status2013-NY-1010-001-DOpenClosed$177,923Questioned 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 Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to Provide documentation to justify the $177,923 unsupported difference between the City’s CDBG program income balance in IDIS and its bank account balances as of June 30, 2013. Any portion of the unsupported difference determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
2013-LA-1010 | September 20, 2013
The City of Hawthorne, CA, Did Not Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program Cost Allocations in Accordance With HUD Rules and Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-LA-1010-001-AOpenClosed$1,628,130Questioned 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 adequate supporting documentation for the $1,628,130 in unsupported salary and benefit costs or repay the CDBG program from non-Federal funds.
2013-LA-1009 | September 13, 2013
The City of Hawthorne, CA, Inappropriately Used Nearly $1.6 Million in HOME Funds for Section 8 Tenants
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-LA-1009-001-AOpenClosed$1,595,113Questioned 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 HOME program $1,595,113 from non-Federal funds for HOME funds that were inappropriately used on Section 8 housing assistance payments.
2013-NY-1006 | May 13, 2013
Nassau County, NY, Did Not Administer It’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-NY-1006-001-AOpenClosed$189,322Questioned 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 New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documentation to justify the $189,322 in unsupported administrative and planning costs that was disbursed for employee salaries and fringe benefits. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
- Status2013-NY-1006-001-BOpenClosed$78,530Questioned 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 New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to reimburse from non-Federal funds $78,530 for ineligible home-buyer rehabilitation and demolition costs charged to the HOME program.
- Status2013-NY-1006-001-COpenClosed$31,470Funds 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to terminate the contract between the County and the Village of Freeport to rehabilitate and construct single-family public housing units to be sold to low-income residents. The remaining contract balance of $31,470 should be put to better use by reprogramming it for other eligible purposes.
- Status2013-NY-1006-001-DOpenClosed$1,264Questioned 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 New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documentation to justify the $1,264 in unsupported project delivery costs. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
- Status2013-NY-1006-002-AOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to document their application review committee membership and provide evidence of the committee meetings and their evaluation and rating of subrecipients to fully support their funding recommendations.
- Status2013-NY-1006-002-DOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to develop controls to ensure that the County’s recently established debarment verification procedures are implemented for all future procurement activity.
- Status2013-NY-1006-003-COpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to develop controls that will ensure that the County’s decentralized record-keeping system is centralized for ready access to HOME documents.
2013-AT-1003 | March 22, 2013
The Municipality of Arecibo, PR, Did Not Always Ensure Compliance With Community Development Block Grant Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-AT-1003-002-AOpenClosed$552,658Questioned 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 reimburse from non-federal funds $552,658 in unallowable and unallocated costs associated with the disbursement of salaries and fringe benefits of employees who did not perform duties directly related to carrying out activities charged with the program delivery costs.
- Status2013-AT-1003-002-BOpenClosed$1,077,577Questioned 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 provide support showing the allocability and eligibility of $1,077,577 spent on salaries and fringe benefits for employees who performed local government duties and multiple federally funded activities without properly allocating the costs directly related to carrying out each activity. Any amounts determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the Block Grant program from non-federal funds.
2013-PH-1001 | October 31, 2012
Luzerne County, PA, Did Not Properly Evaluate, Underwrite, and Monitor a High-Risk Loan
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-PH-1001-001-AOpenClosed$5,999,894Questioned 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 business development loan program $5,999,894 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible expenditures related to the Hotel Sterling project.