We recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing require Beverly Place’s owner to provide support to show that the subsidies for 11 tenants with falsified income were accurate or repay HUD $150,082 for those subsidies. Repayment must be from non-Federal funds.
2017-FW-1009 | June 29, 2017
Beverly Place Apartments Subsidized Nonexistent Tenants, Unqualified Tenants, and Tenants With Questionable Qualifications
Housing
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-BOpenClosed$150,082Questioned 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.
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-COpenClosed$77,621Questioned 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 Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing require Beverly Place’s owner to provide support to show that the subsidies for 18 tenants without files or without adequate income documentation in their files were accurate or repay HUD $77,621 for those subsidies. Repayment must be from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-DOpenClosed
We further recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing require its contract administrator for Beverly Place to verify that the owner’s recently implemented quality control program is working as designed.
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-EOpenClosed
We further recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing ensure that the project-based contract administrator’s review process includes steps to obtain reasonable assurance that tenants being reported as subsidized at Beverly Place live in the subsidized units.
2017-FW-1008 | June 28, 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-1004 | June 13, 2017
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
Housing
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-COpenClosed$263,289Questioned 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 project from non-project funds $263,289 for ineligible salary expenses.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-DOpenClosed$283,307Funds 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.
Remove $283,307 in ineligible accrued salary fees payable from its financial statements and records and ensure that these expenses are not accrued or paid for with project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-EOpenClosed$110,710Questioned 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 project from non-project funds $110,710 for ineligible offsite accounting expenses.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-FOpenClosed$129,416Funds 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.
Remove $129,416 in ineligible accrued offsite accounting fees payable from its financial statements and records and ensure that these expenses are not accrued or paid for with project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-GOpenClosed$99,160Questioned 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 project from non-project funds $99,160 for ineligible personal health insurance expenses of the owner.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-HOpenClosed$4,179Questioned 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 project from non-project funds $4,179 for excessive bank fees.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-IOpenClosed$1,352Questioned 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 project from non-project funds $1,352 for expenses related to the identity-of-interest hair salon.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-JOpenClosed
Obtain approval from HUD for a lease agreement with the hair salon.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-KOpenClosed$65,232Questioned 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 documentation to support that $65,232 in disbursements was used on reasonable and necessary operating expenses or repay the project from non-project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-LOpenClosed$620,937Questioned 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.
Pay the project $620,937 in uncollected rent from non-project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-MOpenClosed$162,462Questioned 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.
Pay the project from non-project funds $162,462 in lease agreement charges not deposited into Cypress Meadows’ bank account.