We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Cleveland Office of Public Housing require the Agency to determine the appropriate administrative fees for the applicable households for which it is unable to provide supporting documentation cited in recommendation 2D and reimburse its program the applicable amount from nonfederal funds.
2008-CH-1006 | April 14, 2008
The Indianapolis Housing Agency, Indianapolis, Indiana, Did Not Effectively Operate Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2008-CH-1006-002-EOpenClosed
2007-NY-1006 | May 23, 2007
Housing Authority of the City of Asbury Park, New Jersey
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2007-NY-1006-001-AOpenClosed$692,990Questioned 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 Office of Public Housing instruct the Authority to reimburse HUD for the excessive administrative fee charge of $692,990 in capital funds in accordance with the procedures described in 24 CFR 905.120.
2007-CH-1005 | March 22, 2007
The Housing Authority of the City of Gary, Indiana, Lacked Adequate Controls over Refunding Savings
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2007-CH-1005-001-AOpenClosed$913,365Questioned 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 Cleveland Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to support that the $913,365 in refunding savings cited in this finding was used to provide affordable, decent, safe, and sanitary housing to very low-income households or reimburse from nonfederal funds its refunding savings account(s), as appropriate, to be able to trace its use of the savings.
2006-CH-1018 | September 28, 2006
Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, Michigan Improperly Used Public Housing Funds to Purchased Property
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2006-CH-1018-001-AOpenClosed$535,903Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to Reimburse its program $535,903 from nonfederal funds ($507,860 for the property purchase plus $28,043 for legal costs) for the improper use of program funds to pay for the property’s acquisition costs.
2005-CH-1020 | September 29, 2005
Housing Authority of the City of Gary Section 8 Housing Program, Gary, IN
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2005-CH-1020-004-AOpenClosed$812,967Questioned 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 Public Housing Hub, Cleveland Field Office, require the Authority to provide support or reimburse its Section 8 program $812,967 ($738,708 in housing assistance payments plus $74,259 in related administrative fees) from nonfederal funds for unsupported housing assistance payments and unearned administrative fees related to the 65 tenants cited in this finding.
2005-CH-1003 | November 29, 2004
Royal Oak Township Housing Commission, Public Housing Program, Ferndale, Michigan
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2005-CH-1003-001-AOpenClosed$367,516Questioned 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 HUD’s Director of Public Housing Hub, Detroit Field Office, assure the Royal Oak Township Housing Commission: Reimburse its Public Housing Program $367,516 from non-Federal funds for the improper use of HUD operating subsidy funds cited in this finding.
2004-AT-1006 | April 22, 2004
Puerto Rico Public Housing Administration, San Juan, Puerto Rico
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2004-AT-1006-001-BOpenClosed$4,230,646Questioned 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 PRPHA to submit all supporting documentation and determine the accuracy of the $4,230,646 owed by PBA and its public housing management agents. Any amounts determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the ACC projects, from non-Federal funds.