Verify all management fees charged to the projects from 2013 through 2015 were appropriate.
2017-KC-1001 | December 15, 2016
Majestic Management, LLC, a Multifamily Housing Management Agent in St. Louis, MO, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements When Disbursing Project Funds
Housing
2017-KC-1001-001-D
2017-KC-1001-002-A
$231,091Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 Majestic Management to reimburse the appropriate projects their portion of $231,091 for work not completed or overbilled.
2017-KC-1001-002-B
$462,281Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 Majestic Management to provide support that $462,281 paid for procurements was reasonable or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
2017-KC-1001-003-A
$11,184Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 the appropriate projects their portion of $11,184 that it charged for ineligible items.
2017-KC-1001-003-B
$48,891Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 $48,891 was spent for eligible purposes or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
2017-NY-1001 | November 02, 2016
The City of New York, NY, Implemented Policies That Did Not Always Ensure That Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds Were Disbursed in Accordance With Its Action Plan and Federal Regulations
Community Planning and Development
2017-NY-1001-001-C
$32,107Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs instruct City officials to repay the Program from non-Federal funds $32,107 in overpaid grants to homeowners whose grant amounts (1) were not revised to show recalculated duplication of benefits and (2) exceeded the Program’s 60 percent reimbursement rate.
2017-NY-1001-001-D
$101,398Funds Put to Better UseRecommendations 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 HUD’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs instruct City officials to reimburse $101,398 in additional grants owed to the 11 homeowners whose grant amounts should have been materially increased as a result of recalculated duplication of benefits.
2017-NY-1001-002-C
$833,199Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs coordinate with the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control to provide technical assistance and instruct City officials to provide supporting documentation that lead-based paint testing was performed, identified hazards were removed, and clearance was achieved for the 41 properties for which homeowners received $833,199 in CDBG-DR assistance. If supporting documentation is not provided, City officials should repay the $833,199 from non-Federal funds.
2017-NY-1001-002-D
We recommend that HUD’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs coordinate with the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control to provide technical assistance and instruct City officials to advise homeowners of their obligation under the terms of the reimbursement grant agreement to allow the Program to perform lead-based paint testing or hazard removal. Homeowners who refuse to allow the Program to complete lead hazard work or provide evidence that the property achieved clearance must repay the grant.
2017-KC-0001 | October 14, 2016
FHA Paid Claims for an Estimated 239,000 Properties That Servicers Did Not Foreclose Upon or Convey on Time
Housing
2017-KC-0001-001-A
$2,238,721,464Funds Put to Better UseRecommendations 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.
PriorityPriorityWe believe these open recommendations, if implemented, will have the greatest impact on helping HUD achieve its mission to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.
Issue a change to regulations at 24 CFR Part 203, which would avoid unnecessary costs to the FHA insurance fund, allowing an estimated $2.23 billion to be put to better use. These changes include (1) a maximum period for filing insurance claims and (2) disallowance of expenses incurred beyond established timeframes.
Status
This audit recommendations cannot be closed out without the publication of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Maximum Claim Rule. The proposed changes have been on HUD’s regulatory agenda since Spring 2020 but, as of June 2024, the Office of Single Family Housing does not have an estimated publication date.
Analysis
To fully address this recommendation, HUD must publish the FHA Maximum Claim Rule.
Implementation of this rule should result in HUD putting $2.23 billion to better use.
2016-CF-1813 | September 30, 2016
Final Civil Action - Owner and Management Agents Settled Allegations of Failing To Comply With the Regulatory Agreements for Multifamily Projects Willow Run I and Willow Run II
General Counsel
2016-CF-1813-001-A
$510,000Questioned CostsRecommendations 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.
Acknowledge that the attached settlement agreement for $510,000 represents an amount due HUD.
2016-FW-1010 | September 30, 2016
The State of Oklahoma Did Not Obligate and Spend Its Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds in Accordance With Requirements
Community Planning and Development
2016-FW-1010-001-A
$81,982,712Funds Put to Better UseRecommendations 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 Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the State to develop and implement policies and procedures to document and perform detailed review and testing to establish eligibility, existence, disaster event qualifications, reasonableness of cost estimates, prioritization, and fund allocation, both retroactively and prospectively, which would put $81,982,712 to better use.
2016-FW-1010-001-B
$11,717,288Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the State to support or properly obligate $11,717,288 in unsupported obligations.
2016-AT-1014 | September 30, 2016
The Broward County Housing Authority, Lauderdale Lakes, FL, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
2016-AT-1014-001-A
$28,199Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 program $28,199 ($19,771 $7,793 $635) from non-Federal funds for the overpayment of housing assistance and ineligible administrative fees it received for the deficiencies cited in this report.
2016-NY-0001 | September 19, 2016
Operating Fund Calculations Were Not Always Adequately Verified
Public and Indian Housing
2016-NY-0001-001-A
$3,630,286Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 Public Housing Financial Management Division determine whether any of the overpayment of $3,630,286 was ineligible and take appropriate actions to recoup the ineligible payments.
2016-NY-0001-001-B
$1,191,767Funds Put to Better UseRecommendations 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 the Public Housing Financial Management Division validate the $1,191,767 in underpayments and determine if any corrections should be made.
2016-NY-0001-001-F
$116,218Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 Public Housing Financial Management Division recapture the overpayment of $116,218 disbursed for the units, which exceeded the PHAs’ Faircloth limit.
2016-PH-1006 | August 31, 2016
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Administer Its Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency Program in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
2016-PH-1006-001-A
$292,611Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 program accomplishment data related to disbursements totaling $292,611 or repay HUD from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support.
2016-AT-1012 | August 29, 2016
The Municipality of Bayamon, PR, Did Not Always Ensure Compliance With HUD Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
2016-AT-1012-001-A
Complete the implementation of the new accounting system and ensure it tracks program funds to a level that supports compliance with HUD requirements.
2016-AT-1012-001-B
$944,687Questioned CostsRecommendations 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 support that $944,687 (Footnote 2: Emergency funds of more than $1.1 million drawn between July 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015, were adjusted to consider $158,800 questioned in recommendation 1C and $38,164 questioned in recommendation 1D.) in Emergency funds drawn from HUD is reconciled with the accounting records and that such funds have not been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes or reimburse the Emergency programs from non-Federal funds.