Develop and implement written policies and procedures for situations in which the borrower for a Section 184 loan is an Indian housing authority, a tribally designated housing entity, or an Indian tribe.
2015-LA-0002 | July 06, 2015
HUD Did Not Provide Adequate Oversight of the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program
Public and Indian Housing
2015-LA-0002-001-I
2015-LA-0002-001-J
Reconcile the total list of guaranteed Section 184 loans to the complete loan file storage list and identify and locate any missing loan files.
2015-AT-1004 | July 02, 2015
Virgin Islands Community AIDS Resource & Education, Inc., Did Not Administer Its Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
2015-AT-1004-001-A
$538,485Questioned 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.
Submit all supporting documentation showing the eligibility and propriety of $538,485 drawn from its treasury account or reimburse the HOPWA program line of credit from non-Federal funds.
2015-LA-1004 | May 29, 2015
The Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino, CA, Used Shelter Plus Care Program Funds for Ineligible and Unsupported Participants
Community Planning and Development
2015-LA-1004-001-A
$3,119,448Questioned 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.
Repay HUD $3,119,448 from non-Federal funds for program funds spent on ineligible participants.
2015-LA-1004-001-B
$136,346Questioned 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 supporting documentation for $136,346 in program funds used for participants for whom eligibility could not be determined or repay HUD from non-Federal funds (see appendix D).
2015-AT-0001 | March 31, 2015
HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development Did Not Always Pursue Remedial Actions but Generally Implemented Sufficient Controls for Administering Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Community Planning and Development
2015-AT-0001-001-B
$3,379,269Funds 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.
Provide support showing that it took proper remedial action regarding five NSP3 grantees that missed the expenditure deadline, thereby putting $3,379,269 to better use.
2015-AT-0001-001-C
Work with 134 grantees (29 NSP1 and 105 NSP3) that reported missing expenditure deadlines in DRGR to ensure that expenditure information submitted is accurate and up to date.
2015-AT-1001 | December 04, 2014
The Office of the Commissioner for Municipal Affairs Needs To Make Improvements in Administering Its Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
Community Planning and Development
2015-AT-1001-001-A
$7,010,276Questioned 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.
Submit a plan for how it will proceed with respect to the Municipality of San Lorenzo activity center project, including a schedule that HUD can track to ensure its completion. HUD must reevaluate the feasibility of the activity and determine the eligibility of the $7,010,276 already invested. (Footnote 6: Total investments of $7,999,275 were adjusted to account for $988,154 questioned in recommendation 2A and $845 in recommendation 2C.) If HUD determines that the activity has been canceled or is not feasible, Municipal Affairs must mitigate activity losses by committing any unused loan proceeds for future loan repayments.
2015-AT-1001-001-B
$7,369,000Questioned 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.
Submit a plan for how it will proceed with respect to the Municipality of Dorado hotel project, including a schedule that HUD can track to ensure its completion. HUD must reevaluate the feasibility of the activity and determine the eligibility of the $7,369,000 already invested. If HUD determines that the activity has been canceled or is not feasible, Municipal Affairs must mitigate activity losses by committing any unused loan proceeds for future loan repayments.
2015-AT-1001-001-C
$5,474,376Questioned 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.
Submit a plan for how it will proceed with respect to the Municipality of Camuy hotel project, including a schedule that HUD can track to ensure its completion. HUD must reevaluate the feasibility of the activity and determine the eligibility of the $5,474,376 already invested. (Footnote 7: Total investments of $5,830,878 were adjusted to account for $436 questioned in recommendation 2A and $356,066 in recommendation 2C.) If HUD determines that the activity has been canceled or is not feasible, Municipal Affairs must mitigate activity losses by committing any unused loan proceeds for future loan repayments.
2015-AT-1001-001-D
Conduct monitoring of the Section 108 activities with signs of slow progress to ensure that program objectives are met and provide the intended benefits.
2015-AT-1001-002-A
$1,080,242Questioned 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.
Recover from the borrowers and reimburse $1,080,242 to the applicable loan guarantee account from non-Federal funds for ineligible disbursements that were not related to the approved projects and used to finance local government operations.
2015-AT-1001-002-C
$367,840Questioned 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.
Obtain and submit supporting documentation showing the eligibility and propriety of $367,840 in disbursements or reimburse the loan guarantee account from non-Federal funds.
2015-AT-1001-002-D
Ensure that the borrowers either transfer the unexpended Section 108 loan proceeds to the repayment account or submit a request for extension to HUD.
2015-AT-1001-002-E
Ensure that the borrowers provide HUD the additional security requirements according to the loan agreement.
2015-AT-1001-002-F
Ensure that borrowers develop and implement a financial management system in accordance with HUD requirements to ensure that program funds can be traced to a level that ensures that such funds have not been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes.
2015-AT-1001-002-G
Ensure that all Section 108 loan proceeds deposited at commercial banks are properly collateralized with Government obligations.
2015-AT-1001-002-H
Conduct monitoring reviews of all Section 108 projects and ensure that borrowers comply with all loan agreement provisions and HUD regulations.
2015-NY-1002 | November 30, 2014
The Freeport Housing Authority, Freeport, NY, Did Not Administer Its Low-Rent Housing and Homeownership Programs in Accordance With HUD’s Regulations
Public and Indian Housing
2015-NY-1002-002-C
$1,250,417Questioned 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 HUD’s New York Office of Public and Indian Housing require Authority officials to provide supporting documents for the proper use of $1,250,417 in sale proceeds from the scattered-site properties. Any amounts not supported or found to be improperly used should be repaid to the homeownership program from non-Federal funds.
2015-NY-1001 | November 23, 2014
The City of New York, NY, Did Not Always Disburse Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Assistance Funds to Its Subrecipient in Accordance With Federal Regulations
Community Planning and Development
2015-NY-1001-001-A
$183,000,000Questioned 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.
We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs instruct City officials to provide documentation to justify the $183 million in unsupported salary and fringe benefits and associated expenses charged to the CDBG-DR program. If documentation provided does not support the costs, this amount should be repaid from non-Federal funds.