Require the Authority to take action to reclaim its properties valued at $2,032,266 to improve its financial position, decrease its reliance on HUD program funding, and address its comingling issues.
2015-FW-1801 | October 02, 2014
The Management of the Housing Authority of the City of Taylor, Taylor, TX, Did Not Exercise Adequate Oversight of Its Programs
Public and Indian Housing
2015-FW-1801-001-C
$2,032,266Funds 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.
2015-FW-1801-001-D
$243,442Questioned 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 the Authority to determine how much of the $243,442 in salaries for individuals assigned to work at multiple properties was improperly paid with Federal funds and repay the amounts to the appropriate programs from non-Federal funds. If the Authority is unable to accurately determine the amount due to and due from each program or support that the funds charged to the Federal programs were appropriate, the full $243,422 should be repaid to HUD.
2015-FW-1801-001-F
$40,600Questioned 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 the Authority to determine whether the Authority improperly used Federal funds totaling $40,600 to make lease payments on the parking lot it already owned. If Federal funds were improperly used, the Authority should repay $40,600 from non-Federal funds to its Federal program accounts. If the Authority is unable to accurately determine the amount due to and due from each program or support that the funds charged to the Federal program were appropriate, the full $40,600 should be repaid to HUD.
2015-FW-1801-001-H
$11,833Questioned 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 the Authority to determine whether the Authority improperly used Federal funds totaling $11,833 which were used to cancel an existing phone system and purchase a new one. If Federal funds were improperly used, the Authority should repay $11,833 to its Federal program accounts from non-Federal funds. If the Authority is unable to accurately determine the amount due to and due from each program or support that the funds charged to the Federal program were appropriate, the full $11,833 should be repaid to HUD.
2015-FW-1801-001-J
$50,000Questioned 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.
Require the Authority to determine whether the Authority improperly used Federal funds totaling $50,000 which were used to pay unnecessary severance contract costs. If Federal funds were improperly used, the Authority should repay $50,000 to its Federal program accounts from non-Federal funds. If the Authority is unable to accurately determine the amount due to and due from each program or support that the funds charged to the Federal program were appropriate, the full $50,000 should be repaid to HUD.
2014-PH-0001 | September 30, 2014
HUD Policies Did Not Always Ensure That HECM Borrowers Complied With Residency Requirement
Housing
2014-PH-0001-001-B
Implement controls to prevent or mitigate instances of borrowers violating HECM program residency requirements by concurrently participating in the Voucher program, including policies and procedures to at least annually coordinate with HUD’s Office of Public Housing to match borrower data in the Single Family Data Warehouse to member data in the Public Housing Information Center.
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
2014-NY-1008-001-A
$1,615,057Questioned 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 Community Planning and Development instruct Palladia officials to provide documentation to justify that the $1,615,057 in unsupported costs is associated with eligible program activities. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
2014-NY-1008-001-B
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct Palladia officials to strengthen oversight controls over disbursements to ensure that adequate supporting documentation is maintained and complies with applicable regulations.
2014-NY-1008-001-C
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct Palladia officials to follow its policies and procedures for record-keeping to maintain records that adequately identify the source and application of funds provided for financially assisted activities.
2014-NY-1008-001-D
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct Palladia officials to provide records detailing the funding sources of the non-Federal cash match for the six grant activities reviewed.
2014-NY-1008-001-E
$584,579Funds 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 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-1008-001-F
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-PH-1007 | July 15, 2014
The Cumberland Plateau Regional Housing Authority, Lebanon, VA, Did Not Procure Services in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
2014-PH-1007-001-D
Based on the outcome of the State’s investigation and criminal trial, make a referral to HUD recommending administrative sanctions, as appropriate, up to and including debarment of the Authority’s former rehabilitation specialist, the Planning District Commission’s former deputy director, and the involved contractors.
2014-LA-0004 | June 30, 2014
HUD Could Not Support the Reasonableness of the Operating and Capital Fund Programs’ Fees and Did Not Adequately Monitor Central Office Cost Centers
Public and Indian Housing
2014-LA-0004-001-A
Revise HUD’s asset management fee policy to refederalize the Operating Fund program’s management and bookkeeping fees and the Capital Fund program’s management fees.
2014-LA-0004-001-B
$81,613,671Funds 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.
HUD should remove the provision that allows public housing authorities to charge asset management fees, which would ensure that at least $81.6 million in operating funds could be put to better use in meeting HUD program objectives.
2014-LA-0004-001-C
Establish and implement procedures to reassess the management and bookkeeping fees periodically to ensure that they are reasonable. HUD should retain the documentation justifying the calculation of the rates.
2014-LA-0004-001-H
Develop, document, and implement written procedures to ensure that fees charged to the asset management projects and Capital Fund program and expenses from the central office cost center are used to support HUD’s mission.
2014-AT-1005 | May 29, 2014
The City of Huntsville Community Planning and Development Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnerships Program
Community Planning and Development
2014-AT-1005-001-A
$1,183,642Questioned 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 $1,183,642 in HOME and CHDO funds to the HOME Investment Trust Fund treasury account from non-Federal funds.
2014-FW-1002 | May 27, 2014
The Truth or Consequences Housing Authority’s Financial Controls Were Not Adequate To Ensure That It Used Its Low-Rent Funds Appropriately
Public and Indian Housing
2014-FW-1002-001-B
$178,893Questioned 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.
Discontinue using its low-rent public housing fund as a general fund to pay costs associated with its business activities until it has established appropriate controls.
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
2014-NY-1004-001-G
$597,048Questioned 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 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.