We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Detroit Office of Multifamily Housing Programs require the Authority to reimburse the U.S. Treasury $608,337 ($77,856 436,759 $93,722) for the three projects with terminated program contracts.
2013-CH-1011 | September 30, 2013
The Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Lansing, MI, Did Not Follow HUD’s Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Program
Housing
- Status2013-CH-1011-002-AOpenClosed$608,337Questioned 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.
- Status2013-CH-1011-002-COpenClosed$12,830Questioned 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 Multifamily Housing Programs require the Authority to reimburse the U.S. Treasury $12,830 from non-Federal funds for the lost interest.
2013-NY-1010 | September 26, 2013
The City of Auburn, NY Community Development Block Grant Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-NY-1010-001-AOpenClosed$2,451,645Funds 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to expend or reprogram to other eligible program activities the $2,451,645 in CDBG program income maintained in the City’s community development bank accounts as of June 30, 2013, so the City can assure HUD that these funds have been put to better use.
- Status2013-NY-1010-001-DOpenClosed$177,923Questioned 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 Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to Provide documentation to justify the $177,923 unsupported difference between the City’s CDBG program income balance in IDIS and its bank account balances as of June 30, 2013. Any portion of the unsupported difference determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
2013-LA-1010 | September 20, 2013
The City of Hawthorne, CA, Did Not Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program Cost Allocations in Accordance With HUD Rules and Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-LA-1010-001-AOpenClosed$1,628,130Questioned 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 adequate supporting documentation for the $1,628,130 in unsupported salary and benefit costs or repay the CDBG program from non-Federal funds.
2013-LA-1009 | September 13, 2013
The City of Hawthorne, CA, Inappropriately Used Nearly $1.6 Million in HOME Funds for Section 8 Tenants
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-LA-1009-001-AOpenClosed$1,595,113Questioned 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.
Reimburse its HOME program $1,595,113 from non-Federal funds for HOME funds that were inappropriately used on Section 8 housing assistance payments.
2013-CH-1004 | August 01, 2013
The Inkster Housing Commission, Inkster, MI, Did Not Follow HUD’s Requirements and Its Own Policies Regarding the Administration of Its Programs
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2013-CH-1004-001-COpenClosed$425,193Questioned 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 support or reimburse its program $425,193 ($19,924 $384,755 in housing assistance payments $46 in utility allowances $20,468 in associated administrative fees) from non-Federal funds for the unsupported overpayment of housing assistance and utility allowances due to unsupported calculations, missing eligibility documentations, and discrepancies in the housing assistance payments register.
2013-NY-1006 | May 13, 2013
Nassau County, NY, Did Not Administer It’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-NY-1006-001-AOpenClosed$189,322Questioned 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 New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documentation to justify the $189,322 in unsupported administrative and planning costs that was disbursed for employee salaries and fringe benefits. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
- Status2013-NY-1006-001-BOpenClosed$78,530Questioned 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 New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to reimburse from non-Federal funds $78,530 for ineligible home-buyer rehabilitation and demolition costs charged to the HOME program.
- Status2013-NY-1006-001-COpenClosed$31,470Funds 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to terminate the contract between the County and the Village of Freeport to rehabilitate and construct single-family public housing units to be sold to low-income residents. The remaining contract balance of $31,470 should be put to better use by reprogramming it for other eligible purposes.
- Status2013-NY-1006-001-DOpenClosed$1,264Questioned 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 New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documentation to justify the $1,264 in unsupported project delivery costs. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
- Status2013-NY-1006-002-AOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to document their application review committee membership and provide evidence of the committee meetings and their evaluation and rating of subrecipients to fully support their funding recommendations.
- Status2013-NY-1006-002-DOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to develop controls to ensure that the County’s recently established debarment verification procedures are implemented for all future procurement activity.
- Status2013-NY-1006-003-COpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to develop controls that will ensure that the County’s decentralized record-keeping system is centralized for ready access to HOME documents.
2013-AT-1003 | March 22, 2013
The Municipality of Arecibo, PR, Did Not Always Ensure Compliance With Community Development Block Grant Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-AT-1003-002-AOpenClosed$552,658Questioned 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 Municipality to reimburse from non-federal funds $552,658 in unallowable and unallocated costs associated with the disbursement of salaries and fringe benefits of employees who did not perform duties directly related to carrying out activities charged with the program delivery costs.
- Status2013-AT-1003-002-BOpenClosed$1,077,577Questioned 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 Municipality to provide support showing the allocability and eligibility of $1,077,577 spent on salaries and fringe benefits for employees who performed local government duties and multiple federally funded activities without properly allocating the costs directly related to carrying out each activity. Any amounts determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the Block Grant program from non-federal funds.
2013-PH-0002 | December 19, 2012
HUD Policies Did Not Always Ensure That Borrowers Complied With Program Residency Requirements
Housing
- Status2013-PH-0002-001-BOpenClosed
Implement control policies or procedures to at least annually coordinate with HUD’s Office of Public Housing to match data in the Single Family Data Warehouse to data in the Public Housing Information Center to prevent or mitigate instances of borrowers violating Program residency requirements by renting their properties to Section 8 voucher participants.
2013-AT-1001 | November 29, 2012
The Municipality of Ponce, PR, Did Not Always Ensure Compliance With HOME Investment Partnerships Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-AT-1001-001-AOpenClosed
Develop and implement a financial management system in accordance with HUD requirements.
2013-PH-1001 | October 31, 2012
Luzerne County, PA, Did Not Properly Evaluate, Underwrite, and Monitor a High-Risk Loan
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-PH-1001-001-AOpenClosed$5,999,894Questioned 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.
Reimburse its business development loan program $5,999,894 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible expenditures related to the Hotel Sterling project.
2012-CH-1012 | September 27, 2012
The Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, MI, Did Not Always Administer Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2012-CH-1012-001-AOpenClosed$21,650Questioned 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 $21,650 form non-Federal funds for the overpayment of escrow funds to the participants cited in this finding.