U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official.

Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure.

The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Export
Date Issued

Housing

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-CH-1011-002-A
    $608,337
    Questioned 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 $608,337 ($77,856 436,759 $93,722) for the three projects with terminated program contracts.

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-CH-1011-002-C
    $12,830
    Questioned 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.

Community Planning and Development

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-NY-1010-001-A
    $2,451,645
    Funds 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.

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-NY-1010-001-D
    $177,923
    Questioned 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.

Community Planning and Development

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-LA-1010-001-A
    $1,628,130
    Questioned 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.

Community Planning and Development

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-LA-1009-001-A
    $1,595,113
    Questioned 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.

Public and Indian Housing

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-CH-1004-001-C
    $425,193
    Questioned 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.

Community Planning and Development

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-NY-1006-001-A
    $189,322
    Questioned 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.

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-NY-1006-001-B
    $78,530
    Questioned 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.

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-NY-1006-001-C
    $31,470
    Funds 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.

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-NY-1006-001-D
    $1,264
    Questioned 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.

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-NY-1006-002-A

    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.

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-NY-1006-002-D

    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.

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-NY-1006-003-C

    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.

Community Planning and Development

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-AT-1003-002-A
    $552,658
    Questioned 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.

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-AT-1003-002-B
    $1,077,577
    Questioned 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.

Housing

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-PH-0002-001-B

    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.

Community Planning and Development

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-AT-1001-001-A

    Develop and implement a financial management system in accordance with HUD requirements.

Community Planning and Development

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2013-PH-1001-001-A
    $5,999,894
    Questioned 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.

Public and Indian Housing

  •  
    Status
      Open
      Closed
    2012-CH-1012-001-A
    $21,650
    Questioned 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.