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.
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
2013-NY-1006-002-A
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.
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.
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
2013-AT-1003-002-A
$552,658Questioned 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 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.
2013-AT-1003-002-B
$1,077,577Questioned 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 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
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.
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
2013-AT-1001-001-A
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
2013-PH-1001-001-A
$5,999,894Questioned 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 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
2012-CH-1012-001-A
$21,650Questioned 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 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.
2012-CH-1012-001-H
$17,008Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to provide supporting documentation or reimburse its program $17,008 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported payments cited in this finding.
2012-AT-1009 | May 23, 2012
The Municipality of Bayamón, PR, Did Not Always Ensure Compliance With HOME Investment Partnerships Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
2012-AT-1009-001-A
$3,213,572Questioned 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 Municipality to develop and implement a financial management system in accordance with HUD requirements and ensure that $3,213,572 in HOME funds drawn from HUD between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2011, can be traced to a level which ensures that such funds have not been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes or reimburse the HOME program from non-Federal funds.(Footnote 2) Total disbursements of $3,523,723 were adjusted to consider $173,978 questioned in recommendation 1B, $86,567 questioned in recommendation 1D, and $49,606 questioned in recommendation 2B.
2012-AT-1009-001-C
$114,139Questioned 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 Municipality to submit supporting documentation showing the allocability and eligibility of $114,139 charged to the HOME program for project delivery costs or reimburse the program from non-Federal funds.
2012-AT-1009-002-B
$537,773Questioned 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.
Determine the eligibility of the $537,773 disbursed for the Ciudad de Ensueño project and reevaluate the feasibility of the activity. (Footnote 9) Total disbursements of $538,973 were adjusted to consider $1,200 questioned in recommendation 1F. The Municipality must reimburse its HOME program from non-Federal funds if HUD determines the activity to have been terminated.
2012-CH-1002 | January 25, 2012
The Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, MI, Did Not Administer Its Grant in Accordance With Recovery Act, HUD’s, and Its Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
2012-CH-1002-006-A
$11,289Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse $11,289 (the difference between the contract paid price of $33,638 and the lesser calculated cost of $ 22,349) from non-Federal funds to HUD for transmission to the U.S. Treasury for the cost savings cited in this finding.
2012-LA-0001 | November 15, 2011
HUD Did Not Adequately Support the Reasonableness of the Fee-for-Service Amounts or Monitor the Amounts Charged
Public and Indian Housing
2012-LA-0001-001-A
Establish and implement procedures to reassess the safe harbor percentage and rates periodically to ensure that they are reasonable. HUD should retain the documentation justifying the calculation of those percentages and rates. In addition, HUD should assess the feasibility of requiring the agencies to periodically justify and retain documentation showing the reasonableness of using the maximum rates, or lower them as appropriate.
2012-PH-0001 | October 31, 2011
HUD Needed to Improve Its Use of Its Integrated Disbursement and Information System To Oversee Its Community Development Block Grant Program
Community Planning and Development
2012-PH-0001-001-B
$66,849,658Questioned 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.
Direct responsible grantees to justify the use of $66,849,658 that it disbursed for cancelled Block Grant program activities or repay HUD from non-Federal funds.
2012-NY-1002 | October 18, 2011
The City of New York, NY, Charged Questionable Expenditures to Its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program
Community Planning and Development
2012-NY-1002-001-A
$93,436Questioned 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 City Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to reimburse from non-Federal funds $93,436 for ineligible costs charged to HPRP; specifically, $59,430 related to payments for rental arrears over the 6-month eligibility requirement and $34,006 for payments issued directly to participants.
2012-NY-1002-001-B
$329,937Questioned 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 City Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to justify the $329,937 in unsupported salary costs incurred between June and September 2010. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
2011-AT-1018 | September 28, 2011
The Municipality of San Juan Did Not Properly Manage Its HOME Investment Partnerships Program
Community Planning and Development
2011-AT-1018-001-A
$2,399,428Questioned 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.
Determine the eligibility of the $2,399,428 disbursed for four projects with signs of slow progress and reevaluate the feasibility of the activities. Total disbursements of $3,483,086 were adjusted to consider $713,008 questioned in recommendation 2C and $370,650 in recommendation 2A. The Municipality must reimburse its HOME program from non-Federal funds for activities that HUD determines to have been terminated.
2011-AT-1018-001-C
$766,480Questioned 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 Municipality to reimburse its HOME program from non-Federal funds $766,480 for disbursements associated with terminated activities that did not meet HOME objectives.