The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited HUD's use of residual receipts in lieu of reserve for replacement funds. The objective of the audit was to determine whether HUD appropriately authorized residual receipt withdrawals in lieu of reserve for replacement funds for new regulation multifamily projects. HUD inappropriately authorized the use of more than $3.2 million in residual receipt funds for new regulation multifamily projects for ineligible costs.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General reviewed HUD's oversight of projects that opted out of the Section 8 program between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2007. We reviewed the opt-out process because it involved large amounts of funds potentially not accounted for or remitted to HUD. With a few minor exceptions, HUD complied with applicable requirements while administering the opt-out process for the nine Section 8 projects in our sample.

We reviewed the use of contract fee inspectors by the Office of Multifamily Housing Boston Hub (Boston Hub) as part of our 2007 annual audit plan. This review was initiated because U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) staff rely on contract fee inspectors to oversee the work of contractors performing renovation work on HUD-insured properties.

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) processing of its Section 202 and Section 811 capital advances as a part of our annual audit plan. The audit objective was to determine whether HUD's program centers under the jurisdiction of its Region 3 (program centers) processed Section 202 and Section 811 capital advances in accordance with HUD requirements. Program centers did not always process Section 202 and Section 811 capital advances in accordance with applicable HUD requirements.

Our audit objective was to determine whether Elders Place, Incorporated, (Elders Place, Inc.), administered project operating funds in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. Elders Place, Inc., did not administer project operating funds in accordance with HUD requirements.

Based on a hotline complaint, we reviewed whether the Phoenix Apartments multifamily project located in Concord, California, used its project funds in accordance with HUD rules and regulations. We found that the project did not use project funds in accordance with the requirements of its regulatory agreement and applicable HUD rules and regulations. Specifically, during fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006, the project used $89,751 of its funds for unnecessary purposes and did not support the necessity and/or reasonableness of $118,220 spent for the project.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General reviewed the front-end risk assessment (assessment) of the Green Retrofit Program (program) for Multifamily Housing for HUD. Our objective was to determine whether the assessment complied with the Office of Management and Budget’s guidance for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act); the Recovery Act’s Updated Implementing Guidance; and HUD’s streamlined assessment process.

We completed a corrective action verification of HUD’s actions in implementing portions of Audit Memorandum 98-AO-219-1804, issued September 24, 1998; Upfront Grant for Ridgecrest Heights Apartments, CEMI-Ridgecrest, Inc., Washington, DC. The specific objective of this corrective action verification review was to determine if HUD ensured the repayment of excess proceeds from the sale of townhomes located at Ridgecrest Heights Apartments. HUD failed to adequately follow the procedures it agreed to in its close-out memorandum with the Office of Inspector General.

We initiated a review of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) monitoring of the performance-based contract administration contract administrators (PBCA) because of our prior audits that reported that HUD paid contract administrators $27.2 million during fiscal year 2006 for work HUD had eliminated and that the Los Angeles multifamily hub did not properly monitor its contractor.

In response to requests from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Senator James Inhofe, we audited the property owner's application and the loan processing and underwriting of the HUD-insured mortgage loan to Greystone Apartments, Inc., for Cypress Ridge Apartments.