We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Asbury Park based on our risk analysis of public housing agencies located in the State of New Jersey. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority administered its Public Housing Operating and Capital Fund programs in accordance with applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal, and Authority requirements.
The Authority did not always administer its operating and capital funds in accordance with HUD, Federal, and Authority requirements. Specifically, the Authority did not (1) adequately support nearly $1.3 million paid to the Long Branch Housing Authority for technical, administrative, maintenance, and redevelopment services; (2) follow applicable requirements when purchasing more than $451,000 in goods and services; and (3) properly support $119,409 in Capital Fund grant obligations. It also improperly used operating funds to pay a settlement with the State of New Jersey. These issues occurred because the Authority did not have adequate controls in place and because Long Branch did not fully understand requirements related to procurement, Capital Fund grant obligations, and allowable Public Housing Operating Fund program expenses. As a result, HUD did not have assurance that (1) nearly $1.3 million paid to Long Branch was for eligible, reasonable, necessary, and allocable costs; (2) more than $451,000 paid for goods and services was for reasonable prices and related to valid contracts; (3) $119,409 in capital funds would be used for eligible activities in a timely manner; and (4) $75,722 was available to the Authority to operate and fulfill its mission.
We recommend that HUD require the Authority to (1) provide documentation to show that (a) nearly $1.3 million paid to Long Branch was for eligible, reasonable, necessary, and allocable costs; (b) more than $451,000 paid for goods and services was reasonable and related to valid contracts that were in place before disbursements were made; and (c) $119,409 in obligations was supported; (2) reimburse $75,722 for the settlement payment; (3) update its policies and procedures to ensure (a) that additional payments for technical, administrative, maintenance, and redevelopment services are adequately supported and that services were provided in accordance with requirements; (b) compliance with HUD and Federal procurement requirements; and (c) that capital funds are obligated in a timely manner and adequately supported.
Recommendations
Public and Indian Housing
-
Status2018-NY-1003-001-AOpenClosed$1,294,062.00Questioned 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 Newark Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to show that the $1,294,062 paid to the Long Branch Housing Authority was for eligible, reasonable, necessary, and allocable costs or reimburse its Operating and Capital Fund programs from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support or that is not considered reasonable.
-
Status2018-NY-1003-001-BOpenClosedClosed on June 21, 2019
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing require the Authority to update its policies and procedures to ensure that any additional payments made under interagency agreements for technical, administrative, maintenance, and redevelopment services are adequately supported prior to making payment and that these services are provided in accordance with applicable requirements.
-
Status2018-NY-1003-001-COpenClosed$326,096.00Questioned 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 Newark Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to show that the $326,096 paid for goods and services was reasonable or reimburse its Operating and Capital Fund programs from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support or that is not considered reasonable.
-
Status2018-NY-1003-001-DOpenClosed$125,589.00Questioned 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 Newark Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to show that it had valid contracts in place before disbursing $125,589 to three vendors or reimburse its Operating and Capital Fund programs from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support.
-
Status2018-NY-1003-001-EOpenClosedClosed on June 21, 2019
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing require the Authority to update its procurement policies and procedures to ensure compliance with HUD and Federal procurement requirements.
-
Status2018-NY-1003-001-FOpenClosed$100,496.00Questioned 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.
Closed on September 30, 2019We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to support $100,496 in 2015 Capital Fund grant obligations that have already been disbursed or reimburse HUD from non-Federal funds for any amount it cannot support.
-
Status2018-NY-1003-001-GOpenClosed$18,913.00Funds 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.
Closed on September 30, 2019We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to support $18,913 in 2015 Capital Fund grant obligations that have not yet been disbursed or request that HUD recapture the funds in accordance with regulations at 24 CFR 905.306.
-
Status2018-NY-1003-001-HOpenClosedClosed on June 21, 2019
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing require the Authority to improve its policies and procedures to ensure that capital funds are obligated in a timely manner and adequately supported.
-
Status2018-NY-1003-001-IOpenClosed$75,722.00Questioned 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.
Closed on July 23, 2024We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing require the Authority to reimburse its Operating Fund from non-Federal funds for the $75,722 settlement payment made to the State of New Jersey.