We completed a review of Nassau County, NY Office of Community Development’s administration of its HOME Investment Partnerships Program. We selected this auditee based on a risk assessment conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) New York City Office of Community Planning and Development. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the County committed and obligated HOME funds in a timely manner, disbursed HOME funds for eligible activities, and used HOME funds for eligible administrative and planning costs in accordance with HUD rules and regulations.
Our review determined that County officials did not commit HOME funds in accordance with HUD rules and regulations, disburse HOME funds for eligible activities, and use HOME funds for eligible administrative and planning costs. Specifically, they did not provide adequate supporting documents showing that all funds were appropriately committed, charged ineligible and unsupported costs to the program, had weaknesses in their administrative controls, did not monitor subrecipients and home buyers, and published inaccurate criteria on the County’s HOME Web site. Consequently, HUD could not be assured that the County properly committed $2.35 million in HOME funds for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, disbursed $269,116 in HOME expenditures, and administered its HOME program in accordance with requirements.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York City Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to (1) provide documentation to justify the $190,586 in unsupported administrative, planning, and project delivery costs; (2) reimburse from non-Federal funds $78,530 for ineligible home-buyer rehabilitation and demolition costs; (3) provide contracts to support commitments of over $2.3 million in HOME funds; (4) strengthen administrative and monitoring controls; and (5) ensure that accurate information is posted to its program Web sites.
Recommendations
Community Planning and Development
-
Status2013-NY-1006-001-AOpenClosed$189,322.00Questioned 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 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$78,530.00Questioned 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 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$31,470.00Funds 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.
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$1,264.00Questioned 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 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.