What We Audited and Why
We completed an audit of the Royal Oak Township Housing Commission's Public Housing Program. We selected the Housing Commission for audit based on two citizen complaints. The complainants alleged that the Housing Commission's Public Housing units were in poor physical condition, tenants were housed contrary to HUD's requirements, and Public Housing funds wer misspent. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the complainants' allegations were substantiated.
What We Found
The Housing Commission's housing units were in poor physical condition. A HUD Construction Analyst inspected 32 statistically selected housing units and identified 1,166 deficiencies that did not meet HUD's Uniform Physical Condition Standards and Federal handicap accessibility requirements. The Housing Commission also did not meet the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards for access and the required number of handicap accessible housing units. HUD's Construction Analyst estimated that over $5 million of repairs and more than $192,500 was needed for unit renovations to meet HUD's Uniform Physical Condition Standards and Federal Accessibility Standards. The Housing Commission allowed new tenants with criminal convictions to be housed and did not evict existing tenants with known criminal convictions in violation of HUD's One Strike Policy. The Housing Commission also inappropriately paid $3,340 for travel expenses for its Board attorney and it approved $7,999 for a new project sign changing the name of an existing project without HUD's prior approval.
We attributed these conditions to the Housing Commission's Board of Commissioners not allowing its former Executive Director to timely hire, evaluate, and fire maintenance and administrative staff and contractors without prior Board approval. The Housing Commission's Board also disagreed with HUD's requirements regarding their role and authority.
What We Recommend
We recommend that HUD's Director of Public Housing Hub, requires the Housing Commission to: (1) reimburse its Public Housing Program from non-Federal funds for the inappropriately used monies; and (2) implement procedures and controls to correct the weaknesses cited in this report. We also recommend that HUD's Director of Departmental Enforcement Center take the strongest administrative action against the Housing Commission's Board of Commissioners for their improper oversight of the Commission.
For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and provide status reports in accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.06 REV-3. Please furnish us copies of any correspondence issued because of the audit.
Recommendations
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2005-CH-1003-001-AOpenClosed$367,516.00Questioned 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 HUD’s Director of Public Housing Hub, Detroit Field Office, assure the Royal Oak Township Housing Commission: Reimburse its Public Housing Program $367,516 from non-Federal funds for the improper use of HUD operating subsidy funds cited in this finding.
- Status2005-CH-1003-002-AOpenClosed$45,220.00Questioned 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 HUD’s Director of Public Housing Hub, Detroit Field Office, assure the Royal Oak Township Housing Commission: Reimburse its Public Housing Program $45,220 from non-Federal funds for the operating subsidy that was not used in accordance with HUD's One Strike Policy.
- Status2005-CH-1003-002-COpenClosed$3,340.00Questioned 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 HUD’s Director of Public Housing Hub, Detroit Field Office, assure the Royal Oak Township Housing Commission: Reimburse its Public Housing Program $3,340 from non-Federal funds for thee ineligible travel costs.