North Hempstead Housing Authority, Great Neck, New York, Had Weaknesses in Its Housing Choice Voucher and Family Self-Sufficiency Programs
We recommend that the Director, Office of Public Housing, New York, instruct Authority officials to seek repayment of $50,237 in ineligible housing assistance payments.
The Housing Authority of Whitesburg, Kentucky, Mismanaged Its Operations
Require the Authority to account for $134,889 in tenant rent receipts or repay any unsupported amounts to its public housing operating program from nonfederal funds.
The Housing Authority of Whitesburg, Kentucky, Mismanaged Its Operations
Require the Authority to provide support for $264,229 in disbursements or repay any unsupported costs to its public housing operating and capital improvement program from nonfederal funds.
The Housing Authority of Whitesburg, Kentucky, Mismanaged Its Operations
Require the Authority to reimburse its public housing program $2,250 for ineligible costs using non-federal funds.
The Housing Authority of Whitesburg, Kentucky, Mismanaged Its Operations
Require the Authority to support the $27,097 in unreasonable costs or reimburse its public housing and capital improvement program from nonfederal funds.
The Housing Authority of Whitesburg, Kentucky, Mismanaged Its Operations
Require the Authority to provide support that $446,918 in contracts were fairly and openly competed or reimburse its public housing and capital improvement program from nonfederal funds.
The Housing Authority of Whitesburg, Kentucky, Mismanaged Its Operations
Require the Authority to provide support for the $275,282 in capital fund drawdowns or reimburse its capital improvement program from nonfederal funds.
The District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Did Not Administer Its HOME Program in Accordance With Federal Requirements
Deobligate $279,245 in available funds associated with the ineligible CHDO and reprogram the funds for other eligible HOME activities, thereby putting the funds to better use.
The City of Buffalo Did Not Always Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development reimburse from non-Federal funds $162,923 ($134,711 $28,212) expended on ineligible costs pertaining to street improvement projects not done and a duplicate reimbursement.
The City of Buffalo Did Not Always Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We further recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to provide documentation to justify the $1,982,988 in unsupported costs associated with street improvement expenditures incurred between June 2007 and October 2009. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
The City of Buffalo Did Not Always Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to provide documentation to justify the $20,143,219 ($4,902,754 $15,240,465) in unsupported transactions recorded in the CDBG program income account. Any receipts determined to be unrecorded program income should be returned to the CDBG program, and any expenditures determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal…
The City of Buffalo Did Not Always Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We further recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to reimburse from non-Federal funds the $304,506 related to ineligible clean and seal code enforcement costs.
The City of Buffalo Did Not Always Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We further recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to provide documentation to justify the $716,622 ($545,607 $24,069 $146,946) in unsupported clean and seal costs incurred so that HUD can make an eligibility determination. Any costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
The Lafayette Parish Housing Authority Violated HUD Procurement Requirements and Executed Unreasonable and Unnecessary Contracts
Support or repay from non-Federal funds any amounts that it cannot support, including $1,568,245 to its operating fund and $973,126 to its capital fund paid for (1) contracts that were improperly procured, (2) contract overpayments, or (3) contract payments made outside of the contract effective dates.
The Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, MI, Did Not Fully Implement Prior Audit Recommendations and Continued To Use Its Public Housing Program Funds for Ineligible Purposes
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its Capital Fund $1,539,629 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible payments cited in this finding.
The Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, MI, Did Not Fully Implement Prior Audit Recommendations and Continued To Use Its Public Housing Program Funds for Ineligible Purposes
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to return the $411,228 in excess capital fund draws cited in this finding.
The Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, MI, Did Not Fully Implement Prior Audit Recommendations and Continued To Use Its Public Housing Program Funds for Ineligible Purposes
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to provide supporting documentation or reimburse its Capital Fund $394,683 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported costs cited in this finding.
The Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, MI, Did Not Fully Implement Prior Audit Recommendations and Continued To Use Its Public Housing Program Funds for Ineligible Purposes
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its Capital Fund $13,085 from non-Federal funds for the inappropriately earned interest cited in this finding.
The Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, MI, Did Not Fully Implement Prior Audit Recommendations and Continued To Use Its Public Housing Program Funds for Ineligible Purposes
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its appropriate programs $180,649 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible payments cited in this finding.
The Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, MI, Did Not Fully Implement Prior Audit Recommendations and Continued To Use Its Public Housing Program Funds for Ineligible Purposes
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to provide supporting documentation or reimburse its appropriate programs $30,236 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported costs cited in this finding.