We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to reimburse $242,269 to the County’s HOME program line of credit for CHDO reserve fund disbursed to the ineligible CHDO.
2017-NY-1005 | Enero 12, 2017
Union County, NJ’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program Was Not Always Administered in Compliance With Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-KOpenClosed$242,269Questioned 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.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-LOpenClosed$227,903Questioned 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, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documentation to support that at least one-third of the Homefirst board were representatives of a low-income community. If documentation cannot be provided, reimburse the $227,903 to the County’s HOME program line of credit from non-Federal sources.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-MOpenClosed$536,507Funds 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 Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to reimburse the $536,507 in program income to the County’s HOME program local bank account and record the income in IDIS.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-ROpenClosed$260,736Questioned 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, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documents, such as pay stubs and bank statements, to support the eligibility of the two home buyers. If documentation cannot be provided, reimburse $260,736 from non-Federal sources to the County’s HOME program line of credit.
2017-NY-1004 | Diciembre 20, 2016
The City of New York, NY, Lacked Adequate Controls To Ensure That the Use of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds Was Always Consistent With the Action Plan and Applicable Federal and State Regulations
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-NY-1004-001-AOpenClosed$18,274,054Questioned 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 Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs instruct City officials to reimburse the Program from non-Federal funds $18,274,054 in exempt State sales tax on repairs and maintenance services.
2017-KC-1001 | Diciembre 15, 2016
Majestic Management, LLC, a Multifamily Housing Management Agent in St. Louis, MO, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements When Disbursing Project Funds
Housing
- Status2017-KC-1001-001-AOpenClosed$17,414Questioned 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.
Provide support showing that $17,414 in management fees charged to the projects using a budgeted amount represented actual amounts or repay the difference to each affected project.
- Status2017-KC-1001-001-BOpenClosed$447,345Questioned 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.
Provide documentation to support that it paid itself $447,345 for eligible purposes or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
- Status2017-KC-1001-001-DOpenClosed
Verify all management fees charged to the projects from 2013 through 2015 were appropriate.
- Status2017-KC-1001-002-AOpenClosed$231,091Questioned 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.
Require Majestic Management to reimburse the appropriate projects their portion of $231,091 for work not completed or overbilled.
- Status2017-KC-1001-002-BOpenClosed$462,281Questioned 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.
Require Majestic Management to provide support that $462,281 paid for procurements was reasonable or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
- Status2017-KC-1001-003-AOpenClosed$11,184Questioned 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.
Reimburse the appropriate projects their portion of $11,184 that it charged for ineligible items.
- Status2017-KC-1001-003-BOpenClosed$48,891Questioned 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.
Provide documentation to support that $48,891 was spent for eligible purposes or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
2017-KC-0001 | Octubre 14, 2016
FHA Paid Claims for an Estimated 239,000 Properties That Servicers Did Not Foreclose Upon or Convey on Time
Housing
- Status2017-KC-0001-001-AOpenClosed$2,238,721,464Funds 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.
PrioridadPriorityWe believe these open recommendations, if implemented, will have the greatest impact on helping HUD achieve its mission to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.
Issue a change to regulations at 24 CFR Part 203, which would avoid unnecessary costs to the FHA insurance fund, allowing an estimated $2.23 billion to be put to better use. These changes include (1) a maximum period for filing insurance claims and (2) disallowance of expenses incurred beyond established timeframes.
Status
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) reported that the recommendation cannot be closed out without the publication of the FHA Maximum Claim Rule. The proposed changes have been on HUD’s regulatory agenda since Spring 2020 but, as of February 2025, the Office of Single Family Housing does not have an estimated publication date.
Analysis
To fully address this recommendation, HUD must publish the FHA Maximum Claim Rule. Implementation of this rule should result in HUD putting $2.23 billion to better use.
2016-FW-1010 | Septiembre 30, 2016
The State of Oklahoma Did Not Obligate and Spend Its Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds in Accordance With Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2016-FW-1010-001-BOpenClosed$11,717,288Questioned 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 Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the State to support or properly obligate $11,717,288 in unsupported obligations.
2016-AT-1014 | Septiembre 30, 2016
The Broward County Housing Authority, Lauderdale Lakes, FL, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-AT-1014-001-AOpenClosed$28,199Questioned 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.
Reimburse its program $28,199 ($19,771 $7,793 $635) from non-Federal funds for the overpayment of housing assistance and ineligible administrative fees it received for the deficiencies cited in this report.
2016-PH-1006 | Agosto 31, 2016
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Administer Its Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency Program in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-PH-1006-001-AOpenClosed$292,611Questioned 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.
Provide documentation to support program accomplishment data related to disbursements totaling $292,611 or repay HUD from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support.
2016-AT-1012 | Agosto 29, 2016
The Municipality of Bayamon, PR, Did Not Always Ensure Compliance With HUD Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2016-AT-1012-001-AOpenClosed
Complete the implementation of the new accounting system and ensure it tracks program funds to a level that supports compliance with HUD requirements.
- Status2016-AT-1012-001-BOpenClosed$944,687Questioned 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.
Provide support that $944,687 (Footnote 2: Emergency funds of more than $1.1 million drawn between July 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015, were adjusted to consider $158,800 questioned in recommendation 1C and $38,164 questioned in recommendation 1D.) in Emergency funds drawn from HUD is reconciled with the accounting records and that such funds have not been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes or reimburse the Emergency programs from non-Federal funds.
- Status2016-AT-1012-001-COpenClosed$189,227Questioned 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.
Reimburse $189,227 to the Emergency programs from non-Federal funds for ineligible charges made to the programs.
- Status2016-AT-1012-001-DOpenClosed$38,164Questioned 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.
Submit supporting documentation showing the eligibility, reasonableness, and allocability of $38,164 charged to the Emergency programs for unsupported drawdowns and equipment cost allocations or reimburse the programs from non-Federal funds.