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.
2011-AO-0001 | Junio 21, 2011
The Lafayette Parish Housing Authority, Lafayette, LA, Violated HUD Procurement Requirements and Executed Unreasonable and Unnecessary Contracts
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2011-AO-0001-001-AOpenClosed$2,541,371Questioned 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.
2011-NY-1010 | Abril 14, 2011
The City of Buffalo Did Not Always Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2011-NY-1010-001-BOpenClosed$162,923Questioned 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 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.
- Status2011-NY-1010-001-COpenClosed$1,982,988Questioned 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 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.
- Status2011-NY-1010-002-BOpenClosed$20,143,219Questioned 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 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 funds.
- Status2011-NY-1010-003-BOpenClosed$609,012Questioned 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 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.
- Status2011-NY-1010-003-COpenClosed$716,622Questioned 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 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.
2010-AT-1003 | Abril 27, 2010
The Housing Authority of Whitesburg, Kentucky, Mismanaged Its Operations
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-DOpenClosed$134,889Questioned 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 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.
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-FOpenClosed$264,229Questioned 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 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.
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-GOpenClosed$2,250Questioned 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 the Authority to reimburse its public housing program $2,250 for ineligible costs using non-federal funds.
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-HOpenClosed$27,097Questioned 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 the Authority to support the $27,097 in unreasonable costs or reimburse its public housing and capital improvement program from nonfederal funds.
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-IOpenClosed$446,918Questioned 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 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.
- Status2010-AT-1003-001-JOpenClosed$275,282Questioned 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 the Authority to provide support for the $275,282 in capital fund drawdowns or reimburse its capital improvement program from nonfederal funds.
2009-AO-1001 | Mayo 04, 2009
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Road Home Program Did Not Ensure that Road HOME Employees Were Eligible to Receive Additional Compensation Grants
Community Planning and Development
- Status2009-AO-1001-001-AOpenClosed$228,930Questioned 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.
Repay $228,930 disbursed for five ineligible grants to its Road Home program.
2009-AO-1002 | Mayo 04, 2009
The State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Road Home Program, Did Not Ensure That Multiple Disbursements to a Single Damaged Residence Address Were Eligible
Community Planning and Development
- Status2009-AO-1002-001-AOpenClosed$294,060Questioned 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.
Repay $294,060 disbursed for three ineligible grants to its Road Home program.
- Status2009-AO-1002-001-BOpenClosed$441,027Questioned 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.
Either support or repay $441,027 disbursed for five unsupported grants.
2008-CH-1006 | Abril 14, 2008
The Indianapolis Housing Agency, Indianapolis, Indiana, Did Not Effectively Operate Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2008-CH-1006-002-EOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Cleveland Office of Public Housing require the Agency to determine the appropriate administrative fees for the applicable households for which it is unable to provide supporting documentation cited in recommendation 2D and reimburse its program the applicable amount from nonfederal funds.
2008-AO-1002 | Enero 28, 2008
State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Road Home Program, Funded 418 Grants Coded Ineligible or Lacking an Eligibility Determination
Community Planning and Development
- Status2008-AO-1002-001-AOpenClosed$743,344Questioned 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.
Repay $743,344 disbursed for the 17 ineligible grants to its Road Home program.
- Status2008-AO-1002-001-COpenClosed$14,697,812Questioned 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.
Review all of the remaining 392 grants coded ineligible or lacking an eligibility determination and either support or repay $14,697,812 disbursed for them.
2007-NY-1006 | Mayo 23, 2007
Housing Authority of the City of Asbury Park, New Jersey
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2007-NY-1006-001-AOpenClosed$692,990Questioned 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 Office of Public Housing instruct the Authority to reimburse HUD for the excessive administrative fee charge of $692,990 in capital funds in accordance with the procedures described in 24 CFR 905.120.
2007-CH-1005 | Marzo 22, 2007
The Housing Authority of the City of Gary, Indiana, Lacked Adequate Controls over Refunding Savings
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2007-CH-1005-001-AOpenClosed$913,365Questioned 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 Cleveland Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to support that the $913,365 in refunding savings cited in this finding was used to provide affordable, decent, safe, and sanitary housing to very low-income households or reimburse from nonfederal funds its refunding savings account(s), as appropriate, to be able to trace its use of the savings.