Determine whether the tenant paid the landlord nearly $1,284 for housing assistance payments that the Agency did not make to the landlord. If the tenant paid the landlord, the Agency should make the appropriate accounting entries and reimburse the tenant from program funds. If the tenant did not pay the landlord, the Agency should reinstate the adjustments to accounts payable that were inappropriately deleted and pay the landlord from program funds.
2018-CH-1002 | July 31, 2018
The Indianapolis Housing Agency, Indianapolis, IN, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Regulations and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Financial Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-CH-1002-001-EOpenClosed$1,284Funds 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.
Closed on January 07, 2020 - Status2018-CH-1002-001-FOpenClosedClosed on January 17, 2020
Provide sufficient documentation to support that an adjustment to accounts payable and five adjustments to accounts receivable were appropriate. If the Agency cannot do this, it should make the appropriate accounting entries and take the appropriate actions.
- Status2018-CH-1002-001-GOpenClosedClosed on February 21, 2020
Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that it deletes adjustments to accounts payable and receivable and makes adjustments to accounts payable and receivable in accordance with HUD’s regulations and its administrative plan.
- Status2018-CH-1002-001-HOpenClosedClosed on November 07, 2018
Request that HUD’s Quality Assurance Division continue reviewing the Agency’s (1) writeoff of accounts receivable, (2) deleted adjustments to accounts payable and receivable, and (3) adjustments to accounts payable and receivable as part of its financial and program management and operations review.
2018-LA-1006 | July 24, 2018
The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, Sacramento, CA, Did Not Always Use Community Development Block Grant Funds in Accordance with HUD Requirements or Its Own Policies
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-AOpenClosed$272,569Questioned 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.
Closed on March 11, 2019Support that the 59 contracts awarded for the emergency repair program were fair and reasonable or repay its program $272,569 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-BOpenClosedClosed on November 30, 2018
Obtain technical assistance from HUD to revise its Emergency Repair Program to meet CDBG requirements.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-COpenClosed$50,000Questioned 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.
Closed on March 06, 2019Support that the contract awarded for the food incubator study was fair and reasonable and met a final cost objective or repay its program $50,000 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-DOpenClosed$48,895Questioned 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.
Closed on November 13, 2018Support that change orders executed outside the scope of the Colonial Heights Library contract were fair and reasonable or repay its program $48,895 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-EOpenClosed$13,950Questioned 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.
Closed on March 06, 2019Support that the contract awarded for the Boys and Girls Club feasibility study was fair and reasonable and met a final cost objective or repay its program $13,950 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-FOpenClosedClosed on November 13, 2018
Provide procurement training to its staff members who work on CDBG program activities and ensure that staff members comply with HUD requirements and use its current procurement policy.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-GOpenClosed$55,200Questioned 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.
Closed on November 13, 2018Support that the entrepreneur center feasibility study met a final cost objective or repay its program $55,200 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-HOpenClosed$283Questioned 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.
Closed on March 18, 2019Reimburse its program $283 from non-Federal funds for unallowable bottled water costs.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-IOpenClosed$141Questioned 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.
Closed on March 18, 2019Review all invoices provided from its minor repair subrecipient between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, and repay the program from non-Federal funds for all bottled water service payments not identified in this audit report.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-JOpenClosedClosed on November 13, 2018
Provide training to its employees regarding allowable costs to ensure that all costs submitted by contractors and subrecipients are eligible for reimbursement.
2017-OE-0014 | July 23, 2018
HUD’s Oversight of the Alexander County Housing Authority
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-OE-0014-01OpenClosedClosed on December 20, 2019
Create agreements and strategies with other program offices that describe when cross-programmatic reviews and enforcement actions against PHAs are required.
- Status2017-OE-0014-02OpenClosedClosed on March 07, 2019
Train PIH officials on the authority and processes for declaring PHAs in substantial default and for taking PHAs into HUD possession.
- Status2017-OE-0014-03OpenClosedClosed on July 12, 2019
Update and strengthen the training program for HUD receivers of PHAs.
- Status2017-OE-0014-04OpenClosedClosed on May 29, 2019
Update procedures for receiverships to include specific guidance on when initiating a receivership may be appropriate.
2018-FW-0002 | July 22, 2018
Final Audit Report - HUD’s Office of Block Grant Assistance Had Not Codified the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-FW-0002-001-AOpenClosedClosed on October 20, 2023
We recommend that the Acting Director of OBGA work with HUD’s Office of General Counsel to create a codified Disaster Recovery program.
2018-AT-1009 | July 22, 2018
The Pell City Housing Authority, Pell City, AL, Did Not Always Administer Its and the Ragland Housing Authority, Ragland, AL’s Funds in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-AT-1009-001-AOpenClosed$1,188Questioned 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.
Closed on November 05, 2019The Pell City Housing Authority to reimburse its public housing fund from non-Federal funds $1,188 for payments made for ineligible credit card expenditures.