Perform onsite monitoring of the subrecipient that administered project FL0431L4D001403 to ensure that participants are eligible and annual income re-certifications are performed.
2017-AT-1005 | May 24, 2017
The Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust Did Not Always Properly Administer Its Continuum of Care Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-AT-1005-001-FOpenClosed
2017-PH-1003 | May 22, 2017
The Yorkville Cooperative, Fairfax, VA, Did Not Administer Its HUD-Insured Property and Housing Assistance Contract According to Applicable Requirements
General Counsel
- Status2017-PH-1003-002-DOpenClosed
Review the issues identified in this audit report and if appropriate, pursue administrative sanctions against the board of directors for the violations cited in this report.
2017-AT-1004 | May 08, 2017
Neighborhood Housing Services of South Florida, Miami, FL Did Not Ensure That NSP2 Funds Were Used for Eligible Purposes and Sufficiently Supported
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-AT-1004-001-AOpenClosed$119,046Questioned 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 NSP2 from non-Federal funds for the $59,523 in ineligible disbursements on the five vouchers.
- Status2017-AT-1004-001-BOpenClosed$449,736Questioned 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.
Provide documentation to support that the $224,868 in NSP2 funds drawn down from the four vouchers was eligible or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-AT-1004-001-COpenClosed$6,338Questioned 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 the differences resulting from the payroll costs for the three vouchers, which netted $3,169, were offset in later drawdown vouchers or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-AT-1004-001-DOpenClosed
Review all administration drawdown vouchers and provide documentation to support that the drawdowns for estimated payroll costs are reconciled with the actual payroll costs for the pay periods. Any calculated overpayment by NSP should be returned to the program to meet program purposes.
2016-OE-0011S | May 03, 2017
HUD’s Internal Audit Requirement for Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 Grantees
Community Planning and Development
- Status2016-OE-0011S-01OpenClosed
Provide clearer guidance and instruction to PL 113-2 disaster grantees to assist them in establishing an effective internal audit activity.
- Status2016-OE-0011S-02OpenClosed
Establish a recurring training and discussion forum among the PL 113-2 grantees and CPD that enables grantees to share ideas and receive guidance and information about CPD’s expectations regarding the internal audit requirement.
2017-AT-0001 | April 27, 2017
HUD’s Oversight of Section 108 Loans Was Not Adequate To Ensure Compliance With Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-AT-0001-001-AOpenClosed$15,814,000Questioned 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.
Reevaluate the feasibility of the two Section 108 activities that failed to meet a national objective and determine the eligibility of the $15,814,000 already invested. Any amount determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-AT-0001-001-BOpenClosed$8,694,000Funds 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.
Require the borrowers to submit a plan for how they will proceed and use the $8,694,000 million in unused commitments to provide the intended benefits and meet program objectives.
- Status2017-AT-0001-001-COpenClosed$75,000Questioned 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.
Require the borrower to provide all supporting documentation and evaluate the allowability and eligibility of $75,000 used for the unauthorized activity. Any amount determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-AT-0001-001-DOpenClosed
Develop procedures directing field offices to include the review of Section 108-funded activities when performing the annual reviews of Block Grant recipients.
- Status2017-AT-0001-001-EOpenClosed
Develop procedures to ensure that the information necessary to monitor program performance and compliance with program requirements is promptly provided to the field offices.
- Status2017-AT-0001-001-FOpenClosed
Implement procedures to ensure that borrowers comply with all loan contract provisions and that required documents are submitted, including bank agreements, monthly statements, and security documents. If a borrower does not provide evidence that it has complied with all program requirements, HUD must initiate appropriate remedial actions under paragraph 12 of the contract.
- Status2017-AT-0001-001-GOpenClosed
Develop and implement a tracking system for monitoring reviews of Section 108 loans.
2017-FW-1006 | April 26, 2017
The Housing Authority of the City of Jasper, TX, Did Not Operate Its Public Housing Programs in Compliance With HUD’s Requirements
General Counsel
- Status2017-FW-1006-001-KOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director, Departmental Enforcement Center take appropriate administrative sanctions, including suspension, limited denial of participation, or debarment against the executive director.
- Status2017-FW-1006-001-LOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director, Departmental Enforcement Center seek civil money penalties, as appropriate, against the executive director.
- Status2017-FW-1006-001-MOpenClosed$10,000Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Associate General Counsel for Program Enforcement determine legal sufficiency and, if legally sufficient, pursue remedies under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act against the executive director.
2017-LA-1001 | April 13, 2017
Clark County, NV, Did Not Always Use Community Development Block Grant Funds in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-LA-1001-001-AOpenClosed$1,663,758Questioned 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.
Support the reasonableness of the amount paid for the food facility consolidation and expansion project or repay the program $1,663,758 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-LA-1001-001-BOpenClosed$596,126Questioned 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.
Correct any citations from the Southern Nevada Health District at the Pettiti public pool before May 2017 using non-Federal funds or repay the entire project cost of $596,126 from non-Federal funds and support the reasonableness of the change orders for the Pettiti pool project or repay the program from non-Federal funds.