Direct the New Orleans, LA, field office to enforce its monitoring findings and require the grantee to provide documentation to support costs totaling $4,959,911 or the grantee must reimburse its program from non-Federal funds for any costs that it cannot support.
2016-PH-0001 | June 29, 2016
HUD Did Not Always Provide Adequate Oversight of Property Acquisition and Disposition Activities
Community Planning and Development
- Status2016-PH-0001-001-AOpenClosed$4,959,911Questioned 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.
- Status2016-PH-0001-001-EOpenClosed$1,766,778Questioned 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.
Direct the Washington, DC, field office to require the grantee to provide documentation to support the $1,766,778 in unsupported payments identified or the grantee must reimburse its program from non-Federal funds for any costs that it cannot support.
- Status2016-PH-0001-001-FOpenClosed$4,214Questioned 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.
Direct the Washington, DC, field office to require the grantee to repay its program $4,214 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible costs associated with activity 1515.
- Status2016-PH-0001-001-GOpenClosed
Direct field offices to include property acquisition and disposition activities as an area of special emphasis when assessing grantee risk and establishing their monitoring plans and grantee monitoring strategies.
2016-NY-1007 | March 29, 2016
The City of Jersey City, NJ’s Community Development Block Grant Program Had Administrative and Financial Control Weaknesses
Community Planning and Development
- Status2016-NY-1007-001-AOpenClosed$11,532,769Funds 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 City officials to reimburse the City’s CDBG local bank account for the $11,532,769 in uncollected program income generated from the disposition of real property previously assisted with CDBG funds, thus ensuring that these funds can be used for eligible activities.
- Status2016-NY-1007-001-KOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to support compliance with Federal procurement regulations when contracts were awarded to the three single bidders.
- Status2016-NY-1007-001-NOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to support that those laborers employed by the four contractors are compensated in accordance with Davis-Bacon wage rates. If documentation cannot be provided, the City’s line of credit should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds for disbursements made to the four contractors.
2016-NY-1801 | February 09, 2016
The City of Jersey City’s Administration of Its Lead Paint Activities Did Not Comply With Federal and New Jersey State Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2016-NY-1801-001-BOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to collect and test lead dust samples from the floors and window sills of the 27 homeowner units that received CDBG funds in program years 2012 and 2013 to ensure that the lead dust does not exceed the allowable lead dust standards. If the tests reveal the existence of excessive lead dust, City officials need to reduce the lead dust to the allowable limit, or reimburse the City’s CDBG line of credit from non-Federal funds for disbursements previously made to repair those 27 units.
2016-NY-1003 | February 03, 2016
The City of Rochester, NY Did Not Always Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2016-NY-1003-001-AOpenClosed$153,279Questioned 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 City officials to reimburse from non-Federal funds $153,279 spent on ineligible costs for duplicate and preaward costs of an economic development loan ($99,616), non-Federal City salary costs ($46,324), and duplicate subrecipient costs ($7,339).
- Status2016-NY-1003-001-COpenClosed$291,236Questioned 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 City officials to provide documentation to justify the $291,236 in unsupported costs related to disbursements made to the City’s public services subrecipient. Any costs determined to be inadequately supported should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
- Status2016-NY-1003-001-EOpenClosed$6,724,820Questioned 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 City officials to provide documentation in the loan file that HUD approved the withdrawal of funds after the required deadline, and provide an explanation and obtain approval for the untimely disbursement of the $6,724,820 after it had been drawn down. Any costs determined to be inadequately supported should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
- Status2016-NY-1003-001-FOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to strengthen controls to ensure compliance with Section 108 contract provisions and regulations requiring disbursement of funds in a timely manner after drawdown.
- Status2016-NY-1003-001-GOpenClosed$1,500,000Funds 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.
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to reimburse the $1,500,000 in CDBG funds spent for the delinquent float loan that defaulted in 1998 through one of the options identified in HUD regulations so that it can be closed out as bad debt, thereby making the funds available for use on other eligible activities.
- Status2016-NY-1003-001-HOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to implement procedures to ensure that any future CDBG float-funded activities are administered in accordance with HUD regulations requiring that the annual action plan identify the float-funded activity and a commitment to undertake one of the options listed in the regulations if the funds are unable to be repaid within the required timeframe.
- Status2016-NY-1003-001-IOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to develop and implement procedures to ensure that the City’s liens related to HUD-funded loans are not released without repayment or evidence of due diligence to address delinquent, outstanding loans.
- Status2016-NY-1003-001-JOpenClosed$1,166,000Questioned 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 Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to support that the $1,166,000 public facilities and improvements procurement contract price was fair and reasonable and that the sole-source method used was justified. Any costs determined not to be fair and reasonable should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
- Status2016-NY-1003-001-KOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to implement procedures to ensure that all HUD-funded procurement is performed in accordance with regulations at 24 CFR 85.36, which require that sealed bid procurements be adequately advertised and involve at least two bids and that independent estimates be documented before bids or proposals are received.
- Status2016-NY-1003-001-LOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to strengthen procedures over subrecipient monitoring to ensure that onsite visits are conducted for all CDBG subrecipients annually as specified in the agreements and that monitoring efforts are adequately tracked.
2016-NY-1002 | January 05, 2016
The City of Niagara Falls, NY Had Weaknesses in Controls Over CDBG-Funded Subgrantee Administered Rehabilitation Activities
Community Planning and Development
- Status2016-NY-1002-001-AOpenClosed$220,538Questioned 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 the HUD's Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to adequately support that $70,538 disbursed and $150,000 obligated were for eligible costs. Any costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
- Status2016-NY-1002-001-BOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of the HUD's Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to strengthen monitoring procedures for CDBG-funded subgrantees to ensure compliance with program requirements.