We recommend that the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, require field offices to upload referenced supporting documentation into CPD’s system for findings and concerns developed during the monitoring review.
2017-FW-0001 | July 10, 2017
HUD’s Monitoring of State CDBG
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-FW-0001-001-EOpenClosed
- Status2017-FW-0001-001-FOpenClosed
We recommend that the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, update exhibits to require staff to document procedures performed, provide sufficient explanation to verify procedures performed and conclusions drawn, and reference appropriate supporting documentation.
2017-FW-1009 | June 29, 2017
Beverly Place Apartments Subsidized Nonexistent Tenants, Unqualified Tenants, and Tenants With Questionable Qualifications
Housing
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-AOpenClosed$574,930Questioned 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.
We recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing require Beverly Place’s owner to repay HUD $574,930 for subsidized units that were not occupied by qualified tenants. Repayment must be from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-BOpenClosed$150,082Questioned 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 Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing require Beverly Place’s owner to provide support to show that the subsidies for 11 tenants with falsified income were accurate or repay HUD $150,082 for those subsidies. Repayment must be from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-COpenClosed$77,621Questioned 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 Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing require Beverly Place’s owner to provide support to show that the subsidies for 18 tenants without files or without adequate income documentation in their files were accurate or repay HUD $77,621 for those subsidies. Repayment must be from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-DOpenClosed
We further recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing require its contract administrator for Beverly Place to verify that the owner’s recently implemented quality control program is working as designed.
- Status2017-FW-1009-001-EOpenClosed
We further recommend that the Southwest Region Director of Multifamily Housing ensure that the project-based contract administrator’s review process includes steps to obtain reasonable assurance that tenants being reported as subsidized at Beverly Place live in the subsidized units.
2017-LA-1005 | June 16, 2017
The City of Huntington Park, CA, Did Not Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-AOpenClosed$7,323Questioned 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 the program $7,323 from non-Federal funds for ineligible code enforcement costs.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-BOpenClosed$1,153,995Questioned 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 $576,997 in code enforcement costs (activities 499, 512, and 531), including meeting code enforcement and cost allocation requirements, or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-COpenClosed$328,918Funds 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.
Implement revised code enforcement program policies and procedures to meet CDBG requirements. This will help ensure that the remaining $328,918 budgeted for code enforcement activity 531 is put to better use.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-DOpenClosed$225,000Questioned 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.
Support the reasonableness of the $110,000 Graffiti Removal program (activities 504 and 520) cost allocations or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-EOpenClosed$31,186Questioned 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 $31,186 After School program (activity 501) costs, including the reasonableness of the contract costs and meeting the limited clientele national objective, or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-FOpenClosed$95,736Questioned 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.
Support the reasonableness of the $95,736 in cost allocations charged as CDBG administrative (activity 522) costs or repay the costs from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-GOpenClosed
Implement additional policies and procedures to ensure that salaries and wages and cost allocations are charged in compliance with HUD requirements.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-HOpenClosed
Implement additional procedures and controls to ensure that documentation is obtained to support that the limited clientele national objective was met.
- Status2017-LA-1005-001-IOpenClosed
Obtain training or technical assistance on CDBG program requirements.
2017-LA-1004 | June 13, 2017
Cypress Meadows Assisted Living, Antioch, CA, Was Not Administered in Accordance With Its Regulatory Agreement and HUD Requirements
Housing
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-COpenClosed$263,289Questioned 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 the project from non-project funds $263,289 for ineligible salary expenses.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-DOpenClosed$283,307Funds 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.
Remove $283,307 in ineligible accrued salary fees payable from its financial statements and records and ensure that these expenses are not accrued or paid for with project funds.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-EOpenClosed$110,710Questioned 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 the project from non-project funds $110,710 for ineligible offsite accounting expenses.
- Status2017-LA-1004-001-FOpenClosed$129,416Funds 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.
Remove $129,416 in ineligible accrued offsite accounting fees payable from its financial statements and records and ensure that these expenses are not accrued or paid for with project funds.