Ensure that the borrowers provide HUD the additional security requirements according to the loan agreement.
2015-AT-1001 | December 03, 2014
The Office of the Commissioner for Municipal Affairs Needs To Make Improvements in Administering Its Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2015-AT-1001-002-EOpenClosed
- Status2015-AT-1001-002-FOpenClosed
Ensure that borrowers develop and implement a financial management system in accordance with HUD requirements to ensure that program funds can be traced to a level that ensures that such funds have not been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes.
- Status2015-AT-1001-002-GOpenClosed
Ensure that all Section 108 loan proceeds deposited at commercial banks are properly collateralized with Government obligations.
- Status2015-AT-1001-002-HOpenClosed
Conduct monitoring reviews of all Section 108 projects and ensure that borrowers comply with all loan agreement provisions and HUD regulations.
2015-NY-1001 | November 22, 2014
The City of New York, NY, Did Not Always Disburse Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Assistance Funds to Its Subrecipient in Accordance With Federal Regulations
Community Planning and Development
- Status2015-NY-1001-001-AOpenClosed$183,000,000Questioned 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 HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs instruct City officials to provide documentation to justify the $183 million in unsupported salary and fringe benefits and associated expenses charged to the CDBG-DR program. If documentation provided does not support the costs, this amount should be repaid from non-Federal funds.
2014-NY-1008 | July 24, 2014
Palladia, Inc., New York, NY, Did Not Administer Its Supportive Housing Program in Accordance with HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2014-NY-1008-001-AOpenClosed$1,615,057Questioned 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 New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct Palladia officials to provide documentation to justify that the $1,615,057 in unsupported costs is associated with eligible program activities. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
- Status2014-NY-1008-001-BOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct Palladia officials to strengthen oversight controls over disbursements to ensure that adequate supporting documentation is maintained and complies with applicable regulations.
- Status2014-NY-1008-001-COpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct Palladia officials to follow its policies and procedures for record-keeping to maintain records that adequately identify the source and application of funds provided for financially assisted activities.
- Status2014-NY-1008-001-DOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct Palladia officials to provide records detailing the funding sources of the non-Federal cash match for the six grant activities reviewed.
- Status2014-NY-1008-001-EOpenClosed$584,579Funds 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 New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct Palladia officials to provide source documentation to substantiate that the $584,579 in required non-Federal cash matching funds for five of the six program projects reviewed were met.
- Status2014-NY-1008-001-FOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Community Planning and Development instruct Palladia officials to reconcile its accounting records to ensure that total revenues and expenditures in its general ledgers reconcile to the revenues and expenditures reported in its annual performance reports and LOCCS.
2014-KC-0002 | July 01, 2014
The Data in CAIVRS Did Not Agree with the Data in FHA’s Default and Claims System
Housing
- Status2014-KC-0002-001-BOpenClosed$9,501,619Funds 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.
PriorityPriorityWe believe these open recommendations, if implemented, will have the greatest impact on helping HUD achieve its mission to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.
Closed on March 31, 2026Update selection rules for CAIVRS to provide for complete reporting of all ineligible borrowers to put $9.5 million to better use.
2014-NY-1004 | May 19, 2014
The City of Elmira, NY, Did Not Always Administer Its CDBG Program in Accordance with HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2014-NY-1004-001-GOpenClosed$597,048Questioned 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 the reasonableness and eligibility of the administrative program delivery costs charged to the CDBG program, including $597,048 in program delivery costs that could have been allocated to the State program, and repay the CDBG program from non-Federal funds any amounts determined to be unreasonable or ineligible.
2014-AT-1801 | March 19, 2014
Vieques Sports City Complex, Office of the Commissioner for Municipal Affairs, San Juan, PR, Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2014-AT-1801-001-BOpenClosed$10,838,880Questioned 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 all supporting documentation associated with the $10,838,880 (Footnote 13) Total disbursements of $10,876,095 were adjusted to consider $37,215 questioned in recommendation 1D. in State CDBG, Section 108, and program income proceeds disbursed for the development of the sports complex, if HUD determines the plan to be feasible (recommendation 1A). HUD must determine the eligibility, reasonableness, and allocability of the funds disbursed. OCMA must reimburse its State CDBG program from non-Federal funds any amount determined ineligible.
2014-NY-0001 | February 17, 2014
HUD Did Not Provide Effective Oversight of Section 202 Multifamily Project Refinances
Housing
- Status2014-NY-0001-001-BOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director, Office of Multifamily Asset Management, require that each Hub or field office review its refinanced Section 202/223(f) projects for debt service savings amounts, utilizing data provided from this audit for possible additional debt service savings. Where legally possible each Hub or field office should identify, account for by project, and use these amounts for current and future opportunities benefiting tenants or to fund reductions in housing assistance payments.
2013-CH-1011 | September 29, 2013
The Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Lansing, MI, Did Not Follow HUD’s Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Program
Housing
- Status2013-CH-1011-001-AOpenClosed$31,148,477Funds 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 Detroit Office of Multifamily Housing Programs require the Authority to ensure that $31,148,477 in residual receipts for the 15 projects as of May 31, 2013, is used to reduce or offset housing assistance payments in accordance with HUD’s requirements.
- Status2013-CH-1011-002-AOpenClosed$608,337Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Multifamily Housing Programs require the Authority to reimburse the U.S. Treasury $608,337 ($77,856 436,759 $93,722) for the three projects with terminated program contracts.
- Status2013-CH-1011-002-COpenClosed$12,830Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Multifamily Housing Programs require the Authority to reimburse the U.S. Treasury $12,830 from non-Federal funds for the lost interest.
2013-NY-1010 | September 25, 2013
The City of Auburn, NY Community Development Block Grant Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-NY-1010-001-AOpenClosed$2,451,645Funds 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 expend or reprogram to other eligible program activities the $2,451,645 in CDBG program income maintained in the City’s community development bank accounts as of June 30, 2013, so the City can assure HUD that these funds have been put to better use.
- Status2013-NY-1010-001-DOpenClosed$177,923Questioned 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 instruct City officials to Provide documentation to justify the $177,923 unsupported difference between the City’s CDBG program income balance in IDIS and its bank account balances as of June 30, 2013. Any portion of the unsupported difference determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.