We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the State to provide documentation to support the appraised fair market values of the 942 other properties included in our sampling universe to ensure that $361,465,173 in settlement costs was supported. This recommendation includes but is not limited to providing support to show that appraisals contained accurate and verified information for the subject and comparable properties, time adjustments were supported, and other adjustments were supported. If support cannot be provided, the State should reimburse the unsupported costs from non-Federal funds.
2019-NY-1002 | May 29, 2019
The State of New York Did Not Ensure That Appraised Values Used by Its Program Were Supported and Appraisal Costs and Services Complied With Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2019-NY-1002-001-BOpenClosed$361,465,173Questioned 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.
- Status2019-NY-1002-001-DOpenClosed$93,350,616Funds 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 HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the State to strengthen controls over the property valuation process for its program to ensure that up to $93,350,616 not yet disbursed is put to better use. This recommendation includes but is not limited to implementing a process to review the appraisal and quality control work to ensure that appraised fair market values are supported and that quality control reviews are performed as required by Federal, State, and industry standards and to take appropriate action for cases in which the work does not comply with requirements.
- Status2019-NY-1002-002-AOpenClosed$3,119,209Questioned 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 require the State to provide documentation to show that $3,119,209 paid for appraisals and poststorm addenda performed by its contractor was reasonable, supported, and for services that were performed in accordance with applicable requirements or reimburse any unsupported costs from non-Federal funds.
- Status2019-NY-1002-002-BOpenClosed$156,940Questioned 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 require the State to provide documentation to show that $156,940 paid for sales brochures, economic land analysis studies, and consultant fees was reasonable, necessary, supported, and for services that were performed in accordance with applicable requirements or reimburse any unsupported costs from non-Federal funds.
2018-NY-1007 | September 26, 2018
The City of New York, NY, Did Not Always Use Disaster Recovery Funds Under Its Program for Eligible and Supported Costs
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-NY-1007-001-AOpenClosed$594,012Questioned 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 require the City to provide documentation to show that the $594,012 disbursed due to the use of multipliers was for eligible, reasonable, necessary, and supported costs or reimburse its program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-NY-1007-001-COpenClosed$1,198Questioned 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 require the City to reimburse its program $1,198 from non-Federal funds for overpaid wages due to billing and payroll errors.
- Status2018-NY-1007-001-DOpenClosed$544Funds 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 HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the City to pay $544 in unpaid wages to the subcontractors of the affected employees and submit evidence that these employees have been paid.
- Status2018-NY-1007-001-GOpenClosed
We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the City to provide documentation showing that payments made under the Rockaway Boardwalk construction management services contract complied with Davis-Bacon and Related Acts requirements and that restitution is made to affected workers for any underpayments identified.
2018-LA-1003 | March 28, 2018
The City of South Gate, CA, Did Not Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-LA-1003-001-AOpenClosed$811,325Questioned 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 the $811,325 in code enforcement costs (activities 591, 619, and 645), including meeting code enforcement and salary and benefit requirements,4 or repay the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1003-002-AOpenClosed$285,496Questioned 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 $285,496 in graffiti abatement expenditures or repay the program from non-Federal funds (appendix D).
2017-NY-0002 | September 28, 2017
HUD Could Improve Its Controls Over the Disposition of Real Properties Assisted With Community Development Block Grant Funds
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-NY-0002-001-BOpenClosed
We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs develop a process to ensure that grantees properly report the addresses of assisted properties in IDIS and properly calculate and report program income from the disposition of these properties regularly. This process could include but is not limited to developing a process to extract data reported in IDIS on activities with the matrix codes related to real property, and training and instructing the Office of Community Planning and Development’s field office staff to extract this data and manually check for address and program income data on grantees’ activities, particularly activities that are completed but have properties that could still be subject to program income requirements.
- Status2017-NY-0002-001-DOpenClosed$503,550Questioned 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 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs instruct the Newark, NJ, field office to require Jersey City to provide documentation to support the fair market value of the property at the time of disposition. If documentation cannot be provided, the grantee should be required to reimburse $503,550 to its CDBG line of credit from non-Federal funds. If documentation can be provided, the grantee should be required to determine and reimburse its local bank account from non-Federal funds any additional program income not already reported and properly report the additional program income in IDIS under the activity ID that generated the income.
- Status2017-NY-0002-001-EOpenClosed$575,263Questioned 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 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs instruct the Philadelphia, PA, field office to require Luzerne County to provide documentation to support the fair value of the property at the time of disposition. If documentation cannot be provided, the grantee should be required to reimburse $575,263 to its CDBG line of credit from non-Federal funds. If documentation can be provided, the grantee should be required to determine and reimburse its local bank account from non-Federal funds the additional program income not already reported and properly report the additional program income in IDIS under the activity ID that generated the income.
- Status2017-NY-0002-001-IOpenClosed
We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs issue guidance to HUD staff and grantees to clarify the applicability of change of use requirements in cases where there is both a repayment from non-Federal funds and a voluntary grant reduction.
2017-PH-0001 | September 04, 2017
HUD Can Improve Its Oversight of Community Development Block Grant Direct Home-Ownership Assistance Activities
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-PH-0001-001-AOpenClosed$227,260Questioned 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 responsible field offices to require the grantees identified by the audit to either provide documentation to support $227,260 in unsupported payments or reimburse their programs from non-Federal funds for costs they cannot support.
2017-FW-0001 | July 09, 2017
HUD’s Monitoring of State CDBG
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-FW-0001-001-DOpenClosed
We recommend that the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, develop and implement a quality control review process at the headquarters level to ensure compliance with monitoring requirements for reports and exhibits, to include but not be limited to explaining procedures performed and adequately explaining and providing supporting documentation for conclusions drawn.
2017-NY-1005 | January 11, 2017
Union County, NJ’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program Was Not Always Administered in Compliance With Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-AOpenClosed$3,536,974Questioned 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 Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to reimburse $3,536,974 to the County’ HOME program line of credit for assistance spent on the four activities that were partially terminated or noncompliant with program requirements.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-EOpenClosed$435,094Questioned 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 Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide disbursement documentation to support the eligibility of the $435,094 made for the two activities or repay the County’s HOME program line of credit from non-Federal source.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-GOpenClosed$354,750Questioned 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 Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documentation to support that laborers associated with the activity are compensated in compliance with Davis-Bacon wage rates. If documentation cannot be provided, $567,767 needs to be reimbursed to the County’s HOME line of credit from non-Federal sources.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-KOpenClosed$242,269Questioned 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 Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to reimburse $242,269 to the County’s HOME program line of credit for CHDO reserve fund disbursed to the ineligible CHDO.