Require the Authority to recompute the rents for the households noted above and as necessary for errors made by Majestic Management, reimburse tenants for overcharged rent from operating funds or rent credit, and enter into repayment agreements with tenants if they were undercharged based on nondisclosure of income.
2017-KC-1003 | September 26, 2017
Majestic Management, LLC, St. Louis, MO, a Management Agent for the East St. Louis Housing Authority, Mismanaged Its Public Housing Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-KC-1003-003-BOpenClosed$152Questioned 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.
2017-PH-1006 | September 25, 2017
The Owner of Schwenckfeld Manor, Lansdale, PA, Did Not Always Manage Its HUD-Insured Property in Accordance With Applicable HUD Requirements
Housing
- Status2017-PH-1006-001-DOpenClosed
Provide training and technical assistance to the owner and its management agent to ensure compliance with the terms of its regulatory agreement and applicable HUD requirements.
- Status2017-PH-1006-002-AOpenClosed
Submit a project owner’s or management agent’s certification for identity-of-interest agents, a management entity profile, a management plan, and other required documentation for review and approval.
- Status2017-PH-1006-002-BOpenClosed$402,975Questioned 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.
Request retroactive approval of the fees paid to the identity-of-interest entity totaling $402,975 and any fees incurred outside our audit period, including fiscal year 2017, when submitting the project owner’s or management agent’s certification for identity-of-interest agents in response to recommendation 2A. If the request is not approved retroactively, the owner should repay the project from nonproject funds for the amount that was not approved.
- Status2017-PH-1006-002-COpenClosed
Evaluate the owner’s capability to effectively manage the project and consider whether independent professional management services are needed.
2017-LA-1802 | September 22, 2017
SecurityNational Mortgage Company, Las Vegas, NV, Improperly Originated FHA Loans for Properties With Restrictive Covenants
Housing
- Status2017-LA-1802-001-AOpenClosed$408,295Funds 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.
Work with HUD to nullify the restrictions on conveyance that violate HUD policy or indemnify HUD. This action will protect HUD against future losses of $381,823 for the seven loans.
- Status2017-LA-1802-001-BOpenClosed$26,472Questioned 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 HUD $26,472 for partial claims paid on one FHA loan that contained prohibited restrictive covenants.
- Status2017-LA-1802-001-COpenClosed
Develop and implement policies and procedures to identify prohibited restrictions on conveyance to ensure that it does not originate FHA loans with prohibited restrictive covenants.
- Status2017-LA-1802-001-DOpenClosed
Provide training to its employees regarding HUD’s requirements related to prohibited restrictions on conveyance.
2017-DE-1003 | September 21, 2017
Baker Tower, Denver, CO, Incorrectly Disbursed Funds and Did Not Correctly Administer the Project’s Security Deposit Account
Housing
- Status2017-DE-1003-001-AOpenClosed
Develop and implement controls over owner contributions and owner distributions to ensure compliance with its regulatory agreement and HUD regulations.
- Status2017-DE-1003-001-BOpenClosed
Complete HUD-approved training regarding owner contributions and distributions.
- Status2017-DE-1003-001-COpenClosed$15,000Questioned 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.
Repay its project’s operating account for the ineligible $15,000 disbursement from non-project funds.
- Status2017-DE-1003-002-AOpenClosed
Perform an analysis of all security deposits and ensure that the security deposit account is fully funded.
- Status2017-DE-1003-002-BOpenClosed
Implement controls to ensure existing procedures are followed to maintain the project’s security deposit funds separately from all other accounts by depositing and disbursing all security deposit funds directly into and from the security deposit account.
2017-BO-1007 | September 21, 2017
The Housing Authority of the City of Hartford, CT, Did Not Always Comply With Procurement Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-BO-1007-001-AOpenClosed$2,679,580Questioned 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 that $2,533,377 in costs were reasonable and allowable program expenses in accordance with requirements or repay from non-Federal funds the appropriate programs any amounts they cannot support.
- Status2017-BO-1007-001-BOpenClosed$1,625,391Questioned 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 appropriate programs from non-Federal funds the $1,524,604 in ineligible funds paid when costs exceeded contract terms.
- Status2017-BO-1007-001-COpenClosed$1,242,154Funds 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.
Determine the appropriateness of the remaining balance of $1,242,154 on unsupported contracts to ensure costs were reasonable, reprocure the subject contracts, or reallocate the funds to the appropriate program.
- Status2017-BO-1007-001-DOpenClosed$375,526Funds 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.
Reprocure expired service contracts to ensure estimated balances of $375,526 are used on eligible contract.
- Status2017-BO-1007-001-EOpenClosed
Reprocure any service contracts necessary and ensure that the contracts are properly awarded in accordance with HUD requirements.
- Status2017-BO-1007-001-FOpenClosed
Strengthen and implement controls and procedures over procurement, including monitoring consultants, to ensure that procurement activities meet HUD requirements.