We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to provide documentation to support that $13,340 in rent collected in March 2016 was deposited into an appropriate bank account or repay the Operating Fund from non-Federal funds for any amount not properly deposited.
2017-NY-1008 | March 09, 2017
The Irvington, NJ, Housing Authority Did Not Always Administer Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With Program Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-NY-1008-001-JOpenClosed$13,340Questioned 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.
- Status2017-NY-1008-001-KOpenClosed$106,971Questioned 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 Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to provide documentation to justify the $106,971 in unsupported rent that was written off for 52 tenants. Any amount determined to be ineligible should be repaid from non-Federal funds to the Operating Fund.
- Status2017-NY-1008-001-LOpenClosed$7,164Questioned 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 Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to collect $7,164 in outstanding rent from the resident commissioner and if past-due rent is not paid, take appropriate legal action.
- Status2017-NY-1008-001-MOpenClosed$21,857Questioned 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 Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to reimburse the program income account from non-Federal funds for $21,857 in ineligible expenditures for golf outings, banquets, or dinner shows.
- Status2017-NY-1008-001-NOpenClosed$37,671Questioned 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 Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to provide documentation to justify $37,671 that did not have receipts or other support showing how these transactions were used for low-income housing and benefited the residents or repay the program income account from non-Federal funds for any amount not supported.
- Status2017-NY-1008-001-OOpenClosed
We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to develop and implement an appropriate policy for program income, including the proper use, accounting, and reporting of program income in accordance with the Federal definition and treatment of program income.
- Status2017-NY-1008-001-POpenClosed$710,721Questioned 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 Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to provide documentation to show that the $710,721 paid for services procured was for costs that were reasonable or repay from non-Federal funds approximately $500,000 to the Operating Fund and approximately $200,000 to the Capital Fund. Footnote: Regulations at 24 CFR 905.306(f) require that all capital funds be spent within 48 months after the date on which they become available. Funds that have not been properly spent within 48 months have to be recaptured and returned to the U.S. Treasury.
2017-CF-1802 | March 01, 2017
Final Civil Action – Security National Mortgage Company Settled Allegations of Failing To Comply With HUD’s Federal Housing Administration Loan Requirements
General Counsel
- Status2017-CF-1802-001-AOpenClosed$3,173,077Questioned 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.
Acknowledge that $3,173,077 of the $4,250,000, in the attached settlement represents an amount due HUD.
2017-KC-1801 | February 22, 2017
Final Action Memorandum: Purchaser of HUD-Insured Single-Family Property Settled Allegations of Causing the Submission of a False Claim
General Counsel
- Status2017-KC-1801-001-AOpenClosed$5,000Questioned 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.
Acknowledge that the settlement agreement for $5,000 represents an amount due HUD.
2017-NY-1006 | January 30, 2017
The New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority, New Rochelle, NY, Did Not Always Administer Its Public Housing Program in Accordance With HUD’s Rules and Regulations
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-NY-1006-001-AOpenClosed$15,020Questioned 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 Public Housing require Authority officials to reimburse the public housing program from non-Federal funds for $15,020 in ineligible expenditures for executive staff travel, food, beverages, and musical entertainment.
- Status2017-NY-1006-001-BOpenClosed$13,329Questioned 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 Public Housing require Authority officials to provide supporting documentation to justify the $13,329 in unsupported expenditures charged to the public housing program. Any amount determined to be ineligible should be repaid from non-Federal funds to the public housing program’s operating account.
- Status2017-NY-1006-001-COpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s New York Office of Public Housing require Authority officials to establish and implement procedures and effective financial controls to ensure that costs charged to the public housing program are properly incurred and comply with applicable regulations.
2017-CH-1001 | January 23, 2017
The Port Huron Housing Commission, Port Huron, MI, Did Not Properly Implement Asset Management
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-CH-1001-001-AOpenClosed$1,432,222Questioned 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 $1,432,222 in central office cost center expenses allocated to the public housing program projects were eligible, necessary, and reasonable costs of the program. Costs that cannot be supported, or were unnecessary, unreasonable, or for ineligible program costs should be reimbursed to the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-CH-1001-001-BOpenClosed
Implement adequate procedures and controls, including but not limited to developing a plan to manage its central office cost center expenses and determining an appropriate fee structure with HUD’s approval that would allow it to operate its program within HUD’s requirements.
- Status2017-CH-1001-001-COpenClosed
Implement adequate procedures and controls, including but not limited to providing training to its staff to ensure that the Commission fully implements asset management and operates its program in accordance with HUD’s requirements.
2017-KC-0002 | January 19, 2017
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Did Not Always Prevent Program Participants From Receiving Multiple Subsidies
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-AOpenClosed$935,283Funds 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.
Require public housing agencies to run the Enterprise Income Verification existing tenant search during the admission process and retain the results in the tenant file, which would avoid unnecessary costs to HUD’s subsidy programs, allowing an estimated $935,283 to be put to better use.
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-BOpenClosed
Require public housing agencies to report the program admission date to any multifamily property listed on the Enterprise Income Verification existing tenant search during the admission process.
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-COpenClosed
Require public housing agencies to maintain support for any communication with a multifamily property listed on the Enterprise Income Verification existing tenant search.
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-DOpenClosed
Require HUD staff to review Enterprise Income Verification reports from the last 12-month period during onsite housing agency reviews to ensure that any multiple subsidies have been resolved.
- Status2017-KC-0002-001-EOpenClosed$2,244,680Funds 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 recommendations 1A through 1D to ensure that $2.24 million in housing assistance funds will be put to better use.