We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to reimburse the Operating Fund from non-Federal funds for $8,190 in ineligible salary advance.
2017-NY-1008 | March 08, 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-FOpenClosed$8,190Questioned 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-GOpenClosed$4,048Questioned 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 Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to reimburse the Operating Fund from non-Federal funds for the $4,048 in ineligible civil service fines.
- Status2017-NY-1008-001-HOpenClosed$90,000Questioned 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 the Acting Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing instruct Authority officials to obtain retroactive approval from HUD for the $90,000 lawsuit settlement related to a former employee. If approval is not obtained, the Authority should reimburse $90,000 to the Operating Fund from non-Federal funds.
- 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.
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.
- 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-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-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.
2016-AT-1014 | September 29, 2016
The Broward County Housing Authority, Lauderdale Lakes, FL, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-AT-1014-001-AOpenClosed$28,199Questioned 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.
Reimburse its program $28,199 ($19,771 $7,793 $635) from non-Federal funds for the overpayment of housing assistance and ineligible administrative fees it received for the deficiencies cited in this report.
2016-PH-1006 | August 30, 2016
The Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD, Did Not Always Administer Its Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency Program in Accordance With Applicable Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-PH-1006-001-AOpenClosed$292,611Questioned 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 program accomplishment data related to disbursements totaling $292,611 or repay HUD from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support.
2015-LA-0002 | July 05, 2015
HUD Did Not Provide Adequate Oversight of the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-AOpenClosed$76,967,618Funds 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.
Develop and implement written policies and procedures with an emphasis on increased controls toward the monitoring, tracking, underwriting, and evaluating of the Section 184 program. Implementing these controls would reduce the current high level of risk in the program and result in potentially $76,967,618 in funds to be put to better use (see appendix A).
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-BOpenClosed
Develop and implement policies and procedures for a standardized monthly delinquency report format that lenders must follow when submitting information to OLG.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-COpenClosed
Develop and implement policies and procedures to deny payments to direct guarantee lenders for claims on loans that have material underwriting deficiencies.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-DOpenClosed
Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that OLG uses enforcement actions available under 12 U.S.C. 1715z-3a(g) for lenders that do not underwrite loans according to the Section 184 processing guidelines.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-HOpenClosed
Ensure that only underwriters that are approved by OLG are underwriting Section 184 loans.
- Status2015-LA-0002-001-IOpenClosed
Develop and implement written policies and procedures for situations in which the borrower for a Section 184 loan is an Indian housing authority, a tribally designated housing entity, or an Indian tribe.
2015-NY-1002 | November 29, 2014
The Freeport Housing Authority, Freeport, NY, Did Not Administer Its Low-Rent Housing and Homeownership Programs in Accordance With HUD’s Regulations
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2015-NY-1002-002-COpenClosed$1,250,417Questioned 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 and Indian Housing require Authority officials to provide supporting documents for the proper use of $1,250,417 in sale proceeds from the scattered-site properties. Any amounts not supported or found to be improperly used should be repaid to the homeownership program from non-Federal funds.
2015-FW-1801 | October 01, 2014
The Management of the Housing Authority of the City of Taylor, Taylor, TX, Did Not Exercise Adequate Oversight of Its Programs
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2015-FW-1801-001-COpenClosed$2,032,266Funds 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 the Authority to take action to reclaim its properties valued at $2,032,266 to improve its financial position, decrease its reliance on HUD program funding, and address its comingling issues.
- Status2015-FW-1801-001-DOpenClosed$243,442Questioned 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.
Require the Authority to determine how much of the $243,442 in salaries for individuals assigned to work at multiple properties was improperly paid with Federal funds and repay the amounts to the appropriate programs from non-Federal funds. If the Authority is unable to accurately determine the amount due to and due from each program or support that the funds charged to the Federal programs were appropriate, the full $243,422 should be repaid to HUD.
- Status2015-FW-1801-001-FOpenClosed$40,600Questioned 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.
Require the Authority to determine whether the Authority improperly used Federal funds totaling $40,600 to make lease payments on the parking lot it already owned. If Federal funds were improperly used, the Authority should repay $40,600 from non-Federal funds to its Federal program accounts. If the Authority is unable to accurately determine the amount due to and due from each program or support that the funds charged to the Federal program were appropriate, the full $40,600 should be repaid to HUD.