Provide documentation to support that it paid itself $447,345 for eligible purposes or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
2017-KC-1001 | December 15, 2016
Majestic Management, LLC, a Multifamily Housing Management Agent in St. Louis, MO, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements When Disbursing Project Funds
Housing
- Status2017-KC-1001-001-BOpenClosed$447,345Questioned 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-KC-1001-001-DOpenClosed
Verify all management fees charged to the projects from 2013 through 2015 were appropriate.
- Status2017-KC-1001-002-AOpenClosed$231,091Questioned 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 Majestic Management to reimburse the appropriate projects their portion of $231,091 for work not completed or overbilled.
- Status2017-KC-1001-002-BOpenClosed$462,281Questioned 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 Majestic Management to provide support that $462,281 paid for procurements was reasonable or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
- Status2017-KC-1001-003-AOpenClosed$11,184Questioned 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 the appropriate projects their portion of $11,184 that it charged for ineligible items.
- Status2017-KC-1001-003-BOpenClosed$48,891Questioned 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 that $48,891 was spent for eligible purposes or reimburse the appropriate projects for the balance.
2017-KC-0001 | October 14, 2016
FHA Paid Claims for an Estimated 239,000 Properties That Servicers Did Not Foreclose Upon or Convey on Time
Housing
- Status2017-KC-0001-001-AOpenClosed$2,238,721,464Funds 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.
Issue a change to regulations at 24 CFR Part 203, which would avoid unnecessary costs to the FHA insurance fund, allowing an estimated $2.23 billion to be put to better use. These changes include (1) a maximum period for filing insurance claims and (2) disallowance of expenses incurred beyond established timeframes.
Status
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) reported that the recommendation cannot be closed out without the publication of the FHA Maximum Claim Rule. The proposed changes have been on HUD’s regulatory agenda since Spring 2020 but, as of February 2025, the Office of Single Family Housing does not have an estimated publication date.
Analysis
To fully address this recommendation, HUD must publish the FHA Maximum Claim Rule. Implementation of this rule should result in HUD putting $2.23 billion to better use.
2016-CF-1813 | September 30, 2016
Final Civil Action - Owner and Management Agents Settled Allegations of Failing To Comply With the Regulatory Agreements for Multifamily Projects Willow Run I and Willow Run II
General Counsel
- Status2016-CF-1813-001-AOpenClosed$510,000Questioned 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 attached settlement agreement for $510,000 represents an amount due HUD.
2016-FW-1010 | September 30, 2016
The State of Oklahoma Did Not Obligate and Spend Its Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds in Accordance With Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2016-FW-1010-001-BOpenClosed$11,717,288Questioned 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 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the State to support or properly obligate $11,717,288 in unsupported obligations.
2016-AT-1014 | September 30, 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-NY-0001 | September 19, 2016
Operating Fund Calculations Were Not Always Adequately Verified
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2016-NY-0001-001-AOpenClosed$3,630,286Questioned 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 the Public Housing Financial Management Division determine whether any of the overpayment of $3,630,286 was ineligible and take appropriate actions to recoup the ineligible payments.
- Status2016-NY-0001-001-BOpenClosed$1,191,767Funds 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 the Public Housing Financial Management Division validate the $1,191,767 in underpayments and determine if any corrections should be made.
- Status2016-NY-0001-001-FOpenClosed$116,218Questioned 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 the Public Housing Financial Management Division recapture the overpayment of $116,218 disbursed for the units, which exceeded the PHAs’ Faircloth limit.
2016-PH-1006 | August 31, 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.
2016-AT-1012 | August 29, 2016
The Municipality of Bayamon, PR, Did Not Always Ensure Compliance With HUD Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2016-AT-1012-001-AOpenClosed
Complete the implementation of the new accounting system and ensure it tracks program funds to a level that supports compliance with HUD requirements.
- Status2016-AT-1012-001-BOpenClosed$944,687Questioned 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 support that $944,687 (Footnote 2: Emergency funds of more than $1.1 million drawn between July 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015, were adjusted to consider $158,800 questioned in recommendation 1C and $38,164 questioned in recommendation 1D.) in Emergency funds drawn from HUD is reconciled with the accounting records and that such funds have not been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes or reimburse the Emergency programs from non-Federal funds.
- Status2016-AT-1012-001-COpenClosed$189,227Questioned 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 $189,227 to the Emergency programs from non-Federal funds for ineligible charges made to the programs.
- Status2016-AT-1012-001-DOpenClosed$38,164Questioned 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.
Submit supporting documentation showing the eligibility, reasonableness, and allocability of $38,164 charged to the Emergency programs for unsupported drawdowns and equipment cost allocations or reimburse the programs from non-Federal funds.
2016-PH-0001 | June 30, 2016
HUD Did Not Always Provide Adequate Oversight of Property Acquisition and Disposition Activities
Community Planning and Development
- Status2016-PH-0001-001-AOpenClosed$4,959,911Questioned 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 the New Orleans, LA, field office to enforce its monitoring findings and require the grantee to provide documentation to support costs totaling $4,959,911 or the grantee must reimburse its program from non-Federal funds for any costs that it cannot support.
- Status2016-PH-0001-001-EOpenClosed$1,766,778Questioned 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 the Washington, DC, field office to require the grantee to provide documentation to support the $1,766,778 in unsupported payments identified or the grantee must reimburse its program from non-Federal funds for any costs that it cannot support.