We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the City to provide documentation showing that it has strengthened its invoice review process to ensure that costs are eligible and supported before disbursing disaster funds to its subrecipient under the program.
2017-NY-1012 | September 21, 2017
The City of New York, NY, Could Improve Its Invoice Review Process Before Disbursing Disaster Funds Under Its Public Housing Rehabilitation and Resilience Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-NY-1012-001-BOpenClosed
2017-AT-1802 | September 15, 2017
San Sebastian Fine Arts Center, Office of the Commissioner for Municipal Affairs, San Juan, PR, State Block Grant Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-AT-1802-001-AOpenClosed$1,014,211Questioned 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.
Reevaluate the feasibility of the project to determine the eligibility of the $1,014,211 in State Block Grant funds disbursed. If HUD determines that the project has been canceled or is not feasible, the Government of Puerto Rico or its designee must reimburse all project costs to its State Block Grant program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-AT-1802-001-BOpenClosed
Instruct the Office for the Socioeconomic and Community Development to submit a plan for how it will proceed with the fine arts center project. The plan should include a schedule that HUD can track to ensure the project’s completion without proposing the use of additional HUD funds.
2017-NY-1010 | September 15, 2017
The State of New York Did Not Show That Disaster Recovery Funds under Its Non-Federal Share Match Program Were Used for Eligible and Supported Costs
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-NY-1010-001-AOpenClosed$18,782,054Questioned 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 direct the State to provide documentation to show that the $18,782,054 used for four activities was for eligible and supported costs and did not duplicate other benefits or repay from non-Federal funds any amount that it cannot support.
- Status2017-NY-1010-001-BOpenClosed$8,932,630Funds 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 direct the State to Implement procedures to ensure that remaining program costs reimbursed with disaster recovery funds are adequately reviewed for eligibility and support, thereby putting up to $8,932,630 to better use.
- Status2017-NY-1010-001-COpenClosed
We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs direct the State to provide training to its staff on applicable HUD and Federal requirements for eligibility, documentation of costs, and duplication of benefits reviews.
2017-FW-1013 | September 14, 2017
The Fort Bend County Community Development Department, Richmond, TX, Did Not Always Comply With Office of Community Planning and Development Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-FW-1013-001-AOpenClosed$240,010Questioned 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 Houston Office of Community Planning and Development require the Department to support the $240,010 in unsupported procurement payments or repay its CDBG program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2017-FW-1013-001-BOpenClosed$22,872Funds 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 HUD’s Houston Office of Community Planning and Development require the Department to report $22,872 in program income to HUD and properly use program income.
- Status2017-FW-1013-001-COpenClosed$3,301Funds 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 HUD’s Houston Office of Community Planning and Development require the Department to correct its HOME matching liability report to include the recalculated amount for 2014 and pay the matching liability of $3,301.
- Status2017-FW-1013-001-DOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Houston Office of Community Planning and Development require the Department to confirm that it has developed and implemented written procurement procedures to ensure that future contracts and subrecipient agreements address the procurement and required provision issues identified in the report.
- Status2017-FW-1013-001-EOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Houston Office of Community Planning and Development require the Department to ensure that all program files include required documentation and support.
- Status2017-FW-1013-001-FOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Houston Office of Community Planning and Development require the Department to monitor subrecipients annually as stated in its monitoring policy.
- Status2017-FW-1013-001-GOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Houston Office of Community Planning and Development require the Department to train its staff regarding HUD requirements and regulations or seek technical assistance.
2017-LA-1008 | September 13, 2017
The City of Las Vegas, NV, Did Not Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 Homebuyer Assistance Program in Accordance with HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-LA-1008-001-AOpenClosed$488,519Funds 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.
Modify the recapture provisions of the 35 home-buyer assistance agreements totaling $488,519 to meet HUD recapture requirements relating to the sales price, closing costs, and net proceeds.
- Status2017-LA-1008-001-BOpenClosed
Update its procedures to ensure that any additional home-buyer assistance agreements contain recapture provisions that meet HUD recapture requirements relating to the sales price, closing costs, and net proceeds.
- Status2017-LA-1008-001-COpenClosed
Train its staff to ensure that recapture amounts do not exceed net sales proceeds.
- Status2017-LA-1008-002-AOpenClosed$12,275Funds 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.
Revise and implement written policies and procedures for managing and accurately tracking all NSP3 activity to ensure that the $12,275 in identified closing cost refunds and any additional refunds identified in recommendation 2B are not overpaid by recipients.
- Status2017-LA-1008-002-BOpenClosed
Identify any additional closing cost refunds for NSP3 properties using the general ledger, DRGR supporting documentation, and the property file and either repay the recipients from non-Federal funds or update its tracking spreadsheet.
- Status2017-LA-1008-002-COpenClosed$95Questioned 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 $95 from non-Federal funds to the two recipients who paid more than the assistance provided (appendix E).
- Status2017-LA-1008-002-DOpenClosed$1,495Questioned 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 program $1,495 for closing cost expenses not incurred from non-Federal funds and remove the expenses from program records if the City incorrectly recorded the refunds as program income.