We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to reallocate the $573,689 awarded to the ineligible CHDO, thus ensure that the fund is put to better use.
2017-NY-1005 | January 12, 2017
Union County, NJ’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program Was Not Always Administered in Compliance With Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-JOpenClosed$573,689Funds 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.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-KOpenClosed$242,269Questioned 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 Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to reimburse $242,269 to the County’s HOME program line of credit for CHDO reserve fund disbursed to the ineligible CHDO.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-LOpenClosed$227,903Questioned 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 Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documentation to support that at least one-third of the Homefirst board were representatives of a low-income community. If documentation cannot be provided, reimburse the $227,903 to the County’s HOME program line of credit from non-Federal sources.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-MOpenClosed$536,507Funds 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 Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to reimburse the $536,507 in program income to the County’s HOME program local bank account and record the income in IDIS.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-NOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to reconcile the County’s carryover balance of HOME match as of September 30, 2015, for the ineligible HOME match contributions and the understated HOME match contributions.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-OOpenClosed$92,557Funds 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 Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to disburse the $92,557 to pay eligible HOME costs before making additional drawdowns from LOCCS.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-POpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to strengthen the County’s financial controls over reconciling bank records to ensure that HOME funds in the local bank account are spent before drawdowns are made from LOCCS.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-QOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documentation, such as pay stubs and leases, to support compliance with HOME program rent limit and income eligibility requirements for the six tenants who occupied HOME-assisted units.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-ROpenClosed$260,736Questioned 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 Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to provide documents, such as pay stubs and bank statements, to support the eligibility of the two home buyers. If documentation cannot be provided, reimburse $260,736 from non-Federal sources to the County’s HOME program line of credit.
- Status2017-NY-1005-001-SOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark, NJ, Office of Community Planning and Development instruct County officials to strengthen the County’s administrative controls to ensure that County staff adequately monitors its subgrantee for compliance with HOME program requirements and provide HOME program training to the County subgrantee’s staff.
2017-NY-1004 | December 20, 2016
The City of New York, NY, Lacked Adequate Controls To Ensure That the Use of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds Was Always Consistent With the Action Plan and Applicable Federal and State Regulations
Community Planning and Development
- Status2017-NY-1004-001-AOpenClosed$18,274,054Questioned 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 Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs instruct City officials to reimburse the Program from non-Federal funds $18,274,054 in exempt State sales tax on repairs and maintenance services.
- Status2017-NY-1004-001-BOpenClosed
We recommend that HUD’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs instruct City officials to strengthen controls over disbursements to ensure that all costs charged to the Program are allowable, reasonable, and necessary in compliance with the HUD-approved action plan and Federal and State regulations.
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-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.
- Status2016-PH-0001-001-FOpenClosed$4,214Questioned 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 repay its program $4,214 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible costs associated with activity 1515.