Require the Municipality to reimburse from non-federal funds $552,658 in unallowable and unallocated costs associated with the disbursement of salaries and fringe benefits of employees who did not perform duties directly related to carrying out activities charged with the program delivery costs.
2013-AT-1003 | March 22, 2013
The Municipality of Arecibo, PR, Did Not Always Ensure Compliance With Community Development Block Grant Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-AT-1003-002-AOpenClosed$552,658Questioned 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.
- Status2013-AT-1003-002-BOpenClosed$1,077,577Questioned 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 Municipality to provide support showing the allocability and eligibility of $1,077,577 spent on salaries and fringe benefits for employees who performed local government duties and multiple federally funded activities without properly allocating the costs directly related to carrying out each activity. Any amounts determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the Block Grant program from non-federal funds.
2013-PH-1001 | October 31, 2012
Luzerne County, PA, Did Not Properly Evaluate, Underwrite, and Monitor a High-Risk Loan
Community Planning and Development
- Status2013-PH-1001-001-AOpenClosed$5,999,894Questioned 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 business development loan program $5,999,894 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible expenditures related to the Hotel Sterling project.
2012-AT-1009 | May 23, 2012
The Municipality of Bayamón, PR, Did Not Always Ensure Compliance With HOME Investment Partnerships Program Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2012-AT-1009-001-AOpenClosed$3,213,572Questioned 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 Municipality to develop and implement a financial management system in accordance with HUD requirements and ensure that $3,213,572 in HOME funds drawn from HUD between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2011, can be traced to a level which ensures that such funds have not been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes or reimburse the HOME program from non-Federal funds.(Footnote 2) Total disbursements of $3,523,723 were adjusted to consider $173,978 questioned in recommendation 1B, $86,567 questioned in recommendation 1D, and $49,606 questioned in recommendation 2B.
- Status2012-AT-1009-001-COpenClosed$114,139Questioned 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 Municipality to submit supporting documentation showing the allocability and eligibility of $114,139 charged to the HOME program for project delivery costs or reimburse the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2012-AT-1009-002-BOpenClosed$537,773Questioned 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.
Determine the eligibility of the $537,773 disbursed for the Ciudad de Ensueño project and reevaluate the feasibility of the activity. (Footnote 9) Total disbursements of $538,973 were adjusted to consider $1,200 questioned in recommendation 1F. The Municipality must reimburse its HOME program from non-Federal funds if HUD determines the activity to have been terminated.
2012-PH-0001 | October 31, 2011
HUD Needed to Improve Its Use of Its Integrated Disbursement and Information System To Oversee Its Community Development Block Grant Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2012-PH-0001-001-BOpenClosed$66,849,658Questioned 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 responsible grantees to justify the use of $66,849,658 that it disbursed for cancelled Block Grant program activities or repay HUD from non-Federal funds.
2012-NY-1002 | October 18, 2011
The City of New York, NY, Charged Questionable Expenditures to Its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2012-NY-1002-001-AOpenClosed$93,436Questioned 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 City Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to reimburse from non-Federal funds $93,436 for ineligible costs charged to HPRP; specifically, $59,430 related to payments for rental arrears over the 6-month eligibility requirement and $34,006 for payments issued directly to participants.
- Status2012-NY-1002-001-BOpenClosed$329,937Questioned 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 City Office of Community Planning and Development instruct City officials to provide documentation to justify the $329,937 in unsupported salary costs incurred between June and September 2010. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
2011-NY-1010 | April 15, 2011
The City of Buffalo Did Not Always Administer Its Community Development Block Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2011-NY-1010-001-BOpenClosed$162,923Questioned 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 Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development reimburse from non-Federal funds $162,923 ($134,711 $28,212) expended on ineligible costs pertaining to street improvement projects not done and a duplicate reimbursement.
- Status2011-NY-1010-001-COpenClosed$1,982,988Questioned 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 further recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to provide documentation to justify the $1,982,988 in unsupported costs associated with street improvement expenditures incurred between June 2007 and October 2009. Any unsupported costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
- Status2011-NY-1010-002-BOpenClosed$20,143,219Questioned 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 Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to provide documentation to justify the $20,143,219 ($4,902,754 $15,240,465) in unsupported transactions recorded in the CDBG program income account. Any receipts determined to be unrecorded program income should be returned to the CDBG program, and any expenditures determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
- Status2011-NY-1010-003-BOpenClosed$609,012Questioned 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 further recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to reimburse from non-Federal funds the $304,506 related to ineligible clean and seal code enforcement costs.
- Status2011-NY-1010-003-COpenClosed$716,622Questioned 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 further recommend that the Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Community Planning and Development instruct the City to provide documentation to justify the $716,622 ($545,607 $24,069 $146,946) in unsupported clean and seal costs incurred so that HUD can make an eligibility determination. Any costs determined to be ineligible should be reimbursed from non-Federal funds.
2006-PH-1013 | September 18, 2006
The Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, Did not Ensure HOME Funds Were Disbursed and Used in Accordance with Federal Regulations
Community Planning and Development
- Status2006-PH-1013-001-BOpenClosed$150,000Questioned 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.
Require the Commonwealth to provide documentation to substantiate the eligibility of $150,000 provided to Southampton or repay the HOME program from nonfederal funds.
2005-AT-1013 | September 15, 2005
Corporacion para el Fomento EcoNmico de la Ciudad Capital, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Did not Administer Its Independent Capital Fund in Accordance with HUD Requirements.
Community Planning and Development
- Status2005-AT-1013-002-AOpenClosed$1,011,801Questioned 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 Municipality to obtain and submit all supporting documentation and HUD determine the eligibility and propriety of $1,011,801 in administrative costs the Corporation charged to the Block Grant revolving fund. Any amounts determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the Block Grant program from nonfederal funds.
- Status2005-AT-1013-003-AOpenClosed$631,195Questioned 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 Municipality to obtain and submit all supporting documentation and HUD determine the eligibility and compliance with national objectives of the $631,195 the Corporation disbursed for the four loans. Any amounts determined ineligible must be reimbursed to the Block Grant program from nonfederal funds.