Support that $1,253,596 in funds not yet expended was reasonable, supported, and allowable or reallocate the funds, thus ensuring that they will be put to their intended use.
2018-BO-1003 | June 20, 2018
The City of Providence, RI Did Not Properly Administer Its HOME Program
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-BO-1003-001-COpenClosed$1,253,596Funds 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.
- Status2018-BO-1003-001-DOpenClosed
Develop and implement adequate underwriting policies and procedures for their affordable housing activities and for the downpayment assistance program to ensure that HOME activities are consistent and meet Federal requirements. Further, they should include the downpayment underwriting policies and procedures in the written agreement with the City’s subrecipient.
- Status2018-BO-1003-001-EOpenClosed
Cancel activities in IDIS that have had no construction in more than 12 months.
- Status2018-BO-1003-001-FOpenClosed
Develop and implement adequate environmental policies and procedures to ensure that HOME activities are properly classified, the environmental review is documented and supported, and that HUD and Federal environmental requirements have been followed before committing HOME funds to an activity
- Status2018-BO-1003-001-GOpenClosed
Determine the total supported development costs for the completed HOME activities and calculate and obtain any program income due to the HOME program.
- Status2018-BO-1003-001-HOpenClosed$338,665Questioned 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.
Support that City officials properly administered the HOME program and earned $338,665 in HOME administrative fees or repay from non-Federal funds any amount that cannot be supported.
- Status2018-BO-1003-001-IOpenClosed
Develop and implement tools to improve record-keeping practices to support the eligibility, necessity, and reasonableness of the HOME activities.
- Status2018-BO-1003-001-JOpenClosed
Request that HUD headquarters recalculate the City’s commitment shortfall for program year 2013 based on the lack of the amendment with the City’s subrecipient and for the projects that were not properly committed.
- Status2018-BO-1003-001-KOpenClosed
Provide technical assistance to the City to ensure that City officials responsible for administering the HOME program receive necessary HOME program training.
2018-AT-1005 | May 29, 2018
The City of Margate, FL, Did Not Properly Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grants 1 and 3 in Compliance With HUD Regulations
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-AT-1005-001-AOpenClosed$457,192Questioned 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 to the program from non-Federal funds the $457,192 ($380,526 $48,420 $28,246) in NSP funds spent for the construction, air conditioning, and engineering services in instances in which procurement activities were not adequately performed.
- Status2018-AT-1005-001-BOpenClosed$280,979Questioned 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 to the program from non-Federal funds $280,979 in NSP funds spent for property 1012 and identify and repay any additional costs spent on this property, including maintenance costs and any program income generated.
- Status2018-AT-1005-001-COpenClosed$73,400Questioned 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 to the program from non-Federal funds the $73,400 in NSP funds spent for mold and asbestos remediation work.
- Status2018-AT-1005-001-DOpenClosed$8,919Questioned 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 the $8,919 in NSP funds spent on rehabilitation costs or repay to the program from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-AT-1005-001-EOpenClosed
Provide documentation to support a reconciliation between financial records and DRGR and report in HUD’s DRGR system the appropriate amount of program income generated from all NSP1 and NSP3 funds from the inception of the grants.
- Status2018-AT-1005-001-FOpenClosed
Provide documentation to support that all NSP properties are properly classified and recorded in HUD’s DRGR system.
- Status2018-AT-1005-001-GOpenClosed
Develop and implement policies and procedures to include but not be limited to oversight, effective internal controls, separation of duties, procurement, and overall administration of the program.
- Status2018-AT-1005-001-HOpenClosed$59,510Questioned 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.
Conduct a review of the remaining 10 properties not reviewed during our audit to ensure compliance with HUD requirements and identify and repay costs related to ineligible or unsupported activities (see appendix C).
- Status2018-AT-1005-001-IOpenClosed
For Property 1504, provide documentation to support the recording in HUD’s DRGR system, the repayment of $144,004 in NSP funds and $1,120 in program income.
2018-FW-1004 | May 08, 2018
The City of Dallas, TX, HOME Investment Partnerships Program Was Not Always Administered in Accordance With Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-FW-1004-001-AOpenClosed$1,322,280Questioned 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 Fort Worth Office of Community Planning and Development Director require the City to repay its HOME program from non-Federal funds $1,322,280, which it misspent reconstructing homes.
- Status2018-FW-1004-001-BOpenClosed
We recommend that the Fort Worth Office of Community Planning and Development Director require the City to ensure that staff responsible for environmental reviews understands and complies with environmental requirements.