Require the Authority to take action to reclaim its properties valued at $2,032,266 to improve its financial position, decrease its reliance on HUD program funding, and address its comingling issues.
2015-FW-1801 | October 02, 2014
The Management of the Housing Authority of the City of Taylor, Taylor, TX, Did Not Exercise Adequate Oversight of Its Programs
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2015-FW-1801-001-COpenClosed$2,032,266Funds 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.
- Status2015-FW-1801-001-DOpenClosed$243,442Questioned 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 Authority to determine how much of the $243,442 in salaries for individuals assigned to work at multiple properties was improperly paid with Federal funds and repay the amounts to the appropriate programs from non-Federal funds. If the Authority is unable to accurately determine the amount due to and due from each program or support that the funds charged to the Federal programs were appropriate, the full $243,422 should be repaid to HUD.
- Status2015-FW-1801-001-FOpenClosed$40,600Questioned 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 Authority to determine whether the Authority improperly used Federal funds totaling $40,600 to make lease payments on the parking lot it already owned. If Federal funds were improperly used, the Authority should repay $40,600 from non-Federal funds to its Federal program accounts. If the Authority is unable to accurately determine the amount due to and due from each program or support that the funds charged to the Federal program were appropriate, the full $40,600 should be repaid to HUD.
- Status2015-FW-1801-001-HOpenClosed$11,833Questioned 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 Authority to determine whether the Authority improperly used Federal funds totaling $11,833 which were used to cancel an existing phone system and purchase a new one. If Federal funds were improperly used, the Authority should repay $11,833 to its Federal program accounts from non-Federal funds. If the Authority is unable to accurately determine the amount due to and due from each program or support that the funds charged to the Federal program were appropriate, the full $11,833 should be repaid to HUD.
- Status2015-FW-1801-001-JOpenClosed$50,000Questioned 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 Authority to determine whether the Authority improperly used Federal funds totaling $50,000 which were used to pay unnecessary severance contract costs. If Federal funds were improperly used, the Authority should repay $50,000 to its Federal program accounts from non-Federal funds. If the Authority is unable to accurately determine the amount due to and due from each program or support that the funds charged to the Federal program were appropriate, the full $50,000 should be repaid to HUD.
2014-LA-0004 | June 30, 2014
HUD Could Not Support the Reasonableness of the Operating and Capital Fund Programs’ Fees and Did Not Adequately Monitor Central Office Cost Centers
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2014-LA-0004-001-AOpenClosed
Revise HUD’s asset management fee policy to refederalize the Operating Fund program’s management and bookkeeping fees and the Capital Fund program’s management fees.
- Status2014-LA-0004-001-BOpenClosed$81,613,671Funds 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.
HUD should remove the provision that allows public housing authorities to charge asset management fees, which would ensure that at least $81.6 million in operating funds could be put to better use in meeting HUD program objectives.
- Status2014-LA-0004-001-COpenClosed
Establish and implement procedures to reassess the management and bookkeeping fees periodically to ensure that they are reasonable. HUD should retain the documentation justifying the calculation of the rates.
- Status2014-LA-0004-001-HOpenClosed
Develop, document, and implement written procedures to ensure that fees charged to the asset management projects and Capital Fund program and expenses from the central office cost center are used to support HUD’s mission.
2014-FW-1002 | May 27, 2014
The Truth or Consequences Housing Authority’s Financial Controls Were Not Adequate To Ensure That It Used Its Low-Rent Funds Appropriately
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2014-FW-1002-001-BOpenClosed$178,893Questioned 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.
Discontinue using its low-rent public housing fund as a general fund to pay costs associated with its business activities until it has established appropriate controls.
2014-FW-1802 | March 31, 2014
The Management of the Housing Authority of the City of Nixon, Nixon, TX, Did Not Exercise Adequate Oversight and Allowed Ineligible and Unsupported Costs
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2014-FW-1802-001-BOpenClosed$109,861Questioned 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 Authority to support or repay its various program accounts $109,861 from nonfederal funds for unsupported payroll, other compensation, bonuses, travel, supplies, contractor payments and petty cash disbursements.
2014-FO-0003 | December 15, 2013
Additional Details To Supplement Our Report on HUD’s Fiscal Years 2013 and 2012 (Restated) Financial Statements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2014-FO-0003-002-COpenClosed
Implement a cost-effective method for automating the cash management process to include an electronic interface of transactions to the standard general ledger.
2013-CH-1004 | August 01, 2013
The Inkster Housing Commission, Inkster, MI, Did Not Follow HUD’s Requirements and Its Own Policies Regarding the Administration of Its Programs
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2013-CH-1004-001-COpenClosed$425,193Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to support or reimburse its program $425,193 ($19,924 $384,755 in housing assistance payments $46 in utility allowances $20,468 in associated administrative fees) from non-Federal funds for the unsupported overpayment of housing assistance and utility allowances due to unsupported calculations, missing eligibility documentations, and discrepancies in the housing assistance payments register.
2012-CH-1012 | September 27, 2012
The Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, MI, Did Not Always Administer Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program in Accordance With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2012-CH-1012-001-AOpenClosed$21,650Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its program $21,650 form non-Federal funds for the overpayment of escrow funds to the participants cited in this finding.
- Status2012-CH-1012-001-HOpenClosed$17,008Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to provide supporting documentation or reimburse its program $17,008 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported payments cited in this finding.
2012-LA-0001 | November 15, 2011
HUD Did Not Adequately Support the Reasonableness of the Fee-for-Service Amounts or Monitor the Amounts Charged
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2012-LA-0001-001-AOpenClosed
Establish and implement procedures to reassess the safe harbor percentage and rates periodically to ensure that they are reasonable. HUD should retain the documentation justifying the calculation of those percentages and rates. In addition, HUD should assess the feasibility of requiring the agencies to periodically justify and retain documentation showing the reasonableness of using the maximum rates, or lower them as appropriate.
2011-CH-1012 | August 09, 2011
The Saginaw Housing Commission, Saginaw, MI, Did Not Fully Implement Prior Audit Recommendations and Continued To Use Its Public Housing Program Funds for Ineligible Purposes
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2011-CH-1012-002-AOpenClosed$1,539,629Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its Capital Fund $1,539,629 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible payments cited in this finding.
- Status2011-CH-1012-002-BOpenClosed$411,288Questioned 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 Director of HUD’s Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to return the $411,228 in excess capital fund draws cited in this finding.
- Status2011-CH-1012-002-DOpenClosed$394,683Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to provide supporting documentation or reimburse its Capital Fund $394,683 from non-Federal funds for the unsupported costs cited in this finding.
- Status2011-CH-1012-002-FOpenClosed$13,085Questioned 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 Detroit Office of Public Housing require the Commission to reimburse its Capital Fund $13,085 from non-Federal funds for the inappropriately earned interest cited in this finding.