|
Issue
Date: June 19, 2007
Audit
Report No.: 2007-PH-1007
File Size: 326.99KB
Title:
Oak Mound Associates, Clarksburg, West Virginia, Improperly Billed
HUD for Section 8 Subsidies
We audited
of Oakmound Apartments, Clarksburg, West Virginia, a 159-unit complex
owned by Oak Mound Associates (Oak Mound). Our audit objective was
to determine whether Oak Mound properly submitted bills for Section
8 subsidy according to contractual requirements and HUD regulations.
Oak
Mound did not always submit bills for its Section 8 contract subsidy
in accordance with contractual requirements and HUD regulations.
Our review of 10 tenant files identified problems with the monthly
housing assistance payments in all 10 files. Oak Mound did not request
the proper subsidy in 53 of the 121 (44 percent) individual monthly
subsidy requests reviewed in these 10 files. The audit identified
subsidy overpayments totaling $3,473, resulting from Oak Mound’s
failure to properly adjust its requests for housing assistance payments
when tenant income increased ($2,626) and because Oak Mound improperly
requested subsidies when units were vacant for up to 13 days ($847).
Oak Mound also lacked proper documentation to support other housing
assistance payments it received totaling $5,671.
We recommend
that the director of HUD’s Multifamily Program Center direct Oak
Mound to repay the contract administrator $3,473 from nonfederal
funds for the ineligible housing assistance payments it received
and provide documentation to support the $5,671 in questioned costs
and, if any of the costs cannot be supported, reimburse the contract
administrator from nonfederal funds. We further recommend that HUD
direct Oak Mound to develop and implement policies and procedures
to ensure that subsidy requests are accurate, fully supported by
documentation in the tenant files, and maintained as required.
Issue
Date: December 18, 2006
Audit
Report No.: 2007-PH-1003
File Size: 167.72KB
Title:
The Housing Authority of the City of Weirton, Weirton, West Virginia,
Needed to Improve Its Administration of Its HUD-Funded Programs
We audited
of the Housing Authority of the City of Weirton's (Authority's)
administration of its U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD)-funded programs. Our objective was to determine whether the
Authority properly administered its HUD-funded programs in accordance
with HUD and federal requirements.
The
Authority did not properly administer its HUD-funded programs in
accordance with HUD and federal requirements. It did not follow
federal procurement regulations when awarding consultant and construction
contracts, prevent conflict-of-interest situations from occurring,
operate its family resource center as intended, properly allocate
costs among its programs, and properly administer its Section 8
program. The Authority is currently working under a memorandum of
agreement and other procedures with HUD to correct numerous deficiencies
in its HUD programs, including most of the deficiencies identified
in our audit. Because HUD is addressing program deficiencies with
the Authority through a memorandum of agreement and other procedures,
we did not recommend corrective action.
Issue Date: December 3, 2004
Audit
Report No.: 2005-PH-1002
File Size: 1.26MB
Title: The Huntington Housing Authority, Huntington, WV, Did Not
Properly Allocate Salary Costs to Its Affiliated Nonfederal Entities
We performed an audit of the Huntington Housing Authority’s (Authority)
relationship with its affiliated nonfederal entities. We performed
this audit in response to a complaint. Our audit objective was to
determine if the Authority properly used U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) funds to develop and support these entities.
While the Authority was generally prudent and did not guarantee
debt of its affiliated nonfederal entities, it sometimes improperly
used HUD funds to develop and support its nonfederal entities. Specifically,
it did not allocate all relevant salary costs to its affiliated
Housing Development Corporation, contrary to its Annual Contributions
Contract. As a result, from July 1999 to June 2003, the Authority
improperly paid salaries estimated at $320,524 from federal funds
for work its employees performed for this nonfederal entity. We
recommended and the Authority agreed to develop a formal written
method for allocating its future costs for services performed by
its employees in support of its nonfederal entities.
Issue Date: September 4, 2003
Audit
Memorandum Report No.: 2003-PH-1802
File Size: 125.3KB
Title: Shawnee Hills, Incorporated
Charleston, West Virginia
We completed a limited review of Shawnee Hills, Incorporated, a
former management agent of HUD-assisted multifamily properties in
response to a complaint. Shawnee Hills, Incorporated was a private
not-for-profit company that operated comprehensive programs serving
persons who were mentally ill, chemically dependent, developmentally
disabled, or who otherwise required related behavioral health services.
The company filed for protection Federal bankruptcy laws in May
2002. Our objective was to determine whether Shawnee Hills, Incorporated
improperly used project operating income and Reserve for Replacement
funds to sustain its own corporate operations. We were also asked
to perform a formal accounting of these funds and determine if HUD’s
interests were protected.
For the most part, Shawnee Hills, Incorporated’s financial records
were not auditable and therefore we could not perform a detailed
review or accounting of the funds. However, our review did find
that Shawnee Hills, Incorporated improperly used $9,000 Reserve
for Replacement funds just prior to filing for protection under
Federal bankruptcy laws. To ensure the government’s interests are
protected in the future we recommended that HUD initiate action,
as appropriate, to prohibit Shawnee Hills, Incorporated and its
Officers from being awarded any additional contracts with the Federal
government.
Issue Date: December 31, 2002
Audit
Report No.: 2003-CH-1006
File Size: 2.32MB
Title: Cities of Huntington, West Virginia and Ironton, Ohio
Empowerment Zones Program, Huntington, West Virginia/Ironton, Ohio
HUD's Office of Inspector General completed an audit of the Cities
of Huntington, West Virginia and Ironton, Ohio's Empowerment Zone
Program. The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the
Cities: (1) efficiently and effectively used Empowerment Zone funds;
and (2) accurately reported the accomplishments of their Empowerment
Zone Program to HUD. The audit was part of our Fiscal Year 2002
Annual Audit Plan. The audit was conducted based upon our survey
results and two requests from Congress.
The
United States House of Representatives' Conference Report 107-272
directed HUD's Office of Inspector General to review the use of
Empowerment Zone funds and to report our findings to the Senate
Appropriations Committee. The United States Senate's Report 107-43
also requested us to review the use of Zone funds and report our
audit results to Congress.
We
concluded that the Cities need to improve their oversight of Empowerment
Zone funds and did not accurately report the accomplishments of
their Empowerment Zone Program to HUD. Specifically, the Cities
did not use $160,000 of Empowerment Zone funds in accordance with
their Strategic Plan and the September 8, 1999 Agreement for the
Marting Hotel Renovation project. We also found that the Cities
inaccurately reported the accomplishments of their Empowerment Zone
projects to HUD, and used Empowerment Zone monies to fund five projects
that have not provided benefits to Empowerment Zone residents or
benefited only 27 percent of Zone residents as of October 2002.
Four of the five projects are scheduled for completion between June
2004 and June 2005, and the remaining project was completed in June
2001.
We
recommend that HUD's Director of Renewal Communities/Empowerment
Zones/Enterprise Communities Initiative assure that the Cities of
Huntington, West Virginia and Ironton, Ohio reimburse the Empowerment
Zone Program for the inappropriate use of Zone funds and implements
controls to correct the weaknesses cited in this report.
Issue Date: November 12, 1997
Audit
Related Memorandum No. 98-PH-214-1802
File Size: 15KB
Title: Survey of Management Agent Operations Human Resource Development
Employment, Inc. (HRDE), Morgantown, West Virginia
Our review disclosed the following:
Eastview Unity Apartments, Fairmount, WV
- HRDE received $6,000 classified as a loan repayment when the
project was not in a surplus cash position. The transaction was
not approved by HUD as required by the Regulatory Agreement.
- The surface layer of concrete on the auxiliary handicap ramp
is spalling. Lincoln Unity Apartments, Branchland, WV
- The third floor fire escape door was missing.
Issue Date: August 20, 1997
Audit
Related Memorandum No. 97-PH-255-1810
File Size: 28KB
Title: West Virginia Housing Development Fund HOME Program, Charleston,
West Virginia
No deficiencies were identified during site visits to the HOME
properties or with the review of the WVHDF's files. No additional
audit work is currently necessary.
Issue Date: May 31, 1996
Audit
Related Memorandum No. 96-PH-241-1816
Title: City of Wheeling Survey of CDBG Program, Wheeling, West
Virginia
Our survey disclosed the following:
- An OIG appraisal supported the purchase price for the land acquired
by the House of the Carpenter.
- A review of subrecipient files disclosed no indication that direct
financial benefits were derived by CDBG staff in the awarding of
funds.
- A sampling of the housing rehabilitation program, street improvements,
police maintenance of force, and revolving loans disclosed no deficiencies.
- On-site physical inspection of work for playground improvements,
street improvements, and removal of architectural barriers confirmed
contract work was performed.
|