HUD Audits

RSS

HUD audited the Recovery Act formula and competitive grants administered by the Hammond Housing Authority in Hammond, Ind., as part of its annual audit plan. It selected the authority based on its analysis of risk factors related to the housing agencies in Region V’s jurisdiction.

HUD audited the Jefferson Parish Housing Authority in Marrero, La., as part of its annual audit plan to review public housing programs. The auditors sought to determine whether the authority operated in accordance with HUD and other requirements.

The auditors found that the authority didn’t always comply with federal procurement regulations or ensure that its expenditures were eligible and supported. Specifically, the authority:

HUD audited Gruening Park Apartments, a 96-unit apartment complex in Juneau, Alaska, that’s owned and operated by the Alaska Housing Development Corporation, to determine whether the owner administered the project and its programs in compliance with its regulatory agreement and other HUD requirements. HUD chose this project because its cash position—at negative $294,058—was significantly deficient.

HUD audited the Wichita Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program because it received more than $12 million in Section 8 funding in both 2011 and 2012. Also, it’s one of the largest housing authorities in Kansas and hadn’t been recently reviewed.

HUD audited the West Village Expansion Project, a HUD Section 220-insured property, in response to a citizen’s hotline complaint. The anonymous caller claimed that the principals of L8, LLC, the managing member of the ownership entity, spent an excessive amount of project funds on legal fees, transferred more than $500,000 to another entity it owned, and failed to keep the mortgage current.

HUD audited the East St. Louis Housing Authority's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund program to determine whether the authority: (1) complied with applicable procurement requirements and properly managed its Recovery Act contracts; (2) properly drew down and expended funds for eligible activities; and (3) properly reported its Recovery Act activities.

In response to an anonymous complaint, HUD audited the Housing Authority of the City of Stamford, Conn., regarding its administration of its federal housing programs. The auditors found that the authority didn't properly administer its federal programs in accordance with HUD requirements, federal regulations and laws, its own policies and procedures, and its annual contributions contracts. Specifically, it failed to:

• Fully reconcile its interprogram transactions in its revolving fund account;

  
  

HUD audited Ohio's Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority's Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program as part of its 2012 annual audit plan. HUD auditors sought to determine whether the authority administered its program in accordance with applicable HUD requirements and the authority's program administrative plan.

HUD audited the Topeka, Kan., Housing Authority's administration of its considerable Recovery Act competitive capital fund grants to determine whether the authority: (1) expended Recovery Act grant funds in accordance with the act's requirements and applicable HUD rules; (2) met procurement requirements in selecting the developers for its mixed-finance projects; and (3) reported Recovery Act grant information accurately and completely.

Earlier this year, HUD audited the Philadelphia Housing Authority's (PHA) payments for outside legal services. The audit was a response to a citizen's complaint alleging the misuse of funds, a HUD auditor's concerns regarding PHA's use of outside attorneys on prior audits, and concerns over the large sums PHA paid for outside legal services reported in the media. In fact, PHA paid $30.5 million for outside legal services provided by 15 law firms during a three-year period.