Ohio Audit Reports
Issue Date: September 30, 2007
Audit Report
No.: 2007-CH-1017
File Size: 192.3MB
Title: The City of Cincinnati, Ohio Lacked Adequate Controls over
Its HOME Investment Partnerships Program
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD)audited
the City of Cincinnati's (City) HOME Investment Partnerships Program
(Program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year
2007 annual audit plan. We selected the City based upon a request
from Columbus Office of Community Planning and Development and our
analysis of risk factors relating to Program grantees in Region
V's jurisdiction. Our audit objectives were to determine whether
the City effectively administered its Program and followed HUD's
requirements. This is the first of two audit reports on the City's
Program.
The City did not effectively administer its Program and violated
HUD's requirements. It did not comply with HUD's regulations in
providing housing rehabilitation assistance for owner-occupied single-family
rehabilitation projects (projects) and/or downpayments, closing
costs, homebuyer counseling, and home inspections for American Dream
Downpayment Initiative (Initiative) activities. It inappropriately
provided more than $225,000 in Program funds to assist three projects
that either did not qualify as affordable housing or in which the
household was not income eligible, inappropriately provided $41,000
in Initiative funds to assist five households in which they were
not income eligible, and was unable to support its use of nearly
$1.4 million in Program and Initiative funds for projects and activities.
We recommend that the Director of HUD's Columbus Office of Community
Planning and Development require the City to reimburse its Program
and Initiative from nonfederal funds for the improper use of funds,
provide support or reimburse its Program and Initiative from nonfederal
funds for the unsupported payments, and implement adequate procedures
and controls to address the findings cited in this audit report.
These procedures and controls should help ensure that more than
$134,000 in Program and Initiative funds is appropriately used over
the next year.
Issue Date: September 20, 2007
Audit Report
No.: 2007-CH-1013
File Size: 188.26KB
Title: The Butler Metropolitan Housing Authority, Hamilton, Ohio,
Lacked Adequate Controls over Its Homeownership Proceeds
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General audited the Butler Metropolitan Housing Authority's
(Authority) 5(h) homeownership (5(h)) and its Turnkey III Homeownership
Opportunity (Turnkey III) programs (programs). We selected the Authority
based on a risk analysis showing that it may have improperly used
the programs' funds. Our objectives were to determine whether the
Authority properly accounted for and used its programs' proceeds
in accordance with HUD requirements.
The Authority failed to properly account for nearly $400,000 of
the programs' proceeds for more than five years because it commingled
the proceeds with funds in its retained earnings account. The $400,000
consisted of more than $166,000 in 5(h) sales proceeds from four
properties sold between May 1997 and October 1998 and nearly $232,000
in Turnkey III proceeds. It also did not use the 5(h) proceeds in
a timely manner. As a result, the programs' proceeds were not used
to assist low- and moderate-income families.
We informed the Authority's executive director, the director of
HUD's Cleveland Office of Public Housing, and the director of HUD's
Columbus Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity of minor deficiencies
through a memorandum, dated September 18, 2007.
We recommend that the director of HUD's Cleveland Office of Public
Housing require the Authority to transfer from its retained earnings
account to the applicable accounts the 5(h) and Turnkey III proceeds
plus earned interest, submit a proposal(s) for HUD's approval on
how the programs' proceeds will be used, and implement procedures
and controls to ensure that the proceeds are used to support the
development of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families
in accordance with HUD's requirements.
Issue Date: June 19, 2007
Audit Report
No.: 2007-CH-1008
File Size: 667.28KB
Title: The Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority, Dayton, Ohio,
Did Not Effectively Operate Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General audited the Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority's
(Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (program).
The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2006 annual
audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of
risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region V's jurisdiction.
Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered
its program in accordance with HUD's requirements.
The Authority's program administration regarding housing unit conditions,
abatement of units that did not meet housing quality standards,
housing assistance payments calculations, and adequate documentation
to support the calculation of households' housing assistance payments
was inadequate. Of the 59 housing units statistically selected for
inspection, all 59 did not meet HUD's housing quality standards,
and 56 had 214 violations that existed at the time of the Authority's
previous inspections. The 56 units had between 1 and 11 preexisting
violations per unit. Based on our statistical sample, we estimate
that over the next year, HUD will pay nearly $1.8 million in housing
assistance payments for units with housing quality standards violations.
Program rents were not abated for units that failed the Authority's
quality control inspections. Five units that failed quality control
inspections performed in December 2006 also failed quality control
reinspections in January or February 2007. However, the Authority
failed to abate the program rents for the five units, resulting
in an improper payment of nearly $3,900 in housing assistance and
administrative fees.
The Authority incorrectly calculated households' payments, resulting
in nearly $39,000 in overpayments and more than $1,500 in underpayments
for the period January 2005 through August 2006. Based on our statistical
sample, we estimate that over the next year, the Authority will
overpay more than $1 million in housing assistance and utility allowance
payments. The Authority did not ensure that its households' files
contained required documentation to support its housing assistance
and utility allowance payments. Of the 67 files statistically selected
for review, 37 did not contain documentation required by HUD and
the Authority's program administrative plan to support more than
$254,000 in housing assistance and utility allowance payments.
We informed the Authority's executive director and the director
of HUD's Cleveland Office of Public Housing of minor deficiencies
through a memorandum, dated June 7, 2007.
We recommend that the director of HUD's Cleveland Office of Public
Housing require the Authority to reimburse its program from nonfederal
funds for the improper use of more than $63,000 in program funds,
provide documentation or reimburse its program more than $282,000
from nonfederal funds for the unsupported housing assistance payments
and administrative fees, and implement adequate procedures and controls
to address the findings cited in this audit report to prevent more
than $2.8 million from being spent on units with material housing
quality standards violations and excessive housing assistance.
Issue Date: April 30, 2007
Audit Report
No.: 2007-CH-1007
File Size: 121.45KB
Title: Trumbull Metropolitan Housing Authority, Warren, Ohio,
Did Not Ensure Its Nonprofit Followed HUD 's Section 8 Housing Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General audited the Trumbull Metropolitan Housing Authority's
(Authority) activities with its related nonprofit organizations.
The review of housing authorities' development activities is set
forth in our fiscal year 2006 annual audit plan. We selected the
Authority for audit because it was identified as having high-risk
indicators of nonprofit development activity. Our objective was
to determine whether the Authority's nonprofit received Section
8 housing assistance payments in accordance with HUD's requirements.
The Warren Housing Development Corporation (Corporation), a nonprofit
entity created by the Authority, received more than $2.2 million
in housing assistance payments from July 1, 2005, through February
28, 2007, contrary to HUD's requirements. The Corporation was created
in May 1977 as a nonprofit instrumentality of the Authority. However,
the Corporation revised its articles of incorporation in June 2005
and was no longer an instrumentality of the Authority. According
to HUD's regulations at 24 CFR [Code of Federal Regulation] Part
880, the project must be owned by a public housing agency (instrumentality)
throughout the term of the housing assistance payments contract.
The Authority revised the Corporation's articles of incorporation
on March 13, 2007, to reinstate the Corporation as an instrumentality
of the Authority.
We recommend that the acting director of HUD's Columbus Office
of Multifamily Housing require the Authority to implement procedures
and controls to ensure that it follows HUD's requirements regarding
Section 8 housing assistance payments to its instrumentality.
Issue Date: March 26, 2007
Audit Report
No.: 2007-CH-1006
File Size: 3251KB
Title: Colony Mortgage Corporation, Supervised Lender, Fairview
Park, Ohio, Did Not Always Comply with HUD's Requirements Regarding
Underwriting of Loans and Quality Control Reviews
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General audited Colony Mortgage Corporation (Colony),
a supervised lender approved to originate, underwrite, and submit
insurance endorsement requests under HUD's single-family direct
endorsement program. The audit was part of the activities in our
fiscal year 2006 annual audit plan. We selected Colony for audit
because of its high default-to-claim rate. Our objectives were to
determine whether (1) Colony complied with HUD's regulations, procedures,
and instructions in the underwriting Federal Housing Administration-insured
loans and (2) Colony's quality control plan, as implemented, met
HUD's requirements.
Colony approved 9 of 22 Federal Housing Administration loans reviewed
that did not meet HUD's requirements. The nine loans went to claim
between October 1, 2003, and September 30, 2005. Further, Colony
incorrectly certified to the integrity of the data supporting the
underwriting deficiencies or to the due diligence used in underwriting
the nine loans. During the audit period, Colony's quality control
plan did not fully comply with HUD's requirements, and its quality
control reviews were not adequately performed. Its deficient quality
control may have contributed to the underwriting deficiencies. For
the loans in question, the risk to the Federal Housing Administration
fund was increased.
We recommend that HUD's assistant secretary for housing-federal
housing commissioner require Colony to reimburse HUD for any future
net loss once the associated properties are sold, reimburse HUD
nearly $199,000 for the loss incurred on four loans already sold
and for one over-insured loan, improve its existing procedures and
controls to ensure that its underwriters follow HUD's underwriting
requirements, implement its revised quality control plan, and ensure
that quality control reviews are performed in accordance with its
revised plan. These procedures and controls should help ensure that
more than $141,000 in Federal Housing Administration funds is protected
from loss or misuse.
We also recommend that HUD's associate general counsel for program
enforcement determine legal sufficiency and if legally sufficient,
pursue remedies under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act against
Colony and/or its principals for the nine incorrect certifications
cited in this audit report.
Issue Date: March 15, 2007
Audit Report No.:
2007-CH-1004
File Size: 428KB
Title: The Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, Columbus,
Ohio, Failed to Adequately Operate Its Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher Program
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General audited the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority's
(Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (program).
The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2006 annual
audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon our analysis of
risk factors relating to the housing agencies in Region Vs jurisdiction.
Our objective was to determine whether the Authority operated its
program in accordance with HUD's requirements. This is the second
of two audit reports on the Authority's program.
The Authority administered its Section 8 Project-Based Voucher
program contrary to HUD's requirements. It did not perform environmental
reviews, rent reasonableness determinations, and housing quality
standard inspections in accordance with HUD requirements before
executing housing assistance payments contracts. It paid housing
assistance for units not under housing assistance payments contracts,
underpaid housing assistance for program households, issued duplicate
housing assistance payments for three units, and did not use the
proper HUD form to execute housing assistance payments contracts.
The Authority did not administer its Family Self-Sufficiency program
correctly and paid more than $431,000 in escrow payments to households
contrary to federal requirements. It failed to complete required
forms, include individual training and service plans in the contract
of participation, ensure that participants sought and maintained
suitable employment, ensure that participants identified and met
interim goals, ensure that participants met interim goals before
being issued early escrow payments, offer supportive services, and
require participants to meet regularly to ensure that they met interim
goals and final goals and properly changed goals.
The Authority did not comply with HUD's requirements and its own
program administrative plan. It failed to remove from its program
households that did not receive housing assistance payments for
180 days or more and made payments after households should have
been terminated. It did not follow its plan regarding households
with zero income, which requires the Authority to reverify zero-income
households every 180 days. It also did not follow HUD's requirements
concerning special admissions, waiting list reinstatements, third-party
verifications, and other excluded sources of annual income and stated
that it would pay owners a household's portion of unpaid rent.
We recommend that the director of HUD's Cleveland Office of Public
Housing require the Authority to reimburse its program from nonfederal
funds for the improper use of funds, reimburse its Family Self-Sufficiency
program from nonfederal funds for its improper use of contract and
program funds, provide support or reimburse its program from nonfederal
funds for the unsupported housing assistance payments, and implement
adequate procedures and controls to address the findings cited in
this audit report.
Issue
Date: September 29, 2006
Audit Report No.:
2006-CH-1019
File Size: 757.68KB
Title: Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority, Toledo, Ohio, Did
Not Effectively Operate Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
The
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General audited the Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority's
(Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (program).
The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2006 annual
audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon a risk analysis
that identified it as having a high-risk program. Our objective
was to determine whether the Authority managed its program in accordance
with HUD's requirements.
The
Authority's program administration regarding housing unit conditions
and required documentation to support housing assistance and utility
allowance payments was inadequate. Of the 62 housing units statistically
selected for inspection, 49 (79 percent) did not meet HUD's housing
quality standards, and 45 had 212 violations that existed at the
time of the Authority's previous inspections. The 45 units had between
1 and 12 preexisting violations per unit. Based on our statistical
sample, we estimate that over the next year the Authority will pay
more than $1.3 million in housing assistance payments on units with
material housing quality standards violations.
The
Authority failed to ensure that household files contained required
documentation to support its payment of housing assistance and utility
allowances. Of the 67 files statistically selected for review, 37
did not contain the documentation required by HUD and the Authority's
program administrative plan. The Authority also incorrectly calculated
housing assistance payments, resulting in nearly $23,000 in unsupported
payments, more than $21,000 in overpayments, and nearly $1,300 in
underpayments from April 2004 through March 2006.
The
Authority had adequate procedures for abating units, conducted recertifications
on time, and initiated quality control reinspections in June 2005.
We
recommend that the director of HUD's Cleveland Office of Public
Housing require the Authority to reimburse its program from nonfederal
funds for the improper use of program funds, provide support or
reimburse its program from nonfederal funds for the unsupported
housing assistance and utility allowance payments and related administrative
fees, and implement adequate procedures and controls to address
the findings cited in this audit report. These procedures and controls
should help ensure that nearly $2 million in program funds are spent
on payments that meet HUD's requirements.
Issue
Date: September 26, 2006
Audit Report No.:
2006-CH-1016
File Size: 239.87
Title: Pickaway Metropolitan Housing Authority, Circleville, Ohio,
Improperly Used Homeownership Sales Proceeds to Fund Its Nonprofit
Development Activities
The
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General audited the Pickaway Metropolitan Housing Authority's
(Authority) activities with its related nonprofit organization.
The review of housing authorities' development activities is set
forth in our fiscal year 2006 annual audit plan. We selected the
Authority for audit because it was identified as having high-risk
indicators of nonprofit development activity. Our objective was
to determine whether the Authority diverted resources subject to
its annual contributions contract, other agreement, or regulation
for the benefit of non-HUD developments.
The
Authority improperly loaned nearly $256,000 in 5(h) Homeownership
Plan (program) sales proceeds to its nonprofit, Building Affordable
Housing Corporation (Corporation). The two loans occurred without
HUD approval and did not follow federal requirements regarding the
use of the program proceeds. Because of the Authority's improper
use of these proceeds, its program also lost more than $60,000 in
interest income that would have been realized if the proceeds had
been invested.
Further,
the Authority paid more than $22,000 in expenses that would not
have been incurred if it had conducted the Corporation's development
activities. The improper expenses included real estate taxes, accounting
fees for the Corporation's tax returns, and directors' and officers'
liability insurance for the Corporation. The Corporation used nearly
$2,400 in program proceeds to pay legal expenses related to its
development activities that were not adequately supported by detailed
invoices.
We
recommend that the director of HUD's Cleveland Office of Public
Housing require the Authority to reimburse its program from nonfederal
funds for the improper use of program funds, provide documentation
or reimburse its program from nonfederal funds for the unsupported
payments cited in this report, and implement adequate procedures
and controls to correct the cited weaknesses.
Issue
Date: July 31, 2006
Audit Report No.:
2006-CH-1014
File Size: 894.78KB
Title: National City
Mortgage Company, Nonsupervised Lender, Miamisburg, Ohio, Did Not
Comply with HUD's Requirements Regarding Underwriting of Loans and
Quality Control Reviews
The
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General audited National City Mortgage Company (National
City), a nonsupervised lender approved to originate, underwrite,
and submit insurance endorsement requests under HUD's single family-direct
endorsement program. The audit was part of the activities in our
fiscal year 2005 annual audit plan. We selected National City for
audit as a continuation to our previous audit of its late requests
for endorsement (see audit report 2005-CH-1015, dated August 23,
2005). Our objectives were to determine whether (1) National City
complied with HUD's regulations, procedures, and instructions for
underwriting Federal Housing Administration loans and (2) its quality
control plan met HUD's requirements and was properly implemented.
National
City approved 20 of 41 Federal Housing Administration loans in our
statistical sample that did not fully meet HUD's requirements. The
20 loans defaulted early and/or went to claim between February 1,
2004, and August 31, 2005. The underwriting deficiencies were material
as well as technical and included errors and documentation omissions
clearly contrary to prudent lending practices. Further, National
City incorrectly certified to the integrity of the data supporting
the underwriting deficiencies and to the due diligence used in underwriting
the 20 loans. While National City's Federal Housing Administration
lending decisions overall have proved well within acceptable risk
levels, its quality control plan was not fully implemented during
our audit period and may have contributed to the underwriting deficiencies.
For the loans in question, the risk to the Federal Housing Administration
fund was increased as HUD paid more than $94,000 in claims for two
loans and incurred a loss of nearly $48,000 for another two loans.
We recommend that HUD's assistant secretary for housing-federal
housing commissioner require National City to indemnify HUD for
any future losses on nine loans with a total mortgage value of more
than $1 million, reimburse HUD more than $94,000 for the claims
paid on two loans once the associated properties are sold, reimburse
HUD nearly $48,000 for the loss incurred on two loans since the
properties were already sold, buy down two active loans by $2,900,
improve its existing procedures and controls to ensure its underwriters
follow HUD's underwriting requirements, implement its quality control
plan for reviewing loans with early payment defaults, and ensure
that quality control reviews under its quality control plan are
timely, accurate, and properly documented.
Issue
Date: July 6, 2006
Audit Report No.:
2006-CH-1011
File Size: 1.03MB
Title: The Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, Columbus,
Ohio, Did Not Effectively Operate Its Section 8 Housing Program
The
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General audited the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority's
(Authority) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (program).
The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2005 annual
audit plan. We selected the Authority based upon a risk analysis
that identified it as having a high-risk program. Our objective
was to determine whether the Authority managed its program in accordance
with HUD's requirements. This is the first of two audit reports
on the Authority's program.
The
Authority's program administration regarding housing unit conditions,
timeliness of annual housing unit inspections, and adequate documentation
to support housing assistance payments was inadequate. Of the 67
housing units statistically selected for inspection, 47 did not
meet HUD's housing quality standards and 34 had 164 violations that
existed at the time of the Authority's previous inspection. The
34 units had between 1 and 17 preexisting violations per unit. Based
on our statistical sample, we estimate that over the next year HUD
will pay more than $7.5 million in housing assistance payments on
units with material housing quality standards violations.
The
Authority failed to ensure that its housing unit inspections were
conducted timely. Of the 8,976 unit inspections conducted by the
Authority in calendar year 2005, 966 (10.8 percent) inspections
were not conducted within the required one year of the previous
inspection. The number of days late ranged from 1 to 144 and 93.5
percent of the late inspections were less than 30 days late. The
Authority also failed to ensure that its tenant files contained
required documentation to support its payment of housing assistance.
Of the 76 files statistically selected for review, 35 (46 percent)
did not contain the documentation required by HUD and the Authority's
program administrative plan. The Authority also incorrectly calculated
housing assistance payments resulting in more than $12,000 in overpayments
and more than $11,300 in underpayments from January 2003 through
December 2005.
We recommend that the director of HUD's Cleveland Office of Public
Housing require the Authority to reimburse its program from nonfederal
funds for the improper use of more than $83,000 in program funds,
provide documentation or reimburse its program more than $332,000
from nonfederal funds for the unsupported housing assistance payments
and administrative fees, ensure that program housing units inspected
during this audit are repaired to meet HUD's housing quality standards,
and implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure program
units meet housing quality standards to prevent an estimated $7.5
million from being spent on units with material housing quality
standards violations.
Issue
Date: April 18, 2006
Audit Report No.:
2006-CH-1009
File Size: 317.67KB
Title: The Youngstown Metropolitan Housing Authority in Youngstown,
Ohio, Did Not Use Public Housing Operating Funds Effectively and
Efficiently
The
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General audited the Youngstown Metropolitan Housing
Authority's (Authority) public housing program. We initiated the
audit based on a citizen's complaint to our hotline. The complainant
alleged that the Authority's executive director (1) ordered Authority
personnel to purchase her a new sport utility vehicle for her personal
use, (2) failed to follow HUD's and the Authority's procurement
policies, (3) used the Authority's employees for personal services
during duty hours, (4) used the Authority's equipment for her own
and others' personal use, and (5) tampered with the Authority's
records. Our objectives were to determine whether the complainant's
allegations were substantiated and whether the Authority used HUD
funds in accordance with applicable requirements.
The
Authority did not follow HUD's requirements for full and open competition
and its procurement procedures manual regarding the procurement
of legal and housing maintenance training services totaling $99,673
from July 2004 through January 2006. In addition, it did not follow
federal requirements regarding its use of $3,632 in public housing
operating funds (operating funds) from May 2004 through September
2005. It used $2,080 to pay entertainment expenses for its employees
and residents, $1,399 to pay travel expenses, and $153 to pay bereavement
expenses.
Based
on our review, we did not substantiate the complainant's allegations
that the Authority's executive director: ordered Authority personnel
to purchase her a new sport utility vehicle for her personal use;
used the Authority's employees to perform personal items during
duty hours; used the Authority's equipment for her own and others'
personal use; and tampered with the Authority's records.
We
informed the Authority's executive director and the director of
HUD's Cleveland Public Housing Hub of minor deficiencies through
a memorandum, dated April 14, 2006.
We
recommend that the director of HUD's Cleveland Public Housing Hub
require the Authority to (1) support that the use of operating funds
for legal services was reasonable or reimburse its operating fund
from nonfederal funds for the applicable amount, (2) implement procedures
and controls to ensure it follows HUD's requirements and/or the
Authority's procurement procedures manual when procuring services
and using operating funds, (3) submit its legal services contracts
to HUD for review and approval before disbursing additional HUD
funds for legal services, and (4) review its use of operating funds
to ensure that funds were used for allowable expenses. If operating
funds were used to pay inappropriate expenses, the Authority should
reimburse its operating fund from nonfederal funds as appropriate.
Issue
Date: March 15, 2006
Audit Report No.:
2006-CH-1007
File Size: 2.83MB
Title: Huntington National Bank, Supervised Lender; Columbus,
Ohio; Generally Complied with Requirements Regarding Submission
of Late Requests for Endorsement and Underwriting of Loans
The
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General audited Huntington National Bank (Huntington),
a supervised lender approved to originate, underwrite, and submit
insurance endorsement requests under HUD's single family direct
endorsement program. The audit was part of the activities in our
fiscal year 2005 annual audit plan. We selected Huntington for audit
because of its high late endorsement rate. Our objectives were to
determine whether Huntington complied with HUD's regulations, procedures,
and instructions in the submission of insurance endorsement requests
and underwriting of Federal Housing Administration loans.
Huntington
generally complied with HUD's requirements on late requests for
insurance endorsement; however, it improperly submitted 20 late
requests for endorsement out of 761 loans tested. The loans were
either delinquent or otherwise did not meet HUD's requirements of
six monthly consecutive timely payments after delinquency but before
submission to HUD. Huntington also incorrectly certified that all
payments due were made by the borrowers before or within the month
due for 12 loans and the escrow account for taxes, hazard insurance,
and mortgage insurance premiums was current for one loan when it
was not.
Further,
Huntington generally complied with HUD's underwriting requirements.
However, it underwrote two Federal Housing Administration loans
that later defaulted by overstating income, understating liabilities,
and providing no valid compensating factors to approve the two loans.
Huntington also charged excessive and/or unallowable fees on five
loans and incorrectly certified that due diligence was used in underwriting
5 of the 32 loans reviewed when it was not.
These
improperly submitted and underwritten loans increased the risk to
HUD's Federal Housing Administration insurance fund.
We
recommend that HUD's assistant secretary for housing-federal housing
commissioner require Huntington to indemnify HUD for any future
losses on 14 loans improperly submitted for endorsement with a total
mortgage value of more than $1.4 million and take appropriate action
against Huntington for violating the requirements in effect at the
time when it submitted two loans with a mortgage value of nearly
$178,000 without the proper six month payment histories. We also
recommend that HUD's assistant secretary for housing-federal housing
commissioner require Huntington to indemnify HUD for any future
losses on two defaulted loans with a total mortgage value of more
than $228,000 that were inappropriately underwritten, require Huntington
to reimburse the borrowers or HUD as appropriate more than $1,300
in excessive and/or unallowable fees charged on five loans, and
implement adequate procedures and controls to address the deficiencies
cited in this report.
In addition, we recommend that HUD's associate general counsel
for program enforcement determine legal sufficiency and if legally
sufficient, pursue remedies under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies
Act against Huntington and/or its principals for incorrectly certifying
that all payments due were made by the borrowers before or within
the month due for 12 loans, the escrow account for taxes, hazard
insurance, and mortgage insurance premiums was current for one loan
submitted for Federal Housing Administration insurance endorsement
when the escrow account was not current, and due diligence was used
in underwriting five loans when it was not.
Issue Date: December 30, 2005
Audit Report No.:
2006-CH-1005
File Size: 761KB
Title: Fairfield Metropolitan Housing Authority; Lancaster, Ohio
The
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General audited the Fairfield Metropolitan Housing
Authority's (Authority) activities with its related nonprofit organization.
The review of housing authorities' development activities is set
forth in our fiscal year 2005 annual audit plan. We selected the
Authority for audit because it was identified as having high-risk
indicators of nonprofit development activity. Our objective was
to determine whether the Authority diverted or pledged resources
subject to its annual contributions contract, other agreement, or
regulation for the benefit of non-HUD developments without specific
HUD approval.
The
Authority improperly transferred more than $520,000 of its HOPE
1 and 5(h) Homeownership Plan sales proceeds to its nonprofit, the
Lancaster Community Housing Corporation (Corporation). The Authority
received more than $337,000 from 10 HOPE 1 properties sold in 1995
and $78,000 from two 5(h) Homeownership Plan properties sold in
1996. The sales proceeds were pooled and invested in certificates
of deposit accumulating interest until 2004 when the Authority transferred
the proceeds to the Corporation. The transfer occurred without HUD
approval and did not follow federal requirements regarding the use
of the proceeds.
The Authority also transferred ownership of three properties that
were rehabilitated using HUD's McKinney grant funds to the Corporation
without HUD approval. The Corporation sold one property in 2004.
The Authority and/or the Corporation did not reimburse HUD more
than $23,000 used to rehabilitate the property.
We
informed the Authority's executive director and the director of
HUD's Cleveland Public Housing Hub of minor deficiencies through
a memorandum, dated December 21, 2005.
We recommend that the director of HUD's Cleveland Public Housing
Hub and/or the director of HUD's Columbus Office of Community Planning
and Development require the Authority to (1) reimburse its HOPE
1 and 5(h) Homeownership Plan programs collectively more than $520,000
from nonfederal funds for the improper transfer of the sales proceeds
to its Corporation, (2) reimburse HUD more than $23,000 from nonfederal
funds for the McKinney grant funds used to rehabilitate the one
property, and (3) implement procedures and controls to correct the
weaknesses cited in this report.
Issue Date: November 17, 2005
Audit Report No.:
2006-CH-1002
File Size: 250.39KB
Title: The General Partner of The Sanctuary of Geneva, Ohio Improperly
Used More Than $43,000 in Project Funds
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General reviewed the books and records of The Sanctuary
(project), a 39-bed assisted living facility located in Geneva,
Ohio. The review was part of our efforts to combat multifamily equity
skimming on HUD's Federal Housing Administration insurance fund.
We chose the project based upon its negative surplus-cash position
since 2002 and indicators of diverted project funds or assets. Our
objective was to determine whether the owner/management agent used
project funds in compliance with the regulatory agreement and HUD's
requirements.
Eld-Terra, Incorporated (general partner), the managing general
partner of The Sanctuary of Geneva Limited Partnership (owner),
improperly used $38,009 in project funds from February 2003 through
January 2005 when the project was in a non-surplus-cash position.
The inappropriate disbursements included $37,000 to the general
partner to repay owner advances to the project and $1,009 in legal
services for the general partner. The general partner also lacked
documentation to support that an additional $5,475 in project funds
was properly used. We provided the general partner a schedule of
the improper disbursements.
We recommend that the director of HUD's Columbus Multifamily Housing
Hub require the general partner to (1) reduce the project's management
fee liability for the inappropriate payments, (2) provide documentation
to support the unsupported payments or reduce the project's management
fee liability for the appropriate amount, and (3) implement procedures
and controls to ensure that future repayments of owner advances
are made only from project surplus cash or with prior HUD approval
and project funds are used according to HUD's requirements.
Issue Date: September 28, 2005
Audit Report No.:
2005-CH-1018
File Size: 251.78KB
Title: HUD 's Interest in $1 Million in Economic Development Initiative
- Special Purpose Grant Funds Awarded to Mount Union College Was
Not Secured; Alliance, Ohio
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of
Inspector General audited Mount Union College's (College) Economic
Development Initiative - Special Purpose Grant (Grant). We initiated
the audit in conjunction with our internal review of the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) oversight of Economic Development
Initiative – Special Purpose Grants. The review is part of our fiscal
year 2005 annual audit plan. We chose the College's Grant based
upon a statistical sample of fiscal years 2002 and 2003 Economic
Development Initiative – Special Purpose Grants, in which 90 percent
or more in funds were disbursed. Our objectives were to determine
whether the College used its Grant funds in accordance with HUD's
requirements and recorded HUD's interest on the assisted property.
The College used the Grant funds in accordance with HUD's requirements.
The College used $1 million in Grant funds to pay for architectural
fees for the construction of Bracy Hall, a science facility. However,
the College did not place a covenant on the property title for Bracy
Hall assuring nondiscrimination based on race, color, national origin,
or handicap. Further, HUD did not request the College to record
HUD's interest on the property title for Bracy Hall.
We recommend that HUD's director of congressional grants require
the College to record a covenant on the title assuring nondiscrimination
based on race, color, national origin, or handicap and record a
lien on the property title for Bracy Hall showing HUD's interest
in the assisted property. If the covenant and lien are not recorded,
the College should reimburse HUD $1 million from nonfederal funds
for the Grant funds used to pay for Bracy Hall's architectural fees.
Issue Date: September 15, 2005
Audit Report No.:
2005-AT-1014
File Size: 347.94KB
Title: National City Mortgage Company, Miamisburg, Ohio
We audited loans National City Mortgage Company (National City)
underwrote at the Altamonte Springs, Florida, and Alpharetta, Georgia,
branch offices for seven loan correspondents that originated loans
for properties located in central and northern Florida. National
City is a nonsupervised direct endorsement lender with headquarters
located in Miamisburg, Ohio. We selected the two branch offices
and the seven loan correspondents because their default rates were
significantly higher than the Florida average.
National City did not follow HUD requirements when underwriting
9 of the 19 Federal Housing Administration-insured loans reviewed
for compliance. The loans contained deficiencies that affected the
credit quality (insurability) of the loans. The loan underwriting
deficiencies occurred because National City's underwriters did not
adequately evaluate information presented by its loan correspondents
for compliance with requirements before approving the loans. The
underwriters also allowed questionable information to be entered
into the systems used for automated underwritten loans. As a result,
HUD insured nine loans that placed the Federal Housing Administration
insurance fund at risk for $326,132 in questioned costs and $153,674
in funds to be put to better use.
We recommend that the assistant secretary for housing-federal housing
commissioner take appropriate administrative action against National
City. This action should, at a minimum, include requiring indemnification
of $153,674 for two defaulted loans, $159,690 for claims paid on
two loans, and reimbursement of $166,442 for losses incurred for
five loans.
Issue Date: August 23, 2005
Audit Report No.:
2005-CH-1015
File Size: 929.29KB
Title: National City Mortgage Company, Non-Supervised Lender;
Miamisburg, Ohio
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General audited National City Mortgage Company (National
City), a nonsupervised lender approved to originate, underwrite,
and submit insurance endorsement requests under HUD's single family
direct endorsement program. The audit was part of the activities
in our fiscal year 2005 annual audit plan. We selected National
City for audit because of its high late endorsement rate. Our objective
was to determine whether National City complied with HUD's regulations,
procedures, and instructions in the submission of insurance endorsement
requests.
National City did not always comply with HUD's requirements on
late requests for insurance endorsement. National City submitted
2,071 late requests for endorsement out of 68,730 loans tested.
The loans were either delinquent or otherwise did not meet HUD's
requirements of six monthly consecutive timely payments subsequent
to delinquency, but before submission to HUD. National City also
incorrectly certified that both the mortgage and escrow accounts
for 133 loans, and the escrow accounts for taxes, hazard insurance
premiums, and mortgage insurance premiums for 497 loans were current
when they were not. National City lacked adequate procedures and
controls to ensure that it followed HUD's requirements regarding
late requests for insurance endorsement. These improperly submitted
loans increased the risk to the Federal Housing Administration insurance
fund.
We recommend that HUD's assistant secretary for housing-federal
housing commissioner require National City to indemnify HUD for
any future losses on 529 loans with a total mortgage value of more
than $63.5 million and take other appropriate administrative actions
up to and including civil money penalties, and reimburse HUD more
than $2.3 million for the actual losses it incurred on 57 loans
since the properties associated with these loans were sold and for
any future losses from nearly $3.2 million in claims paid on 45
insured loans with a total mortgage value of nearly $5 million once
the associated properties are sold. We also recommend that HUD's
assistant secretary for housing-federal housing commissioner take
appropriate administrative action against National City for violating
the requirements in effect at the time when it submitted 804 loans
with a total mortgage value of more than $99.6 million without the
proper six-month payment histories.
We recommend that HUD's associate general counsel for program enforcement
determine legal sufficiency, and, if legally sufficient, pursue
remedies under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act against National
City and/or its principals for incorrectly certifying that the mortgage
and/or the escrow accounts for taxes, hazard insurance premiums,
and mortgage insurance premiums were current for 630 loans submitted
for Federal Housing Administration insurance endorsement when the
mortgage and/or escrow accounts were not current at submission.
Issue Date: May 31, 2005
Audit Report No.
2005-CH-1011
File Size: 833.53KB
Title: Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority; Canton, Ohio; The
Authority Used Annual Contributions Contract Funds for Development
Activities Outside Its Annual Contributions Contract
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General completed an audit of the Stark Metropolitan
Housing Authority's (Authority) activities with its related nonprofit
organizations. The review of housing authorities' development activities
is set forth in our fiscal year 2005 annual audit plan. We selected
the Authority for audit because it was identified as having high-risk
indicators of nonprofit development activity. Our objectives were
to determine whether the Authority: used annual contributions contract
funds for non-annual contributions contract activities; accounted
for the source and use of funds as required by its annual contributions
contract with HUD; and encumbered HUD funds for the benefit of non-HUD
development activity without specific HUD approval.
The Authority received more than $459,000 of HOME funds from Stark
County between August 2001 and September 2002 to develop five low-income
housing units. Two of the five units were for the Ruthe and Isadore
Freed Housing Corporation (Freed), the Authority's nonprofit affiliate
entity. The Authority administered these funds and deposited them
into its general fund. The general fund is a pool of funds that
consists mainly of federal operating subsidies for the Authority.
However, the general fund also included proceeds from the sale of
low-income homes. The Authority expended more than $696,000 from
its general fund for the development of low-income housing units;
however, the Authority could not provide documentation to support
whether HUD operating subsidies or nonfederal funds in its general
fund was expended.
Freed transferred more than $528,000 to the Authority, who deposited
the funds into its general fund. The Authority has not demonstrated
that these funds were reimbursed to its low-income housing program.
The transfers made to Freed were in excess of the amount Freed had
on deposit in the Authority's general fund for the period between
December 2000 and March 2005.
Freed lacked the funds to transfer more than $168,000 to the Authority
as of March 2005. The Authority also executed two loan agreements
for the purchase of properties that encumbered $278,000 of its general
fund, including low-income housing operating subsidies, without
HUD approval. The agreements included provisions that allowed the
lender to withdraw the funds on deposit if the loan payments were
not made. In April 2004, the Authority secured $184,000 of the loan
agreements with nonfederal funds.
We recommend that HUD's Director of Public Housing Hub, Cleveland
Field Office, requires the Authority to (1) collect the more than
$168,000 that Freed owes the Authority and reimburse its low-income
housing reserve account, or reimburse its low-income housing reserve
account from nonfederal funds if Freed cannot repay the Authority,
(2) provide adequate documentation to support that the repayment
of more than $528,000 from Freed Corporation was from nonfederal
funds, or reimburse its low-income housing reserve account from
nonfederal funds if adequate documentation is not provided, (3)
provide adequate documentation to support that the encumbrance for
$94,000 was removed and secured with nonfederal funds, and (4) implement
procedures and controls to correct the weaknesses cited in this
report. The procedures and controls should help ensure that more
than $167,000 in future HUD funding received by the Authority will
be appropriately used.
Issue Date: October 27, 2004
Audit Report No.:
2005-CH-1001
File Size: 348.9KB
Title: Prestige Mortgage Group, Inc.,
Non-Supervised Loan Correspondent, Springfield, OH
HUD's Office of Inspector General audited Prestige Mortgage Group,
Inc. (Prestige), a non-supervised loan correspondent approved to
originate FHA mortgage loans under HUD's Single Family Direct Endorsement
Program. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year
2004 Annual Audit Plan. We selected Prestige for audit because of
its high loan default rate. Our audit objectives were to determine
whether Prestige (1) complied with HUD's regulations, procedures,
and instructions in the origination of FHA-insured single-family
mortgages and (2) implemented a quality control plan according to
HUD's requirements.
Prestige did not adequately originate FHA-insured loans in accordance
with HUD's requirements. Prestige It failed to exercise due diligence
to always verify or support borrowers' income and sources of funds
to close, and credit information. and In addition, Prestige did
not always ensure that unbiased appraisals were provided, cash investment
requirements were met, information on inconsistencies contained
in loan documents were explained or resolved, face-to-face interviews
with borrowers were conducted as claimed, and interested third parties
were not handling key documentation. Further, Prestige charged borrowers
for fees that were unjustified.
Prestige failed to adequately implement its quality control process
according to HUD's requirements. It did not always review early
payment defaults, perform quality control reviews on FHA loans in
a timely manner, formally and consistently document the actions
taken to resolve the deficiencies found during its reviews, and
perform reviews of its branch office.
We recommend that HUD's Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal
Housing Commissioner and Chairman of the Mortgagee Review Board
- Requires Prestige's sponsors to indemnify HUD against future
losses on the 25 loans totaling $1,890,739
- Determines the eligibility of the $13,543 of overages charged
by Prestige, and
- Impose civil monetary penalties against Prestige and its sponsor(s)
for the deficiencies cited in this audit report.
Issue Date: August 9, 2004
Audit Memorandum
No.: 2004-CH-1803
File Size: 55.9KB
Title: Somerset Point Nursing Home
Multifamily Equity Skimming
Shaker Heights, Ohio
HUD's Office of Inspector General reviewed the books and records
of Somerset Point Nursing Home (Project) to determine whether the
owner/management agent used the Project's funds in compliance with
the Regulatory Agreement between HUD and the Somerset Point Limited
Partnership and HUD's requirements. The Somerset Point Limited Partnership
and/or Associated Motor Inns inappropriately used $329,255 of Project
funds between December 1998 and October 2003. The inappropriate
expenses included: $160,227 to repay advances made by SOMSOL, Inc.;
$93,591 in excessive management fees paid to Associated Motor Inns;
and $75,437 in legal fees unrelated to the Project's operations.
We provided Associated Motor Inns, the Somerset Point Limited Partnership,
and HUD's staff a schedule of the inappropriate expenses. The Project
was in a non-surplus cash position and/or had defaulted on its FHA-insured
mortgage when the funds were used. As a result, Project funds were
not used efficiently and effectively, and fewer funds were available
for the Project's normal operation and debt service.
We recommend that HUD's Director of Multifamily Housing Hub, Columbus
Field Office, ensure that the Somerset Point Limited Partnership
and/or Associated Motor Inns reimburses HUD for the inappropriate
payments cited in this audit memorandum. We recommend that HUD's
Director of Multifamily Housing Hub in conjunction with HUD's Office
of Inspector General pursues double damages remedies if the Limited
Partnership and/or Associated Motor Inns do not reimburse HUD for
the inappropriate payments cited in this audit memorandum. We also
recommend that HUD's Director of Departmental Enforcement Center:
pursues administrative sanctions against the Limited Partnership
and/or Associated Motor Inns for the inappropriate payments cited
in this memorandum; and imposes civil money penalties against the
Limited Partnership and/or Associated Motor Inns for the inappropriate
payments cited in this audit memorandum while the Project was in
a non-surplus cash position and/or in default on its FHA-insured
mortgage.
Issue Date: December 5, 2003
Audit Memorandum
No.: 2004-CH-1801
File Size: 111KB
Title: Carter Manor Apartments Multifamily Equity Skimming, Cleveland,
Ohio
HUD's Office of Inspector General completed a review of the books
and records of Carter Manor Apartments. We performed the review
to determine whether the Project's funds were used in compliance
with the Regulatory Agreement and applicable HUD policies and procedures.
The review was performed based upon a request from HUD's Cleveland
Office of Multifamily Housing Program Center. We did not conduct
the review in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing
Standards.
We found that J.B. Tipton, Inc. and Carter Manor Apartments Limited
Partnership violated the Regulatory Agreement by improperly disbursing
Project funds for ineligible and unsupported costs. The inappropriate
disbursements occurred when the Project was in a non-surplus cash
position and/or after the Project defaulted on its HUD-insured mortgage.
As a result, fewer funds were available for the Project's normal
operations and debt service that resulted in a claim from HUD's
FHA insurance fund.
We referred our draft audit findings to the United States Attorney's
Office for the Northern District of Ohio for civil matters. HUD
and the United States Attorney's Office executed a settlement agreement
with the General Partner for Carter Manor Apartments Limited Partnership
and the President of J.B. Tipton effective November 24, 2003. Under
the terms of the settlement, the General Partner and J.B. Tipton,
without any admission of wrong doing, agreed to pay HUD $275,000
on or before December 5, 2003. As part of the settlement, the General
Partner and J.B. Tipton agreed not to participate in the Project
for a period of five years starting July 1, 2004. The settlement
agreement permitted the General Partner to retain a limited partnership
share of no more than one percent in the Project.
We recommend that HUD's Director of Multifamily Housing Hub, Columbus
Field Office, assure Carter Manor Apartments' General Partner and
J.B. Tipton, Inc. pays HUD $275,000 as required by the settlement
agreement.
Issue Date: September 30, 2003
Audit Memorandum
No.: 2003-CH-1803
File Size: 99.7KB
Title: J.T. Eaton & Company, Civil False Claims,Twinsburg, OH
HUD's Office of Inspector General completed a review of J.T. Eaton
& Company, Incorporated. The objectives of the review were to identify
HUD subsidized housing authorities that purchased pest control products
from J.T. Eaton and the amounts paid for those products. We performed
the review at the request of the United States Attorney's Office
for the Northern District of Ohio. We did not conduct the review
in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards.
Of the 659 housing authorities we contacted, we received one positive
response from the Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority in Toledo,
Ohio. In addition, we received positive responses from the New York
City Housing Authority and the Wilmington Delaware Housing Authority
after expanding our review. The responses demonstrated that between
November 1, 1996 and January 12, 2001, the housing authorities paid
more for animal repellants and pesticide products manufactured by
J.T. Eaton than previously identified to the United States Attorney's
Office. The United States Attorney's Office followed-up with the
manufacturer and the suppliers we identified. Based on the follow-up,
the United States Attorney's Office revised the estimate of HUD
related damages from $33,736 to $79,298. The United States Attorney's
Office negotiated a settlement agreement effective September 18,
2003 that includes a recovery for damages to HUD.
We recommend that HUD's Director of Field Operations for Public
and Indian Housing follow-up with the United States Attorney's Office
for the Northern District of Ohio to ensure that HUD receives $79,298
from the settlement agreement with J.T. Eaton.
Issue Date: April 25, 2003
Audit Report No.:
2003-CH-1016
File Size: 2.59MB
Title: City of Cleveland
Empowerment Zone Program, Cleveland, Ohio
HUD's Office of Inspector General completed an audit of the City
of Cleveland's Empowerment Zone Program. Our audit objectives were
to determine whether the City: (1) efficiently and effectively used
HUD funds for its Program; and (2) accurately reported the Program's
accomplishments 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 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 the City did not maintain adequate oversight of its
Program. Specifically, we determined:
* Controls over HUD funds were not adequate;
* Accomplishments were inaccurately reported;
* Zone residents were not benefiting from projects; and
* Program income was not properly managed.
Issue Date: March 28, 2003
Audit Report No.:
2003-CH-1014
File Size: 1.84MB
Title: Coshocton Metropolitan Housing Authority Public Housing
Program
Coshocton, Ohio
HUD's Office of Inspector General completed an audit of the Coshocton
Metropolitan Housing Authority's Public Housing Program. The review
of the Housing Authority's Public Housing Program was conducted
as part of a comprehensive review of the Authority. The comprehensive
review was performed based upon a request from HUD's Columbus Field
Office Coordinator of Public Housing Program Center. The objectives
of the audit were to: (1) determine whether the Housing Authority
had adequate management controls for safeguarding cash, other monetary
assets, and inventory; (2) review for indicators of possible waste,
loss, and misuse of cash, other monetary assets, and inventory;
and (3) assess the appropriateness of the Housing Authority's procurement
process.
The Housing Authority's management controls over cash, other monetary
assets, and inventory were very weak. Specifically, the Authority:
used $76,166 of its HUD funds for ineligible expenses; lacked documentation
to support $165,972 in expenditures; and failed to implement adequate
procedures and controls to safeguard its cash and other monetary
assets against possible waste, loss, and misuse. The following items
lacked adequate procedures and controls: personnel; Public Housing
physical condition standards; cash receipts and disbursements; equipment;
procurement; and financial and administrative processes.
We recommend that HUD's Acting Director of Troubled Agency Recovery
Center, Cleveland Field Office, assure that the Authority implements
procedures and controls to correct the weaknesses cited in this
report. We also recommend that HUD's Acting Director of Troubled
Agency Recovery Center: (1) takes administrative action against
the Housing Authority's former Executive Director, current Director,
and its Board of Commissioners for failing to administer the Authority
according to Federal, State, and its own requirements; (2) takes
the appropriate action against the Housing Authority for its default
of Section 17(b)(3) of the Annual Contributions Contract; (3) conducts
an election to determine whether the Public Housing residents want
a transfer of the management to another entity as permitted by Section
25 of the Housing Act of 1937; and (4) determines the feasibility
of the Housing Authority being combined with another Public Housing
Authority as permitted by Section 13 of the Housing Act of 1937.
Issue Date: March 27, 2003
Audit Memorandum
No.: 2003-CH-1013
File Size: 536KB
Title: Coshocton Metropolitan Housing Authority's Public Housing
Drug Elimination Program
Coshocton, Ohio
HUD's Office of Inspector General completed an audit of the Coshocton
Metropolitan Housing Authority's Public Housing Drug Elimination
Program for Fiscal Year 1998. The review of the Housing Authority's
Drug Elimination Program was conducted as part of a comprehensive
review of the Authority. The comprehensive review was performed
based upon a request from HUD's Columbus Field Office Coordinator
of Public Housing Program Center.
The objectives of the audit were to: (1) determine whether the
Housing Authority had adequate management controls for safeguarding
cash, other monetary assets, and inventory; and (2) review for indicators
of possible waste, loss, and misuse of cash, other monetary assets,
and inventory.
The audit identified that the Housing Authority: (1) drew down
$15,284 of Public Housing Drug Elimination Program Grant funds in
excess of actual Program expenses; (2) used $5,760 in Program funds
to pay two resident security guards who had criminal histories,
had no previous experience providing security services, and did
not receive any security services training; and (3) failed to monitor
and evaluate the Program's activities to ensure that they achieved
their intended objectives. Our report contains four recommendations
to address the issues identified in this audit.
We recommend that HUD's Acting Director of Troubled Agency Recovery
Center, Cleveland Field Office, assure that the Authority implements
procedures and controls to correct the weaknesses cited in this
report. Attached is the PDF file that contains the audit memorandum
report.
Issue Date: March 25, 2003
Audit Memorandum
No.: 2003-CH-1012
File Size: 337KB
Title: Coshocton Metropolitan Housing Authority's Tenant Opportunities
Program, Coshocton, Ohio
HUD's Office of Inspector General completed an audit of the Coshocton
Metropolitan Housing Authority's administration of its Resident
Council's Tenant Opportunities Program for Fiscal Year 1998. The
audit was conducted as part of a comprehensive review of the Housing
Authority. The comprehensive review was performed based upon a request
from HUD's Columbus Field Office Coordinator of Public Housing Program
Center.
The objectives of the audit were to: (1) determine whether the
Housing Authority had adequate management controls for safeguarding
cash, other monetary assets, and inventory; and (2) review for indicators
of possible waste, loss, and misuse of cash, other monetary assets,
and inventory.
The audit identified that the Authority: (1) requested $41,827
in Tenant Opportunities Program funds from HUD without supporting
documentation to show the funds were for reasonable and necessary
Program expenses; and (2) drew down $4,796 of Program funds in excess
of actual Program expenses.
We recommend that HUD's Acting Director of Troubled Agency Recovery
Center, Cleveland Field Office, assure that the Authority implements
procedures and controls to correct the weaknesses cited in this
report.
Issue Date: March 24, 2003
Audit Memorandum
No.: 2003-CH-1011
File Size: 559KB
Title: Coshocton Metropolitan Housing Authority Comprehensive
Improvement Assistance Program
Coshocton, Ohio
HUD's Office of Inspector General completed an audit of the Coshocton
Metropolitan Housing Authority's Comprehensive Improvement Assistance
Program for Fiscal Years 1997, 1998, and 1999. The audit of the
Housing Authority's Program was conducted as part of a comprehensive
review of the Authority. The comprehensive review was performed
based upon a request from HUD's Columbus Field Office Coordinator
of Public Housing Program Center.
The objectives of the audit were to: (1) determine whether the
Housing Authority had adequate management controls for safeguarding
cash, other monetary assets, and inventory; (2) review for indicators
of possible waste, loss, and misuse of cash, other monetary assets,
and inventory; and (3) assess the appropriateness of the Housing
Authority's procurement process.
The audit identified that the Housing Authority did not: (1) ensure
that $287,224 of Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program funds
were used according to HUD's regulations; (2) ensure that $36,408
of Program funds were used in accordance with its Board approved
operating budget; (3) procure goods and services in accordance with
HUD's regulations; and (4) perform contractor employee wage surveys
for its Program.
We recommend that HUD's Acting Director of Troubled Agency Recovery
Center, Cleveland Field Office, assure that the Authority implements
procedures and controls to correct the weaknesses cited in this
report.
Issue Date: March 21, 2003
Audit Report No.:
2003-CH-1010
File Size: 821KB
Title: Coshocton Metropolitan Housing Authority, Section 8 Housing
Program, Coshocton, Ohio
HUD's Office of Inspector General completed an audit of the Coshocton
Metropolitan Housing Authority's Section 8 Housing Program located
in Coshocton, Ohio. Our audit was conducted as part of a comprehensive
review of the Housing Authority. The objective of our audit was
to determine whether the Housing Authority managed its Section 8
Program efficiently and effectively. The audit was performed based
on a request from HUD's Columbus Field Office Coordinator of Public
Housing Program Center.
The Housing Authority's management controls over its Section 8
Housing Program were weak. The Authority lacked adequate procedures
and controls over Housing Quality Standards and administrative processes.
Specifically, we identified the following weaknesses in the Housing
Authority's Section 8 Housing Program:
* The Housing Authority's Section 8 units contained health and
safety violations. A HUD Construction Analyst inspected a sample
of 34 Section 8 units. A total of 521 Housing Quality Standards'
violations were found in 33 of the 34 (97 percent) Section 8 units
inspected;
* The Housing Authority did not review or adjust its Section 8 utility
allowances. The Authority also lacked documentation to support how
its Section 8 utility allowances were determined. Federal regulations
require housing authorities to document how utility allowances are
determined and to review the allowances annually to determine whether
adjustments are needed; and
* The Housing Authority did not follow HUD's regulations or its
Section 8 Administrative Plan regarding rent reasonableness. The
Authority did not properly complete rent reasonableness certifications
for Section 8 units placed under contract and did not maintain adequate
records of market rate units for rent reasonableness comparisons.
We recommend that HUD's Acting Director of Troubled Agency Recovery
Center, Cleveland Field Office, assure that the Authority implements
procedures and controls to correct the weaknesses cited in this
report.
Issue
Date: January 28, 2003
Audit Memorandum
No.: 2003-CH-1009
File Size: 11291KB
Title: City of Cincinnati Enpowerment Zone Cincinnati, Ohio
HUD's
Office of Inspector General completed an audit of the City of Cincinnati's
Empowerment Zone Program. The objectives of our audit were to determine
whether the City: (1) efficiently and effectively used Empowerment
Zone funds; and (2) accurately reported the accomplishments of its
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 the City needs to improve its oversight of Empowerment
Zone funds and more accurately report its Empowerment Zone Program
accomplishments to HUD. Specifically, the City inappropriately used
$15,364 of Zone funds and lacked documentation to show that another
$311,346 in Zone funds paid benefited the City's Empowerment Zone
Program or were matched with in-kind services as required. We also
found that the City used Empowerment Zone monies to fund three projects
that have not provided benefits to Empowerment Zone residents or
benefited only 37 percent of Zone residents as of October 2002.
The three projects were completed between August 2001 and November
2002.
We recommend that HUD's Director of Renewal Communities/Empowerment
Zones/Enterprise Communities Initiative assure the City of Cincinnati
reimburses its Empowerment Zone Program for the inappropriate use
of Zone funds and implements controls to correct the weaknesses
cited in this report.
Issue
Date: January 23, 2003
Audit Memorandum
No.: 2003-CH-1008
File Size: 9285KB
Title: City of Cleveland Heights Housing Preservation Program,
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
HUD's
Office of Inspector General completed an audit of the City of Cleveland
Heights' Housing Preservation Program. The audit resulted from a
complaint to our Hotline. The objectives of our audit were to determine
whether the complainant's allegation was substantiated and whether
HUD's rules and regulations were properly followed. The complainant
alleged that the City misused funds for its Housing Preservation
Program. HUD's Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs
funded the City's Housing Preservation Program. We found that the
City did not follow HUD's, Cuyahoga County's, and/or the City's
own requirements regarding the use of HUD funds (Community Development
Block Grant and HOME). We also found that the City did not properly
administer its funds for the Housing Preservation Program. We recommend
that HUD's Columbus Field Office Director of Community Planning
and Development assure the City reimburses its Housing Preservation
Program for the inappropriate use of HUD funds and implements controls
to correct the weaknesses cited in this report.
Issue Date: November 15, 2002
Audit Memorandum
No.: 2003-CH-1005
File Size: 986KB
Title: Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland Special Purpose
Grant OH12-SPG-505 Cleveland, Ohio
HUD's Office of Inspector General completed an audit of Jewish
Community Federation of Cleveland's Special Purpose Grant. We initiated
the audit based upon a request from HUD's Director of the Cleveland
Multifamily Housing Program Center. The objectives of our audit
were to determine whether the Federation: used its Grant funds in
an efficient and effective manner; and complied with the terms of
its Grant Agreement. We found that Jewish Community Federation of
Cleveland did not administer its Special Purpose Grant in full compliance
with Federal requirements and its Fiscal Standards Policy. Specifically,
the Federation: · Did not obtain computer consulting services for
the Grant through open and free competition; · Failed to execute
a written contract for its computer consulting services received
for the periods December 1998 through January 2000 and August 2000
through September 2001; and · Lacked adequate documentation to support
an additional $44,720 in computer consulting services paid to its
consultant as a reasonable expense of the Grant. As a result, HUD
lacks assurance that Grant funds were used efficiently and effectively,
and the Federation's procurement of computer consulting services
was not subject to open and free competition.
Date Issued: September 24, 2002
Audit Memorandum
No.: 2002-CH-1802
File Size: 146KB
Title: Congressionally Requested Audit of Section 514 Outreach
and Training Assistance Grants Awarded to Coalition on Homelessness
and Housing in Ohio; Columbus, Ohio Grant Numbers FFOT00031OH and
FFOT98023OH
We completed an audit of Coalition on Homelessness and Housing
in Ohio's Section 514 Outreach and Training Assistance Grants awarded
under the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability
Act of 1997. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether
the Coalition had: management controls in place to ensure that Section
514 Grant funds were used for eligible activities; and expended
the Grant funds for any lobbying activities.
We found no material reportable conditions based upon our audit
objectives. The Coalition properly managed the two Outreach and
Training Assistance Grants and assured that Grant funds were used
for eligible purposes. The Coalition had adequate controls in place
to preclude paying lobbying expenses with Grant monies. The Coalition
used American Fundware software system to track each employee's
time spent on each activity, including lobbying. The system was
set up so that each Grant had its own account number detailing how
the funds were spent.
Date Issued: August 2, 2001
Audit Memorandum
No.: 2001-CH-1802
File Size: 35KB
Title: Apex Management Company, Multifamily Equity Skimming,
Dayton, Ohio
We completed an audit of the books and records of Apex Management
Company. We performed the audit to determine whether Apex Management
used Crescent Square and Grand Apartments funds in compliance with
the Regulatory Agreements and other agreements, and applicable HUD
policies and procedures. The review was part of our Operation Safe
Home initiative.
We found that Apex Management Company, the former management agent
of Crescent Square and Grand Apartments Projects, improperly disbursed
$224,439 of the Projects' funds for ineligible or unsupported costs
and ineligible distributions over four years, in violation of the
Regulatory Agreements. Specifically, Apex Management paid $138,698
for ineligible costs and distributions and $85,741 for unsupported
costs. We also found that Apex: submitted false 1993 and 1994 certified
financial reports to HUD for the Projects; did not maintain the
Projects in a decent, safe, and sanitary manner; and failed to maintain
sufficient funds to cover the Projects' security deposits owed to
tenants. As a result, the Projects defaulted on their HUD-insured
mortgages and deferred maintenance allowing the Projects to deteriorate.
Using the procedures developed under Operation Safe Home, we referred
our draft audit findings to the United States Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of Ohio for civil matters. HUD and the
United States Attorney's Office executed a settlement agreement
with Apex Management Company's former officials effective June 21,
2001. Under the terms of the settlement, Apex Management's former
President and Manager, without any admission of wrong doing, agreed
to pay HUD $50,000 in six installment payments. The first installment
payment of $25,000 was received on July 13, 2001. Additional installments
of $5,000 each are due on the first of each month between August
2001 and December 2001. As part of the settlement, Apex's former
President and Manager agreed not to participate in any HUD funded
program for eight years and agreed not to participate as a contractor
in any Federal Government contract or in any Federally sponsored
program for three years. We will continue to monitor Apex's installment
payments under the Settlement Agreement.
Date Issued: May 3, 2001
Audit Report No.:
2001-CH-1006
File Size: 324KB
Title: Alliance Community Hospital, Special Purpose Grants, Alliance,
Ohio
We completed an audit of three Special Purpose Grants awarded
to the Alliance Community Hospital. The three Grants were: OH12-SPG-32
for $1,250,000; OH12-SPG-509 for $1,500,000; and OH12-SPG-517 for
$500,000. The objectives of our audit were to determine whether:
the Special Purpose Grants funds were used efficiently and effectively;
and the Hospital complied with the terms of the Grant Agreements.
The audit was conducted in response to a request from HUD's Director
of the Cleveland Multifamily Program Center.
The Hospital generally administered two of the three Special Purpose
Grants (OH12-SPG-32 and OH12-SPG-509) correctly. However, the Hospital
did not use funds from Special Purpose Grant OH12-SPG-517 efficiently
and effectively and failed to comply with the Grant Agreement.
Date Issued: March 22, 2001
Audit Report No.:
2001-CH-1005
File Size: 268KB
Title: London Metropolitan Housing Authority, Safeguarding Monetary
Assets and Inventory, London, Ohio
We completed an audit of the London Metropolitan Housing Authority.
The objectives of our audit were to: (1) determine whether the Housing
Authority had sufficient controls for safeguarding cash and other
monetary assets and inventory; (2) review for indicators of possible
waste, loss, and misuse of cash or other monetary assets and inventory;
and (3) establish, if appropriate, the amount of any misappropriations,
their causes, and the individuals involved. The audit was conducted
in response to a request from the Coordinator of HUD's Ohio State
Office Public Housing Program Center.
The Housing Authority's controls over cash and other monetary
assets and inventory were weak. The Authority: improperly paid the
Executive Director $3,699 for time she did not work for the Authority
or time she spent on activities not related to the Authority's operations;
failed to maintain accurate payroll records regarding three employees'
vacation time; used $2,879 of Public Housing Drug Elimination Program
funds to pay the City of London for baseline police services and
equipment that the City was required to provide at no cost to the
Authority; did not review or adjust its utility allowances for over
eight years; lacked documentation to support how its current utility
allowances were determined; did not sufficiently segregate the duties
of its employees responsible for cash receipts, tenant accounts,
cash disbursements, and accounting transactions; failed to maintain
complete and accurate books of account regarding its equipment,
did not conduct an inventory of non-expendable equipment; improperly
disposed of used equipment; and lacked an acceptable cost allocation
plan to support the allocation of costs among its programs.
Date Issued: March 9, 2001
Audit Report No.:
2001-CH-1004
File Size: 172KB
Title: Youngstown Metropolitan Housing Authority Comprehensive
Audit, Youngstown, OH
The Housing Authority's procurement process was generally performed
correctly and the Authority had sufficient controls over inventory.
However, the Authority lacked sufficient controls over safeguarding
cash and other monetary assets. Specifically, the Authority: used
$44,216 of Public Housing Drug Elimination Program funds to pay
the City of Youngstown for baseline police services that the City
was required to provide at no cost; was under charged $32,586 for
supplemental police services by the City; lacked documentation to
support that $8,210 in police services paid were reasonable and
necessary expenses of the Authority; failed to sufficiently pursue
amounts owed to it by current and former Section 8 tenants; did
not properly account for $32,300 of former Section 8 tenant accounts
receivable; and lacked an acceptable cost allocation plan to support
the allocation of indirect costs among its programs. While we found
that the Authority's controls over Section 8 tenant accounts receivable
were poor and offered the opportunity for its employees to misuse
or divert funds, we found no evidence that funds were diverted.
The Housing Authority: (1) used $44,216 of Public Housing Drug
Elimination Program funds to pay the City of Youngstown for baseline
police services that the City was required to provide at no cost;
(2) was under charged $32,586 for supplemental police services by
the City; and (3) failed to maintain documentation to support that
$8,210 in police services paid were reasonable and necessary expenses
of the Authority. The Authority did not have sufficient procedures
and controls over the supplemental police services. As a result,
HUD funds were not efficiently and effectively used.
The Housing Authority did not follow its Section 8 Administrative
Plan or HUD's Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract regarding
Section 8 tenant accounts receivable. Specifically, the Authority
did not: sufficiently pursue amounts owed to it by current and former
Section 8 tenants; and properly account for $32,300 of former Section
8 tenant accounts receivable. The Authority's former top management's
failure to aggressively pursue delinquent accounts and to recognize
that failure to do so increased the risk of collection losses.
The Housing Authority did not have an acceptable cost allocation
plan to support the allocation of indirect costs among its programs.
Specifically, the Housing Authority's cost allocation plan did not
address employees' salaries. The Authority also failed to properly
allocate non-salary costs to its Comprehensive Grant Program, Development
Program, Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, Major Renovation
of Obsolete Public Housing Program, Economic Development Social
Services Program, or its Service Coordinators Program. Employees'
salaries were allocated to the Housing Authority's various programs
based upon unsupported estimates. Housing authorities must allocate
indirect costs to benefiting grant programs based upon specific
methods, such as a time study. The Housing Authority's former Executive
Director could not explain the basis used for allocating the non-salary
indirect costs. As a result, neither HUD nor the Housing Authority
had assurance that costs charged to the Authority's various programs
were reasonable in relation to the benefits they derived from the
indirect costs.
We recommend that HUD's Director of the Public Housing Hub, Cleveland
Area Office, assure that the Housing Authority implements controls
to correct the weaknesses cited in this report.
We presented our draft findings to the Housing Authority's Executive
Director and HUD's staff during the audit. We held an exit conference
with the Authority on January 9, 2001. The Authority agreed to implement
corrective action to address the findings.
Date Issued: January 10, 2001
Audit Report No.:
2001-CH-1801
File Size: 54KB
Title: Cuyahoga County Community Development Block Grant Program
Revolving Loan Fund, Cleveland, Ohio
We completed a review of Cuyahoga County's Revolving Loan Fund
backed by the County's Community Development Block Grant Program.
We initiated our review based upon an anonymous complaint to our
Hotline. The complainant alleged that the County misused Block Grant
funds for the Loan Fund to pay expenses of the Special Purpose Grant
for the Bellefaire Residential Treatment Center for Children. The
objectives of our review were to determine whether the complainant's
allegations were substantiated and whether HUD's rules and regulations
for the Revolving Loan Fund were followed.
The County did not follow Federal requirements when it used Community
Development Block Grant funds to pay administration and construction
expenses of the Special Purpose Grant for the Bellefaire Residential
Treatment Center for Children. Contrary to the Office of Management
and Budget's requirement, the County used $308,495 of Block Grant
funds to pay the expenses of the Special Purpose Grant because the
County could not draw down the Special Purpose Grant funds. HUD
did not permit the County to draw down the Special Purpose Grant
funds because the County did not submit the required closeout documents.
The Business Services Manager for the County's Department of Development
said she was not aware that the County's use of Community Development
Block Grant funds to pay the expenses of the Special Purpose Grant
was not in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular
A-87. As a result, HUD's funds were not used efficiently and effectively.
Date Issued: November 16, 2000
Audit Report No.:
01-CH-243-1001
File Size: 478KB
Title: City of Ironton Community Development Block Grant Program,
Ironton, OH
We completed an audit of the City of Ironton's Community Development
Block Grant Program. The audit resulted from a complaint to our
Hotline. The complainant's allegations were that the City misused
Community Development Block Grant funds and did not follow proper
procurement practices when awarding contracts paid with Block Grant
funds. The complainant based his allegation that Block Grant funds
were misused on information from HUD's 2020 Internet map which provides
a general description and location of where HUD funds were spent.
The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the complainant's
allegations were substantiated and whether HUD's rules and regulations
were properly followed.
HUD's 2020 map did not accurately show the locations where HUD
funds were used in the City of Ironton. Nonetheless, we found that
the City did not follow HUD's, the State of Ohio's, and/or the City's
own requirements regarding the use of HUD funds (Community Development
Block Grant and HOME). We also found that the City and/or the Housing
Standards Officer for the Ironton-Lawrence County Area Community
Action Organization, which the City contracted with to administer
its Community Development Block Grant Program, did not properly
administer the City's HUD funded rehabilitation activities.
We recommend that the HUD's Ohio State Office Director of Community
Planning and Development, in conjunction with officials from the
State of Ohio, assure that the City implements controls to correct
the weaknesses cited in this report. We also recommend the Office
of Community Planning and Development ensures that the City takes
appropriate action on all other concerns addressed in this report.
Date Issued: June 15, 2000
Audit Report No.:
00-CH-255-1003
File Size: 552KB
Title: State of Ohio, Community Housing Improvement Program, Columbus,
Ohio
We completed an audit of the State of Ohio's Community Housing
Improvement Program. The audit was conducted as a result of our
review of the Community Housing Improvement Program for Fairfield
County, a State subrecipient. The audit objectives were to determine
whether the State had adequate controls for monitoring its Program
subrecipients and whether HUD's rules and regulations were properly
followed.
The State did not have adequate controls over its Community Housing
Improvement Program. The State's subrecipients we reviewed inappropriately
used $463,904 of HUD funds to provide housing rehabilitation assistance
that was not in accordance with HUD's regulations, the State's requirements,
and/or the subrecipients' Policies and Guidelines for the Program.
The inappropriate disbursements included: $290,555 for housing rehabilitation
work that was improperly performed or not provided; $172,181 for
rehabilitation work that exceeded our estimates of reasonable costs;
and $1,168 to correct items that did not meet the State's Residential
Rehabilitation Standards after HUD funds were used to pay for the
deficient housing rehabilitation work.
We also found that the State's subrecipients: (1) did not include
$1,534 of needed housing rehabilitation work in the specifications
for three contracts; (2) incorrectly certified that the housing
rehabilitation services provided to 42 houses met the State's Residential
Rehabilitation Standards when they did not; (3) did not take action
to repair items identified by the State that did not meet the State's
Standards; (4) failed to follow HUD's regulations or the State's
requirements for full and open competition regarding the procurement
of housing rehabilitation and consulting services; and (5) did not
ensure its contracting policies met HUD's requirements for the award
of fixed-price or cost-reimbursement type contracts.
Date Issued: March 31, 2000
Audit Report No.:
00-CH-201-1002
File Size: 85KB
Title: Cuyahoga Metropolitan HA, Title V Account, Cleveland,
OH
We completed an audit of the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority's
Title V account. The review was conducted based upon news reports
that funds were inappropriately paid from the account. The objective
of our audit was to determine whether the Authority's use of funds
from the Title V account was proper.
Based upon our review of the Housing Authority's Title V account,
we found that the Authority did not follow HUD's requirements, Office
of Management and Budget Circular A-87, State of Ohio law, and the
Authority's policies regarding the use of Title V funds.
We also found that the Housing Authority did not follow its Annual
Contributions Contract with HUD regarding the deposit of low-income
housing monies.
Date Issued: January 13, 2000
Audit Related
Memorandum No.: 00-CH-211-1807
File Size: 27KB
Title: MJM Management Company, Multifamily Equity Skimming,Cleveland,
OH
We completed an audit of the books and records of MJM Management
Company. We performed the audit to determine whether MJM Management
used project funds according to the Regulatory Agreement and other
agreements, and applicable HUD policies and procedures. The review
was part of our Operation Safe Home initiative.
We found that MJM Management Company paid $164,842 of Silver Meadows'
Project funds for ineligible loan related payments and asset management
fees. MJM believed it could make the ineligible payments because
the Project's Owner had invested more in the Project than HUD required.
The Regulatory Agreement and HUD requirements restrict Project disbursements
to payments necessary for operating and repairing the Project and
restrict distributions to owners to the amount of surplus cash.
The payments of $164,842 were not necessary for the operation and
repair of the Project, and the Project had negative surplus cash.
The payment of the ineligible expenses reduced the amount of money
available for the operation and repair of the Project.
Date Issued: November 30, 1999
Audit Related
Memorandum No. 00-CH-211-1803
File Size: 27KB
Title: RLJ Management Company, Fee-Splitting Agreement, Gahanna,
Ohio
We completed a review of the books and records of RLJ Management
Company. We performed the audit to determine the reasonableness
of the management fees paid to RLJ Management for five HUD-insured
Projects. The review was part of our Operation Safe Home initiative
and was conducted based upon information received from our Pacific/Hawaii
District Office regarding Insignia Financial Group's fee-splitting
agreements.
We concluded that RLJ Management Company improperly used $53,024
of the five Projects' funds to pay a fee for managing the Projects.
The payments were made to Security Properties and then to Insignia
Financial Group, who were Co-General Partners of the HUD-insured
Projects. RLJ Management did not disclose the unauthorized payments
to the Co-General Partners in the Projects' audited financial statements.
As a result, RLJ Management Company did not follow HUD's requirements
and Federal laws.
Date Issued: September 15, 1999
Audit Report No.
99-CH-255-1803
File Size: 251KB
Title: Fairfield County Community Housing Improvement Program,
Lancaster, Ohio
We completed a review of Fairfield County's Community Housing
Improvement Program. The review resulted from a citizen complaint
to Congressman Christopher Shays. The objectives of our review were
to determine whether the complainant's allegations were valid and
whether HUD's rules and regulations were properly followed.
The complainant's specific allegations were that the County: (1)
used the incorrect income limits for its HUD funded activities;
(2) provided benefits to individuals who exceeded the Program's
income requirements; (3) served individuals that lived outside of
the County's target area; (4) provided services to individuals,
but the services were not according to the Program's guidelines;
and (5) did not make its rules and regulations available to Program
applicants. The complainant also alleged that the County's Housing
Inspector inappropriately steered the Program's participants to
certain contractors.
We found that Fairfield County inappropriately used $169,044 of
HUD funds to provide housing rehabilitation assistance that was
not in accordance with HUD's regulations, the State of Ohio's requirements,
and/or the County's Policies and Guidelines for the Program. The
inappropriate disbursements included: $10,201 for housing rehabilitation
work that was improperly performed or not provided; $2,716 for rehabilitation
work that was excessively paid; $106,052 in housing assistance to
six households without property hazard insurance and/or without
recorded mortgage liens, deed restrictions, or covenants on the
assisted properties; $33,625 to assist two households, who were
not "very low-income", with housing rehabilitation services; and
$16,450 to provide rehabilitation assistance to a household that
was not located in the required target area.
We also found that the County and/or its Housing Inspector: (1)
did not include $1,534 of housing rehabilitation work in the specifications
for three contracts; (2) incorrectly certified that the housing
rehabilitation services provided to seven houses met the State's
Residential Rehabilitation Standards when they did not; (3) failed
to follow HUD's regulation or the State's requirements for full
and open competition regarding the procurement of housing rehabilitation
and consulting services; and (4) did not ensure its contracting
policies met HUD's requirements for the award of fixed-price or
cost-reimbursement type contracts. Since the County awarded housing
rehabilitation contracts without full and open competition, we questioned
the County's use of $159,438 in HUD funds provided to 14 households.
As a result, HUD funds were not used efficiently and effectively.
Issue Date: October 9, 1998
Audit Report No.
99-CH-202-1001
File Size: 497KB
Title: Springfield Metro. HA, Springfield, Ohio
We found the Authority's operations were not being administered
in an efficient and economic manner, and in accordance with program
requirements and the Annual Contributions Contract. The Executive
Director did not always follow HUD's requirements or the Authority's
own policies; and the Board of Commissioners did not always assure
that the Authority's operations were carried out in an efficient
and economic manner. The Authority had frequent turnover of key
management personnel, and did not have a plan to facilitate continuity
of operations.
Specifically, the Authority did not:
(1) follow proper payment procedures and the Executive Director
did not exercise sound judgment when he approved disbursements of
$38,437 for ineligible and unsupported expenses;
(2) maintain an acceptable occupancy level because the Authority
did not give priority to preparing vacant units for re-rental. The
Executive Director allowed maintenance employees to be used for
non-maintenance functions;
(3) conduct quality control reviews of Section 8 units inspected
by its inspectors and assure that its inspectors were properly trained;
(4) follow proper procurement practices because the Executive
Director had not assigned one specific upper level management official
to be responsible for the practices;
(5) use $95,558 of modernization grant funds in an efficient manner;
(6) correctly charge all physical and management improvement costs
to the benefiting programs;
(7) follow HUD's travel policy requirements;
(8) adequately document the method it used to allocate its indirect
costs to the various programs; and
(9) not maintain an adequate system of internal controls to safeguard
its assets.
Issue Date: June 2, 1998
Audit Report No.
98-CH-211-1810
File Size 35KB
Title: Burton Plat Apts., Dayton, OH
We concluded that Burton Plat had violated several provisions
of the Regulatory Agreement. Specifically, Burton:
- made ineligible distributions totaling $233,400 when the Project
had no surplus cash.
- did not establish a separate bank account for tenant security
deposits.
- did not submit audited financial statements as required or submitted
them late.
- did not obtain HUD approval for two transfers of physical assets
and for rent increases.
Issue Date: April 24, 1998
Audit Report No.
98-CH-210-1908
File Size: 20KB
Title: Lutheran Soc. Svcs. Mgmt. Agent, Dayton, OH
We determined that Lutheran Social Services used projects' funds
in compliance with the Regulatory Agreements and other HUD requirements
and tenants who received Section 8 subsidies were eligible. Lutheran
Social Services was also currently calculating tenant rents properly
and receiving proper subsidy payments. However as of February 28,
1998, the Management Agent owed HUD $12,269 and was paying HUD $100
per month as a result of incorrect tenant rent calculations that
occurred prior to 1995 for residents of Ohio House and Valley House.
Issue Date: January 23, 1998
Audit Related
Memorandum 98-CH-204-1807
File Size: 51KB
Title: Columbus HA, Columbus, OH
We found no evidence that the Housing Authority paid the current
Coordinator of the supplemental police services for services that
he did not perform or performed while he was on-duty for the City
of Columbus' Division of Police between January 1995 and September
1997. Since the Housing Authority's records were missing for 1994,
we were unable to determine whether the current Coordinator was
paid for services that he did not perform or performed while he
was on-duty for the City for the three months he was the Coordinator
in 1994. In addition, because the Columbus Metropolitan Housing
Authority did not maintain adequate documentation, we were unable
to determine whether the former Coordinator was paid for services
that he did not perform or performed while he was on-duty for the
City for the time he was Coordinator between March 1992 and October
1994. As shown in the two findings which follow, we determined that
the Housing Authority did not always follow its policies and procedures
and HUD's requirements. Specifically, the Housing Authority did
not: (1) adequately maintain the records for the supplemental police
services; and (2) follow its and HUD's contracting requirements
for police services.
Issue Date: December 4, 1997
Audit Related
Memorandum 98-CH-203-1803
File Size: 118KB
Title: HA, Columbus, OH
We found that the Housing Authority properly calculated its Section
8 administrative fees. The Authority also properly reported its
Section 8 expenses to HUD. Based upon our interviews, we found no
evidence that the Housing Authority inappropriately steered Section
8 tenants from landlords. The Housing Authority was approved to
use tax credits for its Rosewind development. The State of Ohio
allows housing authorities to receive tax credits to fund construction
costs. HUD encourages housing authorities to obtain alternative
sources of funding since funding from HUD has been reduced. However,
as shown in the six findings which follow, we determined that the
Authority did not always follow its policies and procedures and
HUD's requirements. Specifically, the Authority did not: properly
disburse its Section 8 administrative fees because it lacked an
acceptable cost allocation plan; properly identify the cause of
Housing Quality Standards violations; conduct initial inspections
timely; ensure Section 8 contract rents were reasonable; process
requests for annual rent increases; and always identify the Housing
Quality Standards violations.
Issue Date: September 24, 1997
Audit Case Number
97-CH-241-1011
File Size: 83KB
Title: City of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH
We concluded that Hough did not fully comply with Federal Regulations
regarding the Community Development Block Grant Program and Empowerment
Zone Program. Hough did not pass $29,381 it received from the City
of Cleveland to third parties for which payments were intended.
In addition, Hough did not provide us adequate documentation to
support payments totalling $13,274. These problems occurred prior
to the establishment of Hough's current internal control system.
After March 1, 1996, Hough improved its system of internal controls
when it hired a local certified public accounting firm as its fiscal
officer. Hough also hired a checking service to make all of Hough's
payments and provide cash analysis and reports.
Issue Date: January 21, 1997
Audit Case Number
97-CH-214-1004
File Size: 182KB
Title: Jena Apts, Cincinnati, OH
From January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1995, Jena Apartments
paid $24,265 for ineligible salaries. According to the Regulatory
Agreement and other HUD requirements, the salaries should have been
paid from the management agent's fee. Because of these ineligible
payments, less money was available for maintaining the project and
correcting its physical deficiencies.
Issue Date: December 18, 1996
Audit Case Number
97-CH-204-1003
File Size: 513KB
Title: Columbus Metropolitan HA, Columbus, OH
The Authority followed Federal procurement procedures in awarding
the contract. The Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority's rehabilitation
of Lincoln Park Apartments was not in a workmanlike manner and in
accordance with specifications. The staff of HUD's Ohio State Office's
Multifamily Housing Division inspected the contractor's work and
estimated the cost of defective work at $414,898. The cost of change
orders were within reason.
Issue Date: April 26, 1996
Audit Report Number
96-CH-205/218-1007
File Size: 92KB
Title: Capital City Community Urban Redevelopment, Westerville,
OH
Capital City incorrectly used $75,713 of the HOPE 2 project's
sales proceeds. The funds were used to pay for realty services that
Adrian Inc., an identity-of-interest firm, was to provide as part
of Capital City's match to the HOPE 2 Grant. Capital City also charged
the HOPE Grants $51,902 of unsupported and ineligible costs. As
a result, fewer funds were available to help improve the conditions
of the intended beneficiaries, low-income persons.
Issue Date: December 22, 1995
Audit Related
Memorandum 96-CH-212-1805
File Size: 4KB
Title: Broadview Health Center, Columbus, OH
We have closed out our audit of the Broadview Health Center in
Columbus, Ohio. After we presented the project's owner with our
draft finding describing improper use of Project funds, he refinanced
the project with a conventional mortgage and cancelled the FHA mortgage
insurance.
Issue Date: October 24, 1995
Audit Related
Memorandum 96-PH-214-1801
File Size: 3KB
Title: Nelson & Associates, Cincinnati, OH
Our review disclosed that the Agent paid ineligible salary and
benefits of $75,559 and $14,337 respectively from project operating
funds of the three West Virginia projects. The costs supplemented
salary and benefits for the Senior Site Manager. The costs were
charged contrary to HUD requirements and should have been paid from
the management fee. The West Virginia State Office was aware of
the practice.
Issue Date: October 17, 1995
Audit Report Number
96-CH-241-1002
File Size: 142KB
Title: City of East Cleveland, East Cleveland, OH
The City of East Cleveland did not: (1) achieve its primary objective
of correcting code violations; (2) spend $42,657 Block Grant money
on eligible or supported activities; and (3) establish an effective
system of internal controls.
Content Archived: September 10, 2010