Louisiana Audit Reports
Issue Date: August 31, 2006
Audit Report No.:
2006-AO-1002
File Size:
Title: Cityside Management Corporation, Hammond, Louisiana, Did
Not Enforce The Lease Terms Over Payment of Property Utilities
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of
Inspector General audited Cityside Management Corporation (Cityside),
a management and marketing contractor for the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) real estate-owned properties
held off market for disaster victims. The audit was initiated in
conjunction with the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency,
as part of its examination of relief efforts provided by the Federal
government in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Our
objective was to determine whether Cityside complied with HUD's
regulations, procedures, and instructions in the management of HUD's
real estate-owned properties held off market for disaster victims.
Cityside complied with HUD's regulations, procedures, and instructions
in the management of HUD's real estate-owned properties held off
market to house disaster victims, with one exception. It did not
ensure that all disaster victims transferred the billing of property
utility services into their names and paid charges for utility services
in full, as required by the lease agreements. This occurred because
Cityside did not take timely and proactive measures to enforce full
tenant compliance with the lease terms over payment of property
utilities, when staff became aware of the issue. Instead, Cityside
used $17,744 in HUD funds to pay the monthly billings on 133 leased
properties during the period October 13, 2005 through March 31,
2006.
We recommend that the Director of the Denver Office of Single Family
Homeownership Center instruct Cityside Management Corporation to
take appropriate action against the tenants who do not comply with
the instruction and requirements regarding utility payments, and
require Cityside Management Corporation to initiate collection actions
against tenants to recover the $17,744 that HUD paid for utility
costs and any additional costs HUD had incurred after March 31,
2006.
Issue Date: March 28, 2006
Audit Report No.:
2006-FW-1006
File Size: 5.86MB
Title: America's Mortgage Resource, Inc., Metairie, Louisiana:
Branch Manager Formed an Identity-of-Interest Entity That Provided
Gift Funds; and Did Not Always Meet HUD Loan Origination and Quality
Control Plan Requirements
America's Mortgage's LaPlace branch manager formed an identity-of-interest
company, Imagine Foundation that provided prohibited quid pro quo
gifts to borrowers. Imagine Foundation provided $404,997 in gift
funds to 73 America's Mortgage borrowers. The Internal Revenue Service
denied Imagine Foundation nonprofit status because it did not meet
nonprofit requirements. According to the Internal Revenue Service,
America's Mortgage's owner served on the board of Imagine Foundation.
Under the HUD requirements, the gifts should be considered as �inducements
to purchase,� and HUD regulations require the sales price to be
reduced dollar for dollar for gifts in determining the maximum mortgage
amount. Therefore, HUD unnecessarily over insured 73 Federal Housing
Administration loans totaling more than $7.6 million.
Additionally, America's Mortgage did not originate and process
loans in accordance with HUD's regulations, nor did its quality
control plan meet HUD's regulations, further putting Federal Housing
Administration-insured loans at risk.
We recommended that HUD require America's Mortgage to write down
the loans for the $404,997 in inappropriate gifts by Imagine Foundation,
indemnify 73 loans totaling $6,904,509 and reimburse HUD $303,261
for claims paid on four loans. Further, HUD should take administrative
action as appropriate, including debarment and civil monetary penalties,
against the president and board of Imagine Foundation. America's
Mortgage should develop and implement a quality control plan that
complies with HUD's requirements before it is allowed to underwrite
additional loans.
Issue Date: April 8, 2005
Audit Report No.:
2005-FW-1008
File Size: 499.66KB
Title: The City of New Orleans, Louisiana, Did Not Contribute
Approximately $3.6 Million in HOME Funds
We reviewed the City of New Orleans' (City) matching contribution
to its HOME Investment Partnerships program (HOME) funds to determine
whether the City documented and matched its disbursed HOME funds
in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) regulations. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2003, the City
did not provide $3.6 million in matching HOME funds as required
by HUD. In addition, the City failed to maintain a system that identified
the type and amount of each matching contribution. We recommended
the Director of Community Planning and Development require the City
to: (1) submit matching contributions in the amount of $3.6 million;
(2) update its policies, ensuring that the policies are in compliance
with HUD and other federal rules and regulations; and (3) provide
documentation of its matching contributions as it draws funds until
it has a plan to ensure continued compliance with HUD requirements.
Further, HUD should review and monitor the City's plan to ensure
the matching deficiency is corrected. The City agreed with the finding
and provided a plan to correct the matching deficiency.
Issue Date: February 25, 2005
Audit Report No.:
2005-FW-1005
File Size: 1.14MB
Title: The New Orleans African-American Museum, New Orleans, LA,
Mismanaged Its Community Block Development Grants and Did Not Comply
with Its Grant Agreements
We audited the City's subrecipient, the New Orleans African American
Museum (Museum), as a part of our audit of the City of New Orleans
(City) Community Development Block Grant (Block Grant) programs.
The City suggested that we audit the Museum due to its concerns
about the Museum's activities.
The objective of our audit was to determine whether the Museum
administered its Block Grant program funds in an economical and
efficient manner and in accordance with the terms of the grant agreements
with the City and applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) regulations and federal laws. In addition, we
determined whether the City properly monitored the Museum and its
use of HUD funds.
Of five City awarded grants, two grants, totaling $745,000, failed
to meet HUD requirements. For the remaining three grants, totaling
$1,030,000, the Museum failed to document that it met one of HUD's
national objectives. Further, the Museum did not exercise financial
oversight or management of the $1,073,044 in Block Grant funds received
through its five grants. The Museum commingled funds, did not have
adequate controls over procurement, and failed to comply with federal
and state income tax requirements, resulting in $50,609 in ineligible
and $181,474 in unsupported disbursements.
We recommended that the New Orleans Community Planning Development
Director require the City to repay its Block Grant programs $774,610
for ineligible and $298,434 for unsupported disbursements, and recover
any remaining assets provided to the Museum. Further, the City should
ensure agencies possess the ability to administer HUD and other
programs effectively and efficiently and seek appropriate administrative
sanctions against parties involved in the deficiencies described
in the report.
Issue Date: November 5, 2004
Audit Report No.:
2005-FW-1001
File Size: 251.1KB
Title: City of New Orleans Section 108 Program Louisiana ArtWorks,
New Orleans, LA
As part of our audit of the City of New Orleans, we audited the
City of New Orleans' (City) Section 108 loan to the Louisiana Artists
Guild to construct Louisiana Artworks. With respect to Louisiana
Artworks, our audit objectives were to determine whether Louisiana
ArtWorks will create enough low- and moderate-income jobs to justify
the loan, expended funds for eligible purposes, and adequately documented
its expenditures.
Both the City and the Louisiana Artists Guild stated systems were
in place to ensure that Louisiana Artworks would create sufficient
jobs for the $7.1 million Section 108 loan. However, we suggested
the City monitor Louisiana Artworks to ensure it creates the promised
jobs. While Louisiana Artworks expended the vast majority of the
funds reviewed properly, it overpaid the City's attorney by $1,659
and could not support an additional $17,723 paid to the attorney.
Both the City and Louisiana Artworks agreed to support or recover
the amounts. Further, Louisiana Artworks needs to strengthen controls
over its procurement and administration of contracts. In one instance,
Louisiana Artworks did not have a contract with a financial analyst
and the expenditure appears to be duplicative. Louisiana ArtWorks
should repay the $3,000 that it paid the financial analyst.
We recommended that Louisiana ArtWorks repay the $1,659 in excess
charges for legal fees; repay the $17,723 of unsupported funds paid
to the attorney or provide adequate support; establish necessary
management controls to ensure compliance with procurement requirements,
including maintaining a contract log, filing system, and procurement
history; and repay $3,000 paid to the financial analyst for duplicative
services.
Issue Date: June 22, 2004
Audit Report No.:
2004-FW-1007
File Size: 1.38MB
Title: Audit of City of New Orleans
Desire Community Housing Corporation New Orleans, Louisiana
We completed a review of the Desire Community Housing Corporation
(Desire) as part of our audit of the City of New Orleans (City)
housing and economic development programs. As a subrecipient of
the City, Desire received HUD funding through the City's Division
of Housing and Neighborhood Development.
The objective of our review was to determine whether Desire administered
its HOME Program funds in an economical and efficient manner and
in accordance with the terms of the grant agreements with the City
and applicable HUD regulations and federal laws. Through the audit,
we also determined whether the City properly monitored Desire and
its use of HUD funds.
We concluded Desire did not effectively and efficiently administer
its programs in accordance with the terms of the grant agreements
with the City and applicable HUD regulations and federal laws. Desire
did not develop and implement a sound internal control environment
to administer its programs. This resulted in Desire not providing
adequate oversight and management of its HUD funded projects. Further,
Desire mismanaged $1.1 million of HOME funds on its Bayou Apartments
rehabilitation project and $2,039,150 of program income from Liberty
Terrace. In addition, Desire made unsupported disbursements totaling
$91,885, and violated HUD procurement regulations. The City should
have provided sufficient monitoring of Desire to detect the problems
sooner and possibly mitigated Desire's mismanagement of limited
HOME funds.
We recommended HUD and the City ensure Desire has the necessary
controls before awarding any additional grants to Desire. Further,
Desire should repay the City the $1.1 million and either, support
or repay the $322,352 of unpaid loans from program income and $91,885
in unsupported disbursements. We also recommend HUD aid the City
in establishing the appropriate controls, reprogram funds, and take
appropriate administrative actions.
Issue Date: March 15, 2004
Audit Report No.:
2004- FW-1003
File Size: 1.22MB
Title: Audit of the City of New Orleans, Section 108 Loan Program,
Jazzland Theme Park, New Orleans, Louisiana
We are performing an audit of the City of New Orleans (City). One
objective of the audit is to determine whether the City administered
its Section 108 Loan Program in an economic, effective, and efficient
manner and in accordance with program requirements. To accomplish
this objective, we will review the award, implementation, and monitoring
of the City's Section 108 projects. This memorandum provides our
conclusions on the City's Section 108 loan to Jazzland Theme Park
(Jazzland). To accomplish our objective we audited the $25.3 million
Section 108 loan to assist in the construction of Jazzland Theme
Park project (Jazzland). For Jazzland, our audit objective was to
determine whether the City complied with the requirements regarding
applicant eligibility and requirements; loan requirements; grant
administration; and performance reviews.
The City did not comply with section 108 requirement regarding
applicant eligibility, loan requirements, grant administration,
and performance reviews.
The audit concluded the City paid $7,685,703 in ineligible and
unsupported expenditures. The City distributed $1,298,943 ineligible
funds because the funds did not have an underlying loan or grant
agreement. Of the $6,386,760 in unsupported costs, $2,447,191 related
to the last drawdown that the City had no documentation to support
the release of the funds. The remaining $3,939,569 related to miscalculations
of fees, payments to vendors, and possible duplication of invoices.
Further, the City had inadequate controls and management over Jazzland,
and did not manage the development of Jazzland.
As a result of poor management, lax oversight, and a failure to
follow requirements, the City mismanaged HUD funds. Also, because
Jazzland defaulted on the City's loan, the City will be required
to repay HUD from rents it receives from the new owners of the amusement
park and from its general fund.
To correct the deficiencies cited in the report, we recommended
HUD require the City to repay the $1,298,943 in ineligible expenditures
and either support or repay the $6,386,760 of unsupported expenditures.
The City should also seek recovery from vendors who inappropriately
gained from the disbursements. The City needs to implement policies
and procedures to ensure compliance with program requirements. Also,
HUD should assist the City in the development and implementation
of the policies and procedures prior to approving any additional
Section 108 loans. By doing this, the City could potentially use
$52 million in available Section 108 funds more effectively. Additionally,
HUD should evaluate if actions by officials, contractors, and others
warrant administrative sanctions. The City generally agreed with
the findings and indicated a willingness to correct the issues cited.
Issue Date: January 30, 2004
Audit Memorandum
No.: 2004-FW-1801
File Size: 4.54MB
Title: Logansport Housing Authority, Louisiana Legislative Auditor's
Report
The Louisiana Legislative Auditor State Auditor issued a report
to the Logansport Authority Board of Commissioners on December 17,
2003. Because the report details that the Executive Director mismanaged
and possibly misappropriated $156,434, we have decided to control
several recommendations in the report. In addition, we have recommended
the Authority pursue civil remedies against the former Executive
Director and for HUD to seek administrative sanctions.
Issue Date: February 21, 2003
Audit Report No.:
2003-FW-1001
File Size: 1.79MB
Title: Limited Review of Low Rent Program The Housing Authority
of the City of Morgan City, Morgan City, Louisiana
We performed an audit of the Housing Authority of the City of Morgan
City's (Authority) Low rent program. The purpose of the audit was
to determine the validity of allegations against the Authority.
Specifically, we determined: (1) whether the Authority followed
federal and Authority procurement requirements; (2) whether the
Authority complied with applicable federal requirements and its
adopted policies and regarding use of its credit cards and the performance
of travel; and (3) the reason for the 1999 Operating Deficit of
$168,958. We also reviewed specific allegations regarding an employee's
work for a contractor; and the Executive Director's employment of
Authority personnel for his business.
The audit concluded the Authority did not follow either procurement
requirements or policies regarding the use of its credit cards and
the performance of travel. Specifically, the Authority: (1) Inappropriately
procured $916,205 in contracts; (2) Paid $22,008 in ineligible and
unsupported procurement expenditures; (3) Paid $3,850 in ineligible
and unsupported travel expenditures; (4) Paid $32,652 to an Authority
contractor in violation of conflict-of-interest requirements; and
(5) Did not monitor its budget. Further, the Authority did not have
procedures that adequately addressed outside employment and businesses.
As a result of poor management, lax oversight, and a failure to
follow requirements, the Authority discouraged procurement competition,
and mismanaged HUD funds. Further, the Authority created conflicts
of interest.
We recommend the Authority either support or repay the unsupported
expenditures discussed in the findings. The Authority should repay
the ineligible amounts. Further, we recommend the Authority follow
regulations and procedures to ensure it properly expends funds and
that HUD take administrative actions against the parties involved
in the conflict of interest. Generally, the Authority agreed to
implement our recommendations. The Authority and its Board have
been reorganized and its former Executive Director has been terminated.
Issue Date: September 18, 2002
Audit Report No.:
2002-FW-1002
File Size: 1,717KB
Title: Low Rent Housing Program, Cash and Procurement Controls
Housing Authority of the City of Houma Houma, Louisiana
We performed an audit of the Housing Authority of the City of
Houma (Authority). The purpose of the audit was to determine whether
the Authority maintained adequate controls over cash and procurement.
Specifically, we determined whether the Authority: (1) expended
funds for eligible activities; (2) accounted for collections and
deposits; and (3) complied with federal and Authority procurement
requirements.
The audit concluded the Authority had inadequate controls and
management over cash and procurement. Specifically, the Authority
improperly procured $1.1 million in contracts; paid $240,077 in
ineligible and unsupported expenditures; did not deposit tenant
receipts totaling at least $48,201; and allowed employees to abuse
their positions.
We are recommending HUD take action to ensure the current management
has the necessary policies and procedures in place to limit future
mismanagement; the Authority support or repay the unsupported or
ineligible expenditures discussed in the findings; and that HUD
should take any warranted administrative sanctions.
Issue Date: June 17, 2002
Audit Memorandum
No.: 2002-FW-1804
File Size: 174KB
Title: Morgan City Housing Authority Drug Elimination Grant Program
Morgan City, Louisiana
Based upon a request from management, we performed a limited review
of the 1999 and 2000 drug elimination grants awarded to the Morgan
City Housing Authority (Authority). Our objectives were to determine
if: (1) the City used police cars as stated in the grant and (2)
the Authority charged accounting services to the grant while they
are included in the grant administrator's duties. Our review concluded
the City provided the services as stated in the grant and the Authority
did not charge HUD accounting fees for this grant. However, we did
note the Authority charged $8,710 in ineligible and unsupported
costs to the grant and the grant administrator did not perform all
the duties as listed in his contract. The Authority agreed to offset
future disbursements by $5,710 and to review the grant administrator's
services. We recommended the Authority either support or repay the
grant the $8,710 and review the grant administrator's contract to
ensure the services are needed and provided.
Issue Date: April 5, 2002
Audit Memorandum
No.: 2002-FW-1802
File Size: 192KB
Title: Hillcrest Apartments - Upfront Grant Lafourche Parish
Housing Authority Lafourche Parish, Louisiana
In response to a complaint, we reviewed a $7.7 Million Upfront
Grant HUD provided to the Lafourche Parish Housing Authority (Authority).
The purpose of the review was to determine if the Authority properly
used HUD funds in the development of City Place I & II.
In developing the new properties, the Authority effectively sole-sourced
the developer, who in turn sole-sourced the contractor. HUD provided
information on the reasonableness of the cost of the new developments
and is confident that the amount paid was reasonable. However, due
to financial difficulties, one of the new developments has already
reverted to the Authority and it appears the other development might
also revert to the Authority. We are recommending HUD continue to
monitor the status of these developments to ensure HUD does not
incur any unnecessary expenses resulting from default or foreclosure
on the loan.
Issue Date: September 25, 2001
Audit Memorandum
No.: 2001-FW-1809
File Size: 267KB
Title: Jefferson Parish Housing Authority Limited Procurement
Review Jefferson Parish, Louisiana
We performed a limited procurement review of the Jefferson Parish
Housing Authority (Authority). As a result of a request for assistance,
we reviewed six procurements made by the Authority between1996 and
2000. The contracts reviewed included: (1) SAT Development; (2)
Paragon Accounting; (3) Robert Wallbillich, CPA; (4) IWG, L.L.C;
(5) Louisiana Housing Development Corporation; and (6) Nova Financial.
Our review objectives were to determine whether the Authority:
(1) followed procurement policies; and (2) received all contracted
services.
Issue Date: May 10, 2000
Audit Report No.:
00-FW-202-1803
File Size: 53KB
Title: Leesville Housing Authority, Citizen Complaint, Leesville,
Louisiana
Our office reviewed a complaint concerning the Leesville Housing
Authority (Authority) relating to its use of Comprehensive Improvement
Assistance Program (CIAP) funds. The complainant alleged that the
Executive Director improperly used Authority funds to roof his personal
residence. Also, the complainant alleged that the Authority prematurely
replaced the roofs on its buildings and did not follow applicable
procurement requirements in using CIAP funds.
We recommend that the Authority either supports its need to replace
the roofs or repay the funds that it spent ineffectively. The Authority
needs to develop and implement a procurement policy that is consistent
with HUD requirements and State law. The Authority also needs to
ensure that it documents the need for its CIAP projects, and that
it does not repeatedly request funding for projects that it cancels
or reduces. Further, the Authority needs to strengthen its internal
controls relative to the order, receipt, and payment of goods.
Issue Date: April 26, 2000
Audit Report No.:
00-FW-202-1802
File Size: 849KB
Title: Alexandria Housing Authority - Agreed upon Procedures
On June 7, 1999, the HUD New Orleans Field Office recommended
that the Alexandria Housing Authority (Authority) retain an Independent
Public Accountant to perform an Agreed Upon Procedures audit of
the Authority's administration/management and operations.
The Authority retained a CPA to perform the agreed upon procedures.
The CPA issued his final report on December 6, 1999. The report
addresses serious problems at the Authority. Furthermore, the New
Orleans Field Office sent the Authority a memorandum, dated March
1, 2000, detailing the required actions needed to correct deficiencies
noted in the report. The New Orleans Field Office has been in the
process of clearing these findings.
Issue Date: January 19, 2000
Audit Report No.:
00-FW-201-1001
File Size: 848KB
Title: HA of the City of New Orleans, Executive Monitor Contract
with Moten & Associates, New Orleans, LA
We performed an audit of the Executive Monitor's contract with
Moten & Associates. The Executive Monitor contracted with Moten
& Associates to perform various technical services to improve the
Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO) operations. Our audit objectives
included determining whether: (1) the Executive Monitor properly
procured the Moten & Associates contract; (2) Moten & Associates
charged only eligible and supportable costs; and (3) the contract
provided measurable benefits to HANO.
The review disclosed both Andersen Consulting and the Executive
Monitor violated federal regulations in obtaining the services of
Moten & Associates. Further, Tulane paid $427,074 in ineligible
and unsupported costs, including $421,760 for unsupported labor
and $5,314 in ineligible travel costs. Neither HANO, the Executive
Monitor, nor Moten & Associates could provide satisfactory evidence
that Moten & Associates completed the tasks it was paid to perform.
Consequently, we could not determine whether HANO derived a measurable
benefit from the Moten & Associates contract.
Issue Date: November 6, 1998
Audit Case Number
99-FW-202-1002
File Size: 72KB
Title: HA of St. James Parish Public Housing Drug Elimination
Program, Lutcher, LA
We conducted an audit of the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program
administered by the St. James Parish Housing Authority, Lutcher,
Louisiana (Authority). Our review was to determine whether the Authority,
for grant years 1994 through 1996: (1) implemented its drug elimination
program awards with satisfactory outcomes and benefits and (2) expended
program funds only for eligible activities and in accordance with
program requirements.
The Authority did not maintain data or have a system to measure
the satisfactory outcomes and benefits of its programs. Without
this data, neither the Authority nor HUD can determine whether the
Drug Elimination Grant Program has provided satisfactory outcomes
and benefits.
Further, the Authority did not properly administer the Drug Elimination
Grant Program. The Authority generally relied on the Sheriff's Department
to prepare the grant applications and prepare periodic reports to
HUD. Also the Authority did not maintain appropriate accounting
records and source documents to support its drawdown and use of
grant funds. As a result, the Authority: (1) did not have documentation
to show how it used about $4,000 it drew down from the 1994 and
1995 grants; (2) used $10,400 to reimburse the Sheriff's Department
for purchase of ineligible police equipment; and (3) did not have
invoices to support payments of about $1,300 for cameras and travel.
HUD designated the Authority as "troubled" based on its Public
Housing Management Assessment Program scores for the year ended
September 30, 1993. Subsequently, after the Authority hired several
different Executive Directors, HUD contracted with a consultant
to manage the day-to-day operations of the Authority and assist
in the search for a new qualified Executive Director. In March 1998,
the Authority hired an experienced person for this position. HUD's
Troubled Agency Recovery Center staff were working with the new
Director and her staff to increase the Authority's capacity to effectively
and properly manage the Authority's programs and operations.
Date Issued: July 24, 1998
Audit Report No.
98-FW-201-1813
File Size: 65KB
Title: St. Thomas HOPE VI Grant, New Orleans, LA
In response to a private citizen's confidential complaint, we
reviewed the Housing Authority of New Orleans' (Authority) selection
of Creative Choice Homes (CCH) as the developer for the St. Thomas
HOPE VI Grant. The complainant said one of the members of the selection
committee may have received a house and a job in return for selecting
the developer. We could not substantiate the exchange. However,
we did find sufficient cause for HUD to reject the selected developer.
The problems with the developer resulted from the Authority's proactive
interpretation of resident participation. The Authority lost control
over the selection because it allowed five individuals on the eight-member
selection panel who were not Authority employees. Further, Creative
Choice Homes' interaction with certain members of the selection
panel and St. Thomas residents constitutes both a perceived and
actual conflict of interest.
Issue Date: June 15, 1998
Audit Report No.:
98-FW-201-1004
File Size: 244KB
Title: HA of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA
As part of a nationwide audit of the HOPE VI Program, we performed
an audit of the Housing Authority of New Orleans' (Authority) Desire
and Fischer HOPE VI grants to determine if the Authority: (1) properly
procured contracts under its HOPE VI grants; (2) only expended amounts
for eligible activities; (3) met the objectives of its Revitalization
Plan; and (4) implemented its community and supportive services
components effectively, efficiently, and in a manner that will allow
the activities to be sustained beyond the grant term. The audit
found that the Authority has not satisfactorily administered and
monitored its HOPE VI grant activities.
Issue Date: March 3, 1998
Audit Report Number
98-FW-201-1808
File Size: 32KB
Title: HA of New Orleans, LA
The review found the Authority is receiving adequate information
from law enforcement for it to identify residents for eviction.
Law enforcement reporting showed improvement because of regular
meetings and discussions with Authority officials. The review also
showed the Authority is improving on its drug and criminal evictions.
The Authority has made drug and criminal evictions a high priority.
The Authority does need to make improvements to its incident report
database. It also needs to solve the important problem of obtaining
timely crime lab results. The Authority realizes it can do better
and agreed to do so in the future.
Issue Date: October 24, 1997
Audit Case Number
98-FW-201-1002/1997-00877-01
File Size: 102KB
Title: HA of New Orleans
The audit found that the Authority's poor procurement practices
resulted in questionable contract costs and not all work being performed.
The questionable costs included $43,282 in unsupported charges,
$43,619 in unreasonable general and administrative expenses, and
$4,466 in excessive charges related to a change order. In addition,
neither TAI nor the Authority reduced the contract amount for work
required by the contract that was not performed.
Issue Date: April 4, 1997
Audit-Related
Memorandum No. 97-FW-201-1806
File Size: 62KB
Title: HA of New Orleans
The review results did not conclusively establish payroll fraud.
However, the review disclosed serious deficiencies, including poor
workmanship, excessive and overlapping time charges, payroll posting
discrepancies, work orders not entered into the system, ordinary
work performed using overtime, loose controls over vacant unit work,
and other matters needing attention.
Issue Date: March 20, 1997
Audit Related
Memorandum No. 97-FW-201-1804
File Size: 22KB
Title: HA of New Orleans
We have performed a limited review of the Housing Authority of
New Orleans' (Authority) eviction process. Our review objective
was to determine whether the Authority has an effective process
for evicting tenants for drugs and criminal activity. The review
did not include evaluating the Authority's ability to screen prospective
tenants or ensure compliance with other lease provisions. During
our examination, we obtained pertinent information regarding evictions
and arrests and interviewed applicable Authority staff. We reported
the results to you and Authority officials in a December 4, 1996
draft memorandum. The Authority provided verbal comments at a January
17, 1997 exit conference and written comments in a February 5, 1997
letter (see attachment). The Authority generally agreed with our
recommendations. The review found that the Authority's eviction
policy for drugs and criminal activity needs strengthening in order
to be effective.
Issue Date: January 28, 1997
Audit Memorandum
No. 97-FW-206-1803
File Size: 21KB
Title: St. Charles Parish Housing Authority
Four allegations claimed: 1) the Program Manager II, in charge
of administering the Section 8 department, is incapable of performing
his job; 2) the Board Chairman is collecting Section 8 rents on
the unit where his daughter resides; 3) HUD is paying rent on an
abandoned unit; and 4) a Section 8 owner is living with the tenant.
The probe results found substance to the first three allegations.
There was insufficient evidence to determine the validity of the
fourth allegation.
Issue Date: October 11, 1996
Memorandum No.
97-FW-249-1801
File Size: 25KB
Title: CDBG, Bossier City, LA
Our interviews with your staff, City staff, and a review of records
and documents did not reveal any major violations of HUD requirements.
Although not considered sufficiently significant to warrant further
audit work, we did identify some issues that the City should correct.
We also believe the City should give consideration making a policy
change on the filing of liens when the City uses Grant funds for
demolition of substandard structures.
Issue Date: September 30, 1996
Memorandum No.
96-FW-201-1806
File Size: 12KB
Title: HA of New Orleans
The Authority has not yet implemented the Fleet Management Policy.
Authority staff are reviewing the policy to determine how it should
be implemented. Meanwhile, the Authority, and consequently its affected
employees, are in violation of IRS requirements.
Issue Date: September 23, 1996
Audit Case Number
96-FW-219-1003
File Size: 112KB
Title: Little Flower Estates, Ponchatoula, LA
While the project was in a non-surplus cash position, the owner/management
agent improperly spent $284,786 of project funds. Further, HUD did
not take appropriate action to detect and prevent the improperly
spent funds.
Issue Date: July 17, 1996
Memorandum Number
96-FW-201-1803
File Size: 16KB
Title: HA of New Orleans
We recommend the Authority:
1A. Perform a thorough analysis, with complete and supported estimates,
of the cost for garbage collection including: (1) performing the
service in-house, including potential liability; (2) formally soliciting
bids from outside contractors; and (3) negotiating a fee with the
City for garbage collection at its sites.
1B. Not purchase additional refuse collection vehicles or equipment
unless it determines that in-house trash collection is the best
option based on the analysis per recommendation 1A.
1C. Ensure that purchase follows HUD procurement requirements for
non-competitive contracts.
Issue Date: July 5, 1996
Memorandum Number
96-FW-202-1802
File Size: 35KB
Title: HA of New Orleans
During our current review of the Housing Authority of New Orleans
(Authority), it has come to our attention that the Department may
approve the "outsourcing" of the Authority's resident initiatives.
Given the (1) history and present status of the Authority, (2) need
for HUD to portray itself as a wise and impartial overseer of scarce
resources, and (3) rationale underlying federal procurement regulations,
we do not believe this procurement is in the best interest of the
Authority or HUD. We strongly recommend that HUD not approve this
contract. Further, we recommend the Department reassess its position
on another similar procurement.
Content Archived: September 10, 2010