oversight

The City of Paterson, NJ's HOME Investment Partnerships Program Controls Did Not Ensure Compliance With Regulations

Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2015-04-30.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                     City of Paterson, NJ
             HOME Investment Partnerships Program




Office of Audit, Region 2        Audit Report Number: 2015-NY-1005
New York-New Jersey                                   April 30, 2015
To:            Anne Marie Uebbing
               Director Community Planning and Development, 2FD

               //SIGNED//
From:          Karen A. Campbell-Lawrence
               Acting Regional Inspector General for Audit, 2AGA
Subject:       The City of Paterson, NJ’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program Controls Did
               Not Ensure Compliance With Regulations


    Enclosed is the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of
Inspector General’s (OIG), final audit report on our review of Jersey City, NJ’s HOME
Investment Partnerships Program.
    HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-4, sets specific timeframes for management decisions on
recommended corrective actions. For each recommendation without a management decision,
please respond and provide status reports in accordance with the HUD Handbook. Please furnish
us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the audit.
    The Inspector General Act, Title 5 United States Code, section 8M, requires that OIG post its
publicly available reports on the OIG Web site. Accordingly, this report will be posted at
http://www.hudoig.gov.
   If you have any questions or comments about this report, please do not hesitate to call me at
212-264-4174.
                    Audit Report Number: 2015-NY-1005
                    Date: April 30, 2015

                    The City of Paterson, NJ’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program
                    Controls Did Not Ensure Compliance With Regulations




Highlights

What We Audited and Why
We audited the City of Paterson, NJ’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program based on a risk
analysis of the City’s program that considered the amount of funding, the risk score assigned by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), our identification of potential
issues, and Congress’ general interest in the HOME program. The objective of the audit was to
determine whether City officials had established and implemented adequate controls to ensure
that the City’s HOME program was administered in compliance with HOME program
requirements and Federal regulations.

What We Found
The City’s HOME program was not always administered in compliance with program
requirements. Specifically, HOME funds were (1) not committed in accordance with program
requirements, (2) spent on ineligible and unsupported costs, (3) reserved and disbursed to
ineligible community housing development organizations (CHDO), (4) drawn down in excess of
need and not reimbursed for terminated activities, and (5) used to assist ineligible and
unsupported home buyers and homeowners. We attribute these deficiencies to City officials’
unfamiliarity with HOME subsidy limits, environmental requirements, and CHDO requirements;
weaknesses in controls over subgrantee monitoring; and weaknesses in controls over certifying
home buyers and homeowners for HOME assistance. As a result, $1.8 million was unavailable
for eligible activities; $561,245 was disbursed for unsupported costs, more than $2.2 million in
CHDO reserve was ineligible; the CHDO reserve was underfunded by more than $1.1 million;
and HUD’s interest in over $1.37 million was not properly recorded.

What We Recommend
We recommend that HUD recapture $844,640 in ineligible committed funds and instruct City
officials to reimburse more than $948,414 spent for ineligible costs, provide documentation to
support that $561,245 was spent on supported costs and activities, remove more than $2.2
million in ineligible CHDO reserve, provide documentation for more than $1.1 million in CHDO
reserve, and properly record deed restrictions and affordability requirements so that HUD’s
interest in over $1.37 million is protected.
Table of Contents
Background and Objective......................................................................................3

Results of Audit ........................................................................................................4
         Finding 1: Controls Over Administering Funds Did Not Ensure Compliance With
         Program Requirements .................................................................................................... 4

         Finding 2: Controls Over Program Administration Did Not Ensure Compliance
         With Program Requirements........................................................................................... 8

Scope and Methodology .........................................................................................14

Internal Controls ....................................................................................................16

Appendixes ..............................................................................................................18
         A. Schedule of Questioned Costs and Funds To Be Put to Better Use ...................... 18

         B. Auditee Comments and OIG’s Evaluation ............................................................. 20




                                                                2
Background and Objective
The HOME Investment Partnerships Program, authorized under Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act as amended, is designed to create affordable housing
opportunities for low-income households. The HOME program is the largest Federal block grant
program, through which the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has
allocated approximately $2 billion annually in formula grants to States and hundreds of local
governments for creating affordable housing for low-income households. HOME program
regulations are found at 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 92, and HUD has provided
additional program guidance in its guidebook, Building HOME, dated March 2008.
The HOME program allows States and local governments flexibility to use HOME funds for a
variety of activities to address local housing needs through grants, direct loans, loan guarantees or
other forms of credit enhancement, or rental assistance or security deposits. Participating
jurisdictions may choose among a broad range of eligible activities, including home purchase or
rehabilitation financing assistance to eligible homeowners and new home buyers, building or
rehabilitating housing for rent or ownership, or other reasonable and necessary expenses related to
the development of nonluxury housing, including site acquisition or improvement, demolition of
dilapidated housing to make way for HOME-assisted development, and payment of relocation
expenses.
HUD awarded the City of Paterson more than $1.06 and $1.04 million in HOME funds for program
years 2013 and 2014, respectively. The City created 32 affordable housing units in program year
2013 and 9 in program year 2014. The City’s HOME program is administered by its Community
Development Department and is overseen by the city council, which is the legislative branch of the
City’s government, consisting of six ward councilpersons and three members-at-large.
While the City’s HOME program assisted different types of housing activities, including first-time
home buyers, homeowners, and rental housing activities, the majority of the City’s HOME
drawdowns in program years 2010 and 2011 were provided for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and
new construction of rental and home-buyer activities rather than homeowner activities. City
officials used 69 and 71 percent of their HOME drawdowns for these activities in program years
2010 and 2011, respectively, and made no drawdowns in program year 2012.
The objective of the audit was to determine whether City officials had established and implemented
adequate controls to ensure that the City’s HOME program was administered in compliance with
HOME program requirements and Federal regulations.




                                                   3
Results of Audit
    Finding 1: Controls Over Administering Funds Did Not Ensure
    Compliance With Program Requirements
City officials did not always ensure that the City’s HOME entitlement and program income
funds were committed, spent, and recorded in compliance with HOME program regulations.
Specifically, HOME entitlement funds were (1) not committed in compliance with HOME
program requirements, (2) disbursed for HOME activities in excess of HOME program
maximum subsidy limits, (3) drawn down in excess of need, and (4) used for unsupported
HOME program costs. In addition, HOME program income was not always reported in HUD’s
Integrated Disbursement and Information System1 (IDIS) or reconciled with the City’s
accounting records. We attribute these deficiencies to City officials’ unfamiliarity with
environmental review and maximum HOME subsidy limit requirements and weaknesses in the
City’s controls over reviewing payment requests submitted by sugbrantees and reconciling
financial information reported in IDIS with the City’s accounting records. As a result, more than
$1.03 million in HOME funds was not made available for eligible activities in a timely manner;
$344,341 and $125,810 in HOME funds were used for ineligible and unsupported costs,
respectively; and $119,566 in HOME funds was not accurately recorded in the City’s accounting
records.

HOME Funds Not Committed and Spent in Compliance With Program Requirements
City officials used an ineligible commitment of $844,640 to meet the grant year 2009
commitment deadline of July 31, 2011. The funds were committed for an eligible housing
activity; however, the City commited the funds without conducting an environmental review as
required, and the funds exceeded HOME subsidy limits. The HUD Office of Community
Planning and Development’s (CPD) Notice CPD-01-11, section IV, provides that a participating
jurisdiction must not execute a legally binding agreement for property acquisition, rehabilitation,
conversion, repair, or construction until environmental clearance has been obtained, and
regulations at 24 CFR 92.250 specify the maximum per-unit HOME subsidy amount. While the
maximum HOME subsidy limit, effective as of July 31, 2011, for 10 2-bedrooms units was
approximately $1.7 million, City officials committed $2.6 million for 10 2-bedroom units. We
attribute this deficiency to the City staff’s unfamiliarity with HOME subsidy limit and
environmental review requirements. As a result, $844,6402 of the City’s HOME funds was not
available for commitment to other eligible HOME activities.




1
  IDIS is the drawdown and reporting system for all of HUD’s CPD formula grant programs, including the HOME
program.
2
  Although environmental clearance is required before commitment of funds, since the clearance was obtained after
commitment, we are not classifying the entire amount as ineligible, only the amount in excess of subsidy limits.



                                                         4
City officials also spent $344,341 in excess of HOME subsidy limits. Specifically, they
provided more than $1.4 million in HOME funds to assist in the construction of four zero-
bedroom and three three-bedroom rental units when the maximum HOME subsidy limit for the
seven units should have been approximately $1.2 million (($132,814 X4) + ($239,506 X 3)).
Regulations at 24 CFR 92.250(a) provide the maximum per-unit subsidy, which may not exceed
the per-unit dollar limitations established under section 221(d)(3)(ii) of the National Housing
Act. For 2012, the maximum subsidies for zero- and three-bedroom units were $132,814 and
$239,506, respectively.

City officials spent

          $592,000 for construction of three two-unit for-sale homes, although the maximum
           HOME subsidy limit for the three homes should have been $480,636 ($160,212 X 3).
           The City’s HOME agreement in effect in 2008 provided that the maximum HOME
           subsidy for two-unit for-sale homes was $160,212.

          $31,132 and $42,075 in home-ownership rehabilitation deferred loans for the
           rehabilitation of two one-family owner-occupied dwelling units, although the
           maximum HOME subsidy limit for each unit should have been $30,000. The City’s
           rehabilitation policy provides that the limit on the amount of deferred loan payment
           for a one-family owner-occupied dwelling unit is $30,000.

We attribute these deficiencies to City officials’ unfamiliarity with the HOME subsidy limit. As
a result, $344,341 represented an ineligible subsidy and, thus, was not available for other eligible
HOME activities.

Funds Drawn Down in Excess of Need
City officials did not return to the City’s HOME program line of credit $113,849 drawn down in
excess of need. Regulations at 24 CFR 92.502(c)(2) provide that any funds that are drawn down
and not spent for eligible costs within 15 days of the disbursement must be returned to HUD for
deposit into the participating jurisdiction’s U.S. Treasury account of the HOME Investment Trust
Fund. However, City officials drew down $30,000 in December 2010 for use as a deferred loan
for a first-time home buyer, who later declined the loan, and $83,849 in April 2011 for a
homeowner rehabilitation activity in excess of the deferred loan amount of $25,941 disbursed.
We attribute this deficiency to weaknesses in the City’s financial controls over the tracking of
drawdowns. As a result, $113,849 was not available to fund other eligible HOME activities.

Unsupported HOME Program Costs
City officials did not maintain documentation, such as invoices, contractor requests for payment,
and canceled checks, to support the use of $125,810 in HOME drawdowns made for three
HOME activities. We attribute this deficiency to weaknesses in the City’s financial controls
over reviewing payment requests submitted by subgrantees. Regulations at 24 CFR 85.20(a)(6)
provide that accounting records must be supported by source documentation, such as canceled
checks, paid bills, payrolls, time and attendance records, and contract and subgrant award
documents. Therefore, there was no assurance that $125,810 was spent on eligible HOME costs.



                                                  5
Program Income Not Reported in IDIS
City officials did not report in IDIS $73,753 in program income generated during HOME
program years 2009 and 2010. We attribute this deficiency to weaknesses in the City’s financial
controls over accounting for and recording HOME program income and inadequate
communication between the City’s accounting and program departments. Notice CPD-97-09,
section III, provides that IDIS is designed to record the receipt and use of HOME program
income and the participating jurisdiction should establish a program income fund in IDIS to
record the receipt of program income. Therefore, City officials drew down entitlement funds
instead of using the unreported program income, and the City’s program income recorded in
IDIS was understated by $73,753.

Information in IDIS Not Always Reconciled With the City’s Accounting Records
City officials did not always reconcile the information recorded in IDIS with the City’s
accounting records. Regulations at 24 CFR 85.20(b)(1) require grantees to maintain accurate,
current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of financially assisted activities in
accordance with the financial reporting requirements of the grant or subgrant. However, $91,133
and $28,433 had been included in the City’s accounting records as available program income
until December 19, 2014, although IDIS information showed that the $91,133 and $28,433 had
been spent in November 2013 and February 2014, respectively. We attribute this deficiency to
inadequate communication between the City’s accounting and program departments. As a result,
available program income reported in the City’s accounting records was overstated by $119,566.

Conclusion
City officials did not always ensure that the City’s HOME entitlement and program income
funds were committed, spent, and recorded in compliance with program requirements. HOME
funds were (1) not committed in compliance with HOME program requirement, (2) spent on
housing units in excess of HOME subsidy limits, (3) Line of Credit Control System drawdowns
reported in IDIS for unnecessary needs, and (4) spent on ineligible and unsupported costs. We
attribute these deficiencies to City officials’ unfamiliarity with HOME requirements for
environmental review and maximum HOME subsidy limits, weaknesses in the City’s reviewing
payment requests submitted by subgrantees, and inadequate communication among City
departments. As a result, HOME funds were not made available for eligible activities in timely
manner, and there was no assurance that HOME funds were always used for eligible HOME
costs.

Recommendations
We recommend that the HUD Director of Community Planning and Development instruct City
officials to

       1A.    Repay the $844,640 in HOME funds committed contrary to program regulations
              so that these funds can be recaptured in accordance with Federal regulations.
       1B.    Develop financial controls to ensure that HOME funds are committed and
              reported in compliance with program requirements.



                                               6
1C.   Reimburse the City’s HOME program line of credit $344,341 from non-Federal
      funds for assistance provided in excess of HOME subsidy limits.

1D.   Strengthen the City’s financial controls to ensure that HOME funds are not used
      to assist HOME units in excess of HOME subsidy limits.

1E.   Reimburse the City’s HOME line of credit for $113,849 that was drawn down in
      excess of need so that these funds can be put to better use.

1F.   Strengthen the City’s financial controls to ensure that HOME drawdowns are
      spent within 15 days of the drawdown date or return the funds to the City’s
      HOME program line of credit as required.

1G.   Provide documentation to support that $125,810 in costs charged to the three
      unsupported HOME activities was for eligible costs, and if such documentation
      cannot be provided, reimburse the City’s HOME program line of credit from non-
      Federal funds.

1H.   Strengthen the City’s financial controls to ensure that documentation is
      maintained to support the eligibility of costs paid from HOME funds.

1I.   Record $73,753 in program income in IDIS and use it before making further
      entitlement drawdowns, thus ensuring that $73,753 in program income is properly
      accounted for and put to better use.

1J.   Strengthen controls to ensure that program income is reported in IDIS in a timely
      manner and used before the City makes entitlement drawdowns.

1K.   Reconcile the $119,566 discrepancy between IDIS and the City’s accounting
      records, thus ensuring that this amount will be put to better use.

1L.   Strengthen the City’s financial controls to ensure that financial information
      reported in IDIS and the City’s records is reconciled.




                                        7
    Finding 2: Controls Over Program Administration Did Not Ensure
    Compliance With Program Requirements
City officials did not implement adequate controls to ensure that they administered the City’s
HOME program in compliance with HOME program requirements. Specifically, HOME funds
were reserved and provided to ineligible community housing development organizations3
(CHDO), to ineligible and unsupported home buyers and homeowners, and for properties
without maintaining documentation regarding environmental clearance. In addition, deed
restrictions were not always properly imposed on units assisted with HOME funds, and the
City’s HOME activities’ information reported in IDIS was not always accurate. We attribute
these deficiencies to weaknesses in the City’s administrative controls over certifying CHDOs,
home buyers, and homeowners for HOME assistance and City officials’ unfamiliarity with
environmental review requirements. As a result, the City’s CHDO reserve was overstated by
more than $2.2 million; $604,073 and more than $1.53 million in HOME funds were used for
ineligible and unsupported costs, respectively; and more than $1.37 million was spent on six
HOME projects that did not have deed restrictions or had inadequate deed restrictions.

Ineligible CHDO Reserve Reported in IDIS

City officials reserved and disbursed more than $2.2 million in HOME funds to three ineligible
CHDOs. They had provided more than $1.9 million in HOME CHDO funds to two
organizations to meet the City’s 15 percent CHDO reserve requirement as of June 30, 2014,
although the two entities had not been certified as CHDOs. Regulations at 24 CFR 92.300
provide that participating jurisdications must make reasonable efforts to identify CHDOs that are
capable or can reasonably be expected to become capable of carrrying out the elements of the
participating jurisdiction’s consolidated plan, and regulations at 24 CFR 92.2 provide that a
CHDO means a nonprofit organization that meets 10 specific criteria and has been properly
certified. Therefore, the more than $1.9 million was ineligible as a CHDO reserve.

In addition, City officials reserved and disbursed $257,445 in HOME CHDO funds to a third
CHDO that was acting in the capacity of a developer-nonowner for a real property owned by the
City. Notice CPD-97-11, section III(A), provides that a CHDO is a “developer” when it either
owns a property and develops a project or has a contractual obligation to a property owner to
develop a project and the contractual obligation is independent of the participating jurisdiction.
Further, chapter 3 of HUD’s Building HOME guidance provides that if a CHDO does not own
the property, it must be under contractual obligation with the owner to obtain financing and
rehabilitate or construct the project and if the CHDO develops the property for an owner under a
written or other agreement with the participating jurisdiction, the CHDO is acting in the capacity
of a subreceipient. Therefore, the $257,445 was ineligible as a CHDO reserve.




3
 A CHDO is a private nonprofit, community-based service organization that has obtained or intends to obtain staff
with the capacity to develop affordable housing for the community it services.



                                                         8
As of June 30, 2014, the City had reserved more than $5.8 million, or 18.3 percent, of its more
than $32.2 million in accumulated HOME entitlement to meet its 15 percent CHDO reserve
requirement. However, after removing the ineligible CHDO reserve of more than $2.2 million
from the $5.8 million, the City’s CHDO reserve as of June 30, 2014, would have a shortfall of
more than $1.1 million to comply with the 15 percent requirement of more than $4.8 million.
We attribute this deficiency to the City staff’s unfamiliarity with CHDO requirements. As a
result, the City’s accumulated CHDO balance was overstated by more than $2.2 million, and the
City’s CHDO reserve was underfunded by more than $1.1 million as of June 30, 2014.

HOME Assistance for Ineligible Home Buyers and Homeowners
City officials spent $344,776 in HOME funds on the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation
of housing units that were sold to five home buyers whose annual income exceeded the HOME
program income limits, as shown below.

                       Home             OIG Calculated          HOME Program
                       buyer            annual income            income limits
                            1              $75,461                  $73,800
                            2               73,362                   68,150
                            3               75,554                   72,600
                            4              58,9624                   58,400
                            5               69,350                   65,700

We attribute this deficiency to weaknesses in the City’s administrative controls over certifying
applicants in compliance with HOME program requirements. Regulations at 24 CFR
92.254(a)(3) provide that a home buyer family must qualify as a low-income family, and
regulations at 24 CFR 92.2 provide that a low-income family is a family whose annual income
does not exceed 80 percent of the median income for the area. Therefore, $344,776 in HOME
funds was not available for eligible home buyers.

City officials also disbursed $163,516 in HOME ownership assistance for the rehabilitation of
housing units owned by two homeowners who were not eligible to receive assistance because
they owned other real properties. We attribute this deficiency to weaknesses in the City’s
administrative controls over enforcing its rehabilitation policy. The City’s HOME rehabilitation
program policy, section (1)(A), provides that applicants who own more than one dwelling are not
eligible for a HOME rehabilitation grant. Therefore, $163,516 was not available for the
rehabilitation of properties owned by eligible homeowners.




4
 OIG calculated annual income did not include interest income on more than $56,000 in a retirement plan, which
should have been included in the household’s annual income calculation.



                                                        9
HOME Assistance for Unsupported Home Buyers and Homeowners
City officials spent $379,494 on the construction and rehabilitation of housing units that were
sold to five home buyers whose income eligibility was not supported. We attribute this
deficiency to weaknesses in the City’s administrative controls over certifying applicants to
acquire HOME-assisted units in compliance with HOME program requirements. Regulations at
24 CFR 92.508(a)(v) require that participating jurisdictions maintain sufficient records to support
that each assisted family is income eligible in accordance with regulations at 2 CFR 92.203.
However, City officials did not maintain documentation to support the income of all members in
the home buyer household or income from assets. Therefore, there was no assurance that
$379,494 spent on construction and rehabilitation of HOME-assisted units went to income-
eligible home buyers.

City officials disbursed $55,941 in HOME ownership assistance for the rehabilitation of two
properties without maintaining documentation to support that the owners’ income made them
eligible to receive HOME assistance. We attribute this deficiency to weaknesses in the City’s
administrative controls over certifying homeowners’ eligibility to receive HOME ownership
assistance. Regulations at 24 CFR 92.508(a)(3)(v) require that a participating jurisdiction
maintain sufficient documentation to demonstrate that each family is income eligible in
accordance with regulations at 24 CFR 92.203. Therefore, there was no assurance that $55,941
in HOME ownership assistance was disbursed to homeowners who met the HOME program
income requirements.

HOME Funds Disbursed for Two Undeveloped Properties
City officials disbursed $95,781 to two subgrantees to construct two new for-sale housing units;
however, the projects were terminated before the properties were constructed, and the funds were
not returned to the City’s HOME Investment Trust Fund. We attribute this deficiency to
weaknesses in the City’s administrative controls over monitoring its subgrantees’ compliance
with HOME agreements and ensuring the return of funds allocated to terminated projects.
Regulations at 24 CFR 92.205(e) provide that projects that are terminated before completion,
either voluntarily or otherwise, constitute an ineligible activity and any HOME funds invested in
the project must be repaid to the participating jurisdiction’s HOME Investment Trust Fund.
Therefore, $95,781 in HOME funds was not available for other eligible HOME activities.

Proper Deed Restrictions Not Imposed on Properties Assisted With HOME Funds
City officials did not impose or properly record deed restrictions or other mechanisms on six
properties assisted with more than $1.37 million in HOME funds. Regulations at 24 CFR
92.252(e)(1)(ii) and 254(a)(5)(i)(A) provide that a deed restriction, covenant running with the
land, or other similar mechanism must be imposed on property assisted with HOME funds.
Requirements included in the City’s HOME resale restriction and long-term affordability
mortgage and loan agreement provide that the HOME resale restriction agreement must be
recorded with the recording office of the County of Passaic at the time assistance is provided by
the City to the owner. However, City officials did not impose deed restrictions or other
mechanisms on four properties assisted with $527,116 in HOME funds. We attribute this
deficiency to inadequate communication among City departments and City officials’




                                                 10
unfamiliarity with deed restriction requirements. Therefore, there was no assurance that the four
properties would remain affordable during the affordability period as required.

In addition, City officials incorrectly imposed deed restrictions on two properties assisted with
more than $850,008. Regulations at 24 CFR 92.252(e) require that rental HOME-assisted units
meet the affordability requirements for not less than the applicable period beginning after project
completion, and regulations at 92.254(a)(4) require that home ownership HOME-assisted units
meet the affordability requirements for not less than the applicable period beginning after project
completion. Further, regulations at 24 CFR 92.2 provide that project completion means that all
necessary title transfer requirements and construction work have been performed, the project
complies with the property standards, and the project completion information has been entered
into IDIS. However, City officials recorded deed restrictions on the four properties, which were
effective from the date of the subgrantee agreements between the City and the subgrantees,
despite the fact that the four properties had not been completed as of July 9, 2014. We attribute
this deficiency to inadequate communication among City departments and City officials’
unfamiliarity with deed restriction requirements. As a result, there was no assurance that the
four properties would remain affordable during the correct affordability period as required.

Inadequate Information Entered Into IDIS
City officials entered incorrect completion status and home-buyer information into IDIS for three
HOME activities. Regulations at 24 CFR 92.2 and 92.502(d) provide that necessary title transfer
requirements, compliance with property standards under regulations at 24 CFR 92.251, and
project completion information must be entered to complete a project in IDIS. However, City
officials recorded these activities as complete in IDIS, although they had not obtained a
certificate of occupancy showing compliance with local codes for one activity and not all units in
the other two activities had been sold to home buyers. We attribute this deficiency to
weaknesses in the City’s administrative controls over monitoring subgrantees and ensuring the
accuracy of information entered into IDIS and miscommunication among City departments. As
a result, there was no assurance that the City’s information entered into IDIS was accurate.

HOME Activities Not Always Administered in Compliance With Program Requirements
City officials did not always administer acquisition, rehabilitation, and new construction
activities for rental, home-buyer, and home-ownership properties assisted with HOME funds in
compliance with HOME program requirements. Specifically,

       HOME funds were committed in IDIS for 10 of the 22 rental, home-buyer, and home-
        ownership activities reviewed before HOME subgrantee agreements were executed,
        contrary to regulations at 24 CFR 92.2, which provide that funds must be committed
        when a legally binding agreement is executed between the grantee and the subgrantee.

       HOME funds were spent for 4 of the 22 rental, home-buyer, and home-ownership
        activities reviewed before HOME subgrantee agreements were executed, contrary to
        regulations at 24 CFR 92.504(b), which require a grantee to enter into a written
        agreement with a subgrantee that ensures compliance with requirements of Part 92
        before disbursing any HOME funds to any entity.



                                                 11
       2 of 7 housing units had an estimated value after rehabilitation in excess of 95 percent of
        the median purchase price for the area, contrary to regulations at 24 CFR 92.254(b)(1),
        which require that the estimated value of the property after rehabilitation not exceed 95
        percent of the median purchase price for the area.

We attribute these deficiencies to City officials’ use of a city council resolution instead of an
executed HOME subgrantee agreement to commit and spend HOME funds and City officials’
misunderstanding of HOME program requirements for the maximum value of home-ownership
property after rehabilitation. As a result, there was no assurance that the City’s HOME housing
activities were always administered in compliance with program requirements.

Conclusion
City officials did not always administer the City’s HOME program in compliance with program
requirements. HOME funds were reserved and disbursed to ineligible CHDOs, spent on housing
units for ineligible and unsupported home buyers and homeowners, and spent on a property
without documentation regarding environmental clearance as required. In addition, deed
restrictions were not always imposed on units assisted with HOME funds, and the City’s
information entered into IDIS was not always accurate. We attribute these deficiencies to
weaknesses in the City’s controls over certifying its CHDOs, home buyers, and homeowners in
compliance with program requirements. As a result, HOME funds were used for ineligible and
unsupported costs, and the City’s IDIS information was not always accurate.


Recommendations
We recommend that the HUD Director of Community Planning and Development instruct City
officials to

        2A.    Reduce the City’s CHDO reserve balance reported in IDIS as of June 30, 2014,
               for the ineligible CHDO reserve of $2,229,445.
        2B.    Provide documentation to support the additional CHDO reserve of $1,163,598 or
               reimburse the City’s HOME program line of credit from non-Federal funds.

        2C.    Reimburse the City’s HOME program line of credit $344,776 from non-Federal
               funds for HOME assistance spent on housing units acquired by five ineligible
               home buyers.

        2D.    Reimburse City’s HOME program line of credit $163,516 from non-Federal funds
               for the two ineligible homeowners who owned other real properties.

        2E.    Provide documentation to support the income eligibility of the five home buyers
               assisted with HOME funds and if documentation cannot be provided, reimburse
               the City’s HOME program line of credit $379,494 from non-Federal funds.




                                                 12
2F.   Provide documentation to support the income eligibility of the two homeowners
      who received home-ownership assistance and if documentation cannot be
      provided, reimburse the City’s HOME program line of credit $55,941 from non-
      Federal funds.

2G.   Strengthen the City’s administrative controls to ensure that CHDOs, home buyers,
      and homeowners are certified in compliance with HOME program requirements.

2H.   Reimburse the City’s HOME program line of credit $95,781 from non-Federal
      funds for funds spent on the development of two housing properties that were
      later terminated from the program.

2I.   Strengthen the City’s administrative controls to ensure that HOME funds spent on
      terminated and undeveloped properties are returned to the City’s HOME program
      line of credit.

2J.   Impose deed restrictions or other mechanisms approved by HUD on the four
      properties assisted with HOME funds to enforce affordability requirements or
      repay $527,116 from non-Federal funds to the City’s HOME program line of
      credit.

2K.   Revise deed restrictions to correct effective affordability periods for the four
      properties that had not been completed or repay more than $850,008 from non-
      Federal funds to the City’s HOME program line of credit.

2L.   Strengthen the City’s administrative controls to ensure that a deed restriction or
      other mechanism approved by HUD is imposed on properties assisted with
      HOME funds to ensure that HUD’s interest in assisted properties is protected.

2M.   Correct the reported completion status and home-buyer information recorded in
      IDIS for the three HOME activities for which incorrect information was recorded.

2N.   Strengthen the City’s administrative controls to ensure that information entered
      into IDIS is accurate and supported.

2O.   Strengthen the City’s administrative controls to ensure that HOME funds are
      committed in IDIS only after the City has an executed agreement and the
      estimated value of home-ownership property, after being rehabilitated, does not
      exceed 95 percent of the median purchase price for the area.




                                        13
Scope and Methodology
The audit focused on whether City officials had established and implemented adequate controls
over the City’s HOME program to ensure that the program was administered in compliance with
HOME program requirements and Federal regulations. We performed our onsite audit work at
the City’s Community Development Division located at 125 Ellison Street, 2nd Floor, Paterson,
NJ, from August 2014 through January 2015. Our audit generally covered the period July 1,
2010, through June 30, 2013, and was extended as needed to meet our audit objective.
To accomplish our objective, we
       Reviewed relevant HOME program requirements and applicable Federal regulations to
        gain an understanding of the HOME administration requirements.
       Interviewed HUD and City officials.
       Obtained an understanding of the City’s management controls and procedures through
        analysis of the City’s responses to management control questionnaires.
       Reviewed the City’s consolidated annual performance and evaluation reports and action
        plan for HOME program years 2010 through 2012 to gather data on the City’s
        expenditures and planned activities.
       Reviewed reports from IDIS to obtain HOME disbursements and program income data
        for the audit period and reports from LexisNexis5 to obtain information related to real
        properties assisted with HOME funds. Our assessment of the reliability of IDIS and
        LexisNexis data was limited to the data sampled, and the data were reconciled with data
        in the City’s records; therefore, we did not assess the reliability of these systems.
       Reviewed the City’s organizational chart for its HOME program and its HOME program
        policies, including its first-time home-ownership, home Paterson pride rehabilitation, and
        accounting policies.
       Reviewed the latest HUD monitoring report, dated September 30, 2011, for the City’s
        HOME program and city council resolutions for program years 2010 through 2012.
       Reviewed documentation for the annual recertification of two nonprofit entities that
        received CHDO reserve funds during program years 2010 through 2012.
       Selected and reviewed a nonstatistical sample of more than $1.6 million, or 72 percent, of
        the City’s total HOME funds drawn down in the years 2010 through 2012 and more than
        $3.5 million from the City’s HOME drawdowns made before or after the years 2010
        through 2012. The sample was selected based on one or more of the following risk



5
 LexisNexis maintains a vast collection of public records obtained from Federal, State, and local sources and
various licensing agencies.



                                                          14
       factors: a lien or deed restriction was not imposed on the assisted property, projects were
       progressing slowly, a HOME-assisted property was owned by the City, minor drawdowns
       were made for activities reported in IDIS as complete, and IDIS activities appeared to be
       over-subsidized.
      Reviewed documentation, including subgrantee agreements, environmental reviews,
       appraisal reports, deeds, invoices, contract requests for payment, and canceled checks, to
       support the eligibility of the 22 IDIS HOME activities included in our sample and to
       support the eligibility of costs associated with these 22 IDIS HOME activities.
      Reviewed a copy of bank statements associated with the City’s HOME program and
       traced deposits to IDIS reports. Our assessment of the reliability of data included in bank
       statements and IDIS was limited to the data sampled, which were reconciled among
       different sources; therefore, we did not assess systems generating the data.
      Reviewed the eligibility of 15 home buyers of housing units developed by subgrantees,
       and 3 tenants occupying rental units assisted with HOME funds.
We conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objective(s). We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objective.




                                                15
Internal Controls
Internal control is a process adopted by those charged with governance and management,
designed to provide reasonable assurance about the achievement of the organization’s mission,
goals, and objectives with regard to

   Effectiveness and efficiency of operations,
   Reliability of financial reporting, and
   Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Internal controls comprise the plans, policies, methods, and procedures used to meet the
organization’s mission, goals, and objectives. Internal controls include the processes and
procedures for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations as well as the
systems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance.

Relevant Internal Controls
We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit objective:

   Program operations - Policies and procedures that management has implemented to
    reasonably ensure that a program meets its objectives.
   Compliance with laws and regulations - Policies and procedures that management has
    implemented to reasonably ensure that resources use is consistent with laws and regulations.
   Safeguarding resources - Policies and procedures that management has implemented to
    reasonably ensure that resources are safeguarded against waste, loss, and misuse.
   Validity and reliability of data - Policies and procedures that management has implemented
    to reasonably ensure that valid and reliable data are obtained, maintained, and fairly
    disclosed in reports.
We assessed the relevant controls identified above.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, the
reasonable opportunity to prevent, detect, or correct (1) impairments to effectiveness or
efficiency of operations, (2) misstatements in financial or performance information, or (3)
violations of laws and regulations on a timely basis.
Significant Deficiencies
Based on our review, we believe that the following items are significant deficiencies:

   City officials did not always establish or implement adequate internal controls to ensure that
    resources were used in compliance with laws and regulations because HOME funds were (1)
    not committed as required, (2) provided to HOME activities in excess of HOME subsidy
    limits, (3) disbursed to ineilgible CHDOs, (4) disbursed for housing units that were sold to


                                                  16
    ineligible and unsupported home buyers, and (5) disbursed to rehabilitate home-ownership
    units that were owned by ineligible and unsupported owners. In addition, a deed restriction
    was not always imposed on properties assisted with HOME funds, and program income was
    not always reported in IDIS (see findings 1 and 2).
   City officials did not always implement adequate internal controls to ensure the achievement
    of program objectives because HOME housing activities were not always administered in
    compliance with program requirements and units assisted with HOME funds were sold to
    ineligible home buyers (see finding 2).
   City officials did not always establish or implement adequate internal controls to ensure that
    resources were safeguarded against waste, loss, and misuse as HOME funds were used for
    unsupported and ineligible costs (see findings 1and 2).
   City officials did not always establish or implement adequate internal controls to ensure the
    validity and reliability of data because information in the City’s accouting records was not
    always reconciled with that in IDIS, informaiton listed in IDIS was not always supported and
    accurate, and the receipt of progam income was not always reported in IDIS (see findings 1
    and 2).




                                                 17
Appendixes

Appendix A
          Schedule of Questioned Costs and Funds To Be Put to Better Use
        Recommendation                                     Funds to be put
                           Ineligible 1/ Unsupported 2/    to better use 3/
            number
                1A            $844,640
                1C            344,341
                1E                                                  $113,849
                1G                              $125,810
                1I                                                   73,753
                1K                                                  119,566
                2A           2,229,445
                2B                             1,163,598
                2C            344,776
                2D            163,516
                2E                                379,494
                2F                                55,941
                2H             95,781
                2J                                                  527,116
                2K                                                  850,008

              Totals         $4,022,499        $1,724,843          $1,684,292



1/   Ineligible costs are costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program or activity
     that the auditor believes are not allowable by law; contract; or Federal, State, or local
     policies or regulations.
2/   Unsupported costs are those costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program
     or activity when we cannot determine eligibility at the time of the audit. Unsupported
     costs require a decision by HUD program officials. This decision, in addition to



                                             18
     obtaining supporting documentation, might involve a legal interpretation or clarification
     of departmental policies and procedures.
3/   Recommendations that funds be put to better use are estimates of amounts that could be
     used more efficiently if an Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommendation is
     implemented. These amounts include reductions in outlays, deobligation of funds,
     withdrawal of interest, costs not incurred by implementing recommended improvements,
     avoidance of unnecessary expenditures noted in preaward reviews, and any other savings
     that are specifically identified. In this instance, if HUD directs City officials to
     implement our recommendation to

        Ensure that unnecessary drawdowns are returned to the City’s HOME program line of
         credit, $113,849 will be available for eligible HOME activities.
        Ensure that program income receipts are reported in IDIS, $73,753 in program
         income will be available for eligible HOME activities.
        Reconcile the discrepancy between IDIS and City records, it can be assured that
         $119,566 has been properly reported.
        Require that deed restrictions be imposed or revised on the eight assisted properties,
         HUD’s and the City’s interest of more than $1.37 million in HOME funds will be
         protected, and affordability requirements will be enforced.




                                              19
Appendix B
             Auditee Comments and OIG’s Evaluation



Ref to OIG    Auditee Comments
Evaluation




Comment 1




                               20
             Auditee Comments
Ref to OIG
Evaluation




Comment 2


Comment 3




Comment 4


Comment 5


Comment 3




                            21
Ref to OIG   Auditee Comments
Evaluation




Comment 6




Comment 7




Comment 8


Comment 3




Comment 9




                            22
Ref to OIG   Auditee Comments
Evaluation




Comment 9


Comment 3




Comment 10




Comment 11




                            23
Ref to OIG   Auditee Comments
Evaluation




                            24
                         OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments


Comment 1   The audit scope generally included HOME funded activities that were on-going
            during the period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2013; however, some of these
            activities were approved and initially funded prior to July 1, 2010. While City
            officials stated that actions have been taken since July 2014 to ensure that the
            deficiencies found during the audit are not replicated, the period after July 2014
            was not generally within the audit scope.
Comment 2   City officials provided an amended subgrantee agreement; however, it has not
            been recorded with the County clerk’s office. Therefore, City officials will have
            to provide evidence of this recording to HUD field office staff during the audit
            resolution process.
Comment 3   Actions taken or planned by City officials are responsive to our recommendations.
Comment 4   The report was revised to reflect that the unsupported costs are associated with
            two activities.
Comment 5   City officials said they provided documentation to support $58,127 of the
            $183,696 unsupported costs. Review of this documentation, which was provided
            at the exit conference, disclosed that it supports $57,886 of the unsupported costs.
            Consequently, we reduced the unsupported costs from $183,696 to $125,810.
Comment 6   City officials said that the questioned cost of $5,997 has been properly
            reclassified, however, documentation to support the reclassification will have to
            be provided to HUD field office staff during the audit resolution process.
Comment 7   While City officials state that deed restrictions were not imposed or properly
            recorded on 9 properties assisted with more than $1.9 million in HOME funds, the
            audit report questioned 8 properties.
            City officials stated that copies of six recorded deed restrictions had been
            forwarded to OIG. However, City officials provided four recorded deed
            restriction, not six, at the exit conference, and only two of the four recorded deed
            restrictions satisfied the recommendation. The remaining two deed restrictions
            were not acceptable because one was for an amount greater than the HOME
            assistance provided to the homebuyer, and the other recorded deed restriction was
            not executed by the trustees who control the assisted property. Therefore, we
            reduced the number of properties without properly recorded deed restrictions from
            eight to six properties and reduced the questionable amount from $1.9 to 1.37
            million.
Comment 8   City officials stated that they are in the process of having a properly recorded
            deed restriction executed; evidence that such a deed has been executed will need
            to be provided to HUD field office staff during the audit resolution process.



                                              25
Comment 9     The environmental review documents provided at the exit conference satisfied the
              environmental review finding; therefore, we eliminated the environmental review
              finding from the audit report.
Comment 10 City officials stated that their consultant is working to resolve findings associated
           with ineligible homeowners, and where fraudulent information was provided to
           obtain HOME assistance, City officials are prepared to take actions needed to
           recoup HOME funds. City officials will have to work with HUD field office staff
           to address these findings during the audit resolution process.
Comment 11 City officials stated that they have committed all past HOME funds. However, our
           review of grant year 2009 commitments revealed that $844,640 was not properly
           committed as of the commitment deadline, July 31, 2011.




                                                26