| GOVERNMENTAL
FUND REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES |
FY 1999 |
FY 1998 |
FY 1997 |
Total Governmental Fund
Revenue
Real Estate Transfer Taxes
% of Total Revenue
Federal Home Funds
% of Total Revenue
Investment, Interest and Other Income
% of Total Revenue |
$49,371,402
$27,253,626
55.2%
$18,087,743
36.6%
$4,030,033
8.2% |
$44,531,684
$23,450,608
52.7%
$17,560,764
39.4%
$3,520,312
7.9% |
$33,950,851
$19,471,247
57.4%
$11,355,729
33.4%
$3,123,875
9.2% |
Total Governmental Fund
Expenditures
Grants
% of Total Expenditures
General and Administrative
% of Total Expenditures
Provision for Est. Loss on Loans Receivable…
% of Total Expenditures……………………… |
$14,737,964
$9,856,926
66.9%
$2,588,053
17.6%
$2,292,985
15.5% |
$10,391,745
$6,695,023
64.4%
$2,196,722
21.2%
$1,500,000
14.4% |
$12,599,636
$7,975,873
63.3%
$2,218,243
17.6%
$2,405,520
19.1% |
| PROPRIETARY
FUND REVENUE AND EXPENSES (ADMINISTRATIVE) |
Total Administrative Fund
Revenue
Service Fees
% of Total Revenue
Interest and Investment Income
% of Total Revenue
Other Income
% of Total Revenue
Total Administrative Expenses
Salaries and Benefits
% of Total Expenses . .
Average No. of Employees
Professional Fees .
% of Total Expenses
Other General and Administrative Expenses
% of Total Expenses
All Other Operations Items
% of Total Expenses
Net Value of Property and Equipment |
$21,544,575
$7,406,321
34.4%
$5,220,323
24.2%
$8,917,931
41.4%
$12,271,252
$6,339,594
51.7%
164
$1,882,582
15.3%
$3,292,241
26.8%
$756,835
6.2%
$1,690,352 |
$22,231,267
$7,182,201
32.3%
$6,933,105
31.2%
$8,115,961
36.5%
$16,074,621
$5,862,586
36.5%
162
$1,360,009
8.5%
$3,157,930
19.6%
$5,694,096
35.4%
$1,386,712 |
$14,487,608
$7,020,162
48.4%
$4,762,327
32.9%
$2,705,119
18.7%
$11,323,997
$6,084,516
53.7%
167
$1,185,982
10.5%
$3,120,553
27.6%
$932,946
8.2%
$1,319,409 |
| SELECTED
ACTIVITY MEASURES |
FY 1999 |
FY 1998 |
FY 1997 |
Total Number of Bond Issues
Outstanding
Total Bond Issue Value (in millions) |
101
$2,060 |
94
$2,060 |
84
$2,028 |
| AGENCY
DIRECTOR(S) |
During Audit Period: Michael
P. Rose, Acting Executive Director
Currently: Peter R. Dwars, Executive Director |
|
Federal forms contained numerous errors and files lacked supporting documentation
268 errors were found in 200 federal eligibility files reviewed
Waiting lists were not properly maintained at 4 of 20 developments tested
|
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION 8 AND SECTION 236 TENANT ELIGIBILITY
Federal eligibility files for Section 8 and Section 236 tenants lacked proper
supporting documentation, and the eligibility forms, which are used to determine Housing
Assistance Payments, contained numerous errors. This finding has been repeated since
1989.
During audit testing, numerous errors were found in the 200 files reviewed. The
files contained errors resulting in both underpayments and overpayments by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). There were also many files containing inaccurate
information, incomplete or missing forms, and inadequate documentation.
The Authority is responsible for adequate monitoring procedures to ensure subrecipients
are complying with requirements of applicable federal programs. This includes ensuring
that federal funds are being used for the assistance of eligible tenants only and that
adequate supporting documents are retained to verify tenants’ eligibility. The
numerous errors could result in incorrect payments from HUD and the subsidy of ineligible
tenants. Ultimately, they could jeopardize future federal financial assistance.
We recommended that the Authority review the results and effectiveness of the new
training program policies and procedures. We also recommended that the Authority develop a
policy that states the nature of the disciplinary action that will be taken if a
development fails to comply with the procedures noted in the policy. (Finding 1, pages
13-15)
Authority officials concurred with our recommendation. (For previous Authority
responses, see Digest footnote #1.)
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND FAIR HOUSING
The waiting lists at some developments were not properly maintained as required by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD requires certain developments
to have "waiting lists" to ensure applicants are processed on a first come,
first served basis. This finding has been repeated since 1995.
We noted 4 of 20 medium risk developments, as determined by the Authority, were not
in compliance with the respective development’s Tenant Selection Plan. We found:
- Applicants were not kept at the top of the list where there was no availability for a
particular unit.
- Procedures were not consistently applied to contact and offer vacant units to
applicants.
- Applicants were not processed according to the Tenant Selection Plan.
Although the Authority requires developments to submit Tenant Selection Plans for
approval, current monitoring is not adequate to ensure the developments are operating in
accordance with plans submitted.
We recommended the Authority standardize the documentation of its review of select
Tenant Selection Plans for compliance with HUD and Authority policies and procedures
relating to waiting lists. We also recommended that the Authority prepare a standardized
waiting list form that would be used by each development and would assist the Authority in
assessing compliance with HUD and IHDA policies and procedures. (Finding 2, pages 16-18)
Authority officials stated they review all of the Tenant Selection Plans for compliance
with the Authority and HUD guidelines. The Plans are designed to be flexible and
incorporate the developments’ specific marketing needs. The development of standard
procedures to be followed by each development would result in the loss of this desired
flexibility. The Authority agreed with our recommendation to create a standardized waiting
list form. (For previous Authority responses, see Digest footnote #2.)
AUDITORS’ OPINION
Our auditors state the Authority’s financial statements as of and for the
year ended June 30, 1999 are fairly presented in all material respects.
___________________________________
WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General
WGH:JAF:pp
SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS
Arthur Andersen LLP were our special assistant auditors for this audit.
DIGEST FOOTNOTES
#1 SECTION 8 AND SECTION 236 TENANT ELIGIBILITY - Previous Authority Responses.
1998: "The Authority officials stated they have instituted a requirement
for relevant management staff to attend a two-day training session biennially. They
further stated that they agree with the spirit of our recommendation for new staff to
attend training within the first three months, but believe attendance within six months is
more realistic. Authority personnel also stated they do not agree to conduct site visits
annually since it is their belief that the developments do not need annual audits."
1997: "The Authority is in the process of developing a requirement for relevant
development management staff to attend a two day training session biennially. The training
will address both general management issues including waiting list administration as well
as program specific eligibility regulations. In addition, the Eligibility & Processing
Officers’ (EPO) procedures will be revised to reflect an increased emphasis regarding
on-site audits. EPO staff workload will also be reviewed."
1996: "The Authority will review the files in question and will make necessary
adjustments upon the completion of the review. The Authority will continue to emphasize to
management agents the importance of accuracy as it relates to tenant eligibility and
tenant rent. In addition, the Authority continues to offer training and retraining for
site managers and strongly recommends that new managers attend and that managers be
retrained every two years. The Authority will continue to advise site managers that
continuing inaccuracies may result in abatement of Housing Assistance Payments.
1995: "The Authority is in the process of reviewing the files in question and will
make necessary adjustments upon completion of the reviews. During site visits by Authority
staff, the 50059 forms are reviewed and calculated for completeness and accuracy. The
Authority will continue to emphasize to management agents the importance of accuracy as it
relates to tenant eligibility and tenant rent. In addition, the Authority will continue to
offer training and retraining for site managers and strongly recommends that new managers
attend immediately and that all managers be retrained biannually. The Authority will also
advise site managers that continuing inaccuracies may result in abatement of Housing
Assistance Payments."
1994: "HUD regulations require that the tenant file systems be established and
maintained for three years. The Authority supports this requirement by supplying
checklists to management personnel during monthly training sessions and strongly
encouraging their use. These checklists recap all information which should be included in
each on-site tenant file. In addition, when the Eligibility and Processing (E&P)
Officers do an on-site tenant audit, they check to see that the tenant files are in order
and that all verification forms are properly filed.
1993: "During site visits by the E&P Officers, the Form 50059’s are
reviewed and calculated for completeness and accuracy. The Authority will continue to
emphasize to management agents the importance of accuracy as it relates to tenant
eligibility and tenant rent.
In addition, the Authority continues to offer training and retraining for site managers
and strongly recommends that new managers attend immediately and for all managers to
reattend biennially.
The Authority is in the process of reviewing the files in question as noted in the
above findings and will make necessary adjustments upon completion of the reviews."
1992: Same response as 1993.
1991: Same response as 1993.
1990: Same response as 1993.
1989: "During all training sessions, on-site audits and telephone conversations
with management personnel, the E&P Officers stress the importance of accurate and
complete 50059 forms. These forms are now reviewed by computer which is supposed to
eliminate human error. Should the computer reject a file due to erroneous information, the
E&P Officer checks the form and contacts the on-site manager. For major errors, a new
50059 is requested. Should the error be of the type found during the audit, the on-site
manager is told to correct the error on their 50059 form. The E&P Officer then
corrects the IHDA 50059 and the file is reentered into the computer. The on-site manager,
however, may not always follow through and correct the on-site 50059 form."
#2 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND FAIR HOUSING - Previous Authority Responses
1998: "The Authority stated that they cannot do enough monitoring to
ensure complete compliance with the procedures because the application of the Tenant
Selection Plan procedures are not within the direct control of the Authority."
1997: "Standardized tenant selection plan models have been created for the
respective programs monitored by the Authority. However, the differences among program
requirements make it difficult, if not impossible, to develop universal policies,
procedures, and forms.
The Housing Management Officers have been instructed to place greater emphasis on the
waiting list during site visits. The frequency of these site visits is reviewed annually.
All developments are visited a minimum of two times per year.
Effective January 1, 1998, management site staff will be required to attend Authority
training sessions on a periodic basis. The curriculum of these training sessions has been
expanded to place greater emphasis on waiting list procedures."
1996: "Each development’s Tenant Selection Plan contains specific
requirements and procedures with regard to maintaining waiting lists and processing tenant
applications. As a part of its ongoing management training, the Authority will train
management staff in following these procedures. Compliance with these procedures will be
tested as a part of the Authority’s ongoing monitoring of management
performance."
1995: "The Illinois Housing Development Authority is the state’s Housing
Finance Authority. It acts as a PHA only for Moderate Rehabilitation developments.
It was not indicated in the Finding what type of Section 8 the property was that treated
federal preference applicants in a manner inconsistent with their development’s
Tenant Selection Plan. However, in its capacity as mortgagee and contract administrator,
the Authority will place greater emphasis and detail on the tenant selection process
(including the waiting list procedures) during its annual inspections. The Authority will
more closely review the management staff’s application and tenant selection process,
comparing it to their Tenant Selection Plan. Should a discrepancy between the plan and the
actual implementation of site procedures be determined, the Authority will direct
management to come into compliance with their approved Plan.
When Change 24 of the HUD Handbook Regulations 4350.3 was received by the Authority, it
requested that all of the developments in the Authority’s portfolio submit revised
Tenant Selection Plans for compliance. Models were provided for guidance depending on the
type of subsidy program the development was receiving. The Authority anticipates that many
of the developments are now better trained in the tenant selection process because of this
action. The Authority has had many discussion with various agents and management staff on
this subject. It will also review the possibility of incorporating the tenant selection
process more fully into its bimonthly training for new managers and their site staff.
|
