Finding 1219668 (2025-001)

Finding Number: 2025-001 Finding Title : Internal Controls and Compliance over Eligibility for Multifamily Housing Projects Compliance Requirement(s): Eligibility Classification: Material Weakness Programs: HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) ALN #: 14.239 Pass-through entity: N/A – Direct Award Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Award Numbers: M20-MC060518, M21-MP060518, M21-MC060518, M22-MC060518, M23-MC060518 Federal Award Year: 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 Criteria or specific requirement (including statutory, regulatory, or other citation) 24 CFR92.252 Qualification as affordable housing: Rental housing (e) Periods of affordability. The HOME-assisted units must meet the affordability requirements for not less than the applicable period, beginning after project completion. (1) The affordability requirements: (i) Apply without regard to the term of any loan or mortgage, repayment of the HOME investment, or the transfer of ownership. (ii) Must be imposed by a deed restriction, a covenant running with the land, an agreement restricting the use of the property, or other mechanisms approved by HUD and must give the participating jurisdiction the right to require specific performance (except that the participating jurisdiction may provide that the affordability restrictions may terminate upon foreclosure or transfer in lieu of foreclosure); and (iii) Must be recorded in accordance with State recordation laws. (2) The participating jurisdiction may use purchase options, rights of first refusal or other preemptive rights to purchase the housing before foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure to preserve affordability. (3) The affordability restrictions shall be revived according to the original terms if, during the original affordability period, the owner of record before the foreclosure, or deed in lieu of foreclosure, or any entity that includes the former owner or those with whom the former owner has or had family or business ties, obtains an ownership interest in the project or property. (4) The termination of the restrictions on the project does not terminate the participating jurisdiction's repayment obligation under § 92.503(b). (h) Tenant income. The income of each tenant must be determined initially in accordance with § 92.203(a)(1)(i). In addition, each year during the period of affordability the project owner must re-examine each tenant's annual income in accordance with one of the options in § 92.203 selected by the participating jurisdiction. An owner of a multifamily project with an affordability period of ten years or more who re-examines tenant's annual income through a statement and certification in accordance with § 92.203(b)(1)(ii), must examine the income of each tenant, in accordance with § 92.203(b)(1)(i), every sixth year of the affordability period, except that, for units that receive Federal or State project-based rental subsidy, the owner must accept the income determination pursuant to § 92.203(a)(1) 24 CFR 92.203 Income determinations - (b) Required Documentation for Annual Income Calculations (1) For families who are tenants in HOME-assisted housing and not receiving HOME tenant-based rental assistance, the participating jurisdiction must initially determine annual income using the method in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section. For subsequent income determinations during the period of affordability, the participating jurisdiction may use any one of the following methods in accordance with §92.252(h): (i) Examine at least two months of source documents evidencing annual income (e.g., wage statement, interest statement, and unemployment compensation statement) for the family. (ii) Obtain from the family a written statement of the amount of the family's annual income and family size, along with a certification that the information is complete and accurate. The certification must state that the family will provide source documents upon request. (iii) Obtain a written statement from the administrator of a government program under which the family receives benefits, and which examines each year the annual income of the family. The statement must indicate the tenant's family size and state the amount of the family's annual income; or alternatively, the statement must indicate the current dollar limit for very low- or low- income families for the family size of the tenant and state that the tenant's annual income does not exceed this limit. Title 45 US Code of Federal Regulations Part 75 (45 CFR part 75), Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards, section 75.303 also states that nonfederal entities must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award. 2 CFR 200.303 requires non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards to establish and maintain internal controls designated to ensure compliance with Federal laws, regulations and program compliance requirements. Effective internal controls should include procedures to ensure eligibility criteria are met and documented. Condition The City was unable to obtain documentation from the property manager to confirm that occupants of HOME-assisted units were qualified tenants for eighteen properties, which had a combined outstanding loan balance of $9.3 million as of fiscal year-end. These properties comprised a total of one hundred and fifty-four units, all associated with the same development group. The City could not secure the required records from the property manager to verify household income for each tenant. Consequently, compliance with income eligibility criteria, maximum rent thresholds, and minimum set-aside obligations for units designated for eligible individuals could not be determined. Cause The City’s has been unable to obtain required documents from the developer/owner, including required documents to determine each family's income which is needed for determining income eligibility, compliance with maximum rent requirements or minimum set-aside requirements for units designated for eligible individuals. Effect or potential effect The developer/owner’s withholding of required documents has meant the City is without the information needed to evaluate the properties and their related tenants for compliance with HUD eligibility criteria. Questioned costs None Context The City had eighteen outstanding loans with this development group for Multi Family Construction projects as of the fiscal year end, carrying a balance of $9.3 million. This represents 12% of the 154 HOME Loans and their related $79.5 million outstanding balances. On August 29th, 2025 the City of Long Beach initiated legal action against the developer/owner in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The action concerns Borrower's breach of loan agreements with the City regarding real property for which the City seeks foreclosure and is ongoing as of the issuance of this report. Identification as a repeat finding if applicable 2024-001 Recommendation We recommend the City continue its attempts to obtain the necessary documents from the development group and exercising its rights to enforce compliance through the terms of its contractual arrangement when necessary. Additionally, we recommend the City enhance policies and/or procedure for addressing unresponsiveness among developers to establish a structure for clear communication, expectations, an escalation process, and consistent documentation requirements. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions The City has exercised its rights to enforce compliance with the terms of its contractual arrangement for this standalone developer/owner, which has resulted in the highest levels of legal action. Through its established monitoring and review procedures, City staff identified documents submitted by the developer that appeared to be inaccurate or falsified. This discovery prompted a multi-year investigation and subsequent litigation, undertaken in direct collaboration and response to instructions as directed by HUD. Throughout this period, the City’s investigative and litigation activities have not been historically viewed as compliance concerns, particularly given their necessity in preserving the integrity of the legal process. At every stage, the City has acted consistently with HUD’s directives and the requirements of the applicable contractual framework. During the multi‑year investigation, HUD expressly instructed the City to continue normal program operations to avoid alerting the developer and to maintain the integrity of the ongoing inquiry. The City respectfully asserts that the audit finding is inconsistent with HUD’s guidance and the historical practices necessary to ensure effective enforcement. Since the initial identification of the finding, the City has taken all reasonable corrective actions within its authority to address the issue and mitigate associated risks. These actions include following established monitoring procedures to ensure compliance with HOME program requirements, making repeated documented requests for tenant eligibility records from the developer/owner, and escalating efforts through the City Attorney. This issue is isolated to one developer/owner and sampling for other developers/owners has not identified similar concerns. The City has been transparent about the ongoing litigation involving the standalone developer/owner responsible for maintaining the records and remains committed in resolving this matter and in pursuing additional actions available once the legal proceedings have been concluded. Furthermore, the City contends that the conditions described in 2 CFR 200.511(b)(3) apply and support dismissal of the finding, and therefore no further corrective action should be warranted. The City has not received any directives from the federal awarding agency requiring corrective measures beyond those already implemented. The continued reporting of the finding conflicts with necessary historical practice and reflects the unresolved status of litigation as directed by HUD, and not a failure by the City to take appropriate corrective action.