March 28, 2010

HUD Audit Holyoke

Lets hope they don't audit Worcester. Story from the Springfield Republican:


HOLYOKE - Final say will come from the federal government.   But an official here said on Thursday the city made the best case it could in responding to an audit that found questions with how $3.87 million in community development money was used. 

"We have argued against every dollar (having to be repaid)," said Linda B. McQuade, deputy administrator of the city Community Development Office.    Office Administrator William H. Murphy told the Redevelopment Committee at City Hall it will be at least a month before the federal Housing and Urban Development office rules on whether the city must repay any money. 

The audit covered July 2006 to June 2009. It focused on city use of HOME program funds and Community Development Block GrantS.  Councilors questioned Murphy, McQuade and Richard P. Courchesne, Olde Holyoke Development president, which received most of the loans under one of the programs. The audit found that there was "ineligible, unreasonable or unnecessary" use of federal funds in relation to construction and demolition. 

After Murphy and McQuade said some of the disagreements are due to the city and the federal agency using different calculation formulas, committee Chairman Kevin A. Jourdain asked how that could be.
"My question is, how could we not be on the same sheet of music?" Jourdain said.   One dispute between the city and the auditor concerned the cost of seven duplexes. The auditor said the city overpaid to have them built by $288,933.

2 comments:

Paulie's Point of View said...

"Reading from the audit, Jourdain said federal officials cited a concern that the city was failing to monitor Olde Holyoke Development. But Courchesne said every property his firm builds with community development money from the city abides by federal guidelines."

>>yah think there is a patton with these federal funds in Springfield and how they are dispursed and how they are dispursed here in WooVille? Always, the same playahs in the same hoods.

Jahn said...

If $288,000 too much for a duplex in Sprfld, then what is $300,000+ per unit that Main South CDC is about to spend in the Kilby Hammond Gradner area for duplexes, triplexes, quads , etc.

I still would like to know if CDC's are forced to pay prevailing wages. If NOT, I am very.very puzzled as to where all teh money goes. Ridiculous, developer feees to the CDC's?

Lettuce sea what the city auditors unearth over at 44 Front St. Leaf know stone unturned. Eye dew hope they reed this blog.

How does one win an RFP which allows a low income builder a MAXIMUM amt. of $25,000 in home funds per unit....and the no lo builder (a.k.a. a favored player) end up with $30,000 or $40,000 of home funds? Additionally the no low builder is also allowed to sell his units for more than the amt prescribed per the RFP?

Please also do not forget that the Home Funds are basically add'l funds teh dev'er realizes from the sale of their no lo units. The euphemism Home Funds can kinda be Miss leading. They S/b called no lo builder sales bonus money.

I predict a complete home cleaning of Worc's Home Funds dept. Hay, it's probably partially complete right now.

I have a 6 pack of Guinness ( bot on Cantb. and given to Laddie Paulie) that says the situations I am referrring to are not uncovered or if they are they will go unmentioned in auditors report.