Federal Reports

VA built the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center and other facilities on land donated more than 100 years ago to provide housing for veterans with disabilities. While the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 allows non-VA entities to use the land, all real property leases and land-use agreements must “principally benefit” veterans and their families.In a follow-up from a 2018 audit, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that VA has made little progress in implementing the housing and service enhancement goals laid out in the draft master plan that would ultimately provide housing for 1,200 veterans. As of July 2021, VA had available only 55 of the 480 housing units—11 percent of the draft master plan’s four-year target. This occurred due to required environmental impact studies, needed infrastructure upgrades, difficulties establishing a principal developer enhanced-use lease, and challenges in raising funding.Additionally, the OIG identified seven land-use agreements that did not comply with the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016. While a prior 2018 audit identified two of these seven agreements, VA has not yet taken sufficient corrective action.The OIG recommended that VA implement a plan that brings the five new land-use agreements into compliance with the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016, the draft master plan, and other federal laws. The OIG further recommended that VA ensure its capital asset inventory accurately reflects all land-use agreements lasting six months or longer on the West Los Angeles campus.

OIG evaluated SITC’s corrective actions from a prior audit report and the controls over the identification of internet sales of prohibited products for calendar year 2019.

Based on a complaint and a request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Public and Indian Housing (HUD PIH), we audited the Bay City Housing Authority, Bay City, TX.  The complainant’s allegations included improper procurement of an attorney and board meetings held without proper notice.  HUD PIH expressed concerns regarding the Authority’s financial records and policy adherence.  Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) followed Federal and its own procurement requirements for the board’s legal services, (2) paid its administrative costs in accordance with Federal requirements, and (3) conducted its board meetings in accordance with the State of Texas’ requirements.We found that the Authority improperly procured its legal services contract, paid ineligible and unsupported administrative costs, and did not follow Texas’ Open Meetings Act or its own bylaws when conducting board meetings.  These conditions occurred because the board (1) improperly believed an emergency existed, (2) lacked knowledge and training, (3) did not follow the training it received, (4) overruled the executive director, and (5) did not provide proper oversight.  As a result, the Authority (1) paid $20,000 for the board’s personal legal expenses, of which $15,000 was recovered, (2) paid $39,256 in questioned administrative costs, (3) had less funds available to assist its residents, and (4) did not hold proper board meetings or maintain meeting minutes showing that it made valid and documented decisions.We recommend that the Director of the Houston Office of Public Housing require the Authority to (1) recover the remaining $5,000 of ineligible legal service costs paid and ensure that additional invoiced legal service costs totaling $24,250 are not paid; (2) support or repay questioned costs totaling $39,256; (3) update its bylaws, policies, and procedures to reflect current Federal and State of Texas requirements; and (4) take action to address invalid or undocumented board decisions.