‘

LS. I)FPRTMEN[ OF HOUSING ANI) LRRA\ DFVF
LOPNIIN[
Fort \\oith Raona1 O1h Rgion Vi
01u. ol C mniunit P1 n in and ik\ o
SOl Chrrrv Stret. tnit #45510. 25(10
For’. \Vorth.
II’
w whud.gov

—

-

T,C. Broadnax, Cit Manager
City of Dallas
Dallas City Hall. 4EN
1500 ManIla
Dallas. Texas 752(1
Dear Mr. Broadnax:
ST:BJECT: Monitoring Report

HOME Investment Partner’ hips Program

The purpose of this letter is to transmit the results of the
monitoring review of the City of
Dallas’ HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HO
MEr The review was conducted on-site
during the period of February 27 thru March 3,2017.
A summary exit conference was held with
city staff on March 3. 2017 and a final exit conferen
ce was held via teleconference on March 30,
2017.
Our review of the city’s HOME acti\ ides focused on
the cdv’s management and oversight
of its HOME-assisted activities along with its on—g
oing monitoring of previously funded HOME
activities. While the city’s HOME Program has been
very productive in recent years with respect to
the number of units produced and low —income househol
ds assisted, our review identified significant
dehciencics in oeraI1 program management and over
sight.
Enclosed von will find the summar monitoring repo
rt which identifies 12 compliance
findings. Each of the findings identifies the required
corrective action that the city must take to
clear the finding. Two of the findings will require city
staff to research the activities reviewed and
provide additional supporting documentation befo
re a final corrective action can be identified.
Please note that several of the corrective actions advi
se the city not to move forward with an new
HOME activities until the finding is cleared.
Please review the enclosed report and provide a writt
en response within 45 days of the date
of this letter, Should von ha e any questions please have
your staff contact Ellen Melcndez, Senior
Community Planning and Development Representativ
e at Xl 7Q7S.5958 or via email at

Sincerely.,
—

Shi1v J 1{enl
Directof

EncloNure;
LL,

T)
I
flU
11du
tO.
-

(

fltf ir

T 1
i

Ri-l 111Lk5

0

/

 ON.SITE MONITORING REPORT

HOME Investment Partnerships Program
Dallas. Texas
MXXMC38O2O3
FebruarY 27 March 3, 2017
—

OVERVIEW

Monitoring is the principal means by which RED
ensures that programs and technical
areas are carried out efficiently. effectively, and
that the programs comply with applicable laws
and regulations. It assists grantees in improvin
g their performance, developing or increasing
capacity and enhancing their management and
technical skills. [n determining which grantees
will he monitored, the Department uses a riskbased approach to rate grantees. programs and
functions. including assessing the Department’s
exposure to fraud. waste and mismanagemen
t.

SUMMARY OF’ RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
S
This report details the results of the monitori
ng review and identified 12 compliance
Endings \ Ending is i detwienc in progi im
pertormanLe based on a statutorx rgul nor or
program requirement for which sanctions or othe
r corrective actions are authorized. Required
corrective actions are identified for all findings,
and findings require a written response within 45
days of the date of this report. Please note that in
several findings the city is advised not to mov
e
forward with any new HOME activities cove
red by that requirement until the finding is cleared
by this office.
Exhibits from the Coin nzunitv Planning and i)eve
lopment Monitoring Handbook
6509.2 were used to guide the review: they are
available at:

a r r d
I’
/handboksicnd/65b9.2

a Nb D

Cs

dr

‘

SCOPE OF REVIEW
The monitoring review examined activities unde
rtaken through the cit ‘s Mortgaee
Assistance Program MAP Housing Developm
ent, and Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
TBRA Pronrams along nith the process used to certi
fy Community Housing Development
Organizations CHDO). It also included an exam
ination of the steps: being taken by the city to
cnstmre ongoing compliance in the city’s HOM
E-funded rental housing portfolio. This was
undertaken through the review of city policies/p
rocedures. fundn agreements. file
documcnt:nion and program reporting.

 Areas Reviewed and Results
Program Reporting:
In preparing for the monitoring review project
set-up and completion information entered by city
staff in the lnte2rated Disbursement Informati
on Center JDIS) was examined along with
information reported by the city in its Consolid
ated Annual Perforniance and Evaluation Report
CAPER). During the on-site component of the revie
w this information was compared with the
city’s funding agreements, project files, and parti
cipant records. These reviews identified several
deficiencies which led to the issuance of this findi
ng.

Findin2 #1

—

Program Reporting

Condition: Information contained in IDIS for num
erous projects does not match what is
contained in the citys files. City staff were creat
ing duplicate activities when a household was
assisted under multiple program components and new
activities were being created when project
budgets were revised. Where a household parti
cipates in the Mortgage Assistance Program
(MAP) and the purchase involves a unit develope
d under the Housing Development Program
two activities are being created in IDIS. Househo
lds that were assisted under the Tenant-Based
Rental Assistance TBRA) Program were set-u
p under multiple activity numbers as opposed to
being funded by a single activity. Project set-ups
are not being revised when funding
agreements are amended.
Criteria: 24 CFR 92.502: 24 CFR 92.509
Cause: City staff are not familiar with the reporting
and data entry requirements for HOME and
lDIS and it does not appear there is sufficient superviso
ry oversight of data entry to ensure
quality and accuracy.
Effect: Project information at the activity level
in IDIS does not reflect the actual tasks
completed. Household information is being dupl
icated and the number of households assisted is
being overstated, information in the CAPER is inacc
urate and citizens are not being made aware
of actual production.

The city must immediately undertake a review of
the data in IDIS
for all HOME projects funded or completed over
the past five years and make revisions as
needed, The revisions must include consolidating
duplicate acti\ ities. revising setups to
accurately reflect the information contained in the
HOME agreement and eancellinc duplicate
activities, It is recommended that the city put forth
sufficient local resources to have an
independent third party undertake the revien, outli
ne the corrections needed, and provide
training to city staff.
Within 45 das of this letter the cit\ must provide
a plan for compieting the re isions and a
timetable, not to exceed six months. to accmplish
all tasks.

 Written Agreements:
Prior to undertaking activities utilizing HOME fund
s the city is required to execute vety specific
agreements with the entity to which it provides the
HOME assistance. The HOME regulations at
24 CFR 92.504(c) detail the content requirements base
d upon the entity receiving the fUnds.
The city’s written agreements with its CHDOs and
nonprofit developers in many cases did not
contain sufficient detail regarding the activities to
be undertaken, costs to be incurred. HOME
affordability requirements, and in some cases the ultim
ate end use of the units. Without this
level of detail. the city cannot properly manage the
day-to-day operation of its HOME Program
and ensure compliance with the HOME requirements.
Examples include:
•

The agreement for Activity 12304, EDCO, called for
the construction of 7 rental units.
The set-up in IDES is for two units. The agreemen
t does not require that at least 20% of
the units be occupied by households at or below 50%
of median income per 92.252(b).
The agreement does not indicate who will be responsib
le for utilities. The agreement did
not identify the specific rents to be charged based upon
the citys underwriting of the
project and only references that rents shall not exce
ed the High HOME rents. The
HOME affordability provision that the project is subj
ect to is incorrectly cited as 92.254
which is for homeownership and not rental housing.

•

The agreement for Activity 12203, Neighborhood Buil
ders CDC, allows for the
construction of either HOME-assisted rental units and/
or units for homeownership. The
agreement does not identify the number of units for each
activity nor a budget for each
activity. The agreement does not specifically iden
tify how the affordability requirements
of 92.252 and 92.254 respectfully will be enforced. The
agreement does not spell out the
specific requirements for converting rental units to hom
eownership through their sale to
existing in-place tenants.

•

The agreements for Activities 11793 and 11687 were
amended to allow for the units to be
used as rental housing. The amended agreements lacke
d detail with respect to ongoing
rents, project cash flow, affordability and the sale of
the units to in-place tenants for
homeownership.

FindIng #2- Written Agreements with Developers
Condition: The agreements executed by the city with
its non-profit housing development
organizations and with the owners of HOME-assiste proje
d
cts do not contain sufficient detail to
manage the day to day activities and ensure long term
compliance.
Criteria: 24 CFR 92.504(c)(3)
Cause: HOME funding agreements ate not being revie
wed against the applicable requirements
of 92.504(c) to ensure the required content is contained
in the agreement.
Effect: Agreements are being executed that lack the
specificity for city staff to manage the day
to day requirements of the program and ensure com
pliance with the HOME regulations. The
3

 current agreements may prevent the city from enfo
rcing the HOME requirements and could
leave the city subject to repayment of the HOM
E investment from local funds.
Required Corrective Action: The city must unde
rtake a review of the written agreements it has
executed over the most recent 5 program years
and amend those agreements so that they
accurately reflect the HOME requirements that
are applicable to the type of activity funded.
The city must revise its funding agreements to
ensure that they meet the HOME requirements
prior to any additional projects moving forward.
Within 45 days of this letter the city must provide
a plan for completing the revisions and a
timetable not to exceed six months to accomplish
all tasks.
The city should refrain from committing additiona
l HOME funds until such time as the
agreements have been revised and approved by this
otTice.
Finding #3

—

Written Agreements with Homebuyers

Condition: The city is not currently executing HOM
Especific funding agreements \vith the
households being assisted under its homeownershi
p component.
Criteria: 23 CFR 92.504ck5
Cause: The current program design is reliant on the
private sector lenders to compile
documentation and determine the qualifications
of the homehuyer. City staff are not executing
an agreement with the homebuyer outlining the appl
icable HOME requirements that the
assistance is subject to.
Effect: The city does not have a method to enfo
rce the HOME requirements and cannot show
that the homebuyer has been advised of their respo
nsibilities under the program.
Reflcrrective.\ctipns: Within 45 days of
the date of this letter the city must complete the
following corrective actions:
• Prior to assisting any additional households
under its honiehuver program the city must
develop a written homebuyer agreement meeting
the requirements of 92.5O4(c%5.
• Implement policies to ensure that the agreemen
t is executed between the city and the
hoinebuycr prior to the commitment f HOvlE fund
s.
• The re ised policies and agreement must he subm
itted to this office for review and
approval,

Underwriting & Subsidy Layering:
The HOME reculat ions at 2$ CFR 92.250 h) requ
ire that prior tt committing HOME funds to a
pioj tie cit n ict
due
ie a lOLt tO
‘ I
C
i Jo
Dt io
1
dctern1ininL a IcaNonable le\ el of profit or return on
an ox ner or JeveloperN investment
in a
r
p
‘ui ii in ‘t ox m i HO\1E it a
Is alone n
comnineoun x idi uthu

 governmental assistance, than is necessary to prov
ide quality affordable housing that is
financially viable for a reasonable period.
Our review of the underwriting policies and proc
edures adopted by the city for its HOME-funded
housing development program found that they
do not contain sufficient detail to ensure that
excessive subsidies are not provided and that retur
n on investment to developers is reasonable.
The underwriting for Activity 12304 indicates
gross operating income of S3f.$20 per year and
net operating income of $26,470. This would
put average rents at $469 per month. The written
agreement allows the developer to charge the
High HOME rents which at the time of
underwriting were $921 per month. Using the
assumptions in the city s underwriting this would
put gross operating income at
$77,364 per year with a net operating income of $64,
414. The
city’s underwriting states that net operating inco
me will he used to capitalize replacement
reserves hut there arc no provisions on the use
of the reserves. In either scenario there is an
excessive return on the HOilE investment.
The file for Activity 12290, Builders of Hope.
did not contain the required assessment of curre
nt
market demand. Where market studies were prov
ided by the developer there was no evidence
that staff verified that thc information was valid
.
Activity 12303 ICDC This activity was fund
ed for the construction of single family homes
for homeownership. In the case of one unit it
appeared that homebuyer could only document
$375 per month in income and ownership to the
unit was transferred to the household despite a
lack of resources to own. maintain, and insure
the property. An inquiry was made of city staff
and the monitors were advised that the property
was ‘gifted’ to the household due to their special
situation. Information in the file indicated that
the buyer could have been a victim of domestic
violence so the property address is not shown
in the report. It has been communicated to the
city’s housing director.
—

—

Under the city’s Mortgage Assistance Program.
city staff are relying on the subsidy amount
requested by the lender as opposed to applying
its written underwritina guidelines and
determining the amount of assistance provided
on a case by case basis.

Finding #4

—

Underwriting & Subsidy Layering

Cdtion: The unclerwritine policies and subs
idy layering guidelines currently utilized by the
city for its HOME—assisted activities are not bein
g applied in a manner that imits the HOME
subs idv to the minimum amount required and they
are not being applied in a consistent manner.
There does not appear to be sufficient oversirht
of the underwriting process nor is there adequate
analysis of market demand. The city could not
pros id ustification for the house that ‘s as gifte
d
under Activity 12303 or for the subsidy provided
for Activity 12304.
Criteria: 24 CFR 92250W

 Cause: The city’s current underwriting and subs
idy layering guidelines are not being properly
applied to projects. The city cannot justify the reaso
nableness of costs and staff are not
reviewing the market studies submitted to ensu
re the validity of the data submitted.
Effect: Developers of HOME-assisted housing
may receive excessive returns on investment.
HOME subsidies may be provided that exceed what
is required for the project thus limiting the
resources that are available for other activities.
HOME projects could be undertaken where
market demand does not support the need for the
type of housing funded.
Required Corrective Action: Within 45 days
of the date of this letter the city must complete the
following actions:
•

Prior to committing HOME funds to any projects
the city must revise its underwriting
and subsidy layering guidelines for each compone
nt of its HOME Program along with the
procedures for conducting the analysis and supe
rvisory review of the final
determinations. The city must also formalize proc
edures for the analysis of market
studies submitted by developers that includes man
agement review. These guidelines and
procedures must be submitted to this office for revie
w.

•

For the property identified under Activity 12303
as having been gifted to the household
the city must provide documentation as to how
the transaction was allowable under its
program design and contained in the approved fund
ing agreement with the de\ eloper.
Should the city determine that the activity is allow
able, documentation of the city’s cost
reasonableness determination conducted prior to
the transfer must he provided.

•

The city must submit justification for the subsidy prov
ided under Activity 1 2304 along
with an updated cashflow analysis.

Housing Inspections:
The property condition standards for different type
s of HOME-assisted projects are contained at
24 CER 92.251. Under 24 CFR 92.505(a)3)
the city is required to maintain records supporting
all required inspections and that the property in ques
tion meets the applicable condition standard.
Our review of the city’s housing development activ
ities found that the city lacked detailed
inspection reports to document construction prog
ress and to support that individual units were
constructed in accordance with the plans and spec
ifications appro\ ed by the city. Whi
le the city
presented approved draw requests. inspection 1
ogs, pictules and various permit Inspection ta
there were no detailed inspections supporting cons
truction progress and final completion in
accordance with the construction specifications.

For the citvs HOME-funded MAP proaram the mini
mum property standards worksheet
currcntl\ in use by city staff does not contain suffi
cient detail to support that all areas and rooms
in the unit were inspected and found to meet the prarr
am requirements.

 Finding #5

—

Housing Inspections

Condition: Detailed inspection reports are not bein
g maintained to support that units constructed
under the housing development program are bein
g completed in accordance with the plans and
specifications. Inspection reports for the MAP prog
ram do not contain sufficient detail to
confirm that all areas of the unit were inspected and
met program requirements.
Criteria: 24 CFR 92.251; 24 CFR 92.508m(3)

Cause: Lack of detailed inspection reports.
Effect: The city cannot confirm that units construct
ed under its program were built in
accordance with the plans and specifications appr
oved for the project. Contractor and developers
could use lower quality materials and building compone
nts to increase their profit margins. The
city cannot document the actual use of funds with
out supporting inspections. The city cannot
confirm that hornebuyers of existing units are purc
hasing an eligible property. Without such
documentation, the city could be placed in the posi
tion of repaying the HOME funds invested in
the units.
Required Corrective Action: Prior to moving forw
ard with any additional HOME-funded
activities the city must develop construction insp
ection protocols to document that its new
construction and rehabilitation projects are bein
g constructed in accordance with the approved
plans and specifications. These protocols must inclu
de detailed inspection reports for both the
housing development program and MAP. This corre
ctive action must be completed and
submitted to this office for review and approval with
in 35 days of the date of this letter.

Ongoing Compliance Monitoring:
During the period of affordability, the city must perfo
rm on-site inspections of HOME-assisted
rental housing to determine compliance with the prop
erty standards of 24 CFR 92.25 1 and to
verify the information submitted annually h the own
ers in accordance with the requirements of
24 CFR 92.252. The city must establish written
procedures for conducting the inspections.
resolving deficiencies, and the frequency of inspectio
ns .At minimum, an inspection must be
performed within 1 2 months of project completi
on and every 3 years thereafter. \Vhen
deficiencies are identified during an inspection a follo
w-up inspection is required within 1 2
months to confirm that corrective actions have been
completed.
Finding #6

—

Ongoing Compliance Monitoring

dition: Fjnding 6 The city s current proc
edures fr the ongoing monitoring of HO MEassisted rental housing do not contain sufficient detai
l to document comp1ince with the I-TOME
property condition standards and affordability requ
irements. The city has also not developed
risk-hosed monitorlne procedrires in accordance with
92.5O$(a)
—

The on-site monitoring reporr do not reflect that
a revies is home conducted of tenant files to
confirn compliance with HOME rent end utility ched
ulcs. that unit nie is being maintdined.
iicl ii ‘a di1L1nLIe a’ o
.

 The monitoring procedures do not require an initia
l on-site inspection of HOME-assisted rental
housing within the first 12 months of project com
pletion.
The monitoring procedures do not require follow
—up onsite inspections to ensure that deficiencies
have been corrected.
The cdv has not established procedures for asses
sing the financial condition of HOME-assisted
rental properties having 10 or more units at least annu
ally.
The project files reviewed did not contain required
annual reports from property owners on rents
and occupancy alone with an owner’s certificat
ion of compliance with property condition
standards.
Criteria: 24 (‘FR 92.25ltft; 24 CFR 92.504td1
Cause: The current monitoring procedures do not
meet the regulatory requirements and proper
oversight is not being maintained on HOME-as
sisted rental housing.
Effect: Rental properties could deteriorate and
units could he rented to ineligible households or
at rents that exceed the program requirements. Affo
rdable housing could be lost and the city
could be placed in the position of having to repa
y the HOME investment.
Required Corrective Action: Within 45 days of the
date of this letter the cdv must develop and
implement procedures maintaining proper over
sight of its HOME-assisted rental properties.
Upon completion of the procedures they must be subm
itted to this office for review.
Within 60 days of the (late of this letter the city
must obtain reports from the owners of each
HOME-assisted rental property on the rents and
occupancy of the HOME-assisted units. City
staff must complete a review of each report to iden
tify whether the property owner is in
compliance with the HOME regulations.
In consultation with this office the city must deve
lop a schedule for the monitoring of each
HOME-assisted rental unit based upon the completi
on date in IDIS.
Converting Rental Units to Horneownership:
The HOME regulations at 23 CFR 92.255 allow for
the conversion of HOME-assisted rental
units to homeownership if they al-c sold to an exist
ine in-place tenant that qualifies as lowincome. A tenant that elects not to purchase
or cannot qualify to purchase their rental unit cannot
he evicted or refused lease renewal based upon
that decision.
Finding #7

—

Conversion of Rental I nits

cdP!ho1L Itt revien in2 the cdt s fles for Activity 11793, NBCDC.
3 of the files reviewed
indicated that the sincle-faniilv rental uniN had
been sold to households that rscre not in-place
tenants in accordance n ltd 24 CFR 02.255. Acti\
dv 1 1 735. South fair CDC, hod uni t that a etc

 occupied by tenant households at completi
on of construction which were later converted to
homeoxvnership. There was no evidence in
the file to support that these units were sold to
eligible in-place tenants.
Criteria: 24 CFR 92.255(a)
Cause: The city’s HOME funding agreemen
ts for these activities did not contain a provision
that
limited any homeownership conversion to
in-place tenants. City staff did not ensure that the
eligibility of each conversion was documented
prior to the sale.
Effect: HOME-assisted rental units may have
been sold to ineligible households resulting in
costs being disallowed. Existing tenants
may have been denied lease renewal when they decid
ed
not to purchase the units resulting in the tenan
ts being displaced by the property owner.
Required Corrective Action: Within 45 days
of the date of this letter the city must identify
all
HOME-assisted rental housing activities wher
e units have been converted to homeownership.
For each of the units that were sold the city
must provide evidence of the purchaser’s address
at
the time of sale. If the purchasers residence
is identified as the unit being converted a copy
of
the lease that was in place at that time mus
t also be provided.
Within 60 days of the date of this letter the
city must amend all HOME funding agreements
for
its rental activities where homeownership conv
ersion is anticipated so that requirements of
24
CFR 92.255(a) are clearly stated.
Once the above steps have been taken a decis
ion will be made as to whether further corrective
actions are required.

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA):
Finding #8 TBRA Project Delivery Costs
-

Condition: The city set-up individual TBRA
activities for the costs associated with the
caseworker and housing inspectors administ
ering the TBRA program. Costs other than thos
e for
conducting unit inspections and determining parti
cipant e1igihilit appear to hate been charged
as activity delivery costs instead of program adm
inistration and general oversight. It also
appears that ineligible costs not related to prog
ram administration, such as case management,
ma have been charged to the TBRA proeram.
It should be noted that the city is no knfer
funding this program.
Criteria: 24 CFR 92.209(a
Cause: At the time these aetj\ iues ‘a crc land
ed, the city’s TBRA policies end procedures did
not
identify dnv iimitation on TBRA project
delivery costs, and the time distribution records
for
staff costs ehareed to ID IS activities. 122 St and
I 22S2 do not pw ide enougn OctaIl to determine
which Functions were charged to theN e activities
.

p

 Effect: Ii is likely that ineligible FIOvlE
costs and costs eligible only as program administ
ration
and general oversight were charged as TBR
A project costs.
Required Corrective Action: The city mus
t determine how much of the HOME fund
ing drawn
for activities 12230 and 12232 were for prop
erty inspection and determining income eligi
bility
of HOME TBRA clients. Within 45 days
of the date of this letter. the city must submit
its
determination, along with the methodol
ogy used. After review this office will determine
the
amount of eligible TBRA costs to be moved
to TBRA activities, and the amount of ineligible
TBRA costs to be moved to HOME administ
ration activities or repaid with non-federal fund
s.

Finding #9

—

TBRA Operations

Condition: Our review of the cdv’s TBR
A program determined that most aspects of
the program
were compliant with the HOME regulatio
ns. However, the city’s income eligibility
determinations and the tenants’ leases in
the sample of files reviewed were not in com
pliance
with the HOME regulations.
Income calculations in three of the four tenan
t files reviewed were not supported b the sour
ce
documentation in the file. It appears that
there may have been an error in the spreadshe
et
used by
the city to calculate annual income, and that
the error was not detected.
Leases in all four of the tenant files reviewed
contained a prohibited lease term. and although
the
rental assistance payment agreement iden
tified prohibited lease terms. none of the lease
s
reviewed included an addendum voiding
those terms, The city’ s policies and procedures
f’or
HOME TBRA identified the requirement
that the city review leases; howe\ er, the timing
of that
review was unclear and there was no evidence
in the sample of files reviewed that the city had
completed a review of the lease.
Criteria: 24 CER 92.203a>(2) and 92.253th
i
Cause: The city’s HOME TBRA program was
designed to provide transitional housinu for
homeless individuals and families and the
program was administered as part of the city’
s
Continuum of Care-funded homeless assis
tance programs. The city did not adequately
identify
or enforce the HOME program requirements
in its policies and procedureN or in the
implementation of its HOME TBRA prourani.

Effect: When income was re-calculated as part
of the muflitorine review for three tenants, it was
delLi mH
ed ih it tne ch ange in innu al i n on Ju
1
not itleL t J c at eli hlllt\
dl Wi
households n crc under 60 percent of the area
median income at entry However. failure to
ensure income i calculated correctly coul have
d
resulted in HOME funds heinc used for clients
that are not eligible for assistance. Failure
to re iew the lcaNe between the tenant and land
lord
can result in taking pmhihited action again
st tenans recci inc HOME THRA.
Rerinired Correcli\ e Action: The cdv last fund
ed I tOME TBRA in its 20l 5 Action Plan. Sinc
e
n n”n iOta o c
t
0 i
ai i
ui fttl\
tkN
tCqU
itd
and
tnL
finding i closed. However, if the city budn
ets funds far HOME TBRA in
a fu;nrc Actiun Plan.
the u

tO

 it should ensure that its TBRA policies
and procedures comply with the HOME regu
lations and
that staff are trained on those requirements.
Technical assistance on THRA was provided
during
the review, and this office will be available
for additional technical assistance if the city
decides
to re-start this program.

Homeownership Affordability:
HOME Participating Jurisdictions that unde
rtake homeownership activities are required
by 24
CFR 92.254(a)5 to identify the method
that will he used to enforce affordability for
the
required term. The City of Dallas has selec
ted the resale requirement for units assisted
under its
Housing Development Program while hous
eholds participating under MAP are subject
to
recapture.
Our review identified several issues with
the city’s implementation of its affordability
restrictions:
• The resale provisions as implemented
do not provide for the homeo\\ ncr to receive
a fair
return on investment as required by 24 CFR
92.254(a)5)W.
• The recapture provisions as implemen
ted do not correctly state the approach used
for
shared net proceeds.
• When a household purchases a unit
constructed under the Housing Development
Program
and is assisted under MAP the project files
reflected that the project was subject to both
resale and recapture.

Finding #10

—

Homeownership Affordability

Condition: The affordability provisions
currently in place for the city’s Housing Deve
lopment
Program and MAP do not fully comply with
the HOME requirements.
Criteria: 24 CFR 92.254ta)(5)
Cause: The deed restrictions used for resal
e do not provide for a fair return on investme
nt to the
homehuyer. For households participating
under MAP the method for determining share
d
net
proceeds is not defined, Where a househol
d participates under both program compone
nts both
standards are applied.
Fffect’ Assisted households may not recei
ve the correct amount of proceeds when
a unit is sold
during the affordability period. Househo
lds seeking to purcha.e units from the Hou
sing
Development Program ma he discourag
ed from participatine a it appears from the
current
wording or the resale restriction that they
cannot receive equity from the property.
Reuuirei Correcti\ e Action: Within —15 days
of this letter the city must revise both its resal
e and
recapture provisions so that the are cons
istent with the proeram requirements, Prinr to
implementation the city must submit both
for approval. In cldition. the city must take
steps to
oid the lmp1t1un nt duphati ieqtum
r hen o dc 0
b

 Lead-Based Paint:
Activities assisted under the HOME Program that involv
e pre-1978 housing are subject to the
lead-based paint requirements at 24 CFR Part 35. Acquis
ition activities such as direct
homeownership are subject to 24 CFR 35 Subpart K.
Activities that involve rehabilitation are
subject to 24 (TR Subpart i.
Finding #11

—

Lead-Based Paint

Condition: While the citys program guidelines identif
y the need to conduct visual assessments
of painted surfaces in pre-1978 housing assisted under
MAP. there was no documentation of one
being conducted in the files for the three pre-1978 units
that were included in the file sample.
Similarly, when minor rehabilitation was undertaken using
Community Development Block
Grant ICDBG. funds there was no documentation in the
file to support that an evaluation was
conducted.
Criteria: 24 CFR 35.1015: 24 CFR 35.930
Cause: The inspection forms currently used by the city
lack a section for the inspection of
painted surfaces, The minor rehabilitation program lacks
a similar level of review.
Effect: Pre-1978 units could he assisted under the progra
m where defective paint is present.
Rehabilitation work could be undertaken in such units
in a manner that is not consistent with the
requirements creating the potential for lead contamination
.
Required Corrective Action: Within 45 days of the date
ot this letter the city must re\ise its
inspection checklists so that a visual assessment is conduc
ted and documented for any pre-1978
units assisted under MAP. For any rehabilitation project
s involving pre-1978 units the city must
establish a procedure to document that it has properly evalua
ted the work under the Rule. The
citY was provided a sample Lead Requirements Works
heet to assist it in this task.

Income Certifications:
The city is currently usina the adjusted gross income definit
ion for IRS Form 1040 to determine
participant eligibility. For the city’s MAP applicants,
it requires the submission of their most
recent tax return along with a verification of employment
VOE form completed by the lender.
The city is not requiring applicants to submit two months
of source documentation for income in
accordance with 92.203(a) 2).
Finding #12

—

Income Certifications

Cit t ti ilL nL 1 ui end
ie’ ira p i tip i t 1J1
l i
o month c sOUl CC dtcriment mon T i ieiurns md GE
toims ne hL og nm’ ied h th
lender arid it does not appear that c it\ ate verifying their
formation pro vided, Fax returns arid
VOF forms are not source documentntion.
Cund t1in

Based upon the in formation in the files no insInnee of inelini
hie e
5
ho
hoi
t:
J v, ic

dean

:‘iei.

 Criteria: 24 CFR 92.203(at(2l
Cause: The city is reling on the lenders to perform key administrative tasks. Source
documentation of income is not being reviewed by city staff.
Effect: Ineligible households could he assisted, costs could he disallowed and repayment of
funds could be required from the city.
Required Corrective Action: Prior to committing or disbursing HOME funds for any additional
homeownership projects the City must adopt formal procedures for the review of a household’s
income through an examination of appropriate source documentation.

Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs):
The city requires nonprofit organizations seeking CHDO funding to submit qualification
documentation annually or when funds are applied for. While cdv staff perform a fairly
comprehensive review of each organization’s qualifications, the city’s checklist needs to be
strengthened in the evaluation of whether the organization is under the influence or control of
entities seeking profit or gain. The criteria are:
•
•

•
•

•

Is neither controfled by, nor under the direction of. individuals or entities seeking to derive profit or
gain from the organization. A community housing development organization may be sponsored or
created by a for-profit entity. but:
The for-profit entity may not be an entity whose primary purpose is the development or
management of housing. such as a builder, developer, or real estate management firm.
The for-profit entity may not have the right to appoint more than one-third of the membership of
the organizations governing body. Board members appointed by the for-profit entity may not
appoint the remaining two-thirds of the board members:
The community housing development organization must be free to contract for goods and
services from vendors of its own choosing: and
The officers and employees of the for-profit entity may not be officers or employees of the
community housing development organization.