Auburn Housing Authority

This is a state audit of Auburn Housing Authority covering April 1, 2008 through June 30, 2010, including its normal operations and use of federal stimulus money.

“In accordance with Chapter 11, Section 12, of the Massachusetts General Laws, we have conducted an audit of certain activities of the Authority for the period April 1, 2008 to June 30, 2010.”

Auditors checked whether the housing authority had proper controls and followed laws and regulations, including rules tied to federal stimulus funds.

“The objectives of our audit were to determine the Authority’s compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations and to review and analyze its management controls and practices over the following areas and functions for the purpose of determining their adequacy: (1) tenant selection; (2) preparation and reoccupation of vacant units; (3) rent determinations; (4) collectability of accounts receivables; (5) payroll, travel, and fringe benefits; (6) site inspections; (7) disbursements; (8) inventory controls over property and equipment; (9) contract procurement; (10) cash management and investment practices; (11) DHCD-approved budgets versus actual expenditures; and (12) level of need for operating subsidies and operating reserves.”

The issue matters because contractors may not have been properly required to pay workers the legally required wages on federally funded work.

“Without proper vendor bidding and contracting procedures, the Authority cannot ensure that all employees who worked on the federal ARRA grant were paid the proper wages to which they were entitled.”

If you live in Auburn or care about public housing, this audit concerns the agency overseeing local public housing units and public money used for repairs and upgrades.

“The Authority oversees 190 public housing units: 90 state elderly units, 32 family units, eight special needs units, and 60 federal elderly units.”

The main findings were failure to follow prevailing wage requirements and unreliable ARRA reporting, especially around jobs reported and funds received.

“The Authority did not comply with the prevailing wage requirements of the ARRA grant, which includes the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) provision, or Chapter 149, Sections 26 through 27, of the General Laws, the Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Law (MPWL).”

The report says the wage issue will be sent to the Attorney General, and recommends the Authority talk with housing agencies about the noncompliance.

“This matter will be referred to the Office of the Attorney General for its review.”

The dollar amount was not huge by state standards, but the full $88,269 grant was spent, so the wage and reporting problems applied to real public funds already used.

“As of June 30, 2010, the Authority had expended the full amount of the grant.”

“Prevailing wage” means contractors on covered public projects must pay workers at least the wage rates set for similar local work, instead of whatever lower rate they might otherwise choose.

“The DBA requires all contractors and subcontractors performing work on federal contracts in excess of $2,000 to pay their laborers and mechanics not less than the prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits listed in the contract’s DBA wage determination for corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed on similar projects in the area.”