Natick Housing Authority
February 27, 2014 · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗
Published February 27, 2014 Audit covers October 1, 2009 – December 31, 2011 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023
source
“Based on our audit, we have concluded that, except for the issues addressed in the Detailed Audit Results and Findings section of this report, for the period October 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011, the Authority maintained adequate management controls and complied with applicable laws, rules, and regulations for the areas tested.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a state performance audit of the Natick Housing Authority covering October 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011.
“I am pleased to provide this performance audit of the Natick Housing Authority.”
The audit was requested by the housing authority's board and the state housing agency to look into the authority's financial problems and whether its recovery plan made sense.
“The purpose of our audit was to determine the factors that may have contributed to the Authority’s negative unrestricted net asset account balance (formerly known as the operating reserve) and determine whether its corrective action plan to improve its financial and operational position is feasible.”
Vacant public housing units meant people could not move in and the authority missed out on rent money that could support operations.
“Every day a unit is vacant is a day of rent lost.”
The biggest finding was that vacant units stayed empty far too long, costing the authority an estimated $438,013 in potential rent during the audit period.
“As a result, during our audit period, the Authority lost the opportunity to earn $438,013 of potential rental income, as shown in the following table:”
The auditor recommended that the authority fill units faster, submit accurate budgets, follow salary limits, and tighten payroll and attendance controls.
“The Authority should not pay overtime for less than 40 hours of work; it should not approve manually signed time cards; and it should strengthen internal controls over maintenance staff attendance.”
This was not a one-time issue: the authority had already been faulted in a prior audit for taking too long to refill empty units, and the problem was still unresolved.
“Our prior audit (No. 2010-0729-3A) of the Natick Housing Authority, which covered the period July 1, 2007 through September 30, 2009, found that the Authority’s average turnaround time for reoccupying units was 120 days.”
The report's term 'reoccupy vacancies' means getting empty apartments repaired, ready, and rented again as quickly as possible.
“One primary responsibility of your LHA is to reoccupy vacancies as fast as possible.”
1 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown
What the Auditor checked
- Partially Determine whether the Authority complied with applicable laws, rules, and regulations and whether its management controls and practices were adequate for the areas tested.
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: The Authority lost the opportunity to earn $438,013 of potential rental income.
Standard: DHCD Property Maintenance Guide, Chapter 1, which says housing authorities should prioritize fast reoccupancy of vacant units. ( DHCD Property Maintenance Guide, Chapter 1 )
1 recommendation
- The Authority should continue to ensure that the controls it has established for the refurbishing of its vacant units are followed so that these units can be reoccupied in accordance with DHCD guidelines.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "In early 2013, DHCD reactivated their vacant unit rehabilitation program, which had been offline for some time."
Why it matters: DHCD could not monitor whether amounts paid to Authority staff were appropriate.
Standard: 760 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 4.05 ( 760 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 4.05 )
1 recommendation
- The Authority should prepare, and submit to DHCD, budgets that accurately reflect each line item; adhere to DHCD’s budget guidelines; and do not exceed DHCD limits for salaries.agency: no response
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Authority management chose not to respond to this audit finding."
Why it matters: Maintenance personnel were paid more than required and may not have worked all hours for which they were paid.
Standard: Massachusetts Chapter 151 Minimum Fair Wage Law and Regulations and DHCD policy require overtime only after 40 hours worked. ( Chapter 151 of the Massachusetts General Laws—Minimum Fair Wage Law and Regulations )
1 recommendation
- The Authority should not pay overtime for less than 40 hours of work; it should not approve manually signed time cards; and it should strengthen internal controls over maintenance staff attendance.agency: already implemented
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The [Authority] pays maintenance staff a 37.5 hour weekly wage."
Verified dollar findings
Estimated or sample-projected amounts - shown separately because they are not a hard-identified dollar figure.
Prior findings revisited
"Our prior audit (No. 2010-0729-3A) of the Natick Housing Authority, which covered the period July 1, 2007 through September 30, 2009, found that the Authority’s average turnaround time for reoccupying units was 120 days."