jurisdiction: US

text: b" U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development\n Office of Inspector General, Region VI\n 819 Taylor Street, Suite 13A09\n Fort Worth, Texas 76102\n\n (817) 978-9309 FAX (817) 978-9316\n http://www.hud.gov/offices/oig/\n OIG Fraud Hotline 1-800-347-3735\n\n MEMORANDUM NO:\nAugust 31, 2009 2009-FW-1802\n\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR: Katie S. Worsham\n Director, Office of Community Planning and Development, 6AD\n\n //signed//\nFROM: Gerald R. Kirkland\n Regional Inspector General for Audit, Fort Worth Region, 6AGA\n\nSUBJECT: The City of Fort Worth, Texas, Needs to Strengthen Its Capacity to Adequately\n Administer Recovery Funding\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\nThe City of Fort Worth (City) is scheduled to receive $10.85 million under the Housing and\nEconomic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of\n2009 (ARRA). These Acts require swift obligation and expenditure deadlines with stringent\nemphasis on accountability and transparency. As part of our organization\xe2\x80\x99s commitment to\nensure the proper use of these funds, we performed a review of the City\xe2\x80\x99s operations to evaluate\nits capacity to administer HERA and ARRA funding. Specifically, our objective was to review\nand assess the City\xe2\x80\x99s capacity and risks in the following areas: basic internal controls, financial\noperations, and procurement.\n\nWe provided a draft report to the City on July 28, 2009, and received written comments on\nAugust 11, 2009. We have included the comments and our evaluation of those comments in\nappendix B.\n\nFor each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and provide status\nreports in accordance with U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)\nHandbook 2000.06, REV-3. Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued\nbecause of the review.\n\n\n METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE\n\nOur review period was June 1, 2008, to May 31, 2009. Because the City continued to have\nseveral outstanding issues concerning previous HUD monitoring, financial, and action plan\nreviews, we expanded our review to include those matters. We conducted our review from\nMay 11 through August 5, 2009, at the City\xe2\x80\x99s Housing and Economic Development Department,\n\x0c908 Monroe Street; City Hall, 1000 Throckmorton Street; and a City Annex Office, 275 West\n13th Street, Fort Worth, Texas.\n\nTo accomplish our objective, we\n\n Reviewed and obtained an understanding of HERA and ARRA legislation, relevant\n program guidance and criteria, the City\xe2\x80\x99s grant agreements with HUD, and its planned\n activities under HERA and ARRA.\n Interviewed HUD and City management and staff regarding the City\xe2\x80\x99s operations.\n Analyzed and evaluated HUD and independent auditor correspondence to the City and\n the City\xe2\x80\x99s responses.\n Reviewed City financial records and procurement files including 15 contracts totaling\n more than $2.7 million. The City did not maintain an accurate contract log, thereby\n limiting our scope. We selected contracts based upon dollar value from existing HUD-\n funded City programs. While this was not a statistical sample, we expect it to be\n representative of the City\xe2\x80\x99s procurement for recent activities similar to HERA and ARRA\n contracts.\n Made site visits to four sidewalk sites and seven houses and took pictures for planned\n City activities under HERA and ARRA.\n Attended and viewed City presentations and council meetings.\n\n\n BACKGROUND\n\nThrough various programs, HUD provides the City with resources to address a wide range of\nunique community development needs. The City Council appoints a professional city manager\nto administer and coordinate municipal operations and programs. The City\xe2\x80\x99s annual action plan\nupdates the City\xe2\x80\x99s five-year consolidated plan and describes the activities budgeted under each of\nits programs. After a major reorganization in October 2008, the City\xe2\x80\x99s Housing and Economic\nDevelopment Departments merged and assumed responsibility for administering the City\xe2\x80\x99s HUD\ngrants.1 Longstanding managers who were previously responsible for HUD programs either\nresigned or were dismissed shortly after the reorganization.\n\nAfter reviewing the City\xe2\x80\x99s annual action plan, HUD approved the following City grants for\nprogram year 2008:2\n\n\n\n\n1\n Before the merger, the City\xe2\x80\x99s Housing Department administered HUD grants.\n2\n The City\xe2\x80\x99s program year runs from June 1 through May 31. Its fiscal year runs from October 1 through\n September 30.\n\n 2\n\x0c Program Amount\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Community Development Block Grant \xe2\x80\xa2 $ 6,614,078\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Emergency Shelter Grant \xe2\x80\xa2 293,257\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Home Investment Partnerships Program \xe2\x80\xa2 2,920,630\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS \xe2\x80\xa2 863,000\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Total \xe2\x80\xa2 $ 10,690,965\n\n\n\nIn addition to its annual 2008 funding, the City received $10.85 million in HERA and ARRA\nfunding allocations for three HUD programs:\n\n\n Program Amount\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2Neighborhood Stabilization Program (HERA funding) \xe2\x80\xa2 $ 6,307,433\n \xe2\x80\xa2Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program\n (ARRA funding) \xe2\x80\xa2 2,746,929\n \xe2\x80\xa2Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Grants \xe2\x80\xa2 1,796,412\n (ARRA funding)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 $10,850,774\n \xe2\x80\xa2Total\n\n\n\n\nMoreover, the City plans to apply for more than $6 million in additional ARRA funding under\nHUD\xe2\x80\x99s Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant and Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration\nGrant programs. The City must expend all of its HERA and ARRA funding within 18 to 36\nmonths after receiving it.\n\nUnder NSP, the City plans to establish a financing mechanism for the purchase and\nredevelopment of foreclosed homes and residential properties for low- and moderate-income\nhome buyers through its proposed down-payment assistance program. Two months into its\nNeighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), the City had expended $9,205 in administrative\ncosts with no funds expended on its plan activities. For its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid\nRe-Housing Program (HPRP), the City plans to use its funding for financial assistance and\nhousing relocation/stabilization services through eligible activities approved by HUD.3 The City\nplans to use its Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Grant (CDBG-R) funds to\nprovide sidewalk infrastructure in eligible census tracts/block groups.\n3\n HUD\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cNotice of Allocations, Application Procedures, and Requirements for Homelessness Prevention and\n Rapid Re-Housing Program Grantees under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,\xe2\x80\x9d dated\n March 19, 2009, details eligible program activities.\n\n\n 3\n\x0cDue to the City\xe2\x80\x99s history of unsatisfactory performance in the Community Development Block\nGrant and HOME Investment Partnerships programs, HUD considered the City \xe2\x80\x9chigh risk\xe2\x80\x9d and\nplaced special conditions on its approval of the City\xe2\x80\x99s $6.3 million NSP grant. HUD required the\nCity to submit documentation describing how past performance and audit issues had been\nresolved or were being resolved and explaining how those issues would not impact\nadministration of the City\xe2\x80\x99s NSP program. HUD also required the City to identify the steps it\nwould take to ensure that all NSP activities were eligible, that the program would comply with\nall applicable requirements and meet a national objective. Further, the City had to detail how its\nNSP activities would be monitored.\n\n\n RESULTS OF REVIEW\n\nThe City had a history of failing to meet regulatory requirements in an efficient or timely\nmanner. It acknowledged past problems and a lack of specific policies which it must address to\nrealize successful HERA and ARRA program outcomes. Further, data that the City used to\nmonitor its use of NSP funds contained inaccuracies. The City needs to improve its procurement\nactivities and undertake only prudent projects.\n\nThe City Had a History of Failing to Meet Regulatory Requirements\n\nWhen HUD attached special conditions to the City\xe2\x80\x99s NSP grant agreement, it specifically cited\nmonitoring review letters, dated April 23 and May 15, 2007. In total, the two monitoring\nreviews reported 32 findings and 16 concerns4 and substantial amounts of questioned costs.\nHUD\xe2\x80\x99s monitoring reviews identified serious deficiencies in the City\xe2\x80\x99s administration of its\naffordable housing programs. HUD opined that resolving these findings would require a\nsignificant commitment of staff and management resources and a change in the City\xe2\x80\x99s business\npractices. It encouraged the City to undertake these efforts in a manner that would have a lasting\nimpact on program operations. HUD provided the City with more than 10 letters responding to\nadditional information the City provided to address the findings. Several of the letters cited the\nCity\xe2\x80\x99s failure to provide a response to HUD or reimburse its programs. As of May 27, 2009, 15\nof the 32 findings remained open.\n\nIn addition to its monitoring review findings, HUD had recurring concerns regarding the City\xe2\x80\x99s\nfiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009 action plan submissions. HUD repeatedly warned the City that\nits failure to take corrective action would result in delayed funding approval. Despite this\nknowledge, HUD agreed to approve the fiscal year 2009 action plan if the City provided written\nassurances that it would make corrections and complete the citizen participation process. The\nCity met HUD\xe2\x80\x99s demand by providing written assurances by the required deadline.\n\nThe City\xe2\x80\x99s audited financial statements detailed multiple findings and deficiencies from 2004 to\n2007. Further, the audited financial statements were submitted late each of the last four years,\nranging from 16 to 22 months late for fiscal years 2004 to 2007. HUD issued management\ndecision letters, dated February 2 and April 13, 2009, to the City, along with required corrective\n4\n Some findings and concerns were repeated.\n\n 4\n\x0cactions for its fiscal years 2006 and 2007 audits, respectively. The letters detailed 8 findings, 16\nmaterial weaknesses, and 14 significant deficiencies identified in the City\xe2\x80\x99s single audit\nindependent auditor\xe2\x80\x99s reports. As with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s monitoring review findings, these audits had not\nbeen cleared. For example, the City's fiscal years 2006 and 2007 audits reported deficiencies in\nits computer access controls, including not removing terminated/transferred employees and\nformal security policies, procedures and standards not being updated by management. During\nthe review, we noted that the City still had not formally adopted its updated security policies and\nhad not removed from the City's computer system a terminated housing department employee\nand three transferred employees.\n\nMore than two years after being notified via monitoring review letters, the City had failed to\nsufficiently address HUD\xe2\x80\x99s concerns. The city manager said that he believed the City\xe2\x80\x99s troubles\nwith HUD were attributable to a different interpretation of requirements and communication\nissues. Because HUD continued to approve the City\xe2\x80\x99s action plans, he thought issues were being\naddressed. It is ultimately management\xe2\x80\x99s obligation to ensure that the City meets its fiduciary\nresponsibilities and is responsive to HUD\xe2\x80\x99s concerns. HUD should require that the City provide\ntimely and satisfactory responses to its correspondence and hold the City accountable for\nproviding inadequate and/or incomplete responses or its failure to respond.\n\nThe City Could Not Support the Accuracy of Its Data Used to Monitor Foreclosures\n\nData the City used to monitor monthly foreclosures in the seven zip codes that it chose to serve\nunder NSP was inaccurate. For NSP, HUD required the City to describe how its program would\nimpact areas of greatest need, including those with the greatest percentage of home foreclosures,\nwith the highest percentage of homes financed by a subprime mortgage-related loan, and\nidentified by the City as likely to face a significant rise in the rate of home foreclosures. The\nCity chose zip code boundaries as its method to select areas where the highest number and\nconcentration of foreclosures occurred during a one-year period. The City monitored the seven\nzip codes to ensure that it continued to meet its greatest need requirements.\n\nThe City provided seven months of detailed data5 that it used to monitor ongoing foreclosure\nactivity in the identified seven zip codes. Testing of data for two of the seven months revealed\nerrors. For example, the City failed to exclude foreclosed properties that should not have been\nincluded, such as vacant land or properties that were still occupied. Also, the City combined zip\ncode foreclosures when reporting the total foreclosure amount, causing an appearance of more\nforeclosures. The City did not review the data it obtained to verify whether the data were\naccurate. Consequently, the City could not assure itself or HUD that its use of NSP funds would\ncontinually be targeted to the areas of greatest need. HUD should require the City to effectively\nmonitor its program to ensure that it meets its greatest need requirements.\n\nThe City Did Not Follow Its Procurement Policies\n\nThe City did not follow its procurement policies for contracts similar to those it will enter into\nfor its HERA and ARRA programs. Review of 15 City contracts from a variety of programs\nconcluded that the City\xe2\x80\x99s contracts did not contain required contract causes and lacked\n5\n October 2008 through April 2009\n\n 5\n\x0cdocumentation for decisions made and that the City lacked a contract log for one of its programs.\nAlso, three contractors received more than 81 percent of the Area Lead Education Reduction\nTraining Program (ALERT) rotational contracts. Further, subcontractors did not comply with\nCity requirements, and the City lacked specific policies regarding subcontractor responsibilities\nand approval authority.\n\nThe City did not include the following contract clauses required by HUD regulations:\n\n Area lead education\n Emergency shelter grant Home improvement\n reduction training\n contracts program contracts\n program contracts\n \xe2\x80\xa2Administrative remedies \xe2\x80\xa2Administrative remedies \xe2\x80\xa2Anti-Kickback clauses\n for breach for breach \xe2\x80\xa2Contract work hours and\n \xe2\x80\xa2Termination for cause safety standards\n \xe2\x80\xa2Equal employment \xe2\x80\xa2Davis-Bacon Act (not\n opportunity provisions originally required but\n \xe2\x80\xa2Anti-Kickback Act currently required by\n \xe2\x80\xa2Davis-Bacon Act HUD for ARRA projects)\n \xe2\x80\xa2Contract work hours and\n safety standards act\n \xe2\x80\xa2Access and records\n retention\n \xe2\x80\xa2Mandatory standards\n and policies on energy\n efficiency\n\n\nStandard change order forms contained language stating that the change order was due to\nunforeseen circumstances but contained no specific explanation of the circumstances. Also,\nwhen the work exceeded the City\xe2\x80\x99s estimate, there was no documentation as to why the City\naccepted the price or whether it considered the validity of the price.\n\nThe City did not keep a contract log for all of its ALERT contracts, and in some instances, the\nemergency repair contract files only contained invoices and not contracts. In addition, for the\nhome improvement program contracts, the City did not document the reason for change orders.\nThe City must ensure that its contracts comply with HUD requirements and maintain sufficient\nsupport for contract decisions.\n\nContrary to the expectation, three of seven contractors received more than 81 percent of the\nALERT contracts. According to a City program manager, the contractors for the ALERT\ncontracts were to receive contracts on a rotational basis. The City could not provide an\nexplanation as to why this situation occurred.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0c Percentage of contracts received\n\n Contractor 1\n Contractor 6 3%\n 4%\n Contractor 5 Contractor 7\n Contractor 2\n 2% 10%\n 14%\n\n\n\n Contractor 4\n 30% Contractor 3\n 37%\n\n\n\n\nSubcontractors did not always follow City contract requirements. The City required\nsubcontractors to expend funds in accordance with its contract and prohibited increasing or\ndecreasing line-item amounts without the City\xe2\x80\x99s prior written approval. However, one\nsubcontractor agreed to only charge the City 30.5 percent of its water bill but, instead, charged\nthe City 90 percent. The subcontractor\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the misallocation was that it was\nrunning out of funds on another grant. Contracting officers said that they were not aware of any\nCity policy that detailed cost allocation requirements for the subcontracts. Their main concern\nwas ensuring that actual expenses did not exceed budgeted amounts. However, to manage\ncontracts properly, the City needs to ensure that expected accomplishments will not decrease as a\nresult of these increased costs.\n\nFurther, the City did not have a specific policy regarding approval authority for purchases of\ngoods and services. The City\xe2\x80\x99s request forms contained the following language: \xe2\x80\x9cDirector\xe2\x80\x99s\nsignature is only required on purchases greater than $8,500 and all HFC [sic] expenses.\xe2\x80\x9d While\nthe request forms required the approval of several officials, the forms lacked consistency\nregarding who was to sign. Most forms contained only one or two signatures; however, no forms\nreviewed that exceeded $8,500 contained the director\xe2\x80\x99s signature. The City\xe2\x80\x99s current director\nsaid that the former director required it, but he was not aware of any written policy covering the\nmatter. The City\xe2\x80\x99s procurement and financial policies did not address signature requirements.\nThe City needs to ensure consistency between policies and forms.\n\n 7\n\x0cPlanned Sidewalk Improvements Did Not Meet the Purpose of Modernizing the Nation\xe2\x80\x99s\nInfrastructure\n\nThe City planned to use its CDBG-R funds to provide sidewalk infrastructure in eligible census\ntracts/block groups. Of the four streets reviewed, only one appeared to meet the purpose of\nmodernizing the nation's infrastructure in a responsible, prudent manner. The one street had 17\nhouses fronting it, and the street ran perpendicular to a main street. The other streets reviewed\ndid not appear to be a prudent use of funds because of existing usable sidewalks or a significant\nnumber of vacant lots. In one instance, the City selected a side street which did not seem to have\na practical purpose such as flowing to a school, and streets with houses fronting them were not\nselected. Further, City officials gave conflicting explanations about how they selected the sites.\nManagers explained that the City relied on a study of traffic flow patterns to determine the\nselections. Conversely, a City planner stated that the sidewalks chosen were not evaluated under\na sidewalk study but ones not selected for reconstruction in the City\xe2\x80\x99s 2008 bond program. This\nCity planner explained that his department did not develop a prioritized, comprehensive citywide\nlist of sidewalks when the City asked. The City agreed to reconsider some of the proposed\nsidewalks and use the $17,920 on more prudent projects.\n\nConclusion\n\nHUD placed special conditions on the City\xe2\x80\x99s $6.3 million NSP funding due to its history of\nunsatisfactory performance in administering its programs. The City will receive more than $4.5\nmillion in HPRP and CDBG-R funding for additional programs. It is also planning to apply for\nmore than $6 million in Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant funding. Given the City\xe2\x80\x99s past\nperformance, this substantial influx of additional funding may prove difficult for it to administer.\nThe programs that the City plans to undertake will rely on management\xe2\x80\x99s ability to effectively\nmanage the resources entrusted to it and to keenly discern the City\xe2\x80\x99s needs. The City must\ncontinue to work with HUD to correct the past deficiencies noted in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s monitoring reviews\nand audit reports. It must improve its procurement practices, including implementing consistent\npolicies and oversight. HUD should continue its close monitoring of the City, including placing\nconditions on the City\xe2\x80\x99s HPRP and CDBG-R grants similar to those placed on the City\xe2\x80\x99s NSP\ngrant.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nWe recommend that the Director, Fort Worth Office of Community Planning and Development\n\n1A. Place special conditions on the City\xe2\x80\x99s HPRP and CDBG-R grants similar to those placed on\n the City\xe2\x80\x99s NSP grant requiring the correction of past deficiencies and plans to monitor the\n additional funding, thereby ensuring better use of more than $4.5 million.\n1B. Require the City to correct longstanding HUD and audit findings and timely submit audited\n financial statements.\n1C. Require the City to implement and follow procurement policies and procedures including\n maintaining an accurate contract log. Establish and implement procedures to monitor\n subcontractors.\n\n 8\n\x0c1D. Require the City to verify that it will serve the greatest needs with these funds.\n1E. Require the City to use CDBG-R funds only on prudent projects. By doing so, the City has\n already saved $17,920 in funds not used for imprudent projects.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c APPENDIXES\n\nAppendix A\n SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS\n AND FUNDS TO BE PUT TO BETTER USE\n\n\n Recommendation Unreasonable or Funds to be put to\n number unnecessary 1/ better use 2/\n\n 1A $4,543,341\n 1E $17,920\n\n\n\n\n1/ Unreasonable/unnecessary costs are those costs not generally recognized as ordinary, prudent, relevant, and/or\n necessary within established practices. Unreasonable costs exceed the costs that would be incurred by a prudent\n person in conducting a competitive business.\n\n2/ Recommendations that funds be put to better use are estimates of amounts that could be used more efficiently if\n an Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommendation is implemented. These amounts include reductions in\n outlays, deobligation of funds, withdrawal of interest, costs not incurred by implementing recommended\n improvements, avoidance of unnecessary expenditures noted in preaward reviews, and any other savings that\n are specifically identified. In this instance, the amount represents the amount of ARRA funds that will be better\n used by implementing the recommendations in this report.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0cAppendix B\n\n AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG\xe2\x80\x99S EVALUATION\n\n\nRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n August 11, 2009\n\n Mr. Gerald R. Kirkland\n Regional Inspector General\n U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development\n Office of Inspector General, Region VI\n 819 Taylor Street, Suite 13A09\n Fort Worth, Texas 76102\n\n\n SUBJECT: City of Fort Worth, Texas, Needs to Strengthen its Capacity to Adequately\n Administer Recovery Funding\n\n Dear Mr. Kirkland:\n\n This letter is in response to your draft memorandum dated July 28, 2009 regarding your\n office\xe2\x80\x99s review of the City of Fort Worth\xe2\x80\x99s operations to evaluate the capacity of the City to\n administer the funding received through HERA and the American Recovery and\n Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Enclosed please find responses to your findings and\n information on corrective actions taken to address concerns outlined in your review. The City\n of Fort Worth appreciates the professionalism exhibited by your staff and commends them for\n the orderly manner in which they conducted their review.\n\n The City Had a History of Failing to Meet Regulatory Requirements:\nComment 1\n The City acknowledges the existence of outstanding issues and previous deficiencies found by\n HUD in the administration of its grant-funded programs as well as former issues related to the\n timeliness of its annual audited financial statements. Over the past 2 years, and particularly in\n the most recent 12-month period, great strides have been made in correcting the deficiencies\n in these areas. Significant accomplishments have included completion of three\n Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports in a period of approximately 18 months, which has\n allowed the City to become current with its audit requirements. This enormous task involved\n the complete overhaul of the City\xe2\x80\x99s Financial Management Services Department and a huge\n increase in resources invested by the City to ensure fully compliant financial management and\n record-keeping for all funds, including federal grant funds. Additionally, the City has moved\n forward with clearing several of the findings outlined by HUD in past monitoring visits, has\n made repayment of a total of $558,698.41 for ineligible costs, and continues to work with the\n local HUD office to clear all remaining outstanding issues. The City has demonstrated in\n recent months its commitment to address all concerns completely and in a timely fashion,\n through the dedication and focus of senior management, ongoing changes in program\n management and constant communication with local HUD staff. Responsiveness to HUD\n concerns and compliance with HUD regulations are top priorities for the newly reorganized\n Housing and Economic Development Department.\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cComment 2 The City Could Not Support the Accuracy of Its Data Used to Support Its NSP Substantial\n Amendment\n The City acknowledges that there were inaccuracies in the raw data reviewed during the\n monitoring visit. It should be noted that the data report provided to auditors was an internal\n management tool put in place to monitor and evaluate monthly foreclosures on Fort Worth\n residential properties in order for program management to assure itself that the use of NSP\n funds continually targets the areas of greatest need as designated in the City\xe2\x80\x99s substantial\n amendment to its Consolidated Plan. The seven months of foreclosure activity provided to the\n OIG have been re-analyzed for accuracy. The results further validate that target zip codes in\n the substantial amendment are those continuing to experience the highest impact from single\n family residential foreclosures. The results of the re-analysis are provided in the chart below.\n Moving forward, the data will be reviewed to insure accuracy and used to monitor the extent\n of ongoing foreclosure occurrences. As seen below, the target areas actually represent a\n greater concentration of all foreclosure activity in Fort Worth following analysis of the\n corrected data, thereby confirming the city\xe2\x80\x99s original conclusion from its substantial\n amendment submission.\n\n Single-Family Residential Foreclosures 7 months 7 months\n Variance\n October 2008 through May 2009 Original Corrected\n # Residential Foreclosures in Fort Worth\n 6,025 5,756 - 269\n\n # Foreclosures in Target Zip Codes\n 2,723 2,726 +3\n Target area foreclosures as % of all Fort\n 45% 47% + 2%\n Worth SF residential foreclosures\n\nComment 3 The City Did Not Follow Its Procurement Policies\n The City acknowledges that contracts did not contain certain required contract clauses and\n that there have been inconsistencies in the documentation used to track decisions made on\n certain projects. The City has moved to include the required clauses outlined by the OIG in\n all contracts going forward. Additionally, the City has moved to address the documentation\n and procedural concerns outlined by the OIG related to contractors and procurement. The\n Housing & Economic Development Department along with the Financial Management\n Services Department are working to review existing practices and make changes as needed to\n address the outlined concerns.\nComment 4 Planned Sidewalk Improvements Did Not Meet the Purpose of Modernizing the Nation\xe2\x80\x99s\n Infrastructure\n The City is reviewing the overall list of sidewalks proposed to be addressed by CDBG-R\n funding to ensure that the improvements to be undertaken will meet all of the requirements of\n the CDBG-R funding The City will provide further detailed clarification on local procedures\n for ranking and prioritization of Capital Improvement Projects, which will demonstrate that\n selection of the designated locations meets all applicable regulatory requirements and the full\n intent of the ARRA statute.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0cComment 5 Conclusion\n Although the City of Fort Worth understands the basis for conclusions reached by the Office\n of Inspector General, demonstrated actions such as the full reorganization of both the\n Financial Management Services and Housing and Economic Development Departments, rapid\n repayment of identified ineligible costs, and consistent increased communication with HUD\n staff indicate that great strides are being made in addressing the issues outlined in the OIG\n memorandum. City staff continues to work diligently with local HUD staff to move forward\n in addressing the outstanding issues found in your report and in past HUD monitoring visits.\n The complete change in management in both the City\xe2\x80\x99s Financial Management Services and\n Housing & Economic Development Departments is but one clear sign that the City is serious\n in addressing these concerns. Consequently, based on the changes made by the City and the\n improvements already in place, the requirements outlined in the OIG recommendations are\n already being addressed and/or have been addressed. The City is confident that the changes\n and improvements outlined above along with the recent closing of most of the single audit\n findings, if taken into consideration, will increase optimism and confidence on the part of\n HUD officials in the City\xe2\x80\x99s ability to rectify all outstanding issues and successfully administer\n federal Recovery Act funding.\n The City of Fort Worth appreciates the time and professionalism of your staff. We look\n forward to receiving your final report so that we may move forward implementing our various\n federally funded programs. If you have any questions, please contact Jesus Chapa, Housing &\n Economic Development Director, at (817) 392-5804 or jesus.chapa@fortworthgov.org.\n Thank you.\n\n\n Jesus (Jay) Chapa\n Director, Housing and Economic Development Department\n\n cc: Tom Higgins, Assistant City Manager\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0c OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments\n\nComment 1 We acknowledge recent strides the City has made to address HUD\n concerns and compliance with regulations. We reported on the\n evidence reviewed and analyzed during our capacity review.\n\nComment 2 We modified this section of our memorandum. We appreciate the City\n implementing the recommendation.\n\nComment 3 We appreciate that the City is taking steps to implement the\n recommendation.\n\nComment 4 We appreciate that the City is taking steps to implement the\n recommendation.\n\nComment 5 We acknowledge recent strides the City has made to address issues\n addressed in the memorandum. We appreciate that the City is taking\n steps to implement the recommendations.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c"


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 24.9.2011
 EL
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 C 282/50
 Απόφαση του Δικαστηρίου Δημόσιας Διοίκησης της 5ης Ιουλίου 2011 — V κατά Κοινοβουλίου
 (Υπόθεση F-46/09) (1)
 (Υπαλληλική υπόθεση - Συμβασιούχος υπάλληλος - Όροι προσλήψεως - Υγεία - Ιατρική εξέταση πριν την πρόσληψη - Προστασία των φυσικών προσώπων από την επεξεργασία προσωπικών δεδομένων - Ιατρικό απόρρητο - Μεταβίβαση ιατρικών δεδομένων μεταξύ θεσμικών οργάνων - Δικαίωμα σεβασμού της ιδιωτικής ζωής)
 2011/C 282/92
 Γλώσσα διαδικασίας: η γαλλική
 Διάδικοι
 Προσφεύγουσα: V (Βρυξέλλες, Βέλγιο) (εκπρόσωποι: É. Boigelot και S. Woog, δικηγόροι)
 Καθού: Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο (εκπρόσωποι: K. Zejdová και S. Seyr)
 Παρεμβαίνων υπέρ της προσφεύγουσας: Ευρωπαίος Επόπτης Προστασίας Δεδομένων (εκπρόσωποι: M. V. Pérez Asinari και H. Kranenborg)
 Αντικείμενο
 Αφενός, αίτημα για ακύρωση της ιατρικής γνωμοδοτήσεως της 18ης Δεκεμβρίου 2008, περί μη πληρώσεως των απαιτούμενων για την πρόσληψη όρων υγείας, και, αφετέρου, αίτημα για ακύρωση της αποφάσεως περί ανακλήσεως της προτάσεως εργασίας προς την προσφεύγουσα.
 Διατακτικό
 Το Δικαστήριο Δημόσιας Διοίκησης αποφασίζει:
 1)
 Ακυρώνει την απόφαση της 19ης Δεκεμβρίου 2008, με την οποία το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο ανακάλεσε την πρότασή του εργασίας προς την V.
 2)
 Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο υποχρεούται να καταβάλει στη V το ποσό των 25 000 ευρώ.
 3)
 Η προσφυγή απορρίπτεται κατά τα λοιπά.
 4)
 Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο φέρει, εκτός των δικαστικών εξόδων του, και τα δικαστικά έξοδα της προσφεύγουσας.
 5)
 Ο Ευρωπαίος Επόπτης Προστασίας Δεδομένων φέρει, ως παρεμβαίνων, τα δικαστικά έξοδά του.
 (1) EE C 11 της 16.1.2010, σ. 40.