AUDIT REPORT
Description
Performance Audit Report West Side Initiative Property Acquisition Costs and Relocation Expenses For Projects Completed as of May 15, 2001 January 2002 City of Baltimore Department of Audits DEPARTMENT OF AUDITS YOVONDA D. BROOKS, CPA CITY OF BALTIMORE City Auditor Room 321, City Hall MARTIN O’MALLEY, Mayor Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Telephone: (410) 396-4783 Telefax: (410) 545-3961 January 23, 2002 Honorable Joan M. Pratt, Comptroller And Other Members of the Board of Estimates City of Baltimore We conducted an audit of the property acquisition costs and relocation expenses for the West Side Initiative projects that were completed as of May 15, 2001. The purpose of our audit was to determine the methodology and procedures used to calculate the amounts paid for the acquisition of properties and the related relocation expenses, to evaluate whether the methodology and procedures were reasonable and consistently applied in accordance with management’s policies and applicable regulations/requirements, and to determine whether the reported acquisition costs and relocation expenses were supported by adequate documentation. As part of the West Side Initiative, the City established a policy to reimburse ...
Informations
| Publié par | Nethug |
| Nombre de lectures | 85 |
| Langue | English |
Extrait
Performance Audit Report
West Side Initiative
Property Acquisition Costs and Relocation Expenses
For Projects Completed as of May 15, 2001
January 2002
City of Baltimore
Department of Audits
DEPARTMENT OF AUDITS
YOVONDA D. BROOKS, CPA
City Auditor
Room 321, City Hall
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Telephone: (410) 396-4783
Telefax: (410) 545-3961
CITY OF BALTIMORE
MARTIN O’MALLEY, Mayor
January 23, 2002
Honorable Joan M. Pratt, Comptroller
And Other Members of the Board of Estimates
City of Baltimore
We conducted an audit of the property acquisition costs and relocation expenses for the West
Side Initiative projects that were completed as of May 15, 2001. The purpose of our audit was to
determine the methodology and procedures used to calculate the amounts paid for the acquisition
of properties and the related relocation expenses, to evaluate whether the methodology and
procedures were reasonable and consistently applied in accordance with management’s policies
and applicable regulations/requirements, and to determine whether the reported acquisition costs
and relocation expenses were supported by adequate documentation.
As part of the West Side Initiative, the City established a policy to reimburse displaced business
owners for inventory losses.
The net payments for claims of inventory losses totaled $2.4
million, or 72% of the total relocation expenses. Although federal funds were not used for
relocation expenses, the amounts paid to the displaced business owners were determined,
primarily, by following the federal guidelines for relocation assistance and real property
acquisitions, except for the claims of inventory losses. Payments for those claims were based on
the costs of the inventory as reported by the displaced business owners, minus the proceeds from
any sales. If federal guidelines had been followed, the payment for those claims could not have
exceeded the lower of the cost of the goods to the business or the estimated cost of moving the
items.
However, estimated costs for moving the inventories were not obtained and compared to
the reported inventory costs, and there were no assurances that the reported inventory amounts
represented the actual costs to the businesses. Consequently, we question the $2.4 million spent
to reimburse businesses for inventory losses. Although we could not quantify the amount of any
savings that the City may have realized if it had followed the federal guidelines, we believe the
savings would have been substantial.
For example, in one case, based upon available
information contained in the Department of Housing and Community Development’s Office of
Acquisition and Relocation (HCD) files, the City could have saved almost $120,000 if it
reimbursed one of the displaced business owners for the cost to move the inventory rather than
for the reported inventory amount. In another case, the claim for direct loss of tangible personal
property – inventory included $167,560 for pager customer accounts. We question whether
those accounts should have been considered as tangible personal property.
We also noted other areas that could be improved and question $80,000 for payments of
reestablishment expenses because the claims were based on estimates rather than on
documentation to support actual expenses incurred. We also question $27,114 as well as other
potential overpayments that could not be quantified because of the lack of documentation or the
inconsistent manner in which the claims were determined. In addition to the questioned costs
and potential overpayments that could not be quantified, we identified overpayments, totaling
$82,698.
We recommend that the City determine whether it is economically feasible to continue its policy
of reimbursing the displaced business owners for inventory losses. If the policy is continued, we
recommend that the City consider adopting the applicable federal guidelines, which we believe
will result in substantial savings. We also recommend that the payment for inventory losses be
made only for tangible personal property and that the City require adequate documentation, such
as paid invoices or bills that clearly identify the inventory items and the related costs, from the
displaced business owners to substantiate the costs of the inventory losses claimed.
We also recommend that:
•
The methodology and procedures used to determine the amounts paid to displaced
businesses be applied consistently.
•
HCD reevaluate the manner in which it calculates the amounts paid for the costs incurred
in attempting to sell items that will not be relocated.
•
HCD base the payments for reestablishment expenses on actual expenses incurred in
relocating and reestablishing businesses at replacement sites.
•
HCD require adequate documentation to support the claims for reestablishment expenses.
Respectfully submitted,
Yovonda D. Brooks, CPA
C
i
t
y
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background Information
3
Audit Scope, Objectives and Methodology
7
Findings and Recommendations
9
Reasonableness of Procedures for Determining Claim Amounts
The procedures for determining claim amounts to reimburse displaced
9
business owners for inventory losses resulted in higher costs to the
City than if federal guidelines had been followed. Estimated costs
for moving the inventories were not obtained and compared to the
reported inventory amounts, and there were no assurances that the
reported inventory amounts represented the actual costs to the
businesses.
Consistent Application of Methodology and Procedures
The methodology and procedures used to determine the amounts paid
11
to displaced businesses were not consistently applied.
Adequate Supporting Documentation
Claims paid for reestablishment expenses were not supported by invoices
14
for expenses actually incurred in relocating and reestablishing
businesses at replacement sites.
Exhibit I – Schedule of Acquisition Costs
15
Exhibit II – Schedule of Relocation Expenses
16
Response of The Baltimore Development Corporation and
Appendix I
The Department of Housing and Community Development
Auditor’s Comments on Response
Appendix I
Background Information
The West Side Initiative is a public and private partnership organized to renew the west side of
downtown Baltimore into a vibrant community that supports the continued growth of the
university and health institutions, the development of market rate housing units, the expansion of
cultural institutions, the restoration of the Hippodrome Theater, new parking garage spaces and
retail activity supported by new development. The overall area for the West Side Initiative is
bounded by Liberty Street, Preston Street, Martin Luther King Boulevard and Pratt Street.
Significant partners in the West Side Initiative include the University of Maryland and
University Health Systems, the Weinberg Foundation, the Greater Baltimore Committee, the
Maryland Stadium Authority, local and national developers, and existing businesses.
In May 1999, the Mayor and City Council approved amendments to the Market Center Urban
Renewal Plan giving the City the authority to acquire and assemble certain properties for
redevelopment. As of May 15, 2001, the City spent approximately $19.8 million for the West
Side Initiative ($16.5 million to acquire 30 properties and $3.3 million to compensate 32
displaced businesses occupying those properties).
Funding Sources For The West Side Initiative
Funding for the West Side Initiative consisted of $6,915,880 from City Economic
Development/General Obligation Bonds, $6,000,000 from Industrial Revenue Bonds, $3,194,000
from Parking Revenue Funds, $3,571,534 from Federal National Mortgage Association Loan
Funds, and $136,540 from Community Development Finance Corporation Loan Funds.
According to the Baltimore Development Corporation (BDC), federal funds were not used for
the West Side Initiative acquisition costs and relocation expenses.
Methodology Used to Determine Claim Amounts
BDC is the coordinator between the City and the property owners and displaced businesses for
the West Side Initiative. The primary costs incurred for compensating displaced property owners
and businesses consist of costs to acquire properties and costs to relocate displaced businesses.
METROVENTURES/USA, Inc. (METROVENTURES), through a contract with BDC, provides
comprehensive services for the acquisition of real property. The Department of Housing and
Community Development’s Office of Acquisition and Relocation (HCD) administers the
relocation of displaced businesses occupying the acquired buildings. Although federal funds
were not used for acquisition costs and relocation expenses, the amounts paid to the displaced
property owners and businesses were determined, primarily, by following the guidelines
provided in Part 24 –
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition For Federal
and Federally Assisted Programs
(rules to implement the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970)
.
BDC believed that the application of federal
guidelines would enhance uniformity in the acquisition and relocation process.
3
Real Property Acquisition Costs
According to federal guidelines, the amount offered to acquire property from displaced owners
cannot be less than the approved appraisal of the fair market value of the property, taking into
account the value of allowable damages or benefits to any remaining property. BDC obtains two
appraisals for each property to be acquired. METROVENTURES and the City’s Department of
Real Estate review the appraisals. After the reviews and the resolution of any questions that may
have arisen, the City offers an amount to the property owner, based on the higher of the two
appraisals. The property owner is given an opportunity to review the offer, present material
relevant to determining the value of the property and to suggest modification in the proposed
terms and conditions of the purchase. Property owners may also obtain their own appraisals.
If the information presented by the owner or a material change in the character or condition of
the property indicates the need for new appraisal information, or if a significant delay has
occurred
since
the
original
appraisal
date,
BDC
obtains
an
updated
appraisal.
METROVENTURES and the Department of Real Estate review the material presented by the
property owner as well as any updated appraisals and, if warranted, the City submits an updated
offer to the property owner. The City and the property owner attempt to negotiate a purchase
price. The negotiated purchase price may exceed the appraisal amount when it is determined to
be reasonable, prudent, and in the public’s interest.
If the property owner does not accept the amount offered, the City begins the condemnation
process and deposits funds (based on the most current, highest appraisal amount) with the Circuit
Court of Baltimore City. The amount offered by the City is subject to negotiations until the
condemnation process is finalized.
If a purchase price is not agreed upon before final
condemnation, the City is bound by the final determination of the value of the property
established at the condemnation proceedings.
Relocation Expenses
According to federal guidelines, displaced businesses are entitled to payments for reasonable and
necessary actual moving and related expenses. The reimbursement may be limited to the amount
required to accomplish the objective of the payment by the least costly method that does not
cause undue hardship. Claims for relocation payments shall be supported by documentation to
support expenses incurred, such as invoices, certified prices, appraisals, or other evidence.
Moving Expenses
HCD requires displaced businesses choosing to use a commercial mover to obtain three bids or
estimates for the move. The displaced business owner is paid the amount of the lowest bid. If a
displaced business owner elects to take full responsibility for the move (self-move), the owner
may be paid an amount for moving expenses not to exceed the lower of two acceptable bids or
estimates obtained by HCD or prepared by qualified staff.
Payment for a low-cost or
uncomplicated move may be based on a single bid or estimate. HCD pays the displaced business
owners electing a self-move 80% of the low bid amount. According to HCD, the 20% reduction
is to eliminate profit and overhead included in the bids of the commercial movers.
4
Actual Direct Loss of Tangible Personal Property
According to federal guidelines, the payment for actual direct loss of tangible personal property
incurred as a result of moving or discontinuing the business shall be the lesser of:
a) The fair market value of the item for continued use at the displacement site, less the
proceeds from its sale. (To be eligible for payment, the claimant must make a good faith
effort to sell the personal property, unless it is determined that such effort is not
necessary.) Payment for the loss of goods held for sale shall not exceed the cost of the
goods to the business; or
b) The estimated cost of moving the item, but with no allowance for storage. If the business
is discontinued, the estimated cost shall be based on a moving distance of 50 miles.
HCD obtains appraisals for the value of tangible personal property (furniture, fixtures and
equipment). The appraised value is based on the continued use of the items at the displacement
site. HCD also obtains two bids for moving the personal property and selects the lower amount.
HCD compares the appraised value for personal property to the lower of the two cost estimates
for moving those items and pays the business owner the lower of those two amounts.
Comparisons of appraised values and estimated moving costs are made on an individual basis for
each item valued at more than $500.
The payment amounts for the loss of goods held for sale (inventory) are determined by using the
costs of the inventory as reported by the displaced business owner minus the proceeds from any
sales.
Other Moving and Related Expenses
Other allowable moving and related expenses include the following:
a) Storage of personal property for a period not to exceed 12 months.
b) Insurance for the replacement value of the personal property in connection with the move
and necessary storage.
c) The replacement value of property lost, stolen, or damaged in the process of moving.
d) Re-lettering signs and replacing stationery on hand.
e) The reasonable cost incurred in attempting to sell an item that is not to be relocated.
f) Searching for a replacement location (not to exceed $1,000).
g) Other moving and related expenses not listed in the federal guidelines as ineligible.
5
Reestablishment Expenses
In addition to payments for the relocation expenses described above, a small business (defined as
a business not having more than 500 employees working at the site being acquired or displaced)
is entitled to receive a payment, not to exceed $10,000, for expenses actually incurred in
relocating and reestablishing the business at a replacement site. Reestablishment expenses must
be reasonable and necessary and may include the following:
a) Repairs or improvements to the replacement real property as required by federal, state or
local law, code or ordinance.
b) Modifications to the replacement property to accommodate the business operation or
make replacement structures suitable for conducting business.
c) Construction and installation costs for exterior signing to advertise the business.
d) Redecoration or replacement of soiled or worn surfaces at the replacement site, such as
paint, paneling, or carpeting.
e) Feasibility surveys, soil testing and marketing studies.
f) Advertisement of replacement location.
g) Estimated increased costs of operation during the first two years at the replacement site
for such items as lease or rental charges, personal or real property taxes, insurance
premiums, and utility charges.
h) Other items considered essential to the reestablishment of the business.
Fixed Payment for Moving Expenses
A displaced business owner may be eligible to choose a fixed payment in lieu of the payments
for actual moving and related expenses, and actual reasonable reestablishment expenses. The
amount of the payment is equal to the average annual net earnings of the business for the
preceding two years, with a minimum amount of $1,000 and a maximum amount of $20,000.
Schedules of Property Acquisitions and Relocation Expenses
Exhibit I - Schedule of Property Acquisitions
The paid amount for properties listed as purchased represents the negotiated purchase prices paid
to the property owner. The paid amount for properties listed as condemnations represents the
amounts deposited with the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, awaiting condemnation hearings.
The amount deposited is based on the most current, highest adjusted appraisal. The purchase
price offered by the City is subject to negotiations until the condemnation process is finalized. If
a purchase price is not agreed upon before final condemnation, the City is bound by the final
determination of the value of the property established at the condemnation proceedings.
6
In addition to the properties included on Exhibit I, the Board of Estimates approved a Land
Disposition Agreement in which the City acquired 226-232 West Lexington Street (the Stewart’s
Building) for $1,500,000 and immediately conveyed the property to the developer (Harry and
Jeanette Weinberg Foundation) for the same amount. The Board of Estimates also approved the
payment of relocation expenses for existing tenants of the building.
Exhibit II - Schedule of Relocation Expenses
The amounts for direct losses of tangible personal property (personal property and inventory)
represent the net claims paid to the businesses. The net claim paid for personal property losses
represents the lesser of the appraised value of the items for continued use at the displacement
site, minus any proceeds from its sale, plus the cost of the sale (auctioneer and advertising
expenses) or the estimated cost to move the items. The net claim paid for inventory losses
represents the cost of the inventory as reported by the business owner, minus any proceeds from
its sale, plus the cost of the sale. Approximately $3 million, or 89%, of the $3.3 million of
relocation expenses shown on Exhibit II were for claims of direct losses of tangible personal
property. In addition to the amounts shown on Exhibit II, the City paid more than $25,000
directly to vendors for moving estimates and appraisals.
AUDIT SCOPE, OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
We conducted an audit of the property acquisition costs and relocation expenses for the West
Side Initiative projects that were completed as of May 15, 2001. Our audit was conducted in
accordance with generally accepted
Government Auditing Standards
related to performance
audits, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and, accordingly, included such
tests of the records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances.
The objectives of our audit were to determine the methodology and procedures used to calculate
the amounts paid for the acquisition of properties and the related relocation expenses, to evaluate
whether the methodology and procedures were reasonable and consistently applied in accordance
with management’s policies and applicable regulations/requirements, and to determine whether
the reported acquisition costs and relocation expenses were supported by adequate
documentation.
To accomplish our objectives, we obtained schedules of the acquisition costs and relocation
expenses for the West Side Initiative.
We spoke with various personnel from HCD, the
Department of Law and the Department of Real Estate, as well as the BDC and
METROVENTURES to obtain an understanding of the methodology and procedures used to
determine the amounts paid for acquisition costs and relocation expenses. Additionally, we
reviewed applicable forms, documents and reports used to account for the property acquisition
costs and relocation expenses.
We also performed various tests to determine whether the
acquisition costs and relocation expenses were supported by adequate documentation, such as
appraisals, certified prices, paid invoices and bills, or other evidence.
7
Our audit findings and recommendations are detailed in the Findings and Recommendations
section of this report.
The joint response of BDC and HCD to our findings and
recommendations and an outline of the acquisition and relocation process that will be followed
are included as an appendix to this report.
8
Findings and Recommendations
Reasonableness of Procedures for Determining Claim Amounts
Background
According to federal guidelines, reimbursements for relocation expenses may be limited to the
amount required to accomplish the objective of the payment by the least costly method that does
not cause undue hardship. The payment for the loss of goods held for sale (inventory) shall not
exceed the cost of the goods to the business or the estimated cost of moving the items. If the
business is discontinued, the estimated cost shall be based on a moving distance of 50 miles.
The most significant portion of the relocation expenses ($2.4 million, or 72% of the total
relocation expenses) represents payments for claims of inventory losses. Although federal funds
were not used for acquisition costs and relocation expenses, the amounts paid to the displaced
property owners and businesses were determined, primarily, by following the federal guidelines
for relocation assistance and property acquisitions, except for claims of inventory losses.
Payments for claims of inventory losses were based on the cost of the inventory as reported by
the business owner, minus the proceeds from any sales of those items, plus the cost of those
sales.
Finding #1
The procedures for determining claim amounts to reimburse displaced business owners for
inventory losses resulted in higher costs to the City than if federal guidelines had been
followed. Estimated costs for moving the inventories were not obtained and compared to
the reported inventory amounts, and there were no assurances that the reported inventory
amounts represented the actual costs to the businesses.
Analysis
The procedures for determining claim amounts to reimburse displaced business owners for
inventory losses resulted in higher costs to the City than if federal guidelines had been followed.
Estimated costs for moving the inventories were not obtained and compared to the reported
inventory amounts, and there were no assurances that the reported inventory amounts
represented the actual costs to the businesses. We believe that the use of federal guidelines that
require claims to be paid based upon the lesser of the cost of the inventory or the estimated
moving cost would have resulted in substantial savings to the City. For example, the estimated
cost for moving the personal property of a shoe store from 201 N. Howard Street to 237 N.
Howard Street was $29,750. Although an estimate for moving the inventory was not obtained
and compared to the reported cost of the inventory, correspondence in HCD’s files refers to a
moving estimate that was reduced to $20,750 (a reduction of $9,000) because the business owner
chose to sell the inventory rather than have it moved. The business owner reported an inventory
cost of $143,926 for 6,956 pairs of shoes. The entire inventory was sold at auction for $15,840.
Therefore, instead of reimbursing the business owner $9,000 to move the inventory, the City
paid $128,086, or $119,086 more, to compensate the business owner for the difference between
the reported inventory cost and the proceeds from sales ($143,926 less $15,840).
9
© 2010-2024 YouScribe