ShareThis Page
City housing authority says answers coming soon |

City housing authority says answers coming soon

The Pittsburgh Housing Authority is developing a more detailed response to a federal audit released in May that questioned more than $8 million of agency spending.

‘We’re putting together a more intense reply to the Inspector General’s report,’ said Moe Coleman, chairman of the authority’s board of directors.

The authority hopes its upcoming response will clear up the problems cited by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General and prevent the agency from having to repay the money.

‘We’re still confident we’re going to be able to address the federal deficiencies in the audit and get it to a zero figure,’ said Keith Kinard, acting executive director of the authority.

The HUD audit of 1998-99 records said the housing authority had misspent $1.4 million and could not explain how it spent another $6.7 million. The authority must resolve the issue with the Inspector General’s office this summer or repay $8.1 million.

The audit revealed the authority authorized $8.9 million in changes to 86 contracts, raising the total cost paid by the authority from $5.1 million to $14 million.

In one contract, the authority awarded work to Tony Baiano Construction Co. Inc. for $291,000, but then approved additional payments for $1.25 million, according to federal records. Company officials did not return calls seeking comment Monday.

The criminal-investigations wing of the Inspector General’s office had already been looking into potential wrongdoing at the housing authority in May. The status of that investigation is not known.

Housing authority officials have disputed some of the audit’s findings, saying most of the problems resulted from clerical and procedural errors. The authority issued a response May 2, contesting the audit’s conclusions and offering various explanations.

Coleman said the authority’s new response would be more detailed than the seven-page letter sent May 2. He also said the response would be made public after it is sent to the auditors.

The authority’s finance department is working on a response, which will be reviewed by HUD’s Pittsburgh office to determine if it’s adequate, according to Kinard.

Then, a formal response will be sent to the Inspector General’s Philadelphia office, he said.

‘This is the process that occurs,’ he said.

Jim Ritchie can be reached at [email protected] or (412) 320-7933.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.