internal control review of the community development division (city of deerfield beach)

45 Rockefeller Plaza, Suite 2000, New York, NY 10111-2000Phone: (212) 286-9100 | Fax: (212) 730-2433 | www.investigation.com

City of Deerfield BeachInternal Control Review

of theCommunity Development

Division

Prepared For

Mr. Burgess Hanson, City ManagerCity of Deerfield Beach

150 NE 2nd AvenueDeerfield Beach, FL 33441

April 19, 2010

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 3

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 4

INTERNAL CONTROLS REVIEW – SCOPE, OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ........................................... 7

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED......................................................................................................................... 8

PROGRAMS REVIEWED ......................................................................................................................... 13

GENERAL FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 22

REVIEW/ANALYSIS OF CASES ................................................................................................................ 29

Michael and Pamela Weiss ............................................................................................................... 29

Martha Rose Lawson ........................................................................................................................ 33

Dawn Burke Rolle ............................................................................................................................. 37

Rolex and Anne Jean-Baptiste .......................................................................................................... 40

Stephanie Thomas ............................................................................................................................ 47

Viola Smith ....................................................................................................................................... 51

Albert & Lorna Gordon ..................................................................................................................... 59

Nicole Ingram ................................................................................................................................... 62

Nahin & Krystal Martinez.................................................................................................................. 64

Shanell Miller.................................................................................................................................... 67

Linnie Pinkney and Cynthia Thomas ................................................................................................. 70

Barry and Natasha Baker .................................................................................................................. 76

Andy Douglas & Kenneth Sherriff ..................................................................................................... 78

Melvin V. Walker .............................................................................................................................. 82

Ed Walker ......................................................................................................................................... 87

Angela Storr...................................................................................................................................... 90

2

Clay Lee Stanley ................................................................................................................................ 92

Henry H. Hall, II and Nora B. Hall ...................................................................................................... 94

Carolyn Moore.................................................................................................................................. 97

Anthony and Margaret Davis ............................................................................................................ 99

Wayne A. Adams ............................................................................................................................ 108

Darrel Adams .................................................................................................................................. 109

REVIEW/ANALYSIS OF GRANTS........................................................................................................... 111

Church of Brotherly Love King’s Table Corp. ................................................................................... 111

Choices Network Systems, Inc. ....................................................................................................... 118

Centro Cristiano 1 Juan 4:8 ............................................................................................................. 120

Emmanuel Human Services, Inc. f/k/a ............................................................................................ 123

Haitian American Consortium, Inc. ................................................................................................. 127

Elelift, LLC ....................................................................................................................................... 137

Westside Deerfield Businessmen Association, Inc. ......................................................................... 142

Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc............................................................................................ 161

NE Focal Point Casa, Inc. ................................................................................................................. 166

Steppingstone Key Initiave & Social Development Services, Inc. .................................................... 167

Senior Volunteer Services, Inc. ....................................................................................................... 168

INDEX ................................................................................................................................................. 169

3

BACKGROUND

Kessler International (“Kessler”) was retained by the City of Deerfield Beach (“City”) to conduct

an internal controls review of the programs and activities of the Community Development

Division (“CDD”) to determine weaknesses and non adherence to policies as well as to

document other items that might be considered fraudulent in nature.

The City, through the CDD administers grants and loans made to individuals and non-profit

corporations from Federal, State and City funds. Among the programs administered by the CDD

are programs to provide rehabilitation repairs to low income individuals, provide first time

homebuyer’s assistance and provide barrier removal for the elderly, handicapped and disabled

residents of Deerfield Beach.

Kessler’s objective was to conduct a review of a sampling of case files to verify that the process

of application and awarding of grants and loans to the applicants were in compliance with

guidelines.

4

INTRODUCTION

Kessler’s limited internal controls review of the CDD has disclosed significant internal control

breaches as well as suspected fraud regarding the oversight responsibility by certain city staff

and sub-recipients entrusted to administer City, County, State and Federal funding.

This failure and disregard of regulations and requirements as set forth in contracts and policies

governing the Department of Planning & Growth Management’s CDD has resulted in findings

that are at the very least worrisome and others indicative of illegal activity. These findings are

detailed in this report.

The Kessler internal controls review also disclosed favoritism towards certain recipients and

other individuals including relatives of City staff, which in some cases the actions of those

involved appear to be fraudulent. The entire process of awarding funds to deserving individuals

should have been administered in a documented, precise, calculated and unbiased manner but

what was revealed during this audit was that this was clearly not the case.

In fact this review only touched upon certain aspects of an extremely limited number of

programs involved in the awarding and distribution of funding by the City. It is strongly

suggested that other areas be audited and that in the future an internal control review, similar to

Kessler’s be contemplated on a yearly basis.

Kessler’s audit also disclosed concerns about the methodology and selection of contractors, the

altering of work specifications prepared by paid contractors to the City and the ultimate awarding

of bids and the issuance of change orders by CDD and proxies handled outside the purview of

the City’s purchasing department. Kessler’s review also revealed a complete lack of adequate

documentation for many of the non-profit sub-recipients.

5

Kessler also found that CDD’s supervising personnel either did not have adequate understanding

of red flags of fraud or simply turned a blind eye and approved expenditures that were

fraudulent. It was simply astounding to read the blog published by investigative journalist and

community activist Chaz Stevens, where he was able to secure information through the Sunshine

Law and was able to ferret out and identify fraud, when others closely connected with the day to

day process failed to see the devil in the details.

Based upon the findings obtained during this audit and reported in The Kessler Report it is

recommended that the City contemplate additional forensic audits of areas involving

disbursements of sizeable funds from the City’s general fund. Of significant concern based upon

information developed during the current audit would be grants issued to the various street

festivals, one of which was managed by a former Parks and Recreation Department employee.

Furthermore, during the course of this audit, Kessler identified an entity known as Deerfield

Beach Affordable Housing Corporation, a non-profit corporation sharing space with four of the

entities that were reviewed by Kessler during this engagement. Kessler could not locate any IRS

990’s tax returns filed by this entity.

It is also suggested that the City consider implementing a stronger Anti-Fraud and Code of

Ethics Policy and that a program be established to teach personnel the red flags of fraud and an

ethics training program be required for City workers. Finally a fraud and mismanagement

reporting system should be established similar to Kessler’s Fraudbusters® Tip reporting service

so that employees can anonymously report instances of fraud and mismanagement.

Kessler recommends that this Kessler Report be referred to United States Attorney, Florida

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Inspector General and

IRS Criminal Investigation Division so that the findings in this report can be further investigated

and if criminal acts are proven, the individuals responsible can be brought to justice.

The illustrations disclosed in The Kessler Report have highlighted the actions of a few City

employees. These employees actions taint other City staff, many of which are dedicated hard

6

working employees. These few have served to damage the public’s confidence and trust in the

City.

The statements made in The Kessler Report that managerial practices need improvement, as well

as other conclusions and recommendations represent the opinions of Kessler International.

Determinations of corrective action to be taken must be made by appropriate City Officials.

7

INTERNAL CONTROLS REVIEW – SCOPE, OBJECTIVES AND

METHODOLOGY

Kessler’s internal controls review included a review of the State and Federal guidelines

applicable to the distribution of grant and loan funds as administered by the CDD. The review

also encompassed a sampling of case files as well as areas of concern as identified by employees

of the City. Also examined were an extensive number of other files and documents.

Kessler conducted interviews and had discussions with employees of the CDD, the Purchasing

Department, key individuals who were spokespeople for the sub-recipients of certain grants, the

Acting City Manager, the City Attorney and employees within other City agencies. Kessler also

contacted and spoke with vendors, contractors, state and federal agencies as well as citizens who

wished to provide information about wrongdoing in the City.

The case files reviewed included cases from the following programs:

• Community Block Development Grant (“CBDG”) Program

• Disaster Recover Initiative (“DRI”) Program

• HOME Program

• State Housing Initiatives Partnership (“SHIP”) Program

• Westside Deerfield Businessmen Association, Inc. (“WDBA”) appointed as the

Community Housing Development Organization (“CHDO”) for the City of Deerfield

Beach

Additionally, Kessler requested and reviewed financial documents and other information

provided upon Kessler’s request of certain non-profit entities that were the recipients of the

grants.

8

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

• Local Housing Assistance Plan Fiscal Year 2004/05, 2005/06, 2006/07

• Local Housing Assistance Plan Fiscal Year 2007/08, 2008/09, 2009/10

• Consolidated Plan for the Community Development Block (CDBG) Grant Fiscal Years

2005 – 2009

• Standard Operating Procedures for City of Deerfield Beach Community Development

Division

• City of Deerfield Beach Procurement Ordinance Section 38-126 + 38-127

• Community Development Division Minor Home Repair Program Post-Application

Approval Process

• City of Deerfield Beach Policies Governing Department of Planning & Growth

Management Community Development Division (Housing Rehabilitation, Housing

Replacement and Purchase Assistance)

• SHIP & CDBG First Time Homebuyer Purchase Assistance Application

• Housing Repair Program Application

• Lien Subordination Policy

• Regular City Commission Meetings

• Advertisements placed by the Community Development Division

• General Ledger Accounts from City for FY 2005 through 2009

• City of Deerfield Beach Employment Process

• Community Development Division personnel Employee’s Notice of Outside

Employment

• Resolutions for FY 2005 through 2009

• Rehabilitation Waiting List

• First Time Homebuyers Waiting List

• Public Notices

• 2009 First Time Homebuyer Mailing List

9

• Emmanuel Human Services, Inc. f/k/a Gold Coast Impact Community Development, Inc.

o IRS form 990 for Gold Coast Impact Community Development, Inc. (2005 –

2007)

o IRS form 990 for Emmanuel Human Services, Inc. (2008 – 2007)

o Taxpayer ID number / not for profit status / State of Incorporation

o IRS form 1099’s (received 2006 – 2008)

o 2005 to present General Ledger / Check Register

o Copies of all invoices

• NE Focal Point Casa, Inc.


o Copies of invoices

o Copies of contracts

o Copies of correspondence with The Community Development Division

• Westside Deerfield Businessmen Association, Inc.

o IRS form W-2 for Dan E. Poitier (2006 – 2008)

o IRS form 990 for years 2005 through 2008

o IRS form 941 for 2007 through 2009

• Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (Fiscal Year 2005, 2006, 2007 and

2008) submitted by Community Development Division

• Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block (CDBG) Grant Program (Fiscal

Year 2006, 2007 and 2008) prepared by Planning and Growth Management Department,

Grant Administration Division

• List of City of Deerfield Beach City Employees

• New Hire Report (January 1, 2001 through March 9, 2010)

• Termination Report (January 1, 2001 through March 9, 2010)

• List of City Employees who received awards

• Clients assisted in Fiscal Year 2005

• Color Samples

• Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act

• Application submitted by Count & Countess deHoernle Alzheimer’s Pavilion (Music

Therapy Grant)

10

• Davis Bacon Act

• Funds Approval Notice Letter

• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Minimum Quality Standards

• Code of Federal Regulations 24 CFR 92.212 – Pre-award Costs

• List of Pre-Qualified Contractors

• Bid #2003-04/09 (Contractor maximum current award contracts is 4)

• Bid #2007-08/15 (Contractor maximum current award contracts is 3)

• Sylvia Poitier’s Form 8B, Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County, Municipal, and

other Local Public Officers

• Various Case Files for First Time Homebuyers and Minor Home Repair

• Various Case Files for Grant Recipients

• William La’Marr Ruffin Contract dated January 13, 2009

• Resolution Number 2007/003 approval of $54,130 for Housing and Assistive

Technology, Inc. for Architectural Barrier Removal (Marilyn Webster, Donata Santorelli

and Anthony Davis)

Items that were requested by Kessler but were not produced:

• List of all recipients, including name, address, amount of assistance, type of assistance

and which fund the assistance derived from

• Choices Network System, Inc.


o IRS form 1099’s

o IRS form W-2’s

o IRS form 941’s

o IRS form 990’s

o 2005 to present checking account statements and cancelled checks


o QuickBooks Files



o Copies of petty cash receipts

11


• Church of Brotherly Love King’s Table Corporation


o IRS form 1099’s

o IRS form W-2’s

o IRS form 941’s

o IRS form 990’s

o 2005 to present all checking account statements and cancelled checks


o QuickBooks Files





o Copies of accounting reports and insurance policies

• Emmanuel Human Services, Inc. f/k/a Gold Coast Impact Community Development, Inc.

o IRS form 1099’s (missing 2005 and 2009)

o IRS form W-2’s

o IRS form 941’s

o 2005 to present all checking account statements and cancelled checks

o QuickBooks Files





• Haitian American Consortium, Inc.

o IRS form 1099’s (2009 received)

o IRS form W-2’s

o IRS form 941’s

o IRS form 990’s (2009 received)


12

o QuickBooks Files



• NE Focal Point Casa, Inc.

o IRS form 1099’s (missing 2005 through 2008)

o IRS form W-2’s

o IRS form 941’s

o IRS form 990’s (missing 2009)

o 2005 to present all checking account statements and cancelled checks (missing

January 1, 2005 through July 31, 2005)


o QuickBooks Files

o Copies of all petty cash receipts


• Westside Deerfield Businessmen Association, Inc.

o Any and all accounting reports and insurance policies

o IRS form 1099’s

o IRS form W-2’s (missing 2005 and 2009)

o IRS form 941’s (missing 2005 and 2006)

o IRS form 990’s (missing 2009)

o 2005 to present all checking account statements and cancelled checks (missing

XXXX6080 January 1, 2005 through April 31, 2005)

o 2005 to present General Ledger / Check Register (received 2005 through 2008

General Ledger)

o QuickBooks Files





13

PROGRAMS REVIEWED

The City of Deerfield Beach website describes the purpose of the CDD as follows:

“The Community Development Division is responsible for all phases of the grants

process, including the preparation of state and federal grants, administering grant

programs, and providing information to City officials and the citizens of Deerfield Beach.

The Community Development Division staff acts as project manager to implement and

monitor the projects and organizations receiving grant funds from the City. We hold

forums with our business partners, present workshops on home-buying and finances, send

students to vocational school, and assist public service organizations in helping our

youth.

Organized under Planning and Growth Management, the office acts as the City’s

Community Development arm. It is designed to collaborate with the Planning

Department on neighborhood issues and capital infrastructure improvement projects

receiving grant funds.”

Kessler’s internal controls review encompassed a comprehensive review of the programs

administered by the CDD including:

State Housing Initiatives Partnership’s (“SHIP”) Program

Kessler compared the requirements of the SHIP Program as stated by the City in the Local

Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) with the requirements of the State of Florida for the SHIP

Program and have found many discrepancies in our cursory review of these documents. The

City does not provide in the application, “A statement that it is a first degree misdemeanor to

falsify information for the purpose of obtaining assistance.”

Additionally the SHIP Program requires that an applicant submit a Federal Income Tax Return to

verify the number of legal dependants, income from interest, dividends and partnerships. Kessler

has found that only a few cases contain copies of the Federal Tax Returns. This is a serious

14

weakness of the program and allows the applicant to easily modify their income to receive

assistance.

The SHIP Local Housing Assistance (SHIP) Plan for fiscal years 2004/05, 2005/06 and 2006/07

states the description of the program as (Exhibit 1):

“The City of Deerfield Beach is responsible for administering the Local Housing

Assistance Program and ensuring complete compliance with all applicable ordinances,

rules and regulations. The City will qualify clients and deliver program services.

Program services will include, but not limited to, conducting client intake and

assessment, as well as implementation of SHIP strategies. The City has identified

through its various public meetings and with further input from individual residents the

need for the following types of programs: Emergency Home Repair, Minor Home Repair,

Purchase Assistance Program, and Affordable Housing Unit Development.

A. Emergency Home Repair

a) Summary of Strategy: SHIP funds will be used to provide emergency repair

assistance for very-low income owner-occupied homes to address emergency

situations targeting health and safety concerns.

b) Fiscal Years Covered 2004/05, 2005/06, 2006/07

Income Categories to be served: This strategy will assist applicants below 80% on

the area median income.

c) Maximum award is noted on the Housing Delivery Goals Charts: $7,500.

B. Minor Home Repair

a) Summary of Strategy: SHIP funds will be used to provide minor home repair for

very low, low and moderate-income owner-occupied homes to address, but not

limited to, roofing, electrical, plumbing, sanitary disposal, cabinets, refrigerator,

stove, smoke detectors/alarms, GFCI outlets, or structural code deficiencies.

b) Fiscal Year Covered 2004/05, 2005/06, 2006/07

15

c) Income Categories to be served: This strategy will assist applicants below 120%

of the area median income.

d) Maximum award is noted on the Housing Delivery Goals Charts: $15,000.

C. First Time Homebuyer

a) Summary of Strategy: This strategy will provide down payment and closing cost

assistance to very low, low and moderate-income households in order to purchase

a new or existing single-family home, condominium, townhouse or villa which

will serve as their primary residence.


c) Income Categories to be served: This strategy will assist very low, low and

moderate applicants.

d) Maximum award is noted on the Housing Delivery Goals Charts: $25,000.

D. Affordable Housing Development

a) Summary of Strategy: This strategy provides eligible sponsors/developers with

partial funding to be applied towards the construction, site preparation, and or

acquisition of land to reduce the purchase cost of affordable singe family units for

owner-occupied dwellings to eligible applicants, to include condominiums, villas

or detached housing.


c) Income Categories to be served: This strategy will assist applicants below 120%

of the area median income.

d) Maximum award is noted on the Housing Delivery Goals Charts: N/A”

The Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP)’s for fiscal years 2007/08, 2008/09, 2009/10

delineates its purpose as the, “Creation of the Plan is for the purpose of meeting the housing

needs of the very low, low and moderate income households, to expand production of and

preserve affordable housing, to further the housing element of the local government

comprehensive plan specific to affordable housing.”

16

The program strategies as provided by the City are as follows (Exhibit 2):

A. “Emergency Roof Repair

a. Summary of Strategy:

SHIP funds will be used to provided emergency roof repairs assistance for very-

low income owner-occupied homes to address emergency situations targeting

health and safety concerns.

b. Fiscal Years Covered 2007/08, 2008/09, 2009/10

c. Income Categories to be served:

This strategy will assist applicants below 80% on the area median income.

d. Maximum award is noted on the Housing Delivery Goals Charts: $10,000.

B. Home Rehabilitation


SHIP funds will be used to provide home rehabilitation for very low, low and

moderate-income owner-occupied homes to address, but not limited to, roofing,

electrical, plumbing, sanitary disposal, cabinets, refrigerator, stove, smoke

detectors/alarms, GFCI outlets, or structural code deficiencies.

b. Fiscal Year Covered 2007/08, 2008/09, 2009/10


This strategy will assist applicants below 120% of the area median income.


C. First Time Homebuyer


This strategy will provide down payment and closing cost assistance to very low,

low and moderate-income households in order to purchase a new or existing

single-family home, condominium, townhouse or villa which will serve as their

primary residence.




17


D. Affordable Housing Development


This strategy provides eligible sponsors/developers with partial funding to be

applied towards the construction, site preparation, and or acquisition of land to

reduce the purchase cost of affordable singe family units for owner-occupied

dwellings to eligible applicants, to include condominiums, villas or detached

housing.




d. Maximum award is noted on the Housing Delivery Goals Charts:”

Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) Program

“The Housing Rehabilitation Programs have provided financial and technical assistance to low

and moderate-income persons that own and occupy single-family residential structures in the city

limits. Housing assistance to homeowners has been available through emergency grants,

deferred payment loans (forgiveness grants), and low interest revolving loans.”

Programs/strategies therein include (Exhibit 3):

1. Housing Strategy

• Minor Home Rehabilitation: “Priorities in this area are to be addressed primarily

through the State Housing Initiation Partnership (SHIP) program with some

additional funding from CDBG. IF SHIP Funding remains consistent at the projected

FY 2006 level over the next five (5) years, the City will have a total of $1,240,000 to

fund home repairs, weatherization and shuttering expenses. This will assist a total of

eighty-three 83 families assuming the average funding per household is $15,000. If

CDBG funding is added at the recommended level of $150,000 annually and

extended for five (5) years, an additional fifty (50) households could be assisted

through FY 2010.”

18

• Homeowner Assistance: “These priorities are anticipated to be addressed primarily

through the SHIP program with some additional funding from CDBG. In FY 2006,

SHIP is projected to spend approximately $250,000 for first time homebuyer

assistance. If this funding level holds throughout the upcoming five (5) year period, a

total of $1,240,000 will be available for this priority and should provide assistance to

approximately fifty (50) households. This funding also includes homeownership

counseling services to funding recipients. Approximately 10% of SHIP funds

($248,000 over five (5) years) will be used for program administration for both the

SHIP homeownership assistance and minor home rehabilitation activities. There is

no recommendation fur funding from CDBG for this program in the first year of this

plan. However, the program will be evaluated annually to determine if funding

should be budgeted in the Action Plan. Additionally, the Broward County Office of

Housing Finance historically used HOME and SHIP funds to leverage

homeownership financing for qualified Deerfield Beach households and this activity

is expected to continue. Deerfield Beach residents will also utilize FHA

homeownership assistance funding.”

• Affordable Rental Housing: “These priorities are addressed through the federal

Section 8 rental assistance funding program. If HUS Section 8 rental assistance

funding remains at current levels in the FY 2006 – 2010 period, an estimated 481

families may receive rental assistance totaling approximately $3,148,233 from

Deerfield Beach Housing Authority and other housing authorities serving City

residents.”

2. Homelessness Strategy

• “The City will provide no specific services to the homeless over the five0year timer

period of this plan. However, the City Police Department (Broward Sheriff’s Office)

will continue its policy of assisting homeless individuals and families found on City

streets by transporting them to emergency shelters and food locations. The City will

also work with the County to strengthen its countywide continuum of care, and

support and facilitate that program as necessary.”

19

3. Special Needs (Supportive Housing) Strategy

• “In all categories except youth and families, the City has assigned low priority for

local governmental action and does not intend to undertake any specific activities in

these areas. The City will continue to offer the extensive array of senior-oriented

facilities, programs, services, as well as, other existing services which help meet the

needs of Deerfield’s seniors and elderly. Funding of $83,581 is available in the

recommended one-year Action Plan through Public Service Grants. At this funding

level, $417,905 would be available over the five years for this important need.”

4. Non-Housing Community Development Strategy

• “Table 40 lists the City’s proposed non-housing community development actions and

projects by CDBG eligible category.” (Exhibit 4)

5. Reduction of Affordable Housing Barriers

• “As a recipient of State SHIP funds, the City must conduct a required affordable

housing regulatory reduction self-review study, and review all of its development

regulations in detail to remove unnecessary barriers to affordable housing and reduce

the cost of housing, and to provide incentives for the construction of such housing.

The City’s Affordable Housing Advisory Committee has conducted this review and

recommended appropriate incentives and amended procedures. These incentives have

been adopted by the City Commission, and include expedited zoning and permit

reviews, impact assessment of new regulations on the cost of housing, and waiver

and/or alternative payment method for impact fees.”

6. Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards

• “The FDHRS Public Heath Unit continues to monitor and respond to all suspected

cases of lead poisoning in Broward County. However, this continues to be a very

minor problem in the City, probably due in large part to the relative young age of

Deerfield Beach’s housing stock. The City will take the following actions to ensure

this serious health issue is properly monitored and abated where necessary and

appropriate:

20

o Screen for lead-based paint in all housing rehabilitation programs.

o Include lead-based paint abatement as an eligible activity in all of its

rehabilitation activities.”

7. Anti-Poverty Strategy

• “The City’s anti-poverty strategy is to continue to foster economic growth and job

creation for the broad cross-section of resident income levels, including low-income

households. The economic growth of Deerfield Beach since 1990 has allowed the

City to gradually increase its tax base and create new employment opportunities. This

growth is expected to increase far into the 21st century. The strategy will also seek to

increase job training, employment readiness skills and educational opportunities for

low-income households, as well as, the matching of employment openings with

potential local applicants. The City will also assist local first-stage business start-ups

and entrepreneurs through business incubation facilities and technical assistance, such

as business planning and marketing.”

8. Institutional Structure

• “Deerfield’s objective is to pursue an integrated approach in the provision of needed

programs and services including:

o Cooperation in the continuation of programs administered by other entities;

and

o Use of CDBG funds for projects and activities either not funded or unfounded

by other sources.

This is consistent with HUD regulations that permit communities to develop a unified

approach and vision to comprehensively address local problems through the

consolidated planning process.”

9. Organization Coordination Strategy

• “The City, through its Planning and Growth Management Department, will be the

primary entity responsible for coordinating and implementing these programs. During

the coming year, the City will enhance its organizational cooperation strategy with

21

Broward County, the Deerfield Beach Housing Authority, and other applicable

organizations.”

10. Public Housing Resident Initiative

• “The Deerfield Beach Housing Authority is located within the City and serves a large

number of Deerfield residents. There are no known public housing resident initiatives

currently pending before the Housing Authority.”

11. Support for Grant Applications by Other Agencies

• “The City will support the application of other entities for funding under competitive

grant programs wherever possible, as shown in Table 41.” (Exhibit 5)

22

GENERAL FINDINGS

City’s Finance Department Reimbursement of CDBG’s Line of Credit

A January 22, 2009 letter from Peter Parkin of the CDD to Maria R. Ortiz-Hill of the US

Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), indicates that the City had to

reimburse $95,037.85 from the City’s general fund for, “funds expended that exceeded HUD’s

80% rule allowable under the CDBG program definition of low and moderate income person.”

As per the Code of Federal Regulations – Title 24: Housing and Urban Development, 24 CFR

570.3 the definition of “low and moderate income person” is,

“Low and moderate income person” or “lower income person” means a member of a

family having an income equal to or less than the Section 8 lower income limit

established by HUD. Unrelated individuals shall be considered as one person families for

this purpose. The method for determining income under the Section 8 Housing

Assistance Payments program need not be used for this purpose.

As per HUD.gov the Section 8 lower income limits are defined as, “HUD sets the lower income

limits at 80% and very low income limits at 50% of the median income for the county or

metropolitan area in which you choose to live.”

Construction Cost Estimating & Preparing Bid Specification

Bid #2003-04/01

A memorandum dated May 25, 2004 from Donna M. Council, Purchasing Agent to Larry

Deetjen, City Manager states,

“Proposals for construction cost estimating & preparing bid specification for the city’s

minor home repair/improvements programs were received on January 8, 2004. Thirty-

three companies were solicited, resulting in the receipt of five (5) proposals: Evans

Environmental and Geosciences, SoFI Corporation, Housing and Assistive Technology,

Minority Home Builders, and Double XX Consulting.”

23

The memorandum continues to state that,

“Recommendation of dual award is made to SoFI Corporation, 2325 NE 20th Street, Fort

Lauderdale, FL for the evaluation of the visible and accessible systems and components

of the home and to Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc., 2000 Powerside Terrace,

#505, Miami, FL for ADA accessibility installations and repairs, interior and mechanical

systems. The initial contract shall be for a period of twelve (12) months, with the right to

renew, upon mutual consent for four (4) additional twelve months.”

A Resolution No. 2004/103 was passed for Bid #2003-04/01 on June 15, 2004 which indicated

that SoFI Corporation and Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. were awarded the bid for

Construction Cost Estimating and Preparing Bid Specifications for the City’s Minor Home

Repair/Improvements programs. The estimated annual expenditures are $35,000 (Exhibit 6).

The agreements for SoFI Corporation and Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. differ

slightly. The Agreement between the City of Deerfield Beach and SoFI Corporation indicates a

twelve (12) month period for the initial contract, and the City’s right to renew the contract for

four (4) additional twelve (12) month periods (Exhibit 7). The Agreement between The City of

Deerfield Beach and Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. replicates the ability for the City to

renew the contract for four additional twelve month periods, but also states other clauses. These

paragraphs indicate that, “HAT shall preserve and make available all financial records,

supporting documents, statistical records, and any other documents pertinent to this contract for a

period of three (3) years…” (Exhibit 8).

A Memorandum dated January 13, 2003 from Sandra Francis of Purchasing to Ada Graham-

Johnson, the City Clerk, indicates that the contract between SoFI Corporation and the City was

approved on June 1, 2004. The Memorandum also states that a $10.00 Contract Indemnity

check must be mailed with each contract (Exhibit 9).

A Memorandum dated July 22, 2004 from Sandra Francis of the Purchasing Division to Ada

Graham-Johnson, the City Clerk, indicates that the contract Housing and Assistive Technology,

24

Inc. and the City was approved on June 1, 2004. The Memorandum also states that a $10.00

Contract Indemnity check must be mailed with each contract (Exhibit 10).

A point system was utilized in the awarding of the bid for Construction Cost Estimating &

Preparing Bid Specification. A maximum of 100 points could be awarded to the contractors

based upon the following criteria:

Category: Maximum Points:

Personnel Expertise of Inspection Services 10

Personnel Expertise of Inspection Administrator 5

Governmental Inspection Experience of Firm Listed 25

Software/Hardware 20

Reasonableness of Proposed Prices 40

A copy of the bid summary sheet and the points awarded to each contractor is enclosed as

Exhibit 11.

On November 8, 2005 a memorandum was sent from Donna M. Council to Larry Deetjen

recommending that the contractors (SoFi Corporation and Housing and Assistive Technology,

Inc.) and their respective contracts be renewed.

A Resolution No. 2005/213 was approved by the City Commission on November 15, 2005

stating, “recommendation of dual award was made to SoFI Corporation and Housing and

Assistive Technology, Inc. for an estimated annual expenditure of $30,000.00;” (Exhibit 12).

An October 10, 2006 memorandum from Donna M. Council to Ada Graham-Johnson, Acting

City Manager states that the contracts are to expire on October 21, 2006. Ms. Council states that,

“Recommendation of renewal of the contract is made to SoFi Corporation on a lump sum

fee per task basis for a six (6) month period. We will be reviewing the required tasks and

be soliciting requests for proposals in the near future. Recommendation of renewal of the

25

contract is made to Housing and Assistive Technology on a lump sum basis for a twelve

(12) month period.”

A Resolution No. 2006/241 was approved by the City Commission on October 17, 2006 stating,

“under the terms of the original bid (Bid #2003-04#01) for construction cost estimating and

preparing bid specification for the City’s Minor Home Repair/Improvements programs for an

estimated annual expenditure of $51,000, and specifying the funds therefore” (Exhibit 13).

An e-mail was sent by Donna M. Council on November 21, 2007 indicating that at the request of

Debra Chatman a RFP #2006-07/35 was issued and received on September 20, 2007. The RFP

had not been awarded as of the date of the e-mail.

Kessler was also provided with two other Requests for Proposals (#2007-08/14 and 2008-09/04).

Both of these RFPs have not been awarded as per a discussion with the Purchasing Agent Donna

M. Council.

Kessler review of the checks made payable to Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. has

determined that no checks were written for work conducted in conjunction with the Construction

Cost Estimating.

James Joyce Construction

It should be noted that James Joyce Construction, a contractor who conducted a sizeable amount

of rehabilitation construction work, previously had complaints filed with the Florida Department

of Business & Professional Regulation against them for conducting electrical work without a

license, complaints #1206659 and #1206664.

William La’Marr Ruffin

A resolution was proposed and approved on January 13, 2009 for William L. Ruffin for,

“Construction cost estimating and preparing bid specifications for the City’s Housing Repair

Program under the terms of municipal code section 38-132 – unusual or emergency

circumstances.”

26

The Agreement between the City of Deerfield Beach and William La’Marr Ruffin, General

Contractor is dated January 13, 2009. The contract period for the agreement is indicated as

January 1, 2008 through January 31, 2009. The agreement also states that the “Basis of

Compensation is Lump Sum – per task; agreed in writing by the parties.” Additionally the

following items are outlined in the agreement:

Item 1 – Initial site visit w/homeowner to determine what repairs need to be made, if any

and take pre-construction photos……………..……………………$435.00 per occurrence

Item 2 – conduct pre-bid conference with City’s qualified contractors at clients home to

discuss repairs to be made…………………………………………$200.00 per occurrence

Item 3 – meet contractor of record and homeowner to conduct final inspection of repairs

made, take final photos of completed repairs and provide punch-list (once) of contractor

to City via electronic mail………………………………………….…$250 per occurrence

Item 4 – additional inspections not covered in Item 3 above (i.e. dispute resolution,

payment inspections, etc.)……………………………………..…..$150.00 per occurrence

The agreement also indicates that William La’Marr Ruffin shall procure and maintain insurance

including General Liability Insurance, Automobile Liability Insurance as well as Employee

Fidelity and Crime. The City will be named as an additional insured on all policies.

Also contained in the documents provided to support the agreement were thirty two purchase

orders during the time period of February 26, 2009 through December 7, 2009. All of the

purchase orders were for Twenty Second Century Roofing of PO Box 120487, Fort Lauderdale,

FL. Twenty – Second Century Roofing, Inc. is an active Florida corporation whose officers

and/or directors are listed as Heron Small and William Ruffin.

It should be noted that Kessler discovered during the case review that checks were payable to

William La’Marr Ruffin, Twenty Second Century Roofing, Inc. and William Ruffin (Twenty

27

Second Century Rfg, Inc.). There has been no documentation provided that explains why checks

would be made payable in some cases to the individual and other times to a corporation, when a

contract was entered into with the individual.

Grant Recipients Affiliations with Other Corporations

Kessler conducted a review of the individuals associated with entities that obtained grants to

determine any non-arms length transactions. Analysis of the individuals and entities linked to

them are enclosed as Exhibit 14.

Other individuals receiving grants

As per a November 4, 2002 letter from Stephanie McMillian contained in the case file for Henry

H. Hall, II, it states that, “Funding for minor home repairs to your property was approved under

the City of Deerfield Beach State Housing Initiative Partnership (S.H.I.P.) Minor Home Repair /

Weatherization Program.” The letter is addressed to Jounice Green of 264 SW 1st Street,

Deerfield Beach, FL a previous officer of Emmanuel Human Services, Inc. f/k/a Gold Coast

Impact Community Development, Inc. (Exhibit 15).

The loan agreement dated January 28, 2003 was satisfied as per a May 12, 2008 letter from

Suzan Less.

City Employees receiving awards

Kessler was provided with a list of City Employees that had received funding through the CDD

(Kessler reviewed the ones in bold):

Darrel Adams

Wayne Adams

Justin and Thomas Alfred

Barry Baker

Martha Bennett

Edwin Butler

Gloria Goodwin

28

Sammie Huggins

Gail Knapp

Inger and Shannon Knowles

David McFadden

Lamar McThay

Jeffrey Nugent

Oscal and Anne Rousseau

Christopher Schindell

Sanford Shelton

Angela Storr

Pamela and Michael Weiss

Johnny and Mildred Westbrook

Due to the limited scope of the internal controls review conducted by Kessler, only a select

number of cases were reviewed in which the recipient of the funding was a City employee. The

reviews of these cases are outlined in the Review / Analysis of Cases section of this report.

29

REVIEW/ANALYSIS OF CASES

Michael and Pamela Weiss

521 SE 3rd Place

Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

(Background/Disbursements - Exhibit 16)

The applicant and co-applicant submitted an application for assistance through the SHIP and

CDBG rehab program on October 20, 2005 (Exhibit 17). This is the only application contained

in the file. The application for assistance indicates that applicant’s assets are listed as

$79,970.45. Although the application is dated October 20, 2005, the file contains many signed

release of information forms dated July 21, 2005 (Exhibit 18). The file also contains these forms

having been completed by outside parties and returned to the CDD and date stamped either July

23, 2005 or August 8, 2005. Kessler also noted many other documents in the file with date

stamps that precede the date of the application.

Also contained in the file is a letter dated February 24, 2004 signed by Babette d’Amours, Grants

Program Coordinator indicating that the preliminary SHIP application is complete, a February

24, 2004 letter to Wachovia Bank requesting documentation pertaining to two accounts, an

October 8, 2004 letter signed by Deborah D. Dalton, Grants Program Coordinator indicating that

the applicants were placed on a waiting list and an October 20, 2005 award letter signed by

Andrew E. Hyatt, Grants Program Administrator congratulating the applicants for having been

approved for $15,000.00 in funding and suggesting that they schedule an appointment to

complete the income certification form (Exhibit 19). The income certification form showing

total household income of $55,216.61 in the file is dated October 20, 2005, yet Kessler found no

outside verifications dated after the certification form. It is also unusual that the date of the letter

is also the date that all of the paperwork was signed.

On January 4, 2006 SoFI Corporation (“SoFI”), an entity retained by CDD to evaluate house

structure conditions and estimate the cost of repairs, estimated that the Work Specification for

the home repairs would be $16,300.00 (Exhibit 20). SoFI was also retained at the completion of

30

the construction to inspect the contractor’s work and advise CDD of quality and completeness.

In this estimate, SoFI developed a scope of work to include: installation of 5 battery powered

smoke detectors, replacing certain outlets with GFCI receptacles, re-roofing the home, replacing

the front entry door and frame, replace all windows in the ‘Florida room’, replace the glass and

jealousy windows at the combination picture window, repaint the exterior of the house, install

rain gutters and downspouts, and replace wood trim around garage (Exhibit 21). SoFI charged

$500.00 to conduct this assessment. No supporting copy of a check was included in the file and

the cost of the assessment was not included in the deferred payment loan agreement in the

amount of $15,700.00 dated July 17, 2006.

A solicitation for Bid #2005-06/13 was submitted to six contractors on March 23, 2006, and a

mandatory pre-solicitation meeting was to be held on March 31, 2006. Four bids were received

by the City. A summary sheet of the bids submitted is attached as Exhibit 22.

EAJ Homes, Inc. $22,282.00

East Coast Contractors, Inc. $34,751.841

James Joyce Construction Corp. $32,370.00

ES Cummings Construction, Co. $23,200.00

Based upon documentation maintained in this case file, a spreadsheet labeled Invitation to Bid-

Minor Home Repair (SHIP Program) Bid # 2005-06/13 indicates that some sort of reduction was

presented by ES Cummings Construction, Co. lowering their bid to $17,000.00. No

documentation exists in the file indicating that the other bidders had a similar opportunity to

lower their bid. A letter dated May 8, 2006 from Donna M. Council, Purchasing Agent to Larry

R. Deetjen, City Manager indicates that it is recommended that ES Cummings Construction, Co.

be awarded the contract at $17,000.00 (Exhibit 23). The amended Specification for Repair

Work indicating the $17,000.00 job cost summary was signed and dated by the contractor and

applicant on July 17, 2006.

1 Bid tabulated incorrectly on the detailed sheet and the specifications were changed to include items not included on the original specifications.

31

A Deferred Payment Loan Agreement was entered into by the City and the applicants on July 17,

2006. The agreement indicates that the principal amount of the loan is $15,700.00 and is not to

exceed $20,000.00. Additionally, the agreement indicates that the zero interest loan shall be

forgiven after a period of five years and shall depreciate at a rate of 20% (or 1/5th) per year.

A letter was sent to the applicants on February 5, 2009 from Peter Parkin of the CDD, indicating

that additional funds were required to complete repairs to the applicant’s home and that the

original lien against the property must be amended. The letter also requests that the mortgage

modification document be signed and notarized by February 20, 2009 and returned to the CDD.

The Mortgage Modification Agreement increases the amount of the mortgage from $15,700.00

to $19,613.35. No signed copy could be located in the file and it was determined the document

was never filed with Broward County (Exhibit 24).

The contract between ES Cummings Construction, Co. and the property owners signed on July

17, 2006 reference the Bid #2005–06/13, and states that $17,000.00 is due from the homeowner

to ES Cummings Construction, Co. Handwritten on the contract is the notation that $15,700.00

is to be paid by the City and $1,300.00 is to be paid by the homeowner.

On December 6, 2006 a negative change order was submitted by ES Cumming Construction, Co.

to the City of Lauderhill (sic), referencing a contract entered into on November 13, 2006. In

fact, the contract was dated July 17, 2006. The address was also incorrectly referred to as 321

SE 3rd Place. The change order states that as per the request of the homeowners’ gutters and

downspouts were removed from the job resulting in a decrease in the amount of $800.00. The

change order is attached as Exhibit 25.

An additional change order was submitted by ES Cummings Construction, Co. on March 20,

2007 for three items resulting in an increase to the job of $1,600.00 which was authorized by

Debra Chatman on April 2, 2007. The change order includes a description of work indicating a

build out of a wall under the living room window at $1,800.00, deleting additional cost for larger

windows to fill opening at ($300.00) and replacing trim around the garage door in the amount of

$100.00 (Exhibit 26). The replacing of the trim around the garage door was initially

32

recommended in the SoFI estimate and it is unclear why it was removed from the specifications

sent to the contractors.

Upon reviewing this file, Kessler noted a significant amount of correspondence from the

homeowner complaining about the quality of work conducted by the electrical contractors. It

appears that Vicon Electric, Inc. was given a permit to conduct electrical work on the property

dated December 28, 2006. The homeowners claim that all the electrical work was shoddy and

conducted by the contractor ES Cummings Construction, Co. as per an e-mail dated Tuesday,

January 30, 2007 to Debra Chatman (Exhibit 27).

A second final inspection was conducted on January 7, 2007 by SoFI after they had already

approved the work delineating nine items that needed to be corrected by ES Cummings

Construction, Co. (Exhibit 28).

An Inspection Inquiry indicates that the electrical inspection was completed on November 21,

2007 by the City and that a second electrical contractor, All Pro Electric, Inc. submitted an

invoice on December 21, 2007 for correction of the electrical work. The total amount submitted

for reimbursement was $1,800.00. Nowhere in the file could Kessler find a charge back to ES

Cummings for the work they were originally paid to do.

ES Cummings Construction, Co. was paid a total of $17,000.00 in two separate checks by the

City. No documentation was found in the case file which indicates if the homeowners provided

the $1,700.00 stipulated in the contract dated July 17, 2006.

The All Pro Electric, Inc. Final Request for Payment on Purchase Order is signed by Debra

Chatman for the contractor on December 19, 2007. The Community Development Manager did

not sign the request and Debra Chatman signed as the CD Inspector (Exhibit 29).

33

Martha Rose Lawson

1440 SW 6th Avenue

Deerfield Beach, Fl 33441


An unsigned and undated Housing Repair Program Application was the only application found

in this file. On the application, the applicant indicates that she owns no real property and that her

monthly rent is $731.10 (Exhibit 31). The applicant originally signed the Housing Repair

Program Certification portion of the application document on “9/29/2006”. This date was

redacted using correctional fluid and the date was changed in a different handwriting to

“12/29/2006”. Also enclosed in the file is a Home Loan Statement for September 2006 from

Washington Mutual Home Loans indicating that the borrower for the mortgage of 1440 SW 6th

Avenue, Deerfield Beach, FL is an Eddie Moore Jr. and the monthly payment including

principal, interest and escrow totals $731.10. Additionally in the file is a copy of an insurance

bill for the property listing Eddie Moore Jr. and a death certificate indicating Eddie Lee Moore

Jr. died April 5, 2003 (Exhibit 32). A search of the Broward County Property Appraisers

website indicates that 1440 SW 6th Avenue, Deerfield Beach, FL is owned by Martha Rose

Lawson and Sedrick Pernell Lawson (Exhibit 33).

The only bank account listed for the applicant indicates in Debra Chatman’s handwriting that it

was opened on March 5, 2007 with $400.00. The applicant is listed as the only member of the

household with a gross annual income of $4,390.00 from Social Security.

On March 12, 2007 a letter was sent by Debra Chatman to the applicant indicating approval for a

maximum of $15,000 to repair the home. A second letter was sent by Debra Chatman on

September 7, 2007 to the applicant indicating that $17,780.00 in SHIP funds had been approved

and that Terramar Construction, Inc. would be the contractor completing the work (Exhibit 34).

On March 27, 2007 SoFI submitted an estimate based upon their evaluation estimating the cost

of repairs to be $17,500.00 (Exhibit 35). And it again was noted that the specifications as

prepared by SoFI differ from the specifications sent to the contractors for bid. In fact Kessler

34

again found that many of the original specifications were removed from the revised

specifications sent to the contractors allowing the contractor to later submit a change order.

On July 17, 2007 a letter was written by Donna Council to the homeowner indicating that a pre-

proposal conference was being held at the property on July 30, 2007, and that the bids will be

opened on August 14, 2007. The letter states, “All contracts for repair are between you and the

contractor. The City of Deerfield Beach is not a party to any of the contracts. The City’s

responsibility is limited to the inspection of the work and the approval of payments. The City

will insure that your work is completed in a timely manner. However, any changes in the work

will also change the completion date.”

The following construction companies placed bids on the property:

Contractor: Base Bid: Options: Total:

Joines Construction and Development, LLC $10,700.00 $4,450.00 $15,150.00

Crognale & Associates $20,950.00 $5,850.00 $26,800.00

Terramar Construction $12,500.00 $5,280.00 $17,780.00

On August 27, 2007 a memorandum from Donna Council to Mike Mahaney indicates that Joines

Construction and Development, LLC was not awarded the bid because they had four projects

currently underway (Exhibit 36). It is unclear why the City restricts work to a contractor yet

invites them to bid if they already know they are not going to give them the work.

Also contained in the file is a Resolution No. 2007/202 dated September 4, 2007 which indicates

that $19,030.00 has been approved for repairs on the applicant’s property. The Resolution also

states that Terramar Construction, Inc. submitted the lowest bid (Exhibit 37). The documents in

the file outlining the bids indicate that Joines Construction and Development, LLC was in fact

the lowest bidder, underbidding Terramar by $2,630.00 (Exhibit 38).

35

An Agreement between the Owner and Contractor was entered into on September 25, 2007

indicating the cost of the repairs as totaling $17,780.00. The document was signed and dated the

day before by Terramar Construction, Inc. on September 24, 2007.

A Notice to Proceed from the CDD dated September 25, 2007 (a day after the contract was

signed) to Terramar Construction indicates that, “Permits must be obtained and work shall be

completed within thirty-five (35) days (by November 12, 2007) or be subject to “liquidated

damages” as set forth in Paragraph 2(a) of this documents (sic).” (Exhibit 39). The notice also

indicates that the subcontractor on the job is Cassia Electric and John Moorer Plumbing.

A SHIP Deferred Payment Loan Agreement dated September 25, 2007 indicated that a zero

interest loan in the principal amount of $17,780.00 was being provided to the applicant. The

terms of the mortgage indicate that the principal amount shall depreciate over a period of five

years at a rate of 20% (or 1/5th) per year.

On October 6, 2007 a change order was submitted by the contractor for additional work to be

conducted including: replace rails, hardware and install remote control ($500.00), repair

mold/mildew ceiling and repaint ($3,000.00), baseboard ($100.00) (Exhibit 40). It should be

noted that the term baseboard was handwritten on the change order along with all of the pricing

indicating that it was added after the original change order was completed. The change order is

dated October 6, 2007 by the contractor and is approved by Debra Chatman on October 9, 2007.

A day before the contractor receives payment for both the original and change order job. The

change order indicates that, “Owner will pay Contractor $3,600.00 for additional services, from

Contingency. The amount is over and above the original amount in the agreement.” There is no

documentation in the file indicating that the applicant ever reimbursed the City for the $3,600.00

and on Pay Authorization CD2007-326 the City pays the contractor the $3,600.00. Furthermore

the change order was never approved by the Community Development Manager.

The Contractor’s Partial Request for Payment enclosed in the file requires the signature of the

contractor, homeowner, CD Inspector and two Community Development Department personnel.

Although the document is signed by the contractor on October 10, 2007 and an invoice was

36

submitted to the City, the homeowner did not sign the document until October 15, 2007. A

check was issued to the contractor on October 18, 2007. Debra Chatman signs the document as

the CD Inspector and the Community Development Coordinator, fails to date the document and

the document lacks the signature of the Community Development Manager (Exhibit 41).

In a November 29, 2007 letter from Debra Chatman to Sharma Baboolal of Terramar

Construction, Inc. it states that the Lawson residence and the Royal residence are 15 days past

their completion date despite the fact that they had released 92% of the funds on this project. The

letter continues stating that contractor was being assessed a penalty of $100.00 per day as per the

contract and $2,400.00 has accrued ($1,200.00 per contract) (Exhibit 42).

Also contained in the file is a fax sent from George Murray, Murray and Sons Home

Improvement to Debra Chatman dated February 28, 2008 indicating that additional repairs to the

property would total $1,800.00. The actual amount paid by the City based on an invoice dated

April 29, 2008 and submitted by Murray and Sons was $1,900.00 (Exhibit 43). The scope of the

work performed appears to have been billed and paid to Terramar and Kessler found no charge

back in the file.

A letter from SoFI indicates that a final inspection was completed on the property and that there

are four items in the punch list still required to be completed, but that all other work complies

with the specifications and the homeowner is satisfied. The corresponding pictures are dated

January 17, 2008.

37

Dawn Burke Rolle

1111 SW 7th Avenue



The Housing Repair Program Application is not signed by the applicant (Exhibit 45). The

Housing Repair Program Certification attached to the application is signed on January 10, 2007.

Additionally, the application’s section regarding estimated assets is left blank.

A Nationwide Insurance Company of Florida insurance policy for the property address indicates

that a Verna Johnson is the policy holder of the homeowner’s insurance. Additionally, a JEA

electric, sewer and water bill indicates that a Verna V. Johnson is the name of the account holder

as of July 5, 2007. A Quit-Claim Deed indicates that on November 7, 2006 the property located

at 111 SW 7th Avenue was transferred from Verna Johnson to Verna Johnson and Dawn Burke.

There is no co-applicant on the Housing Repair Program Application, Verna Johnson should

have been included in the application and all assets and income should have been calculated for

this individual. A copy of the Broward County Property Appraisers report for the property

showing Verna Johnson and Dawn Burke as owners is attached as Exhibit 46.

On March 12, 2007 a letter from Debra Chatman to the applicant indicates that Dawn Burke

Rolle (it is not clear when she was divorced) had been approved for a maximum of $15,000.00 to

repair the home (Exhibit 47). Another award letter was sent by Debra Chatman to the applicant

dated September 7, 2007 which indicated that the applicant was approved in the amount of

$19,780.00 in SHIP funds (Exhibit 48).

An estimate was conducted by SoFI on March 27, 2007, that indicated that the estimated cost

would be $15,950.00 for the necessary repairs (Exhibit 49). Bids were submitted in response to

an invitation to bid for Bid #2006-07/32 and three bids were received (Exhibit 50).

38

Schedules of the bids submitted are as follows:


Joines Construction and Development, LLC $13,130.00 $3,325.00 $16,455.00

Crognale & Associates $19,750.00 $4,700.00 $24,450.00

Terramar Construction $15,950.00 $4,350.00 $20,300.00

The original Work Specification conducted by SoFI was much more detailed and contained a

greater amount of work to be conducted in comparison to the Revised Work Specification

submitted to the contractors. For Example Scope Item #2.1 as per SoFI includes, “replace

existing outlets with GFCI receptacles in kitchen, bathrooms, exterior outlets, garage port or

carport, laundry room and any other locations as required by NEC and FBC.” The same item for

the Revised Work Specification includes, “Replace existing outlets with GFCI receptacles in

kitchen (2), bathroom (1), as required by NEC and FBC.” Additionally, items number 6.0 and

7.0 as per the Work Specifications prepared by SoFI were removed from the Revised Work

Specifications submitted to the contractors. No reason was provided in the file as to the changes,

yet the cost prepared by the contractor exceeds the fair estimate.

Resolution Number 2007/208 was approved on September 4, 2007 in the amount of $21,425.00

(Exhibit 51). This amount incorrectly included the options (at a price of $3,325.00) twice to the

base bid to bring the total cost to $19,780.00 ($13,130.00 + $3,325.00 + $3,325.00 = $19,780.00)

(Exhibit 52). The actual bid from Joines was for $16,455.00 including the options. The

$19,780.00 figure was added to the cost of contingencies at 10% and totaled the $21,425.00.

Joines was ultimately paid $18,205.00 for the job.

A Deferred Payment Loan Agreement was filed on October 2, 2007 and indicated that the total

cost of construction would be $19,780.00. The terms of the Agreement indicate that the

principal on the zero interest loan amount shall depreciate at a rate of 20% (or 1/5th) per year.

A February 5, 2009 letter from Peter Parkin to the applicant indicates that the repairs conducted

exceeded the original lien filed for $19,780.00, therefore the original lien must be modified to

reflect the total repair funds expended on the home repair project. A mortgage modification

39

agreement dated February 10, 2009 reduces the mortgage to $19,151.30, $628.70 less than the

original.

On December 13, 2007 a check in the amount of $16,650.00 was made payable to Joines

Construction & Dev., LLC. This payment was for an invoice of $14,000.00 including the

anticipated work to be conducted and a change order for $2,650.00. The change order included:

• Replace two ordinary receptacles in living room ($200.00)

• Abandon electric to sprinkler timer in front yard (corrective action in response to Code

Violation issued by City Inspector) ($300.00)

• Abandon electric to water purifier at side of house (corrective action in response to Code

Violation issued by City Inspector) ($300.00)

• Deleted work: replace one metal door (-$900.00)

• Replace one extra window ($850.00)

• Demo and dispose of damaged section of dining room wall ($950.00)

The change order included the replacement of one extra window at a cost of $850.00, this should

have been done as per the Revised Work Specification completed by the contractor. Item #3.3 of

the Revised Work Specifications indicates that “Replace all windows located throughout the

house with new white aluminum single hung units.”

The final inspection was done by SoFI on December 18, 2007 and indicated that the window at

rear left corner of house and window on south side of house are missing hurricane shutters

(Revised Work Specification 4.0), it also shows that the homeowner did not sign off on the final

inspection. No resolution documentation is maintained in this case file.

40

Rolex and Anne Jean-Baptiste

1321 SW 10th Terrace



File processed by City of Deerfield Beach with assistance from Community Redevelopment

Associates of Florida, Inc.

A review of this file indicates that the applicant submitted a City of Deerfield Beach “Home”

Program application dated December 5, 2007. Contained within the file is a Florida Housing

Finance Corporation Resident Income Certification dated May 16, 2007. The cash value shown

on the form for the Washington Mutual account ending in -2086 was stated as $1,433.17 (the six

month average balance) when the actual cash value as of April 12, 2007 was $5,261.51.

Additionally on two Bank of America accounts of one of the applicants the CDD used the lower

of either the current balance or the average six month balance for the calculation of assets. There

is no consistency with the use of the average six month balance or the current balance.

In an updated City of Deerfield Beach Resident Income Certification dated April 25, 2008, again

there is no consistency in relation to the use of the average six month balance or the current

balance of the bank account benefiting the applicant when calculating assets as the lower of the

numbers was used. A Bank of America account balance was $7,224.83 as of March 14, 2008 but

the average six month balance of $194.67.

In January 23, 2008 a letter was written by Deaverlyn M. Brown of Community Redevelopment

Associates of Florida, Inc. indicates that various documents must be forwarded to the office by

February 1, 2008 or the which application will be withdrawn from consideration (Exhibit 54).

On March 12, 2008 a supplementary letter was written to the homeowners again requesting these

documents (Exhibit 55). It is clear that since the applicants did not provide the documents by

February 1, 2008 as stipulated that the application shouldn’t have been considered for funding.

This case file was composed of two separate rehabilitation projects being conducted on the same

property. A separate review of each rehabilitation project has been conducted.

41

Emergency Roof Repair

No estimate was contained in the file to determine a figure for the cost of the emergency roof

repair. Two bids were received for the Emergency Roof Repairs conducted on the applicants’

home. The bid opening was on August 10, 2007 and according to an August 28, 2007

memorandum from Donna Council to Mike Mahaney six prequalified companies responded

resulting in two bids (Exhibit 56). The two bids considered were from Crognale & Associates,

Inc. ($10,500.00) and Horizon Group, Inc. ($11,765.00) (Exhibit 57).

A letter from Debra Chatman dated August 28, 2007 to the homeowners indicates that

$10,500.00 in SHIP funds has been approved for repairs (Exhibit 58). This letter is sent to the

homeowners prior to approval of the resolution dated September 4, 2007. A resolution was

passed on September 4, 2007 by Albert R. Capellini indicating that $11,550.00 was approved in

funding for the rehabilitation of the applicant’s home (Exhibit 59).

On September 4, 2007 a Deferred Payment Loan Agreement was signed by the homeowner in

the amount of $10,500.00, to be satisfied over a period of five years. The term of the zero

interest loan indicate a satisfaction period of five years to depreciate at a rate of 20% (or 1/5th)

per year.

The Agreement between Owner and Contractor was dated September 4, 2007 and signed by one

applicant on September 7, 2007 and the co-applicant on September 13, 2007. The contractor

signed the contract on August 30, 2007. It is unclear how the contractor could sign the document

prior to the contract date and before funds were allocated to the project (Exhibit 60).

A Notice to Proceed document was signed by the contractor, Community Development Division

staff and the homeowner on September 4, 2007 and by Debra Chatman. The date next to Debra

Chatman’s name has been redacted using correctional fluid and September 7, 2007 is listed

(Exhibit 61). The document indicates that, “Permits must be obtained and work shall be

completed within fifteen (15) days (by September 21, 2007) or be subject to “liquidated

damages” as set forth in Paragraph 2(a) of this documents.”

42

On September 20, 2007 a change order was sent to Debra Chatman indicating, “As per your

request please find our request for change order for the above residence. Additional decking

required: 320 sq. ft. @ 5.15 sq. ft.” On September 20, 2007 an invoice was issued by Crognale

& Associates Construction, Inc. to Debra Chatman in the amount of $12,148.00. Included on the

invoice was $1,648.00 for “320 sq. feet foot of additional Rotting Deck @ $5.15/sq.” Kessler

noted a building permit was issued to Crognale & Associates for the construction of the roof, on

September 14, 2007. The Contractor’s Final Request for Payment on Purchase Order was signed

by the homeowner and contractor on September 20, 2007, yet was unsigned the CD inspector or

Community Development Division personnel. The total amount paid to Crognale & Associates

Construction, Inc. is $12,148.00 (Exhibit 62).

A Final Inspection was conducted on the property on August 23, 2008. The inspection

determined that the work conducted was disapproved, as per the inspector William La’Marr

Ruffin (Exhibit 63).

In a December 19, 2008 letter from Suzan Less to the homeowner it states, “Enclosed is the

Satisfaction of Mortgage that was originally executed by you on September 4, 2007.” (Exhibit

64). It is unclear why a satisfaction of mortgage document would have been executed by the

City when the mortgage should not have been satisfied until September 4, 2012.

Home Repairs

No new application applying for funds was contained in the case file applicable to this award of

$11,900.00 of City SHIP/CDBG funds and $28,150.00 in CRA HOME funding.

A letter to the applicants from Debra Chatman dated November 20, 2007 indicates that the

applicants are eligible to receive repair funds from “Community Redevelopment Associates

(CRA)” to provide housing repair assistance in an amount not to exceed $30,000.00 (Exhibit

65). Kessler has been informed that CRA works with the City of Deerfield Beach and Broward

County to distribute HOME funds.

43

An undated Specification for Work was prepared on the property by William La’Marr Ruffin,

prior to the bid being sent the prospective contractors. William La’Marr Ruffin estimated that

$49,561.00 would be necessary to repair the property (Exhibit 66). The project had a bid due

date of June 20, 2008 @ 4:00PM with the bids being hand delivered to CRA.

Only one bid was contained in the file from ES Cummings Construction in the amount of

$42,000.00, who was awarded the contract (Exhibit 67). The bid summary sheet is enclosed as

Exhibit 68. The bids were James Joyce Construction ($40,900.00), ES Cummings ($42,000.00),

Whyte-Way Construction ($50,090.00) and R&B Remodeling ($51,450.00).

A fax dated June 30, 2008 from Jim Joyce of James Joyce Construction, Corp. indicated, “item

#4 is a wrong entry and should have been $9,600. Please accept this fax to withdraw my bid of

$40,900 on the above address.” (Exhibit 69). James Joyce Construction was the lowest bidder

according to a bid summary sheet prepared by Program Specialist Dev Brown. It is unclear why

James Joyce Construction was allowed to withdraw his bid after the closing, but he did and the

bid was awarded to ES Cummings Construction by CRA.

A fax dated July 3, 2008 from the Community Redevelopment Associates of Florida, Inc.

indicates that the contractor (ES Cummings Construction, Co.) had been selected and that his

original bid of $42,000.00 was modified to $40,050.00 due to the exclusion of certain bid items

based upon a change of the specifications on June 13, 2008 by William La’Marr Ruffin.

A July 21, 2008 memorandum to Jerry Ferguson from Debra Chatman, indicates that ES

Cummings Construction was the low bidder and that $11,968.65 will be awarded from SHIP

funds and $28,150.00 from HOME Partnership funds (Exhibit 70). A resolution was signed by

Albert Capellini on August 5, 2008 and number 2008/165 ($11,968.65) to provide SHIP funds

for the repair to the dwelling.

The ES Cummings Construction CRA Contract was dated July 7, 2008 and signed by the

contractors and homeowners on July 18, 2008.

44

A Notice to Proceed statement from the City of Deerfield Beach was dated August 19, 2008 and

signed by the parties on August 21, 2008 indicating that, “Permits must be obtained and work

shall be completed within fifteen (15) days (by September 21, 2008) or be subject to “liquidated

damages” as set forth in Paragraph 2(a) of this documents. “ The document also indicated three

sub-contractors will be used including Atlantis A/C and Heating, Vicon Electric and Paul A.

Jackson (Exhibit 71).

A review of the documentation in the file indicates that four payments were made to the

contractor from SHIP funds. An invoice dated August 11, 2008 from the contractor bills the City

for $1,150.00 for a range hood ($250.00) and a refrigerator ($900.00). This amount is paid by

the City on August 14, 2008 along with another invoice from the contractor in amount of

$872.47. The invoice dated August 11, 2008 from the contractor bills the City for $872.47 for

Item #7 range hood upgrade ($150.00) and 30” electric range ($722.47) (Exhibit 72).

An invoice dated September 22, 2008 bills the contractor for front impact door ($850.00),

exterior doors ($2,100.00), paint exterior ($3,500.00), patch and paint kitchen ($500.00), kitchen,

sink, etc ($600.00), shower pan/enclosure ($3,000.00) for a total of $10,550.00. An item noted as

main bath leak ($200.00) was lined out on the bill and was not included in the total. Another

invoice dated September 22, 2008 with the words, “Change Order” written on it by hand, bills

the City for replacing 14 window sills ($500.00). The actual change order is signed by all parties

on September 23, 2008 (Exhibit 73).

An invoice dated January 15, 2009 labeled as “Change order – Replace fans and boxes”

($760.00) and an invoice labeled “Invoice #225 Amount of Retainage withheld” ($1,055.00) is

presented to the City and approved by Gerald R Ferguson on January 26, 2009. The change

order was approved by the owner and contractor on January 16, 2009 and by Debra Chatman on

January 26, 2009 (Exhibit 74).

A City of Deerfield Beach Request for Payment was signed by the contractor on March 17, 2009,

signed by one of the two applicants and is undated and signed by Debra Chatman on March 18,

2008 and Peter Parkin on March 25, 2008. There are no documents in the file indicating why this

45

charge was paid from SHIP funds. A payment is made by the City without an invoice on March

27, 2009. It represents a Change Order to the contract applicable to HOME funds and not SHIP.

The change order is on Community Redevelopment letterhead and originally had the typed

words “Change Order #1.” The number one has been changed in handwriting to the number two.

The change order is for, “Furnish and install circuit and conduit for new range outlet. The one

that is there has only 3 wires in a halh (sic) pipe and needs to be upgraded to at least ¾” conduit

with 4 -6thhn (sic) wire. Remove all 4 paddle fans, put proper braces, use fan boxes and re-

install” (Exhibit 75).

Included in the file was a $28,150.00 invoice applicable to the expenditure of Home funds which

included cleanup ($500.00), replace exterior windows with impact single hung windows

($6,700.00), Kitchen- Replace cabinets and countertop ($5,500.00), Main Bath- Install sink,

fixture and vanity ($700.00), Master bathroom- Repair wall behind toilet ($500.00), Northeast

Bedroom – Install ceiling fan with light ($250.00), Electrical upgrade service and panel

($7,000.00), Replacement of central air conditioning split system ($7,000.00) (Exhibit 76).

It is not clear why invoices containing duplicative items that were billed and paid to the Home

program were also paid from SHIP funds.

A zero interest mortgage dated July 7, 2008 issued by the Home Consortium Project in the

amount of $29,805.00 is satisfied after five years. A witness to the signature is Debra Chatman

and it is notarized by Suzan Less on July 7, 2008 (Exhibit 77). A Deferred Payment Loan

Agreement (SHIP) was issued on August 21, 2008 in the amount of $22,468.65 and was

modified on February 3, 2009 by Peter Parkin in the amount of $26,471.22. It is unclear how the

amount of the SHIP mortgage was calculated (Exhibit 78). A Home Repair Program Deferred

Payment Loan Agreement (SHIP / CDBG) zero interest loan dated February 3, 2009 indicates

that a $16,591.05 loan shall depreciate over a period of five years at a 20% (or 1/5th) per year

(Exhibit 79).

Also contained in the file is a City of Deerfield Beach Building Department Violation Notice

dated October 21, 2008 that indicates various electrical violations. The specifics of the violation

46

include, “1. All four paddle fans need replace and boxes installed. (Paddle fan broke in hall

plaster sprayed on them), 2. Painted receptacles must be replaced, 3. Install #8 AWG to range

receptacles, 4. See #2 revised all painted receptacles and switches in house must be painted (sic),

5. Install light in the access” (Exhibit 80).

A final inspection was conducted on January 19, 2009 by William La’Marr Ruffin and found

several faulty items with the quality of work conducted, and certain items within the scope of

work, and that change orders weren’t even completed. No resolutions to these open items were

contained in the file (Exhibit 81).

47

Stephanie Thomas

229 SW 2nd Court



File processed by City of Deerfield Beach with assistance from Westside Deerfield Businessmen

Association, Inc.

This file indicates that the applicant applied for the First Time Home Buyer program on May 8,

2009. This individual purchased the home built by the Westside Deerfield Beach Businessmen

Association (Exhibit 83). An Income Certification was conducted on the applicant and indicated

a Giselle Thomas signed the verification of employment document.

This property was advertised for many months in the newspaper with reportedly no buyer. On

April 9, 2009 the property was listed with Charles Rutenberg, LLC, who was compensated

$5,010.00 to sell the home. The agent represented both buyer and seller.

The Residential Sale and Purchase Contract signed by the applicant on April 30, 2009 indicates

in the additional terms section, “Contract approval contingent upon mortgage approval, receipt of

purchase assistance received from $30,000 Westside Deerfield Businessmen Assoc. Housing

Division (WDBA), $40,000 City of Deerfield Beach, $15,000 Broward County Office of

Housing Finance, $10,000 Bank Atlantic”. The Residential Sale and Purchase Contract also

indicates that the purchase price of the home was to be $170,000.00; $2,000.00 was reported as

having been received from the buyer (as deposit), $95,000.00 from Other (Purchase Assistance

as shown above) and a mortgage in the amount of $73,000.00. The document indicates that the

anticipated closing date on the property would be June 1, 2009. Dan E. Poitier signed the

document as the seller on April 30, 2009 (Exhibit 84).

A clause is contained in letters to other applicants from Debra Chatman of the Community

Development Division indicating the following, “If you are expecting purchase assistance funds

from this office to assist with your purchase, please do not enter into a contract to purchase a

48

property until you have received a Purchase Assistance Funds Approval Notice.” (Exhibit 109).

It is evident that Stephanie Thomas did not comply with the same guidelines as other applicants.

An unsigned and undated Uniform Residential Loan Application indicates that the applicant is

applying for a $74,000.00 conventional mortgage at 4.675% interest over a period of 30 years.

This Loan Application also indicates that the individual has current assets of $27,853.48.

Additionally the individual’s monthly expenses do not correlate to documents previously

reviewed, showing $1,393.00 total monthly rent on the Residential Lease Agreement in the file,

and reported as $840.00 on the Universal Residential Loan Application.

On May 7, 2009 the applicant submitted a check #391 to Leonard Kleinman, escrow agent, in the

amount of $2,000.00 for deposit on the property located at 229 SW 2nd Street (Exhibit 85).

A Uniform Residential Appraisal Report indicates that the property was appraised at

$167,000.00 as of May 29, 2009. A Mortgage Loan Commitment dated June 5, 2009 indicates a

loan amount of $74,000.00 at 4.821% over a period of 30 years, and the commitment is to expire

on July 10, 2009. An addendum dated June 26, 2009 indicates that the original closing date of

June 1, 2009 had been extended to July 10, 2009.

A July 6, 2009 letter from Debra Chatman of the City of Deerfield Beach to the applicant

indicates that approval has been granted for $40,000.00 in CDBG funding. A June 11, 2009 letter

from Dan Poitier of the WDBA to the applicant indicates that approval has been granted to

provide $25,000.00 through the HOME Investment Partnership (Exhibit 86).

A July 13, 2009 letter to Robert Kleinman, PA from Suzan Less states that check #267216 is

enclosed in the amount of $40,000.00 for the City of Deerfield Beach’s First Time Homebuyer

Program. The letter continues to state, “Please be advised under no circumstances is cash to be

disbursed to the borrower. Any funds remaining from the transaction must be applied to the

client’s principal loan balance.” (Exhibit 87). This check was voided and supplemented by a

letter dated July 31, 2009 and a check #267760 (Exhibit 88). Additionally, another $25,000.00

in funding was provided to the applicant in check #267474 (Exhibit 89).

49

The primary mortgage was taken from BankAtlantic on July 31, 2009. The applicant received a

30 year 5.0% interest mortgage in the amount of $76,000.00.

A Conventional Mortgage & Promissory Note dated July 31, 2009 indicates that $40,000.00 has

been provided by the City of Deerfield Beach from the First Time Homebuyers. The terms of

the mortgage indicate that it will depreciate at a rate of 1/5th per year and ending on July 30,

2014. A third mortgage was secured from the Broward County Home Grants Administration

Department Housing Finance & Community Development Division dated July 31, 2009. The

mortgage indicated that the $25,000.00 mortgage shall be forgiven over a period of fifteen years

and satisfied if the homeowner does not sell or transfer the property over that period of time.

A fourth mortgage was secured from Broward County-FTH Home Funds in the amount of

$15,000.00. The promissory note attached to the mortgage documentation indicates that the First

Time Homebuyer Project mortgage (third mortgage) dated July 31, 2009 indicates that the

mortgage shall depreciate at the rate of six and 2/3 percent (6.666666%) per year on the annual

anniversary date of this note. A fifth mortgage was secured from Federal Home Loan Bank of

Atlanta, in the amount of $10,000.00. The mortgage dated July 31, 2009 indicates that the self

amortizing loan shall depreciate at a rate of 1/60th per month over a period of five years. After

five years the mortgage shall be forgiven.

A review of the HUD Settlement Statement indicates that the purchase price of the home was

$167,000.00. No documentation was contained in the file regarding “Urban League AFI Funds”

totaling $4,056.31 and “Urban League Client’s IDA Funds” totaling $2,000.72 supplied/provided

to the buyer.

It should be noted that the applicant was not listed on the waiting list for the First Time Home

Buyers as provided by the Community Development Division. Debra Chatman stated in an e-

mail that, “The first time homebuyer approval/waiting list is not actually a ‘waiting list’.

Potential homebuyers are added to the list after they have been income certified to participate in

the program.” (Exhibit 90). The First Time Homebuyers Waiting List is enclosed as Exhibit 91.

50

A schedule of all the payments made for the construction of the property located at 229 SW 2nd

Street, is enclosed as Exhibit 92.

51

Viola Smith

432 NW 2nd Way



File processed by Westside Deerfield Businessmen Association, Inc. with assistance from

Housing & Assistive Technology, Inc. and the City of Deerfield Beach.

Viola Smith submitted an application for CDBG “Home” funding for the Minor Home

repair/weatherization program on November 4, 2004 (Exhibit 94). On the same date

authorization for the release of information, third party verification of income and a third party

verification of social security benefits were all signed by the applicant (Exhibit 95).

A review of the Broward County Property Appraiser’s website indicates that the property located

at 432 NW 2nd Way is owned by Viola Le. Smith and Miller Smith, et al, the property was

purchased on October 7, 2003. No transfer of property has occurred since this date. Another

property is owned by a Viola Smith located at 7897 Golf Circle Drive, 303, Margate, FL, this

property was purchased on June 1, 2005.

An unsigned April 17, 2006 letter from Westside Deerfield Business Men Association (CHDO)

to the applicant indicates that some documents are necessary to process the application which

must be provided by April 23, 2006 (Exhibit 96).

This application and construction was handled by the Westside Businessmen Association (sic)

according to a letter dated May 24, 2006 signed by Dan Poitier (Exhibit 97). The letter is

printed on plain bond paper addressed to the applicant indicating that the individual has been

determined to be of Low Income and that she could receive up to $15,000.00 in assistance. She

is requested in the letter to contact Dan Poitier as the next steps include an Income Certification

Meeting, Pre-Housing Inspection, Bid Project, Pre-Bid Conference, Contract Award, Approval

by Commission, Signed Contract and Promissory Note.

52

On September 11, 2006 SoFI submitted Work Specifications for Viola Smith which included

electrical work of $1,600.00 including battery powered smoke detectors, door and windows of

$6,300, Hurricane Shutters for $3,900.00, exterior painting for $1,900.00, HVAC at $4,900.00

and miscellaneous of $3,400.00 including installing a new driveway, replacing screen vents,

fascia board and replacing damaged shingles. The total cost of the project was estimated to be

$22,000.00 (Exhibit 98).

In October 2006 the project was presumably let for bid, but there is no documentation in the file

confirming this. An undated Specification for Repair Work from James Joyce totaled

$21,590.00. A Specification for Repair Work response was faxed from the La Quinta Inn from

ES Cummings totaled $23,400.00. The Specification for Repair Work forms that were supplied

to the contractors and ultimately returned to the Westside Deerfield Beach Businessmen

Association (sic) contains conflicting scopes of work. For example, item number 7.0 Misc. 2.3

on the James Joyce bid was “New HVAC being installed (none existing). Upgrade electrical

service as required to meet NEC and FBC for new HVAC system. Install new wiring and

disconnect switch”. This item is not contained on the ES Cummings bid.

Another conflict in item number 6.0 d., this time contained on the ES Cummings bid was,

“Remove old A/C wall and window units when new system is complete. Close up all thru wall

openings with materials, finishes and paint to match existing (Leave unit).” James Joyce

Construction did not have this item on their Specifications for Repair Work (Exhibit 99).

Contained in the file are two separate undated Bid Summary sheets containing different amounts

by the two vendors. The summary sheet showing an amount of $15,200.00 appears to be the one

utilized for the contract and mortgage (Exhibit 100).

Also contained in the file is a typed scope of work. This document is unsigned and undated and

does not indicate the contractor for the project. Questionably, on December 8, 2006 a letter sent

by Dan Poitier to Sonja Cummings indicates that her company was selected to replace the roof

on the home of Viola Smith. Nothing in the proposals Kessler saw from the contractors

indicated a roof was going to be replaced (Exhibit 101).

53

On a Notice To Proceed document to Sonja Cummings of ES Cummings Construction Company

dated December 15, 2006, Sonja Cummings signs the document on December 13, 2006, Dan E.

Poitier signed as a “Comm. Dev. Staff” on December 15, 2006, Viola Smith signs the document

on December 15, 2006, and the document was witnessed by Debra Chatman, but her signature is

undated. It is also shown that Vicon Electric and ES Cummings Construction, Co. are

subcontractors on the project (Exhibit 102).

A typed document, “Agreement between Owner and Contractor”, was made on January 15, 2007

yet the signature page indicates a date of December 15, 2006. The amount of the contract is

shown as $15,000.00.

The first page of this five page document Kessler reviewed in the case file is numbered 2 and

contains 22 clauses on the first four pages. The last page of the document contains a different

clause 19 and the signatures, which are dated December 15, 2006. This page is numbered as

page 7. Clause 19 on this page states, “This document, consisting of seven (7) pages, which

represents the entire Agreement between the parties and same may not be amended except by

agreement in writing duly executed by each party hereto or as otherwise provided herein.”

(Exhibit 103).

On December 15, 2006 a Deferred Payment Loan Agreement was entered into between the

homeowner and the City. The zero interest loan is in the amount of $15,000 and is a five year

deferred payment mortgage that depreciates at a rate of 20% (or 1/5th) per year.

In a December 27, 2006 letter to the homeowner Debra Chatman of the City of Deerfield Beach

indicated that certain items must be maintained by the property owner during the five year

period. Some of the items include removing debris from the carport and yard, maintaining

landscaping, provide clean backfill at the entire perimeter of the home, homeowner must remove

pit bull and other aggressive animals, homeowner must not reinstall air conditioning units in

“new” windows and allow the City of Deerfield Beach to make annual inspections for five years

(Exhibit 104).

54

On December 20, 2006 an invoice was prepared by ES Cummings for $6,745.00 and approved

by Debra Chatman for, “exterior doors and windows.” This invoice was paid on December 21,

2006. On January 15, 2007 invoice numbers 134 and 135 were submitted by ES Cummings.

Invoice 134 totaled $6,365.00 and invoice 135 totaled $6,650.00. The description of the work

and the pricing varied drastically. Both of these invoices were paid totaling $13,015.00. A

notation on the check indicates that some of these funds were disbursed from the Home Program

and others through the SHIP program. On January 25, 2007 the contractor submits a change

order for additional time due to the inability of the homeowner to move furniture around and out

of the way so walls and ceilings could be completed in a timely fashion. On February 20, 2007

the contractor submits an invoice for the remaining retainage on this project of $1,040.00 which

is paid on February 22, 2007.

Another invoice located in the file dated January 5, 2007 bills for additional work including:

Upgrade entire electrical system (exterior) ($3,400.00), ceiling fixture (kitchen/bathroom)

exposed wire ($600.00) and interior paint living, kitchen and den ceiling ($3,000.00). A change

order was signed and dated by the contractor on December 28, 2006 and the homeowner on

December 29, 2006 in the amount of $7,000.00 for upgrading the electrical system, painting the

ceilings, and replacing the ceiling fixture. It indicates on this change order that the owner will

pay the contractor the $7,000.00 (Exhibit 105). It should be noted that only the contractor,

owner and Director of Westside Businessmen approved this document.

Two building permits were located in the file one dated January 3, 2007 for electrical work

(service change/inside panel/4 smk dets/clg fixs/pf’s) submitted by Vicon Electric. A second

permit was submitted by ES Cummings for “WRPL and Shutt” on December 28, 2006.

A final inspection letter was submitted on February 8, 2007 by SoFI, indicating that all work was

completed in accordance with the specification and the homeowner is satisfied (Exhibit 106).

Also contained in the file was documentation regarding a Barrier Free Rehab project approved

for $21,747.00 of which $15,000.00 of the funding was from CDBG and $4,770.00 was from

SHIP.

55

A June 28, 2007 check was contained in the file written to Housing and Assistive Technology, in

the amount of $10,500.00 for Barrier – Free Housing Consultations/Services of which $3,500.00

was allotted to Viola Smith’s CDBG Minor Home Rehab project. An invoice was also contained

in the file for the Itemization of Assessment/Construction Case Management Services, including

intake discussion or meeting, reviewing medical conditions and physical limitations, initial walk

through or Onsite Assessment, preparation of environmental accessibility assessment/work

write-up, review work specifications report write-up with homeowner, contractors’ pre-bid

meeting and bidding process, closing documents preparation, pre-construction meeting, review

change orders, conduct interim on-site inspections, owner to release initial and a final payment-

draw upon work completed, EAC will provide Deerfield Beach Housing with the owners

completed file and maintain and provide monthly report to the City of Deerfield Beach of client

activity. It should be noted that no monthly reports were contained in the file.

Housing and Assistive Technology let bids for the Barrier Free Rehab which were replied to by

Conner (bid incomplete - $18,970.00), Handicap Compliance Construction Company, Inc.

($19,770.00) and Solid ($22,435.00). Handicap Compliance Construction Company, Inc. was

awarded the bid for a total cost of $21,747.00 ($19,770.00 and $1,977.00 (contingencies))

(Exhibit 107). It appears that some of the work contained in this work order was paid for in the

previous Rehabilitation award. It is also unclear how some of the work that was performed such

as installing a new drain line from the washing machine to the sewer would be considered

allowed under this program.

A Notice to Proceed document from the Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. dated June 21,

2007 indicates that a Paul A. Jackson Plumbing and Rising Sun Electric are the subcontractors

for the job.

On May 31, 2007 a memorandum was issued by Beth Kofsky to Debra Chatman for the five (5)

Year Deferred Payment Housing Rehabilitation Loan in the amount of $21,747.00 (Exhibit

108). This document is signed and approved by Debra Chatman and Andrew Hyatt on June 4,

2007.

56

The City of Deerfield Beach Deferred Payment Loan Agreement is dated June 21, 2007. The

document indicates that the total dollar amount of the agreement is $19,770.00; the terms

indicate that it shall depreciate over a period of five years at 0% interest. Within the document

the agreement states that the final approved construction contract price was not to exceed

$15,000.00 CDBG and/or SHIP funds. Although the document is signed by Beth Kofsky and

Viola Smith, it was never notarized or witnessed.

A final inspection was conducted on the property for the Barrier Free Program on October 28,

2007, signed by the contractor (October 10, 2007), client (October 26, 2007) and a HAT, Inc.

representative (October 26, 2007). It does not appear that the inspection report was conducted

by a third party.

An invoice dated October 11, 2007 from The Handicap Compliance Construction Company, Inc.

to Debra Chatman fails to delineate any work that was performed at the site and only concludes a

total amount of construction $19,770, and was signed and dated October 9, 2007 (Exhibit 109).

It should be noted that there is no corporation by the name of The Handicap Compliance

Construction Company, Inc. as per www.sunbiz.org, but The Handicapped Compliance

Construction Co. exists whose officer (Marcel Kimelman) is the same individual who signed the

bid.

Kessler also reviewed an unsigned and undated Contract between the City of Deerfield Beach

and Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. (Exhibit 110). Within the contract “Exhibit A” lists

various maximum unit costs for each item of the barrier free modification including:

Item: Maximum Cost:

Wooden Ramp (0’ – 4’) $650.00

Wooden Ramp (4’ – 6’) $800.00

Wooden Ramp more than 12’ to 29’ $83 per lineal foot

Portable ramps (0’ – 3’) $350.00

Portable ramps more than 3’ – 7’ $600.00

Door Widening 32” to 36” interior door $450.00

57

Door Widening 32” to 36” pocket door $750.00

Door Widening 32” to 36” block wall $950.00

Med offset hinges per door set $130.00

Roll under vanity/sink in kitchen or bathroom

Wall Mounted/hung handicap sinks $450.00

Standard Vanity $730.00 – 850.00

New bathroom sink $900.00

New Kitchen sink $900.00

Standard white handicap toilet $350.00

Turbo-flush white handicap toilet (for complex hygiene cases) $450.00

Bidet toilet seats (hygiene) $850.00 – $1200.00

Grab Bars

18” to 36” stainless steel with ½”diameter $225.00

90 degree wall-to-floor-mount in stainless steel $340.00

Swing-down stainless steel (confined areas) $445.00

Floor mount swing down grab bar $450.00

White or bronze aluminum picket railing $45.00 per linear foot

White or bronze aluminum picket railing 3 tier $65.00 per linear foot

Shower Seat – Fold-down $650.00

Roll in shower chair $400.00 - $1200.00

Shower Bench chair $50.00 – 250.00

Anti-Scald Control Valve shower-tub control $675.00

Many of the maximum item costs that were detailed in the Contract between the City of

Deerfield Beach and Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. for the architectural barrier

removal program were exceeded on this project. No detailed invoice was supplied in the case

file so Kessler utilized the bid as submitted by “The H.C. Const. Co.” The items that exceed the

maximum item costs include: 17” ADA toilet ($475.00) and shower chair ($280.00).

Additionally, many of the items that were charged to the project were not specified as acceptable

rehabilitation items including: shower curtain rod – wall mounted ($100.00), three tiered

58

medicine cabinet – 3’ preferred ($300.00), Walls ($1,000.00), Tile/Paint ($975.00), Repair and

resurface the entire asphalt driveway area ($4,800.00), survey ($450.00) and washing machine

drain line ($2,800.00).

The contract between the City and Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. also states that, “The

Recipient shall approve and process payments to contractors subsequent to completion of work.”

Kessler observed that Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. has only billed for their services

and has the City process all payments to The Handicapped Compliance Construction Co.

The maximum allowance for expenditures as per the contract Exhibit B states, “The $15,000 is

also inclusive of any program service delivery costs that are directly attributable to the home that

receives the SHIP and CDBG assistance.” Kessler has documented that $19,770.00 was paid to

The Handicapped Compliance Construction Co. and $3,500.00 payable to Housing and Assistive

Technology, Inc. for a total project cost of $23,270.00.

59

Albert & Lorna Gordon

1440 SW 5th Terrace



An application for Housing Repair contained in the file submitted by these individuals is date

stamped July 18, 2008, eight days after the individuals took ownership of the property from

Aurora Loan Services, LLC. The application was not dated by the applicants (Exhibit 112). A

special warranty deed was issued on July 10, 2008 to the homeowners from Aurora Loan

Services, LLC (Exhibit 113).

The Resident Income Certification is dated August 1, 2008 and signed by Debra Chatman as the

SHIP administrator. The employment verifications for the applicants are dated July 18, 2008.

When calculating the assets held by the applicants, Kessler determined as noted in other cases,

there is no consistency when utilizing either the 6-Month Average Balance or the current balance

of the bank accounts for the applicants. The cash value of the assets as indicated on the Resident

Income Certification is $8,295 when the current cash value of the assets is actually $9,204.38.

No third party Specification for Work documentation from William Ruffin was contained in the

file, but there were photographs dated July 21, 2008 in the file. These photographs do not show

any personal belongings or furniture in the home. Kessler also noted that the bids contained

specifications but it is unclear who developed them. In the file Kessler did find a disbursement

to William Ruffin in the amount of $435.00 dated July 28, 2008.

On August 1, 2008 the applicants were approved by Debra Chatman to receive up to $40,000 for

housing repairs (Exhibit 114).

Also contained in the file were bids submitted by various contractors. The bid submitted by

James Joyce Constructions was completely illegible due to a poor copy. The bid summary sheet

and the bids as submitted by the contractor are enclosed as Exhibit 115.

60


Onel Associates, LLC $28,198.00 $7,250.00 $35,448.00

ES Cummings Construction $41,600.00 $5,700.00 $47,300.00

Delmar Construction $35,975.00 $7,550.00 $43,525.00

James Joyce Construction $32,200.00 $3,700.002 $35,900.00

A memorandum dated September 12, 2008 from Debra M. Chatman to Jerry Ferguson indicates

that James Joyce was the selected contractor at $34,000.00 with selected options of $1,800.00

totaling $35,800.00. The total cost of the rehab including recording fees and contingencies was

written to be $39,352.30. The base bid was in the amount of $34,000.00 and the options totaled

$1,800.00 (Exhibit 116). There is no documentation contained in the file for the discrepancy

between the bid amount and this memorandum, nor why the low bid was not accepted.

On October 28, 2008 a City of Deerfield Beach SHIP / DRI Home Repair Program Deferred

Payment Loan Agreement indicates that the loan of $35,952.30 shall depreciate at a rate of 20%

(or 1/5th) per year over a period of five years at a 0% interest rate.

An Agreement between Owner and Contractor dated August 26, 2008, indicates that the bid was

awarded to James Joyce Construction in the amount of $34,000.00. The agreement is signed by

the Homeowners on August 28, 2008 and the Contractor on September 3, 2008. The signatures

are witnessed by Debra Chatman. The Agreement states that the monies shall be paid from SHIP

and DRI funds (Exhibit 117).

A Final Inspection Report completed by La’Marr Ruffin of 22nd Century on November 14, 2008,

indicates that Item #7 (Exterior Panel Door), Item #12 (Drywall Ceiling Repair), Item #20

(Install Smoke/Carbon Dioxide Alarms) and Item #21 (Electric upgrade including service and

panel) were all disapproved. A second Final Inspection document indicates that the appropriate

2 James Joyce Construction Corp.’s bid does not address option C or D and bids $0 for those items. All of the other contractors have inserted a cost which is included in the chart above.

61

items have been repaired and has the Homeowner Approval signatures dated December 22,

2008.

On December 5, 2008 a check in the amount of $35,120.00 was cut to James Joyce Construction

Corp. based on an invoice dated November 11, 2008 with the simple description, “Renovations

to the above residence” in the amount of $36,900.00. The invoice is date stamped November 17,

2008 with the initials SL handwritten. A Contractor’s Final Request for Payment on Purchase

order is also included in the file and signed by the Contractor on November 7, 2008, by the

homeowner on November 18, 2008 and by Debra Chatman on November 18, 2008. A change

order was issued for the project on September 3, 2008 which indicated installation of a 220W

dryer outlet, install 4 prong range outlet, tile in 2 bedrooms (to replace carpet) and upgrade A/C

electric. The total cost of the first change order was $2,900.00 and with the elimination of the

carpet from the contract (-$1,800.00) the net cost of the change order was $1,100.00. No

supporting documentation delineating the breakdown of the $2,900.00 was contained in the file.

Also included in the file is a change order number 2 in the amount of $1,800.00 for additional

drywall in the garage ($400.00), bath and kitchen fixtures ($400.00), unstop all plumbing lines

($600.00), a tub stopper ($50.00), and electric fixture repair ($350.00). This change order is

signed by the homeowner, the contractor and Debra Chatman on November 5, 2008. On January

2, 2009 an additional check in the amount of $1,780.00 is issued to the contractor for retainage

(Exhibit 118).

On March 27, 2009 a letter was sent to the homeowners indicating that a copy of the Mortgage

Modification Agreement executed on February 9, 2009 was enclosed. The Mortgage

Modification Agreement indicates that the original mortgage amount of $35,952.30 has been

modified to $38,063.00. The document is signed and dated by the homeowners on February 9,

2009, is notarized by M. Suzan Less and witnessed by Stephanie McMillian and Peter Parkin

(Exhibit 119).

62

Nicole Ingram

4210 NE 3rd Avenue



Contained in the file is an undated First Time Home Buyer Application submitted by the

applicant. It is date stamped February 3, 2009 and indicates that the gross annual income of the

applicant at $33,280.00. On the Resident Income Certification for the SHIP program dated

February 18, 2009, the applicant shows a household gross yearly income of $43,568.00 (Exhibit

121). In a Broward County Housing Authority Dwelling Lease dated June 30, 2008, the

applicant indicates that there are five household members including her former husband (Nathan

Wright) (Exhibit 122). A Final Judgment of Simplified Dissolution of Marriage document was

dated and signed by Nicole Ingram and Nathan E. Wright on July 30, 2007 (Exhibit 123). No

proof was provided in the case file that indicated the ex-husband was utilizing a separate

residence (as per Section IV (F) of the City of Deerfield Beach Policies Governing Department

of Planning and Growth).

As per the City National Bank of Florida Uniform Residential Loan Application (undated) the

applicant receives $828.79 per month in child support, yet the Resident Income Certification

indicates that only $649.00 is received on a monthly basis. The assets and liabilities section of

the Uniform Residential Loan Application indicates that $5,393.00 is the current value of the

bank accounts of the individual but the Resident Income Certification lists $1,758.20 (Exhibit

124). The City National Bank of Florida indicated that the applicant had been pre-approved for a

30 year loan of $71,800.00 at an interest rate of 4.75%.

On October 8, 2008 the applicant put a $1,500.00 down payment of the purchase of the property.

This deposit was given to Keyes as the escrow agent (Exhibit 125). It appears that two Sale and

Purchase Contracts were drafted. The first indicated an anticipated closing date of December 26,

2008 and a sale price of $90,000. The second indicated an anticipated closing date of January

12, 2009 and a sale price of $93,000. On December 16, 2008 an appraisal was conducted by

63

James V. O’Leary of Southern Realty & Appraisal, Inc. indicating that the property was

appraised at $93,000.00.

A February 18, 2009 letter to the applicant states that the applicant has been approved to receive

$25,000.00 in CDBG grant funds to assist in the purchase of a single family home (Exhibit 126).

In an e-mail from Diane Balceiro of Universal Land and Title to Debra Chatman and

representatives from Keyes, it states that the closing date was to be February 20, 2009 (Exhibit

127).

The first mortgage was taken with City National Bank of Florida for $68,400.00 and indicates an

interest rate of 4.75% payable over a period of 30 years. A second mortgage taken by the

applicant from the City of Deerfield Beach indicating that the mortgage in the amount of

$25,000.00 shall depreciate over a period of five years (1/5th per year) at 0% interest.

It should be noted that the payment by the City was made via wire transfer, when all the rest of

the payments observed during this internal controls review were made via check (Exhibit 128).

This individual was also very low on the FTHB Applicant Funds Approval Waiting List 80%, as

there were nine individuals ahead of her on the waiting list with no indication of why they were

not chosen to receive assistance (Exhibit 129).

64

Nahin & Krystal Martinez

1219 SW 49th Terrace



The First Time Homebuyer Application was signed and dated by the applicants on September

29, 2008 (Exhibit 131). Also contained in the file is a Resident Income Certification dated

December 17, 2008 signed by only one of the applicants. The supporting employment

verifications were conducted on October 10, 2008 and contain a signature that does not match

Krystal Martinez’s other signatures. The calculation of income for the Nahin Martinez indicates

that during a 4 month period Nahin Martinez received $21,868.00 in payroll which would equate

to $58,689.85 per year. It should also be noted that Krystal Martinez’s income verification is not

contained in the file. The documentation in the file indicates that Krystal Martinez is an

employee of the Deerfield Beach High School and has reported an income of $17,340.86. No

verification of Krystal Martinez’s retirement account is included in the file (Exhibit 132).

A December 18, 2008 letter from Debra Chatman of the Community Development Division

states, “Due to the overwhelming response for purchase assistance funds, it has become

necessary to create a Purchase Assistance Waiting list, you must stop by my office to sign your

Resident Income Certification – homeowner form. Purchase Assistance will be awarded in

date order on the waiting list.” The document continues to state, “The Purchase Assistance

Funds Approval Notice, when issued, is valid for 45 days and will not be extended (no

exceptions) if you have not purchased a property by the expiration of the notice.” Additionally,

it was noted that the document clearly indicates, “If you are expecting purchase assistance funds

from this office to assist with your purchase, please do not enter into a contract to purchase a

property until you have received a Purchase Assistance Funds Approval Notice.” (Exhibit 133).

On January 8, 2009 a Funds Approval Notice was sent to the applicants indicating that they had

been approved for SHIP finds in an amount not to exceed $20,000.00. Attached to the document

was a note that stated, “Exp. 3/6/09” (Exhibit 134).

65

A March 23, 2009 letter to the applicants from Debra Chatman states, “Your Funding Approval

Notice dated January 8, 2009 expired March 6, 2009. This office will accept applications for the

First Time Homebuyer Program again in July/August 2009, to which you will be notified by

mail.” (Exhibit 135).

In an April 10, 2009 letter to the applicants from Peter Parkin it states that the applicants are

qualified for a $20,000 SHIP grant, and that it shall expire 45 days from the date of the

correspondence (Exhibit 136).

On April 17, 2009 an e-mail from Peter Parkin to Debra Chatman indicates that the award letter

to the applicants has been renewed. The correspondence between the individuals indicates,

“We have appx. 2 years for VL set aside compliance. Please operate accordingly so that

we can achieve the required numbers. In the interim as I suggested earlier, please

indentify the VL and L clients that currently have awards letters and pursue funds from

Broward County Housing for which they are eligible, this will alleviate some of our

concerns and increase our options.” (Exhibit 137).

Discrepancies were noted between the Employment Verification filled out by the employer and

the Uniform Residential Loan Application. The monthly income as per the Uniform Residential

Loan Application, signed June 2009, indicates a gross income for both applicants of $4,262.00

but excludes the overtime of $944.00. The application also indicates that the Nahin Martinez has

been working for 2 years, while the Employment Verification indicates that he has only been

employed for one year (since May 2008) (Exhibit 138).

Three mortgages were located in the file; the first mortgage was taken with SunTrust Mortgage,

Inc. The first mortgage indicates a term of 30 years at 6.5% interest on a loan of $106,100.00.

The second mortgage was taken from Florida Housing Finance Corporation in the amount of

$10,000.00. The terms of the mortgage indicate that mortgage shall be repaid if the owners

become deceased, the house is sold or the primary mortgage is refinanced. The third mortgage

was taken from the City of Deerfield Beach a Forgivable Deferred Payment Loan in the amount

66

of $20,000.00. The terms of the mortgage indicate that it shall become forgiven after five year,

depreciating over a period of five years at 1/5th per year.

The HUD Settlement Statement indicates that the house was purchased for $135,000.00 and

shows a deposit made by the applicants in the amount of $1,350.00. Additionally the applicants

received $566.84 in cash back at the closing (Exhibit 139).

The applicants should not have been given assistance at all since their funding approval notice

expired on May 25, 2009. Closing was held on June 30, 2009, more than a month after the

approval expired.

These individuals were the last persons on the FTHB Applicant Funds Approval Waiting List

120%, and there were seven individuals ahead of them on the waiting list with no indication of

why those seven were not chosen first (Exhibit 140).

67

Shanell Miller

332 SW 2nd Avenue



File processed by Community Redevelopment Associates of Florida, Inc. with assistance from

the City of Deerfield Beach.

Contained in the file is an application for Residential Rehabilitation Program dated November 8,

2008. It should be noted that there is a Public Records Disclosure Acknowledgement form and a

Residential Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions document dated and signed by the applicant on

October 30, 2008. Also in the file is a General Applicant Information form with a rubber stamp

indicating that it must be returned on or before a date which is left blank. The stamp also

contains what appears to be the name GMA Of FL, Inc. On the Resident Income Certification,

the assets value are indicated as $0.00 for the IBM SE Emp Credit Union, while a Third-party

Verification of Asset Income signed and dated January 27, 2009, indicates that the average six

month balance is $5,849.11. Due to the assets being over $5,000.00 it would have been subject

to an assessment of 2% to calculate total gross income (Exhibit 142).

A February 12, 2009 letter from Deaverlyn (Dev) Brown of the Community Redevelopment

Associates of Florida, Inc. informs the applicant of the City’s approval for rehabilitation and

indicates that William L. Ruffin will be conducting the Work Specifications (Exhibit 143).

On the Specification for Work from the City of Deerfield Beach, prepared and signed by William

La’Marr Ruffin, and date stamped March 24, 2009. The total cost of the project is projected to

be $31,505.00 (Exhibit 144).

A Pre-Bid Meeting Sign-In Sheet indicates that a Thomas Miller attended for the homeowner.

Three different contractors were present at the Pre-Bid Meeting Sign-In Sheet including R & B

Remodeling, ES Cummings Construction and James Joyce Construction. The person whose

name appears as the homeowner is a “Thomas Miller” who is not listed as a member of the

68

household, and is not the property owner (Exhibit 145). It appears that as an afterthought

someone wrote the word “for”, circled it, and drew an arrow to Thomas Miller.

A Bid summary sheet dated April 17, 2009 shows that the following contractors submitted bids:


James Joyce Construction $26,600.00 $500.00 $27,100.00

R & B Remodeling $29,975.00 $900.00 $30,875.00

ES Cummings Construction $30,315.00 $1,000.00 $31,315.00

The only Specification for Work contained in the file was from James Joyce Construction in the

amount of $27,100.00 which is signed by both the contractor and the homeowner on April 30,

2009 (Exhibit 146).

A memorandum dated May 1, 2009 from the Community Development Division indicates that

James Joyce Construction, Inc. was approved to be the contractor for expenditures of Disaster

Recovery Initiative funding. The total amount awarded to the contractor was $13,710.40

including contingencies and recording fees. This document was signed on May 22, 2009 by

Community Development Division Manager Peter Parkin and by Debra Chatman on May 1,

2009 (Exhibit 147). A Recap Breakdown was supplied in the case file that indicates a deviation

between the HOME funds and DRI funds. Kessler was only able to review the expenditure of

DRI funds utilized on the rehabilitation. The file contained no information regarding the use of

HOME funds (Exhibit 148).

A resolution number 2009/134 was passed on June 2, 2009 indicating that $13,710.40 in

Supplemental Disaster Recovery Initiative Funds were approved for the applicant (Exhibit 149).

A June 8, 2009 letter from Debra Chatman indicates that the applicant has been approved by the

City Commission in the amount of $13,710.40 utilizing 2005 Supplemental Disaster Recovery

Initiative and CDBG funds (Exhibit 150).

69

A construction contract dated April 27, 2009 between the applicant and the contractor indicates

that the work to be performed shall commence on June 1, 2009 and shall be completed as of

September 30, 2009, in the amount of $27,100.00 (Exhibit 151). No revised contract was

contained in the file.

A Deferred Payment Loan Agreement dated June 8, 2009 indicates that the applicant received

$13,710.40 in DRI or CDBG funds. The terms of the zero interest agreement indicate that the

principal amount shall depreciate over a period of five years at 20% (or 1/5th) per year.

A title search conducted by SuRealty Title, Inc. dated October 7, 2008 indicates that the

individual has a mortgage with New Century Mortgage Corporation for a principal amount of

$55,000.00 and has several judgments and liens filed against her. Also contained in the file is

information that the applicant has previously plead nolo contendere to uttering a forged

instrument (bank check) and grand theft (Exhibit 152).

On October 1, 2009 a check in the amount of $12,400.00 was issued based on a September 1,

2009 invoice from James Joyce Construction Corp. The work described in the invoice includes

replacement of three exterior doors, ($2,100.00), installation of an impact patio door at the dining

area ($2,800.00), replace exterior non impact windows in the garage ($700.00), install storm

shutters at all exterior windows ($4,700.00), repair and replace missing window screens

($500.00), and install overhead garage door and opener ($1,600.00). The invoice was approved

by Debra Chatman.

Contained in the file was a September 26, 2008 e-mail from Debra Chatman of the Community

Development Division to William La’Marr Ruffin indicating that work-write ups are necessary

on numerous properties, including a former employee (Beulah Hill) of the Haitian American

Consortium, Inc. and Choices Network Systems, Inc. and a Linnie Pinkney, recipient of a job by

the Deerfield Beach Summer Youth Employment Program funded by the City of Deerfield

Beach and created by the Haitian American Consortium, Inc. After discussions with Debra

Chatman, Kessler was informed that the case file for Beulah Hill was processed by Broward

County since the City had exhausted its funding abilities (Exhibit 153).

70

Linnie Pinkney and Cynthia Thomas

332 SW 2nd Avenue



The Housing Repair Program Application was signed and dated by the applicants on August 28,

2008 indicating that the assets of the individuals exceeds $5,000.00 and that income is received

from Social Security Benefits (Exhibit 155).

A bid summary sheet was provided within the Action Request for Agenda which lists the

following bids:

Contractor: Base Bid Total:

FA Home Improvement $39,800.00

Gionfriddo Construction, Inc. $52,480.00

ES Cummings Construction $43,650.00

Allphase Contracting, Inc. $37,750.00

H A Contraction Corp. $65,620.00

James Joyce Construction Corp. $48,600.00

Joines Construction and Development $37,414.00

The bids and the bid summary sheet are provided as Exhibit 156.

No documentation is contained in the file that indicates why Allphase Contracting, Inc. was

awarded as the contractor when their bid was $336.00 higher than Joines Construction and

Development.

A Memorandum dated January 23, 2009 from Debra Chatman indicates that Allphase

Contracting, Inc. was awarded the bid in the amount of $42,246.00 including contingencies, title

search and recording fees. Of the $42,246.00 CDBG is to supply $32,658.50 in funding and DRI

is to supply $9,587.50. The document was dated and signed January 26, 2009 (Exhibit 157).

71

A Notice to Proceed document was dated and signed by Bernard Lacy, Allphase Contracting,

Inc. and Linnie Pinkney and Cynthia Thomas on February 19, 2009 which indicated that Astro

Electric, Inc. would be the subcontractor on the project (Exhibit 158). It should be noted that

Astro Electric, Inc. is owned by Bernard Lacy, owner of Allphase Contracting, Inc.

A Contract was entered into between “170 Southwest 3rd Street, Deerfield Beach, FL (hereinafter

called OWNER)” and “All Phase Contracting, Inc.” on February 19, 2009 indicating that

$37,750.00 would be paid to the contractor from rehabilitation funds. As per the affiliated scope

of work, exterior painting was still part of the contract (Exhibit 159).

A Deferred Payment Loan Agreement was entered into on February 19, 2009 indicating

$38,741.40 in repair work was to be conducted. The agreement indicates that the principal

amount of the zero interest loan shall depreciate over a period of five years at a rate of 20% (or

1/5th) per year.

The original bid in the amount of $37,750.00 called for the construction of a concrete wheelchair

ramp ($3,500.00), replace kitchen cabinets and counter tops ($6,800.00), replace roof

($3,300.00), replace the living room, family room and utility room doors ($2,100.00), replace

exterior windows ($5,600.00), exterior paint ($2,500.00), paint and repair walls and ceilings

($2,300.00), install grab bars in the main and master bathroom ($900.00), replace the kitchen

sink faucet and drain ($450.00), replace master bath pedestal, sink and fixture ($450.00), replace

the main bath sink, fixture and vanity ($450.00), replace main bath tub and shower ($1,250.00),

master bathroom shower, pan and enclosure ($5,000.00), AC equipment stand/service ($350.00),

interior lights and ceiling fans ($1,100.00), replace damaged loose fitting or missing switches

and install GFCI receptacles, correct hot water heater and air conditioner electrical code

violations and abandon electric for doorbell ($900.00), install smoke and carbon dioxide alarms

($800.00).

At a later date, the exterior painting was deleted from the Scope of Work. It should be noted that

this resident was supposed to be a recipient of The Haitian American Consortium, Inc. Summer

Youth Program (occurred in August 2009), which paid youths to paint houses within the

72

community. It was later noted in the file that on the second final inspection conducted on August

28, 2009 by William La’Marr Ruffin that the exterior painting of the house was deleted from the

contract (Exhibit 160).

A Notice to Proceed document dated October 16, 2009 and signed by the homeowners on

October 19, 2009 indicates that Mid South Painting, Inc. was awarded a contract in the amount

of $1,240.00 to paint the exterior of the house that was allegedly painted in August 2009 by the

youths in the Summer Program. A telephone call was placed to Mid South Painting, Inc. and

Kessler discussed the project. Kessler was informed that such an inferior job was done

previously that Mid South Painting, Inc. even had to remove paint from the newly installed

windows.

A March 31, 2009 invoice, number 004, in the amount of $14,150.00 was submitted for the

following work: exterior doors ($2,100.00), paint repair walls and ceilings ($2,300.00), grab bars

($900.00), master bath pedestal and sink ($450.00), main bath vanity, etc. ($450.00), main bath

tub shower ($1,250.00), master bath shower pan etc. ($5,000.00), switches, receptacles and GFI

($900.00) and smoke/carbon detectors ($800.00). On September 10, 2009 invoice number 1009

was submitted in the amount of $9,200.00 for the following work: wheelchair ramp ($3,500.00),

window replacements ($5,600.00) and kitchen lights ($100.00) (Exhibit 161).

Invoice number 004A dated March 31, 2009 includes replace doorbell at entry ($180), replace

aluminum made feed ($1,200), new circuit for refrigerator ($100), install refrigerator water line

(originally $100, crossed out and handwritten $125), repair leaking hose bib ($85), replace shut

off valve in master bath ($75), install two ceiling light outlets/family room ($300), install wall

switch in family room ($98), install 2 ceiling lights @ outlets family room ($70), install two wall

light switches @ hallway ($196), replace a 30 gallon water heater in kitchen ($1200), replace

range hood fan and wiring ($325) (Exhibit 162).

Invoice number 004B dated March 31, 2009 in the amount of $535.00 bills was submitted for

change range circuit for building inspector ($375.00), change range outlet per building inspector

($75.00), and change range plug per building inspector ($85.00) (Exhibit 163).

73

An unnumbered change order dated May 22, 2009 adds $320.00 to the project for changing out 2

kitchen lights, running switch light from fixture to fixture and patch ceiling and touch up paint

(Exhibit 164).

Change order number 1 in the amount of $2,189.00, dated March 5, 2009, adds the following to

the project: one pole switch in family room (originally $195.00, marked down to $98.00), two 3

way wall switches in the hallway (originally $390.00, marked down to $196.00), two ceiling

lights in the family room (originally $180.00, marked down to $70.00), two ceiling light outlets

in family room (originally $390.00, marked down to $300.00), one 30 gallon water heater

($1,200.00), one hood fan wiring ($325.00) (Exhibit 165).

Another change order number 1 dated March 5, 2009 in the amount of -$895.00 which

arithmetically does not add correctly indicates rear bath exhaust fan with switch (originally

$500.00, changed to $300.00 but crossed out), replace doorbell ($180.00), replace aluminum

main feed in new outside panel box ($1,200.00), replace aluminum sub feed from outside panel

to interior panel ($1,950.00, but this is crossed out), new circuit for refrigerator (originally

$350.00 but $100.00), refrigerator water line ($125.00). Also on this change order is deletion of

exterior paint of $2,500.00 (Exhibit 166).

Change order number 2 dated September 11, 2009 adds a vanity and sink, 4 horizontal slider

windows in bedroom, open end bulb lights easily accessible, master bath exhaust fan and switch.

This change order also deletes offset hinges on front door, 2 doors changed out as seen on walk-

through, not 3 doors, a pedestal sink, 4 single hung windows for bedroom, fluorescent lights in

the kitchen, and a master bath exhaust with light. The net change is $0 (Exhibit 167).

Also contained in the file is another change order number 2 dated March 23, 2009 indicating

repair leaking rear faucet ($85.00), install shut off for toilet ($75.00), totaling $160.00. Also

included on change order but deleted was: change 2 hall lights ($100.00) (Exhibit 168).

74

Change order number 3 includes $535.00 as an addition to the project and is dated March 31,

2009. This change order includes change wire for rain circuit ($375.00), change range outlet to

four prong ($75.00) and change pigtail to four prong for range ($85.00) (Exhibit 169).

Based upon a review of the file during the field audit it was determined that $38,793.60 was paid

to Allphase Contracting, Inc. The documentation copied for Kessler was lacking some of the

supporting documentation as observed in the field audit.

In a title search conducted by SuRealty Title, Inc. it indicates that the property has an assessed

value of $77,430.00, as of August 29, 2008 yet $41,525.66 was spent rehabilitating the home.

A Final Inspection Report prepared by William La’Marr Ruffin and dated June 26, 2009 was

contained in the file. Much of the work performed by Allphase Contracting, Inc. was

disapproved by the inspector. A Second Final Inspection dated August 28, 2009 again indicates

multiple items were disapproved. A Third Final Inspection Report dated October 12, 2009, it

indicates that all items were approved except painting of the exterior of the house which was

deleted (Exhibit 170).

Another contractor, Mid South Painting, Inc. was contracted on October 16, 2009 although the

contractor signed the contract on October 22, 2009, Debra Chatman signed the contract on

October 22, 2009, but the homeowners did not sign until January 28, 2010 long after the

contractor was paid. A check in the amount of $1,240 was issued to Mid South Painting, Inc. for

painting the home of L. Pinkney and C. Thomas. The invoice indicates as a description of work

performed, “Completion of exterior painting as per contract of single family residence located at

170 SW 3rd Street.” A conversation was held with a representative of Mid South Painting, Inc.

who informed Kessler that the job performed by the Youths of the Summer Youth Program was

done so incompetently that brand new impact windows were painted over, which then had to be

cleaned.

Also contained in the file is a memorandum from Debra Chatman to Peter Parkin indicating that

Allphase Contracting Inc. damaged the vertical blinds in the living room during window

75

replacement and that she authorized payment in the amount of $95.40 to the homeowner for the

replacement.

76

Barry and Natasha Baker

325 NW 3rd Street



It should be noted that both applicants are employees of the City of Deerfield Beach (Exhibit

172).

The Home Repair Program Application is signed by the applicants but no date is indicated on the

application. The certification of employment conducted on both applicants is dated May 2,

2007. The Resident Income Certification form it is dated August 29, 2007. Additionally, the

signature of the SHIP Administrator is covered using correctional fluid and “8-29-07” is written

over May 4, 2007. It is unclear why an Employment Verification would be conducted before a

Resident Income Certification form is drafted, as the information provided in the Employment

Verification is necessary on the Resident Income Certification form. The Resident Income

Certification indicates that five individuals are members of the household and that the gross

yearly income is $67,134.60.

A June 12, 2007 letter from the Community Development Division indicates that the applicants

were awarded up to $40,000.00 in repairs. It also states that in July/August a housing inspector

will be contacting the applicant to schedule an appointment to conduct a repair (Exhibit 173).

The following bids were submitted to the city for the emergency roof repairs for the individual:

Contractor: Bid:

Crognale & Associates $13,475.00

Horizon Group of New England, Inc. $13,468.00

The bids that were supplied in the case file for Crognale & Associates and Horizon Group of

New England, Inc. are enclosed as Exhibit 174.

77

On August 29, 2007 a letter was issued to Horizon Group of New England, Inc. that indicated

they were awarded the contract (Exhibit 175). Additionally on August 29, 2007 a letter was sent

to the homeowners congratulating them on receiving $13,468.00 in SHIP funds (Exhibit 176).

On October 26, 2007 a permit was issued to Horizon Group for roofing repairs.

A resolution number 2007/212 dated September 4, 2007, indicates that Horizon Group, Inc. was

awarded the bid in the amount of $14,814.80 (Exhibit 177).

On September 4, 2007 a Minor Home Repair Program Deferred Payment Loan Agreement was

executed. The terms of the agreement indicate that the loan in the amount of $13,468.00 would

be satisfied over a period of five years, depreciating at a rate of 1/5th per year.

A Notice to Proceed document dated September 4, 2007, indicates that a sub-contractor, Bradco

Supply Corp would be utilized on the project (Exhibit 178). The document also indicates that

the work must be completed within fifteen days or September 21, 2007 or be subject to

liquidated damages of $100.00 per day. According to the 5-year Contractor Guarantee dated

October 30, 2007, the date of completion of the job was December 7, 2007 and thus, $7,700.00

should have been charged to Horizon Group of New England, Inc. (Exhibit 179).

An original application for payment was submitted by Horizon Group of New England, Inc. on

October 14, 2007 in the amount of $11,569.00 which is paid minus the retainage on November

29, 2007. A change order which is signed November 14, 2007 by the contractor and November

26, 2007 by Debra Chatman approves an additional $2,110.00 for what is listed in the change

order as new code requirement, secondary water barrier ($1,593.00), and upgrade roof shingles

to GAF 40 year ($517.00). A payment is made on December 20, 2007 to Horizon Group of New

England of $5,165.90 and a subsequent payment for retainage billed by Universal Roofing and

Contracting Services and made payable to same in the amount of $1,156.90 on September 4,

2008.

No final inspection was contained in the file and no remittance for a final inspection was paid by

the City.

78

Andy Douglas & Kenneth Sherriff

325 NW 3rd Street



File processed by Westside Deerfield Businessmen Association, Inc. with assistance from the

City of Deerfield Beach.

Andy Douglas signed and dated the application on February 18, 2005 and Kenneth Sherriff

signed and dated the application on April 19, 2006 (Exhibit 181). The application indicates that

Kenneth Sherriff is un-employed and that the combined assets of the applicants are less than

$5,000.00. The two children of the household are both over the age of 18 and were students as

of April 2005.

No Resident Income Certification was conducted on the applicants and the two children whom

reside in the household. Additionally an unemployment affidavit was not included in the case

file for the co-applicant, and no verification of assets was also provided.

Kenneth Sherriff purchased a home located at 1800 NW 15th Street on December 7, 2005, prior

to signing and dating the application for assistance. The home was purchased in the amount of

$225,000.00 from Emmett Sherriff and Wendy Sherriff (Exhibit 182). Two mortgages were

taken by the co-applicant, both from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The first

mortgage was in the amount of $180,000.00 and is a 30 year mortgage; the second mortgage is in

the amount of $45,000.00 and is a 25 year mortgage. Subsequently on September 7, 2007 a

Notice of Lis Pendens was filed by Deutsche Bank Trust Company against Kenneth Sherriff,

mortgage holder and Kerron Wilson, as trustee of the 1800 NW 15th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL

Trust. On January 28, 2008 a Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure was issued on the

property, where Deutsche Bank Trust Company was seeking $199,205.72. The property was

scheduled to go to auction on April 2, 2008 to the highest bidder. This property was never

disclosed as an asset in the application.

79

A Specification for Work was conducted by SoFI and submitted on September 11, 2006. The

estimated cost of the project was indicated as $22,900.00 (Exhibit 183).

Documents contained in the file indicate that only two contractors bid on the project. James

Joyce Construction submitted a bid of $33,200.00 for “total repairs” and “total miscellaneous

repairs” for $10,500.00 for a total bid of $43,700.00. ES Cummings Construction submitted a

bid for “total repairs” in the amount of $31,100.00 and “total miscellaneous repairs” for

$5,000.00 for a total bid of $36,100.00 (Exhibit 184). A summary bid from ES Cummings and

the bid submitted by James Joyce Construction are enclosed as Exhibit 185. Kessler again noted

that the descriptions for the work outlined by SoFI differ from the work on the specifications for

repair work issued by the City. In a supplementary bid summary it indicates that the following

items have been removed from the bid proposal submitted by the contractors: replace roof,

replace garage door, and replace HVAC Air Handler and Condenser. The total amount now

submitted by James Joyce was $20,700.00 and ES Cummings in the amount of $17,900.00

(Exhibit 186).

A December 8, 2006 letter from Dan Poitier to the applicants indicates that the responsive bidder

is ES Cummings Construction for a total of cost of $12,400.00 (Exhibit 187).

A resolution was passed on November 21, 2006 indicating that $42,650.00 was awarded for bid

#2006-07/01 for minor home repairs on privately owned homes (the resolution fails to list the

addresses) within Deerfield Beach (Exhibit 188).

A Change Order was issued from ES Cummings Construction, Co. on February 15, 2007

indicating that a garage window ($300.00), turbines ($200.00) and light switch outlet ($50.00)

were necessary for the rehabilitation of the home in the amount of $550.00. The change order

was approved and signed by the CD Inspector, Community Development Coordinator,

Community Development Director and the Contractor. The homeowner did not sign off on the

change order (Exhibit 189). The “CD Inspector” is indicated as Dan E. Poitier and certifies by

signing that,

80

“The improvements effected on the above property have been inspected and

found satisfactory. The property meets the requirements of local building codes

and the specifications of the contract, as applicable, as well as HUD Section 8

Housing Quality Standards. The Contractor has proved Partial Release of Liens

for the General Contractors and Subcontractors, Warranties for supplies and

appliances, Guarantees from General Contractor and Subcontractors, including

roof and other specialized trades as per Project Bid Specifications and Building

Department Final Inspection Reports. Please process this request for final

payment on the purchase order in the gross amount of $550.00.”

On February 15, 2007 an invoice is submitted by ES Cummings Construction to Dan Poitier of

WDBA for the installation of 3 battery backup smoke detectors ($600.00), replacing GFCI in

NEC and FBC areas ($600.00), replace rotten damaged roof soffit and fascia as needed paint as

well ($800.00), exterior door front entry ($700.00), interior doors 3 door slab ($700.00), exterior

paint ($4,000.00), windows front elevation ($1,000.00), hurricane shutters ($3,000.00), install

aluminum gutters ($1,000.00). Some of the description of the work performed was never

included in the bid or the revised bid.

A second invoice dated February 15, 2007 was also submitted by ES Cummings Construction

for: garage window ($300.00), turbines ($200.00), light switch outlet ($50.00) is paid on March

15, 2007 in the amount of $522.50. On August 14, 2008 ES Cummings Construction submits an

invoice for the retainage of this project in the amount of $647.50 which is paid on August 21,

2008.

The mortgage between the City of Deerfield Beach and the applicants is dated December 15,

2006 and indicates that the principal amount is $12,400.00 and shall not exceed $15,000.00. The

Loan Agreement indicates that the mortgage shall be satisfied over a period of 5 years and

depreciate at a rate of 20% (1/5th) per year.

A “Final Inspection” letter from SoFI dated March 23, 2007 to Debra Chatman indicates that

work needs to be conducted to conclude the job, including installation of a dedicated single pole

81

receptacle at the washing machine and change existing laundry room outlets to GFCI as per item

2.2, re-caulk inside of window frames at living room to cover exposed plaster, re-install existing

clam shell shutter from front elevation per item 4.3 (Exhibit 190). Nothing in the file indicates

that this work was ever corrected, yet the contractor was paid.

On April 1, 2009 a notice of Lis Pendens was filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, indicating that the

plaintiff was seeking foreclosure on the property owned by the applicants (Exhibit 191). On

April 20, 2009 an Assignment of Mortgage was filed by Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc. and transferred the mortgage to JPMorgan Chase Bank. The mortgage being

transferred was originally dated September 14, 2006 and filed on October 3, 2006 in the amount

of $231,800.00.

A September 11, 2009 memorandum from Debra Chatman of the Community Development

Division indicates that Chatman visited the house to investigate the nine items in a complaint

letter sent to the City by the homeowner (Exhibit 192). The letter continues to state various

issues concerning the construction. There is no resolution in the file regarding concerns raised in

this letter.

82

Melvin V. Walker

325 NW 3rd Street





On February 11, 2005 the applicant applied for rehabilitation assistance. There is only one

individual who is listed as a member of the household (Exhibit 194). A third party verification

of social security benefits indicates that the applicant receives a net monthly income of

$1,214.00. The third party verification of income form is incomplete but a copy of an IRS tax

return for Melvin V. Walker that is included in the case file indicates that the applicant also

received $8,041.00 and $8,007.00 from two different employers. The total gross income as

calculated by Kessler for the applicant is $30,616.00, utilizing the IRS form W-2 and the social

security verification.

Included in the file are bank account statements supplied during the application process relevant

to Melvin T. Walker and also as a co-account holder Arlene Tigner, who is also located at the

address of the applicant (Exhibit 195). It appears that there are three individuals living at this

property yet only one individual is included in the calculation of income. No other

documentation is contained in the file for the other individuals.

As per a Broward County Property Appraisers report on the property dated June 5, 2006 it is

indicated that Melvin and Isiah Walker are the owners of the property (Exhibit 196). A death

certificate for Isiah Walker is contained in the file indicating that he died on June 6, 2002.

SoFI conducted a job cost estimate on the property on September 11, 2006, the estimate included

the following (Exhibit 197):

83

Scope of Work: Amount:

Electric $1,200.00

Roof Repairs $2,100.00

Hurricane Shutters $3,500.00

HVAC $3,600.00

Exterior Painting $2,000.00

Misc. $3,400.00

Total $15,800.00

Only two Specifications for Repair Work are contained in the file and it could not be determined

from the documents available in the case file that this project was sent out for bid (Exhibit 198).

The two contractors who provided Specifications for Repair Work were James Joyce

Construction ($32,420.00) on an undated specification sheet and ES Cummings Construction

($36,750.00). The Specification sheet from ES Cummings contains a fax stamp indicating that it

was sent from La Quinta Inn on October 18, 2006 at 12:00 noon. The Specifications for Repair

Work submitted by each party are not the same document and differ in formatting, content and

sequence.

In a resolution passed on November 21, 2006, the City approved a contract for exterior home

repair to the lowest responsible and responsive contractor as per Bid 2006-701 to ES Cummings

Construction Company in the amount of $42,650.00. It is unclear from the documents in the

case file how ES Cummings was determined to be the lowest bidder or how the City arrived at

the contract amount.

The applicant, on December 15, 2006 entered into a Deferred Payment Loan Agreement with the

City in the amount of $11,950.00. The terms of the loan indicate that it shall depreciate over a

period of 5 years, at a rate of 20% (or 1/5th) per year. On the same date Melvin Walker entered

into an agreement with ES Cummings Construction to conduct repairs to his home in the amount

of $11,950.00. Documentation contained in the file indicates work to be performed includes:

smoke detectors ($800.00), replace existing outlets with GFCI ($600.00), replace disconnect

switch for AC unit ($500), replace and relocate 2 exterior light fixtures and relocate CATV box

84

($500.00), correct electrical violations at front GFIs ($800.00), install hurricane shutters

($3,200.00), repaint the exterior of the house ($4,500.00), re-caulk windows ($800.00), replace

leaking hose bib ($250.00).

A Change Order dated and signed by the homeowner on December 20, 2006 indicates that

upgrading the interior and exterior electrical panel to 150 AMPs is necessary and that it would

cost $4,000.00. Additionally, a deletion from the contract for replacing disconnect switch from

the AC unit, correcting electrical violations and re-caulking all windows were deleted. The cost

of the deletions total $2,200.00, thus the change order should have been reflected as being

$1,800.00 (Exhibit 199). The corresponding $4,000.00 invoice for this change order is dated

January 2, 2007 and does not list the deletions (Exhibit 200). The cost of the deleted items

shown in the change order does not correlate with the cost of the deleted items as shown in the

original Specifications for Work, as outlined below:

Bid Item # Description Bid Document Change Order

2.3 Replace disconnect switch from $500.00 $800.00

a/c unit to meet NEC and FBC

2.5 Correct electrical violations $800.00 $600.00

7.4 Re-Caulk all windows $1,500.00 $800.00

There is no apparent reason for these discrepancies. Additionally on change order two dated

January 24, 2007 the addition of an electrical function box to bring electric to code ($800.00) and

replacement of exterior door jam to re-hang door ($500.00) were added at a total cost of

$1,300.00. This document is unsigned by the Community Development Division personnel and

the WDBA, but is signed by the Contractor on January 24, 2007 and undated by the owner

(Exhibit 201). On January 3, 2007 a permit (#07-1464) was issued to Vicon for electrical

repairs on the property. On January 25, 2007 the inspection was completed and approved.

A memorandum dated January 16, 2007 from Dan Poitier to Debra Chatman with the a reference

line of, “Additional Funds for Melvin Walker” indicates,

85

“After I reviewed the repairs at the home of Viola Smith with the contractor, it was

found that the home is need of funds to make repairs that will exceed the $15,000

approved award. Ms. Smith’s home is in need of the following: upgrade interior

electrical system ($4,000). The funds are available for this project from SHIP.” (Exhibit

202).

A memorandum dated January 17, 2007 from Debra Chatman to Andrew Hyatt indicates

“Attached is a request for additional funds from the Westside Deerfield Beach Businessmen

Association for Rehab client Melvin Walker and Viola Smith in the amount of $4,000 and

$7,000 respectively. The additional funds are requested for items that were not foreseen during

the work write-up provided by SoFI Corporation.” (Exhibit 203).

On an invoice dated January 2, 2007 $4,000.00 is charged for an upgrade to the interior and

electrical panel ($150.00). This was a change order on the job. Additionally, an undated (approx

January 24, 2007) invoice for $1,300.00 is charged for electrical junction box to bring electric to

code ($800.00), replace exterior door jam and re-hang door ($500.00), items which were

supposed to be removed from the Specification of Work. These two invoices were paid by the

City in a check in the amount of $5,035.00 (invoice amount minus retainage) on February 1,

2007 after being approved by Debra Chatman, Andrew Hyatt and Dan Poitier.

On an invoice dated January 9, 2007 $4,750.00 is charged for exterior painting ($4,500.00), and

replacing a leaking hose bib ($250.00) which is paid on January 11, 2007 in the amount of

$4,512.50.

On a January 22, 2007 invoice, $4,600.00 is charged to install hardwire backup smoke detector

($800.00), replace existing outlets with GFCI ($600.00), replace exterior light fixture ($500.00)

and hurricane shutters ($3,200.00) which is paid on January 25, 2007 in the amount of

$4,370.00.

Additional checks for the retainage are issued on February 1, 2007 for $236.23 and on March 15,

2007 for $479.93 and $252.57.

86

On February 16, 2006 a letter from SoFI to Debra Chatman indicates that the final inspection on

the property was conducted and approved. Pictures attached to this letter were dated February

14, 2006. There is no explanation in the file as to how a final inspection could have been

completed months before the initial inspection was conducted in September of 2006 (Exhibit

204).

A Mortgage Modification document was sent to the applicant on February 5, 2009 from Peter

Parkin, the letter attached indicates that the applicant must reply sign and complete the document

by February 20, 2009, yet no signed copy is contained in the file (Exhibit 205).

87

Ed Walker

170 SW 5th Street





On October 7, 2004 this applicant applied for SHIP Minor Home Repair assistance, with a yearly

gross household income of $7,872.00 (Exhibit 207). The applicant indicates that his assets are

greater than $5,000.00 yet no documentation is contained in the file to indicate the exact amount

of assets held by the applicant. On a Resident Income Certification document dated May 11,

2005 the applicant indicates that no assets are held (Exhibit 208). This document is approved by

Dan E. Poitier. This document is signed by Jessie Walker as head of household.

In an April 9, 2005 letter to the applicant from Dan E. Poitier it states that certain items are

missing from the application including: Does Jessie live with you?, Proof of hazard insurance, A

copy of a recent social security benefit letter and Six recent consecutive bank statements

(Exhibit 209). No documentation contained in the file indicates that Jessie Walker does not live

with the applicant and no bank statements are contained in the file since the applicant is said to

have “$0” assets.

An award letter on plain bond paper was sent by the Director of WDBA Dan E. Poitier on May

9, 2005 indicating that the applicant had been approved for assistance up to $15,000.00 (Exhibit

210). It is unclear why an award letter would be given to the applicant prior to income

certification being conducted.

SoFI prepared an estimated Specifications for Repair Work on May 25, 2005 and determined

that the cost would be $16,300.00 for roof repairs, electrical, HVAC, doors and misc (Exhibit

211).

88

On December 22, 1997 a General Power of Attorney form was signed by the applicant assigning

Power of Attorney to Jessie Walker (Exhibit 212). The document was witnessed by Charlotte

Taylor and Ronald C. Robinson and is notarized by a Woodrow Poitier.

A March 6, 2006 letter from Stephanie McMillian of the City of Deerfield Beach to James Joyce

Construction verifies that the project underway is being managed by Westside Deerfield

Businessmen Association, Inc. (CHDO) and that an additional $1,362.00 will be awarded by the

Grants Administration Office. The entire amount proposed as additional funding to complete the

project is $2,278.00, with the remaining balance of $916.00 coming from WDBA - CHDO funds

(Exhibit 213).

Only one Specifications for Repair Work contractor response was contained in the file from

James Joyce Construction. James Joyce estimated that the cost of the construction would be

$24,190.00 (Exhibit 214). A bid summary sheet enclosed indicates that certain items were

crossed out on the sheet, and that the estimated cost would be $15,800.00 for James Joyce

Construction and $18,675.00 for Shalimar Roofing (Exhibit 215). No explanation for these

discrepancies is contained in the file.

The Contract for Repair Work between the contractor, James Joyce Construction and the

homeowner specifies that the work to be conducted would include: roof replacement, and

electrical repairs. The contract was signed and dated by the contractor on September 20, 2005

and by Jessie Walker (For Ed W. Walker) on October 6, 2005 (Exhibit 216). The total amount

of the contract is $15,800.00.

A Deferred Payment Loan Agreement dated October 6, 2005 indicated that the loan amount is

$15,000.00. The terms of the zero interest loan state that loan shall be forgiven after five years,

and shall depreciate at a rate of 20% (or 1/5th) per year.

On a Subcontractors’ Affidavit, Warranty and Lien Waiver document it indicates that South

Florida Electric was employed to furnish labor and materials for the improvement on the

property of the applicant (Exhibit 217). Yet Hagerman’s Quality Electric applied and was

89

issued a permit for electrical work (Exhibit 218).

On April 25, 2006 James Joyce Construction submitted a bill for $17,278.00 indicating that they

had completed work on the roof ($11,000.00), GFI’s ($900.00), panel ($2,100.00), service

($1,800.00), alt damaged wood ($2,278.00), paid by homeowner (-$800.00). On August 29,

2006 a check is cut by the City of Deerfield Beach to the contractor, paying the total amount

billed.

90

Angela Storr

1041 SW 8th Avenue





An application for SHIP Minor Home Repair assistance signed and dated by the applicant, an

employee of the School Board of Broward County, FL, on November 15, 2004 indicates that the

applicant has over $5,000.00 in assets (Exhibit 220). Documents contained in the file indicate

that the applicant was to receive a pending lump sum settlement in the amount of $30,750.00, for

a worker’s compensation claim (Exhibit 221).

A July 22, 2005 letter from SoFI indicates that the estimated cost of the work specification

would be $16,300.00 (Exhibit 222).

It appears that the only contractor who submitted a Work Specification response was East Coast

Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $17,900.00 (Exhibit 223). No bid was contained in the file

only the summary sheet.

On July 20, 2005 a letter on plain bond paper from Dan E. Poitier was sent to the applicant. The

letter indicated that the applicant was eligible for $15,000.00 for Minor Home

repair/weatherization (Exhibit 224).

An August 25, 2005 letter from Dan E. Poitier to East Coast Contractors, Inc. states that

$17,900.00 in funding had been provided to conduct repairs on the property (Exhibit 225).

A mortgage was signed and dated September 13, 2005 from the City of Deerfield Beach, in the

amount of $15,000.00. The terms of the mortgage indicate that the mortgage shall be satisfied

over a period of 5 years at an interest rate of 0%. On December 20, 2006 the mortgage dated

September 13, 2005 was satisfied.

91

A contract was signed and dated on September 13, 2005 by East Coast Contractors, Inc. and the

applicant indicating that the work to be conducted will cost $16,900.00 (it is spelled out as

seventeen thousand nine hundred dollars) and also indicates that the owner agrees to pay $1,900.

The work to be performed as annexed in Exhibit A of this contract indicates that the Contractor

shall tear off and replace and dispose of existing shingles ($6,000.00), replace all windows

located throughout the house ($6,000.00), totaling $17,900.00. It appears that something was cut

out of the contract and the text was replaced with something else. The property owner signed

this agreement on September 13, 2005.

A change order was issued on “10/13/05” November 28, 2005 and indicates that additional costs

of accordion style shutters would be $1,582.49 (Exhibit 226). The change order indicates that

the applicant must provide the difference. A check was issued by the applicant on the same date

for settlement of the change order (Exhibit 227).

The permit (#05-6730) for the windows and shutter installation was approved by the Building

Department on June 15, 2006. Another permit (#05-6333) was issued to East Coast Contractors,

Inc. for roof repairs. No license was located for East Coast Contractors, Inc. as a Certified

Roofing Contractor, but the sub-contractor Hyer Quality Builders, Inc. is licensed as a Certified

Roofing Contractor.

SoFI conducted a final inspection on the property on May 25, 2005 as per a letter sent to Dan E.

Poitier that indicated that locks are to be added to the accordion shutter on inside for egress at

rear door for the final inspection to be complete and correct (Exhibit 228). No documentation

was contained in the file to document that this was addressed.

On June 26, 2006 an invoice was supplied by East Coast Contractors, Inc. for roof ($6,000),

windows ($5,000.00) and shutters ($5,900.00) less a credit from Angela Storr of $1,900 for a

total amount due of $15,000.00 due. On August 29, 2006 paid East Coast Contractors, Inc.

$15,000.00.

92

Clay Lee Stanley

116 NE 6th Court





The applicant submitted an application for SHIP Minor Home Repair assistance on October 22,

2004 (Exhibit 230). The applicant has a gross yearly household income of $7,339.20 as per the

2004 SSA-1099. The assets for the individual are less than $5,000.

A May 26, 2005 letter on plain bond paper from Dan E. Poitier states that the applicant is

approved for CDBG ‘Home’ funding for Minor Home repair/weatherization in the amount up to

$15,000 (Exhibit 231)

A June 8, 2005 invoice from SoFI indicates that an initial inspection was conducted on the

property; SoFI was compensated $500.00 for this service. SoFI conducted an estimate of the

work specification and determined that $16,300.00 is the approximate amount of work to be

conducted on the premise (Exhibit 232).

Only two of the three bids as stated on the Invitation to Bid summary sheet were contained in the

file. All bid totals typed on this sheet were crossed out, removing items 5.0, exterior painting

and 8.0 Pressure clean driveway and front walkway and amended as shown below (Exhibit 233).

The bids for James Joyce Construction and MBR Construction are (Exhibit 234):

Contractor: Estimated Project Total Amended Total

Shalimar Roofing $17,490.00 $15,190.00

James Joyce Construction $17,180.00 $14,880.00

MBR Construction $20,160.00 $16,600.00

93

A Deferred Payment Loan Agreement was signed and dated October 6, 2005 from the City of

Deerfield Beach in the amount of $14,880.00. The terms of the loan indicate that the mortgage

shall be satisfied over a period of 5 years at an interest rate of 0%.

A Contract for Repair Work was signed and dated by the applicant on October 6, 2005, which

indicated the scope of the work and the amount of the repairs being $14,880.00 (Exhibit 235).

On August 15, 2006 James Joyce Construction Corp. submitted an invoice in the amount of

$14,880.00, and on August 31, 2006 James Joyce Construction was issued a check in the amount

of $14,880.00. This was for work conducted including roof repairs, replace exterior doors,

replace all windows and install hurricane shutters.

94

Henry H. Hall, II and Nora B. Hall

181 SW 2nd Street


(Background/Disbursements – Exhibit 236)

Henry H. Hall, II is allegedly the father of Stephanie Hall McMillian, an employee of the CDD.

Stephanie Hall McMillian started on August 12, 2002 as an employee of the City of Deerfield

Beach Community Development Division. Her specific job title currently is Community

Development Coordinator.

The applicant, Henry H. Hall, II and co-applicant Nora B. Hall submitted the application for the

Deerfield Beach Minor Home Repair/Weatherization Program on September 17, 2001 prior to

Stephanie Hall McMillian’s employment with the division (Exhibit 237). The Resident Income

Certification application indicates that the yearly gross income for the applicants is $21,064.08

(Exhibit 238).

As per an August 15, 2002 letter from Evans Environmental & Geosciences, the estimated cost

of the project was $10,000.00 (Exhibit 239).

In October of 2002 bids are requested for a number of projects including Hall and it was

determined by Donna Council that the award be split between three contractors, Simpson

Developers Inc., James Joyce Construction Corp. and East Coast Contractors based on the lowest

responsive and responsible bid per location.

Ms. Council’s letter of November 1, 2002 indicates that Stephanie McMillian will oversee this

project, and that she concurs with her recommendations. As per an undated Proposal Page

showing a bidding amount result comparison, East Coast Contractors was the lowest bidder

(Exhibit 240).

95

The results were as follows:

Contractor: Bid:

James Joyce Construction $7,740.00

Simpson Construction $22,385.00

Florida Developers $18,950.00

M. Rahman, Inc. $14,250.00

East Coast Contractors $6,750.00

A letter from Stephanie McMillian to Glen Judy of East Coast Contracting dated November 22,

2002 indicates that the letter is the official Notice to Proceed, awarding the project to East Coast

Contracting. The only bid contained in the file was from East Coast Contractors in the amount

of $6,750.00 (Exhibit 241). This bid is signed under the name of East Coast Restorations on

page 2, and as East Coast Contractors on the attached Part I – Bid Signature Page.

A search of the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations indicated that through

December 31, 2002 East Coast Restorations was a fictitious business name used by East Coast

Contractors, Inc.

A letter was sent from Anissa R. Brathwaite, Grants Administrator for the City of Deerfield

Beach to Henry H. Hall II on February 25, 2002 indicating that he is eligible as a “very low

income” household to receive up to $10,000.00 in funding for minor home repairs/weatherization

(Exhibit 242).

Another letter was sent from Stephanie McMillian from the City of Deerfield Beach to Henry

Hall on November 4, 2002 indicating that the property was approved for SHIP Minor Home

Repair / Weatherization program and that East Coast Contractors was awarded the bid (Exhibit

243).

Resolution 2002/198 was passed on November 19, 2002 for minor home repairs on privately

owned homes in Deerfield Beach (Exhibit 244). East Coast Contractors was awarded two bids

for a total price of $16,750.00 of which $6,750.00 is attributable to the Hall residence. The bid

96

for the Hall residence included cleanup, ($200.00), fascia repair ($185.00), soffit repair

($100.00), hurricane shutters ($4,500.00), upgrade to accordion shutters ($100.00), awning

removal, take down and leave with homeowner ($0.00), patching and caulk ($45.00), pressure

clean ($125.00), exterior paint and acid wash and stain carport drive and front patio ($1,300.00),

repair front elevation decorative stone and patch in carport ($145.00).

A Change Order was issued by East Coast Restorations, Inc. of 10738 NW 53rd Street, Sunrise,

FL on March 14, 2003. The change order indicates an upgrade of the hurricane shutters from

aluminum panel type to accordion style ($1,250.00), awning removal, remove and reinstall

awning after shutters ($385.00), patching and caulking ($45.00), pressure cleaning ($125.00),

exterior painting ($1,300.00) and replace 1 leg of door jamb at front door ($145.00), for a total

cost of $3,250.00 (Exhibit 245). The total cost of the repairs conducted on the property after the

change order was exactly $10,000.00, the maximum that could be awarded in this program.

Furthermore, the change order encompasses not only the identical items as described in the bid,

but in some cases also the exact price charged on the bid, making it appear as if certain items

were billed twice.

On April 11, 2003 a Deferred Payment Loan Agreement was entered into between Henry H. Hall

and Nora B. Hall and the City if Deerfield Beach. The term of the zero percent interest,

$10,000.00 loan is indicated as five years. The loan shall depreciate at a rate of 20% (or 1/5th)

per year. It should be noted that Leslie Ann Hall notarized the document.

An undated invoice was submitted by East Coast Restoration (sic) delineating the initial bid and

change order items as noted above in the amount of $10,000.00. Another invoice dated July 14,

2003 listing as the description of work performed, minor home repairs for the residence of Henry

Hall…payable by the City of Deerfield Beach. There is a handwritten notation on this invoice

indicating “Punchout list completed on September 11, 2003. Please pay from this invoice.” On

September 19, 2003 a check in the amount of $10,000 is issued to East Coast Restorations.

97

Carolyn Moore

1271 NW 46th Street



The applicant submitted an application for the Home Housing Repair Program on December 19,

2008 using a Post Office Box 5838 in Lighthouse Point, FL as her mailing address. Next to the

mailing address a home address of 1271 NW 46th Street, Deerfield Beach, FL is listed (Exhibit

247). Kessler was able to determine that Carolyn Moore is currently Registered Agent and

Director of Focus Alternative Solutions Inc. which has a mailing address of PO Box 5838,

Lighthouse Point, FL. Carolyn Moore was also determined to be a representative of the Florida

Board of Nursing Home Administrators and is affiliated to the Florida State Courts as a Certified

Mediator. The places of employment are not reported on the application. Based upon research

conducted by Kessler, it was also determined that Carolyn Moore is a licensed Nursing Home

Administrator, with license number 801-4164. The Resident Income Certification for the

homeowner was completed on May 28, 2009, the gross household income for the individual is

stated at $51,220.31 (Exhibit 248).

A Rehabilitation Bid Requirements and Specifications sheet was submitted by what appears to

be Twenty Second Century Roofing, Inc. Twenty Second Century Roofing, Inc. was paid

$435.00 to conduct an initial house visit with the homeowner to determine scope of work

necessary for the repair (Exhibit 249). The total cost of the repairs for the Revised

Rehabilitation Bid Requirements and Specifications was $18,870.00 for items 8a, 8b, and 8d.

A Revised Rehabilitation Bid Requirements and Specifications document contained in the file

indicates that a reduction in the items to be repaired was made, and only clean up, exterior doors,

replace all exterior windows and remove and replace overhead garage door are to be bid upon

(Exhibit 250).

An RFP was let for bid on April 23, 2009, prior to an income certification being conducted on

the applicant of the property. The bids for the property are enclosed as Exhibit 251.

98

The contractors who submitted bids are:

Gionfriddo Construction $9,400.00

ES Cummings Construction $12,800.00

Onel Associates $17,857.00

Innovative Contracting $13,980.00

FA Home Improvement $13,150.00

Joines Construction $11,547.00


An April 27, 2009 letter from Carolyn Moore to Donna M. Council, Purchasing Agent indicates

that, “Communications is being mailed to my home and I have requested all mail to the mailing

address which is the post office box. I failed to keep the appointment of April 14, 2009 as I did

not receive the notice. Please use the post office box for all correspondence.” (Exhibit 252).

The PO Box is #5838 in Lighthouse Point.

As per a letter sent from Debra M. Chatman on May 28, 2009 to the applicant’s home address at

1271 NW 46th Street, the letter states that, “Congratulations! Your application requesting to

participate in the City’s Housing Repair Program has been approved…Once the repair

assessment is completed, the Inspector will forward the information to this office for preparation

of Bid Specifications which will outline the suggested repairs to be made to your home.”

(Exhibit 253). This letter is dated the same day that the income certification is completed. As

per the documents provided in the file the bid specifications had already been conducted and the

proposals from the contractors had already been received.

Kessler has noted that there has been no money paid to date for the rehabilitation of this

property.

Kessler’s research also indicates that Carolyn Moore may be the owner of property located at

246 Hall Road, Lamont, FL with a J W Moore (Exhibit 254). This was not disclosed to the

Community Development Division on the application.

99

Anthony and Margaret Davis

336 NW 7th Court



File processed by Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. with assistance from the City of

Deerfield Beach.

The City of Deerfield Beach has contracted on a number of occasions with an entity called

Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc., to process applications applicable to providing suitable

living environments for persons with disabilities or the elderly. Beth Kofsky whose contract

allows her to bill on an hourly basis with a not to exceed of $3,500.00, submitted an invoice in

the amount of $3,500.00 to perform the following services applicable to this property: in person

and/or over telephone conduct an intake discussion ($200.00), initial walk through or on-site

assessment including inspection of the clients home ($400.00), preparation of an environmental

accessibility assessment/work write up ($800.00), review work specification report write-up with

homeowner ($300.00), contractors pre-bid meeting and bidding process ($350.00), closing

documents, preparation, and closing meeting ($450.00). From Kessler’s review it would appear

that Beth Kofsky always bills the maximum amount.

The document noted above is approved by the owner (Davis) and Debra Chatman. A request for

payment invoice attached to the document indicates that the contract sum is $3,500.00. Included

in the file is an Exhibit C invoice which is a 7 page document missing pages 4 and 5. This

document indicates that the first draw payment was $2,500.00 and a final draw payment is

$1,000.00. Listed on page 7 of 7 is an hourly breakdown for the work performed including

construction case management services 108 hours at $25 per hour, equaling $2,700.00 and

administrative services 40 hours at $20 per hour, equaling $800.00. This would equate to 18.5

days working 8 hours per day.

The first payment of $2,500.00 is included on a check from the City dated January 18, 2007 in

the amount of $12,500.00 representing $2,500.00 payments for M. Webster, A. Davis, E. Poitier,

E. MacDonald, and D. Santorelli. The second $1,000.00 is paid by the City on May 10, 2007 in

100

a check totaling $5,500.00 which includes $3,500.00 for Aretha Keitt, $1,000.00 for Anthony

Davis and $1,000.00 for Donna Santorelli (Exhibit 256). It is unclear how every matter handled

by Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. could take the same time to complete.

A Housing Repair Program application was submitted by Anthony Leon Davis and Margaret

Ann Davis on October 18, 2006 (Exhibit 257). According to the application, the applicants were

determined to have a “moderate” income level, which should have disqualified them from

receiving CDBG funding, the account which was charged for this repair. The Resident Income

Certification form signed and dated by Anthony Davis on December 5, 2006 indicates that four

individuals are members of the household including Anthony Davis, Margaret Ann Davis, Akimi

Davis (Daughter) and Ashely Myrick (Daughter) (Exhibit 258). The IRS form 1040 for year

2005 for Anthony and Margaret Davis indicates that Ashely Myrick is a Niece to the applicants.

On the 2004 IRS 1040 form Akima C. Davis is not listed as a dependent of Anthony and

Margaret Davis (Exhibit 259).

Akimi C. Davis, the individual whom the architectural barrier removal was provided for had

income stated as per the Resident Income Certification form of $6,492.00 per year. The Social

Security Administration Notice of Award indicates that $748.00 was to be received by the

individual on a monthly basis starting in February of 2006, this equates to $8,976.00 per year

(Exhibit 260).

The application for assistance did not list any real property as assets. Kessler determined that

Anthony and Margaret Davis were 70% owners of the property located at 5021 Wiles Road

#207, Coconut Creek, FL. The other 30% owner of the property is Beatrice Pomares (Exhibit

261). Anthony L. Davis and Margaret Davis also own four other pieces of property (Exhibit

262).

Additionally, Kessler requested information as to how medical necessity was being verified and

how determinations were being made as to the necessity of certain items being bid. Kessler was

informed that Beth Kofsky determined via a walkthrough of the home what was necessary and

Lewis stated that the only verification she knew that was conducted was income verification.

101

When asked if Beth Kofsky had any sort of medical degree, a contractor’s license or any license

from the Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Lewis indicated that she did

not. When questioned, Lewis further indicated that it was possible that none of the bids were

being forwarded to the City for their files, which was later redacted in a fax.

A review of the bid cover sheets provided to Kessler indicated that the cover sheet for ES

Cummings was different than for the other four vendors. The cover sheet for four of the vendors

indicated that bids were due December 14, 2006 by 10:00AM. They do not give a bid opening

time. The cover sheet submitted by ES Cummings indicates simply, “Bids due Thursday,

December 14, 2006”, and underneath that sentence, “Sealed bid opening December 15, 2006 at

10:00AM”.

The contractors bid review sheet which indicates that the bids were opened and reviewed

December 14, 2006 shows that ES Cummings Construction was the lowest bidder in the amount

of $12,400.00 (Exhibit 263). No bids were contained in the file that was provided to Kessler.

A telephone call was placed to Housing and Assistive Technology (a non-profit corporation) and

a message left requesting to speak with Beth Kofsky. The next day, a return call was received

from a representative identified as Naomi Lewis, who indicated that she would forward us copies

of the bids that were missing from the package. Upon receipt of this information, an analysis of

the bids was performed. The contract was let according to a Housing and Assistive Technology

form on November 19, 2006. Five bids were received by Kessler for review. A bid from ES

Cummings indicates on the bid that Housing and Assistive Technology released the bid on

December 6, 2006 at 2:08PM based on a fax stamp on the form that was returned. The dollar

figures on the fax form provided to Kessler for review from ES Cummings appears to have been

redacted with correctional fluid in some cases and changed in others. The bid is signed by ES

Cummings on December 14, 2006 and indicates a client signature of December 13, 2006

(Exhibit 264).

102

A bid from Crognale and Associates also indicates that the bid was released on December 6,

2006 at 1:43PM. The bid is signed by Joseph Crognale on December 12, 2006 and by the client

on December 11, 2006 (Exhibit 265).

A bid from Solid Construction shows a fax stamp of December 14, 2006 at 4:09PM from a Chris

Keltz. This document is signed by Keltz on December 14, 2006 but was never signed by the

client. This would be an invalid bid insomuch as the client never signed it and it was received

after the closing at 10:00AM on December 14, 2006 (Exhibit 266).

A bid, date stamped as being received December 6, 2006 from HCC is also signed on December

6, 2006 by an unintelligible signature. Again, no client signature was contained on the form

(Exhibit 267).

A bid submitted by Conner indicates by a date stamp that it was received on December 12, 2006.

The signature page indicates that Conner Industries, Inc. signed as contractor on December 12,

2006. There is no client signature on the document (Exhibit 268). Based upon the documents

presented to Kessler, it would appear that only 2 of the bids should have even been considered as

having qualified for consideration.

A Memorandum dated December 18, 2006 from Debra M. Chatman to Andrew E. Hyatt was

seen which indicates that, “Attached is a Contractor Bid Review submitted by Housing and

Assistive Technology, Inc. for Anthony Davis who has been certified to participate in the Barrier

Free Program to remove architectural barriers in her home”. The document continues to state

that the responsive bidder is ES Cummings Construction at a cost of $12,400.00 in CDBG

funding (Exhibit 269).

A resolution number 2007/003 was passed on January 2, 2007 stating that $54,130.00 in CDBG

and SHIP funding has been approved (Exhibit 270). Three jobs, (Anthony Davis, Donata

Santorelli, and Marilyn Webster) are represented in this amount, with the resolution naming

Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. as the award winner for architectural barrier removal.

Although the funds are allocated to Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. payments are made

103

by the City directly to the winning construction company bidder for each job. In the case of

Anthony Davis, ES Cummings Construction was paid by the City.

Contained in the file was a Deferred Payment Loan Agreement dated January 11, 2007 for the

property located at 336 SW 7th Court, Deerfield Beach, FL. The total amount of the loan is

$12,400.00 and is a zero percent interest loan, depreciating at a rate of 20% (or 1/5th) per year

over a period of 5 years (Exhibit 271).

Two checks were issued to ES Cummings Construction Co. for the Work Specification

performed on the applicant’s property. The first check (#236425 in the amount of $9,140.00)

states that $7,855.00 was paid to ES Cummings Construction Co. for work performed on the

applicant’s property minus retainage. Included in this payment was a tub/shower ($2,200.00),

shower faucet and lever control ($300.00), grab bars inside shower ($500.00), handheld shower

flexible showerhead ($600.00), vanity and marbleized top ($700.00), sink faucet with lever

control ($350.00), 17” high round toilet ($600.00), floor tiled ($400.00), standard bath chair

($400.00), lever door handles ($400.00), and walls durock walls (sic) and floor in the wet area

($550.00). A photocopy of the bath chair that was charged to the City at $400.00 is included in

the case file. Kessler’s research determined that an identical chair can be purchased on the

Internet for approximately $75.00.

Remarkably, the amounts charged by the contractor far exceeded the amounts authorized in the

contract with Housing and Assistive Technology. Additionally, other contracted guidelines such

as allowable tile colors were ignored.

A change order approved by Debra Chatman and Beth Kofsky was issued for Work Specification

for “vent bathroom through the roof” ($1,300.00) and deletion of the Work Specification item

number 14, floor mounted grab bar ($-800.00) for a total amount due the contractor of $500.00,

yet $1,235.00 was paid to the contractor ($1,300.00 minus $65.00 in retainage). No supporting

documentation is contained in the file for the additional $522.50 that was paid by the City

(Exhibit 272).

104

Another check was issued to the contractor (#239131 in the amount of $9,050.00) states that

$5,250.00 was payable to the contractor for work done on the applicant’s property. A change

order was submitted and approved by Beth Kofsky and Debra Chatman on May 13, 2007 for

new exterior front door ($750.00) and electric strike door opener ($1,300.00) and deletion of

Work Specifications auto door lock latch opener system (-$1,000.00) and GFI in bathroom, pre

existing ($-100.00), for a total amount due the contractor of $950.00. On this change order

$1,925.00 was paid to the contractor which represents the amount of the invoice minus the

retainage (Exhibit 273).

As noted above the Contract between the City of Deerfield Beach and Housing and Assistive

Technology, Inc. lists maximum unit costs for each item of the barrier free modification program

as noted below (Exhibit 274):

Item: Maximum Cost:

Wooden Ramp (0’ – 4’) $650.00

Wooden Ramp (4’ – 6’) $800.00

Wooden Ramp more than 12’ to 29’ $83 per lineal foot

Portable ramps (0’ – 3’) $350.00

Portable ramps more than 3’ – 7’ $600.00

Door Widening 32” to 36” interior door $450.00

Door Widening 32” to 36” pocket door $750.00

Door Widening 32” to 36” block wall $950.00

Med offset hinges per door set $130.00

Roll under vanity/sink in kitchen or bathroom

Wall Mounted/hung handicap sinks $450.00

Standard Vanity $730.00 – 850.00

New bathroom sink $900.00

New Kitchen sink $900.00

Standard white handicap toilet $350.00

Turbo-flush white handicap toilet (for complex hygiene cases) $450.00

Bidet toilet seats (hygiene) $850.00 – $1200.00

105

Grab Bars

18” to 36” stainless steel with ½”diameter $225.00

90 degree wall-to-floor-mount in stainless steel $340.00

Swing-down stainless steel (confined areas) $445.00

Floor mount swing down grab bar $450.00

White or bronze aluminum picket railing $45.00 per lineal foot

White or bronze aluminum picket railing 3 tier $65.00 per lineal foot

Shower Seat – Fold-down $650.00

Roll in shower chair $400.00 - $1200.00

Shower Bench chair $50.00 – 250.00

Anti-Scald Control Valve shower-tub control $675.00

Many of the maximum item costs that were detailed in the Contract between the City of

Deerfield Beach and Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. for the architectural barrier

removal program were exceeded on this project, including: grab bars inside shower ($500.00),

17” high round toilet ($600.00) and standard bath chair ($400.00).

Additionally, many of the items that were charged to the project including: tub/shower

($2,200.00), sink faucet with lever control ($350.00), floor tiled ($400.00), lever door handles

($400.00), and walls durock walls and floor in the wet area ($550.00), vent bathroom through the

roof ($1,300.00), deletion of the Work Specification item number 14, floor mounted grab bar ($-

800.00), exterior front door ($750.00) and electric strike door opener ($1,300.00) were not

delineated in the Contract as an allowable cost.

The Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. contract with the City also states, “The Recipient

shall approve and process payments to contractors subsequent to completion of work.” Kessler

noted that Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. had the City process all payments to ES

Cummings Construction Co.

Also contained in the contract, section “Barrier-Free Program Requirements” is “The Recipient

shall verify that the assessed value of the real property to receive repairs does not exceed

106

$152,180.” The Broward County Property Appraiser’s website states that the just value of the

property in 2008 was $227,130.00, as the 2007 value of the property was not available for

review.

The contract also mandates that any tile repair conducted can only be white or bone, yet the

contract between the City and the homeowners indicates that the bathroom floor tile color shall

be Rainforest Gardenia and the bath wall color shall be Behailan Beige.

Furthermore the maximum allowance for expenditure as per the contract between the City and

Housing and Assistive Technology is, “The $15,000 is also inclusive of any program service

delivery costs that are directly attributable to the home that receives the SHIP and CDBG

assistance.” Kessler has documented that $13,657.50 was paid to ES Cummings Construction

Co. and $3,500.00 payable to Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. for a total project cost of

$17,157.50. This amount exceeds the allowable amount.

The discrepancies that exist between the change orders and payment of the change orders could

not be rectified. Kessler has determined that $11,757.50 should have been paid to the contractor

and under separate heading an additional $715.00 should have been paid for retainage, for a total

of $12,472.50 but $13,657.50 was paid to the contractor.

A review of the Building Department records applicable to this address indicated that electrical

work on the job was reported to the department as being valued at $1,750.00, plumbing at

$4,150.00, and other at $500.00. As of the current date, only plumbing has had a final inspection

(Exhibit 275).

Housing and Assistive Technology had the responsibility according to the contract to assure all

repairs receive Building Department inspections.

The applicants, Anthony Davis and Margaret Davis are Directors of The Church of Brotherly

Love, Inc. and Church of Brotherly Love King’s Table Corp. d/b/a (Brotherly Love Social

Services) and Brotherly Love King’s Table Community Development Corporation, d/b/a (King’s

107

Table Community Development Corporation), The A.L. & M.A. Davis Corporation.

Additionally, Anthony Davis is listed as the registered agent for Sons Land Investments LLC and

as an officer and registered agent for Deerfield Beach Christian Ministerial Association, Inc.

Furthermore, Hair in the Spirit, Inc. is an active non-profit corporation operating from 269 S

Dixie Highway, Deerfield, FL, but listed Felicia Poitier as an officer using the 336 NW 7th Court

address. Anthony and Margaret Davis were both listed as Directors of Gibson-Alwood

Commons Association, Inc. and Heis Association, Inc.

108

Wayne A. Adams

1431 SW 5th Terrace


Limited documentation was contained in the file consisting of the application for assistance from

the SHIP Partnership Program dated August 23, 2000, income certification, an R & B

Remodeling invoice and a copy of a check in the amount of $13,430.00 payable to R & B

Remodeling encompassing two jobs. The income certification showed income of $35,965.00.

The amount paid to R & B Remodeling by the City on November 2, 2001 on behalf of Adams

was $5,355.00.

An invoice in the file from R & B Remodeling indicates fascia repair ($975.00), soffit screen

repair ($300.00), repair soffit above electric service ($100.00), door repair and screen repair

($125.00), remove and replace nine windows ($2,025.00), pressure clean entire residence

($100.00), patch and caulk ($180.00), paint the entire house ($1,400.00), site cleanup and

permits ($150.00).

Also contained in the file was a 2000 SHIP Minor Home Repair Restrictive Covenants binding

Wayne Anthony Adams to reside at the property for a period of five years. A contract with ES

Cummings Construction Co. for another property was also contained in the file. No bid

documentation was maintained in the file. It should be noted that this individual is a City

employee.

109

Darrel Adams

1430 SW 5th Terrace



Darrel Adams applied for assistance through the SHIP Minor Home Repair/Weatherization

program on July 10, 2001. An income certification was conducted on the applicant on March 6,

2002 and determined that the gross yearly income for the applicant was $31,664.00. Darrel

Adams is a City employee.

A Work Specification was submitted by Evans Environmental & Geosciences to Stephanie

McMillian on April 9, 2003. The specifications do not detail an estimated cost of the project

(Exhibit 277).

An invitation to bid Proposal Page results was contained in the file for Bid #2001-02/16. The

results of the bids indicated that Simpson Developers is the low bidder for this property. A letter

dated January 3, 2003 from Donna Council to Larry Deetjen indicates that Simpson Developers

Inc. and MBR Construction Corp. were the two lowest responsive and responsible bidders per

location since the bid encompassed multiple properties.

Contractor: Amount:

Simpson Developers $8,375.00

M. Rahman, Inc. $9,550.00

East Coast Contractors $10,000.00

MBR Construction $8,535.00


Florida Developers Corp. $10,600.00

SRJ Construction Corp. $16,850.00

Documentation in the file indicates that MBR Construction was awarded the contract. It is

unclear why Simpson Developers, Inc. was not awarded the contract. In a summary sheet the job

110

is broken down as cleanup ($200.00), fascia general ($210.00) soffit general ($250.00), soffit

screen ($150), concrete walk/driveway ($725.00), gutters and downspouts ($275.00), single hung

windows ($2,500.00), exterior door replacement ($1,200.00), door repair ($225.00), patching and

caulk ($250.00), pressure clean ($400.00), paint exterior ($1,725.00), paint driveway/patio

($150.00) (Exhibit 278).

A Deferred Payment Loan Agreement dated January 28, 2003 indicates that $9,743.00 is the

amount of the loan. The zero interest loan shall depreciate over a period of five years at 20% (or

1/5th) per year (Exhibit 279).

Only a check in the amount of $10,000.00, made payable to M B R Construction, Inc. dated

September 2, 2003 from the City was contained in the file with the notation 1430 SW 5 Ter

(Exhibit 280). No supporting invoice or change orders were in the file.

111

REVIEW/ANALYSIS OF GRANTS

Church of Brotherly Love King’s Table Corp.d/b/a Brotherly Love Social Services 81 N. Deerfield AvenueSuite 3Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Current and Previous Board Members:Margaret A. DavisEloise DavisAnthony L. DavisBetty MathisionLeroy AustinTommy B. Butts Jr.Pamela M. DavisFannie Baker

*It should be noted that the current/previous board members are also associated with a number of

other non-profit corporations, including Brotherly Love King’s Table Community Development

Corporation, which is currently an active corporation. Individuals listed as officers or directors

include Anthony Davis, Margaret Davis, George Bowels, Marshelle Grover, Stephanie McMillan

of the Community Development Division, Community Development Coordinator (2007-2010).

A Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) Application was submitted by the applicant

dated September 25, 2006 requesting $40,000.00 in CDBG funding. The application states that

the project is to be funded by in kind funds of $14,724.00, other grants of $43,684.00 and CDBG

funding of $40,000.00. The goals for the Helping Families to Succeed #2 project were shown as:

“Project Goal is to benefit low-income persons by implementing the 3 R’s of Retaining,

Restoring and Resolution of the family unit through a variety of programs and referral

services. The program interventions consist of mentoring, counseling, and training to

help families overcome today’s social and financial pressures. The “King’s Kids”

mentoring program designed to assist low to moderate-income, at risk youth by giving

each child a healthy view of life by building such character traits as self-respect, self-

discipline, and self worth. To demonstrate to the youth that many positive possibilities of

112

the futures and deter them from a life of hopelessness, crime, drugs, poverty and

promiscuity.”

One of the recommendation letters in the application was from Beulah B. Hill (Beulah M. Butts)

dated September 9, 2008 who was has been employed by Haitian American Coalition and

Choices Network Systems, Inc. (both of which received CDBG funds) as well as having been the

campaign aide who also ran campaign headquarters for Sylvia Poitier states that she is,

“…president of the Common Highland Homeowners Association where Park Ridge Elementary

is located. As the president I am aware of the program being executed by Brotherly Love Social

Services at this school and I give my blessing upon their endeavors to continue providing the

urgently need services for our youth.”

As per a resolution number 2007/084 and dated March 20, 2007, it indicates that Brotherly Love

Social Services was awarded $20,000.00 in CDBG funding.

An Agreement entered into between the City of Deerfield Beach and Brotherly Love Social

Services dated March 20, 2007 indicates that the sub-recipient will be responsible for

administering a CDBG public service program for program year 7, (FY 06) Helping Families to

Succeed #2. The program deliverables are listed as benefiting low to moderate income persons

by implementing the 3 R’s of Retaining, Restoring and Resolution of the family through a

variety of programs and referral services. The program interventions consist of mentoring,

counseling and training to help families overcome today’s social and financial pressures. The

agency currently has three components, one which is 1) King’s Kids – mentoring designed to

assist low to moderate income at risk youth by giving each child a healthy view of life by

building such character traits as self-respect, self-discipline and self-worth. King’s Kids provide

the following services: children will have individual service plans provided by a counselor,

reviewing their school records to collect the measurable data (grades, conduct, attendance and

prior discipline), all children will receive group and individual mentoring weekly, all children

will receive tutoring weekly, all children will receive group and individual counseling weekly,

all children will receive a classroom visitation weekly, and all children will receive group

education on the harmfulness of substance abuse. The program must accomplish 8.3 units per

113

month for a total of 75 units per year. It should be noted that although an asterisk is on the

document next to units per month the only footnote next to the asterisk is the word, “note”.

According to the agreement with the City, staffing is to consist of an Executive Director with 8

years experience in Social Services and a Chief Financial Officer with 8 years experience in

Social Services. The services for the sub-recipient are listed to start on the first day of October

2006 and end on the first day of October 2007 despite the fact that the resolution for funding was

not approved until March 20, 2007.

Within the agreement the budget is outlined as salaries, $13,500.00, Fringe $1,033.00, Audit

$4,525.00 and Insurance $942.00 for total funding of $20,000.00. Under the Payment section of

the agreement it stated that, “The total amount to be paid by the Grantee under this contract shall

not exceed $20,000.00.” Payments shall be made on April 10, May 10, and June 10 of 2007.

The April 10th payment includes costs from October 2006 through March 2007. A payment is

made on April 12, 2007 in the amount of $14,912.28 encompassing personal compensation in

October of 2006 of $1,500.00, and employer taxes of $114.77. The documentation contained in

the file indicates some sort of units next to each category that have no relationship to any of the

other documents in the file. Furthermore, two payroll checks to Margaret Davis indicating a

gross pay of $750.00 each and a net pay of $692.62 are used to support the expense.

Additionally a tax filing submitted on October 18, 2006 to the Internal Revenue Service indicates

taxes paid in the amount of $562.20.

For the period ending November 30, 2006 personnel compensation is listed as $2,250.00 and

employer taxes is $114.77. These expenses are supported by 3 checks written to Margaret Davis,

each in the amount of $692.62 and a Federal Tax Deposit of $447.57. For the period ending

December 31, 2006 personal compensation is listed as $1,500.00 and employer taxes is $114.77.

Again this is supported by two checks to Margaret Davis, each in the amount of $692.62 and a

Federal Tax Deposit of $447.57. For the period ending January 31, 2007 the same situation is

seen of $1,500.00 in personal compensation with 2 supporting checks to Margaret Davis, each in

the amount of $692.62 and a Federal Tax Deposit of $447.57.

114

For the period ending February 28, 2007 compensation is listed as $1,500.00, employer taxes is

listed as $114.77 and an audit of $2,000.00. Documentation that was supplied included 2 checks

to Margaret Davis each in the amount of $692.62 and a check made payable to the accountants,

Harvey, Covington and Thomas LLC in the amount of $2,000.00. No documentation exists for

tax payment.

For the period ending March 2007 again personal compensation is charged at $1,500.00

supported by two checks each in the amount of $692.62, employer taxes in the amount of

$114.77 for which the documentation indicates $447.57 was paid, $1,500.00 for audit supported

by a check to Harvey, Covington and Thomas LLC with a notation “audit 05-06 payment” and

insurance in the amount of $973.66 supported by payment number 8 to Flat Iron Capital Corp. It

should be noted that insurance was billed at $31.66 above the annual budget.

On May 10, 2007 a check in the amount of $2,639.77 was issued by the City for payment of

$1,500.00 in personnel compensation, employer taxes of $114.77 and audit fee of $1,025.00.

These expenses are supported by a payment to Internal Revenue Service in the amount of

$562.32, two checks to Margaret Davis in the amount of $692.62, and a check made payable to

the accountants, Harvey & Branker Assoc. in the amount of $1,525.00. The check to Harvey &

Branker Assoc. indicates in the notation area “Audit 05-06 final payment/CDBG”. It is unclear

why an audit for a prior period is being charged to this grant.

On June 7, 2007 a check was issued by the City in the amount of $2,390.00 which is supported

by a payment application of personal compensation amount of $2,250.00 and employer taxes of

$198.05. Again, three checks to Margaret Davis in the amount of $692.62 are included as

support and the payment to the IRS in the amount of $562.32. No other documentation is in the

file regarding the services provided or the individuals and recipients who received the service.

In 2008 Brotherly Love is given $30,000.00 comprised of $23,500.00 in salaries, $1,798.00 in

fringes and $4,702.00 in audit fees. The staffing for the grant was listed as an Executive Director

with 9 years experience and a Chief Financial Officer with 9 years experience. As with the

previous year, Margaret Davis is being charged for her salary and fringe benefits.

115

Documentation in the file is lacking the payment for $3,333.36. Contained in this file is a packet

of sign-in sheets for the month of May 2008. This is the only documentation regarding the work

performed and the instructor listed on the sheets is Hawkins. The sheets indicate group tutoring,

anti-drug sessions, group mentoring and life skills. No documentation is contained in the file

indicating that the project ever fulfilled the goals stated in the applications for funding.

In 2009 Brotherly Love is given $14,341.00 encompassing salaries of $9,000.00, fringe of

$641.00 and an audit of $4,700.00 which is 33% of the overall grant. In the case file three

checks are issued as follows: April 10, 2009 - $9,560.66, May 8, 2009 - $1,593.44, June 26,

2009 - $3,186.90. Again Margaret Davis is charged for her salary and fringe benefits and audit

fees are paid to the auditors. Enclosed in the case file are student sign-in sheets for October

2008, November 2008, December 2008, January 2009 and February 2009 which do not correlate

with the grant period. Many of the sign-in sheets do not list the instructor’s name and most of

the sheets either are lacking the type of instruction given or “Voice Lesson” is highlighted.

Some of the sheets contain instructor’s names such as Mrs. Sutton, or Mrs. Devico. It is unclear

why Margaret Davis’s salary is charged to this grant.

On September 16, 2009, Stephanie McMillian and S. Henderson conducted a CDBG

performance evaluation review of this grant. Contained within the file is a 10 page checklist

most of which has not been completed. It is unclear what, if any, evaluation was done based

upon this checklist (Exhibit 281).

The Public Services Budget Summary Sheet, part of the application, indicates that $67,684.00

would be paid in salaries to personnel ($24,000.00 of CDBG funding) but all the employee taxes

would be paid by the CDBG funds. The application also indicates that the cost allocation for the

project would be 41% of CDBG funds and 59% other funds. This allocation is clearly not

followed on the Public Services Budget Summary Sheet.

Based upon the findings and the significant amount of documents that were lacking to support

the expenditures of the grant Kessler requested that the City contact Dr. Anthony Davis and

secure the applicable documentation. In response to numerous requests, Kessler received an e-

mail from Dr. Davis on March 23, 2010 indicating his desire to work as quickly and efficiently

116

as possible however, as a small agency he cannot shut down operations to locate five years worth

of records. Furthermore, Dr. Davis advised that he spoke to his attorney and would only provide

any record that, “does not compromise our agency or staff’s personal security”. Therefore, he

indicated he would only provide taxpayer ID, non-profit status, state corporation filing, insurance

policy, IRS form 990, contracts and correspondence with the City of Deerfield Beach grants, and

invoices for City of Deerfield Beach grants. Not only would the documents Kessler requested

allow verification of the validity of the expenses but furthermore without them there would be no

way to see that the monies granted to the organization were used toward the goals of the grant.

On March 31, 2010 Kessler received a telephone call from Len Washington, Esq. who informed

Kessler that he is an attorney that represents Brotherly Love and Emmanuel Human Services.

He requested to know the reason why the documents were being requested from his clients and

claimed that much of the City money was given to sub-recipients of the grantee and wanted to

know the authority to review those documents. He further stated that Kessler’s request for W-2

and 1099 forms was troublesome in that the forms would show social security numbers. After a

discussion with him, he stated that he would have the entities cooperate if the records are still

available.

Kessler also reviewed copies of the 990 forms secured from an outside source for the tax years

ending September 30, 2005, September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2008. A return for 2007

was unable to be located. Furthermore, upon review of the tax returns and a comparison of the

Florida Department of State Division of Corporation’s filings the officers and directors of the

entity do not agree. Margaret Davis, who is not only the registered agent but also a Director of

the Corporation and received salary charged to the grant is not reported as receiving any income

on the IRS form 990.

Kessler has been informed that the City also administers the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant for

the Church of Brotherly Love King’s Table Corp. This grant is a considerably larger grant

which is also named Helping Families Succeed. Upon a cursory review of the grant file it

appears that this grant is charged out based upon units and a unit cost. Although the package

contains a spreadsheet remunerating units and amount due, there is no other detail in the file

117

indicating who benefited from the services provided or who provided the service. This grant

should be audited in detail.

118

Choices Network Systems, Inc.533 South Dixie HighwaySuite 201Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Current and Previous Board Members:Wylie Howard Sr.Celestine HowardRodney HowardGloria J. BattleReginald MathisTorrence PackAngela Deal

An application was submitted by Choices Network Systems, Inc. (“Choices”) on September 29,

2006, yet the application clearly indicates that the deadline for submission is 5:00 P.M. Friday,

September 20, 2006. The application is requesting $29,052.80 in funding to provide assistance

in the teaching of case management skills to two (2) low income college age students from

Deerfield Beach. The second goal is to provide supportive living services to at least 40% of the

seniors currently living in the Palms housing project and to 10% of the seniors in District 3.

Finally, the last goal was to increase the number of residents from the target area assessing the

services of the NE Focal Point Center by 20%.

A resolution was passed by the City Commission awarding a community development block

grant to Choices in the amount of $5,000.00 and an Agreement was entered into on March 20,

2007 awarding the $5,000.00 to accomplish the goals delineated above. The budget as stipulated

in the agreement is outlined as salaries, $1,300.00, fringes, $250.00, utilities, $1,200.00,

reproduction printing, $500.00, supplies and materials, $300.00, mileage, $500.00, equipment

rentals, $250.00, training, $400.00, indirect costs, $300.00.

Two checks were disbursed from the City on July 19, 2007. A check in the amount of $3,750.00

was disbursed based upon a spreadsheet listing monthly costs, budget and balance (Exhibit 282).

No supporting documentation was provided. Additionally attached is a program report

indicating that since the program received reduced levels of funding the program goals were

scaled back for the best usage of the dollars received including, instead of training two college

119

age students on how to do case management, they hired one student on a part time basis. Once

hired, the staff trained the student on the usage of the following case management skills, using

the telephone to identify services needed, developing, updating and maintaining program files,

and using ACCESS to provide social service programs to participants. This change from the

agreed upon protocol in the March 20, 2007 agreement has not been documented as being

approved by anybody at CCD or the City. An additional check of $1,250.00 was issued to

Choices on November 15, 2007 based upon a simple spreadsheet without any supporting

documentation (Exhibit 283).

Kessler requested that the City contact Choices and secure from them the supporting

documentation for the disbursements made by the City as well as other documents necessary for

the internal controls review. In response to Kessler’s request Choices sent a fax discussing their

application and that they received $5,000.00 from the City (Exhibit 284). No documents were

produced.

On March 31, 2010 a telephone call was received from Reverend Howard, stating that he only

received a small grant from the City and called the work he did for the funding as, “inter-

generational programming.” He also indicated that the purpose was to “refer poor people to

proper agencies to secure help.” He stated that the program lost money and that he had to fund it

out of his own pocket. Howard stated that he is from Pompano Beach but that he had an office at

the City Housing Authority and paid $300 a month for a cubicle. He said that the volunteer who

handled this program was a young lady who was a resident of Deerfield Beach and that she was

paid travel expenses. He further stated that he understands audits but not what’s going on.

Kessler explained to him that records were necessary to support the funds he received from the

City. Howard then stated that he must pull the records from cold storage and since his

organization is completely comprised of volunteers, it was going to take a while. He then stated

that he has not yet talked to an attorney regarding the request but that “we will do what we can

do.” Howard again stated that he was a small organization and deals mostly with foster children.

120

Centro Cristiano 1 Juan 4:8618 SE 10th StreetDeerfield Beach, FL 33441

297 SW 10th StreetDeerfield Beach, FL 33441

*The above listing is a fictitious name for The Christian Church “Full Gospel” Inc.

Current and Previous Board Members:Marta I. RiveraKattia DuranAna HernandezEdgardo L. Rivera

Kessler reviewed the grant files for 2007 and 2008. In 2007 the applicant submitted a grant

application requesting $20,000.00 in CDBG funding for the Troops for Christ & King’s Korner.

The mission statement for the project is stated as, “Encourage Hispanic families of Deerfield

Beach to become productive member of the community. Empowering them with positive life

skills and a vision for a successful future. Maintaining their focus from destructive behavior.”

According to the agreement, in addition to the normal administrative services required as part of

the agreement the sub-recipient agreed to provide 200 units of service per year and at minimum

16/17 units per month. Next to units per month is an asterisk with the note “The Hispanic

population in Deerfield Beach is 5643.” There is no description in the agreement of what

constitutes a unit.

A search of the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations records did not disclose

any corporation under the applicant’s name. Kessler did locate however a fictitious name filing

for the name whose owner is The Christian Church “Full Gospel” Inc. at Post Office Box 318,

Deerfield Beach, FL. A search was conducted to locate any IRS 990 forms filed by the entity,

none could be located.

On April 15, 2008 the City entered into an agreement with Centro Cristiano 1 Juan 4:8 “Dios es

Amor” to provide the above listed services based upon a budget which outlines office space,

$9,600.00, utilities, $1,833.52, equipment rental, $3,186.48, and insurance, $600.00. In May

2008 a check in the amount of $8,878.17 was disbursed simply for $1,268.31 per month times 7.

121

This was broken down as $800.00 per month rent, $265.54 for lease equipment, $152.77 for

utilities and insurance of $50.00. Supporting these expenses are copies of checks paid to various

utilities, property management companies and office equipment suppliers. There is no

demonstrated allocation as to how the amounts that were charged were arrived at. Similar

spreadsheets and supporting documentation exist for the other disbursements on June 19, 2008 in

the amount of $1,268.31 and July 17, 2008 in the amount of $1,268.31, and August 21, 2008 in

the amount of $1,268.31, and September 18, 2008 in the amount of $1,268.31, and October 9,

2008 in the amount of $1,268.31. Included in the month of June support packet is a typed listing

labeled May 08 of 21 names indicating that they received “tutoring”, “social skill develop” and

“fun time”. In the July packet, a similar list labeled May 08 containing the same names and the

services of “tutoring”, “social skill develop” and “summer prog” was found. These lists are the

only documentation provided to show how the money given by the City was spent.

In the next grant year the type of documentation is identical and the same types of attendance

sheets are submitted as support, not indicating any days or times, only names and vague

descriptions of services rendered.

A business lease was contained in the file between Ronald D. Schwarb & Patti J. Schwarb and

Centro Cristiano 1ra JUAN 4:8 (Inc). The lease is for the property located at 618 SE 10th Street

in the amount of $3,950.00 per month between July 2004 and June 2008, with annual increases

based on the Consumer Price Index. The lease indicates that all checks shall be made payable to

Patti J. Schwarb, yet we noted that no checks were made payable to Patti J. Schwarb. The

recipients of the rent checks were Clifford R. Rhoades PA, MES Properties and Jihad Abu Zhaid.

There is no explanation provided as to why these people received the rent checks.

Payments made for utilities are for telephone service from AT&T. The account being paid is in

the name of IGL El Evangelio Completo A G at the same address as Centro. It is unclear what

the relationship between the two entities is.

122

A review of the Agreement between the City of Deerfield Beach and Centro Cristiano 1 Juan 4:8

“Dios es Amor” indicates that the following documents shall be provided; these documents were

not found in the case file:

• Beneficiary Data

• Progress Reports April 12, July 12, and October 12, 2008

• Use and Reversion of Assets

• Worker’s Compensation

• Insurance & Bonding

• Cost Principles

• Indirect Cost Allocation

123

Emmanuel Human Services, Inc. f/k/aGold Coast Impact Community Development Inc.216 SW 2nd CourtDeerfield Beach, FL 33441

Current and Previous Board Members:Nathaniel B. Knowles Linda P. KnowlesBrenda J. RahmingGail J. HenryQueen O. McHenryGregory Morrison

A review of the CDBG application was conducted for Emmanuel Human Services

(“Emmanuel”). Emmanuel was provided with $30,000.00 in CDBG funding from the City to

fund the Back on Track program from October 2007 through September 2008. In the 2008/09

application, Emmanuel requested that $142,300.00 be provided for the program. The goals of

the program were described as, “The primary goals aim to eliminate specific youth behavior

problems and the immediate threat to public welfare and safety in the HUD targeted areas of

Deerfield, through a youth development and diversionary program. The problems identified and

associated with at risk youth that live in lower income areas, are negative attitudes, disrespect for

others, failing grades, school suspensions and criminal behavior the requires immediate

attention.”

The application states that the program will consist of: skill building, tutoring, planning and

mentoring every Tuesday and Thursday from 4pm to 6pm; Recreational programming one

Saturday a month from 9am to 12pm; Parent/Youth counseling session one Thursday a month

from 4pm to 6pm; and Service Workday one Saturday a month from 9am to 11am.

The objectives of the project are to have clients complete 100% of the community service, 85%

behavior/attitude change (pre and post behavior modification survey) and 75% decrease in client

re-arrest. Also 80% of the clients are supposed to improve their course work. The program is to

provide help to 40 to 50 students, ages 8 to 17.

124

A letter is contained in the file from Truth Tabernacle of God, Inc. as a referral for the Back on

Track program. A member of Truth Tabernacle of God, FL is Rev. Queen O. McHenry, who is

also the Secretary of the Board of Emmanuel Human Services, Inc. f/k/a Gold Coast Impact

Community Development, Inc.

A resolution# 2009/059 was signed and dated by the Mayor of the City, Sylvia Poitier on March

3, 2009 indicating that $13,210.00 was approved for Emmanuel Human Services. An

Agreement between the City of Deerfield Beach and Emmanuel Human Services, Inc. f/k/a Gold

Coast Impact Community Development, Inc. was signed and dated on March 9, 2009 by all

parties. The Agreement states that $13,210.00 shall be used specifically for personnel salaries.

A review of the Agreement indicates that the following documents shall be provided; these

documents were not found in the case file:

• Beneficiary Data

• Progress Reports April 15, July 15, and October 15, 2009

• Use and Reversion of Assets



• Cost Principles


It was noted that on many of the Back on Track Service Sheets prepared by Emmanuel and

submitted to support the attendance of classes, that individuals did not sign in yet were credited

with hours. For example on Tuesday June 23, 2009 an individual (“OP”) had ten hours as per

the sign in-sheet, the following Thursday (June 25, 2009) the individual has twelve hours as per

the sign-in sheet. A note attached to the sign-in sheet indicated that “OP’s mom called in for

him. He was in Miami with her and could not make it.”

Additionally, on the December 23, 2009 and December 30, 2009 the regular meeting were

cancelled, yet reimbursement for salaries occurred. It does not appear that a set schedule of

Tuesday and Thursday meetings is followed, as in many of the other months observed no sign-in

125

sheets were provided for a complete week. On May 21, 2009 the Back on Track program

allegedly had a crime conference in Jacksonville, FL, yet no documentation is contained in the

file to support this. The following Thursday, Back on Track was cancelled due to, “Bad Weather

Also Job Interviews”, yet reimbursement for salaries occurred.

In an August 11, 2009 letter from Stephanie McMillian to Dr. Nathaniel B. Knowles, states that

an adjustment was made to the July 30, 2009 payment because the session was not held on a

recognized holiday. The sign-in sheet for that date indicates the meeting was cancelled due to

bad weather. Nathaniel Knowles’s salary was reduced in the amount of $62.52 resulting in only

$1,037.48 being provided in salaries for July 2009. It is unclear why only Nathaniel Knowles’s

salary was reduced and not the other two employees (Jeffrey Pete and Jounice Green) who had

included 3 hours each (or $37.50 in salary) on July 30, 2009. Further review of the file disclosed

that Jeffrey Pete was the signature on all of the sign-in sheets containing student’s names. Dr.

Knowles signature only appeared on sign-in sheets when class was not in session and there is no

documentation showing any work done by Jounice Green (Jounice Green also received

funding from the City’s SHIP Minor Home Repair / Weatherization Program). Kessler

also noted that although classes were cancelled all of the salaries associated with the grant were

still paid for the day.

The scheduled time for the Back on Track meetings are not clearly indicated. On the monthly

sheets provided by the employees for reimbursement, Jounice Green and Jeffrey Pete indicate

that they work three hours on each day that the program meets, Tuesday and Thursday from 3:30

until 6:30. Nathaniel Knowles indicates that he works from 2:00 until 6:00 on dates in which the

program meets. Students are only given two hours for each session that they attend, no

explanation is provided in the file for these differences.

A list of all the students was provided on the September 2009 submission for reimbursement of

the salaries of the Emmanuel employees. The list includes a total of ninety nine students of the

program. Of the ninety-nine students only thirty (or 30.3%) of the total students live in the zip

code 33441, 33442 or 33443, the zip codes for Deerfield Beach. As per the Program Delivery

section of the Agreement, it states, “Eliminate specific youth behavior problems and the

126

immediate threat to public welfare and safety in the target area of Deerfield Beach, through a

youth development and diversionary program.”

Kessler received limited documentation from Emmanuel Human Services, Inc. f/k/a Gold Coast

Impact Community Development Inc. as support for the invoices submitted to the City. Kessler

conducted a sampled review of the general ledger in comparison of the invoices provided as

supporting documentation for the “expenditures” as documented as Emmanuel Human Services,

Inc. Kessler conducted a review of the December 2007, January 2008 and December 2008 of

these documents.

The invoice dated April 21, 2008 requesting payment due for services rendered on the December

2007 invoice in the amount of $2,392.75. The payment due is for salaries of $2,000.00 ($400.00,

$400.00, $300.00 and $900.00), rent ($350.00) and receipts ($42.75). As per the general ledger

for Emmanuel Human Services, Inc. f/k/a Gold Coast Impact Community Development Inc. only

$85.00 was disbursed to Barbara Harris from the Bank Atlantic Checking Account, in December

2007.

A review was conducted of the invoice dated April 21, 2008 requesting payment due for services

rendered in January 2008 in the amount of $3,479.48. The payment due is for salaries of

$2,000.00 ($400.00, $400.00, $300.00 and $900.00), rent ($350.00) and receipts ($129.48). As

per the general ledger for Emmanuel Human Services, Inc. f/k/a Gold Coast Impact Community

Development Inc. no disbursements were made, in the month of January 2008.

The invoice submitted to the City is undated and unsigned and is requesting payment of

$1,100.00. The supporting spreadsheet indicates that salaries were paid to Nathaniel Knowles in

the amount of $500.00, Jeffrey Pete in the amount of $300.00 and Jounice Green in the amount

of $300.00. Kessler compared this document to the general ledger and determined that Reverend

Knowles was paid $200.00, Jounice Green was paid $100.00 and Jeffrey Pete was paid $100.00.

Kessler has not been provided any documentation or explanation as to why this discrepancy

occurred.

127

Haitian American Consortium, Inc.533 South Dixie HighwaySuite 201Deerfield Beach, FL 33442

Current and Previous Board Members:Eddie SarazinMona SanonGloria BattleHoman J. JaquesMaria J. Eliezaire

Community Stabilization Program

According to the 2008 Florida Department of State Division of Corporations filing, the year the

organization was formed the current principal place of business and mailing address for Haitian

American Consortium, Inc. (“HAC”) was listed as 85 W Hillsboro Blvd., Deerfield Beach, FL,

property which is owned currently by Sylvia Poitier. Numerous attempts were made to secure an

answer from Eddy Sarazin as to why this organization utilized an address of a dry cleaners upon

commencement and that he utilizes the address as his own. Sarazin refused to answer the

questions indicating that he had to speak to somebody prior to providing answers and refused to

say to whom he must get advice. Subsequent attempts to reach Sarazin have gone unanswered.

In 2009 the address is of the entity changed to 533 S Dixie Highway, Suite 201, Deerfield Beach,

FL, property but Sarazin still uses the dry cleaners address. The address of 533 S Dixie

Highway, Suite 201, Deerfield Beach, FL is owned by the Housing Authority of the City of

Deerfield Beach and also utilized by Choices, as seen above.

Haitian American USA Coalition, Inc. (Inactive September 25, 2009) is another corporation that

was a for-profit which was uncovered during the course of the review has some of the same

officers of HAC. This corporation was formed on December 14, 2006 and its address was listed

as 85 W Hillsboro Blvd., Deerfield Beach, FL. The officers of the corporation are indicated as

Wilzie Vilceus, Eddy Sarazin, Dorceus Louis, Fresnel Sinsmy and Gloria Battle.

In a 2008 CDBG application submitted by HAC, $24,300.00 is requested for funding of the

Community Stabilization Program. Gloria J. Battle is indicated as the Project Director for the

program whose goal is, “The program will provide housing counseling, financial literacy training

128

and family support services to low and moderate income person. The project is designed to

equip residents with the skills they need to avoid scams, stay out of debt, build assets, and

maintain financial independence. An increased awareness and comprehension of financial

concepts coupled with needed support services (food, medical, etc.) will stabilize family

structure, decrease the foreclosure rate in the target areas, and ultimately keep the neighborhoods

free of blight.”

Contained in the application is a client reference letter from Beulah Hill indicating that the job

loss and cut backs due to the recent financial crisis have caused blight in the neighborhoods.

Beulah Hill is an employee of the HAC who also worked for Choices Network Systems, Inc.

Gloria Battle, the project manager for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program also worked at

Choices Network Systems, Inc. from 2003 through 2007 as an Administrative Manager, per the

attached resume. Another client reference letter is from a Jethro Eliezaire, stating that the

individual supports the program and that they always help or know where to send him. This

individual has the same last name as the accountant (Jessica Eliezaire) and the Director of HAC

(Marie Eliezaire).

A review of the support letters contained in the application disclosed that each person who

submitted a letter was somehow affiliated with HAC or Haitian American USA Coalition Inc.

On March 3, 2009 a resolution #2009/59 was approved to provide HAC with CDBG funding in

the amount of $12,206.00. The resolution was passed and adopted by Sylvia Poitier on the same

date. It should be noted that a conflict of interest is possible between Sylvia Poitier and HAC

officers and directors as all of the officers and directors provide that their address is 85 W

Hillsboro Blvd., Deerfield Beach, FL, a property that is currently owned by Sylvia Poitier. The

following budget was authorized: salaries, $2,206.00, fringes, $175.00, office space, $1,200.00,

utilities, $900.00, supplies and materials, $225.00, audit and accounting, $2,500.00, training,

$5,000.00.

On the May 1, 2009 check for $3,733.60, $916.50 is classified as salary with the handwritten

notation, “allowed without all docs, employee has back pay due.” $1,200.00 is charged for

129

office rental, $367.34 is charged as utilities, and $1,249.50 is charged as audit. The spreadsheet

is added incorrectly and is $.26 off. Among the documents contained in the file were a check for

$150.00 to Beulah Hill, a check in the amount of $250.00 to Gloria Battle, and a statement from

Jessica Eliezare stating that she has been helping Eddy Sarazin with the bookkeeping for $208.30

monthly. A review of the disbursements indicates salary payments to Beulah Hill in the amount

of total $2,150.00 during the period of 2008 through 2009 and to Gloria Battle totaling $750.00

in 2008.

On July 17, 2009 $4,262.74 is disbursed to HAC by the City for the months of April, May and

June. In the month of April, $270.00 is charged to the grant composed of office space of

$200.00 and supplies and materials at $70.00. The $70.00 payment represents a payment to the

Department of State, Division of Corporations. Also contained in the April package are client

sign-in sheets for individuals seeking food stamps and Medicaid. It should be noted that HAC

also received funding from ACCESS and that these sign-in sheets are applicable to that program

and not the current grant. The May 2009 packet requesting $3,235.58 lists $750.00 as salaries,

$200.00 as office space, $153.60 as utilities, $331.98 as supplies and materials and $1,500.00 as

training. Supporting documents for these expenses include a check payable to Paramount

Broadcasting Communications, LLC in the amount of $1,500.00 to assist in Board development

and Board training and to assist in developing programs to provide housing, financial counseling

and literacy. A $300.00 check to Jessica Eliezare, a $31.99 Office Depot receipt for ink and a

$299.99 QuickBooks program, an AT&T bill for $153.60, a $200.00 payment to Deerfield Beach

Housing Authority and a check for $750.00 payable to Beulah Hill. Also contained in this

package is a consulting agreement dated May 15, 2009 between Haitian American Consortium

and Paramount Broadcasting Communications indicating a retainer amount of $1,500.00 at an

hourly rate of $150.00 per hour to plan, prepare and implement training programs. The

agreement is signed by Homan J. Jaques and Francois Leconte. Also contained in the package is

the May sign-in sheets for food stamps, legal aid and Medicaid.

The June 30 packet charges the grant $200.00 for office space, $72.72 for supplies and materials,

$300.00 for audit and accounting, and $184.44 for training. Enclosed in the documentation is a

register receipt from Staples for $72.72, an invoice from Deerfield Beach Housing Authority for

130

rental of room 201 for $100.00 which is the same room HAC is paying Deerfield Beach Housing

Authority for monthly rent. They also charge $21.11 per hour for an employee attendant. A

check in the amount of $200.00 payable to the Housing Authority for monthly rental of room

201, and a check in the amount of $300.00 to Jessica Eliezaire.

On August 14, 2009, a check in the amount of $2,500.00 was issued by the City to HAC

representing a $300.00 payment to Jessica Eliezaire, a $200.00 payment to the Housing

Authority, and a $2,000.00 payment for Paramount Broadcasting Comm. Also contained in the

package are client sign-in sheets for food stamps, social security and Medicaid.

On September 11, 2009, a check in the amount of $1,709.66 was issued by the City to HAC

representing $383.88 for office space, $116.98 for utilities, $465.83 for supplies and materials,

$300.00 for audit and accounting and $1,500.00 in training. Supporting this was a bill from

AT&T for $116.98, with a handwritten notation, “paying $9.66 on this bill balance left in grant”,

an invoice from Paramount Broadcasting in the amount of $1,500.00, and a $200.00 payment to

Deerfield Beach Housing Authority. As should be noted in simple arithmetic the documents

provided to support the expenses do not agree with the summary nor do they agree in categories.

Kessler further investigated the payments to Paramount Broadcasting totaling $5,000.00. Mr.

LeConte, the President of Paramount Broadcasting and a spokesperson for HAC, was also

interviewed. In connection with the disbursement of the $5,000.00 to his firm, he stated that the

payment was for a Board retreat held on June 27, 2009 and a Repair Your Credit seminar held on

July 17, 2009 and a loan modification seminar on July 31, 2009 in collaboration with

Consolidated Credit Counseling Services, Inc. The “Board retreat” was explained as a meeting

to discuss the roles of Board members (Exhibit 285). Kessler also contacted Consolidated Credit

Counseling Services, Inc. who advised that one seminar, held at Deerfield Beach Community

House was provided at no charge to the community, since they are a not for profit corporation.

They had no record of conducting any seminar on July 31, 2009 at 533 South Dixie Highway,

Suite 101, the address of the CDD. They further advised that the seminars were booked by

Karen Lyttle, the administrative assistant for Francois LeConte. These seminars were booked

under the name Minority Development & Empowerment, Inc. with the notation HAC next to the

131

booking name. Upon further investigation, it was determined that Minority Development &

Empowerment, Inc. is a not for profit corporation headed by Francois LeConte. Mr. LeConte

has also been linked to The Caribbean Media, Inc., L&D Associates, Inc. and Haitian

Educational Center, Inc. In the interview, Mr. LeConte justified his $5,000.00 charge indicating

that he had to spend time organizing the Board retreat and then produced the minutes (Exhibit

286).

An interview was also conducted of Eddie Sazarin who provided Kessler with two professional

services agreements applicable to Paramount Broadcasting. The first agreement, which is a one

page document and does not contain any signatures outlines the work to be performed as

conducting three board development training sessions and six strategic planning sessions for

$5,000.00. The second agreement which lists the services to be performed as to assist in the

developing program to provide housing counseling, financial literacy training and family support

services to low and moderate income persons. The project is designed to equip residents with

the skills they need to avoid scams, stay out of debt, build assets and maintain financial

independence. An increased awareness and comprehension of financial concepts coupled with

needed support services (food, medical, etc.) will stabilize family structures, decrease the

foreclosure rate in the target areas and ultimately keep the neighborhoods free of blight. This

description is identical to the one used by HAC to obtain their grant. The agreement continues

indicating that services are billed at $150 an hour and that it will take approximately 30 hours to

plan, prepare and implement the training program. The agreement was signed by Homas Jean

Jacques on behalf of HAC (Exhibit 287).

Summer Youth Program

As per a letter from Stephanie McMillian to Peter Parkin dated June 9, 2009 only one applicant

submitted a proposal for the Request for Assistance which was advertised on May 31, 2009 in

the South Florida Sun Sentinel. That applicant, according to Stephanie McMillian was HAC.

The CDBG Application submitted by Eddie Sarazin of the HAC on June 8, 2009 indicates that

$30,000.00 is requested for the Public Service Youth Employment Program. The program goals

are described as, “This program will provide training and employment for youth between the

132

ages of sixteen (16) to twenty four (24) years old from low and moderate income households. It

is designed to pay the wages for the youth who will be employed by a local business specializing

in residential maintenance.” The application continues to state that, “The requested amount of

funds will allow the Haitian American Consortium, Inc. (HACI) to meet its payroll expense for a

minimum of eight (8) positions, at an hourly rate of $8.50 for forty hours per week. The duration

of the program shall be a total of eight weeks.” The contact person on the application is listed as

Patrick Jabouin. Included in the application are three letters of reference, one signed by Beulah

Hill as President of the Common Highlands Homeowners Association, and the other two, written

in the same handwriting, are submitted by Homan Jean Jacques and Reverend David Brenedus.

An Agreement between the City of Deerfield Beach and the Haitian American Consortium was

entered into on June 16, 2009. The allocated budget for the project is salaries/stipend ($21,760),

fringe ($4,800.00) and indirect costs ($3,440.00).

Kessler was advised by Eddie Sarazin that David Permenter of Right Choice Enterprises, LLC

was hired to be a supervisor on the project. He was compensated $1,360.00 during the three

week project. According to the application submitted for funding, eight individuals at $8.50/hr

were to participate in the program lasting 8 weeks, and were to be employed by a local business

specializing in residential maintenance. The youth were not employed by Right Choice

Enterprises, LLC as stipulated in the application and in fact were not even employees of HAC.

Each of these youths was issued 1099’s as independent contractors. There were approximately

twenty individuals that were paid over a period of three weeks, not eight weeks as stated in the

application. Additionally, it was discovered that not all of the youths were paid at $8.50/hr, it

was noted that three individuals were compensated at a rate of $10.00/hr and many of the

individuals selected for the program were siblings or single parents.

When Patrick Jabouin was questioned regarding why no paint was ever purchased by HAC,

Kessler was told that David Permenter went to Public Works to obtain recycled paint for the

projects. According to Mr. Jabouin, Mr. Permenter was referred to Public Works by Stephanie

McMillian of the Community Development Division of Deerfield Beach. A discussion with an

employee at Public Works disclosed that nobody from the HAC secured paint from Public

133

Works. According to this employee, paint must be signed for by individual homeowner and only

three 5 gallon cans are allowed to be given free every two years for residential use. The

employee indicated that the only person who had picked up a large quantity of paint within the

timeframe in question was Sylvia Poitier, who received 45 – 5 gallon jugs (or 225 gallons) of

recycled paint.

A review of the payments to HAC indicated that on August 7, 2009 a $1,010 check was paid

representing an $800.00 payment for the project director and $210.00 for t-shirts. On August 14,

2009 a check in the amount of $8,235.85 was made payable by HAC. This represents an

$800.00 payment for the project director, $6,664.00 in what is classified as employee salaries,

$400.00 for a field supervisor and $371.85 for supplies including purchases from Home Depot

(painting supplies, 2 six packs of water and hedge shears), purchases from Publix of 5 16oz

bottles of drinking water, a $54.58 bill from Popeye’s, two gallons of water from Walgreens,

foam cups from Family Dollar and six 16oz bottles of water from Winn Dixie. The invoices

total $367.85 which was the amount reported by HAC, but for some reason Stephanie McMillan

changed the amount to read $371.85.

On August 21, 2009, a check was issued in the amount of $20,098.44 to HAC. A supporting

invoice dated August 19, 2009 (number 104) totaling $11,465.66 was submitted for $1,000.00

for the project director, employee salaries of $6,640.00, a field supervisor at $480.00, accounting

audit fees of $2,400.00, insurance of $575.00, conference room rental of $125.00, and

reimbursement of expenses of $245.66 which was changed by Stephanie McMillian to $105.95

reducing the invoice to $11,325.95. Additionally, an invoice on the same date (number 103) was

submitted for $1,000.00 for the project director, $6,640.00 for employee salaries, $480.00 for a

field supervisor, $144.00 for newspaper advertisement, $204.00 for t-shirts, $125.00 for a

conference room and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $179.49 which was changed

by Stephanie McMillian to read $186.15. It is unclear how these two invoices totaled the amount

of the check that was issued.

On August 28, 2009 an invoice was submitted in the amount of $659.71 for which City issued a

check. $400.00 of the invoice is for the project director, $100.91 for reimbursement of expenses

134

from Staples for award holders, $31.80 for lunch at Little Caesars for 23 employees, and

additionally, another luncheon and end of program reception charged at $127.00 which was

purchased at Publix.

A review of the documents contained in the file disclosed that youth were employed on August

3, 2009, but the earliest dated contract for services to be performed by these individuals was on

August 5, 2009. Based upon a review of the documentation it is unclear what services were

performed by the Project Director who claims to have spent between 40 and 50 hours per week

on the project.

The Project Director is paid an hourly rate of $20/hr; the Field Supervisor was paid a salary of

$10/hr and was given a raise to $12/hr the following week. The youth utilized for the program to

paint the houses were all originally paid $8.50/hr as per the invoice number 102 and dated

August 11, 2009. As per the invoice number 103 and 104 dated August 19, 2009 three youths

were paid at a rate of $10.00/hr and one youth was dropped from the program, for a total of 19

youths, 1 project manager and 1 supervisor.

HAC was allocated $21,760.00 as per the agreement to pay salaries for the project; HAC billed

and was reimbursed $25,304.00 for salaries and $4,700.00 in additional expenses. HAC did not

provide any documentation to deviate the $4,700.00 in additional expenses between the fringe

costs and other expenses on the invoices.

Kessler reviewed the checks payable to the youths of the HAC Public Service Summer Youth

Employment Program to determine if all youths were compensated correctly. As per the

invoices submitted (#102, 103 and 104) for the youth reimbursement only two youths were paid

at a rate of $8.50 for 32 hours a week (or $272). These two individuals were in the first week of

August 3 through August 7, 2009. Kessler has verified that these two payments were correct.

Kessler’s analysis of invoice #103 disclosed an overbilling of $204.00 for services billed but

never rendered. On the invoice #104 Kessler’s analysis noted an overbilling of $68.00.

135

Kessler has determined that the following documents have not been provided by HAC:



• Cost Principles


The time sheets completed by the youths were submitted on August 19, 2009. The time sheets

included work through August 21, 2009. Invoice #104 was also prepared and dated August 19,

2009. It is unclear why the program director would submit an invoice prior to completion of the

task. Additionally, invoice #104 submitted to the Community Development Division includes

expenses in the amount of $575.00 for insurance and $2,400.00 for an audit. Upon discussions

with the project manager (Patrick Jabouin) he stated that the audit fee charged to the City was for

an audit to be conducted which has still not been conducted as of the date of this report, and that

the funds were never disbursed to an accountant. Additionally, the insurance that was charged in

the amount of $575.00 did not exist. The HAC provided documentation to support the insurance

but this was a Commercial Insurance Application dated February 26, 2010; months after the

project had been completed, and it was an application not an insurance policy. Again Kessler

was advised by Mr. Jabouin that they had intended to buy insurance, which is why they

submitted the cost.

One of the eleven recipients of the house painting project was Cynthia Thomas and Linnie

Pickney. These individuals were also recipients of a home rehab project during 2009. The

original specifications for the rehab project were to include exterior painting. It was later noted in

the file that on the third final inspection conducted on October 12, 2009 by William La’Marr

Ruffin that the exterior painting of the house was deleted from the contract. A Notice to Proceed

document dated October 16, 2009 and signed by the homeowners on October 19, 2009 indicates

that Mid South Painting, Inc. was awarded a contract in the amount of $1,240.00 to paint the

exterior of the house that was allegedly painted in August 2009 by the participants of the

Summer Program. Kessler was informed that such an inferior job was done previously that Mid

South Painting, Inc. even had to remove paint from the newly installed windows.

136

It is also not clear why the youth and supervisors were not correctly reported as employees and

issued W-2’s. Kessler also noted while reviewing the account that Beulah Hill received

$2,150.00 of funds from HAC but no 1099 or W-2 was ever issued in her name. Kessler was

informed by Eddie Sarazin that Beulah Hill was responsible for administering the ACCESS

program.

Also contained in the documentation were the previously mentioned sign-in sheets (ACCESS

program) for food stamps, Medicaid, etc. It is unusual in the respect that the handwriting on the

sheets for each individual is identical and could never have been written by different people.

137

Elelift, LLC379 High Ridge RoadBoynton Beach, FL 33426

Current and Previous Board Members:Douglas W. SabraKevin D. MannesLawrence Mannes

This corporation was filed with the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations on

March 30, 2006.

On September 7, 2005 a memorandum from Larry Deetjen to Andrew Hyatt indicates that

Commissioner Popelsky requested information regarding “grants for compliance of elevators and

handicap restrooms.” (Exhibit 288)

On September 7, 2005 a memorandum from Commissioner Marty Popelsky to Larry Deetjen

requests that Mr. Hyatt, “update me with a list of people, who have called in reference to

obtaining grants for compliance of elevators and handicapped restrooms.” (Exhibit 289).

On September 9, 2005 Larry Deetjen sent a memorandum to Jerry Ferguson indicating that

Commissioner Popelsky, “wants to know if we have a list of inquiries from individuals who want

to know if we can help them with wheelchair lifts in any buildings that would be eligible for

CDBG funding including in Century Village and/or the complex just south of Westside Park off

of Natura.” Handwritten on this memorandum are six names with telephone numbers, five of

which are under the category architectural barrier removal and one name is under the title lifts.

Next to Beverly and Jack Kornfield’s telephone number is the words “not eligible”. Next to

Evelyn + Sam Kushnell and Jolan Hartman is the words “new assess” (Exhibit 290).

Another memorandum dated September 9, 2005 from Larry Deetjen to Commissioner Marty

Popelsky indicates that Andrew Hyatt communicated with the Office of General Counsel of

HUD and determined that the installation of wheelchair lifts for two story buildings in Century

Village is an allowable cost. The memo goes on to state that “We have approximately $112,000

that can be reprogrammed for architectural barrier removal projects to pay for the seven lifts.

138

Such reprogramming requires official action by the city commission in a regular meeting.”

(Exhibit 291).

A letter dated September 15, 2005 from Andrew Hyatt to Larry Deetjen is a listing of names of

residents in Century Village who have inquired about architectural barrier removal through

CDBG. Four names on the list are approved, one is not eligible and two are listed as new

assessments (Exhibit 292).

A January 5, 2007 memorandum from Andrew Hyatt to Ada Graham-Johnson indicates that only

twenty one citizens of Century Village were interested in obtaining a wheelchair lift (Exhibit

293).

An April 3, 2007 letter authored by the City addressed “Dear Association Resident” and signed

by Andrew Hyatt and Stephanie McMillian, indicates that the City of Deerfield Beach included

in a one year action plan an architectural barrier removal / wheelchair lift program. The goal of

the program was to install as many lifts as possible in the existing Century Village community

two-story buildings (Exhibit 294).

There is no additional information contained in the file Kessler was provided until a May 17,

2007 e-mail from Beth Kofsky to Donna Council with a subject line reading, “See attached link.”

The e-mail reads, “This lift uses a cable-hydraulic system however it is one of the best models I

have found to meet the needs of the Century Village community. I have been researching others

with answers to be provided very soon. However, in the RFP you might want to ask for Screw

Drive or Hydraulic Cable as the main two types. The research I have done show that 5 major

companies that have vertical lifts traveling over 10’ use the cable hydraulic for safety. Most

elevators use Hydraulic cable systems. I have attached the specifications for this in the attached.

Thank You Beth.” Listed under the e-mail is a link to

www.savariaconcord.com/V1054.htm#specifications. This is the product used by Elelift, LLC

(Exhibit 295).

On May 25, 2007 an invitation to bid appears in the newspaper (Exhibit 296).

139

A May 29, 2007 e-mail from Beth Kofsky to Donna Council states “Hi Donna Hope all is well.

Can you send me a copy of the RFP bidder’s meeting notice? Thank You Beth.” (Exhibit 297).

A May 31, 2007 e-mail from Doug Sabra to Donna Council lists seven questions regarding the

bid (Exhibit 298).

On May 29, 2007 a NOTICE TO SUPPLIERS was sent to twenty companies indicating a

mandatory Pre-Bid Conference and site visit to the buildings (Exhibit 299).

A Pre-Bid Meeting was held on May 31, 2007, and eleven individuals attended. Two individuals

represented Elelift, LLC, representatives from TKA Access of South Florida, The HC

Construction Company, Gator Elevator, Advanced Mobility, Inc., and Habel and Kayser. Also

in attendance was Donna Council of the Purchasing Department, Andrew Hyatt, Stephanie

McMillian and Beth Kofsky of Beth Kofsky (sic) (Exhibit 300). Kessler has learned that Beth

Kofsky was retained by the City to develop the specifications for the installation of the elevator.

Also contained in the case file is a facsimile dated June 4, 2007 from Hebel + Kayser to Donna

Council indicating that they decline to answer the proposal for this long term project because,

“As anticipated we have not received as yet one price for the engineering, the slab

pouring or the power lines. The certification for 140 mph wind-loads is another issue that

is time consuming for certification on any one of these units. For information about lift

configuration, Al Depaolini is the QEI Inspector of Broward County. He is very

competent and can explain to you why lifts have to be enclosed, have a battery back-up

(on hydraulic units only) and battery back-up ventilation. His phone # 954 658 1901.

Regards, Claude P. Kayser.” (Exhibit 301).

An August 3, 2007 memorandum from Donna Council to Mike Mahaney relates that invitations

were sent to twenty qualified contractors, six contractors attended the Pre-Bid Conference and

were eligible to bid and two contractors responded. Based upon the bids, Council recommended

that the award be made to Elelift, LLC for a total of $340,100.00 (Exhibit 302). On August 7,

140

2007 a resolution is passed by the commission awarding Elelift, LLC the contract to install 19

vertical wheelchair platform lifts at Century Village for a total cost of $340,100.00 (Exhibit

303).

On September 5, 2007 Doug Sabra sent an e-mail to Donna Council and Stephanie McMillian

requesting confirmation that they were “OK” to proceed with the nineteen lifts and that no other

form of agreement was necessary. Sabra continues, “Normally we received some sort of formal

Notice to Proceed but, based on our meeting the other day and return of our bid bond we began

production of the nineteen lifts at the factory.” He also indicated that:

“This morning Stephanie asked Bruce to postpone the meeting for a couple of weeks

because there was some issues being raised by the Commissioners of the Century Village.

Stephanie also told Bruce one of the Condo’s “dropped out” but that she would add

another to the list. Please understand that each lift is unique and travel distances need to

be communicated to the factory so they are programmed correctly and stop correctly.”

On September 6, 2007 an e-mail from Stephanie McMillian to Doug Sabra states,

“we were asked to postpone the meeting that was scheduled for today, by a City

Commissioner, we are not sure of exactly why but have been told that it is to be

rescheduled within the next two weeks. Upon receiving the invoice from Bruce for 19

lifts, I called to discuss the fact that we could not honor any request for payment until all

the contracts and other necessary paperwork had been completed. The contract that we

will be executing is actually a funding agreement between the city and each building.

Our Notice to Proceed is generally issued after all this is done. I would suggest even at

the cost of some delay that you would suspend your communication with the factory

about any specifics, until everything is set to go, because in all actuality nothing is final

until each building has signed the paperwork. Please understand that we would like to

get this project underway as soon as possible, but with any unnecessary problems or

complications.” (Exhibit 304).

141

Kessler observed that no signed Wheelchair Lift Funding Agreements were contained in the case

file, and only an unsigned agreement between the City of Deerfield Beach and the Century

Village building association from building Ventnor Q was available for review. (Exhibit 305).

On November 15, 2007 a letter from Stephanie McMillian to Elelift, LLC indicates an official

Notice to Proceed for the wheelchair lift installation for nineteen buildings in Century Village.

The project award amount is $340,100.00 (Exhibit 306).

On December 6, 2007 a payment is made by the City to Elelift, LLC in the amount of

$170,050.00 based on an August 29, 2007 invoice listed as “Progress billing #1-- 50% for

nineteen vertical wheelchair platform lifts.” The only other document contained in the file

regarding payments by the City was a check dated March 20, 2008 in the amount of $85,025.00

based on an invoice dated February 12, 2008, indicating that it was a final bill for a job

completed (Exhibit 307).

Kessler’s review of the case file determined that no documentation existed which would indicate

that CDD made any attempt to verify that 50% of the building occupants were full time Florida

residents or that at least 75% of the Florida residents in the building met HUD low-moderate

income limits which is required. Kessler was informed by CDD personnel that these

verifications were not part of the award process for Phase 1.

142

Westside Deerfield Businessmen Association, Inc.275 SW 1st Street, #1Deerfield Beach, FL 33341

Current and Previous Board Members:Felicia PoitierNathaniel B. KnowlesJohnnie L. MoorerBernedette SandersLohman RahmingErnest ThompsonJoan ParrishJohnny LewisJohn RaginTony Parrish

WDBA was appointed as the Community Housing Development Organization (“CHDO”) for the


HUD’s regulation 24 CDR Part 92.2 states the definition of a CHDO is:

“Community housing development organization means a private nonprofit organization that:

(1) Is organized under State or local laws;

(2) Has no part of its net earnings inuring to the benefit of any member, founder, contributor,

or individual;

(3) Is neither controlled by, nor under the direction of, individuals or entities seeking to derive

profit or gain from the organization. A community housing development organization may be

sponsored or created by a for-profit entity, but:

(i) The for-profit entity may not be an entity whose primary purpose is the development or

management of housing, such as a builder, developer, or real estate management firm.

(ii) The for-profit entity may not have the right to appoint more than one-third of the

membership of the organization's governing body. Board members appointed by the for-profit

entity may not appoint the remaining two-thirds of the board members; and

(iii) The community housing development organization must be free to contract for goods and

services from vendors of its own choosing;

(4) Has a tax exemption ruling from the Internal Revenue Service under section 501(c) (3) or

(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 CFR 1.501(c)(3)-1);

143

(5) Does not include a public body (including the participating jurisdiction). An organization

that is State or locally chartered may qualify as a community housing development organization;

however, the State or local government may not have the right to appoint more than one-third of

the membership of the organization's governing body and no more than one-third of the board

members may be public officials or employees of the participating jurisdiction or State recipient.

Board members appointed by the State or local government may not appoint the remaining two-

thirds of the board members;

(6) Has standards of financial accountability that conform to 24 CFR 84.21, ``Standards for

Financial Management Systems;''

(7) Has among its purposes the provision of decent housing that is affordable to low-income

and moderate-income persons, as evidenced in its charter, articles of incorporation, resolutions or

by-laws;

(8) Maintains accountability to low-income community residents by:

(i) Maintaining at least one-third of its governing board's membership for residents of low-

income neighborhoods, other low-income community residents, or elected representative of low-

income neighborhood organizations. For urban areas, ``community'' may be a neighborhood or

neighborhoods, city, county or metropolitan area; for rural areas, it may be a neighborhood or

neighborhoods, town, village, county, or multi-county area (but not the entire State); and

(ii) Providing a formal process for low-income program beneficiaries to advise the

organization in its decisions regarding the design, sitting, development, and management of

affordable housing;

(9) Has a demonstrated capacity for carrying out activities assisted with HOME funds. An

organization may satisfy this requirement by hiring experienced key staff members who have

successfully completed similar projects, or a consultant with the same type of experience and a

plan to train appropriate key staff members of the organization; and

(10) Has a history of serving the community within which housing to be assisted with HOME

funds is to be located. In general, an organization must be able to show one year of serving the

community before HOME funds are reserved for the organization. However, a newly created

organization formed by local churches, service organizations or neighborhood organizations may

meet this requirement by demonstrating that its parent organization has at least a year of serving

the community. Family has the same meaning given that term in 24 CFR 5.403.

144

HOME funds means funds made available under this part through allocations and

reallocations, plus program income.

Homeownership means ownership in fee simple title or a 99 year leasehold interest in a one-

to four-unit dwelling or in a condominium unit, or equivalent form of ownership approved by

HUD. The ownership interest may be subject only to the restrictions on resale required under

Sec. 92.254(a); mortgages, deeds of trust, or other liens or instruments securing debt on the

property as approved by the participating jurisdiction; or any other restrictions or encumbrances

that do not impair the good and marketable nature of title to the ownership interest. For purposes

of the insular areas, homeownership includes leases of 40 years or more. For purposes of housing

located on trust or restricted Indian lands, homeownership includes leases of 50 years. The

participating jurisdiction must determine whether or not ownership or membership in a

cooperative or mutual housing project constitutes homeownership under State law.

Household means one or more persons occupying a housing unit.

Housing includes manufactured housing and manufactured housing lots, permanent housing

for disabled homeless persons, transitional housing, single-room occupancy housing, and group

homes. Housing also includes elder cottage housing opportunity (ECHO) units that are small,

free-standing, barrier-free, energy-efficient, removable, and designed to be installed adjacent to

existing single-family dwellings. Housing does not include emergency shelters (including

shelters for disaster victims) or facilities such as nursing homes, convalescent homes, hospitals,

residential treatment facilities, correctional facilities and student dormitories.

Insular areas means Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the United

States Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

Jurisdiction means a State or unit of general local government.

Low-income families means families whose annual incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the

median income for the area, as determined by

HUD with adjustments for smaller and larger families, except that HUD may establish income

ceilings higher or lower than 80 percent of the median for the area on the basis of HUD findings

that such variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs or fair

market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes.

Metropolitan city has the meaning given the term in 24 CFR 570.3.

145

Neighborhood means a geographic location designated in comprehensive plans, ordinances, or

other local documents as a neighborhood, village, or similar geographical designation that is

within the boundary but does not encompass the entire area of a unit of general local

government; except that if the unit of general local government has a population under 25,000,

the neighborhood may, but need not, encompass the entire area of a unit of general local

government. Participating jurisdiction means a jurisdiction (as defined in this section) that has

been so designated by HUD in accordance with Sec. 92.105.”

A Pay Authorization form dated April 16, 2004 was signed by Gerald R. Ferguson for $3,166.00

payable to Westside Businessmen’s/CHDO Training, invoice #01-4504. A letter from Early

Johnson, Executive Vice President/COO of Community Redevelopment Associates of Florida,

Inc. indicates, “Please find enclosed with this letter our (Community Redevelopment Associates)

first invoice for services provided to the Westside Businessmen Association CHDO. Also, with

this invoice, I have included a payment authorization transmittal and a status report of our

progress to date, for submission to the City of Deerfield.” The invoice #WBA01/2005 dated

April 7, 2004 from the Community Redevelopment Associates of Florida, Inc. states the

following items included in the invoice, Supervising Partner ($1,425.00), Project Coordinator

($1,625.00) and Supplies and Printing Cost ($116.00).

A Workshop Schedule for the period of March through August 2004 indicates that twelve

workshops will be held as follows: one in March, three in April, two in May, two in June, two in

July and two in August. On the bottom of the page is a note stating, “Training provided by

TerRhoLyn Development Group for Community Redevelopment Associates of Florida, Inc.”

Kessler determined that TerRhoLyn Development Group is a fictitious business name of a

company owned by Lynette Williams Austin.

Only two sign in sheets were provided in the documents, one dated March 27, 2004 and the other

dated April 6, 2004. These documents were supplemented by Resolution No. 2004/026

indicating that,

146

“$10,000 from the Target Fund for the purposes of assisting the CHDO in retaining as

consultant for the proposed of training and technical assistance to further the purposes

and goals of the CHDO. Community Redevelopment Associates will be the consultant

chosen for the purpose of providing a six month period of training and assistance.”

(Exhibit 308).

Memorandum of Understanding (2005)

A Memorandum of Understanding between City of Deerfield Beach and WDBA was signed on

February 15, 2005 for Administration of Community Housing Development Organization

(HOME) Funding Program Minor Home Repair Program. The Memorandum of Understanding

allocated $39,265.00 for use by WDBA for the Minor Home Repair Program (Exhibit 309).

Exhibit A to the Memorandum of Understanding indicates that the maximum number of homes

to be rehabilitated was three for eligible low to moderate income houses. The Primary Scope of

work includes correct code violations and Weatherization. Exhibit B of the Memorandum of

Understanding indicates that the $39,265.00 in funding can be utilized on the following items,

Inspections ($796.00), direct client subsidy ($8,000.00) and Contractual Services ($30,469.00).

Kessler has determined that the funds were disbursed from account #620-8000-556-32-99 on the

four projects. The projects that utilized the funds were Viola Smith ($9,598.65), Andy Douglas

($11,780.00), Melvin Walker ($9,598.66) and Ed Walker ($17,278.00) for total expenditures of

$48,255.31.

In an October 30, 2007 letter from Suzanne R. Fejes the Assistant Director the Housing and

Community Development Division of the Urban Planning and Redevelopment Department of

Broward County to Debra Chatman states, “The purpose of this letter is to inform you that

Broward County cannot reimburse the City of Deerfield Beach for Community Housing

Development Organization (CHDO) activities to this date, since the County does not have an

existing written agreement with the City for your CHDO funding.” (Exhibit 310). Kessler

determined from a Memorandum from Gerald R Ferguson to Michael Mahaney dated October

30, 2007 approval for the amount not allowed by Broward County of $44,518.00 to be charged

to the City’s General Fund. (Exhibit 311). An agenda item of November 6, 2007 was presented

to the Commission asking that $44,518 be charged to the General Fund. The Commission

147

minutes state that Michael Mahaney, City Manager stated that “the CHDO was under the

impression that they could do the work and now it must be coded correctly. He said that the bill

has been paid but was not coded correctly.” (Exhibit 312).

On the same date November 6, 2007 the City approved a Resolution No. 2007/078 to entered

into a Memorandum of Understanding with Broward County for administration of the Home

Funding Program 2003 through 2007 in the amount of $215,975.00 (Exhibit 313).

Memorandum of Understanding (Construction)

A Memorandum of Understanding between City of Deerfield Beach and WDBA was signed on

March 18, 2008 for Administration of Community Housing Development Organization (HOME)

Funding Program New Construction Project 2003 – 2007. The Memorandum of Understanding

states that, “City, in its representative capacity to the Broward County HOME Consortium, is the

recipient of HOME funds from Broward County, and has allocated fifteen percent (15%) of these

funds to the CHDO” the funding that shall be provided through this program is $215,975.00.

The terms of the Memorandum of Understand state, “The MOU shall become effective upon

execution by the CITY and shall continue until September 30, 2008, unless terminated earlier as

provided herein.” This document is signed by Sylvia Poitier for Albert R. Capellini, PE, and

Michael Mahaney as representatives of the City and by Nathaniel B. Knowles and Felicia Poitier

as representatives of WDBA (Exhibit 314). Kessler noted that Sylvia Poitier submitted a Form

8B for the, “A Resolution Authorizing the Mayer and City Manager to enter into a Memorandum

of Understanding between the City of Deerfield Beach and the Westside Deerfield Beach

Businessmen Association, Inc. for administering of Community Housing Development

Organization Funding Program.” The instruction for compliance with Section 112.3143, Florida

Statute states, “A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public

office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure with inures to the special gain or loss of a

principal…” (Exhibit 315). Commissioner Sylvia Poitier did not abstain from the vote, and in

fact signed the Memorandum of Understanding.

Exhibit A to the Memorandum of Understanding states that the following items must be

addressed regarding the construction / sale of one single family home in Deerfield Beach:

148

Activity 2: First Time Homebuyer Program:

• 0% interest deferred payment note and mortgage

o Ten (10) year term

o Total Loan Amount due upon sale, transfer or rental of property

o 10% of the outstanding balance forgiven per year on anniversary date of loan

provided property remains owner occupied by owner

o Affordability is 30 years

• Lien position no lower than third place

• Applicant must obtain first mortgage financing utilizing City of Deerfield Beach

approved lenders

• Buyer must be a first time home buyer (must not have owned home within past 3

consecutive years)

• Applicant must contribute 3% of the purchase price (1% potential buyers own funds, 2%

gift of grant subsidy)

• Eligible housing

o Single family residence constructed by Westside Deerfield Businessmen

Association on property located at 229 SW 2nd Street

• Funding awarded to qualified families that have been pre-qualified through City of

Deerfield Beach First Time Home Buyers Program

• Homebuyer education certification required

• Negotiate with City Commission to donate property to Westside Deerfield Beach

Businessmen Association located at 229 SW 2nd Court, Deerfield Beach

• WDBA to contract with general contractor to construct a single family home

• Coordinate efforts with City of Deerfield Beach Community Development Office to

select first time homebuyers to purchase home

• Verify income eligibility to participate in City of Deerfield Beach First Time Homebuyer

Program

o Certify applicant and issue award letter

o Pre-qualify applicant

o Advise and assist client as needed

o Assist client to obtain mortgage financing

149

o Follow through on closing

• Prepare City of Deerfield Beach mortgage and note for execution

o Standard City of Deerfield Beach forms to be used

Exhibit B of the Memorandum of Understanding states that the following costs can be associated

with the project:

• Construction - $130,000

• Inspections - $900

• Developer Fee - $21,975

• Direct Client Sub - $40,000

• Appraisal - $500

• Contractual Service (Construction Manager) - $5,000

• Other (Itemize (Survey, Environmental/Soil, Lot preparation, Title, Legal, Builders Risk,

Architect Drawings, etc.) - $17,600

• Total - $215,975

Kessler has determined that the Deferred Payment Loan Agreements that were provided to

Stephanie Thomas for the purchase of the home located at 229 SW 2nd Court did not abide by the

Memorandum of Understanding which indicated that the 0% interest deferred payment mortgage

and note shall be a ten year term. The Conventional Mortgage & Promissory Note for Stephanie

Thomas in the amount of $40,000.00 is a five year term and is the second mortgage on the

property. This mortgage does not abide by the Memorandum of Understanding between the City

of Deerfield Beach and WDBA.

The mortgage to secure the loan between the Westside-Deerfield Businessmen Association, Inc.

and Stephanie D. Thomas dated July 31, 2009 indicates a $25,000.00 loan with a term of fifteen

years as per the Promissory Note. This mortgage is indicated to be the third mortgage on the

property.

150

The applicant did provide at least 1% of the total purchase price as per Exhibit A of the

Memorandum of Understanding signed on March 18, 2008, $2,000.00 was provided as a down

payment and the total required down payment was $1,762.57.

Kessler has determined that $215,975.00 was allocated to the project for the construction of the

home located at 229 SW 2nd Court; the actual cost of the project was $251,139.09 (Exhibit 316).

A review was conducted of the checks payable to each vendor in regards to the project and it was

determined that the following categories exceeded the budget allocated:

Category Actual Budgeted

Construction $130,726.00 $130,000.00

Inspections $0.00 $900.00

Developer Fee $24,216.54 $21,975.00

Direct Client Sub $65,000.00 $40,000.00

Appraisal $500.00 $500.00

Contractual Service (Construction Manager) $5,000.00 $5,000.00

Other $25,696.55 $17,600.00

Total $251,139.09 $215,975.00

The Developer Fee was made payable to WDBA and the payments made exceed the allocated

amount by $2,241.64. Additionally, $25,000.00 in additional funding was provided to Stephanie

Thomas from the Westside Deerfield Beach Businessmen Association, Inc. from the First Time

Homebuyer Project which also came from the City.

Kessler noted discrepancies regarding payments made by the WDBA to the Construction

Manager, Emmanuel Okwor. Kessler noted that the WDBA was receiving invoices from Onel

Associates, LLC, for Construction Management, but checks were issued directly to Emmanuel

Okwor which totaled $5,000.00. Therefore since the monies were going directly to an individual

and not the corporation, a 1099 should have been issued to Emmanuel Okwor (Exhibit 317).

151

Additionally after reviewing the documents provided, Kessler noted that limited work was being

conducted by Emmanuel Okwor for the payments of $1,250.00 he was receiving. The work

consisted of a limited number of photos and a short non-descriptive inspection report (Exhibit

318).

A resolution no. 2009/269 indicates that on July 31, 2009, the City of Deerfield Beach entered

into an Escrow Agreement with the Westside Deerfield Beach Businessmen Association, Inc.

(Exhibit 319). On July 31, 2009 an Escrow Agreement was entered into between the WDBA and

the City of Deerfield Beach and the Escrow Agent (Robert S. Kleinman, P.A.). This document

was signed by Felicia Poitier, Michael Mahaney and Robert Kleinman, Esq. As per the

agreement, “All proceeds for the sale, after out-of-pocket expenses and closing costs, including

attorney’s fees, which would be paid to WDBA, shall instead be placed in an escrow account to

be held by the Law Offices of Robert S. Kleinman, P.A. The funds shall be released to the

WDBA only upon the City Manager of the CITY making a positive determination with regard to

the following conditions:

a. A finding that the WDBA is properly certified as a CHDO by Broward County; and

b. A finding that the WDBA has property filed all returns with the Internal Revenue

Service for the past three years and is active and properly functioning 501 (c) (4)

corporation under Internal Revenue Service guidelines; and

c. A finding that the WDBA has complied with the minimum standard of accounting

practices required by the United States Department of Housing and Urban

Development for CHDOs; and

d. A new CHDO Development Agreement is executed by and between CITY and

WDBA for the WDBA to continue operating as a CHDO within the CITY.” (Exhibit

320).

An Amendment to the Escrow Agreement between WDBA and the City of Deerfield Beach

dated November 3, 2009 was contained in the file. This document is signed by Michael

Mahaney, Felicia Poitier and Robert S. Kleinman, Esq. The document states the following, “The

152

ESCROW AGENT is authorized to release funds from the ESCROW ACCOUNT to WDBA

under the following conditions:

A. WDBA engages a certified public accountant for the purpose of conducting an audit

of WDBA business activities as the CHDO for the City of Deerfield Beach. A letter

or contract of engagement shall contain a requirement that the audit include an audit

of all City funds paid to the WDBA and shall be undertaken to ensure, among other

things, that all federal and county guidelines regarding the operation of the CHDO

and minimum standards of accounting and reporting practices as required by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development and all other federal agencies for the

CHDO has been appropriately followed and met;

B. The City Manager or his designee has approved the contract for services between the

WDBA and the certified public accountant, which contract shall contain the standards

as set forth above and any other standards deemed necessary to meet the spirit and

intent of this Amendment as well as a set/maximum fee for the services to be

rendered which fee shall be determined to be reasonable by the City Manager or his

designee;

C. The invoice from the certified public accountant shall be copied to the City of

Deerfield Beach Community Development Director and shall specifically set forth the

services being rendered for the invoiced amount.

D. Provide the maximum amount set forth in the approved contract or engagement letter

is not exceeded.” (Exhibit 321).

Kessler noted that a payment was made to Antoinette Patterson on October 16, 2009 for audit

fees, prior to the date of the Amendment Escrow Agreement. This check was issued from the

Community Development Account and is check #2065.

A November 17, 2009 letter from Antoinette Patterson, CPA to WDBA with subject Audit

January 2008 – July 2009, states that, “We are in the process of completing the audit and are

basically doing our paper work to prove the numbers that are on the financial statements

submitted by the Accountant. The report should be completed by December 4 latest December

11, 2009. I will fax you a draft for your review prior to the final report.” (Exhibit 322).

153

A December 3, 2009 letter from Antoinette Patterson, CPA to WDBA with reference to Audit

Engagement – Westside Deerfield Businessmen Association Community Housing Division for

the Nineteen Months Ending July 31, 2009, states the audit objectives, management

responsibilities, audit procedures – general, audit procedures – internal controls audit procedures

– compliance, audit administration, fees, and other. The document indicates that the fee should

approximately be $5,000.00 (Exhibit 323). This document is unsigned by the WDBA and the

City of Deerfield Housing Division. It should be noted that this document is faxed from One

World Learning Center, a corporation whose officers are listed as Antoinette Patterson, Lillie

Patterson and Marie Poulard.

A December 29, 2009 letter from Antoinette Patterson, CPA to WDBA with reference to Audit

Engagement – Westside Deerfield Businessmen Association Community Housing Division for

the Nineteen Months Ending July 31, 2009, states the same objectives of the previous audit

engagement letter. The document indicates that the fee should approximately be $7,000.00

(Exhibit 324). This document is unsigned.

Verification of CHDO Status

A June 5, 2009 letter from Peter Parkin to Frederick Shepherd of the Broward County

Community Development Division indicates that, “An assertion has been made to the City that

the City’s “CHDO”, WBDA “is not operating properly as a 501 (C)”. The letter further states

that, “Broward County’s Housing and Community Development Division serves as the City’s

CHDO certifying entity. Consistent with that role, the City hereby request that your Division

assess this information at face value and conduct a review with some consideration on applying

the following scope of review:

• The regulations governing CHDO’s

• Broward County’s CHDO approval process

• WDBA CHDO Certification document(s)

• Specific scope of Deerfield CHDO contractual responsibilities

• WDBA current 501(C) status

154

• Narrative of how the operations are consistent or inconsistent with their office scope of

responsibilities”

This document is enclosed as Exhibit 325.

A response from Fredrick Shepherd of the Broward County Community Development Division

dated July 13, 2009 indicates that, “This is to acknowledge receipt of your June 5, 2009 letter

regarding questions related to the West Deerfield Businessmen’s Association (WDBA) (sic).

We are, therefore, proving (sic) point by point response to the issues you have inquired about.”

This letter and the enclosed documents pertaining to the regulations regarding CHDO’s are

enclosed as (Exhibit 326).

Contained in the documents provided by the Community Development Division regarding

WDBA is a Vita (sic) for Dan E Poitiers (sic) indicating that his Business and Professional

Experiences is “DBA/Poitiers Gardening Past 30 Years” and “Poitier Enterprises.” Additionally,

the affiliations of Dan E. Poitiers are The American Legion Post 287, The Masonic Lodge Delta

519, Charity Chapter 100 OES, Emmanuel Christian Center and CPCO Certified Pest Control

Operator.

$30,000 Payment to Westside Deerfield Beach Businessmen Association, Inc.

An August 7, 2008 letter from Dan E. Poitier Executive Director of the WDBA to City Manager

Mike Mahaney states, “The WDBA serves to provide 23 rental apartments to low income

citizens. This affordable housing serves an essential need of outreach in the City and works

within all of the required federal guideline established by the U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development. The WDBA is respectfully requesting the $30,000.00 in outreach funding

that has been included in the City’s 2008 budget. Attached is a copy of our most recent IRS

Form 990 that is required by the City.” (Exhibit 327). A Resolution No. 2008/191 was

authorized to disburse $30,000.00 in outreach funding to the Westside Deerfield Businessmen

Association on August 19, 2008. This document was signed by Albert R. Capellini, P.E., and the

funding was specifically supposed to be used for, “The condition of this payment is that it be

used to assist WDBA in operating expense for operations within the City of Deerfield Beach.”

The document also states, “The City Commission acknowledges the receipt of an IRS Form 990

155

from WDBA as backup for the request of the WDBA.” On August 22, 2008 a check from the

City of Deerfield Beach in the amount of $30,000 and was deposited into the Westside-Deerfield

Businessmen Association, Inc. account ending in 9353 (main account) (Exhibit 328).

Contract for Services (James L. Hudson)

A Contract for Service dated July 28, 2007 was entered into between The Westside Deerfield

Businessmen Association and Mr. James L. Hudson. The Contract for Service also indicates

that, “It is Areed (sic) that James Hudson will be the CHODO Consultant. To Provide all the

Needed requirements of the Home Program, and any other service with SHIP also The Retainer

Fee for such Services will be $1,000.00 (One=Thousand No Cents)/ (sic)” (Exhibit 329). This

document is signed by James L. Hudson and is unsigned by the Executive Director or President.

Kessler noted that no payments were made to this individual from the CHDO account of

Westside Deerfield Businessmen Association, Inc. during the periods of 2007 through 2009.

James L. Hudson is also affiliated with Females on a Mission, Inc. located at 2880 W Oakland

Park Blvd., Suite 215, Oakland Park, FL (officers and directors -Patricia Williams, Kenny M.

Davis, Levoyd Williams, Stabley Merceda and Jay Williams), Olive Branch Property

Management Corporation (Inactive – 9/22/2000) located at 407 NW 9th Avenue, Suite 2, Fort

Lauderdale, FL (officers and directors – Fredrick Black, Jerry Carter and Ray Kuma), Win

Consulting (Inactive – 9/24/1999) located at 504 Prado Place, Lakeland, FL (officers and

directors – Levonia A. Wynn), Butts Enterprises, Inc. (Inactive – 7/18/2008) located at 3635 NW

19th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL (officers and directors – Tommie B. Butts, Jr., Serry Coleman

and Vera Butts) and Aviators Development, LLC (Inactive – 9/16/2005) located at 3012 SW

11th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL (officers and directors – Daniel Modas). It should be noted that

Tommie B. Butts, Jr. is also a director of Church of Brotherly Love King’s Table Corporation.

Review of the Financial Documents

Kessler conducted an analysis of the two bank accounts held by WDBA for 2005 through 2009,

for account ending in 9353 (main account) and account ending in 6080 (Community Housing

Division). Kessler was not provided with the 2009 general ledger and the 2008 general ledger

only contained the main account. The January 2009 account statement for 9353 was not

156

provided by WDBA. The account balance for 6080 rarely exceeded $10,000.00 and in 2009 has

remained dormant with no monthly balance exceeding $1,000.00.

An analysis of the WDBA general checking account ending in 9353 for 2005 disclosed that

check #4063 issued on August 5, 2005 to Dan Poitier in the amount of $800.00 for “Stipend” pay

was listed as payable to “Cash” on the General Ledger and recorded under the Contract Labor

account.

Another item noted as unusual pertained to check #4079 issued on September 30, 2005 to Daniel

Norman in the amount of $888.00 which stated “Social Security Check Cashed” on the check.

On the General Ledger the check was payable to “Daniel Newman” and recorded as a debit

under the Rental Income account.

Kessler’s examination of the WDBA general checking account ending in 9353 for 2007, revealed

discrepancies between checks issued and the recording of the checks on the General Ledger.

Check #4296 which was issued to State Farm on March 7, 2007 in the amount $1,118.04 for

insurance premiums is recorded on the General Ledger as Cash and recorded under the Repairs

and Maintenance account. Check #4325 issued May 22, 2007 in the amount of $320.00 was

recorded on the General Ledger as “Cash” but the banking records provided by WDBA did not

enclose a copy of the check.

An analysis of the WDBA general checking account ending in 9353 for 2008 disclosed that a

check payable to Dan Poitier, check #4459 dated August 4, 2008 in the amount of $2,500.00 has

noted in the comments section, “Wells Fargo”. The check on the General Ledger was recorded

under the Mortgage Payable account.

Kessler’s review of the WDBA general checking account ending in 9353 disclosed payments to

Daniel Poitier in 2005 of $4,800.00 all consisting of Stipend Pay. In 2006 Poitier was paid

Stipend Pay totaling $4,400.00, in 2007 Poitier received $5,200.00 in Stipend Pay and in 2008

Poitier received Stipend Pay totaling $2,800.00 and received a check with a notation on it “Wells

Fargo” totaling $2,500.00. Also during the review Kessler noted a payment to Poitier Gardening

157

in the amount of $486.88 in 2007. This allegedly was to correct faulty sprinkler lines installed

by a contractor hired by WDBA for one of the projects undertook for the City, but it was never

charged back to the original contractor. This payment would be a violation of HUD Rules,

particularly since HUD’s regulation 24 CDR Part 92.2 which states:

(3) Is neither controlled by, nor under the direction of, individuals or entities seeking to derive

profit or gain from the organization. A community housing development organization may be

sponsored or created by a for-profit entity, but:

(i) The for-profit entity may not be an entity whose primary purpose is the development or

management of housing, such as a builder, developer, or real estate management firm.

(ii) The for-profit entity may not have the right to appoint more than one-third of the

membership of the organization's governing body. Board members appointed by the for-profit

entity may not appoint the remaining two-thirds of the board members; and

(iii) The community housing development organization must be free to contract for goods and

services from vendors of its own choosing;

Payments were also made to Poitier Enterprises from the WDBA general checking account

ending in 9353. All disbursements from 2005 through 2008 were recorded as “Loan Payment”.

In 2005 Poitier Enterprises was disbursed $7,423.65, in 2006 $6,281.55, in 2007 $6,281.56 and

in 2008, $4,568.35. No loan agreement was presented for review and based upon the records

provided Kessler could not verify that Poitier lent these funds to WDBA. Numerous requests

have gone unanswered.

Kessler noted two payments to Regina Hall from the WDBA general checking account ending in

9353 in 2006 totaling $3,205.50. The payments to Ms. Hall were indicated to be for event

coordinating and planning (Exhibit 330). Kessler noted that this disbursement could possible be

conflict of interest between the Dan E. Poitier and Regina Hall, the sister of City employee

Stephanie Hall McMillian, as Dan E. Poitier and Regina Hall are cousins as per the attached e-

mail (Exhibit 331). No documentation was supplied to support what the payments were for.

Kessler calculated payments from of the WDBA general checking account ending in 9353 to

Daniel Norman. In 2005 Norman received $21, 517.62, most of the money being labeled as

158

“Maintenance” and “Services”. In 2006 Daniel Norman received $17,568.83, in 2007

$18,675.48 and in 2008 $17,677.89.

Kessler calculated payments from the WDBA general checking account to Mr. Chuck Mogbo,

the accountant and determined that in 2005 Mr. Mogbo received $600.00, in 2006 he received

$1,100.00, in 2007 he received $3,600.00, and in 2008 he received $2,200.00.

Other Liabilities

Kessler noted that a “Financial Statement” dated March 17, 2009 which was presented to the

City Commission to support a request for funding, indicates loans made from Inoris Poitier in the

amount of $2,712.42 and Lionel Ferguson in the amount of $74,000 to WDBA (Exhibit 332).

Kessler reviewed the 2006 through 2009 bank statement as well as the general ledger for the

accounts ending in 9353 and 6080 to determine if these loans were received by the entity.

Kessler has determined that nowhere in the bank statements or the general ledger are these notes

payable documented. Additionally, a review was conducted on the account (6080) statements

and it was determined that no deposits were made that exceeded or matched these amounts.

It should be noted that the long-term liabilities section of the WDBA 2008 Balance Sheet states

Notes Payable-Noncurrent in the amount of $12,499.90 which has been determined to the notes

payable to Poitier Enterprise, which to date, documentation has not been provided.

Kessler reviewed all payments to Poitier Enterprises which are reflected on the notes payable

account of WDBA. After further analysis Kessler recognized that the payments to Poitier

Enterprises were being recorded on the notes payable and the interest expense accounts. The

total monthly payment to Poitier Enterprises is $571.05 which is recorded as a debit of $416.67

on the notes payable account and a debit of $154.38 on the interest expense account. Kessler

calculated that the interest being paid on this note payable to be at 27% which is an extremely

high rate to be paid on a loan.

Additionally Kessler noted a discrepancy between the 2008 Balance Sheet year end balance of

the notes payable and the balance as per the “Financial Statement” dated 3/17/09. On the

159

December 31, 2008 Balance Sheet the notes payable balance is $12,499.90 and as per the

“Financial” Statement” stated 3/17/09 the balance is $15,000.00. Kessler has not received any

documentation indicating that Poitier Enterprises paid more money towards the note and

therefore further explanation is needed for this variance.

Kessler has analyzed all payments transactions relative to Dan Poitiers loan to WDBA. Based

upon the documents received, Kessler calculated yearly totals for monies paid to WDBA by Dan

Poitier and monies paid to Dan Poitier by WDBA. In 2005 there was a total of $2,000.00

deposited into WDBA from Mr. Poitier. In 2006 there was $2,000.00 deposited into WDBA by

Mr. Poitier, $400.00 of which cannot be reconciled by Kessler due to support not being

provided. Additionally in 2006 WDBA’s account paid Mr. Poitier $1,500.00 in Loan

Repayments. In 2007 Kessler calculated $1,000.00 deposited into WDBA by Mr. Poitier but

there was no check to support this deposit. In 2008 Mr. Poitier deposited $1,500.00 into WDBA

and $1,500.00 was also paid to Mr. Poitier by WDBA as loan repayments. In 2009 $400.00 was

paid to Mr. Poitier by WDBA for repayment of the loan.

Kessler also noted that on the General Ledger there are additional monies being credited to the

loan account which were not monies deposited by Daniel Poitier. Based upon documentation

received Kessler is unable to determine where these monies are coming from, further explanation

is needed to reconcile these amounts on the General Ledger.

W-2 and 1099

Kessler only received IRS form W-2’s for Dan E. Poitier for 2005 through 2008, no other W-2’s

or 1099’s for any other contractor or individual were produced by WDBA.

CHDO

Kessler reviewed all of the checks issued from the WDBA CHDO account ending in 6080 from

2005 through 2009 and several discrepancies were noted. One major discrepancy found by

Kessler was that no checks issued in 2008 from the WDBA account ending in 6080 were

recorded on the 2008 General Ledger. This is a significant finding because by not recording the

checks on the General Ledger the Tax Returns for WDBA were then improperly prepared.

160

Again further explanation is needed as to why this occurred and no one recognized the problem,

especially since an accountant is being paid to render services. Chuck Mogbo, CPA was paid a

total of $2,250.00, $1,800.00 in 2008 and $450.00 in 2009 from the CHDO account.

161

Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc.80 NE 40TH StreetMiami, FL 33137

Current and Previous Board Members:Beth J. KofskyVictor Farran, Jr.Dale OstrowskiCarl L. PrimeMarilyn CheungMichael CesaranoElly Du PreTerry ChesterNaomi Tarpley

A Resolution No. 2005/071 was authorized to enter into an agreement with Housing & Assistive

Technology, Inc. to act as the representative of the City of Deerfield Beach for administering an

Architectural Barrier Removal Program. This resolution is dated April 19, 2005 and signed by

Albert R. Capellini, P.E. The Agreement between the City of Deerfield Beach, Florida and

Housing & Assistive Technology, Inc. states that, “The initial contract period shall be for one (1)

year, commencing upon signature by both parties. In addition, the City reserves the right to

renew the contract for four (4) additional one (1) year periods, under the same terms, conditions

and specification contingent upon Budget approval.” The agreement also states a clause in

which the City has the right to review books, records and documents as required, and that

insurance requirement shall be maintained at the sole expense of the consultant (Exhibit 333).

Kessler was not provided with any insurance documentation stating that Housing and Assistive

Technology, Inc. was complying with this clause. The contract also contains Exhibit A and

Exhibit B which identify maximum barrier free modifications unit costs and Architectural

Barrier-Removal Program General Information, Requirements and Scope of Services which have

previous been discussed in detail during the case review of Anthony and Margaret Davis and

Viola Smith.

Kessler received copies of all of the payment made to Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc.

Kessler also requested that all payments made to Beth Kofsky also be provided, but Sally Siegel

of the Finance Department stated that no payments were made to Beth Kofsky.

162

In total Kessler documented that from 2004 to 2008, $115,011.93 was made payable to Housing

and Assistive Technology, Inc. These payments were made for Construction Indemnity for RFP

2003-04/01 ($30.00), Construction Fees ($44,745.00) and Assessment Fees ($70,236.93)

between the period of 2004 through 2008 (Exhibit 334).

Kessler noted that three payments were made for construction fees to Housing and Assistive

Technology, Inc. for the following individuals, Stanley Steinmark (2005 Durham A, Deerfield

Beach, FL), Kenneth Moskowitz (1004 Hartwood C, Deerfield Beach, FL) and Faye Glickman

(238 Newport O, Deerfield Beach, FL). It should also be noted that a Kenneth Moskowitz is

identified as the owner of five properties in the County of Broward. All three of these

individuals are residents in Century Village of Deerfield Beach, the same condominium complex

that reviewed over $340,000.00 in funding to provide elevator lifts installed by Elelift, LLC and

which Beth Kofsky was a consultant (Exhibit 335).

A review of the specific contracts for the three individual whose constructions fees were made

payable to Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. were not available for Kessler’s review,

Kessler recommends that these files be audited. In analysis of two identical Contracts between

the City of Deerfield Beach and Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. Kessler noted that

certain monetary maximums could not be exceeded. The maximum allowance for expenditure as

per the contracts states, “The $15,000 is also inclusive of any program service delivery costs that

are directly attributable to the home that receives the SHIP and CDBG assistance.” Kessler has

documented the following payments to Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. regarding the

construction fees and assessments:

Recipient: Construction Fee: Assessment Fee: Total:

Stanley Steinmark $14,920.00 $3,579.50 $18,499.50

Kenneth Moskowitz $15,000.00 $3,578.45 $18,578.45

Faye Glickman $14,825.00 $3,578.98 $18,403.98

163

Kessler also determined that the maximum allowance for assessment fees that could be charged

to a project for Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. was $3,500.00 for assessment fees, yet

on these three cases in excess of $3,500.00 was charged for the projects.

A Resolution No. 2006/288 was provided to Kessler, detailing that $43,910.00 in funding was

awarded in two contracts for Architectural Barrier Removal to Housing and Assistive

Technology, Inc. This document is dated December 19, 2006 and signed by Albert R. Capellini,

P.E (Exhibit 336). During the audit, Kessler noted that the payments of the $43,910.00 were not

made payable to Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. but instead to other contractors and that

Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. was only paid for the Assessment Fees on these

projects.

A Notice to Proceed document dated January 11, 2007 and signed by the contractor (Conner

Industries, Inc.) on January 9, 2007 has attached the Agreement between Owner and Contractor

for Direct Rehabilitation Loan from SHIP Housing Repair Funds. The Agreement states that

$14,885 in CDBG and SHIP funds will be utilized on the project. Page 7 of this document

indicates that, “This document consisting of 12 pages…”, Kessler is unaware of why this

discrepancy occurred, but this page indicates that the floor tile shall be “rainforest cloud” in

violation of the Agreement between the City of Deerfield Beach, Florida and Housing &

Assistive Technology, Inc. which states that all tile repairs shall be in white or bone. The

address for the recipient (Edna MacDonald) is 107 Ventnor F, Deerfield Beach, FL (Exhibit

337). Kessler also determined that Edna MacDonald owns another property located at 633 NE

21st Avenue, 2B, Deerfield Beach, FL, with Arley & S. MacDonald (Exhibit 338).

A second Notice to Proceed document dated January 11, 2007 was included in Resolution No.

2006/288 for repairs to the property located at 650 SW 10th Court, Deerfield Beach, FL owned

by Elaine Poitier and Pamela Poitier. The attached Agreement between Owner and Contractor

(Solid Builders Construction Company, Inc.) for Direct Rehabilitation Loans from SHIP

Housing Repair Funds indicates that $29,025.00 shall be paid in CDBG and SHIP funds. This

amount on the agreement exceeds the maximum amount as per the Agreement between the City

of Deerfield Beach, Florida and Housing & Assistive Technology, Inc. which is $15,000.00. On

164

Page 7 of this document it indicates, “This document, consisting of 14 pages,…” this

discrepancy has been observed on numerous other agreements and Kessler has not received any

indication of why this is occurring. The document is witnessed by Debra M. Chatman and

Margaret Davis (Exhibit 339). Kessler also noted that through a review of the Broward County

Property Appraiser’s website that a Elaine Emily Poitier owns another property located at 4970

SW 32nd Terrace, Dania Beach, FL (Exhibit 340).

A Resolution No. 2007/003 signed by Albert R. Capellini, P.E. on January 2, 2007, indicates that

$54,130 has been awarded to Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. for three contracts

(Exhibit 341). Kessler was not provided with these contracts and only two of the three bid

summary sheets were provided. Kessler noted that the payments of the $54,130.00 were not

made payable to Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. and that Housing and Assistive

Technology, Inc. was only paid for the Assessment Fees on these projects.

The Contractor Bid Review documents provided indicates that Terramar Construction was

awarded the bid in the amount of $20,360.00 (Marilyn Webster) and $21,370.00 (Donata

Santorelli) (Exhibit 342). Both of these bid amounts exceeds the maximum amount as per the

Agreement between the City of Deerfield Beach, Florida and Housing & Assistive Technology,

Inc. which is $15,000.00. Kessler also determined that the property located at 604 SW Natura

Boulevard E, Deerfield Beach, FL is owned by Donata Le. Santorelle, Michael Kennedy and J.

D’Agostino (Exhibit 343).

Beth Kofsky of Housing and Assistive Technology, Inc. was the individual whose responsibility

it was to determine the specifications for the elevators to be utilized for the installation by Elelift,

LLC at Century Village. Beth Kofsky specifically stated in an e-mail dated May 17, 2007 to

Donna Council with a subject line reading, “See attached link.” The e-mail reads, “This lift uses

a cable-hydraulic system however it is one of the best models I have found to meet the needs of

the Century Village community. I have been researching others with answers to be provided

very soon. However, in the RFP you might want to ask for Screw Drive or Hydraulic Cable as

the main two types. The research I have done show that 5 major companies that have vertical

lifts traveling over 10’ use the cable hydraulic for safety. Most elevators use Hydraulic cable

165

systems. I have attached the specifications for this in the attached. Thank You Beth.” Listed

under the e-mail is a link to www.savariaconcord.com/V1054.htm#specifications. This product

link enclosed in the e-mail is the specific product utilized by Elelift, LLC in the construction of

19 elevators in Century Village. Kessler is perplexed that Beth Kofsky would do such a great

deal of research in determining the specific type of elevator to be utilized in a project of such

magnitude, and not request payment. Further inquiry is necessary regarding this area.

166

NE Focal Point Casa, Inc.227 NW 2nd StreetDeerfield Beach, FL 33441

Current and Previous Board Members:Joan GouldRichard SalesCathy GirouxBill GirouxJoan FinkElizabeth McGillDuane TimmDan DodgeMarsha Milot

Due to the limited budget, Kessler was unable to conduct a review of this recipient, Kessler

recommends that an additional internal controls review be conducted before additional funding is

provided.

167

Steppingstone Key Initiave & Social Development Services, Inc.NW 41st StreetPompano Beach, FL 33064

Current and Previous Board Members:Patrick V. MorrisDenise M. MorrisKaren P. MorrisLeonard T. Anderson



provided.

168

Senior Volunteer Services, Inc.f/k/a Broward County Grandparents, Inc.4701 NW 33rd AvenueOakland Park, FL 33309

Current and Previous Board Members:John R. GargottaTed PerrellaMarlene CrepChristina LevineRoberta YoungGeorge A. CannCece FordAnita SmithBruce VoelkelPenny Wools



provided.

169

INDEX

5-year Contractor Guarantee 77

A

AC unit 83-4accountants 114, 128, 135, 152, 158, 160

certified public 152accounting 128-30, 152accounting reports 11-12Acting City Manager 7, 24Ada Graham-Johnson 23, 138Adams, Darrel 2, 27, 109address emergency situations 14, 16Administration of Community Housing Development Organization 146-7affordable housing 15, 19, 143, 154Affordable Housing Development 15, 17affordable singe family units 15, 17agencies 21, 112, 116, 119Agent, escrow 48, 62, 151Agreement 23, 26, 31, 35, 38-9, 41, 53, 56, 60, 112-13, 118-20, 124-5, 129, 131-2, 161, 163-4alarms 14, 16All Phase Contracting 71Allphase Contracting 70-1, 74Allphase Contracting Inc 74aluminum 72-3Amendment 151-2Anthony 2, 99-100, 107, 161Applicant Information form 67applicants 13-17, 29-31, 33, 35, 37-8, 40-2, 47-9, 51, 59, 62-70, 76, 78-83, 86-8, 90-4, 97, 100

eligible 15, 17applicant's home 31, 41application 29, 33, 37, 40, 51, 59, 65, 76-8, 97-8, 100, 111-12, 115, 118-19, 123, 128, 132application document 33application process 3, 82Appraisal 62, 149-50approval 10, 33-4, 41, 48, 51, 66, 146April 129, 145Architectural Barrier Removal 10, 100, 102, 137-8area median income 14-17areas

insular 144target 118, 126, 128, 131

Ashely Myrick 100assessment 14, 30, 55, 67, 138, 162Assessment Fees 162-4assets 37, 40, 48, 59, 62, 70, 78, 87, 90, 92, 100, 122, 124, 128, 131

applicant's 29assistance 10, 14, 18, 29, 40, 47, 51, 63, 66-7, 78, 82, 87, 90, 92, 99-100, 108-9asterisk 113, 120Astro Electric 71Attorney 88, 116, 119audit 4-5, 113-15, 119, 128-30, 135, 152, 163

field 74Audit Engagement 153

170

audit engagement letter 153audit fees 114-15, 135, 152audit procedures 153Aurora Loan Services 59Avenue 33, 37, 62, 67, 70, 90, 155, 163award contracts 10award letter 29, 37, 65, 87, 148awards letters 65awning removal 96

B

balance 88, 118, 148, 158-9current 40, 59

Balance Sheet 158-9bank statements 87, 158barrier 19, 55-6, 104Barrier Free Rehab 54-5Base Bid 34, 38, 60, 68bathroom 38, 54, 57, 104Battle, Gloria 127-9bedrooms 61, 73Beneficiary Data 122, 124Beth 138-9, 165Bid Document Change Order 84bid documentation 108bid items 43, 84Bid Specifications 98bid summary sheet 24, 43, 59, 68, 70, 88, 92, 164bids 10, 22-5, 30-1, 33-4, 37-8, 41, 43, 55-7, 59-60, 70-1, 76-7, 79-80, 94-7, 100-2, 109, 138-9

contractors 79initial 96low 60lowest 34responsible 94revised 80submitted 68, 98summary 79total 79

bills 44, 54, 72, 89, 99, 130, 133, 147blight 128, 131board members 111, 130, 142-3, 157Board retreat 130-1bottles 133boxes 44, 46bronze aluminum picket railing 57, 105Brotherly Love King's Table Corp 2, 106, 111, 116Brotherly Love Social Services 106, 111-12Broward County 19, 21, 31, 69, 146-7, 151, 153, 162Broward County Community Development Division 153-4Broward County Property Appraiser 33, 51, 106, 164Broward County Property Appraisers report 37, 82Bruce 140budget 113, 118, 120, 128, 150, 154

limited 166-8building inspector 72buildings 54, 111-12, 137, 139-41Burke, Dawn 37business, local 132

171

Butts, Tommie B. 155Buyer 47, 49, 148

C

cabinets 14, 16Capellini, Albert R. 41, 147, 154, 161, 163-4carpet 61case files 3, 7, 40cash 48, 66, 156cash value 40, 59caulk 96, 108, 110CD Inspector 32, 35-6, 42, 79CDBG (Community Development Block) 8-9, 17-19, 45, 51, 54, 56, 70, 92, 111-12, 114, 138CDBG and SHIP funds 163CDBG application 123, 127, 131CDBG funding 17, 48, 100, 102, 111-12, 115, 120, 123, 128, 137CDBG funds 20, 42, 69, 112, 115CDD 3-4, 7, 13, 22, 27, 29-31, 35, 40, 94, 130, 141ceiling lights 72-3ceilings 54, 71-2Centro Cristiano 2, 120-1Century Village 137-8, 140-1, 164-5certification 40, 76, 139Certified Roofing Contractor 91Certify applicant 148CFR 10, 22, 142-4change order 4, 31, 34-5, 39, 42, 44-6, 54, 61, 73-4, 77, 79, 84-5, 91, 96, 103-4, 106change order number 61, 73-4change range outlet 72, 74charge 32, 36, 45, 130-1Chatman

Debra 25, 31-3, 35-7, 41-5, 47-9, 53-6, 59-61, 63-5, 68-70, 74, 77, 80-1, 84-6, 99, 103-4Debra M. 60, 98, 102, 164

CHDO (Community Housing Development Organization) 7, 51, 88, 142-3, 146-7, 151-4, 157, 159Check Register 9-12checking account, general 156-8child 111-12children 78, 112, 119choices 118-19, 127Choices Network Systems 2, 10, 69, 118, 128Church, Christian 120Church of Brotherly Love 2, 11, 106, 111, 116, 155circuit 72-3City 3-8, 13-14, 16-26, 30-2, 34-6, 44-5, 76-7, 83, 103, 113-14, 118-21, 129-30, 138-41, 146-7,

150-1, 153-4updated 40

City agencies 7City and Housing and Assistive Technology 58, 106City Attorney 7City Clerk 23City Commission 19, 24, 68, 118, 138, 148, 154, 158City Commission on October 25City Commissioner 140City contact Choices 119City contact Dr 115City employee Stephanie Hall McMillian 157City employees 5, 9, 27-8, 108-9City funds 3, 152

172

City Housing Authority 119City Inspector 39city limits 17City Manager 30, 147, 151-2City Manager Mike Mahaney states 154City Manager states 22City money 116City National Bank of Florida 62-3City National Bank of Florida Uniform Residential Loan Application 62City of Deerfield 145City of Deerfield Beach 13-14, 26-7, 40, 44-5, 47-9, 53, 67, 87-90, 92-3, 95-6, 99, 116, 141-2,

146-9, 151-2, 163-4City of Deerfield Beach and Brotherly Love Social Services 112City of Deerfield Beach and Broward County 42City of Deerfield Beach and Centro Cristiano 122City of Deerfield Beach and Housing and Assistive Technology 23, 56-7, 104-5, 162City of Deerfield Beach and SoFI Corporation 23City of Deerfield Beach City Employees 9City of Deerfield Beach Community Development Director 152City of Deerfield Beach Community Development Division 8, 94City of Deerfield Beach Community Development Office 148City of Deerfield Beach Employment Process 8City of Deerfield Beach for Community Housing Development Organization 146City of Deerfield Beach of client activity 55City of Deerfield Beach Policies Governing Department 8, 62City of Deerfield Beach Procurement Ordinance Section 8City of Deerfield Beach Request for Payment 44City of Deerfield Housing Division 153City of Lauderhill 31City Officials 6, 13City Police Department 18City process 58, 105City reserves 161City residents 18City SHIP 42city staff 4-5City streets 18City workers 5City's Affordable Housing Advisory Committee 19City's anti-poverty strategy 20City's approval 67City's CHDO 153City's Community Development 13City's Finance Department Reimbursement 22City's Housing Repair Program 25, 98City's responsibility 34City's SHIP Minor Home Repair 125classes 124-5clauses 23, 47, 53, 161client reference letter 128client sign-in sheets 129-30client signature 101-2Clients 9, 14, 48, 56, 65, 102, 116, 123, 148Co 30-2, 43, 53, 57, 79co-applicant 29, 37, 41, 78Code 5, 84-5Code Violation 39Commission 51, 140, 146Commissioner Marty Popelsky 137

173

Commissioner Popelsky 137Community 72, 120, 130, 143Community Development Block, see CDBGCommunity Development Division 3, 8-9, 11-13, 41-2, 47, 49, 68-9, 76, 81, 84, 98, 111, 135, 154Community Development Manager 32, 35-6Community Housing Development Organization, see CHDOCommunity Redevelopment Associates 42, 145-6Community Redevelopment Associates of Florida 40, 43, 67, 145Community Stabilization Program 127companies 22, 52, 138-9, 145, 164

property management 121Compensation, personal 113-14complaint letter 81complaints 25completed file 55condominiums 15-17, 162conduit 45consistency 40, 59construction 15, 17, 19, 30, 38, 42, 50-1, 56, 71, 81, 88, 110, 147, 149-50, 165Construction Case Management Services 55, 99construction cost 22, 25, 144Construction Cost Estimating & Preparing Bid 22, 24Construction Fees 162Construction Manager 149-50consultant 143, 146, 161-2contingencies 35, 38, 55, 60, 68, 70Contract 9-12, 23-5, 30-2, 34-6, 43, 52-3, 56-8, 71-2, 74, 91, 103-6, 108-9, 140, 152, 155, 161-4

construction 69identical 162initial 23respective 24revised 69undated 56

contract amount 83Contract approval 47Contract Award 51contract date 41Contract for Repair Work 88, 93contract Housing 23Contract Indemnity 23-4Contract Labor account 156contract period 26

initial 161contract sum 99Contraction Corp 70Contractor 4, 24-6, 30, 32-6, 38-9, 41-4, 52-6, 58-61, 67-71, 74, 76-7, 79-81, 83-5, 88-92, 102-6,

163independent 132responsive 83selected 60

Contractor Bid Review 102, 164contractor bills 44Contractor maximum 10contractors pre-bid meeting 99contracts states 162Contractual Services 146, 149-50copy 24, 30, 33, 37, 59, 61, 82, 87, 108, 139, 154, 156corporations 27, 56, 95, 106, 116, 120, 127, 129, 137, 150-1, 153

profit 130-1

174

corrective action 6, 39correspondence 9, 11-12, 32, 65, 98, 116cost 30-1, 35, 38-9, 41, 60, 79, 84, 87-8, 91, 102, 105, 113, 135, 137, 140, 149-51

total 38, 52, 55, 60-1, 67, 84, 96-7, 140cost assistance 15-16Cost Principles 122, 124, 135Council

Donna 34, 41, 94, 109, 138-40, 164Donna M. 22, 24-5, 30, 98

Council's letter 94counseling 111-12county 4, 10, 18, 22, 143, 146Court 47, 92, 99, 103, 148-50, 163Covington 114CPA 152-3, 160CRA 42-3CRA works 42Crognale & Associates 34, 38, 41-2, 76Crognale & Associates Construction 42Cummings 32, 43, 52, 54, 79, 83, 101Cummings bid 52Cummings Construction 30-2, 43, 53, 60, 67-8, 70, 79-80, 83, 98, 101-3Cummings Construction Co 103, 105-6, 108

D

dated contract, earliest 134Daughter 100Davis 99-100, 115-16

Anthony 10, 100, 102-3, 106-7, 111, 115Margaret 2, 99-100, 106-7, 111, 113-16, 161, 164

Dawn Burke Rolle 1, 37days 5, 35-6, 41, 44, 59, 64-5, 77, 98-9, 101, 121, 125, 140debit 156, 158Deerfield Beach 3, 13, 18, 20, 27, 29, 33, 37, 40, 70-1, 78-9, 94-7, 118-20, 125-8, 147-8, 162-4Deerfield Beach Deferred Payment Loan Agreement 56Deerfield Beach Housing Authority 18, 21, 129-30Deerfield Beach Minor Home Repair 94Deerfield Beach Policies Governing Department of Planning 8, 62Deetjen, Larry 22, 24, 109, 137-8deferred payment loan agreement 30-1, 38, 41, 45, 53, 69, 71, 83, 88, 93, 96, 103, 110, 149Deleted 71-4, 84, 135Deleted work 39deletions 73, 84, 103-5Department 4, 7, 106, 139, 152, 154Department of Housing and Urban Development 22, 151-2, 154deposit 47-8, 62, 66, 158-9depreciate 31, 35, 38, 41, 45, 49, 53, 56, 60, 63, 69, 71, 80, 83, 88, 96designee 152Deutsche Bank Trust Company 78Developer Fee 149-50developers 15, 17, 142, 157development 34, 38, 70, 142-3, 157Dios es Amor 120, 122Direct Client 149-50directors 26, 87, 97, 106, 111, 116, 128, 155disbursements 5, 29, 33, 37, 40, 47, 51, 59, 62, 64, 67, 70, 76, 78, 129-30, 157discrepancies 13, 60, 65, 84, 88, 106, 126, 158-9, 163-4division 8, 94, 153

175

Documents 23, 34-6, 40-1, 44, 47-8, 51-6, 64, 83-4, 86-8, 98-9, 102, 115-16, 129-30, 151, 153-5, 163-4

enclosed 154documents Kessler 116documents preparation 55Documents Reviewed 1, 8doorbell 71-3doors 73, 87Douglas, Andy 1, 78, 146downspouts 30-1, 110DRI 7, 69-70DRI Home Repair Program Deferred Payment 60

E

e-mail 25, 32, 49, 63, 65, 69, 115, 138-40, 164-5East Coast Contracting 95East Coast Contractors 30, 90-1, 94-5, 109East Coast Restorations 95-6ECHO (elder cottage housing opportunity) 144elder cottage housing opportunity (ECHO) 144electrical contractors 32electrical system 54electrical violations, correct 84electrical work 25, 32, 52, 54, 89, 106Elelift 2, 137-41, 162, 164-5elevators 139, 162, 164-5

compliance of 137Eliezaire, Jessica 128, 130Eliezare, Jessica 129Emergency Home Repair 14Emergency Roof Repairs 16, 41, 76Emmanuel 123-4Emmanuel Human Services 2, 9, 11, 27, 116, 123-4, 126employee salaries 133employees 5-8, 64, 69, 76, 90, 94, 125, 128, 132-4, 136, 143employment document 47Employment Verification 59, 64-5, 76ending 40, 49, 113-14, 116, 153, 155-9engagement letter 152entities 5, 20-1, 27, 29, 99, 116, 120-1, 127, 142, 157-8equaling 99escrow account 151Escrow Agreement 151Esq 116, 151estimated cost 37, 79, 88, 90, 94, 109execution 147, 149Executive Director 113-14, 155expenditures 5, 45, 58, 68, 106, 115, 126, 162

estimated annual 23-5expenses 113-14, 116, 121, 129-30, 134-5, 161

reimbursement of 133Experience 113-14, 143explanation 86, 88, 121, 125-6, 159-60exterior 30, 54, 69, 72, 74, 80, 84-5, 110, 135exterior doors 44, 69, 72, 93, 97exterior front 104-5exterior paint 71, 73, 80, 96exterior painting 52, 71-2, 74, 83, 85, 92, 96, 135

176

exterior windows 45, 69, 71, 97

F

factory 140families 17-19, 22, 111-12, 143-4family home, single 63, 147-8family room 71-3family support services 128, 131fans, paddle 45-6fax stamp 83, 101-2FBC 38, 52, 84Federal Tax Deposit 113fee 144, 152-3FHA homeownership assistance funding 18fifty 17-18file 29-36, 38-49, 51-5, 59-62, 64-5, 67-70, 72-4, 76-9, 81-3, 86-8, 90-2, 97-9, 103, 108-10, 113-

16, 124-5file Kessler 59, 138final inspection 26, 32, 36, 39, 42, 46, 56, 72, 77, 86, 91, 106Final Inspection document 60final inspection letter 54, 80Final Judgment of Simplified Dissolution of Marriage document 62Final Request for Payment on Purchase Order 32, 42, 61financial documents 7, 155financial pressures 111-12Financial Statement 152, 158-9First Time Homebuyers 15-16, 49, 148Fiscal Year 9Fiscal Year Covered 14-17Fiscal Years Covered 14, 16fixture 45, 71, 73

ceiling 54FL 23, 26-7, 29, 33, 51, 67, 70-1, 90, 96-100, 107-9, 120, 123-5, 127-8, 155, 161-4, 166-8flags, red 5Floor 103, 105Florida 13, 161, 163-4Focal Point Casa 2, 9, 12, 166food stamps 129-30, 136for-profit entity 142, 157Fort Lauderdale 23, 26, 155Francis, Sandra 23Francois Leconte 130-1fraud 5fraudulent 3-5fringe benefits 114-15FTHB Applicant 63, 66Full Gospel Inc 120funds

additional 31, 84-5general 4-5, 22, 146

Funds Approval Notice Letter 10FY 8, 17-18, 112

G

gallon water heater 72-3garage 30-1, 61, 69, 79garage window 79-80

177

General Contractor 26, 148General Contractor and Subcontractors 80General Contractors and Subcontractors 80General Ledger 8, 12, 126, 155-6, 158-9

present 9-12general local government 144-5GFCI 81, 83, 85GFCI outlets 14, 16GFCI receptacles 30, 38Glickman, Faye 162goals 111, 115-16, 118, 123, 127, 138, 146Gold Coast Impact Community Development 9, 11, 27, 124Gold Coast Impact Community Development Inc 123, 126Grab Bars 57, 72, 103, 105Grant Applications 21, 120grant files 116, 120grant funds 13grant programs 9, 13GRANTS 2-3, 5, 7, 27, 111, 114-17, 119, 125, 129-31, 137Grants Program Coordinator 29Group 112Growth, economic 20guidelines, contracted 103

H

HAC 127-36HAC officers 127-8HACI, see Haitian American Consortium, Inc.Haitian American Coalition and Choices Network Systems 112Haitian American Consortium 2, 11, 69, 71, 127, 132

Inc. (HACI) 2, 11, 69, 71, 127, 132Hall

co-applicant Nora B. 94Henry 95-6Henry H. 2, 27, 94, 96Nora B. 2, 94, 96Regina 157

Hall residence 95-6hallway 72-3Handicap Compliance Construction Company 55-6Handicapped Compliance Construction Co 56, 58handwritten notation 96, 128, 130Harvey 114Harvey & Branker Assoc 114health 14, 16Helping Families to Succeed 111-12Highway, Dixie 107, 127Hill, Beulah 69, 128-9, 132, 136Hillsboro 127-8HOME 18, 23, 30, 33, 37, 40-1, 47, 49, 51-3, 58-9, 74, 78-9, 83, 85, 98, 146-50

single-family 15-16home address, applicant's 98Home Consortium Project 45HOME funds 45, 68, 143-4, 147home rehab project 135Home Rehabilitation 16Home Repair Program Application 76Home Repair Program Deferred Payment Loan 45

178

home repair project 38home repairs 29, 42Homeowner Assistance 18homeowners 17, 26, 31-2, 34-6, 39-43, 49, 53-5, 59-61, 67-8, 72, 74-5, 79, 81, 84, 88-9, 96-7homeownership 144Horizon Group 41, 77Horizon Group of New England 76-7hours 99, 124-5, 129-32, 134house 30, 39, 46, 65-6, 72, 74, 81, 84, 91, 108, 134-5household 17-18, 33, 62, 68, 76, 78, 82, 87, 100, 144

low-income 20moderate-income 15-16

Housing 15, 19, 129, 143-4, 151-2, 154cost of 19detached 15, 17

Housing & Assistive Technology 51, 161, 163-4Housing and Assistive Technology 2, 10, 22-3, 25, 55, 58, 99-103, 105-6, 161-4Housing Assistance Payments program 22Housing Authority 18, 21, 127, 130Housing Delivery Goals Charts 14-17Housing Repair Program Application 8, 37, 70, 100housing repairs 59housing resident initiatives, public 21Howard 119hr 132, 134HUD 22, 80, 123, 141, 144-5Hudson, James L. 155Hurricane Shutters 52, 80, 83, 85, 96HVAC 52, 83, 87Hyatt, Andrew 55, 85, 137-9

I

improvements programs 22-3, 25incentives 19income 13-14, 22, 37, 49, 51, 64, 70, 100, 116

very-low 14, 16Income Categories 14-17Income Certification 47, 98, 108-9income certification form 29income limits, lower 22Incorporation 9-11, 143Indirect Cost Allocation 122, 124, 135individuals 3-5, 27, 59, 63, 65-6, 70, 76, 82, 100, 114, 124, 129, 132, 134-5, 139, 162information 5, 7, 13, 51, 68-9, 76, 98, 101, 138-9, 153Ingram, Nicole 1, 62Innovative Contracting 98inspections 26, 34, 42, 84, 99, 146, 149-50install 35, 46, 52, 61, 72-3, 138, 140installation 30, 69, 80, 137, 139, 164insurance 26, 113-14, 120-1, 133, 135Insurance & Bonding 122, 124, 135insurance documentation 161insurance policies 11-12, 116, 135interest expense accounts 158INTERNAL CONTROLS REVIEW 1, 3-4, 7, 13, 28, 63, 119, 166-8Internal Revenue Service 113-14, 142, 151interview 131Invitation 37, 109, 138-9

179

invoice 9-11, 35-6, 42, 44-5, 54-7, 61, 69, 80, 84-5, 91-3, 96, 99, 126, 129-30, 133-5, 145invoice listed 141invoice minus 104invoice number 54, 72, 134invoiced amount 152IRS form 9, 11-12, 100, 116, 154IRS form 941 10-12IRS form 990 10-11IRS form 1099 10-12IRS form W-2 9-12, 82, 159items 3, 10, 26, 30-2, 36, 38-9, 43-4, 46, 52-3, 56-7, 60-1, 81, 85, 87-8, 96-7, 104-5

deleted 84following 26, 79, 145-7

J

Jabouin, Patrick 132, 135jam 84-5James Joyce Construction 25, 43, 52, 60, 67-8, 79, 83, 88-9, 92-3, 95, 98, 109James Joyce Construction Corp 30, 60-1, 69-70, 93-4job 31, 35, 38, 55, 69, 74, 77, 80, 85, 102-3, 106, 108-9, 141Johnson, Verna 37Joines 38Joines Construction and Development 34, 38, 70Jounice Green 27, 125-6Joyce, James 52, 60, 79, 88JPMorgan Chase Bank 81Jr 155, 161Juan 2, 120-2jurisdiction 144-5

participating 143-5

K

Kayser 139Kessler 3-5, 7, 13, 25-9, 32-3, 56-9, 97-8, 100-2, 115-16, 125-6, 130-2, 134-6, 145-7, 149-52,

157-9, 161-8analysis 158grant 115informed 74, 116total 162

Kessler International 3, 6Kessler Report 5-6Kessler review 25Kessler reviewed 27, 120, 134, 158-9

page document 53Kessler's analysis 134Kessler's audit 4Kessler's examination 156Kessler's Fraudbusters 5Kessler's request 7, 116Kessler's request Choices 119Kessler's research 98, 103Kessler's review 4, 99, 141, 156, 162Keyes 62-3King's Kids 111-12kitchen 38, 44, 54, 57, 72-3, 104kitchen lights 72-3Kleinman, Robert S. 151

180

KnowlesNathaniel 125-6Nathaniel B. 123, 125, 142, 147

Kofsky, Beth 55-6, 99-101, 103-4, 138-9, 161-2, 164-5

L

Lacy, Bernard 71Leconte 130-1Letter 27, 29-31, 33-4, 36-8, 40-2, 47-8, 51-3, 63-5, 67-8, 76-7, 86-8, 90-2, 94-5, 98, 145-6, 152-

4letter states 34lever control 103, 105Lewis 100-1LHAP (Local Housing Assistance Plan) 13, 15license, contractor's 101liens 31, 38, 69, 80, 144life 111-12light switch outlet 79-80Lighthouse Point 97-8Limited documentation 108, 126Linnie Pinkney 1, 69-71liquidated damages 35, 41, 44, 77list, waiting 29, 49, 63-4, 66List of City Employees 9, 27List of City of Deerfield Beach 9List of Pre-Qualified Contractors 10Listed 26, 29, 33, 41, 47, 49, 67, 77, 82, 97, 99-100, 107, 112-14, 127, 132, 138LLC 2, 34, 38-9, 47, 59-60, 129, 132, 137-41, 150, 155, 162, 164-5loan 3, 17, 31, 45, 60, 62, 65, 77, 83, 88, 93, 96, 103, 110, 148-9, 158-9loan agreement 27, 60, 77, 80, 157Loan Repayments 159local applicants, potential 20local documents 145local government 15, 143

unit of general 144-5Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) 13, 15Local Housing Assistance Plan Fiscal Year 8

M

MacDonald, Edna 163Mahaney, Michael 146-7, 151mailing address 97-8, 127maintenance, residential 132Margaret Ann Davis 100Martha Rose Lawson 1, 33Martinez, Krystal 64master bath pedestal 71-2materials 52, 88, 118, 128-30maximum allowance 58, 106, 162-3Maximum award 14-17maximum item costs 57, 105Mayer and City Manager 147MBR Construction 92, 109McHenry, Queen O. 123-4McMillian, Stephanie 27, 61, 88, 94-5, 109, 115, 125, 131-3, 138-41Medicaid 129-30, 136member, key staff 143

181

membership 142-4, 157Memorandum 22-4, 34, 41, 43, 55, 60, 68, 70, 74, 81, 84-5, 102, 137-9, 146-7Memorandum of Understanding 146-7, 149-50mentoring 111-12, 123Methodology 1, 4, 7Metropolitan city 144Mid South Painting 72, 74, 135Miller, Thomas 67-8Minor Home Repair Program Deferred Payment 77minor home repairs 10, 14, 22-3, 25, 27, 51, 79, 90, 92, 95-6mismanagement 5moderate applicants 15moderate-income 14, 16, 111moderate income persons 22, 112, 128, 131monies 60, 116, 150, 159month balance 40, 67month periods 23-5, 146Moore, Carolyn 2, 97-8mortgage 31, 33, 35, 39, 42, 47-9, 52, 63, 65-6, 69, 78, 80-1, 90, 93, 144, 148-9

deferred payment 53, 149first 63, 65, 78primary 49, 65third 49, 65, 149

mortgage document 42mortgage documentation 49Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems 78, 81Mortgage Modification Agreement 31, 61mortgage modification document 31, 86Moskowitz, Kenneth 162Murray 36

N

names 10, 37, 56, 67, 95, 120-1, 128, 136-8applicant's 120fictitious 120instructor's 115

NEC 38, 52, 84neighborhoods 128, 131, 143, 145non-profit corporations 3, 5, 101, 111Norman, Daniel 156-8NW 51, 76, 78, 82, 96-9, 107, 155, 166-8

O

Oakland Park 155occurrence 26October, first day of 113office 40, 47, 64-5, 98, 119office space 120, 128-30Officers 26-7, 56, 107, 111, 116, 127-8, 153, 155Okwor, Emmanuel 150-1Olive Branch Property Management Corporation 155opener 69, 104-5Organization 13, 116, 119, 127, 142-3, 157outlets

ceiling light 72-3existing 38, 83, 85

outreach funding 154

182

overbilling 134Owner 35, 37, 41, 44, 53-5, 60, 65, 71, 82, 84, 91, 99-100, 120, 148, 162-3Owner and Contractor for Direct Rehabilitation Loan 163owner-occupied dwellings 15, 17owner-occupied homes 14, 16ownership 59, 144ownership interest 144

P

package 101, 116, 129-30pages 53, 95, 99, 145, 163-4Paint 52, 58, 71-3, 80, 108, 132-5

recycled 132-3Painted receptacles 46panel, electrical 84-5paperwork 29, 140Paramount Broadcasting 129-31Parkin, Peter 22, 31, 38, 44-5, 61, 65, 74, 86, 131, 153Part 71, 115, 120, 141-2, 144parties 26, 29, 34, 44, 53, 83, 124, 161patching 96, 110Patterson, Antoinette 152-3payment application 114payment invoice 99Payment to Westside Deerfield Beach Businessmen Association 154Payments 15-16, 34-5, 44-5, 62-3, 77, 99, 102-3, 105-6, 113-15, 125-6, 129-30, 133-4, 140-1,

150-2, 154-8, 161-4calculated 157-8final 80, 114

Permenter, David 132personnel compensation 113-14Pete, Jeffrey 125-6photographs 59placed bids 34plan 14-15, 18, 129, 131, 143plumbing 14, 16, 106PO Box 97-8Poitier 9, 47-8, 51-3, 79-80, 84-5, 87, 90-2, 99, 154, 156-7, 159

Felicia 142, 147, 151Sylvia 112, 124, 127-8, 133, 147

Poitier Enterprises 154, 157-9Poitier to East Coast Contractors 90Post Office Box 97-8, 120Pre-Bid Meeting Sign-In Sheet 67Pre-Qualified Contractors 10Pre-qualify applicant 148preparation, site 15, 17Prepare City of Deerfield Beach 149Preparing Bid Specifications 22, 25president 112, 132, 155Pressure 92, 96, 108, 110Previous Board Members 111, 118, 120, 123, 127, 137, 142, 161, 166-8Prices, construction contract 56Primary Scope of work 146Pro Electric 32Proceed 35, 95, 140-1Proceed document 41, 53, 55, 71-2, 77, 135, 163process payments 58, 105

183

professional services agreements 131profit status 9-11Program application, undated Housing Repair 33program files, maintaining 119program interventions 111-12program service delivery costs 58, 106, 162program services 14PROGRAMS REVIEWED 1, 13Progress Reports 122, 124project 13, 19-20, 52-4, 57, 71-4, 79-80, 88, 94-5, 105, 111, 115, 131-2, 134-5, 146, 149-50, 163-

5Project Bid Specifications and Building Department Final Inspection Reports 80project cost, total 58, 106Project Director 127, 133-4project manager 13, 128, 134-5prong 74Properties and Jihad Abu Zhaid 121property 27, 31-2, 34, 36-7, 42-3, 47-51, 62-4, 78, 80-2, 90-2, 95-100, 106, 108-9, 127-8, 148-9,

162-4applicant's 34, 103-4donate 148encompassed multiple 109real 33, 100, 105

property address 37property listing Eddie Moore Jr 33property owner 31, 53, 68, 91, 98proposals Kessler 52prospective contractors 43Public Services Budget Summary Sheet 115Public Works 132Publix 133-4purchase 15-16, 47, 62-4, 133, 149Purchase Assistance 47, 64Purchase Assistance Application 8purchase assistance funds, expecting 47, 64Purchase Assistance Funds Approval Notice 48, 64purchase price 47, 49, 148

Q

qualified contractors 26, 139QuickBooks Files 10-12

R

re-hang 84-5receipts 22, 47, 101, 126, 154

petty cash 10-12recipients 4, 7, 10, 19, 28, 58, 69, 71, 105, 114, 121, 135, 147, 162-3, 166-8recommendation letters 112Recommendation of renewal 24recording fees 60, 68, 70refrigerator 14, 16, 44, 72-3Registered Agent 107, 116Regular City Commission Meetings 8regulations 4, 14, 19, 153-4rehabilitation 41, 67-8, 79, 98Reimbursement 32, 124-5Remodeling 67-8, 108

184

Remodeling invoice 108renew 23, 161renewal 24rent 121, 126Repair Work 30, 52, 71, 79, 83, 87-8repairs 23, 26, 33-8, 41, 43, 58, 69, 76, 85, 96-7, 100, 105-6, 108, 110, 130, 163

cost of 29, 33total 79total miscellaneous 79

Replacement 39, 45, 69, 75, 84, 110representative capacity 147representatives 63, 139, 147request 25, 31-2, 42, 80, 85, 99, 119, 131, 140, 153-4, 158requirements 4, 13, 80, 143, 152, 155, 161residence 42, 61-2, 96, 108

primary 15-16Resident Income Certification 59, 62, 64, 67, 76, 78, 97Resident Income Certification document 87Resident Income Certification form 76, 100Residential Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions document 67Residential Sale and Purchase Contract 47residents 14, 71, 118-19, 138, 143, 162

low-income community 143Resolution 8, 23-5, 34, 41, 43, 46, 79, 81, 83, 95, 111-13, 118, 124, 128, 161, 163-4resolution documentation 39response 37, 39, 64, 88, 115, 119, 154responsibility, contractual 153restrictions 144Retainage 44, 54, 61, 77, 80, 85, 103-4, 106

applicant's property minus 103invoice amount minus 85

Reversion 122, 124review 1-4, 7, 19, 26-9, 40, 44, 49, 101, 106, 116, 122-9, 133-4, 152-3, 157-8, 161-2, 166-8

cursory 13, 116review Kessler 156review work specification report write-up 99review work specifications report write-up 55REVIEWED 5, 7, 28, 48, 56, 85, 101, 116, 162

files 7Revised Rehabilitation Bid Requirements and Specifications document 97Revised Work Specifications 38-9RFP 25, 97, 138, 164Right Choice Enterprises 132risk youth 111-12, 123Roll 57, 104-5Roof 42, 52, 71, 79-80, 89, 91, 105Roof Repairs 83, 87, 91, 93roofing 14, 16, 92room 130Ruffin, William 26, 59

S

Sabra, Doug 139-40safety 14, 16, 123, 126, 138, 164salaries 113-16, 118, 124-6, 128-9, 132, 134Sale 147-8, 151Sale and Purchase Contracts 62sale price 62

185

sanitary disposal 14, 16Sarazin 127

Eddie 127, 131-2, 136Eddy 127

Schwarb, Patti J. 121SCOPE 1, 7, 36, 52, 93, 153, 161scope of work 30, 46, 71, 83, 97Second Century Roofing 26, 97self-discipline 111-12self-respect 111-12seller 47Senior Volunteer Services 2, 168Service Workday 123Services 2, 5, 18-20, 35, 55, 58, 60, 71, 112-14, 117-21, 126, 131, 134, 152, 155, 157-8

homeownership counseling 18referral 111-12

session 125sheets 30, 88, 92, 101, 115, 125, 136, 145

contractors bid review 101Sherriff, Kenneth 1, 78SHIP (State Housing Initiation Partnership) 7, 13-14, 17-18, 45, 54, 64, 85, 155SHIP Deferred Payment Loan Agreement 35SHIP funds 14, 16, 18, 33, 37, 41, 43-5, 56, 77SHIP homeownership assistance 18SHIP Housing Repair Funds 163SHIP Minor Home Repair 95, 109SHIP Minor Home Repair assistance 87, 90SHIP Minor Home Repair assistance on October 92SHIP Program 13, 18, 30, 54, 62shower 71, 103, 105shower chair 57, 105sign 32, 36, 39, 41, 64, 74, 79, 124, 145sign-in sheets 115, 124-5, 129, 136signatures 35-6, 45, 53, 60, 64, 76, 125, 161Signed Contract and Promissory Note 51Simpson Developers 109sink 44, 57, 71-3, 104Smith, Viola 1, 51-2, 55-6, 85, 146, 161smoke detectors 14, 16, 83social security benefit letter 87Social Services 113social skill develop 121SoFI 29-30, 32-3, 36-9, 52, 54, 79-80, 82, 86-7, 90-2SoFI Corporation 22-4, 29, 85SoFI Corporation and Housing and Assistive Technology 23-4Sonja Cummings 52-3Specification for Repair Work forms 52Specification for Repair Work response 52specifications 22, 24, 30, 32-4, 36, 43, 54, 59, 67-8, 79-80, 84, 97, 109, 135, 138-9, 164-5Specifications for Repair Work 52, 83, 88sponsors, eligible 15, 17spreadsheet 30, 119, 121, 126, 129staff 53, 116, 119stainless steel 57, 105Standard City of Deerfield Beach forms 149Standard Operating Procedures for City of Deerfield Beach 8Standards 143, 152State and City funds 3State Housing Initiation Partnership, see SHIP

186

State of Incorporation 9-11statements, checking account 10-12Steinmark, Stanley 162Stephanie Hall McMillian 94Stipend Pay 156Storr, Angela 2, 28, 90-1stove 14, 16Strategy 14-17, 19-20street 23, 27, 48, 50, 71, 74, 76, 78, 82, 87, 94, 96-8, 121, 142, 148, 155Street Deerfield Beach 120, 166structural code deficiencies 14, 16students 13, 78, 119, 123, 125sub-contractor Hyer Quality Builders 91sub-contractors 44, 77sub-recipients 4, 7, 112-13, 116, 120subcontractors 35, 53, 55, 71, 80Subcontractors' Affidavit 88subject 35, 41, 44, 67, 77, 144Summary of Strategy 14-17supervisors 132, 134, 136

field 133-4supplementary letter 40supplies 70, 80, 118, 128-30, 133support 18, 21, 26, 113-15, 119, 121, 124-6, 130, 135, 157-9Support for Grant Applications 21support letters 128support services 128, 131SW 27, 33, 37, 40, 47-8, 50, 59, 64, 67, 70, 74, 87, 90, 108-10, 148-50, 163-4switches 46, 72-3

disconnect 52, 83-4

T

t-shirts 133tax 113, 116, 159

employer 113-14Taxpayer ID number 9-11telephone call 72, 101, 116, 119Terramar Construction 33-5, 38, 164Thomas

Cynthia 1, 70-1, 135Stephanie 1, 47-8, 149-50

Thomas LLC 114Thursday 101, 123-5Time Home Buyer Application 62Time Home Buyers 49, 148Time Homebuyer Application 64Time Homebuyer Project 49, 150time sheets 135Title 22, 137, 144, 149title search 69-70, 74toilet 45, 73, 103, 105townhouse 15-16Track program 123-5training 111-12, 118, 128-31, 145-6transfer 49, 51, 148trust 6, 144Truth Tabernacle 124Tuesday 123-5

187

turbines 79-80tutoring 112, 121, 123typed document 53

U

undated invoice 96understanding 5, 146-7, 149-50Uniform Residential Loan Application 62, 65units 52, 84, 112-13, 116, 120, 139, 144

purchase cost of affordable singe family 15, 17Universal Roofing and Contracting Services 77upgrade 52, 54, 61, 85, 96Use and Reversion of Assets 122, 124utilities 118, 120-1, 128-30

V

vanity 45, 57, 71, 73, 103-4Various Case Files for First Time Homebuyers 10Various Case Files for Grant Recipients 10vendors 7, 52, 101, 142, 150, 157Vicon Electric 32, 44, 53-4villas 15-17volunteers 119

W

Walker 1, 87-8, 146Isiah 82Jessie 87-8Melvin V. 1, 82

Wall Mounted 57, 104walls 31, 52, 54, 58Warranty and Lien Waiver document 88water 133WDBA (West Deerfield Businessmen's Association) 7, 47-8, 80, 84, 87-8, 142, 146-59WDBA CHDO Certification document 153weatherization 17, 90, 92, 95, 146Wells Fargo 156West Deerfield Businessmen's Association, see WDBAWestside Deerfield Beach Businessmen Association 47, 52, 85, 147-8, 150-1Westside Deerfield Businessmen Association 2, 7, 9, 12, 47, 51, 78, 82, 87-8, 90, 92, 142Westside Deerfield Businessmen Association Community Housing 153wheelchair 137wheelchair platform, vertical 140-1William La'Marr Ruffin 25-6, 43, 46, 67, 69, 72, 74, 135William La'Marr Ruffin Contract 10windows 30-1, 39, 52-3, 74, 84, 91, 93, 108

extra 39wires 45Wooden Ramp 56, 104work

anticipated 39completed 89completion of 58, 105contractor's 30limited 151rehabilitation construction 25

188

work complies 36Work Specification item number 103, 105work specifications 4, 29, 38, 67, 85, 90, 92, 103-4, 109

submitted 52work write-up 55, 85Worker's Compensation 122, 124, 135worker's compensation claim 90Workshop Schedule 145workshops 13, 145

Y

youths 13, 19, 71-2, 74, 111-12, 131-2, 134-6

Z

zip codes 125

World Headquarters 45 Rockefeller Plaza ● Suite 2000 ● New York, NY 10111-2000

Phone: (212) 286-9100 ● Toll Free: (800) 932-2221 ● Fax: (212) 730-2433 [email protected] ● www.investigation.com

Offices Worldwide

Kessler International is a registered trademark of Michael G. Kessler & Associates, Ltd.

April 23, 2010 VIA US MAIL Andrew Maurodis, Esq. City of Deerfield Beach Office of the City Attorney 710 E. Hillsboro Blvd., Suite 200 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Re: Internal Control Review Report of Deerfield Beach Community Development Division

Dear Mr. Maurodis: We were contacted by James Joyce Jr. of James Joyce Construction Corp. that the James Joyce Jr. mentioned on page 25 of the Internal Control Review report is not him. We were originally provided the information by the Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation that a James Joyce Jr. performed unlicensed construction activity in Deerfield Beach. Today we conducted further investigation and spoke to them again and have determined that a James Joyce, Jr. of 4516 SW 12th Court, Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 appears to be completely unrelated to the James Joyce, Jr. of James Joyce Construction Corp. the contractor named in the report.

World Headquarters 45 Rockefeller Plaza ● Suite 2000 ● New York, NY 10111-2000

Phone: (212) 286-9100 ● Toll Free: (800) 932-2221 ● Fax: (212) 730-2433 [email protected] ● www.investigation.com

Offices Worldwide

Kessler International is a registered trademark of Michael G. Kessler & Associates, Ltd.

If you have any questions regarding any of the information provided herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Bradley P. Hudson CICA BPH cc: Burgess Hanson