Housing Accountability Project: research updates

SRC-100 citation correction

2026-11-10T10:24:54-07:00

SRC-100 citation correction

HUD environmental review, HEROS 900000010528814. The record lists 7015.15 certification on August 11, 2026, and 7015.16 certification on September 1, 2026.

The November 9 source check recorded Solera Apartments in Renton, Washington at the former /8818 link. On November 10 that link returned a different unrelated review, for 452 NE Baker Drive in Grants Pass, Oregon. On November 10, HUD’s Tucson listing pointed to /8823. That download and the filename-based HUD link returned identical copies of HEROS 900000010528814. The proposed /8800 link returned Parade Park Homes Phase 1.

The environmental record establishes neither financing closing, disbursement, completed conversion, executed contracts, nor occupancy. A separate final signed 7015.16 instrument has yet to be independently inspected. HUD lists September 1, 2027 as the posting end. The filename segment 09012027 represents that date. The November 9, 2026 source check and November 10 link verification are separate from website publication.

Verified HUD environmental review · HUD Environmental Review Records listing · Historical mismatched link (formerly Solera)

Published on the website November 10, 2026 at 10:24:54 a.m. MST.

Phoenix-area housing counts and shelter funding

2026-11-10T10:24:54-07:00

Research update

Phoenix-area housing counts and shelter funding

Three source checks separate preservation from new construction, a project total from its financing portions, and funding authority from spending. Source passages checked November 10, 2026 (MST).

Published on the website November 10, 2026 at 10:24:54 a.m. MST.

Investor-reported renovation and affordable conversion

Phoenix Manor preserves 450 existing apartments

R4 Capital describes renovating and converting 450 existing Phoenix Manor apartments from market-rate to affordable senior housing. Count the 450 as preservation of existing apartments.

ScopePhoenix, Maricopa County · senior apartments at Phoenix Manor

Time periodProject and occupancy periods unverified

Occupancy, household outcomes and the timing and terms of affordability restrictions require separate evidence. The 450 apartments are existing stock.

R4 Capital Phoenix Manor property profile R4 Capital Phoenix Manor reopening statement Evidence browser · PHX-WEB-028

Record identifiers

PHX-WEB-028

Council agenda records the ground-lease financing structure

La Victoria Commons has 104 apartments in two financing portions

Tempe’s agenda identifies two 52-apartment portions. The proposed ground leases identify the 4% and 9% LIHTC portions separately. Together they account for 104 apartments. The 19 townhomes are a separate component.

ScopeTempe, Maricopa County · La Victoria Commons

Time periodApril 25, 2024 Council agenda; active financing period unverified

The 104 already includes both portions. Keep the townhomes separate from the apartment count. The financing record does not establish completed or occupied homes.

Tempe April 25, 2024 Council agenda Evidence browser · PHX-WEB-029

Record identifiers

PHX-WEB-029

Adopted City funding authority and site dedication

Salvation Army family shelter expansion has up to $8 million in HOME-ARP authority

Phoenix replaced the original $6 million CDBG and CDBG-CV commitment with up to $6 million in HOME-ARP in 2023. Council added up to $2 million in 2025, bringing the HOME-ARP authority to $8 million. The City announced the site dedication on May 12, 2026.

ScopePhoenix District 8, Maricopa County · Salvation Army family shelter expansion

Time periodCouncil actions in 2023 and 2025; site dedication in 2026; active loan period unverified

The initial CDBG commitment was replaced and cannot be added again. Funding authority does not establish cash paid. The ceremony marked the site for future construction. Opening, expenditures and people served by the expansion remain unverified.

Phoenix June 14, 2023 Council minutes Phoenix December 3, 2025 Council action Phoenix May 12, 2026 shelter site dedication announcement Evidence browser · PHX-WEB-030

Record identifiers

PHX-WEB-030

Craycroft and Lee Street: Council Vote Confirmed

2026-11-09T20:37:19-07:00

Craycroft and Lee Street: Council Vote Confirmed

Published: November 9, 2026, 8:37 p.m. MST. Research reviewed: November 9, 2026, 4:11:38 PM MST (Tucson). Publication time records the successful website deployment; source dates are unchanged.

The November 4, 2026 legal action report records a 6–0 vote adopting Resolution 24206 for Craycroft Towers and Lee Street Duplexes. Consent Agenda Item J was considered separately; Cunningham was absent/excused. This confirms the vote on the previously reported authorization for up to $10 million in bonds.

The vote does not establish bond closing, proceeds received, spending or completed housing. Signed assistance contracts, current vacancies and the conflicting bedroom and cost estimates remain unverified. The volume-cap allocation and bond authorization concern the same financing and must not be added together.

Source: November 4 Legal Action Report, Consent Agenda Item J and its separate adoption vote (HTML report; no PDF page citation). SRC-125 · Previously posted Resolution 24206 · Remaining financing questions

County Housing Funding: What the Records Show

2026-11-08T10:48:00-07:00

County Housing Funding: What the Records Show

Published: November 8, 2026, 10:48 a.m. MST (Tucson). Research updated: November 8, 2026, 10:41:35 AM MST (Tucson). Source dates and financial reporting periods are identified below.

Pima County approved $8.7 million for housing and stability programs. A separate $1 million request was tabled indefinitely. The County also approved $2.99 million in PRICE agreement scopes for home repairs and eviction assistance. These approvals and targets do not establish actual County spending or households served.

County Housing Allocations

On September 8, 2026, the Board approved $5 million for gap funding and $3.7 million for housing stability, totaling $8.7 million for FY2027. The separate additional $1 million request was tabled indefinitely. These are allocation decisions, not evidence of payments or completed assistance. The posted meeting summary expressly is not approved minutes. Meeting summary, PDF p. 6 · Official allocation action

County PRICE Agreement Scopes

The two County-approved PRICE agreements total $2,986,331: $2,009,932 for home repairs and $976,399 for eviction-prevention and legal services. Their stated term is July 1, 2026–June 30, 2029. These are components of existing PRICE grant funding, not additional federal revenue to add to the full award. Repair agreement · Eviction-prevention agreement · Repair approval · Eviction-prevention approval

The records identify planned work and targets. They do not establish completed repairs, actual payments, legal outcomes or households already assisted. The posted execution pages contain blank mayor, Board chair and clerk signature lines; attorney review is present. Fully executed counterparts and later amendments remain unverified. Blank lines in a posted packet do not prove that no agreement was later executed.

Federal Reporting Covers the City Award

Separately, USAspending reports $78,172.27 in cumulative federal outlays for the City of Tucson’s $11,519,567.21 PRICE award, B-23-PR-04-0001. The latest returned reporting period is August 2026, before the September County approvals. This is not a measure of County spending. Monthly cumulative outlay rows must not be added together. The database’s later update stamp is not the expenditure cutoff. Federal award and reporting-period record

Later expenditures and actual household outcomes remain unverified. The difference between the award and reported outlays is not a verified available balance, and these records alone do not establish improper withholding or misuse.

Compare the Funding Measures · Records Still Needed · Source-ID Crosswalk

Questions for the November 10 and 12 Housing Discussions

2026-11-07T14:06:02-07:00

Questions for the November 10 and 12 Housing Discussions

Published: November 7, 2026, 2:06 p.m. MST (Tucson). Original record dates are identified below.

Pima County’s November 10 study-session packet includes draft FY2026/27 measures for households assisted, eviction representation and acceptance of encampment-related services. What baselines, nonduplicative counts and follow-up results will accompany those measures? Counting assistance does not establish how many households remain housed. The packet supports FY2027/28 budget planning; it does not establish newly approved housing funding. County packet, PDF pp. 4, 7 and 10

TPCH’s November 12 General Council agenda schedules a new Point-in-Time count strategy and an unsheltered-homelessness evaluation presentation. What changes are proposed, and how will future counts remain comparable with earlier years? The agenda establishes planned discussion, not adopted methodology or evaluation findings. TPCH agenda, p. 1

Status checked November 12, 2026: Pima County’s November 10 study-session record lists draft minutes; published minutes and action details for item 20984 are not available. TPCH’s November 12 agenda, page 1, schedules the presentations for its 12:30–2:30 p.m. meeting. These records do not establish adopted measures, methodology or evaluation findings. Outcomes remain unverified. This status check does not change the original publication date.

More Records Clarify Payments, Project Progress and Housing Outcomes

2026-11-07T14:06:02-07:00

More Records Clarify Payments, Project Progress and Housing Outcomes

Published: November 7, 2026, 2:06 p.m. MST (Tucson). Original record dates are identified below.

Additional public records provide more precise checkpoints for Tucson and Pima County housing programs. They strengthen the evidence while keeping accounting, occupancy and outcome questions open.

Voucher Payments and Carryover

The October 20 PHA report records $49,539,339 in Tucson and $9,161,950 in Pima County payments to property owners or managers for FY2026 (July 1, 2025–June 30, 2026), totaling $58,701,289. It reports $614,215 plus $306,275, totaling $920,490, as unaudited unspent assistance or next-year reserves, while its narrative calls the amount an operating surplus. Those labels still need reconciliation. October 20 report, pp. 1–2

The FY2025 Single Audit separately reports $62,789,037 in Housing Choice Voucher federal expenditures for July 1, 2024–June 30, 2025. Its accrual or modified-accrual measure is not FY2026 cash receipts. The near-match to the draft’s approximately $62.8 million narrative is a source-year question, not proof of an error. FY2025 Single Audit

Q-010 remains open: match FY2026 receipts, assistance payments, administration and restricted-reserve roll-forwards, and clarify the carryover labels. These comparisons do not establish available assistance or missing money.

Tucson House Temporary Occupancy

City permit TC-CFO-1026-00207 is listed as Issued for temporary occupancy associated with Tucson House’s 15th-floor Level 4 renovation. The register lists a November 15, 2026 expiration. The October 20 PHA report says the renovation was 30% complete, the 15th floor was finished and residents were moving back. Temporary-occupancy record · Related renovation permit · October 20 report, p. 3

The October 16 announcement’s 24 apartments and 25 households remain unreconciled. Neither the permit register nor the later narrative verifies a completed move count, new admissions or current vacancies. The original certificate and any conditions or renewal still need verification.

The separate 14th-floor application TC-CFO-1126-00224 remains Submitted – Online in the register checked November 7. November 6 inspection notes permit an application; they do not establish an issued certificate. Permit displays may lag: the 15th-floor register’s embedded data stamp is November 5. 14th-floor application

Amazon Motel and Amazon Flats

The County’s PO2500016491 packet uses the name “Amazon Flats” but describes $749,625 for conversion of a 30-room motel into 30 studios. That physical scope is the Amazon Motel conversion, separate from the 59-apartment Flats construction project. The April 8, 2026 EPHD legal action report records a 5–0 ratification of Amazon Flats’ financial closing. County contract packet · EPHD action report, p. 1

The action report does not supply the closing package or precise closing date, signed assistance contracts or actual Flats occupancy. The published County packet has blank signature and covenant lines; executed documents, completion reporting and certificates of occupancy remain record targets. The motel award must not be added to the Flats construction budget.

County One Stop Rapid-Rehousing Outcomes

The TPCH FY2026 scorecard reports 17 of 24 County One Stop rapid-rehousing leavers exiting to permanent housing (70.8%) for July 1, 2025–June 1, 2026, with no excluded leavers. A separate earlier group had 13 of 24 people return to homelessness within 12 months (54.2%); that cohort exited to permanent housing during June 1, 2024–June 1, 2025. TPCH scorecard, Data Back Up row 18

These are people in one project and two different cohorts, not a Countywide success rate or one group’s retention result. Matched reporting periods, inclusion rules and aggregate follow-up outcomes are needed before comparing costs or broader program performance.

HOME Match and ESG Targets

HUD’s HOME match workbook, FY2024 sheet row 24, lists a 50% fiscal-distress reduction for the Tucson Consortium, supporting a 12.5% required match rate. This does not validate accumulated match-credit eligibility or make credits available cash. HUD HOME match workbook

The original PY2024 Annual Action Plan describes the rapid-rehousing target as 30 individuals in its project narrative but 30 households in its goal table; another entry gives 10 households for combined rapid rehousing and prevention. The comparison with 18 reported actual households therefore needs a clarified target definition. Original action plan

The CAPER’s PR-91 shows the entire $48,734 rapid-rehousing budget drawn by September 23, 2025. That later grant-draw checkpoint does not explain the outcome count or establish cost per household. CAPER and PR-91

Definition clarification: Earlier current summaries called the ESG target simply “30 households.” The original plan uses both people and households. Q-004 now keeps that uncertainty explicit; the historical records remain available.

Funding Details · Project Outcomes · Open Questions · Source Index

New Records Clarify Housing Counts and Funding Decisions

2026-11-07T09:30:55-07:00

New Records Clarify Housing Counts and Funding Decisions

Published: November 7, 2026, 9:30 a.m. MST (Tucson).

What’s Included in the Housing Count?

The City’s draft describes 378 units as newly constructed, but 96 at Casa del Pueblo are existing apartments being rehabilitated. Other projects in the list remain under construction. The figure is not a verified count of completed new homes. City permit

Which Grant Was Reduced?

The submitted priority list identifies SAAF’s AVP rapid-rehousing grant as the roughly 50% reduction: $792,695 was involuntarily reallocated for underspending, followed by reallocation of the balance because of limited renewal space. The separate payment-system-lockout case remains unidentified. Final HUD awards are unverified. Priority list

Where Does Craycroft Stand?

The City’s posted resolution states that Council adopted authorization for up to $10 million in bonds. Federal records show an environmental milestone and a submitted financing plan for the 82-unit preservation project. Closing, proceeds and signed assistance contracts remain unverified. City resolution · RAD data

What About El Portal?

The City reports that 41 households moved into existing El Portal apartments over the summer with Housing First assistance. That is separate from the planned voucher expansion, whose final HUD approval and signed contracts remain unverified. City report

What Happened to the CDBG Transfer?

The official action report confirms Council adopted the $1.5 million transfer between funding categories on October 6. It did not increase total funding. HUD submission, implementation and spending remain open questions. Council action report

Citation correction: the previous link opened a different project’s review. The correct HUD document records 7015.16 certification on September 1, 2026. Read the citation correction and source limits.

Housing Funding and Project Questions

2026-11-06T07:42:17-07:00

Housing Funding and Project Questions

Posted: November 6, 2026, 7:42 a.m. MST (Tucson). Source dates are identified below.

Follow documented allocations toward spending and completed work, approved assistance toward signed contracts and residents served, and project plans toward verified budgets and homes.

Funding requests and proposed actions are not final awards, closed financing or verified resident placements. The named Housing First partial reallocation is separate from the unnamed 50% case. Review the dated sources.

Follow-up added November 7, 2026, 9:30 a.m. MST (Tucson): November 7 records clarify the housing count, grant reduction, financing, El Portal placements and CDBG adoption. The earlier review above is retained as history.

Housing Plans: Confirmed Actions and Open Questions

2026-11-05T08:39:00-07:00

Housing Plans: Confirmed Actions and Open Questions

Review snapshot: November 5, 2026, 8:39 a.m. MST (Tucson, UTC−7). Original source dates differ.

El Portal Voucher Expansion

The August 18 PHA Legal Action Report records an 8–0 vote adopting PHA2026-56 as amended, approving plan changes to allow noncompetitive PBV allocation for units owned by the PHA and its nonprofit subsidiary, EPHD. Legal Action Report

The October 30 HCD memo reports that the August 18 PHA plan approval permits up to 120 El Portal PBV units in the 2026 plan year, with 181 planned across two phases and approximately $1.15 million in additional annual rent revenue, subject to rent reasonableness. Implementation depends on vouchers, approvals, inspections, and eligibility reviews. These are plans, not confirmed placements or vacancies. Memo, pages 2–3

The policy package also describes 70 or more additional units in 2027. Phase sizes need clarification: 120 is a cap, not a confirmed first-phase count. Its December 1 effective date appears in a document still marked REVIEW AND APPROVAL DRAFT; adoption is not established. Policy package, PDF pages 3 and 5

Craycroft Figures Need Reconciliation

The November 5 presentation lists 82 units on two slides, but 124 versus 85 bedrooms. An August environmental review estimates $33,894,857, consistent with the pipeline table’s rounded “$33.9” entry. The detailed November slide gives $34.7 million. These may reflect different estimates or scopes; their relationship needs clarification. Environmental review, page 4 · Presentation, pages 12 and 31

The pipeline’s displayed costs sum to 590.8, versus its printed 593.5. If all entries mean millions, that is a $2.7 million arithmetic difference. The table needs clarification; this is not evidence of missing money or overruns.

Bond Capacity Documented

Arizona Finance Authority’s October 7 tracker records a $10 million volume-cap allocation, approved February 9, expiring December 15. Issue-price and closing-date fields are blank in that snapshot. This is financing capacity, not a grant, proof of issuance, or confirmation of the November 4 City vote. Tracker, project BX260130022

Community Preference Remains in Development

The City says no Community Preference Policy or predetermined design exists yet. Recommendations are targeted for May–June 2027, not a current preference for applicants. Presentation, pages 3 and 10

CEHD meets November 5, 4–6 p.m. Tucson time. This briefing precedes that meeting and does not imply approval of its proposals. Agenda

Pima County’s Housing Report: Counts and Averages Need Clarification

2026-11-06T16:48:48-07:00

Pima County’s Housing Report: Counts and Averages Need Clarification

Published: November 6, 2026, 4:48 p.m. MST (Tucson). Source: November 5, 2026 County memo, pages 2–3.

What Did the County Report?

Pima County reported $2.49 million spent and 925 households served across six housing assistance strategies in the first quarter of FY27. The figures are subject to reconciliation; the report does not say whether households appear in more than one category.

What Doesn’t Add Up?

Rapid-Rehousing: The table lists 95 households, but the narrative totals 98.
Rapid-Rehousing Average: The reported costs divided by 95 equal $3,671.42, not the printed $3,290.42.
Home-Repair Average: The reported costs divided by 91 equal $2,279.52, not the printed $2,280.52.

What Funding Is Involved?

The $207,436 home-repair line is listed under County CDBG agencies. CDBG is a federal HUD program, but the memo doesn’t identify the specific award. It separately lists $111,045 as the County-funded portion of Affordable Housing Fund repair and weatherization work.

What’s Next?

A reconciled table and an explanation of the counts and calculations would clarify the results. The discrepancies alone do not establish misuse of funds.

Source: Pima County, One Pima Initiative: Fiscal Year 27 First Quarter Update, November 5, 2026, page 2; rapid-rehousing narrative, page 3.

Source References and Research Status Corrected

2026-11-06T14:41:18-07:00

Source References and Research Status Corrected

Revised: November 6, 2026, 2:41 p.m. MST (Tucson).

Corrected source mappings for the CDBG approval recap and Craycroft/Lee Street finding, clarified the findings summary and completed reconciliation milestone, and attributed El Portal’s 120-unit limit to the October 30 memo. Figures and original source dates are unchanged.

SRC-060: October 9 City approval recap now supports F-001 and Q-006. SRC-071 remains the separate proposal notice.
F-003’s public data points to SRC-064 for Craycroft/Lee Street; unrelated Amazon Flats source SRC-065 remains available for the findings and questions it supports.
The 12 finding entries include 9 dated observations, 2 open comparisons and 1 resolved comparison (F-006). The published CDBG reconciliation remains linked; its regular-CDBG narrative difference is still open.
El Portal’s up-to-120 assertion is attributed to the October 30 memo’s report of August 18 approval. The 181 figure remains planned across two phases, not verified placements.

These are reference and presentation corrections, not new funding or housing-outcome findings. Existing source IDs, resident-privacy safeguards and earlier correction history are retained. The evidence index now has 14 source entries.

Questions Corrected to Protect Residents’ Privacy

2026-11-06T08:09:09-07:00

Questions Corrected to Protect Residents’ Privacy

We revised our questions to request aggregate counts and appropriately redacted records, without identifying residents. We also clarified other questions to avoid unsupported conclusions. The figures, sources and findings remain unchanged.

Summary revised: November 6, 2026, 9:52 a.m. MST (Tucson). Original correction history and source dates follow unchanged.

Corrected: November 6, 2026, 8:09 a.m. MST (Tucson).

Earlier El Portal wording asked about the identities of residents receiving assistance and the specific units under contract. The corrected question asks how many units are covered by signed contracts and how many households are receiving assistance, as of the reporting date. Q-016 and its linked summaries now seek aggregate counts, not resident identities or individual case records.

We reviewed all 20 numbered questions and related prompts across the site. Q-008 now seeks project-level, nonduplicative totals instead of occupied-unit identifiers. Q-009, Q-012 and Q-015 specify aggregate counts and public or appropriately redacted records. Q-017 asks for broad destination categories, inclusion rules and denominators, with small groups combined or suppressed where people could be identified. Related report and findings requests were clarified the same way.

Q-001, Q-005, Q-018 and Q-020 were also reworded to ask neutral, specific questions without implying an unsupported conclusion. Project and agency identities remain part of public accountability. Stable question IDs, documented figures, source dates, reporting periods and uncertainty limits are unchanged. This is a wording correction, not new evidence or a new finding about any agency or resident. See the resident privacy standard.

Tucson’s CDBG Funding: What Adds Up, and What Still Needs Explaining

2026-11-06T07:42:17-07:00

Tucson’s CDBG Funding: What Adds Up, and What Still Needs Explaining

We withdrew the earlier $944,972.60 comparison because it combined regular CDBG and CDBG-CV, which are reported separately. The $1,284,589.71 difference within regular CDBG remains unexplained; it does not establish missing funds.

Summary revised: November 6, 2026, 9:52 a.m. MST (Tucson). Original correction history and source dates follow unchanged.

Posted: November 6, 2026, 7:42 a.m. MST (Tucson). Source dates are identified below.

What Did We Find, and Why Does It Matter?

The resource figures and ending balance in Tucson’s CDBG reports add up. The remaining question is more focused: how does the City’s spending narrative connect to the corrected financial report for its regular CDBG program? Federal guidance now helps separate that question from coronavirus-response funding. Financial summary · Spending narrative · OMB reporting guidance, PDF p. 61

For residents, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) can mean home repairs, better public facilities and services for low-income people. Connecting the dollars to completed work helps show what that funding delivered. City’s description of CDBG-supported work

What Adds Up?

Program income, money generated by CDBG-funded activities, accounts for the previously questioned resource difference. The full financial report also includes money carried over from the previous year:

$5,068,664 annual grant + $349,468 program income = $5,418,132. The income is already included; adding it again would double-count it.
$3,778,221.56 opening balance + $5,418,132 grant and income = $9,196,353.56 in total resources.
$9,196,353.56 resources − $4,717,936.37 expenditures = $4,478,417.19 ending balance.

Those calculations reproduce the City’s resource total and ending balance. The reported balance does not establish money available for new work today. Corrected PR-26, PDF p. 149

Which Spending Figures Should We Compare?

The Office of Management and Budget’s 2025 Compliance Supplement says the standard PR26 CDBG Financial Summary Report has been restricted to annual formula grants since September 14, 2020. A separate PR26 report covers CDBG-CV, the CARES Act coronavirus-response grants. OMB reporting guidance, PDF p. 61

That makes the regular CDBG figures the appropriate starting point:

Corrected standard PR-26 expenditures: $4,717,936.37.
CDBG spending stated in the narrative: $3,433,346.66.
Difference requiring reconciliation: $1,284,589.71.

The summary table’s $4,717,936 agrees with the corrected PR-26 after rounding. The narrative says the final CDBG draw occurred after June 30, 2025, which may help explain the difference. But the records reviewed do not show which transactions connect the two figures or establish that timing explains the full amount. Summary table and narrative, PDF p. 13 · Corrected PR-26, PDF p. 149

Why Set Aside the Earlier $944,972.60 Comparison?

That calculation subtracted both the $3,433,346.66 CDBG narrative and the $339,616.74 CDBG-CV narrative from the rounded $4,717,936 summary total. It mixed the separately reported grant programs. In light of the federal reporting guidance, it should not be presented as a second comparable spending gap. The question to pursue is the $1,284,589.71 difference within the regular CDBG figures. City narrative · OMB reporting guidance

Does the City’s Separate Correction Resolve This?

The City says $102,106.09 in public-service costs was assigned to PY2024 instead of PY2023, and that its HUD field representative approved the correction. We reviewed that City statement, not a separate HUD approval record.

The adjustment appears on line 30 of the PR-26, in the public-service-limit calculation. Line 14, the adjustment to total expenditures, is zero. Subtracting the public-service adjustment from total spending would treat a cap adjustment as an adjustment to total expenditures. This correction does not, by itself, explain the narrative difference. Correction explanation and PR-26, PDF pp. 148–149

What Would Make the Picture Clearer?

The corrected PR-26 is available and includes activity and voucher detail. The next step is to connect those records to:

A line-by-line explanation bridging the $3,433,346.66 CDBG narrative to the $4,717,936.37 corrected total, identifying transactions recorded after year-end and keeping CDBG-CV separate.
Commitments, restrictions and later transactions affecting the reported balance.
Completed work and aggregate beneficiary counts from the same reporting period. PR-26 activity detail, PDF p. 150

How Far Do These Findings Go?

The $1,284,589.71 is an arithmetic difference between reported amounts that still needs a transaction-level explanation. This review does not establish missing funds, currently available assistance or a cost per housing outcome.

This is independent public-record research, not a governmental or certified financial audit. Reporting period: July 1, 2024–June 30, 2025. Corrected PR-26 dated March 13, 2026. City CAPER and OMB guidance rechecked November 6, 2026, Tucson time.