2001 Report - Seattle Housing Authority

					SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY

  MOVING TO NEW WAYS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
       FISCAL YEAR 2001 ANNUAL REPORT




                            DECEMBER 17, 2001
SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY
Harry Thomas, Executive Director


Seattle Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
Jennifer Potter, Chair
Peter Moy, Vice Chair
Marie Cook
Judith Fay
Bettylou Valentine
Al Winston, Jr.
David Bley


Seattle Housing Authority Cabinet
Harry Thomas, Executive Director
Al Levine, Deputy Executive Director
Don Ashlock
Ronald Atkielski
Clark Brown
Ellen Callahan
Minoo Damanpour
Virginia Felton
James Fearn
Charles Hayashi
Barbara Nabors-Glass
Jo Ann Ritchie
Kathy Roseth




Prepared by:
Ellen Kissman and Ann-Marie Lindboe
With contributions from: John Forsyth, Errol Flagor, Elana Gable, Cindy
Hudson, Wendy Lance, Ashley Lommers-Johnson, Emmett Moore,
Michael Mortenson, Tom Murray, Tina Narr, Tom Phillips, Kehau
Pickford, Preston Prince, Cindy Sribhibhadh, Jeff Taylor, Dick Woo, Scott
Woo, Betty Zielinski.




  FISCAL YEAR 2001 SHA MOVING TO NEW WAYS ANNUAL REPORT
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                        Page

Executive Summary                                                             1

Section I:           Households Served                                        7

Section II:          Occupancy Policies                                       9

Section III:         Changes in Housing Stock                                11

Section IV:          Sources and Amounts of Funding                          13

Section V:           Uses of Funds                                           16

Section VI:          Capital Planning                                        18

Section VII:         Management Information for Owned and                    21
                     Managed Units

Section VIII:        Management Information for Leased Housing               23

Section IX:          Resident Programs                                       25

Section X:           Other Information Required by HUD                       27


Appendices:          Appendix A:          SHA Households and Applicants

                     Appendix B:          Consolidated Financial Statement

                     Appendix C:          Capital Activities

                     Appendix D:          SHA Vacancy Rates




                FISCAL YEAR 2001 SHA MOVING TO NEW WAYS ANNUAL REPORT
                         SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY

FY 2001 MOVING TO NEW WAYS ANNUAL REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What is the Moving To new Ways (MTW) Demonstration Program? HUD’s Moving
to Work Demonstration Program provides a unique opportunity for the Seattle Housing
Authority (SHA) to explore and test innovative methods of delivering housing and
supportive services to low-income residents of Seattle. Because this opportunity is not a
jobs program for SHA residents as the name might imply, SHA has renamed this
demonstration Moving To new Ways (MTW). SHA and HUD executed a MTW
Agreement on January 13, 1999, which defined the areas and parameters of SHA’s MTW
flexibility.
What is this FY 2001 MTW Annual Report? Each year during the MTW
demonstration, SHA develops an Annual MTW Plan to provide an overview of SHA and
its programs and to describe the MTW initiatives and program or policy changes planned
for that year. On June 19, 2000, SHA adopted a MTW Annual Plan outlining the MTW
activities for fiscal year 2001, from October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001.
This FY 2001 MTW Annual Report provides information on this year’s accomplish-
ments, variations from what had been anticipated in the FY 2001 MTW Annual Plan, and
SHA’s overall performance.
What MTW Activities Were Accomplished During FY 2001?
BUDGET ISSUES:
• Utilizing MTW authority, SHA adopted a consolidated public housing operating,
  public housing capital and Section 8 budget for FY 2001.
• SHA utilized MTW budget flexibility to deploy HUD funding more effectively.
• Anticipating decreasing revenues for FY 2002, SHA implemented a number of cost
  saving measures.
RENT AND ADMISSIONS POLICIES:
• The new public housing rent policies, adopted in FY 2000, were implemented in FY
  2001.
• Development of new Section 8 rent policies was explored; a new policy will be
  finalized during FY 2002.
• The new applicant choice waiting list system, adopted in FY 2000, was implemented
  in FY 2001.
MEETING RESIDENT AND APPLICANT NEEDS
• In FY 2001, SHA fundamentally redesigned services for applicants and Section 8
  landlords with the opening of the PorchLight Housing Center on December 18, 2000.
  PorchLight provides comprehensive, one-stop customer service for SHA clients,
  including intake, assessment, referral, counseling, application and occupancy services
  for all SHA housing programs. This involved reorganization of the many administra-


SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                PAGE 1 of 27
   tive functions pertaining to the application and approval process, as well as opening a
   new, functional and attractive facility.
• Seattle Jobs Initiative contracted with SHA to recruit SHA residents for SJI training
   programs. Few residents actually enrolled in the training program because most
   residents did not meet the eligibility criteria. SHA anticipates that SJI will develop
   new strategies to target SHA residents and similar populations, particularly to ensure
   access for more limited English speakers.
SECTION 8 PROGRAM ISSUES:
• Utilizing MTW authority, SHA adopted streamlined policies and procedures for
   project basing Section 8s. SHA has procured nonprofit partners for 375 units of
   project-based Section 8 vouchers.
• SHA continued to explore the adoption of changes to and the merging of the Section
   8 certificate and voucher programs. A decision has been made to table broad policy
   initiatives for the time being, and focus instead on streamlining processing of
   vouchers and improving customer service to landlords and participants.
• SHA successfully leased 700 Welfare to Work vouchers by the June 30th deadline.
ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES:
• SHA’s Board of Commissioners has approved – in concept – methods to simplify and
   streamline procurement processes. These changes have been discussed with HUD
   legal staff. Final Board approval is scheduled for FY 2002.
• SHA has continued to develop standard procedures for prevailing wage monitoring
   and trained staff on regulatory requirements, all of which will contribute to
   simplifying the monitoring process.
• SHA had intended to adopt new public housing and Section 8 inspection protocols
   during FY 2001. However, PorchLight’s opening took precedence and this activity
   has been delayed until FY 2002.
• SHA began developing new energy auditing protocols. These protocols will be
   finalized in FY 2002. Unanticipated and very steep utility rate increases required
   SHA to devote significant staff resources to developing and implementing energy and
   resource conservation measures.
• SHA continued to develop an Asset Management Plan for SHA that will guide future
   real estate decisions.
• As a participant in MTW, SHA is exempt from a financial and management
   assessment through HUD’s Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) and Section
   Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP). To ensure that SHA continues to
   maintain the level of performance that earned SHA high performer status in HUD’s
   previous assessment systems, new internal performance standards have been
   established and are monitored. These property and agency performance indicators are
   designed to ensure that SHA continues to operate effectively and efficiently.
   Performance indicators for FY 2001 remain at high levels.
• Work on streamlining and simplifying the HUD approval process for demolition,
   disposition and mixed-finance development activities has been delayed pending
   HUD’s publication of new Notices specifying changes to the existing HUD
   regulations. These Notices were issued in September, 2001. SHA will review the
   Notices and begin work on this issue in FY 2002.

SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                 PAGE 2 of 27
What Else Did SHA Do in Fiscal Year 2001?
Over the past fiscal year, SHA continued to:
• Apply asset management principles in managing its housing portfolio;
• Redevelop distressed SHA communities;
• Meet obligations for replacement of demolished LIPH units;
• Sponsor Drug Elimination activities in SHA communities;
• Assist residents in achieving economic and personal self-sufficiency; and
• Implement initiatives to make SSHP financially self-sustaining.
Following is a summary of SHA’s key non-MTW activities during FY 2001:
ASSET MANAGEMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES:
• All new rental housing was completed and occupied at Holly Park Phase II. Sales of
    homes at Holly Park Phase I are continuing in line with expectations. Planning and
    design for Holly Park Phase III is ongoing.
• Construction and leasing of Longfellow and Westwood Courts, 45 units of mixed
    income family mutual housing, on the site of the former Roxbury Village are com-
    plete. This replacement housing is owned and managed by SHA’s partner, Lutheran
    Alliance to Create Housing (LATCH). The revitalization of Westwood Heights,
    formerly known as Roxbury House, was nearly complete at the end of FY 2001;
    completion is expected by December, 2001, with lease-up to begin quickly thereafter.
• The Rainier Vista revitalization took a major step forward in FY 2001, with City
    Council passage of required zoning changes and negotiation of a Memorandum of
    Agreement concerning replacement housing.
• Milestones in the revitalization of High Point during FY 2001 included hiring of an
    architect and engineering team and an environmental review team and beginning the
    lengthy permitting and design review process.
• SHA continues to engage each of its HOPE VI communities in detailed planning
    processes to refine and implement redevelopment plans.
• SHA has made progress, through its non-profit partners and acquisitions, toward the
    completion of its replacement housing goals for Holly Park and Roxbury.
• During FY 2001, no new demonstration operating policies for the redeveloped HOPE
    VI communities were implemented. Demonstration policies developed in prior years
    for NewHolly remain in place and will be evaluated. New policies will be considered
    in coming years when reoccupancy of the redeveloped Rainier Vista and High Point
    is discussed with residents.
• SHA did not pursue a HOPE VI revitalization grant in FY 2001, due to lack of a
    competitive project and staff capacity. However, SHA did apply for demolition
    grants for Rainier Vista, High Point and Holly Park.
• The 16 Lake City Village units have been off-line and unoccupied for some years. In
    FY 2001, SHA worked with the City of Seattle to obtain the necessary zoning
    changes to permit the demolition and reconstruction of 16 severely flood-damaged
    units at Lake City Village. With the new zoning in place, SHA intends to construct at
    least 16 new housing units on the site. These units were to be constructed in FY
    2000, but as a result of the City zoning change process, design and construction have
    been delayed until FY 2002-2003. The units were demolished in FY 2001.

SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                PAGE 3 of 27
•  SHA has joined with the City of Seattle Parks Department and Yesler Terrace
   residents in the planning of a new Community Center at Yesler Terrace. During FY
   2001, SHA and the Parks Department sponsored a process to involve residents in site
   selection. A preferred location has been selected and a decision made to build a
   mixed-use facility combining the Community Center with replacement housing.
• SHA has disposed of five vacant scattered site units that required extensive repairs.
   These units have been replaced with six new locally-funded townhomes for low-
   income families.
• SHA purchased the 204-unit Wedgwood Estates to preserve affordable, rental
   housing in a relatively high-income neighborhood in north Seattle.
SEATTLE SENIOR HOUSING PROGRAM (SSHP) ACTIVITIES:
• SHA continues to implement policies and procedures designed to preserve the long-
   term financial stability of SSHP.
• SHA and the City of Seattle Office of Housing convened a Task Force of stake-
   holders to develop a long-term plan for the Morrison, a 205-unit apartment in the
   SSHP program. The Task Force report, released in February, 2001, called for the
   Morrison to be sold to a nonprofit housing provider who specializes in housing the
   most vulnerable of formerly homeless individuals – elderly or disabled, many with
   mental illness or chemical dependency issues – the population housed at the Mor-
   rison. The Task Force preferred that the Morrison be sold to the Downtown Emer-
   gency Service Center, the operator of the homeless shelter on the Morrison mezza-
   nine. Pursuant to the Morrison Task Force recommendation, SHA sold the Morrison
   to the Downtown Emergency Service Center on October 1, 2001. SHA received $1.5
   million for the sale which will be used for capital needs in SSHP buildings.
ACTIVITIES DESIGNED TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC RESIDENT ISSUES:
• With the help of key partners, SHA continued to assist residents in achieving
   economic self-sufficiency through the NewHolly Neighborhood Campus, the Rainier
   Vista Jobs Plus Demonstration Program, the Department of Labor’s Welfare to Work
   Program. Together, the employment programs have led to almost 900 job placements
   with average wages of $8.77-9.00. SHA’s deployment of 700 Welfare to Work
   Section 8 vouchers contributed to the pursuit of self-sufficiency among applicants.
• With the help of key partners, SHA continued to assist senior and disabled residents
   to maintain independence through the Support Services Coordination Program. Over
   1,000 residents living in public housing high-rise and Seattle Senior Housing
   buildings receive regular, on-going case management services (about one third of the
   total population). These services help residents to live more stable and independent
   lives and are provided by the City of Seattle Division of Aging and Disability
   Services.
• SHA obtained HUD approval to designate Roxbury House as an elderly and near-
   elderly facility. SHA also continued to explore partnerships to develop supported
   housing communities specifically suited for disabled residents.
• With the help of key partners, SHA continued to address the problem of illegal drug
   use and drug-related crime through the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program.
   With this program slated for elimination in FY 2003, and the funds coming to
   housing authorities as part of operating subsidies, SHA will need to advocate for as

SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                              PAGE 4 of 27
   full funding as possible or search and compete for other funds to maintain these
   successful programs.
TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES:
• During FY 2001, SHA focused on meeting the information technology needs of the
   new PorchLight housing center, as well as establishing a new virtual private network
   to improve remote access from SHA’s field offices. Implementation of the virtual
   private network will continue into FY 2002.
• SHA undertook several internet-based projects during FY 2001, including a major
   revamping of the agency website and creation of an intranet (internal internet) site for
   SHA staff called Ourhouse. This intranet application allows SHA staff easy on-line
   access to data on resident and applicant demographics, work orders, vacancies,
   inspections and other key information to facilitate efficient management.
What Was SHA’s Performance During FY 2001? During the MTW Demonstration,
SHA will be monitored by HUD on the basis of its MTW Annual Report, in lieu of HUD
assessment systems for non-MTW housing authorities. Following, therefore, is a
summary of SHA management performance over the past fiscal year:
• SHA has maintained an overall public housing vacancy rate of 2.19%. This rate was
    1.71% in FY 2000.
• SHA has maintained an overall public housing program rent collection rate of
    98.97%. This rate was 98.06% in FY 2000.
• SHA has continued to respond within 24 hours to 100% of emergency work order
    requests from public housing residents.
• SHA has respond within 30 days to 91% of regular work order requests received
    from public housing residents. This rate was 87% in FY 2000.
• SHA has continued to conduct an inspection of each public housing unit and building
    system at least once within a twelve-month period.
• Crime rates for part 1 offenses in the public housing family and high rise
    communities appear to be declining slightly from last year, indicating that sustained
    crime prevention efforts are keeping crime rates low.
• SHA leased up 99.7% of its Section 8 certificates and vouchers (excluding Welfare to
    Work and HOPE VI replacement Section 8 vouchers. This rate was 98.58% in FY
    2000.
• SHA continued to inspect each Section 8 unit to ensure that this privately owned and
    managed housing is in compliance with acceptable housing quality standards.
• SHA has continued to facilitate the delivery of needed supportive services to
    residents, with a focus on employment and self-sufficiency in the family communities
    and case management for elderly and disabled residents.
SHA maintained its high performance throughout a challenging year.
•   In February, the Puget Sound region suffered a 6.8 magnitude earthquake.
    Fortunately, SHA properties sustained minimal damage and only two SHA residents
    suffered minor injuries. SHA’s emergency preparedness efforts paid off – the
    emergency management team was able to quickly and efficiently obtain damage
    assessment information and deploy resources to ensure resident safety.


SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                  PAGE 5 of 27
•   The Pacific Northwest, along with California, experienced a drought and consequent
    sharp increase in utility rates. SHA, as the second largest water user in the City of
    Seattle, was severely affected. In response, SHA has begun implementing a number
    of resource conservation measures. Many take advantage of financial incentives from
    local public utilities for low-income housing providers to replace light fixtures, toilets
    and other appliances with more energy efficient models.
•   The anticipated FY 2002 revenue shortfalls required SHA to plan for a reduction in
    force of approximately 41 positions, which took effect early in FY 2002. SHA also
    began planning for a return to portfolio-based community management from its
    current geographically-based management system.

Did SHA Achieve Special Distinctions during FY 2001? Following is a list of
recognition from other organizations that SHA received:
• For the fourth year in a row, SHA received an Annual Audit Report from the
    Washington State Auditor’s Office containing no findings or management letter
    contents.
• For the fourth year in a row, SHA was awarded a Certificate of Achievement for
    Excellence in Financial Reporting by the Government Finance Officers Association
    of the U.S. and Canada.
• SHA’s Communications Department received a Totem Award from the Puget Sound
    Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America for the excellence of the
    NewHolly Neighborhood Campus grand opening celebration.




SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                    PAGE 6 of 27
SECTION I: HOUSEHOLDS SERVED
This Section compares the number and characteristics of households actually served by
the Seattle Housing Authority and the number and characteristics of those on SHA
waiting lists at the end of the fiscal year with projections that were included in the
adopted FY 2000 MTW Annual Plan. Significant changes from the projections are
explained. Specific data on these items are provided in Appendix A.

SHA Residents
Changes in racial distributions: As projected, the changes in racial distributions for all
SHA housing programs were minimal. All categories were within 5% of projected ratios.
Minimal changes were a result of normal unit turnover and not new SHA policies.
Changes in income levels: There were minimal variations from projected ratios among
income groups in all SHA programs for FY 2001. The available data may hide some
income progression among families at Holly Park. When a Holly Park family can afford
it, they often move to a tax credit unit in the community and are no longer counted among
LIPH households.
The average public housing income increased 5% from $10,236 to $10,733, while, on
average, Section 8 incomes (excluding the Section 8 mod rehab program) increased
2.25% from $10,881 to $11,125. The contribution of the MTW rent policies toward these
increases in rent is unclear. Changes in average income will have to be tracked for a
longer period of time to determine the effect of the policies.

Changes in the proportion of seniors, families and persons with disabilities: Shifts in
the number of seniors and children in the public housing program were minimal. All
changes were within 3% of the previous year. During FY 2001, there was a 10% increase
in the proportion of minors in the Section 8 program. This change is not a result of
changes in SHA policies, but are likely reflections of the populations currently seeking
housing opportunities in Seattle. A 9% increase in the proportion of elderly in the SSHP
program may be a result of increases in the minimum rent to $210 a unit, which is above
the level many younger people with disabilities can afford. This population is still
eligible for Section 8 and LIPH.
Changes in the number of persons with disabilities: There was a 6% drop in the
number of persons with disabilities housed in public housing, compared to a 9% drop in
the population overall. The proportion of persons with disabilities remained within 2% of
projections. A 6% increase in the proportion of persons with disabilities in Section 8 may
be attributable to the use of mainstream vouchers. For SSHP, the actual data do not
include the Morrison, while the FY 2000 projections do; this is the most likely reason for
the apparent 8% decrease in the proportion of persons with disabilities in SSHP.
Changes to the number of households being served: In FY 2001, the public housing
program was serving 326 fewer households and 1,100 fewer individuals at the end of FY
2001 than it was in the beginning. This decrease is most likely due to the redevelopment
activities at Holly Park, Rainier Vista, High Point and Roxbury House. Phase III of

SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                 PAGE 7 of 27
Holly Park, and the other HOPE VI communities are not available to new tenants from
the LIPH wait list. Whether because of active resident relocation programs or because of
regular attrition, the population in these communities is declining, pending
redevelopment.
The tenant-based Section 8 program saw an increase of 754 households participating as a
result of new vouchers, including 700 welfare to work vouchers.
During FY 2001, the number of SSHP households remained unchanged (minor variations
from year to year are due to the random number of vacancies at year end).

SHA Applicants
As of the end of FY 2000, there were 8,268 households on one or more waiting list for
housing assistance. This is down from 14,930 households at the end of FY 2000. In
August 2000 SHA revamped its application process in order to provide better information
to applicants and maintain a more vital waiting list, by pre-screening applicants for
eligibility and suitability, especially positive landlord history, before entering applicants
on the waiting list. This revised application process is likely to result in fewer new
applicants entered on the waitlist, as more applicants are denied – or choose not to apply
– at the outset. The decline in the number of households is most likely due to the
implementation of the revamped application process, as well as the process SHA
completed in FY 2001 to update all its waitlists. Following are discussions of the
changes in the characteristics of these waiting lists. None of these changes is a direct
result of the waitlist confirmation or revised application processes.
Changes in racial distributions by bedroom size: SHA has not adopted new policies
that would effect racial distributions by bedroom size, therefore, no significant changes in
the racial distributions were projected during FY 2001. Nonetheless, the LIPH
experienced a 5% increase in the percentage of white applicants, and a 7% decrease in the
percentage of Asian & Pacific Islander applicants. We have no evident explanation. The
racial distribution of applicants by bedroom size for other programs remained essentially
the same (within 5%).
Changes in income levels: Income levels among applicants varied very slightly from
projections (within 5%). By the end of FY 2001, 90% of SHA’s applicants had incomes
below 30% of median.




SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                   PAGE 8 of 27
SECTION II: OCCUPANCY POLICIES
This Section discusses early outcomes regarding the concentration of lower-income
households as a result of new policies governing eligibility, selection, admissions, assign-
ment, occupancy and rent. These early results reflect a few months of experience. Most
of these new policies were implemented in the first and second quarters of FY 2001.

Occupancy Policies
A description of this policy is included in the adopted FY 2001 MTW Annual Plan. SHA
eligibility, admissions, selection, assignment, and occupancy policies remained consistent
with the 1937 Housing Act rules prior to the enactment of new public housing and
Section 8 authorization legislation in 1998. SHA has not amended its preferences or
income eligibility criteria for these programs to date. Stakeholder discussions concerning
amendments to the preferences policies have occurred; incremental changes to the
preferences policies will likely be adopted in FY 2002.
Deconcentration of Poverty: Each new public housing or Section 8 policy is evaluated
to determine if the proposed changes will have an effect on the concentrations of poverty
in public housing communities or in the distribution of Section 8 units in Seattle
neighborhoods. The new Public Housing Applicant Choice Policy includes a specific
feature designed to limit the concentration of poor households in less desirable
communities. This strategy is being closely monitored and some early results are in:
•   One of the goals of the Applicant Choice Policy was to reduce the number of
    applicants who spend a considerable amount of time on the waiting list only to refuse
    the offer of a unit once they have been approved. Refusals have decreased by about
    90% since the policy was implemented.
•   A concern was that some public housing buildings would prove to be relatively less
    desirable, and therefore have higher vacancy percentages. The early evaluation
    shows that all buildings have healthy waitlists which should ensure high occupancy
    rates.
•   Another concern was that buildings might become racially identifiable. In most
    cases, building wait lists are more racially or ethnically diverse than the current
    residents of the buildings. In all but two buildings currently occupied by a large
    percentage of Caucasian residents, there is a smaller percentage of Caucasian
    applicants on the building’s wait list, indicating that a significant number of non-
    white applicants feel comfortable applying for buildings whose resident population
    does not reflect their own race or ethnicity.
•   Other positive effects of the policy are expected to be more stable communities with
    residents who are happier with their developments. These effects should result in
    measurable outcomes such as lower vacancies, higher rents, fewer transfer requests
    and lower operating costs.
Several strategies are currently being deployed to minimize the concentrations of Section
8 households in specific neighborhoods, but market conditions and existing Section 8
rules make this difficult to achieve. SHA intends to maintain a payment standard within
existing HUD guidelines that will be adequate to put housing throughout the city within
SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                  PAGE 9 of 27
reach of voucher holders. In addition, outreach, education, and improved customer
service to landlords will encourage greater participation by property owners throughout
the city. These changes will be adopted in FY 2002.
Income Mixing: SHA shares HUD’s belief that concentrating very low-income families
in large isolated public housing communities makes it difficult for households to escape
poverty. SHA’s comprehensive revitalization of three of its four large family
communities employs two strategies to expand the range of incomes within these
communities: investing in current residents and diversifying the housing stock. In its
Community and Supportive Services programs, SHA has channeled resources and
created innovative and effective partnerships to assist SHA residents in becoming and
staying employed. Second, each revitalization plan includes rental housing for house-
holds at all income levels, as well as affordable and market-rate for-sale housing. At
Holly Park, for example, 871 public housing units are being demolished and replaced
with 400 new public housing units targeting residents with incomes below 30% of
median, 400 tax credit units targeting residents with incomes up to 60% of median, as
well as new market rate rental and for sale units. A new mix of incomes is created not by
changing public housing policies, but by introducing non-public housing programs into
the community.
Rent Policies: The new citywide public housing Rent Policy was implemented in FY
2001, including a provision for Resident Trust Accounts. A description of this policy is
included in the adopted FY 2001 MTW Annual Plan. It is too early to see any effects of
the policy. Monitoring will continue in FY 2002.
Seattle Senior Housing Program (SSHP): SHA continued the implementation of new
admissions and occupancy policies for the non-subsidized SSHP. These new policies
were developed to help stabilize this program financially by increasing rental income.
Ceiling rents and the minimum rents are reassessed annually. During FY 2001, the
minimum rent was raised from $200 to $210, and ceiling rents raised $50 to $650 for
one-bedroom and $750 for two-bedroom units. Other non-rent related strategies are also
being implemented, including a marketing program targeted to eligible seniors. SHA
also applied for and has a commitment from HUD for 200 Section 8 vouchers targeted
for younger people with disabilities who are on wait lists for senior housing buildings.
These vouchers will be offered to younger disabled applicants on the SSHP waitlist
during FY 2002.
Building Designation: Two public housing high rise buildings have been designated for
particular populations: Westwood Heights (formerly Roxbury House) has been
designated for elderly and near elderly residents. Tri-Court has been designated as a
smoke-free community.




SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                               PAGE 10 of 27
SECTION III: CHANGES IN HOUSING STOCK
This Section compares the number and types of SHA housing units and tenant-based
Section 8 certificates and vouchers SHA had at the end of FY 2000 with projected and
actual numbers for the end of FY 2001.
Please note that the following unit numbers for both the public housing and Seattle Senior
Housing programs represent the gross number of units in these programs. For example,
the public housing numbers include all Project Units as shown on the HUD 51234 Report
on Occupancy for Public Housing. Thus they include units available for resident occu-
pancy, units housing SHA on-site staff (42) and units for agencies serving SHA residents
(181). The SSHP numbers also include units available for resident occupancy, units
housing on-site staff (16) and units for agencies serving SHA residents (19).
                                                       FY 2000       FY 2001       FY 2001     %
                   HOUSING PROGRAM                     ACTUAL       PROJECTED       ACTUAL   Change
 Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers                        5,579      6,568         6,458      -1.7%
 Section 8 New Construction Buildings Owned by SHA            159        159           159       0.0%
 Public Housing Units                                       6,185      6,266         6,285       0.3%
 Seattle Senior Housing Program Units Owned by SHA          1,198      1,198         1,198       0.0%
 Tax Credit and Market Rate Units at Holly Park               128        164           164       0.0%
 Locally Funded Low-Income Family Units                        43         43            50      16.3%
 Other affordable housing                                      24        200           228      14.0%
                                            TOTALS         13,316     14,598        14,542      -0.4%

Explanation of the variation between projected and actual
Section 8 Tenant Based Program variations: During FY 2001, SHA received 879 new
Section 8 vouchers (see breakdown below). Of SHA’s 6,458 vouchers, 5,696 are in the
MTW budget, while the remainder are special purpose vouchers. SHA’s FY 2001
projections anticipated fewer fair share vouchers but more HOPE VI vouchers.
             Section 8 Program Type               Units      New FY 2001        FY 2001
                                                 FY 2000      Vouchers         Total Units
 General Purpose Certificates                      2,730                           2,730
 General Purpose Vouchers                          1,438                           1,438
 HOPE for Elderly Independence Vouchers              150                             150
 Special Program Homeless Disability Vouchers        120                             120
 Roxbury Relocation Vouchers                          46                              46
 Preservation/Opt-Out Vouchers                        49               62            111
 Mainstream Disability Vouchers                      100              100            200
 Family Unification Certificates                      25                              25
 HOPE VI Replacement Housing Vouchers                221                             221
 Fair Share                                                           676            676
 Over-lease                                                            41             41
 Welfare To Work Vouchers                            700                             700
                                       TOTALS      5,579              879          6,458


SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                    PAGE 11 of 27
Section 8 New Construction variation: None.
Public Housing Program variations:
•   Holly Park: Changes in unit count in the public housing program can be attributed to
    the HOPE VI revitalization. For example, in FY 2001, 60 new public housing units
    became available at Holly Park Phase II, as projected.
•   Roxbury House and Village: During 2001, fifteen public housing units were
    replaced on the site of the former Roxbury Village as part of the 45-unit mixed-
    income, mutual housing development of Longfellow and Westwood Courts. These
    buildings are owned and managed by SHA’s nonprofit partner, LATCH. The
    revitalization of Roxbury House (now Westwood Heights) includes combining some
    smaller units into larger ones, and results in 20 fewer units in that senior/disabled
    highrise. In partnership with service agencies and low-income housing providers,
    these lost units will be replaced off-site in FY 2002-2003 in one or more buildings in
    which on-site services to disabled residents with special needs can be provided.
•   Scattered Sites: The five scattered sites anticipated to be disposed of during FY
    2000 were disposed of in FY 2001. One site was disposed of to the City of Seattle for
    use as a P-patch community garden, requiring remediation of contaminated soil.
Locally-funded program variations: Seven locally-funded units were purchased for
replacement of the scattered sites sold in FY 2001.
Other affordable housing: In FY 2001, the SHA Board of Commissioners set a goal of
increasing SHA’s affordable housing stock by 200 units/year. SHA purchased the 204-
unit Wedgwood Estates in north Seattle in order to preserve this sizable stock of low-cost
housing in a higher income neighborhood. This mid-century development is a mix of
bedroom sizes and housing types, including some ground-related units suitable for
families, and has been well-maintained over the years. Currently, the property is
managed by a private management company. SHA intends that, in accordance with state
housing authority law, 50% of the units will be made available to tenants with incomes
below 80% of median.




SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                PAGE 12 of 27
SECTION IV: SOURCES AND AMOUNTS OF FUNDING
This Section compares the projected with the actual FY 2001 sources and amounts of
funding included in the consolidated MTW budget statement, the sources and amounts of
funding outside the consolidated MTW budget and the Consolidated Budget Statement.
This Section also includes SHA’s Consolidated Financial Statement for FY 2001. Please
note that the figures below represent unaudited fiscal year end data. The audited
Consolidated Financial Statement for FY 2001 will be available in February 2002.
Planned vs. Actual Funding Amounts for the Public Housing and Section 8
Programs: MTW allows SHA to consolidate public housing operating and capital fund-
ing and Section 8 funding into one unified budget. SHA therefore developed a budget for
FY 2001 that utilized this MTW budget flexibility. Following is a comparison of the
adopted FY 2001 budget and projected revenues with actual revenues received by SHA.
           FUNDING SOURCES             PROJECTED REVENUES        ACTUAL REVENUES
    Dwelling Rental Income                  $12,406,680            $11,325,137
    Investment Income                           822,473              1,371,673
    Other Income                              1,062,349                946,934
    Section 8 Subsidy and Admin Fee          42,506,502             37,188,188
    Capital Subsidy                          14,897,536             14,897,536
    Operating Subsidy                        13,509,199             13,907,111
                    Total Revenues          $85,204,739            $79,636,579

Explanation of the Differences between Projected and Actual Funding:
•   Actual dwelling rents were unfavorable compared to budget due to shortfalls in
    Public Housing rental income. Extraordinary rate increases led to the recalculation of
    utility allowances. In addition, variances in the timing of redevelopment activity at
    three communities, Holly Park, Roxbury, and High Point, caused a shortfall in rental
    income.
•   Section 8 subsidy and administration fee revenue in the General Fund are under the
    budgeted amount. The MTW budget assumed that 700 Welfare to Work vouchers
    would be assimilated into the budget, but these vouchers have been designated as
    special purpose vouchers. During FY 2001, the budget related to Section 8 subsidy
    was revised upward to reflect new vouchers awarded to SHA. Both the budget and
    actual subsidy for these vouchers are excluded from the year-end numbers because
    HUD has determined that the Welfare to Work vouchers are outside MTW.
•   Because of a Dire Emergency utility adjustment, operating subsidy was higher than
    budgeted in FY 2001. SHA also received reimbursement from HUD for Jobs Plus
    activity at the Rainier Vista garden community.
•   Grant expenditures exceeded expectations during FY 2001 and resulted in a higher
    level of funding being drawn down to cover HOPE VI and public housing tenant
    service grant expenses.
Sources and amounts of funding outside the consolidated MTW budget statement:
SHA operates a number of housing units and programs that are not included in the
consolidated MTW budget. These programs include the Seattle Senior Housing Program

SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                PAGE 13 of 27
(SSHP), Section 8 New Construction facilities owned by SHA, State of Washington
Referendum 37 properties owned by SHA, 1986 Seattle Housing Levy Program
properties owned by SHA, Public Housing HOPE VI activities, Public Housing Drug
Elimination Program activities and other programs supported by independent grants. In
addition, SHA also administers housing programs for private owners and operates other
programs that support housing operations. The following table summarizes the projected
with the actual FY 2001 revenues for these activities. Additional information on each of
these programs is available in SHA’s adopted FY 2001 Budget.
           FUNDING SOURCES            PROJECTED REVENUES         ACTUAL REVENUES
    Dwelling Rental Income                  $5,048,700              $5,539,492
    Investment Income                          836,256               1,340,203
    Other Income                             4,885,951               8,468,856
    Section 8 Subsidy and Admin Fee          7,960,330              12,114,994
    Capital Subsidy                                  0                       0
    Operating Subsidy                            4,100                  21,448
    Grants                                  17,635,202              19,629,806
                    Total Revenues         $36,370,539             $47,114,799

Explanation of the Differences between Projected and Actual Funding:
•   In other funds, three newly-acquired local housing properties generated rental income
    that was not part of the FY 2001 budget, and offset Public Housing shortfalls.
•   Investment Income was significantly higher due to large operating reserve balances in
    Section 8, unrealized investment gains, and interest paid on notes in Public Housing.
    The Development Fund also earned a substantial amount of investment income
    during the fiscal year.
•   Other income exceeded budget mainly because the Development Fund and the
    Wakefield Fund received significantly higher than budgeted amounts for developer
    and financial fees. In addition, internal rents were increased to cover the cost of
    SHA’s new PorchLight Housing Center.

Consolidated Budget Statement:
           FUNDING SOURCES            PROJECTED REVENUES         ACTUAL REVENUES
    Dwelling Rental Income                 $17,455,380             $16,864,629
    Investment Income                        1,658,729               2,711,876
    Other Income                             5,948,300               9,415,790
    Section 8 Subsidy and Admin Fee         50,466,832              49,303,182
    Capital Subsidy                         14,897,536              14,897,536
    Operating Subsidy                       13,513,299              13,928,559
    Grants                                  17,635,202              19,629,806
                    Total Revenues        $121,575,278            $126,751,378


Investment Policy: Utilizing MTW authority, SHA uses Washington State Investment
Policies instead of HUD Investment Policies. This allows SHA the flexibility to invest its
financial resources productively and efficiently, without a regulatory duplication. SHA is


SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                PAGE 14 of 27
investing only in securities authorized under the Washington State Housing Authority
Law (Section 35.82.070).
Consolidated Financial Statement: SHA’s Consolidated Financial Statement for FY
2001 can be found in Appendix B. Please note that these figures represent unaudited
fiscal year end financial data. The audited Consolidated Financial Statement will be
available in February 2002.




SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                              PAGE 15 of 27
SECTION V: USES OF FUNDS
This Section compares FY 2001 budgeted expenditures with actual FY 2001 expenditures
by line item. This Section also identifies the level and adequacy of reserve balance at the
end of FY 2001. Please note that the following figures represent unaudited fiscal year
end financial data.
Planned vs. Actual Funding Expenditures for the Public Housing and Section 8
Programs: Following are the amounts that were budgeted in FY 2001 as compared to
actual expenditures in FY 2001 by line item.
              LINE ITEMS                  FY 2001 BUDGET              ACTUAL
                                                                   EXPENDITURES
    Administration and General              $18,329,503            $19,855,746
    Housing Assistance Payments              38,999,883             33,956,684
    Utilities                                 4,319,327              4,289,119
    Maintenance and Contracts                10,610,186             11,726,156
    Development Projects                        700,000                853,184
    Capital Projects                         12,113,788             12,719,597
                     Total Expenses         $85,072,687            $83,400,486


Description of the Changes in Budgeted Activities in FY 2001
SHA's actual overall expenses varied from the original budget in specific areas for the
following reasons:
•   Administration and General: Significant costs for startup expenses and additional
    staffing for the PorchLight Housing Center contributed to the spending over budget in
    Administration and General. This cost included staff to handle Section 8 workload
    increases. A delay in receiving capital funding resulting in approximately $238,000
    of additional public housing Administrative and General costs. A new union contract
    for maintenance laborers raised benefit costs as well.
•   Housing Assistance Payments: The variance in Housing Assistance Payments is
    due to special purpose vouchers. The MTW budget assumed that 700 Welfare to
    Work vouchers would be assimilated into the budget, but these vouchers have been
    designated as special purpose vouchers.
•   Utilities: Utilities expense ended FY 2001 under the budgeted amount. Although
    rate increases for electricity, gas and steam caused costs to exceed budget, savings
    were realized in water and sewer expenses.
•   Maintenance and Contracts: Costs over budget for Maintenance labor and
    materials contributed $700,000 to the costs over budget. Part of this additional cost is
    due to changes in the negotiated union contract with maintenance labor. Contracts for
    Section 8 were over budget due to start up expenses related to PorchLight. Casualty
    losses for earthquake and other losses contributed an additional $200,000 in costs
    over budget.




SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                 PAGE 16 of 27
•   Capital Projects: The amount reported for capital expenditures represents projects
    associated with capital subsidy received in FY 2001 and from previous years. Both
    FY 2001 expended and encumbered amounts are shown.
Planned vs. Actual Funding Expenditures for Programs not included in the MTW
Consolidated Budget: Following are the amounts that were budgeted in FY 2001 as
compared to actual expenditures in FY 2001 by line item.
           PROJECTED EXPENSES             FY 2001 BUDGET        EXPENDITURES
    Administration and General             $7,476,250           $11,239,334
    Housing Assistance Payments              6,958,568           11,191,161
    Utilities                                  809,897              872,393
    Maintenance and Contracts                2,655,339            3,358,775
    Development and Capital Projects       17,243,145            17,790,083
    Operating Grants                         1,883,322            3,175,709
                     Total Expenses       $37,026,521           $47,627,455

Level and Adequacy of Reserves for the Public Housing and Section 8 Programs:
Following are the amounts that were budgeted in FY 2001 as reserve balances as
compared to actual reserve balances by line item at the end of the year:
        FISCAL YEAR 2000              BUDGETED             RESERVE BALANCES
                                  RESERVE BALANCES           AT END OF YEAR
    Public Housing                     $5,870,589                $6,317,086
    Insurance Reserve                     800,000                   800,000
    Section 8 Project Reserve           5,538,557                 5,628,172
    Program Contingency                   971,154                         0
             Total Reserves            $13,180,300             $12,745,258

The public housing reserve represents two months cash flow for SHA’s public housing
program. SHA policy and HAARG, SHA’s insurance carrier, require an insurance
reserve of $800,000 for general liability. The Section 8 project reserve represents two
months cash flow for the Section 8 Program and has been provided to SHA by HUD to
cover changes in local conditions that might affect the Section 8 program. These year
end reserve balances are adequate to support SHA’s initiatives and operations.
Level and Adequacy of Reserves for Programs not included in the MTW
Consolidated Budget: Following are the amounts that were budgeted in FY 2001 as
reserve balances as compared to actual reserve balances by line item at the end of the
year. These year end reserve balances are adequate to support SHA’s initiatives and
operations.
          FISCAL YEAR 2001                 BUDGETED            RESERVE BALANCES
                                       RESERVE BALANCES          AT END OF YEAR
All non-MTW Program Reserves               $12,406,834             $14,551,907




SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                 PAGE 17 of 27
Section VI: Capital Planning
This Section compares FY 2001 budgeted capital activities with the actual FY 2001
capital expenditures. A detailed listing of specific capital work items by SHA
community and program can be found in Appendix C.

Capital Activities
Budgeted FY 2001 Public Housing Modernization and Rehabilitation Work Items
vs. Actual Expenditures: The Public Housing capital budget for FY 2001 totaled
$11,420,966 (not including overhead). This budget only included activities funded
through HUD’s public housing Capital Fund allocation for FY 2001, and excludes
activities funded from prior years’ Capital Fund. To reflect the time needed for this
work, these funds will be used over a three-year period. Following is a status report on
the major activities budgeted for FY 2001 with these funds:
•   Redevelopment of outdated housing: This budget included SHA’s contribution to
    the continuing redevelopment of Lake City House ($700,000). As the redevelopment
    of Lake City is still in the planning phase, redevelopment funding has not yet been
    obligated at this community.
•   Hazardous Materials and Vacant Unit off-line Program: This budget provided
    funding to abate hazardous materials and to restore vacant off-line public housing
    units. Both programs directly address the strategic objectives of eliminating
    hazardous materials in dwelling units and the repairing and renovating off-line vacant
    units that are beyond normal operational capabilities. During FY 2001, $21,863 was
    expended on abating hazardous materials. Funds have not been expended as yet on
    off-line vacant units.
•   Dwelling Structures: This category reflects work anticipated in public housing
    dwelling units other than abatement and off-line dwelling unit repairs. Major projects
    included $0.6 million to waterproof the exterior of Lictonwood and $1.5 to compre-
    hensively modernize scattered site units. Work at Lictonwood did not begin during
    FY 2001, but $161,253 was obligated on the comprehensive modernization of
    scattered site units.
•   Central Office Overhead: This category contains the associated organizational costs
    in operating the capital program and was allocated overhead on the same basis as all
    other SHA business activities. A total of $783,892 was obligated on overhead costs
    for the capital program in FY 2001.
FY 2001 Public Housing Modernization and Rehabilitation Activities Funded from
Pre-FY 2001 HUD Funding Allocations: As capital allocations are normally obligated
and expended over several years, the majority of Public Housing capital work items
undertaken during FY 2001 were funded from HUD capital funding allocations received
and budgeted in previous years. During FY 2001, approximately $12.7 million was
obligated and expended from prior year capital funds. Major activities included
hazardous materials abatement, replacement of damaged sidewalks, restoration of off-line
units to occupancy status, renovation of building exteriors and windows, comprehensive
modernization of scattered site units, replacement of roof coverings and flooring repairs.

SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                PAGE 18 of 27
Budgeted FY 2001 Seattle Senior Housing Program (SSHP) Capital Work Items vs.
Actual Expenditures: The Seattle Senior Housing capital budget for FY 2001 totaled
$920,655. Of this amount, $215,831 was obligated during FY 2001. The remaining
projects will be completed and funds expended in FY 2002. Following is a status report
on the major SSHP capital work items that were budgeted:
•   Seal exteriors of Gideon Matthews, Michaelson Manor and Nelson Manor: This
    work has been completed.
•   Replace deteriorating subflooring and floors on vacated units: A total of
    $102,384 was obligated during FY 2001 on this activity.
•   Roof replacements: The roofs at Wildwood Glen and South Park Manor were
    completed. The roofs for Willis House, Blakeley Manor and Nelson Manor have
    been deferred until FY 2002.
•   Fire alarm system replacement: This project has been deferred until FY 2002.
Budgeted FY 2001 Capital Work Items for the Morrison and other Non-Public
Housing or SSHP Facilities vs. Actual Expenditures: SHA owns buildings which are
not part of the Public Housing program or the Seattle Senior Housing Program. The
planned capital improvements during FY 2001 for these buildings totaled $554,710. Of
this amount, $12,627 was obligated during FY 2001. The difference is primarily due to
the fire alarm system replacement at Bayview Tower not beginning in FY 2001.
HOPE VI redevelopment activities: SHA has been awarded Demolition and
Redevelopment HOPE VI grants for four SHA communities. The allocated funding for
these efforts totals $135,925,953. Through FY 2001, a total of $61,652,759 has been
expended. Following is a status report on these efforts.
•   Holly Park: Holly Park was awarded HOPE VI funding in FY 1995 to revitalize this
    distressed community. This effort is being completed in three phases. All rental units
    in phase one were completed and occupied by the end of FY 2000. Ninety-six units
    of rental housing for families in NewHolly phase two were completed during FY
    2001 and are fully occupied. Two nonprofit partners are building a 318-unit Elder
    Village in NewHolly phase two. The elder village consists of the Providence Health
    System’s 80-unit Peter Claver House, which will offer independent living to low-
    income seniors. Retirement Housing Foundation is building the 84-unit Esperanza
    Apartments for independent seniors and the 154-unit Park Place assisted living
    facility; these facilities will serve seniors with a mix of incomes. By the end of FY
    2001, approximately 95 of 148 homes had been sold in NewHolly phase one, 43 of
    them to buyers with incomes less than 80% of median. Construction of the for-sale
    component of NewHolly phase two began in FY 2001. Design development
    activities for phase three began during FY 2001.
•   Roxbury House and Village: Roxbury was awarded a HOPE VI demolition grant in
    FY 1996 and a revitalization grant in FY 1998. The demolition grant was completed
    in FY 2000. The revitalization of Roxbury House, now known as Westwood Heights,
    will be completed by December 2001. A nonprofit partner, Lutheran Alliance to
    Create Housing (LATCH), completed construction and lease up of 45 units of mutual
    housing for families with a mix of incomes in Longfellow and Westwood Courts,


SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                               PAGE 19 of 27
    which are replacement housing for the units demolished in Roxbury Village. Fifteen
    of these units are public housing.
•   Rainier Vista: Rainier Vista was awarded a HOPE VI revitalization grant in FY
    1999. Planning is underway for Rainier Vista’s complete revitalization. During FY
    2001, two significant milestones in the planning process were achieved: the City
    Council adopted required zoning changes; and, SHA and the City of Seattle
    successfully negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement governing replacement
    housing and the City’s involvement in the Rainier Vista revitalization. Relocation
    began in FY 2001 for residents living in phase one of the Rainier Vista
    redevelopment. Two nonprofit partners, Providence Health Systems and Aids
    Housing of Washington/Housing Resources Group, applied for Section 202 and
    Section 811 funding, respectively, to build 100 units of housing for low-income
    seniors and people with disabilities.
•   High Point: SHA was awarded a HOPE VI revitalization grant for the High Point
    garden community in August 2000. A HOPE VI grant agreement was executed
    during FY 2000. An architect and engineering team was selected with resident input;
    planning and design are well underway. SHA and the Seattle Public Library entered
    into negotiations for sale of 24,000 square feet of SHA property for a new branch.
    SHA initiated discussions with a national supermarket chain to build a new store at
    High Point. The City of Seattle broke ground on the new Southwest Police Precinct.
    Resident relocation education and counseling began in FY 2001. Providence Health
    Systems was selected as a partner to provide low-income elderly housing with
    Section 202 funding.

Federal Capital Funding Expenditures
SHA used funding from federal sources, including HUD’s Comprehensive Grant
Program (CGP), public housing Capital Fund and HOPE VI, over the past fiscal year for
capital improvements in LIPH. To reflect the actual time needed to plan, design, procure
contractors and implement these capital activities, these funds are normally used over a
multi-year period. Please note that these funding sources were not used exclusively for
capital activities. Following is a summary of these sources and the funding obligated
through FY 2001 from each of these allocations:

     Program                  Fund Source                  Budget        Funds Obligated
                                                                         Through FY 2001
Public Housing     FY 1997 CGP                           $12,410,639      $12,410,639
Modernization      FY 1998 CGP                            12,124,419       12,124,419
Funding            FY 1999 HUD Capital Fund               13,484,594       13,484,594
                   FY 2000 HUD Capital Fund               15,208,726       13,210,133
                   FY 2001 HUD Capital Fund               14,897,536        4,613,648
HOPE VI            Holly Park Revitalization Grant        48,116,503       44,904,618
Funding            Roxbury Revitalization Grant           17,020,880       10,011,999
                   Rainier Vista Revitalization Grant     35,000,000        4,090,382
                   High Point Revitalization Grant        35,000,000        1,857,190
                   TOTAL                                $203,263,297     $116,707,622

SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                              PAGE 20 of 27
Section VII: Management Information for Owned and
Managed Units
This Section compares the projected Seattle Housing Authority management performance
during FY 2001 with SHA’s actual performance during this period.

Vacancy Rates
As projected, vacancy rates continued to remain low in FY 2001. The overall vacancy
rate for public housing in FY 2001 was 2.19% as compared to 1.71% in FY 2000. The
vacancy rate for SHA’s four Section 8 New Construction properties was 2.75% for FY
2001. The vacancy rate for SHA’s Seattle Senior Housing Program decreased from
2.97% in FY 2000 to 2.28% for FY 2001.
Community level data on the average vacancy rates for Authority owned properties for
FY 2001 as compared with the average vacancy rates for FY 2000 can be found in
Appendix D.

Rent Collections
SHA collected 98.97% of the public housing rents assessed during FY 2001. This
compares to 98.06% in FY 2000. SHA is continuing its exceptional record of rent
collection performance.

Work Orders
Emergency Work Orders: As projected, SHA was able to respond within 24 hours to
100% of the requests for Emergency Maintenance Work Orders during FY 2001. This
equaled SHA’s exceptional performance in FY 2000.
Regular Maintenance Work Orders: SHA was able to respond within 30 days to 91% of
the requests for Regular Maintenance Work Orders during FY 2000. This compares to
87% during FY 2000. SHA had projected that this response rate would virtually remain
constant, yet significant improvements were seen.

Inspections
SHA currently inspects public housing units as prescribed by HUD public housing rules.
This involves repairing units prior to executing a lease with a resident to ensure that the
unit meets HUD’s Housing Quality Standards. Once a resident occupies a unit, the unit
is inspected annually to ensure that Housing Quality Standards have been maintained.
SHA also inspects building systems to ensure that they are properly functioning.
Emergency items identified are corrected within 24 hours. Minor repairs needing
attention are addressed following their identification. Major extensive repairs are added
to SHA’s Capital Plan and prioritized for future correction subject to funding and the
urgency of other capital needs. As part of the MTW Demonstration Program, SHA is
currently evaluating this system. During FY 2001, the existing public housing and

SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                 PAGE 21 of 27
Section 8 inspection teams were merged into one work group. Economies of scale, cross
training and better coverage of assigned inspections were expected with the implementa-
tion of this plan; however, these benefits did not materialize, and the two teams were
separated at the end of 2001. SHA will explore other possible inspection methods and
protocols to see what improvements are possible.

Security
SHA continued a multifaceted approach to improving the safety and security of residents
and staff. During FY 2001, these activities helped SHA communities maintain their low
incidence of crime.
Through strict applicant screening and resident lease enforcement, with the continued
participation of residents through the organization of block watches, through a continued
collaborative with the Seattle Police Department to pro-actively deal with criminals in
SHA housing, SHA communities continue to become safer.
Specific outcomes over the past year included the following:
•   23 households were evicted for cause from SHA units during FY 2001 as a result of
    lease violations other than non-payment of rent, while another 12 households
    voluntary left SHA housing under threat of eviction for cause. The decline from last
    year’s number of evictions (55) is likely due to several factors. These figures do not
    include Holly Park/NewHolly, which is managed by a private company under con-
    tract, although eviction has seldom been necessary since the redevelopment. HOPE
    VI community and supportive services and relocation activities contribute to positive
    lease enforcement and therefore, a decreased incidence of eviction in all the HOPE VI
    communities. Finally, Seattle has several strong organizations that advocate for
    households under threat of eviction; this advocacy often leads to either settlements
    that keep these households in SHA housing or voluntary moves by the households.
•   Reports of Part I Offences in all of the large SHA family public housing communities
    and senior/young disabled high-rise buildings appear to be declining slightly from FY
    2000 levels, indicating that sustained drug elimination efforts are keeping crime rates
    low. (This analysis compared incidence in calendar year 2000 to a projection for
    calendar year 2001 based on actual incidence figures for January-September.) For
    comparison, incidence of crime was reduced by approximately 16% during FY 2000,
    and 13% in FY 1999 for the large family communities and a representative group of
    seven elderly/young disabled high rises. Part I Offences include murder, rape,
    robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson and non-
    aggravated assault.




SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                PAGE 22 of 27
SECTION VIII: MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FOR
LEASED HOUSING
This Section compares the projected SHA performance targets for administering the
Section 8 Program for fiscal year 2000 with SHA’s actual performance. In addition, this
Section provides a status report on SHA’s efforts to identify and implement Section 8
policy and program changes under MTW.

Leasing Information
As part of SHA’s FY 2000 MTW Annual Plan, projections were made on the percentage
of allocated Section 8 certificates and vouchers that would be under lease by the end of
that fiscal year. Following is a comparison of these projections with the actual lease up
rates. In addition, information is presented on SHA’s management of the existing
Section 8 program in the areas of rent reasonableness, expanding housing opportunities
and in the deconcentration of low-income families.
Section 8 units under lease at the end of FY 2000: SHA projected that it would
maintain at least a 100% utilization of the allocated tenant-based Section 8 certificates/
vouchers under lease as of September 30, 2000. The actual utilization rate was 99.7%,
compared to 98.6% in FY 2000.
Ensuring Rent Reasonableness: Seattle Housing Authority Section 8 Housing
Inspectors inspect each unit prior to the approval to lease. Before approving the unit for
subsidy under the program its rental value is determined by an inspector. The contract
rent is negotiated with the owner in accordance with the inspector’s declaration of Rent
Reasonableness (RR). At no time will the contract rent exceed the current RR figure.
SHA ensures this by conducting a RR assessment for all initial lease-ups or whenever an
owner requests an increase in the contract rent. Each participant file contains a certificate
of RR signed by the Section 8 Housing Inspector. All files are subject to an internal audit
to verify that a RR certificate has been completed.
Expanding Housing Opportunities: Seattle Housing Authority Section 8 Program staff
regularly participate in real-estate workshops and conventions, speak to landlord groups
and write articles for the local apartment association publication as well as a Section 8
newsletter sent to all tenants and owners. We actively market the Section 8 Program and
solicit commitments from landlords to advertise availability of their housing units for
Section 8 participants.
In July 2001, SHA staff conducted a landlord conference attended by approximately 60
new and continuing Section 8 landlords. It offered training in landlord tenant law
(presentations were given both by Legal Services and by counsel to the local apartment
owners association), with break out workshops on housing quality inspections, rent
reasonable determinations, and other topics of interest to landlords.
Deconcentration of low-income families: In early 2002, SHA intends to increase the
Section 8 voucher payment standard to 110% of the Fair Market Rent for most bedroom
sizes, in order to increase Section 8 participants’ ability to rent units outside of high
poverty concentration areas.
SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                  PAGE 23 of 27
Inspection Strategies
SHA currently inspects units and facilities participating in the Section 8 Program as
prescribed by HUD Section 8 rules. This involves inspecting units prior to executing a
housing assistance payment contract with a private property owner to ensure that the unit
meets HUD’s Housing Quality Standards. Inspections often must be repeated when the
initial inspection reveals items that must be corrected prior to lease execution. Once a
Section 8 participant occupies a unit, the unit is inspected annually to ensure that Housing
Quality Standards have been maintained. As part of the MTW Demonstration Program,
SHA is continuing to evaluate this system and exploring other possible inspection
methods and protocols to see if improvements are possible.
Section 8 inspection performance during FY 2000:
•   SHA completed 100% of the annual HQS inspections in FY 2000.
•   SHA completed 100% of the pre-contract HQS inspections in FY 2000.
•   SHA completed 60 Quality Control inspections in FY 2000. This represents the
    requisite sample size based on average units under contract this year. The sample
    represents a cross section of neighborhoods and the work of a cross section of
    inspectors.

Changes to the Section 8 Program
Merger of the Certificate and Voucher Programs: SHA continues to administer two
separate but similar leased housing programs, the Section 8 certificate program and the
Section 8 voucher program. SHA conducted a policy process in 2001 to explore the
merger of both programs into a new Move to Work rental assistance program, but did not
reach consensus on major programmatic changes. In early FY 2002, SHA intends to
increase the payment standard within current HUD guidelines and begin the conversion
of certificates to vouchers on a case by case basis, giving priority to those participants
who will be least rent burdened as a result of the conversion.
Simplifying and streamlining the process to project-base Section 8s: Utilizing MTW
authority, SHA adopted and is utilizing a new project-basing policy that simplifies the
process of converting tenant-based Section 8 assistance to project-based Section 8
assistance. During FY 2001, SHA procured 7 nonprofit partners to project-base 375 units
in 8 projects – some existing and some under construction. SHA also works with the City
of Seattle’s Office of Housing Notice of Funding Availability to project-base Section 8 in
projects funded with City housing levy, HOME or Sound Families funding. 1




1
 Sound Families is a charitable initiative, funded by the Gates foundation, to create transitional housing for
homeless families.

SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                                PAGE 24 of 27
SECTION IX: RESIDENT PROGRAMS
This Section discusses FY 2001 resident programs for public housing residents and
Section 8 participants.

Supportive Services for SHA residents
SHA continued to facilitate the delivery of resident service activities identified in the FY
2001 MTW Annual Plan. The Plan listed numerous services provided by community-
based organizations available to SHA residents throughout the year.
NewHolly Neighborhood Campus: SHA officially opened the NewHolly Neighborhood
Campus in January 2000. SHA partners with more than 17 nonprofit organizations and
public entities to deliver employment, education and family support services to residents.
This facility serves Holly Park and the surrounding neighborhood. The Campus houses
branches of the Seattle Public Library and South Seattle Community College. Since the
its start in 1997, the NewHolly Career Development Center, one of the campus partners,
has achieved 469 job placements with an average wage of $8.86/hour. In addition, 46
residents have purchased homes.
Rainier Vista Jobs Plus Program: During FY 2001, SHA continued implementation of
the Jobs Plus Demonstration Program to test creative methods of assisting residents at
Rainier Vista to get and keep jobs or to improve their employment situation. As of
September 30, Jobs Plus had achieved 260 cumulative job placements with an average
wage of $9.00. Sixty of these placements were employment upgrades resulting in
increased wages and/or promotion. Five Jobs Plus families have purchased homes.
Department of Labor Welfare to Work Grant: SHA continued to administer a
Department of Labor Welfare to Work grant to help chronically unemployed SHA public
housing residents achieve and sustain employment. This program targets Section 8
participants and High Point and Yesler Terrace residents. The Welfare-to-Work grant has
been extended for two years, ending December 2002. To date, SHA’s Welfare-to-Work
program has facilitated 163 job placements, with an average hourly wage of $8.77.
Section 8 Welfare to Work Vouchers: SHA received 700 Welfare to Work Section 8
vouchers in FY 2000 to help qualifying applicants address their housing needs while
attempting to achieve and sustain employment. This program was difficult to launch in
the tight Settle housing market, but with the deployment of significant SHA resources,
these vouches were fully utilized during FY 2001, by the June 30, 2001 deadline.
Addressing the needs of Mixed Populations: The term “mixed population” refers to
serving both seniors and young disabled residents in the same building, which can create
uncomfortable living environments and difficult management situations. Both groups
can require significant amounts of supportive services. The population of SHA’s LIPH
high-rise portfolio is about 35% seniors, 50% young disabled and 15% younger residents
who do not report a disability. Following is an update on the three strategies SHA
identified in the FY 2001 MTW Plan to address this issue:
•   Case Managers: One of the key tools for ensuring that these at-risk populations
    receive the care they need to remain independent is the use of Case Managers who
SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                  PAGE 25 of 27
    help connect residents to services. SHA was able to sustain funding and partnerships
    to continue the case management program during FY 2001. In 2001, SHA planned to
    increase services in 2002 with dedicated mental health and substance abuse case
    managers for public housing high rise residents.
•   Roxbury House Designation: In FY 2000, while the building was undergoing
    HOPE VI revitalization, SHA designated Roxbury House (now known as Westwood
    Heights) as an elderly/near elderly building. As Westwood Heights leases up in early
    2002, several services addressing the needs of elderly residents will be added,
    including a congregate meal program, senior-oriented computer lab and visiting
    nurses; service provision will be managed by nonprofit partners. SHA has not yet
    begun the process to designate additional public housing high-rise buildings as
    senior-only facilities, pending evaluation of the designation of Westwood Heights.
•   Targeting of specific services: This activity will start when a building designation
    plan is developed in coming years.
Further exploration and possible implementation of partnership opportunities with
the Seattle Jobs Initiative (SJI): The City of Seattle established SJI to respond to the
impacts of Welfare Reform. SHA’s goal is to ensure that City and SHA programs are
effectively coordinated. With the flexibility provided through MTW, Seattle Jobs
Initiative contracted with SHA to recruit SHA residents for SJI training programs. Few
residents actually enrolled in training program because most residents did not meet the
SJI eligibility criteria. SHA and SJI will continue to work together. SHA anticipates that
SJI will develop new strategies to target these populations, particularly to ensure more
limited English speaking residents are able to benefit from SJI training.
Effectively communicating with non-English speaking residents:
•   SHA continued to contract with two non-profit agencies, Horn of Africa Services and
    International District Housing Alliance to provide outreach and interpretation services
    to East African and SE Asian residents living in Rainier Vista, High Point and Yesler
    Terrace. These agencies provided services to over 350 residents.
•   PorchLight conducts language-specific application workshops for new applicants and
    provides interpreters for applicants and participants who need them for scheduled
    interviews, orientations and meetings.
•   A union-approved employee interpreter program has enabled employees with
    language skills to assist in ad hoc translation as needed.
•   Community & Supportive Services staff for SHA’s four HOPE VI sites continue to
    coordinate translation & interpretation for non-English speaking residents. In
    addition, resident outreach specialists offer language appropriate outreach informa-
    tion for residents about the redevelopment project and services available to them.
Special Resident Programs: SHA continues to support the Special Technology Access
Resource (STAR) Center with both financial and technical support. An average of 62
patrons have visited the STAR center each month, and a pool of 13 volunteers provide an
average of 158 hours per month to assist patrons.




SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                                PAGE 26 of 27
SECTION X: OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED BY HUD
This Section provides documentation to HUD that the Seattle Housing Authority
Commission has approved this FY 2000 MTW Annual Report. Also included in this
Section is a copy of the most recently completed A-133 Audit for SHA. Attached
therefore are the following items:
•   Board Resolution adopting this MTW Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2000.

•   Audit Report from the Washington State Auditor’s Office, dated April 20, 2001.




SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT                             PAGE 27 of 27
APPENDICES




SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY FY 2001 MTW REPORT
Appendix A: Data on SHA Households and Applicants
This Appendix provides specific data on changes in the number and characteristics of
households served by the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) and the number and
characteristics of those on SHA’s waiting lists over the past fiscal year. A summary and
a discussion of this data can be found in Section I of the FY 2000 MTW Annual Report.

Existing SHA Households

Comparison of Racial Distributions

Low Income Public Housing Racial Distribution: Head Of Household* as of 9/30/2001
                                                                                              ASIAN &
                                                                           NATIVE             PACIFIC
                          DEVELOPMENT               WHITE          BLACK AMERICAN           ISLANDER       TOTAL
                Garden Communities**                  236            661             47           710   1,654
                          Townhouses                   18             34              2            18      72
                        Scattered Sites               185            359             17           160     721
               High-Rise Developments               1,747            616             58           368   2,789
                    LIPH Totals                     2,186          1,670            124         1,256   5,236
Actual Ratio of Race to Total                     41.75%         31.89%          2.37%        23.99% 100.00%
FY 2001 Projection Totals                           2,319          1,729            137         1,477   5,662
Projected Ratio of Race to Total                  40.96%         30.54%          2.42%        26.09% 100.00%
% Change in Projected Totals                      -5.74%         -3.41%         -9.49%       -14.96% -7.52%
Difference in Projected Ratios                     0.79%          1.36%         -0.05%        -2.10%
* Hispanic households included in their claimed race, e.g. white, black etc.
** Excludes six NewHolly Hispanic households whose race is unknown.



Section 8 Programs Racial Distribution: Head Of Household* as of 9/30/2001
                                                                                            ASIAN &
                                                                         NATIVE             PACIFIC
                                 PROGRAM           WHITE         BLACK AMERICAN           ISLANDER         TOTAL
        Tenant-based Section 8**   1,682  2,098                                     89         505          4,374
     S8 NEW CONSTRUCTION             122     32                                      4          10            168
 SHA-Managed Section 8 Totals      1,804  2,130                                     93         515          4,542
   Actual Ratio of Race to Total 39.72% 46.90%                                  2.05%      11.34%        100.00%
  FY 2001 Projection Totals***     1,353  1,636                                     77         481          3,547
Projected Ratio of Race to Total 38.14% 46.12%                                  2.17%      13.56%        100.00%
  % Change in Projected Totals 33.33% 30.20%                                   20.78%       7.07%         28.05%
  Difference in Projected Ratios 1.57% 0.77%                                   -0.12%      -2.22%
* Hispanic households included in their claimed race, e.g. white, black etc.
** Excludes port outs and includes port ins.
*** Data excludes 241 participants whose race is not available




FY 2000 MTW ANNUAL REPORT                            APPENDIX A                                       PAGE A-1
SSHP Racial Distribution: Head Of Household* as of 9/30/2001
            PROGRAM TYPE                              NATIVE                                           ASIAN &
                                                                            AMERICAN                   PACIFIC
                                                  WHITE          BLACK                               ISLANDER     TOTAL
                    SSHP Totals       717                          115               11                   102     945
    Actual Ratio of Race to Total 75.87%                       12.17%            1.16%                10.79% 100.00%
       FY 2001 Projection Totals      716                          112               11                   101     940
 Projected Ratio of Race to Total 76.17%                       11.91%            1.17%                10.74% 100.00%
   % Change in Projected Totals 0.14%                           2.68%            0.00%                 0.99% 0.53%
   Difference in Projected Ratios -0.30%                        0.25%           -0.01%                 0.05%
* Hispanic households included in their claimed race, e.g. white, black etc. Excludes the Morrison


Comparison of Incomes to Median Income Levels

Published 2001 Median Incomes Levels for the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett Area
Family Size                 30% Median         50% Median        80% Median
Single Individual                $15,150             $25,250           $36,750
Family of Two                    $17,350             $28,900           $42,000
Family of Three                  $19,500             $32,500           $47,250
Family of Four                   $21,650             $36,100           $52,500
Family of Five                   $23,400             $39,000           $56,700
Family of Six                    $25,150             $41,900           $60,900

Income Distribution of Households’ Annual Income, as of 9/30/01.*
                                                            BETWEEN     BETWEEN
                                               BELOW 30% 30% AND 50% 50% AND 80%                       OVER 80%
                                                  MEDIAN     MEDIAN      MEDIAN                         MEDIAN
                                PROGRAM           INCOME     INCOME      INCOME                         INCOME     TOTAL
    Low Income Public Housing                        4,612              550                100               18   5,280
         Section 8 Tenant-Based                      3,677              591                111               10   4,389
     Section 8 New Construction                        147               16                  1                1     165
                          SSHP                         808              125                 13                3     949
                         Totals                      9,244            1,282                225               32 10,783
Actual Ratio of Income Group                       85.73%           11.89%              2.09%            0.30% 100.00%
to Total
FY 2001 Projected Totals                             9,600             1,409               210                15 11,349
Projected Ratio of Income                          84.59%            12.42%             1.85%             0.13% 100.00%
Group to Total
% Change in Projected Totals                       -3.71%            -9.01%             7.14%          113.33% -4.99%
Difference in Projected Ratios                      1.14%            -0.53%             0.24%            0.16%
*excludes Section 8 mod rehab




FY 2000 MTW ANNUAL REPORT                           APPENDIX A                                             PAGE A-2
Comparison of Resident Age Groups Distributions

Low Income Public Housing Population [Minors, Adults & Elderly] as of 9/30/2001
                                                                  NON-
                                                               ELDERLY    ELDERLY       TOTAL    ELDERLY
                         DEVELOPMENT           MINORS           ADULTS     ADULTS INDIVIDUALS         >70
                Garden Communities*
                                  2,018                           1,929        436       4,383       186
                         Townhouses 190                             126          3         319         2
                       Scattered Sites
                                  1,136                           1,121         80       2,337        29
              High-Rise Developments  2                           1,933      1,028       2,963       640
                    LIPH Totals   3,346                           5,109      1,547      10,002       857
Actual Ratio of Age to Total    33.45%                          51.08%     15.47%     100.00%     8.57%
FY 2001 Projection Totals**       4,008                           5,549      1,589      11,146
Projected Ratio of Age to Total 35.96%                          49.78%     14.26%     100.00%
% Change in Projected Totals -16.52%                            -7.93%     -2.64%     -10.26%
Difference in Projected Ratios  -2.51%                           1.30%      1.21%
*Elderly >70 years old not available for NewHolly/Holly Park


Section 8 Population [minors, adults & elderly] as of 9/30/2001
                                                                  NON-
                                                               ELDERLY    ELDERLY       TOTAL    ELDERLY
                               PROGRAM MINORS                   ADULTS     ADULTS INDIVIDUALS         >70
                Section 8 Tenant-based         5,218              4,819        950     10,987        576
      Section 8 New Construction                   0                121         53        174         35
                 Section 8 Totals              5,218              4,940      1,003     11,161        611
Actual Ratio of Age to Total                 46.75%             44.26%      8.99%    100.00%      5.47%
FY 2001 Projection Totals*****                 4,008              5,549      1,589     11,146
Projected Ratio of Age to Total              35.96%             49.78%     14.26%    100.00%
% Change in Projected Totals                 30.19%            -10.97%    -36.88%      0.13%
Difference in Projected Ratios               10.79%             -5.52%     -5.27%

SSHP Population [minors, adults & elderly] as of 9/30/2001
                                                                  NON-
                                                               ELDERLY    ELDERLY       TOTAL    ELDERLY
                                               MINORS           ADULTS     ADULTS INDIVIDUALS         >70
                  SSHP Totals*                      0               195       884       1,079        695
Actual Ratio of Age to Total                    0.00%           18.07%    81.93%     100.00%     64.41%
FY 2001 Projection Totals                           0               333       910       1,243
Projected Ratio of Age to Total                 0.00%           26.79%    73.21%     100.00%
% Change in Projected Totals                    0.00%          -41.44%    -2.86%     -44.09%
Difference in Projected Ratios                  0.00%           -8.72%     8.72%
*Excludes the Morrison




FY 2000 MTW ANNUAL REPORT                         APPENDIX A                                PAGE A-3
Comparison of Disabled Population Distributions

Low Income Public Housing Disabled Population as of 9/30/2001
                                                                      NONELDERLY       TOTAL
                      DEVELOPMENT DISABLED ELDERLY                       DISABLED   DISABLED       TOTAL
                                     MINOR DISABLED                         ADULT POPULATION INDIVIDUALS
              Garden Communities                   9            261           432        702           4,383
                      Townhouses                   1              0            13         14             319
                    Scattered Sites                7             43           155        205           2,337
           High-Rise Developments                  1            566         1,559      2,126           2,963
                  LIPH Totals                     18            870         2,159      3,047          10,002
Actual Ratio of Disabled                      0.18%          8.70%        21.59%     30.46%         100.00%
Population to Total
FY 2001 Projected Totals*                                                              3,252          11,102
Projected Ratio of Disabled                                                           29.29%        100.00%
Population to Total
% Change in Projection                                                                -6.30%         -9.91%
Totals
Difference in Projected Ratios                                                        1.17%

Section 8 Disabled Population as of 9/30/2001
                                                                      NONELDERLY       TOTAL
                                     DISABLED ELDERLY                    DISABLED   DISABLED       TOTAL
                             PROGRAM    MINOR DISABLED                      ADULT POPULATION INDIVIDUALS
              Tenant-based Section 8             153            546         1,588      2,287          10,987
          S8 New Construction                      0             23           109         132            174
Section 8 PROGRAM Totals*                        153            569         1,697      2,419          11,161
Actual Ratio of Disabled                      1.37%          5.10%        15.20%     21.67%         100.00%
Population To Total
FY 2001 Projected Totals                                                               1,756          11,102
Projected Ratio of Disabled                                                          15.82%         100.00%
Population to Total
% Change in Projection                                                               37.76%           0.53%
Totals
Difference in Projected Ratios                                                        5.86%
*Excludes mod rehab program, port outs. Includes port ins.




FY 2000 MTW ANNUAL REPORT                          APPENDIX A                                   PAGE A-4
SSHP Disabled Population as of 9/30/2001
                                 DISABLED ELDERLY NONELDERLY       TOTAL          TOTAL
                                    MINOR DISABLED   DISABLED   DISABLED    INDIVIDUALS
                                                        ADULT POPULATION
                SSHP Totals*           0     145         169         314           1,079
Actual Ratio of Disabled           0.00% 13.44%      15.66%      29.10%         100.00%
Population To Total
FY 2001 Projected Totals**                                           404           1,079
Projected Ratio of Disabled                                      37.44%         100.00%
Population to Total
% Change in Projection                                          -22.28%           0.00%
Totals
Difference in Projected Ratios                                   -8.34%
*Excludes the Morrison
**Includes the Morrison


Comparison of SHA Households by Bedroom Sizes

Households Served by Program and Bedroom Size
           PROGRAM Year             0-Br 1-Br     2-Br 3-Br 4-Br 5+-Br      Total
                   LIPH FY 2000      196 3,004 1,287      824   211    27   5,549
                   LIPH FY 2001      171 3,000 1,095      772   213    30   5,281
 Section 8 Tenant-based FY 2000      247 1,195 1,132      877   328   106   3,885
 Section 8 Tenant-based FY 2001      235 1,284   1,379 1,013    389   131   4,431
          Section 8 New FY 2000       16    148      0      0     0     0     164
           Construction
          Section 8 New FY 2001       17    148      0      0     0     0     165
           Construction
                  SSHP FY 2000       138    881     89                      1,108
                SSHP** FY 2001         0    864     87                        951
Totals 10/1/2000                     597 5,228 2,508 1,701      539   133 10,706
Totals 10/1/2001                     423 5,296 2,561 1,785      602   161 10,828
Ratio of BR sizes       FY 2000   5.58% 48.83% 23.43% 15.89% 5.03% 1.24% 100.00%
Ratio of BR sizes       FY 2001   3.91% 48.91% 23.65% 16.49% 5.56% 1.49% 100.00%
Change in BR totals                  174    -68    -53    -84   -63   -28    -122
% Change in BR totals           -29.15% 1.30% 2.11% 4.94% 11.69% 21.05% 1.14%
**excludes the Morrison




FY 2000 MTW ANNUAL REPORT             APPENDIX A                           PAGE A-5
Applicants for SHA Housing Opportunities

Comparison of Racial Distributions

Low Income Public Housing Applicants by Race and Bedroom Size* as of 9/30/2001
                                                                            NATIVE ASIAN & PACIFIC
                 UNIT SIZE               WHITE              BLACK         AMERICAN       ISLANDER         TOTAL
              0/1 bedroom                  826                689                  48            235   1,798
                2 bedroom                  559                948                  57            316   1,880
                3 bedroom                  217                370                  20            209     816
                4 bedroom                   30                 89                   3             47     169
                5 bedroom                    8                 19                   1              0      28
         LIPH Total                      1,640              2,115                 129            807   4,691
Actual Ratio of Race                   34.96%             45.09%               2.75%         17.20% 100.00%
to Total
FY 2001 Projection                        1,083              1,588                100           869       3,640
Totals
Projected Ratio of                     29.75%             43.63%                2.75%        23.87% 100.00%
Race to Total
% Change in                            51.43%             33.19%               29.00%        -7.13%      28.87%
Projected Totals
Difference in                            5.21%              1.46%              0.00%         -6.67%
Projected Ratios
* Hispanic households included in their claimed race, e.g. white, black etc.


Section 8 Applicants by Race and Bedroom Size* as of 9/30/2001
                                                                                               ASIAN &
                                                                                   NATIVE      PACIFIC
                                 UNIT SIZE         WHITE           BLACK         AMERICAN    ISLANDER     TOTAL
                              0/1 bedroom
                                   1,677                           1,153                97        327   3,254
                                2 bedroom
                                     663                           1,015                60        353   2,091
                                3 bedroom
                                     292                             449                34        219     994
                                4 bedroom
                                      46                             116                 5         66     233
                                5 bedroom
                                      13                              28                 1          3      45
                 Section 8 Total   2,691                           2,761               197        968   6,617
Actual Ratio of Race to Total    40.67%                          41.73%             2.98%     14.63% 100.00%
FY 2001 Projection Totals          3,659                           3,982               316      1,979   9,936
Projected Ratio of Race to Total 36.83%                          40.08%             3.18%     19.92% 100.00%
% Change in Projected Totals -26.46%                            -30.66%           -37.66%    -51.09% -33.40%
Difference in Projected Ratios    3.84%                           1.65%            -0.20%     -5.29%
* Hispanic households included in their claimed race, e.g. white, black etc.




FY 2000 MTW ANNUAL REPORT                            APPENDIX A                                    PAGE A-6
SSHP Applicants by Race and Bedroom Size* as of 9/30/2001
                                                                        NATIVE ASIAN & PACIFIC
                           UNIT SIZE           WHITE            BLACK AMERICAN       ISLANDER             TOTAL
                        0/1 bedroom              376              105                11            145     637
                          2 bedroom               28               14                 1              4      47
                SSHP Total                       404              119                12            149     684
Actual Ratio of Race to                      59.06%           17.40%             1.75%         21.78% 100.00%
Total
FY 2001 Projection Totals                         569             169                16             180     934
Projected Ratio of Race to                    60.92%          18.09%             1.71%          19.27% 100.00%
Total
% Change in Projected                       -29.00%          -29.59%           -25.00%         -17.22% -26.77%
Totals
Difference in Projected                       -1.86%          -0.70%             0.04%          2.51%
Ratios
* Hispanic households included in their claimed race, e.g. white, black etc.



Comparison of Income Distributions

Number of Applicant Households by Total Average Annual Income Compared to Median
Income Levels as of 9/30/01.*
                                                        BETWEEN    BETWEEN
                                            BELOW 30%    30% AND    50% AND                         OVER 80%
                                               MEDIAN 50% MEDIAN 80% MEDIAN                          MEDIAN
                                    PROGRAM    INCOME     INCOME     INCOME                          INCOME     TOTAL
      Low Income Public Housing:                           4,556                  427          29         18   5,030
            Section 8 Tenant-Based                         5,506                  567          60         24   6,157
       Section 8 New Construction                            565                   33           2          1     601
   Seattle Senior Housing Program                            892                  123          27          3   1,045
                    Waitlist Totals:                      11,519                1,150         118         46 12,833
Actual Ratio of Income Group to                          89.76%                8.96%       0.92%      0.36% 100.00%
Total
FY 2001 Projected Totals                                  13,582                1,163         159         26 14,930
Projected Ratio of Income Group                          90.97%                7.79%       1.06%      0.17% 100.00%
to Total
% Change in Projected Totals                           -15.19%             -1.12%         -25.79%    76.92% -14.05%
Difference in Projected Ratios                          -1.21%              1.17%          -0.15%     0.18%
*Applicant households may appear on more than one wait list.




FY 2000 MTW ANNUAL REPORT                            APPENDIX A                                      PAGE A-7
Appendix B: Consolidated Financial Statement


Following is SHA’s Consolidated Financial Statement for FY 2001. Please note that
these figures represent unaudited fiscal year end financial data. The audited Consolidated
Financial Statement will be available in February 2002.




FY 2000 MTW ANNUAL REPORT              APPENDIX B                                PAGE B-1
Appendix C: Data on SHA Capital Activities
This Appendix provides specific data on SHA capital activities during FY 2001. A
summary and a discussion of this data can be found in Section VI of the FY 2001 MTW
Annual Report.

Budgeted FY 2001 Public Housing Capital Work Items vs. Actual Expenditures:
Following is a comparison of the FY 2001 budgeted public housing capital work items
with the actual capital expenditures in FY 2001. Please note that some of the original FY
2001 Capital Budget work items have been revised. The total budget for capital
activities, however, has not changed. The revised budget line items are, therefore, also
noted in the following table:
COMMUNITY                                                          ORIGINAL     REVISED       FUNDS             STATUS
NUMBER & NAME                       WORK ITEMS                      BUDGET      BUDGET      OBLIGATED

1-001 Yesler Terrace Replace asphalt walkways, Patch pot             $210,700    $150,700     $18,911 Walkways and parking lots
                     holes, seal and stripe 2 parking lots,                                           complete. Other work has
                     Replace garbage cans, Paint siding in                                            not yet begun.
                     Sections Y and Z, Repair broken &
                     damaged fencing

1-008 High Point      Replace 2 water main shut off valves,           $30,850    $236,943        $144 Community has received a
                      Appliance replacement, Repair broken                                            HOPE VI grant. Work
                      curbs & sidewalks                                                               will be coordinated with
                                                                                                      redevelopment planning.
1-009 Jefferson       Add visitor parking spaces to parking lot,        $450        $450         $144 Work is in progress.
Terrace               Repair water fountain

1-010 Center Park     Replace cook tops, Replace angle stops in      $431,025    $431,025      $3,086 Some equipment received.
                      units, Renovate the elevator & controls,                                        Work has not yet begun.
                      Replace appliances, Seal water leaks in
                      basement and stairwell, Install automatic
                      ADA doors in the office, Upgrade ranges
                      in 2BR’s to full size

1-011 Stewart Manor Reline hot water boiler, Install security         $10,808     $10,808      $2,914 Security installation is
                    camera, Replace appliances, Repair all                                            complete. Other work has
                    damaged curbs and sidewalks                                                       not yet begun.

1-012 Cal-Mor Circle Install security camera, Reline Hot water        $14,808     $14,808     $10,296 Security installation and
                     boiler, Replace the pressure reducing                                            walkways completed.
                     valve, Replace appliances, Repair all                                            Boiler work in progress.
                     damaged curbs and sidewalks

1-013 Olive Ridge     Replace flooring & paint restrooms,             $23,567     $23,567      $3,874 Security installation is
                      Replace common area flooring, install                                           complete. Other work has
                      security camera, Renovate office area,                                          not yet begun.
                      Replace slats in fence

1-014 Center West     Replace side exterior doors, Replace patio       $6,060      $6,060      $6,063 Patio surface replaced.
                      slab                                                                            Other work has not yet
                                                                                                      begun.
1-015 Bell Tower      Waterproof/repaint West side of building,      $499,408    $349,408      $3,257 Exterior painting in
                      Replace damaged walkways, Renovate                                              progress. Other work has
                      the elevator & controls, Paint common                                           not yet begun.
                      areas, replace heaters & ceiling tiles,
                      Replace penthouse door and install cover




FY 2001 MTW ANNUAL REPORT                              APPENDIX C                                               PAGE C- 1
COMMUNITY                                                          ORIGINAL     REVISED       FUNDS              STATUS
NUMBER & NAME                       WORK ITEMS                      BUDGET      BUDGET      OBLIGATED

1-016 Harvard Court Renovate the elevator & controls, Floor          $393,236    $393,235      $8,955 Common area floor, ceiling
                    tile replacement, Replace ceiling tile in                                         tile and wall finishes in
                    common areas, Carpet the office, Paint                                            progress. Other work has
                    hallways and common areas, Replace                                                not yet begun.
                    appliances, Upgrade lighting in units,
                    community room & offices

1-017 Denny Terrace Paint halls & common areas, Carpet                $86,475     $86,475      $3,540 Common area floor, ceiling
                    library room, Replace main floor tile,                                            tile and wall finishes in
                    Replace appliances                                                                progress. Other work has
                                                                                                      not yet begun.
1-020 Ballard House Replace broken sections of sidewalk &             $79,231     $79,231      $9,795 Patio surface replaced.
                    asphalt on South & North sides, Replace                                           Other work has not yet
                    patio slab & furniture, Install cover over                                        begun.
                    the penthouse door, Waterproof the
                    penthouse & west wall, Replace the wood
                    fence, Replace common area ceiling tile,
                    Reseal driveway, Replace common area
                    drapes, Replace appliances

1-022 Greenlake       Replace site lights, Replace flooring in        $15,184     $81,184     $11,291 Site lights and common
Plaza                 restrooms, Replace appliances, Replace                                          area ceiling tiles completed.
                      ceiling tile in halls &community room,                                          Other work has not yet
                      Replace common area drapes, Paint the                                           begun.
                      laundry & trash room

1-F24 Jackson Park    Replace the fence, Install smoke detectors      $56,325     $56,325          $0 Work has not yet begun.
Village               on the ground floors, Replace front doors,
                      Replace bathroom tub surrounds

1-025 Lake City       Supplemental funding for community             $700,000    $700,000          $0 Redevelopment has not yet
House                 redevelopment                                                                   begun.

1-026 Cedarvale       Replace broken walkways, Renovate the          $486,065    $486,065          $0 Work has not yet begun.
House                 elevator & controls, Replace flooring in
                      common areas, Repair the stairwell doors

1-F26 Cedarvale       Replace broken walkways, Replace                $43,218     $43,218      $4,662 Walkways have been
Village               bathroom tub surrounds, Replace entry                                           replaced. Other work has
                      doors, Install smoke detectors on the                                           not yet begun.
                      ground floor

1-027 Capitol Park    Replace common area flooring, Replace           $55,466     $55,466      $6,674 Security installation is
                      ceiling tile in the common areas, Replace                                       complete. Other work has
                      appliances, Install security cameras                                            not yet begun.

1-028 Lictonwood      Repair deteriorated brick exterior and         $659,994    $659,994          $0 Work has not yet begun.
                      waterproof building, Repair retaining
                      walls, Install hot water hose bib for
                      dumpsters, Replace appliances, Replace
                      common area drapes

1-029 Queen Anne      Upgrade existing mailboxes and drop box          $5,300      $5,300          $0 Work has not yet begun.
Heights               to standard code

1-030 Barton Place    Replace walkways, Line boiler tank,             $42,800     $42,800          $0 Work has not yet begun.
                      Replace appliances

1-031 Tri-Court       Renovate the elevator & controls, Reseal       $164,779    $128,779      $4,252 Parking lot resurfaced.
                      & stripe the driveway, Recondition site                                         Other work has yet begun.
                      drainage and catch basins to eliminate
                      water damage to building, Replace the
                      fence, Replace side entry doors, Replace
                      drapes, Replace appliances




FY 2001 MTW ANNUAL REPORT                              APPENDIX C                                               PAGE C- 2
COMMUNITY                                                           ORIGINAL     REVISED        FUNDS              STATUS
NUMBER & NAME                       WORK ITEMS                       BUDGET      BUDGET       OBLIGATED

1-032 Olympic West Replace side exterior doors, Upgrade                 $9,380      $9,380            $0 Work has not yet begun.
                   mailboxes & drop box

1-033 Beacon Tower Repair the hot water heater, Carpet                 $25,000      25,000            $0 Work has not yet begun.
                   community room

1-034 University West Renovate the elevator & controls, Replace       $337,200    $337,200            $0 Work has not yet begun.
                      ceiling tile on top floor, Replace
                      appliances

1-035 University      Renovate the elevator & controls, Repair        $290,178    $290,178          $120 Work has not yet begun.
House                 deteriorated wood doors & frames,
                      Appliance replacement

1-036 International   Renovate the elevator & controls, Repair        $309,300    $309,300            $0 Work has not yet begun.
Terrace               the hot water heater

1-040 West Town       Replace common area carpets, Upgrade             $33,160     $33,292          $324 Stairwell lighting project
View                  common stairwell lighting                                                          has begun. Other work has
                                                                                                         yet begun.
1-041 Holly Court     Re-stripe and add signage to parking lots         $3,500      $3,500          $500 Work has begun on
                      in front of office & buildings 3, 6 & 7                                            parking lots.

1-046 Ross Manor      Waterproof brick exterior, Replace              $114,600     114,600            $0 Work has not yet begun.
                      common area flooring, Replace
                      community room windows, Repair brick
                      work in the stairwells, Replace common
                      area drapes

Scattered Sites       Install security lighting 1 unit, Repair &    $1,349,739   $1,351,239     $161,253 Exterior painting and site
                      install fencing 25 units, Repair foundation                                        landscaping projects in
                      of 3 units, Repair the paved surfaces 36                                           process. Other work has
                      units, Repair the retaining walls 15 units,                                        not yet begun.
                      Repair, replace & repaint the exteriors of
                      57 units, Repair/replace all deteriorated
                      landscaping 83 units, Replace countertops
                      in 25 units, Replace flooring 91 units,
                      Replace the cabinets 1 unit, Replace the
                      carport 1 unit, Replace the decks on 6
                      units, Replace downspouts & gutters 14
                      units, Replace the wiring feeding the
                      electric heaters in 3 units, Replace
                      windows & doors with energy efficient 50
                      units, Re-roof building 13 units

PHA Wide              CDBG Matching Funds For Work In                 $125,000    $125,000            $0 Work has not yet begun.
                      Non-Dwelling Locations

PHA Wide              PHA Wide Interior Curb Appeal                   $622,256    $622,256            $0 Work has not yet begun.
                      Additional Funds For Program
                      Implementation & Needs

PHA Wide              Comprehensive Modernization Of 10               $500,000    $500,000            $0 Work has not yet begun.
                      Units

PHA Wide              Construction Contingency Funds                  $530,480    $318,173          $0 Project contingency funds
                                                                                                       have not yet been needed.
PHA Wide              A&E Fees & Costs                                $300,000    $336,500          $0 A&E funds not been
                                                                                                       required yet.
PHA Wide              Capital Program Salaries, Benefits,           $1,585,905   $1,618,773 $1,346,689 Funds have been accessed
                      Sundry Administrative Fees, WBE/MBE                                              and on going with the life
                      Contractor Program                                                               of the projects.

PHA Wide              Comp Mod Tools & Equipment                       $75,000    $142,899          $205 Most purchases have not
                                                                                                         yet been made.




FY 2001 MTW ANNUAL REPORT                               APPENDIX C                                                 PAGE C- 3
COMMUNITY                                                        ORIGINAL     REVISED        FUNDS              STATUS
NUMBER & NAME                       WORK ITEMS                    BUDGET      BUDGET       OBLIGATED

PHA Wide              Hazardous Materials & Vacant Unit Off      $1,400,000   $1,196,835      $21,863 Removed asbestos
                      Line Program                                                                    materials. Funds are being
                                                                                                      distributed to the specific
                                                                                                      site when work is
                                                                                                      completed.
PHA Wide              Capital Program Overhead Costs               $988,614   $1,269,095     $783,892 Associated costs of the
                                                                                                      program.
PHA Wide              Capital program funds to provide and          $75,000     $45,000            $0 Work has not yet begun.
                      improve ADA accessibility at all sites




Budgeted FY 2001 SSHP Capital Work Items vs. Actual Expenditures: Following is
a comparison of the FY 2001 budgeted SSHP capital work items with the actual capital
expenditures in FY 2001. Please note that some of the original FY 2001 Capital Budget
work items and amounts have been revised. Increases to the total budget for capital
activities have been reallocated from the SSHP capital reserve fund. The revised budget
line items are noted in the following table:

COMMUNITY                                                         ORIGINAL      REVISED    FUNDS
NUMBER & NAME                       WORK ITEMS                     BUDGET       BUDGET OBLIGATED                 STATUS

1-301 Wildwood Glen Replace appliances, Replace partial             $15,500       $15,500        $6,676Roof replacement is
                    roof SW side, Replace all garden                                                   complete. Window
                    windows with new windows                                                           replacement is in process.

1-302 South Park       Re-roof building, Replace roof hatch,        $50,000       $50,000        $3,558Roof work is in process.
Manor                  Install exterior light on NW corner of
                       building, Replace appliances

1-303 Columbia Place Install ADA access for main & patio            $73,792       $73,792          $755Appliances have been
                     doors, Install security lighting, Replace                                         replaced. Other work has
                     hot water tanks, Replace appliances,                                              not yet begun.
                     Replace fence on east side of property,
                     Replace common area carpeting, Patch
                     roof,

1-304 Pleasant Valley Flooring replacement, Improve                 $16,484       $16,484        $1,758Floor work has begun.
Plaza                 drainage at SE corner of lawn, Replace                                           Other work has not yet
                      appliances                                                                       begun.

1-305 Fremont Place    Replace common area stationary               $73,443       $73,443        $2,794Floors have been replaced.
                       windows w/sliders floors 2,3&4,                                                 Other work has not yet
                       Replace fire alarm system, Flooring                                             begun.
                       replacement, Repair balconies, Replace
                       hot water tanks, Replace appliances

1-306 Willis House     Replace appliances, Replace carpet in        $55,411       $55,411        $1,923Windows have been
                       common areas, Flooring replacement,                                             replaced. Other work has
                       Re-coat the roof, Replace windows                                               not yet begun.
                       with blown seals, Hot water tank
                       replacement

1-307 Blakeley Manor Install magnetic door closure for              $82,732       $82,732        $7,959Parking lot and floor
                     community & laundry room, Replace                                                 replacement is complete.
                     appliances, Replace hot water tanks,                                              Other work has not yet
                     Flooring replacement, Replace the                                                 begun.
                     carpet in the units, Replace smoke
                     detectors in common areas, Re-seal &
                     re-stripe parking lot, Re-coat the roof



FY 2001 MTW ANNUAL REPORT                              APPENDIX C                                              PAGE C- 4
COMMUNITY                                                        ORIGINAL     REVISED    FUNDS
NUMBER & NAME                       WORK ITEMS                    BUDGET      BUDGET OBLIGATED           STATUS

1-308 Bitter Lake      Replace common area carpeting, Clean       $31,127     $31,127    $4,471Appliance and floor
Manor                  common area blinds, Install blind over                                  replacement is complete.
                       sky light, Install light and fan in                                     Other work has not yet
                       community room, Replace hot water                                       begun.
                       tanks, Replace appliances, Flooring
                       replacement

1-309 Pinehurst Court Install ventilation fan in laundry room,    $20,344     $20,344   $11,053Floor work is complete.
                      Repair the irrigation system, Replace                                    Other work has not yet
                      the flooring in the kitchen, Flooring                                    begun.
                      replacement

1-311 Island View      Replace appliances                            $2,400    $2,400     $181Work is in progress.

1-312 Reunion House    Replace appliances, Replace hot water         $7,740    $7,740    $2,476Common areas have been
                       tanks, Replace some sprinkler heads on                                  painted. Other work has
                       irrigation system, Paint the common                                     not yet begun.
                       areas

1-313 Primeau Place    Replace appliances, Replace hot water         $7,860    $7,860    $1,118Common areas have been
                       tanks, Replace common area carpet,                                      painted. Other work has
                       Paint the common areas                                                  not yet begun.

1-314 Michaelson       Replace appliances, Replace hot water      $24,415     $24,415   $12,467Exterior paint, appliance
Manor                  tanks, Flooring replacement, Paint                                      and floor work is complete.
                       front wall, Repair siding & paint
                       exterior

1-315 Fort Lawton      Replace appliances, Flooring                  $7,293    $7,293    $3,454Floor work is complete.
Place                  replacement

1-316 Schwabacher      Replace appliances, Replace hot water      $13,958     $13,958   $14,550Work is complete.
House                  tanks, Replace stationary windows
                       with operable units, Flooring
                       replacement

1-317 Phinney Terrace Replace appliances, Replace hot water       $23,736     $23,736   $20,151Work is complete.
                      tanks, Flooring replacement, Replace
                      community room & 2nd floor carpet,
                      Paint common areas

1-318 Olmstead Manor Replace appliances, Replace hot water        $47,310     $47,310    $3,080Parking lot work is
                     tanks, Replace broken window seals,                                       complete. Other work has
                     Flooring replacement, Upgrade site                                        not yet begun.
                     signage, Replace carpet in units, Re-
                     seal & re-stripe parking lot

1-319 Nelson Manor     Replace appliances, Flooring               $44,844     $44,844    $2,839Appliances and common
                       replacement, Replace community                                          area painting is complete.
                       room, 1st floor and elevator carpeting,                                 Other work has not yet
                       Re-coat the roof, Repair sidewalk,                                      begun.
                       Repair exterior siding, Paint exterior,
                       Paint the common areas

1-320 Sunrise Manor    Replace appliances, Replace hot water      $18,540     $18,540   $14,945Work is complete.
                       tanks, Flooring replacement, Replace
                       common area carpeting, Clean
                       common area blinds, Paint common
                       areas

1-321 Carroll Terrace Flooring replacement, Replace               $49,252     $49,252    $1,821Flooring work is in
                      appliances, Replace hot water tanks                                      progress. Other work has
                                                                                               not yet begun.




FY 2001 MTW ANNUAL REPORT                               APPENDIX C                                     PAGE C- 5
COMMUNITY                                                        ORIGINAL      REVISED    FUNDS
NUMBER & NAME                       WORK ITEMS                    BUDGET       BUDGET OBLIGATED                 STATUS

1-323 Gideon-Mathews Paint exterior, Replace the common           $105,489      $87,489        $51,303Floors and exterior paint
Gardens              area carpet, Replace deteriorated                                                work is complete. Other
                     landscape, Replace appliances, Replace                                           work has not yet begun.
                     hot water tanks, Install security
                     lighting on parking lot

1-324 Daybreak Homes                                                   $0              $0        $269Appliance replacement
                                                                                                      completed.
1-325 Keystone         Flooring replacement hallway phase 2        $15,000      $15,000        $12,921Floor replacement is
                                                                                                      complete.
1-326 Leschi House     Replace appliances, Replace hot water       $13,805      $31,805        $33,309Work is complete.
                       tanks, Replace carpet in community
                       room, Install alarms on exit doors,
                       Replace carpet in units

SSHP WIDE              Implementation and interior curb           $120,180     $120,180             $0Work has not yet begun.
                       appeal program




Budgeted FY 2001 Morrison and Non-Public Housing Capital Work Items vs.
Actual Expenditures: Following is a comparison of the FY 2001 budgeted Morrison and
non-public housing capital work items with the actual capital expenditures in FY 2001.

                       SECTION 8 PROGRAM

Community                                                       ORIGINAL     REVISED          FUNDS             STATUS
Number & Name          Summary of work activities                BUDGET      BUDGET         OBLIGATED

1-126 Argonaut House Replace the fire alarm system                  $8,700       $8,700             $0Work has not yet begun.

1-127 Bayview Tower Replace fire alarm system, Replace            $446,100     $446,100         $3,647Walkway work is complete.
                    windows with energy efficient units,                                              Other work has not yet
                    Repair walkways, Re-roof building,                                                begun.
                    Paint community room, Replace
                    heaters in community room, Replace
                    hall carpets, Replace ceiling tile in
                    community room, Repaint lobby,
                    Replace appliances,

1-129 Market house     Replace appliances, Replace carpet in       $60,850      $60,850             $0Work has not yet begun.
                       halls, Replace floor tile in community
                       room, Paint community room, Paint
                       hallways, Exterior assessment study


1-375 The Morrison     Replace the garbage chute doors,            $29,960      $29,960             $0Property was sold.
                       Replace the hall carpets, Repaint the
                       hall walls, Install security cameras


1-201                  Paint the exterior of the building,          $9,100       $9,100         $8,980Work completed
                       Replace the fence along the property
                       line




FY 2001 MTW ANNUAL REPORT                              APPENDIX C                                             PAGE C- 6
Appendix D: Data on SHA Vacancy Rates
This Appendix provides specific data on the SHA property vacancy rates over the past
fiscal year and compares this data with FY 1999 vacancy rates. Please note that data on
vacancy rates for some public housing communities undergoing redevelopment are not
provided. A summary and a discussion of this data can be found in Section VII of the FY
2001 MTW Annual Report.

Comparison of the FY 2000 and FY 2001 Vacancy Rates

Public Housing Program Properties
      Development           Units       FY 2000          FY 2001
                                     Vacancy Rates    Vacancy Rates
Ballard House                    79     1.36%         0.32%
Barton Place                     90     2.21%         2.89%
Beacon Tower                    108     1.62%         0.31%
Bell Tower                      119     2.20%         2.86%
Cal-Mor Circle                   74     1.52%         4.51%
Capitol Park                    125     0.87%         0.76%
Cedarvale House                 118     0.79%         1.07%
Cedarvale Village                24     2.51%         1.55%
Center Park                     136     1.05%         3.11%
Center West                      91     2.84%         1.16%
Denny Terrace                   221     1.38%         1.54%
Green Lake Plaza                130     0.65%         0.74%
Harvard Court                    80     1.44%         2.31%
High Point                      747     2.31%         2.62%
Holly Court                      97     1.37%         2.26%
Holly Park                      486 Redevelopment Redevelopment
International Terrace           100     1.21%         1.89%
Jackson Park House               71     1.02%         1.33%
Jackson Park Village             41     2.60%         1.90%
Jefferson Terrace               299     2.14%         3.04%
Lake City House                 115     1.31%         2.39%
Lictonwood                       80     0.58%         0.70%
Olive Ridge                     106     1.31%         1.73%
Olympic West                     75     1.23%         1.07%
Queen Anne Heights               52     0.35%         1.05%
Rainier Vista                   496     0.34%         0.74%
Ross Manor                      100     1.97%         2.54%
Roxbury House                   150 Redevelopment Redevelopment
Roxbury Village                  60 Redevelopment Redevelopment
Scattered Sites                 782     2.16%         5.92%
Stewart Manor                    74     1.88%         3.58%
Tri Court                        86     1.39%         0.64%
University House                101     0.97%         0.83%

FY 2001 MTW ANNUAL REPORT             APPENDIX D                               PAGE D-1
      Development           Units            FY 2000              FY 2001
                                          Vacancy Rates        Vacancy Rates
University West                 113          1.15%                0.83%
West Town View                   58          0.56%                0.56%
Yesler Terrace                  582          1.23%                1.45%
Average Vacancy Rate for FY 2001             1.71%                2.19%

Section 8 New Construction Properties managed by SHA
      Development           Units            FY 2000              FY 2001
                                           Vacancy Rate         Vacancy Rate
 Argonaut Housing                     8       0.07%               2.36%
 Bay View Tower                     100       1.27%               2.49%
 Market House                        51       1.78%               4.03%
 Admiral House Apts.                 15       0.00%               0.00%
 Average Vacancy Rate for FY 2001                                 2.75%

Non-HUD funded Seattle Senior Housing Program Properties owned by SHA
    Development     Number of Communities        Total Units       FY 2000        FY 2001
                                                                 Vacancy Rate   Vacancy Rate
All Developments 23 Communities                           993       2.97%         2.28%




FY 2001 MTW ANNUAL REPORT                 APPENDIX D                                     PAGE D-2

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:3/28/2013
language:Unknown
pages:47