Multifamily Housing: Information on Selected Properties Owned by HUD
(Fact Sheet, 04/11/94, GAO/RCED-94-163FS).
The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) inventory of
foreclosed multifamily properties has swollen in the past four years.
HUD acquired this inventory mostly through foreclosures on properties
that had loans insured by its Federal Housing Administration. To help
Congress evaluate the impact of new legislation intended to improve
HUD's ability to dispose of this inventory, GAO collected information on
HUD-owned multifamily properties in Dallas, Texas, and Kansas City,
Missouri. A total of 19 properties were included in GAO's analysis.
This fact sheet discusses (1) the size and vacancy rates of the
properties, the number of units receiving project-based Section 8
assistance, and the distribution of the units by the number of bedrooms;
(2) HUD's estimates of the money needed to rehabilitate the properties;
and (3) the current tenants' income levels and percentage of income
spent on rent.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-94-163FS
TITLE: Multifamily Housing: Information on Selected Properties
Owned by HUD
DATE: 04/11/94
SUBJECT: Property disposal
Public housing
Rental housing
Income statistics
Disadvantaged persons
Rent subsidies
Repair costs
Housing repairs
Low income housing
Federal aid for housing
IDENTIFIER: Dallas (TX)
Kansas City (MO)
HUD Property Disposition Program
HUD Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Fact Sheet for the Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Development, Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, House
of Representatives
April 1994
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING - INFORMATION
ON SELECTED PROPERTIES OWNED BY
HUD
GAO/RCED-94-163FS
HUD-Owned Multifamily Properties
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
GAO - General Accounting Office
HUD - Department of Housing and Urban Development
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-256759
April 11, 1994
The Honorable Henry B. Gonzalez
Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing
and Community Development
Committee on Banking, Finance
and Urban Affairs
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As you know, the size of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's (HUD) inventory of foreclosed multifamily properties
(HUD-owned properties) has increased substantially in the past 4
years. HUD acquired this inventory mostly through foreclosing on
properties for which the defaulted loans were originally insured by
its Federal Housing Administration. HUD's multifamily property
disposition program was established to sell these properties to new
owners.
Current law requires HUD to preserve some of the units in its
multifamily inventory as affordable rental housing for low- to
moderate-income people for 15 years. To ensure that these units are
available and affordable to low- and moderate-income people, HUD
generally uses a federal rental subsidy program known as
project-based Section 8 assistance. Under this program, HUD pays the
project's owner the difference between a unit's rent and the portion
the tenant pays (30 percent of his or her income). Such assistance
is also needed, in some cases, to help potential purchasers obtain
private financing. However, as we testified before your Committee in
May 1993,\1 the amount of Section 8 budget authority that HUD has
available has been insufficient to allow HUD to sell most of its
multifamily properties. As a result, HUD's inventory increased from
about 10,000 units in 1990 to 31,000 units in 1993. In addition, as
of the end of fiscal year 1993, HUD had initiated foreclosure on
another 38,000 units.
To help you evaluate the impact of new legislative requirements aimed
at improving HUD's ability to dispose of this inventory, we developed
specific information on HUD-owned multifamily properties in the
cities of Dallas, Texas, and Kansas City, Missouri. A total of 19
properties--9 subsidized and 10 unsubsidized\2 --were included in our
analysis. This fact sheet provides information on (1) the size and
vacancy rates of the properties, the number of units receiving
project-based Section 8 assistance, and the distribution of the units
by the number of bedrooms; (2) HUD's estimates of the funds needed to
rehabilitate the properties; and (3) the current tenants' income
levels and percentage of income spent on rent.
In summary, we found the following:
--------------------
\1 Multifamily Housing: Impediments to Disposition of Properties
Owned by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(GAO/T-RCED-93-37, May 12, 1993).
\2 A subsidized property is one that, before HUD acquired it, was
receiving a mortgage assistance subsidy (such as a
below-market-interest-rate loan or other rental payment assistance)
or a housing assistance payment (such as project-based Section 8
assistance) for more than 50 percent of its units. An unsubsidized
property is one that was not receiving a mortgage assistance subsidy
or was receiving a housing assistance payment for fewer than 50
percent of its units.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
PROJECTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :0.1
The size of the subsidized properties we analyzed ranged from 85 to
620 units, with an overall vacancy rate of about 39 percent.
The size of the unsubsidized properties ranged from 51 to 394
units, with an overall vacancy rate of about 55 percent.
A majority of the units in the subsidized properties received rent
subsidies under the project-based Section 8 assistance program.
Only a small number of the units in the unsubsidized properties
received such rent subsidies.
About 60 percent of the total units in the subsidized properties
had two bedrooms. For the unsubsidized properties, about 47
percent of the units had two bedrooms and about 35 percent had
one bedroom.
REHABILITATION COSTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :0.2
For the subsidized properties, preliminary estimates of the
rehabilitation costs for deteriorated units ranged from about
$2,400 per unit to about $27,100 per unit. The subsidized
properties would require, on average, about $14,200 per unit to
rehabilitate.
For the unsubsidized properties, preliminary estimates of the
rehabilitation costs ranged from about $1,100 per unit to about
$10,800 per unit--an average of about $4,700 per unit.
TENANTS' INCOMES AND RENT
COSTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :0.3
Tenants in the subsidized properties generally had lower incomes
than those in the unsubsidized properties. Specifically, most
of the tenants in the subsidized properties (about 64 percent)
had incomes of 20 percent or less of the area's median income.
In contrast, most of the tenants in the unsubsidized properties
(about 62 percent) had incomes between 21 and 50 percent of the
area's median income.
In terms of the amount of rent paid as a percentage of household
income ("rent burden"), the majority of tenants in both the
subsidized and unsubsidized properties were paying 30 percent or
less of their income for rent.
Section 1 of this fact sheet contains detailed information on project
size, vacancy rates, the number of units that received Section 8
assistance, and the distribution of the units by the number of
bedrooms. Section 2 gives detailed information on the estimates of
rehabilitation costs. Section 3 provides additional details on the
tenants' incomes and rent burdens.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
We performed our work at HUD field offices responsible for overseeing
HUD-owned properties in Dallas, Texas, and Kansas City, Missouri. We
chose Dallas and Kansas City for our analysis because of the large
number of properties in the multifamily inventory at each location.
We obtained property characteristics and other related information
from HUD files and HUD officials at each location. We developed
information on the households' demographics and incomes using data
provided by HUD officials and management agents for each property.
These data reflect households in the Dallas properties in August and
September 1993 and in the Kansas City properties in October 1993.
Since that time, some of the HUD properties we reviewed have been
sold, according to HUD officials. We did not verify the accuracy of
the data provided by HUD and the management agents. We discussed
this fact sheet with HUD's Federal Housing Administration Comptroller
and the Director of HUD's Office of Preservation and Property
Disposition, who agreed with the information presented.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :1.1
We are sending copies of this fact sheet to interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; the
Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested
parties. We will also make copies available to others on request.
Please contact me at (202) 512-7631 if you or your staff have any
questions. Major contributors to this fact sheet are listed in
appendix I.
Sincerely yours,
Judy A. England-Joseph
Director, Housing and
Community Development Issues
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECTS
============================================================ Chapter 1
In this section, we provide information on the general project
characteristics of the properties in HUD's foreclosed multifamily
inventory (HUD-owned properties), including project size, vacancy
rates, and the number of units receiving project-based Section 8
assistance.
In the 19 properties we analyzed, there are a total of 3,638
units--2,115 units in the subsidized inventory and 1,523 units in the
unsubsidized inventory. Out of a total of 2,115 units in the
subsidized inventory, 1,289 units were occupied, resulting in a
39-percent vacancy rate. For the unsubsidized inventory, 687 out of
the 1,523 units were occupied, resulting in a vacancy rate of about
55 percent.
HUD uses Section 8 assistance to meet the statutory goals of
preserving units in multifamily properties as affordable rental
housing for low- to moderate-income families as mandated by the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1978. We found that the
number of units assisted by project-based Section 8 subsidies
differed significantly between the subsidized and unsubsidized
properties. In the subsidized inventory, 1,206 units received
project-based Section 8 assistance. In the unsubsidized inventory,
however, only 56 units received project-based Section 8 assistance.
Figure 1.1 shows the total number of units, number of occupied units,
and number of units receiving project-based Section 8 assistance for
the subsidized and unsubsidized properties we reviewed.
Figure 1.1: Total Units,
Number of Occupied Units, and
Number of Units Receiving
Project-Based Section 8
Assistance
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's analysis of HUD's data.
As illustrated in figure 1.2, the most common type of unit in both
the subsidized and unsubsidized properties was a two-bedroom unit.
The subsidized properties we reviewed had about three times as many
three- and four-bedroom units, on average, as the unsubsidized
properties did.
Figure 1.2: Distribution of
Units by Number of Bedrooms
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's analysis of HUD's data.
PROJECT SIZE, VACANCY RATE,
AND NUMBER OF ASSISTED UNITS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:0.1
As shown in table 1.1, the size of the subsidized projects ranged
from 85 units in a Kansas City project to 620 units in a property in
Dallas. The size of the unsubsidized projects ranged from 51 to 394
units.
Vacancy rates ranged from 11 to 64 percent in the subsidized
properties and 22 to 86 percent in the unsubsidized properties.
According to HUD officials, the vacancy rates at some of these
properties were high because (1) most of the properties were in poor
physical condition and (2) renovation was being performed on many
units. HUD officials noted that vacancy rates could also be affected
by rental market conditions in some neighborhoods where the
properties are located. For example, the high vacancy rates for many
of the Dallas properties may be due, in part, to the fact that they
were located in areas where the average vacancy levels were above
citywide averages for the apartment rental market.
We also found that the vast majority of the units that received
project-based Section 8 assistance were in the subsidized properties.
At four of the properties, all of the units received project-based
Section 8 assistance. In total, 1,206 units receiving project-based
Section 8 assistance were in subsidized properties and 56 units
receiving this assistance were in unsubsidized properties.
Table 1.1
Size, Vacancy Rate, and Number of Units
Receiving Project-Based Section 8
Assistance
Occupi Sectio
Total ed Vacanc n 8
Project name units units y rate units
-------------------------- -------- ------ ------ ------
Subsidized projects
------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas
------------------------------------------------------------
Cedar Glen 250 200 20% 250
Estell Village 291 219 25% 40
Fawn Ridge West 200 85 57% 44
Georgetown II 620 255 59% 400
Royal Crest 167 132 21% 0
Subtotal -Dallas 1, 528 89 1 42 % 73 4
Kansas City
------------------------------------------------------------
Friendship Village 144 52 64% 29
Holy Temple 198 150 24% 198
Mid City Towers 85 76 11% 85
Silver City 160 120 25% 160
Subtotal -Kansas City 587 398 32% 472
(avera
ge)
============================================================
Total -subsidized projects 2,115 1,289 39% 1,206
(avera
ge)
Unsubsidized projects
------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas
------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett Plaza 68 15 78% 0
Buckner Village 172 54 69% 0
Georgetown I 172 61 65% 56
Glen Hills I & II 394 306 22% 0
Golden Helmet 74 23 69% 0
Pavilion 176 24 86% 0
Plantation Royal 172 75 56% 0
Subtotal -Dallas 1,228 558 55% 56
(avera
ge)
Kansas City
------------------------------------------------------------
French Village 51 16 68% 0
Newbern 134 85 37% 0
Parkgate 110 28 75% 0
Subtotal -Kansas City 295 129 56% 0
(avera
ge)
============================================================
Total -unsubsidized 1,523 687 55% 56
projects (avera
ge)
------------------------------------------------------------
DISTRIBUTION OF UNIT TYPES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:0.2
As shown in table 1.2, the most common unit size--in 60 percent of
the units--in the subsidized inventory was two bedrooms; 23 percent
of the units had three bedrooms and 13 percent of the units had one
bedroom. For the 10 unsubsidized properties we examined, most of the
units had either one or two bedrooms. Specifically, we found that
about 35 percent of the units had one bedroom and about 47 percent of
the units had two bedrooms.
Table 1.2
Distribution of Units by Number of
Bedrooms
Tota
l
numb
er
of
unit
Project name 0 1 2 3 4 s
-------------------------------- -- -- ---- -- -- ----
Subsidized projects
------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas
------------------------------------------------------------
Cedar Glen 0 40 178 32 0 250
Estell Village 0 72 134 76 9 291
Fawn Ridge West 0 80 80 40 0 200
Georgetown II 0 4 601 7 8 620
Royal Crest 0 16 120 31 0 167
============================================================
Subtotal -Dallas 0 21 1,11 18 17 1,52
2 3 6 8
Percentage of distribution 0% 14 73% 12 1% 100%
% %
Kansas City
------------------------------------------------------------
Friendship Village 0 10 44 90 0 144
Holy Temple 0 30 42 12 0 198
6
Mid City Towers 52 32 1 0 0 85
Silver City 0 0 74 86 0 160
Subtotal -Kansas City 52 72 161 30 0 587
2
============================================================
Percentage of distribution 9% 12 27% 51 0% 100%
% %
============================================================
Total -subsidized projects 52 28 1,27 48 17 2,11
4 4 8 5
============================================================
Percentage of Distribution 2% 13 60% 23 1% 100%
% %
Unsubsidized projects
------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas
------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett Plaza 4 56 8 0 0 68
Buckner Village 0 70 81 21 0 172
Georgetown I 0 0 172 0 0 172
Glen Hills I & II 80 17 107 33 0 394
4
Golden Helmet 0 6 68 0 0 74
Pavilion 0 40 96 40 0 176
Plantation Royal 0 80 78 14 0 172
============================================================
Subtotal -Dallas 84 42 610 10 0 1,22
6 8 8
Percentage of distribution 7% 35 50% 9% 0% 100%
%
Kansas City
------------------------------------------------------------
French Village 11 18 22 0 0 51
Newbern 66 57 11 0 0 134
Parkgate 3 31 70 6 0 110
Subtotal -Kansas City 80 10 103 6 0 295
6
Percentage of distribution 27 36 35% 2% 0% 100%
% %
============================================================
Total -unsubsidized projects 16 53 713 11 0 1,52
4 2 4 3
============================================================
Percentage of distribution 11 35 47% 7% 0% 100%
% %
------------------------------------------------------------
REHABILITATION COSTS
============================================================ Chapter 2
In this section, we provide information on HUD's preliminary
estimates of the funds needed to rehabilitate the projects. HUD
officials were able to provide estimates for 17 of the 19 projects we
examined in Dallas, Texas, and Kansas City, Missouri.
As indicated in figure 2.1, the average rehabilitation cost was
estimated at $14,169 per unit for subsidized properties and $4,651
per unit for unsubsidized properties.
Figure 2.1: Comparison of
HUD's Preliminary Estimates of
Rehabilitation Costs
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's analysis of HUD's data.
As table 2.1 indicates, HUD's estimates of the per-unit
rehabilitation costs for the subsidized properties we reviewed ranged
from $2,395 to $27,097. One of these properties, a large Dallas
property named Georgetown II, had serious problems, including
asbestos, which resulted in a high rehabilitation cost estimate.
As the table also shows, HUD's estimates of the per-unit
rehabilitation costs for the unsubsidized properties in Dallas and
Kansas City ranged from $1,105 to $10,795. The average per-unit
rehabilitation cost for the unsubsidized properties was estimated at
$4,651.
Table 2.1
HUD's Preliminary Estimates of
Rehabilitation Costs
Total
number
of
Project name units Per project Per unit
---------------------------- ------ ------------ --------
Subsidized projects
------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas
------------------------------------------------------------
Cedar Glen 250 $ 2,200,000 $ 8,800
Estell Village 291 1,200,000 4,124
Fawn Ridge West 200 3,100,000 15,500
Georgetown II 620 16,800,000 27,097
Royal Crest 167 400,000 2,395
============================================================
Average -Dallas 306 $ 4,740,000 $15,510
Kansas City
------------------------------------------------------------
Friendship Village 144 2,000,000 13,889
Holy Temple 198 1,500,000 7,576
Mid City Towers 85 500,000 5,882
Silver City 160 Unknown N.A.\a
============================================================
Average -Kansas City 147 $1,333,333 $ 9,368
============================================================
Average -subsidized projects 235 $3,462,500 $14,169
Unsubsidized projects
------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas
------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett Plaza 68 400,000 5,882
Buckner Village 172 1,300,000 7,558
Georgetown I 172 210,000 1,221
Glen Hills I & II 394 1,600,000 4,061
Golden Helmet 74 260,000 3,514
Pavilion 176 1,900,000 10,795
Plantation Royal 172 190,000 1,105
============================================================
Average -Dallas 175 $ 837,143 $ 4,772
Kansas City
------------------------------------------------------------
French Village 51 300,000 5,882
Newbern 134 Unknown N.A.\a
Parkgate 110 300,000 2,727
============================================================
Average -Kansas City 98 $ 300,000 $ 3,727
============================================================
Average -unsubsidized 152 $ 646,000 $ 4,651
projects
------------------------------------------------------------
\a N.A. = not applicable.
TENANTS' INCOMES AND RENT COSTS
============================================================ Chapter 3
In this section, we provide information on the distribution of
tenants' incomes as a percentage of the area's median income and
tenants' rent costs as a percentage of tenants' income ("rent
burden").
As shown in figures 3.1 and 3.2, the vast majority of the tenants in
both the subsidized and unsubsidized properties we reviewed had very
low incomes (50 percent or less of the area's median income).
However, tenants in the subsidized properties generally had lower
incomes than those in the unsubsidized properties.
Of the 1,276 households residing in the nine subsidized properties we
examined, about 95 percent had incomes in the very-low range.
Furthermore, as indicated in figure 3.1, most of the tenants in the
subsidized properties--about 64 percent--had incomes of 20 percent or
less of the area's median income. About 31 percent of the tenants in
the subsidized properties had incomes between 21 and 50 percent of
the area's median income.
Figure 3.1: Tenants' Income
Distribution as a Percentage of
Area's Median Income for Nine
Subsidized Properties
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's analysis of HUD's data.
There was also a high concentration of very-low-income households in
the 10 unsubsidized properties we examined. However, as shown in
figure 3.2, only 17 percent of the tenants had incomes of 20 percent
or less of the area's median income. Most of the tenants in the
unsubsidized properties--about 62 percent--had incomes between 21 and
50 percent of the area's median income.
Figure 3.2: Tenants' Income
Distribution as a Percentage of
Area's Median Income for 10
Unsubsidized Properties
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's analysis of HUD's data.
According to HUD's standards, the tenants' rent burden is considered
affordable when it is limited to 30 percent or less of household
income. As illustrated in figures 3.3 and 3.4, most of the tenants
in both the subsidized and unsubsidized properties we reviewed had
rent burdens in this range. Only 13 percent of the tenants in the
subsidized properties and about 37 percent of the tenants in the
unsubsidized properties were experiencing rent burdens that exceeded
30 percent.
Figure 3.3: Rent Burden
Profile for Tenants in Nine
Subsidized Properties
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's analysis of HUD's data.
Figure 3.4: Rent Burden
Profile for Tenants in 10
Unsubsidized Properties
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's analysis of HUD's data.
TENANTS' INCOMES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:0.1
Table 3.1 presents information on the tenants' incomes in each of the
subsidized and unsubsidized properties we reviewed. As the table
shows, the percentage of tenants in the subsidized properties that
had incomes of 20 percent or less of the area's median income ranged
from 28 percent (Royal Crest) to 87 percent (Georgetown II). As
discussed in section 1, most of the units in the subsidized
properties receive project-based Section 8 assistance. In the
unsubsidized properties, where most units are unassisted, the
percentage of tenants that had incomes of 20 percent or less of the
area's median income ranged from 5 percent (Glen Hills I & II) to 82
percent (Georgetown I).
Table 3.1
Tenants' Income Profile
Number of
occupied
Project name units 0%-20% 21%-50% 51%-80% />80%
----------------------------- --------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Subsidized projects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cedar Glen 200 83% 17% 0% 0%
Estell Village 219 34 57 6 3
Fawn Ridge West 85 49 44 6 1
Georgetown II 242 87 13 0 0
Royal Crest 132 28 52 18 2
================================================================================
Subtotal/average -Dallas 878 60 34 5 1
Kansas City
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friendship Village 52 52 40 8 0
Holy Temple 150 81 19 0 0
Mid City Towers 76 58 42 0 0
Silver City 120 74 20 6 0
================================================================================
Subtotal/average -Kansas City 398 71 26 3 0
================================================================================
Total/average -subsidized 1,276 64% 31% 4% 1%
projects
Unsubsidized projects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett Plaza 15 27 27 33 13
Buckner Village 51 14 69 16 2
Georgetown I 45 82 18 0 0
Glen Hills I & II 281 5 75 17 3
Golden Helmet 23 48 43 4 4
Pavilion 24 54 29 17 0
Plantation Royal 72 18 53 22 7
================================================================================
Subtotal/average -Dallas 511 20 61 16 3
Kansas City
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French Village 16 19 50 25 6
Newbern 85 6 66 20 8
Parkgate 28 7 61 25 7
================================================================================
Subtotal/average -Kansas City 129 8 62 22 8
================================================================================
Total/average -unsubsidized 640 17% 62% 17% 4%
projects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages are rounded. Our analysis was limited to units
for which data were available.
RENT BURDENS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:0.2
As shown in table 3.2, most of the tenants in both the subsidized and
unsubsidized properties were paying 30 percent or less of their
income for rent. Specifically, about 87 percent of the tenants
living in the subsidized properties and about 63 percent of the
tenants living in the unsubsidized properties have a rent burden of
30 percent or less. Tenants residing in subsidized properties can
reduce rent burdens because their units receive Section 8 assistance
(see section 1). Most units in unsubsidized properties did not
receive such assistance.
Table 3.2
Rent Burden Profile
Number of
occupied
Project name units 0%-30% 31%-40% 41%-50% />50%
----------------------------- --------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Subsidized projects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cedar Glen 200 99% 1% 0% 1%
Estell Village 219 64 21 7 7
Fawn Ridge West 85 80 11 5 4
Georgetown II 242 99 0 0 0
Royal Crest 132 58 20 13 9
================================================================================
Subtotal/average -Dallas 878 82 9 4 4
Kansas City
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friendship Village 52 94 0 0 6
Holy Temple 150 100 0 0 0
Mid City Towers 76 100 0 0 0
Silver City 120 100 0 0 0
================================================================================
Subtotal/average -Kansas City 398 99 0 0 1
================================================================================
Total/average -subsidized 1,276 87% 7% 3% 3%
projects
Unsubsidized projects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett Plaza 15 53 7 13 27
Buckner Village 51 76 18 4 2
Georgetown I 45 100 0 0 0
Glen Hills I & II 281 53 32 9 6
Golden Helmet 23 53 17 13 17
Pavilion 24 88 8 0 4
Plantation Royal 75 53 16 17 13
================================================================================
Subtotal/average -Dallas 514 61 23 9 7
Kansas City
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French Village 16 63 6 19 13
Newbern 85 74 13 8 5
Parkgate 28 75 14 7 4
================================================================================
Subtotal/average -Kansas City 129 73 12 9 6
================================================================================
Total/average -unsubsidized 643 63% 21% 9% 7%
projects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages are rounded. Rents at Bennett Plaza, Buckner
Village, Cedar Glen, Georgetown I and II, Glen Hills I and II,
Pavilion, Friendship Village, Holy Temple, and Silver City did not
include utility expenses. At the remaining properties, rents
included utilities. Our analysis was limited to units for which data
were available.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS FACT
SHEET
=========================================================== Appendix I
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers, Associate Director
Richard Hale, Assistant Director
Cheh Kim, Evaluator
Patrick Doerning, Technical Adviser
Phyllis Turner, Reports Analyst
DALLAS REGIONAL OFFICE
Joseph Raple, Evaluator-in-Charge
Sally Leon-Guerrero, Evaluator
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
Multifamily Housing: Impediments to Disposition of Properties Owned
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (GAO/T-RCED-93-37,
May 12, 1993).
Multifamily Housing: Status of HUD's Multifamily Loan Portfolios
(GAO/RCED-94-173FS, Apr. 12, 1994).