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). 

