The full report and its appendices - Seattle Housing Authority

SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

MOVING TO NEW WAYS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 

FISCAL YEAR 2003 ANNUAL REPORT 

DECEMBER 15, 2003


Board of Commissioners 

Jennifer Potter, Chair 

Peter Moy, Vice Chair 

Marie Cook 

Judith Fay 

Bettylou Valentine 

Al Winston, Jr. 

David Bley 

Senior Staff 

Harry Thomas, Executive Director 

Al Levine, Deputy Executive Director 

Don Ashlock, Director of Housing Operations 

James Fearn, General Counsel 

Virginia Felton, Director of Communications 

Charles Hayashi, Director of Human Resources 

Jo Ann Ritchie, Director of Finance and Administration 

Kathy Roseth, Director of PorchLight Housing Center 

Prepared by: 

Ellen Kissman 

With contributions from: Stephen Antupit, Bruce Brines, Errol 

Flagor, John Forsyth, Elana Gable, Barbara Gagnat, Diane 

George, Sibyl Glasby, Amy Gray, Cindy Hudson, Sven Koehler, 

Laura Lakings-Becvar, Wendy Lance, Andria Lazaga, Ed 

Liebow, Ann-Marie Lindboe, Joy Moro, Michael Mortenson, 

George Nemeth, James Owenby, Carmine Pascucci, Tom 

Phillips, Kehau Pickford, Kathy Roseth, Marc Rosson, Cheryl 

Sabin, Mike Scott, Cindy Sribhibhadh, Dick Woo, Scott Woo, 

Bob Wyda, Vicky Yuki, Betty Zielinski. 

Cover photos, clockwise from top left: Rainier Vista groundbreaking, 

Lake City Commons, Job Connection graduates who 

have achieved employment, preserving Lee House at NewHolly. 

FY 2003 MOVING TO NEW WAYS ANNUAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Executive Summary .....................................................................................1 

Section I: Households Served ....................................................................13 

Section II: Occupancy and Admissions Policies .......................................15 

Section III: Changes in Housing Stock......................................................21 

Section IV: Sources and Amounts of Funding ..........................................24 

Section V: Uses of Funds...........................................................................27 

Section VI: Capital Planning .....................................................................30 

Section VII: Owned and Managed Units...................................................38 

Section VIII: Administration of Leased Housing......................................40 

Section IX: Resident Programs..................................................................43 

Section X: Other Information Required by HUD......................................47 

Appendices: Appendix A: FY 2002 Audit 

Appendix B: Households and Applicant 

Demographics 

Appendix C: Public Housing Rent Policy Evaluation 

Appendix D: Applicant Choice Policy Evaluation 

Appendix E: Consolidated Financial Statements 

Appendix F: Capital Activities 

Appendix G: Vacancy by Community 

Appendix H: Local Preferences 

Appendix I Landlord Bulletin 

FY 2003 MOVING TO NEW WAYS ANNUAL REPORT

FISCAL YEAR 2003 MOVING TO NEW WAYS REPORT 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

What is Moving To new Ways? 

The Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) is one 

of about 30 housing authorities across the 

country participating in the U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

“Moving To new Ways” (MTW) Demonstration 

Program. 1 This program allows 

SHA to test innovative methods to improve 

housing delivery to better meet local needs. 

While in MTW, SHA may propose and 

implement alternatives to national regulations 

for issues spelled out in an agreement 

signed by SHA and HUD in January 1999. 

Fiscal Year 2003 is the fourth year of MTW. 

Each July, SHA adopts an annual plan that 

highlights MTW initiatives and other 

activities planned for the following fiscal 

year. 2 Each December, SHA prepares an 

annual report describing the previous year’s 

accomplishments. 

What is in this report? 

This report compares FY 2003 activities and 

performance to that anticipated in the FY 

2003 Annual Plan. Also included are summaries 

of innovative methods begun during 

FY 2003 and evaluations of some policies 

and practices made possible by MTW. 

1 Because HUD’s name for the demonstration, 

“Moving To Work,” sounded like a jobs program for 

SHA residents, the demonstration has been renamed, 

“Moving To new Ways,” to keep the acronym and 

avoid confusion over the program’s purpose. 

2 The MTW annual plan takes the place of annual 

plans required of non-MTW housing authorities. 

SHA’s fiscal year runs from October 1 through 

September 30. 

The report follows an outline established in 

the MTW agreement which mirrors the 

Annual Plan: 

Section I: Households Served documents the 

number and characteristics of households in 

SHA housing programs and on wait lists for 

housing assistance. 

Section II: Occupancy Policies describes 

new policies adopted in FY 2003. This 

year’s report also includes evaluation of the 

financial impacts on SHA of the MTW 

public housing rent policy and an update of 

the effects of the applicant choice policy. 

Section III: Changes in Housing Stock records 

how and why SHA housing resources 

have changed compared to projections in the 

FY 2003 plan and since MTW began. 

Section IV: Sources and Amounts of 

Funding compares the FY 2003 budget with 

actual revenues and explains variances. 

Section V: Uses of Funds compares the FY 

2003 budget with actual expenditures and 

explains variances. 

Section VI: Capital Planning lists capital, 

disposition and demolition activities in FY 

2003 and describes major SHA revitalization 

activities at NewHolly, Rainier Vista, 

High Point and Westwood Heights. 

Section VII: Management Information on 

Owned and Managed Units covers public 

housing performance for vacancy rates, rent 

collection, work orders and inspections. 

Section VIII: Management Information for 

Leased Housing addresses performance 

FY 2003 MOVING TO NEW WAYS ANNUAL REPORT PAGE 1 OF 47

indicators and other required information for 

the Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 

8): utilization rate, rent reasonableness, 

expanding housing opportunities, 

deconcentration of low-income families and 

inspections. 

Section IX: Resident Programs describes 

community and supportive services. 

A copy of SHA’s FY 2002 audit by the 

Washington State Auditors Office is 

included in Appendix A. 

Not all of SHA’s activities and programs are 

part of the MTW demonstration. The revitalization 

of NewHolly, Rainier Vista, High 

Point and Westwood Heights, as well as 

some special purpose Housing Choice 

Vouchers, are not included. SHA’s locallyfunded 

housing programs, such as the 

Seattle Senior Housing Program (SSHP), are 

not specifically covered in the MTW 

agreement although they may benefit from 

some of the changes SHA is able to make 

under MTW. For this reason, and in the 

interest of completeness, information on 

these programs is provided in this report. 

Outcomes from Moving To new 

Ways priorities 

SHA’s MTW Agreement with HUD 

contains a specific list of activities for which 

SHA may exercise its MTW flexibility. FY 

2003 planned MTW activities and their 

status at year end are listed below. 

Review and evaluate the MTW public 

housing rent policy: 

• A preliminary evaluation was included 

in the FY 2002 MTW report; several 

procedural recommendations were 

implemented to improve the effectiveness 

of the policy. This document 

contains further evaluation of the 

financial impacts on SHA (Section II 

and Appendix C). 

Implement local admissions preferences for 

the Housing Choice Voucher program: 

• New admissions preferences were 

established for people with incomes 

below 30 percent of the area median and 

people who are homeless. 

Continue to streamline admissions procedures 

for public housing and Housing 

Choice Vouchers: 

• Many changes were made for this purpose 

although they did not require MTW 

flexibility. Highlights include: 

- Creation of new suitability criteria 

for public housing. 

- Reorganization of Section 8 staff to 

increase accountability of staff for 

program requirements, customer service 

to landlords and uniformity in rent 

determinations. 

- Revamping of procedures for referring 

applicant files to public housing 

management staff for filling vacancies, 

in order to reduce vacancy loss. 

Implement a risk-based inspection protocol 

in public housing: 

• Staff implemented an inspection protocol 

that determines whether a unit 

receives either a limited or comprehensive 

inspection. More information 

can be found in Section VI. 

Implement a new resource conservation 

(energy audit) protocol: 

• A new resource conservation protocol 

has been implemented. 

Designate an additional elderly/near elderly 

public housing high-rise: 

• Ballard House has been selected; a 

designation plan will be submitted to 

HUD in FY 2004. 

Use the findings from a survey of public 

housing high-rise residents regarding their 

needs and interests for social services to 


etter target services to residents of these 

communities in FY 2003. 

• The survey was completed in January 

2003. The services that ranked highest 

with residents were mental health case 

management, educational seminars and 

presentations, community building and 

access to healthcare, computers and food 

or nutrition programs. Staff have since 

prioritized needs based upon budget 

efficiency and ability to implement 

quickly, worked with service providers 

to amend current contracts to better 

match services with expressed needs, 

and met with community-based organizations 

to discuss potential programs and 

partnerships. 

Add a Family Self-Sufficiency Homeownership 

staff member, contingent on receiving 

requested HUD grant funds, to help FSS 

clients prepare for purchasing a home. 

Implement a pilot Section 8 homeownership 

program as required by these grant funds 

• SHA was not awarded FSS funding for a 

homeownership coordinator in FY 2003. 

• Implementation of the FY 2002 Section 

8 homeownership grant is proceeding as 

planned. (See Section VI.) 

Analyze whether the current number of FSS 

slots should be increased, using MTW 

flexibility. 

• SHA decided to keep 388 Housing 

Choice Voucher and 50 public housing 

FSS slots for the time being, so as not to 

forego additional rent revenue. During 

FY 2003, many FSS clients graduated 

from FSS or left Seattle’s Housing 

Choice Voucher program, opening up 

about 65 slots for new participants. 

Several MTW items included in the FY 2003 

plan were not addressed during FY 2003. 

Some may be addressed in FY 2004: 

• Explore adjusting SHA’s MTW 

agreement with HUD. 

• Work with HUD to redefine Housing 

Choice Voucher utilization goals. 

• Develop and implement a new minimum 

rent policy for the Housing Choice 

Voucher program based on an imputed 

income methodology. 

• Design and implement a risk-based 

inspection protocol for the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program, including 

simplifying the Housing Quality 

Standards. 

• Monitor industry progress in developing 

alternatives to HUD’s performance 

measurement system and if warranted, 

implement. 

Outcomes of other activities from 

the FY 2003 Plan 

The FY 2003 Annual Plan spelled out major 

priorities for the year, in addition to the 

MTW activities listed above. Here is what 

happened in regard to those priorities: 

Organizational improvements 

Implement portfolio-based management. 

• Housing management was fundamentally 

reorganized to return to managing 

portfolios of like properties together 

instead of a geographically-based structure. 

The new portfolio structure was put 

in place on October 1, 2002. 

• The financial reporting system was 

reorganized to match the new portfoliobased 

structure. New property- and 

portfolio-specific monthly financial 

monitoring reports were created, modeled 

on typical monitoring reports from 

the private sector. The new reports give 

the portfolio managers the information 

they need to be fully accountable for 

their properties’ operation and budgets. 

Managers report on portfolio performance 

on a quarterly basis to an internal 


asset management team. These quarterly 

reviews provide a forum for discussing 

issues and setting direction. 

Property Management Portfolios 

Public Housing High-rises (North) 

Public Housing High-rises (South) 

Public Housing Scattered Sites 

Yesler Terrace 

High Point 

Rainier Vista 

NewHolly 

Seattle Senior Housing Program 

Other Affordable Housing 

• Oversight of housing admissions was 

given to Housing Operations to ensure 

efficient tenant placement and minimize 

vacancy loss. The admissions team is 

still based at the PorchLight building for 

the convenience of applicants. 

• To streamline its human services and 

community building initiatives, SHA 

formed a new division called Community 

Services, merging the former Resident 

Services and Community and Supportive 

Services divisions into one division. 

This was done, in part, to tailor 

services planning to portfolio needs. 

• The next step in the continued evolution 

of SHA management practices was the 

creation of Impact Property Management 

(IPM), an SHA affiliate, in order to further 

develop the expertise and flexibility 

to manage many different types of property. 

In July, IPM assumed management 

of NewHolly from Quantum Management, 

the private company that had been 

managing the community since it was 

redeveloped. SHA intends to have IPM 

manage the redeveloped Rainier Vista 

and High Point, as well as new 

acquisitions in the Other Affordable 

Housing Portfolio, each of which has 

unique financing and compliance 

requirements. 

Complete the asset management plan, 

including public review and comment. 

• This was not done in FY 2003. 

Continue to clarify and update the Policy 

and Procedures Manual: 

• Many sections of the Policy and Procedures 

Manual were updated, including 

the sections on fraud, and how to deal 

with a resident’s death or the aftermath 

of a fire in a residential structure, as well 

as all the manual sections that implement 

the rent, applicant choice, preferences 

and suitability policies. 

• The Section 8 Administrative Plan was 

updated. 

Develop and implement additional on-line 

information sharing capabilities: 

• Examples of improvements include: 

new portfolio monthly financial reports, 

on-line applications and pre-applications 

in six languages, and new tracking 

systems for monitoring policy implementation, 

such as the SSHP rent policy. 

Conduct a pilot for Protégé@work, a 

document imaging project: 

• During FY 2003, SHA awarded a document 

imaging contract to CGI, a nationally-recognized 

technology services 

company. CGI will implement Hyland 

Software’s “OnBase” document management 

suite including workflow, 

scanning, e-signatures, e-forms, and 

fully-searchable electronic reports. The 

pilot project in the Section 8 Mod Rehab 

program began in October, 2003. 

Upgrade and streamline SHA’s computer 

platforms. 

• SHA’s operating system was upgraded 

to Exchange 2000 and Office XP. A new 

storage area network was put in place. 


• DSL/cable modem connections were 

provided to 50 remote sites, including 

public housing high-rises and SSHP 

buildings to provide field staff with 

better access to the SHA network. 

• New software was put in place to allow 

employees to access the network from 

their home computers, supporting the 

telecommuting policy. 

Implement the business plan for Impact 

Property Services (IPS). 

• During FY 2003, IPS improved its 

accounting and invoicing procedures to 

accurately and completely charge 

portfolios for work performed. 

• IPS took on housing inspections, merging 

the public housing and Section 8 

inspectors into a flexible unit, and 

evaluated handheld inspection devices 

and computer scheduling. 

Consolidate many maintenance and 

property management functions and staff at 

the new SHA Operations Support Center. 

• OSC opened in July, co-locating property 

management staff for public housing 

high-rise and scattered site portfolios 

and maintenance staff and materials. 

• SHA purchased a new facility in a South 

Seattle industrial area to consolidate IPS 

special programs (fleet maintenance, 

solid waste, pest control and hazardous 

materials management), removing the 

garage from Yesler Terrace, solid waste 

from High Point and most SHA functions 

from the South Park industrial 

property so that it can be sold. 

Address long-term financial sustainability of 

community and supportive services. 

• With SHA involved as a grant recipient, 

fiscal agent, or grant writer or contributing 

writer for partner agencies, 

over $3 million for services was secured. 

See Section IX for more information. 

Meeting Seattle’s housing needs 

Policy development 

Redefine the purpose of the public housing 

scattered site program: 

• This process is underway and will 

continue into FY 2004. 

Ensure the continued financial viability of 

the Seattle Senior Housing Program by 

adjusting the rent policy: 

• A new rent policy was developed and is 

described in Section II. It went into 

effect on October 1, 2003. 

Community revitalization activities 

Continue community revitalization efforts at 

NewHolly, Rainier Vista and High Point. 

• All three projects made substantial 

progress during FY 2003. Updates can 

be found in Section VI. 

Lee House being 

moved to a 

temporary NewHolly 

location to make way 

for housing 

construction. 

Deconstruction of a 

High Point unit. 

Transplanting a tree 

at Rainier Vista. 

Highlights of HOPE VI activity in FY 2003 

Continue to meet off-site replacement housing 

obligations, including development of a 

15-unit apartment building in Lake City, and 

35 low-income units in a mixed-income, 

mixed-use project on the site of the old north 


end maintenance base, in partnership with 

Housing Resources Group. 

• Lake City Commons, the 15-unit apartment 

building, is currently leasing up. 

• SHA has entered into a purchase and 

sale agreement with Housing Resources 

Group to purchase and redevelop the old 

maintenance base. 

• SHA obtained a five-year, $10 million 

real estate line of credit to help with real 

estate acquisition to meet replacement 

housing goals,. The line of credit will 

provide short-term financing of new 

acquisitions until long-term, bond 

financing can be put in place. The line 

of credit is secured by the real estate 

rather than SHA’s general revenues. 

• Other changes in housing stock include 

purchase of 319 units in six areas with 

nine more under contract to buy in early 

FY 2004. Of these, 137 are HOPE VI 

replacement units, and 22 are 

replacement units for other projects. 

Include replacement housing within the new 

Yesler Community Center: 

• Further design development demonstrated 

the impracticality of putting both 

a 20,000 square foot community center 

with a full-size gym and 21 housing 

units on the same small site. Instead 

SHA will purchase replacement units in 

the neighborhood. Six units have been 

purchased to date, and potential replacements 

for the other 15 have been 

identified. 

Continue implementation of Tri-Court as a 

smoke free community: 

• Rehab of the first building is complete 

and re-leasing and rehab of the 

remaining two buildings is underway. 

Rebuild Lake City Village either on- or offsite 

or by using a combination of strategies. 

• All 16 Lake City Village units have been 

replaced through acquisition. Planning 

for re-use of the Lake City Village site is 

underway. An adjacent property is 

under contract for SHA to purchase in 

FY 2004 to improve the development 

capacity of the site. 

Carry out a capital program involving $12 

million in projects throughout SHA’s portfolio, 

in addition to the major community 

revitalization projects. Finance some urgent 

projects to get them done quickly and 

achieve economies of scale by grouping 

similar projects in different buildings. 

• About $21 million in capital funds was 

obligated in FY 2003, including about 

$7 million to support HOPE VI redevelopment, 

$5 million to refurbish elevators 

in 21 high-rise communities, and $1.5 

million to rehab Tri-Court. This higher 

obligation level reflects an increase in 

production in the capital program needed 

to deal with the capital needs backlog. 

Some portion of this activity will be 

financed in FY 2004. 

SHA activities in the community 

SHA continues to make concerted efforts to 

participate in citywide housing issues, to 

make sure that the community as a whole 

can benefit from MTW flexibility, and that 

SHA’s housing resources are appropriately 

placed in the affordable housing continuum. 

Activities include: 

• SHA’s Executive Director served on the 

search committee for the City of 

Seattle’s new Human Services Director. 

• SHA’s Deputy Director served on the 

Housing Development Consortium 

Board of Directors. HDC is the primary 

industry group for affordable housing 

developers and operators in the region. 

• During FY 2003, SHA undertook several 

initiatives to ensure that stakeholders are 

well informed and engaged in SHA’s 

efforts. These initiatives included the 


Partnership for High Point’s Future, the 

Rainier Vista Citizens Review Committee 

and the SSHP Rent Structure 

Advisory Committee. 

• SHA works with many other divisions of 

local government on projects of mutual 

interest, including the Consolidated Plan, 

sustainable development, homelessness 

policy, the City credit committee, and 

public health for low-income people. 

• SHA senior staff served on the Advisory 

Council for the AIDS Housing and 

Service Systems Integration project, a 

coordinated planning effort sponsored by 

AIDS Housing of Washington to increase 

permanent, affordable housing 

resources for households affected by 

HIV/AIDS. These efforts resulted in a 

set-aside for service-intensive units and 

a successful grant application by the City 

Office of Housing to the Corporation for 

Supportive Housing and the Robert 

Wood Johnson Foundation for the 

"Taking Health Care Home" initiative. 

This initiative will increase housing 

units and resources for chronically 

homeless people. 

• In FY 2002, SHA participated in the 

development of a local housing levy, 

which passed in early FY 2003. SHA 

committed Housing Choice Voucher 

resources to ensure affordability of levyfunded 

units for extremely low-income 

households, enabling more of the tax 

payers’ dollars to be put toward housing 

rehabilitation and construction. 

• SHA Communications Director served 

on the planning committee for the 

Seattle City Club, which sponsors public 

forums on civic issues. SHA co-sponsored 

City Club’s observance of Civic 

Participation Month in September, 

which focused on ways for citizens from 

all backgrounds and income levels to 

become more civically engaged. 

Other activities of note 

Resource conservation: Large utility cost 

increases in FY 2001 motivated SHA to 

look for ways to reduce resource consumption. 

With financial assistance from Seattle 

Public Utilities, 5,268 toilets were replaced. 

Estimated savings for FY 2003 are 

$400,000, and for FY 2004, $700,000. 

Electric boilers at two high-rises, International 

Terrace and Olive Ridge, were 

replaced by gas-fired boilers. Savings at 

International Terrace have been $1,000 per 

month, a 37 percent reduction in utility costs 

associated with domestic hot water. 

The participation of local utilities 

dramatically reduces the payback period to 

SHA of these conservation measures. 

Healthy Homes grants: Neighborhood 

House, Public Health-Seattle King County 

and SHA were the recipients of federal 

grants, from HUD and the National Institute 

of Environmental Health Sciences, totaling 

$1.8 million. The funding will make it 

possible to create environmentally healthy 

homes and decrease exposure to risk factors 

for asthma among children at High Point. 

SHA’s role will be to build 35 homes in the 

new High Point that address the needs of 

people with asthma, allergies and other 

respiratory problems. Construction methods, 

materials and landscaping choices will mitigate 

problems caused by airborne allergens. 

Epstein Building rehab: SHA received a 

forgivable loan of $250,000 in CDBG funds 

from the City of Seattle to rehabilitate the 

third floor of the Epstein Building at Yesler 

Terrace. The Epstein Building, named for 

SHA’s first Executive Director, Jesse 

Epstein, is an old, 3-story brick apartment 

building, the lower floors of which were 

converted to offices many decades ago. It 

provides affordable office space for valued 

agency partners – Neighborhood House and 

Puget Sound Neighborhood Health Centers. 


The third floor renovation gave both agencies 

badly needed room for their administrative 

functions. SHA benefits from the added 

rent revenue the building now generates. 

Resident leadership: The City Department 

of Neighborhoods’ Neighborhood Leadership 

Program completed a five-part training 

series on community leadership for SHA 

residents. The purpose was to strengthen 

participants’ ability to be of service to their 

communities and improve the quality of life 

and living conditions. Over three dozen 

residents, many of them active in their duly 

elected resident councils, participated. 

SHA’s performance in FY 2003 

SHA is monitored by HUD on the basis of 

this MTW Annual Report, in lieu of regular 

HUD assessment systems. Following is a 

summary of performance indicators over the 

past fiscal year. Further information can be 

found in Sections VII and VIII. 

• The public housing vacancy rate was 

3.65 percent. 

• SHA collected 98.78 percent of rent due 

in public housing, another year of 

excellent performance. 

• SHA responded within 30 days to 96 

percent of regular work order requests 

received from residents; the fourth year 

of significantly improved performance in 

this area. SHA responded to over 99 

percent of emergency work orders 

within 24 hours. 

• SHA used just over 100 percent of 

Housing Choice Voucher funds. 

SHA maintained its high performance 

throughout a challenging year: 

• Rainier Vista law suit: Just before 

Christmas 2002, SHA settled a lawsuit 

that had delayed the Rainier Vista 

revitalization. The settlement allowed 

the project to proceed. 

• Another round of lay-offs and cuts to 

services addressed a $3.5 million budget 

shortfall from declining federal subsidy. 

• Changes in senior management staff 

include: 

- Announcement of retirement of 

Harry Thomas as Executive Director and 

a six-month search for his replacement 

by the Board of Commissioners. 

- Retirement of Finance Director Jo 

Ann Ritchie after serving SHA for 13 

years. 

Special distinctions 

The transformation of Holly Park to 

NewHolly continues to be recognized: 

• By the Washington State Department of 

Community, Trade and Economic 

Development Director’s “Award for 

Leadership in Housing Development.” 

• By HUD and the Congress for New 

Urbanism in the “New Face of 

America’s Public Housing Award.” 

Harry Thomas, SHA Executive Director (left), 

holding the New Face of Public Housing Award, 

with Michael Liu, HUD Assistant Secretary for 

Public and Indian Housing (center) who presented 

the award, and Norman B. Rice, President 

and CEO of the Federal Home Loan Bank of 

Seattle. 

HUD complimented SHA in its review of 

SHA’s Section 3 program, “The review 

revealed that SHA is committed to assisting 

families and individuals in becoming self- 


sufficient,” and “SHA is to be commended 

for their efforts in providing employment, 

training and business concerns” noting in 

particular Jobs Plus and the Job Connection. 

For the sixth 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 which covers the fiscal 

year ended September 30, 2002. The award 

is particularly noteworthy this year as 

SHA’s report is among the first in the nation 

to be prepared in full compliance with new 

Government Accounting Standards Board 

(GASB) requirements which imposed 

significant changes on the financial 

reporting of state and local governments. 

For the seventh year in a row, SHA 

anticipates receiving an Annual Audit 

Report containing no findings. 

Audited financial statements for all of 

SHA’s affiliated tax credit partnerships and 

HUD-assisted projects managed by SHA for 

other non-profits received clean opinions. 

SHA had a very successful grant-writing 

year for resident services funding, garnering 

over $3,000,000 in awards for FY 2003 and 

beyond. 

Partner recognition: In FY 2003, two of 

SHA’s partner agencies were recognized for 

their work with SHA residents: 

• Community Psychiatric Clinic (CPC) 

provides excellent mental health crisis 

intervention and eviction prevention 

services to public housing high-rise residents. 

CPC received a Service Innovation 

Award at the 2003 King County 

Mental Health/ Substance Abuse 

Exemplary Service Awards Ceremony, 

recognizing exceptional leadership and 

achievement in service provision and 

advocacy on behalf of persons with 

mental illness and alcohol or drug 

dependency. 

• Robert Blumenfeld of the Washington 

Coalition of Citizens with disAbilities 

(WCCD), another SHA partner, received 

a Governor’s Trophy Award for his 

employment services work for people 

with disabilities. Through an SHA- 

WCCD contract, Mr. Blumenfeld has 

worked at Job Connection with SHA 

residents for the past three years. 


MTW Activities 

The table below lists the activities SHA expected to undertake during the MTW demonstration 

and their status at the end of FY 2003. 

Items from the SHA-HUD MTW Agreement 

Areas for innovation 

Create new Public Housing rent policy to foster 

resident self-sufficiency, and reduce administrative 

burden and intrusion into residents’ privacy. 

Create a site-based wait list. 

Implement “conditional leasing” in public housing 

to allow applicants who do not meet SHA’s 

suitability criteria to demonstrate that they would 

be good tenants. 

Designate one or more public housing high-rise 

buildings for seniors. 

Create a local admissions preference for applicants 

enrolled in City jobs programs for voluntary time 

limited housing assistance. 

Create mandatory self-sufficiency program 

participation requirements for new residents who 

are employable, but not currently employed. 

Operate Family Self-Sufficiency to meet locallydefined 

needs. 

Partner with the City of Seattle to share 

responsibilities and resources for a new integrated 

Family Self-Sufficiency program. 

Create Jobs and Resource Centers in large SHA 

family public housing communities. 

Combine public housing operating and capital 

funds, and tenant-based assistance into a single 

fungible budget. Establish obligation and 

expenditure timelines in the Annual MTW Plan 

instead of adhering to HUD timelines. 

Status 

SHA Board approved a new rent policy in June 

2000. This report contains further evaluation of 

the adopted rent policy, focusing on the financial 

impacts to SHA (Section II and Appendix C). 

SHA Board approved a new “applicant choice 

policy” in June 2000. HUD approved it in October 

2000. This report looks at some of the effects 

of the policy to date (Section II, Appendix D). 

Because of a lack of community support for SHA 

to provide this type of housing, this idea is no 

longer being considered. Instead, SHA increased 

project-based voucher support for partners who 

house hard-to-house households and instituted 

admissions preferences to strengthen public 

housing’s role in the housing continuum. 

SHA received approval from HUD to designate 

one building (Westwood Heights) in 2000. In FY 

2003, SHA selected a second building for designation 

for seniors, Ballard House, and will submit 

a designation plan to HUD in FY 2004. 

SHA and the City are no longer considering this 

idea. The City’s program has evolved to serve 

clients whose housing needs are not acute. 

Currently applied only at NewHolly, where occupancy 

policies were created collaboratively with 

residents. Similar policies may be put in place at 

other communities after consulting residents. 

No changes were made in FY 2003; a program 

evaluation is underway. 

The partnership is no longer being pursued. In 

FY 2002, SHA hired two more FSS staff who can 

refer participants to local service providers for 

education, employment, or homeownership 

assistance. 

Grant funding has enabled SHA to create Job 

Centers at NewHolly, Rainier Vista, High Point 

and Yesler Terrace. 

SHA has created block grant budgets every year 

since the first year of MTW. In FY 2002 and FY 

2003, SHA used this flexibility to acquire property, 

obtain better financing terms and preserve 

housing affordability in newly-acquired units. 




Maintain an operating reserve consistent with 

sound housing management practices. 

Merge Housing Choice vouchers and certificates 

into a single program. 

Tailor the tenant-based Housing Choice Voucher 

Program to local needs. 

Adopt a policy for project-basing Housing Choice 

vouchers to meet local needs. 

Cooperate with other housing authorities to further 

MTW goals. 

Adopt an alternative procurement system that is 

competitive, and results in SHA paying reasonable 

prices to qualified contractors. 

Status 

SHA has done this every year since the beginning 

of the demonstration. 

Certificates are being converted to vouchers when 

a holder leaves the program or when an annual 

review shows that the holder will not become 

rent-burdened if the certificate is converted. 

During FY 2003, 197 certificates were converted. 

In FY 2002, SHA used MTW authority to make 

several changes to the tenant-based program: the 

way rent burden is calculated for initial lease-ups 

now includes some types of income that HUD 

regulations exclude, giving participants more 

affordable housing options. SHA can also take 

the payment standard up to 120 percent of FMR 

when certain conditions are met. There were no 

additional changes in FY 2003. 

The FY 2000 policy permits SHA to project-base 

up to 25 percent of its Housing Choice Vouchers. 

In FY 2003, SHA worked with the City of Seattle 

to establish a process for project-basing vouchers 

in City Housing Levy or Sound Families units; 

the project-basing policy was amended to allow 

the City’s competitive process for selecting 

projects for levy funding to also serve for projectbased 

funding. Current project-based commitments 

total 690 units or nine percent of voucher 

authority. 

SHA participates in the Sound Families Program 

with six regional housing authorities and several 

local governments. Through this program, the 

housing authorities agree to project-base Section 

8 subsidy in new transitional housing approved by 

local governments and funded by the Bill and 

Melinda Gates Foundation. The other housing 

authorities requested HUD waivers for projectbasing 

regulations modeled on SHA’s MTW 

policy. 

SHA and King County Housing Authority, using 

ROSS Homeownership Counseling funds, are 

working together to sponsor culturallyappropriate 

outreach to current public housing 

residents in self-sufficiency programs to identify 

potential Section 8 homeownership participants. 

In FY 2002, SHA self-certified that its new 

procurement policies are in compliance with all 

HUD regulations. HUD has accepted the selfcertification. 

These policies do not require MTW 

flexibility. 




Create a reasonable and less expensive process for 

determining, applying, and reporting HUDdetermined 

wage rates. 

Simplify and streamline HUD approval for 

homeownership, mixed finance agreements, 

partnerships, building demolition, and property 

disposition. 

Replace HUD's Total Development Cost limits 

with reasonable limits that reflect the local market 

place for quality construction. 

Simplify, streamline and enhance management and 

maintenance. 

Deploy a cost-benefit and risk management 

approach for property inspections in lieu of HUD 

requirements for comprehensive annual 

inspections. 

Create a new lease and community rules based on 

proven private management models. 

Deploy a cost benefit approach for resource 

conservation in lieu of the HUD requirement for 

energy audits every five years. 

SHA may enter into contracts with any related 

nonprofit. 

SHA’s commitment to HUD 

At least 75 percent of the families assisted by SHA 

must have incomes below 50 percent of the area 

median. 

Assist substantially the same number of 

households and maintain a comparable mix of 

families (by family size). 

Status 

In FY 2004 SHA will evaluate whether to propose 

streamlining the monitoring of prevailing wages 

on contracts with HUD-determined wage rates. 

In FY 2002, SHA requested that HUD’s MTW 

technical assistance consultant bring together the 

several MTW housing authorities that included 

similar provisions in their agreements to work 

together on these issues. 

To date, HUD’s TDC costs limits have not proven 

to be a barrier in mixed finance development 

projects. SHA may explore this in the future if 

the limits become problematic. 

During FY 2002, SHA restructured property management 

according to portfolios of like properties. 

During FY 2003, a variety of steps were taken to 

continue aligning the agency to support the 

portfolio-based management structure; none of 

these actions required MTW flexibility however. 

In FY 2003, SHA implemented a new inspection 

protocol under which each public housing unit 

will receive either a “comprehensive” or a 

“critical item” inspection annually. 

NewHolly’s lease is based on private management 

models, emphasizes curb appeal, and requires 

residents to pay their own utilities. SHA 

will consider creating a new form of lease in other 

portfolios in FY 2004. 

A new resource conservation protocol was 

finalized and implemented in FY 2003. The 

protocol was reviewed and received very 

favorably by regional conservation experts. 

In FY 2004, SHA will obtain consulting services 

to further advise on fundraising strategies, which 

may include a related non-profit. 

98 percent of households receiving SHA housing 

assistance have incomes less than 50 percent of 

the area median. 

In 1998 (pre-MTW) SHA assisted 10,560 

households. By FY 2003, SHA assisted 11,677 

households. See Appendix B for information on 

family size. 


SECTION I: HOUSEHOLDS SERVED 

This section describes changes to the 

number and characteristics of households 

receiving housing assistance and on wait 

lists over the year. Several programs are 

covered: low-income public housing, 

Housing Choice Vouchers and Section 8 

New Construction, and the locally-funded 

Seattle Senior Housing Program. See 

Appendix B for more detailed information. 

Residents 

Households and individuals served 

Under MTW, SHA agreed to continue 

serving about the same number of households. 

In 1998, at the start of MTW, SHA 

served 10,560 households. By the end of 

FY 2003, this figure had increased to 11,677 

households and over 24,000 individuals. 

In FY 2003, public housing served 79 fewer 

households at the end of the year than at the 

beginning, continuing the trend of declining 

population due to redevelopment activities. 

The tenant-based Housing Choice Voucher 

program saw an increase of 995 households 

and 1,992 individuals due to the continued 

growth in SHA’s supply of vouchers. 

As anticipated, SSHP housed about the same 

number of households and individuals at the 

beginning of the year as at the end. Variations 

are due to month-to-month fluctuations 

in the number of occupied units. 

Resident income levels 

The average income of public housing residents 

continued to increase, from $11,213 to 

$11,423, or just under two percent. The 

average income of tenant-based Housing 

Choice Voucher participants increased only 

one percent from $11,381 to $11,485 

compared to over two percent increases per 

year in the two years prior. Participants in 

the agency-based and project-based Housing 

Choice Voucher programs have significantly 

lower incomes, averaging $10,483 and 

$7,479 per year, respectively. 3 Average 

income in SSHP was $11,656, compared to 

$11,229 in FY 2002, a four percent increase. 

Average income in Section 8 New 

Construction was $9,408. 

Income distribution as a percent of 

median income 

There were minimal variations from last 

year among income groups in all SHA 

programs, as anticipated. 

Racial distribution 

Racial distribution of heads of households in 

all SHA housing programs remained about 

the same. All categories were well within 

five percent of last year’s percentages in 

public housing and the Housing Choice 

Voucher program. In SSHP, however, there 

was a seven percent decrease in African/African 

American households and a 19 percent 

increase in Asian/Pacific Islander households. 

The percentage increases are relatively 

large because the program is small. They 

represent a loss of eight African/African 

American households and a gain of 19 Asian 

and Pacific Islander households as a result 

of normal turnover. 

Seniors, minors and persons with 

disabilities 

The percent of children in public housing 

declined from 33 to 28 percent, while the 

percent of adults declined from 53 to 50 

percent, compared to last year. Both 

changes are most likely a result of the 

3 The agency-based voucher program had been in 

place for several years prior to MTW. With the 

adoption of an updated Section 8 Administrative Plan 

in FY 2002, the program was revived and expanded. 


elocation of High Point families for 

redevelopment and the exclusion of 

NewHolly tax credit residents from this 

year’s population counts, compared to last 

year. The proportion of elderly adults 

increased slightly. 

The number of disabled individuals in public 

housing increased 3.5 percent from 2,844 to 

2,943. Currently people with disabilities 

make up one-third of the total population. 

In the Housing Choice Voucher program, 

the age distribution of participants was very 

similar to that of FY 2002, even taking into 

account the almost 16 percent increase in the 

number of individuals served. 

The proportion of people under 62 in SSHP 

continues to decrease, this year by 3 percent, 

compared to 13 percent last year. During 

FY 2002, SHA decided to adhere to the original 

program design of serving 90 percent 

elderly and 10 percent younger people with 

disabilities. Only applicants with a head of 

household 62 years old or older are admitted 

to SSHP at this time. 4 Non-elderly adults 

make up 14 percent of SSHP residents at the 

close of FY 2003. The percent of people 

with disabilities in SSHP is about the same 

as last year, 28 percent. The number of nonelderly 

disabled heads of household has 

decreased to 129, or about 13 percent. 

Section 8 New Construction wait list on 

September 1. 5 

Income levels 

Income levels among applicants varied 

slightly from projections (within two percent). 

By the end of FY 2003, 92 percent of 

applicants had incomes below 30 percent of 

median. 

Racial distribution 

SHA has not adopted new admissions 

policies that would affect racial distribution, 

therefore, no significant changes in racial 

distribution were anticipated. The racial 

distribution among applicants to all SHA 

housing programs was within three percent 

of last year’s in all racial categories, 

indicating minimal change. 

Elderly and disabled applicants 

Among the 9,101 households on a wait list 

at the end of FY 2003, 1,445 had a household 

member 62 years or older, and 1,736 

had a household member with a disability. 

235 households had both an elderly and a 

disabled household member. The proportion 

of households with an elderly or disabled 

family member is 19 and 16 percent 

respectively, similar to FY 2002. 

Applicants 

Number of applicants 

As of September 30, 2003, 9,101 households 

with an active applicant status were on one 

or more wait lists for housing assistance. 

This is a 30 percent increase from the 7,012 

households waiting for housing at the end of 

FY 2002, despite the closure of the Housing 

Choice Voucher wait list on July 1 and the 

4 A few non-elderly adults are caregivers for or 

spouses of elderly adults. 

5 SHA anticipates that the Housing Choice Voucher 

wait list will be closed for about two years. 


SECTION II: OCCUPANCY AND ADMISSIONS POLICIES 

Policies adopted 

This report includes an evaluation of the 

financial impact on SHA of the MTW public 

housing rent policy and an update of the 

effects of the applicant choice policy. The 

policy implementation status and findings 

are summarized below. The full evaluations 

can be found in Appendices C and D. 

Neither policy has been in place long 

enough to fully assess whether the intended 

goals are being achieved. 

Local preferences (FY 2003) 

The term “local preferences” refers to 

criteria used to select applicants from a wait 

list. In 2002, SHA took the first step toward 

establishing new local preferences by 

modifying the federal preferences slightly to 

strengthen the local housing continuum and 

connections between highly supportive 

housing operated by nonprofits and SHA’s 

more independent housing. 

In FY 2003, SHA again amended 

admissions policies to address continuing 

problems that were not affected by the FY 

2002 policy change: 

• Applicants had to make absurd choices 

or misrepresent their circumstances to 

qualify for a preference: For example, 

homeless applicants had to stay homeless 

for months or years between applying 

and coming in for an interview to 

retain their priority. 

• Preferences were difficult to document 

and verify: SHA brought applicants in 

for interviews based on the preference, 

only to return them to the wait list if they 

could not credibly verify the preference, 

even though they were clearly very low 

income and needed housing assistance. 

• Preferences wasted staff time and 

resources: Few applicants with the highest 

preference for public housing (homeless 

or displaced) met SHA’s suitability 

criteria, yet SHA had to consider all 

applicants with a homeless preference, 

before other, equally poor households 

who had more stable living situations 

and were more likely to be suitable for 

public housing. 

The new preferences are intended to achieve 

these goals: 

• Address the most urgent housing needs 

first, of the people able to live 

independently in public housing or with 

a tenant-based Housing Choice Voucher; 

• Support a rational, efficient admissions 

process that treats applicants with 

respect and avoids inconvenience or 

absurd requirements; a preference must 

be easy for applicants to document and 

for staff to verify; 

• Maximize use of SHA resources; contribute 

to low public housing vacancy 

rate and high voucher utilization; 

• Avoid displacement of SHA live-in 

employees in good standing upon 

separation from employment; 

• Support efficient admissions processes 

for applicants to Section 8 Mod-Rehab 

or project-based units or HOPE VI 

replacement public housing units owned 

by non-profits; and 

• Support households’ movement through 

the affordable housing continuum by 

facilitating the transition from highly 

supported environments to SHA housing 

for those ready for independent living. 

The new preferences can be found in 

Appendix H. 


Seattle Senior Housing Program rent 

policy (FY 2003) 

The rent policy established in FY 2002 met 

with opposition from some housing advocates 

and residents because, in placing the 

financial burden for SSHP’s long-term 

financial viability on new residents, the 

policy could have excluded new households 

with incomes well below 30 percent of 

median income. To address this concern, 

SHA convened the SSHP Rent Structure 

Advisory Committee to help craft a new rent 

policy that would maintain the program’s 

long-term financial viability and access for 

extremely-low-income senior households. 

The rent policy establishes a series of flat 

rents for people with incomes between 20 

and 80 percent of median and a sustainable 

distribution of rents. It also assumes that 

about 150 eligible SSHP residents with 

extremely low incomes will have tenantbased 

Housing Choice Vouchers. The new 

rent policy was adopted by the Board of 

Commissioners in June, for implementation 

October 1, 2003. 

Income group 

Percent 

of Units 

Flat rent as of 

October 2003 

< 20% AMI 31% $220 

20-30% AMI 36% $350 

Housing Choice 

Vouchers (

once every three years; in the intervening 

years, rents are increased proportionately to 

the social security cost of living adjustment. 

This is intended to reduce the administrative 

costs of these reviews and SHA’s intrusion 

into residents’ privacy. Implementation of 

this part of the policy will begin in FY 2004. 

All residents pay an absolute minimum rent 

of $50 per month unless they face a hardship 

in making such a payment. 

Findings and Recommendations 

Dupre + Scott, Apartment Advisors, 

prepared an economic model of the rent 

policy prior to its implementation to enable 

SHA to monitor the financial performance 

of the rent policy. Mike Scott, of Dupre + 

Scott prepared the impact analysis, by 

comparing the model’s financial performance 

projections to actual performance 

based on data provided by SHA. SHA 

adopted the policy expecting to forego rent 

revenue for several years, in order to 

encourage resident self-sufficiency and, 

therefore, higher rent revenues in later years. 

The financial evaluation found: 

• Foregone rent revenue from working 

households is significantly higher than 

projected because, on average, working 

households are earning more than the 

model anticipated. 

• Far fewer residents than expected are on 

the TANF rent policy. 

• By not adjusting the rent steps and the 

minimum rents upward each year, as the 

policy anticipated, SHA sacrificed about 

$125,000 in revenue. 

• Slower than anticipated growth in 

incomes among fixed income households 

and higher utility allowances 

reduced SHA rent revenues by about 

$542,000 from this group. 

In addition to Dupre + Scott’s financial 

evaluation, staff offer the following 

observations. 

Evaluation of the rent policy was complicated 

by a procedural shift to support the portfolio-based 

management structure and the 

decentralizing of recertifications to portfolio 

staff teams. The recertification schedule is 

moving from one in which every resident of 

a community is recertified in a single month, 

to one in which recertifications are done in 

the anniversary month of each resident’s 

tenancy. As a result, SHA has an unusually 

high number of late recertifications. This 

means that various aspects of the rent policy, 

such as the 2-year rent steps, have not been 

applied as intended – some have run longer 

than two years, while others may not have 

been assigned to a rent step as early as they 

should have been. The revenue impacts of 

this have not been evaluated. 

The rent policy initially included a 12-month 

rent freeze for public housing residents who 

were already working when the policy was 

put in place, to provide a transition for existing 

residents to the new policy. To simplify 

administration, it is recommended that the 

rent freeze be eliminated at this point, and 

that all newly-employed households be 

placed on the appropriate rent step instead. 

The policy also protected residents from rent 

increases due to a new working member 

joining the household. This was intended to 

encourage existing public housing residents 

to disclose the true composition of their 

households, instead of pretending that a 

working spouse, for example, lived outside 

of public housing, when the spouse was 

really a full-fledged household member. All 

those households in public housing at the 

time of the adoption of this policy have had 

ample time to declare the existence of a 

working household member and benefit 

from the rent amnesty implied. Therefore, it 

is recommended that this part of the policy 


e changed so that when a new household 

member is added to the lease, a new rent 

will be calculated based on the appropriate 

rent calculation method for the family’s 

current income sources. 

Procedures should be clarified so that staff 

know how to handle changes in tenants’ 

income sources that would move them from 

one rent formula to another (e.g., from the 

TANF rent to the fixed income rent). 

Applicant choice (FY 2001) 

In June 2000, SHA adopted a public housing 

applicant choice policy with these goals: 

• Offer public housing applicants the 

chance to select the public housing 

community of their choice; 

• Maintain racial and ethnic diversity in 

public housing communities and avoid 

any racial or ethnic steering, whether 

conscious or inadvertent; 

• Resist concentrating the most 

disadvantaged applicants in the least 

desirable locations; 

• Increase the efficiency of the admissions 

and tenant assignment functions; and 

• Reduce high unit turnover due to 

resident dissatisfaction with location. 

Under applicant choice, all applicants may 

place themselves on up to two site-specific 

wait lists. Those who qualify for an admissions 

preference may, instead, place themselves 

on a wait list for the next available 

unit in any community throughout the city. 

The policy has been in place since about 

April 2001. Initially the policy applied only 

to households requiring studio or one-bedroom 

units. During FY 2003, implementing 

procedures were updated based on last 

year’s evaluation and to incorporate changes 

required by new local preferences (described 

above). Changes include: 

The Urgent Need wait list was renamed the 

“Next Available Unit” list. Applicants may 

no longer turn down one unit and remain on 

the top of this list. These changes are intended 

to clearly convey to applicants the 

purpose of this list, and to help SHA fill 

vacancies quickly by reducing the number of 

turn-downs. In response to stakeholder suggestion, 

procedures have also been amended 

to allow next available unit applicants to 

select either the north end or south end of 

town, with the hope that this limited choice 

would reduce turn-downs. Applicants who 

need or want specific buildings may select 

up to two site-specific lists. 

When a unit becomes vacant, SHA alternately 

offers it to applicants from the next 

available unit list and applicants on the sitespecific 

list. If an applicant does not accept 

it, the unit is then offered to the applicant at 

the top of the next wait list in the rotation, 

until filled. By rotating between these two 

lists, no SHA community will exclusively 

house applicants who have the financial 

resources to wait for the most desirable 

locations. The original procedures required 

the unit to be leased to applicants from 

alternate wait lists, which created lengthy 

delays in leasing from turn-downs and noshows, 

most of which were on the urgent 

needs/next available unit list. It is hoped 

this change will preserve the policy intent 

while speeding up leasing. 

The transfer wait list for current public 

housing residents was eliminated. All emergency 

and ADA transfers are handled before 

a unit is listed as vacant. Voluntary transfer 

requests from current residents are entered 

on that community’s site-specific list. 

A new wait list, also divided into north and 

south, called the “Expedited Processing” 

list, was authorized. This list will be composed 

of applicants referred by nonprofit 

housing or service groups who sign an 

Agency Referral Agreement with SHA. 


They will agree to identify applicants likely 

to be successful public housing tenants, help 

them complete the application and assist 

them in leasing. A project piloting this new 

list will be implemented in FY 2004. 

To facilitate implementation of the preferences 

and the Expedited Processing wait list, 

and to meet customer demand, implementing 

procedures for the public housing applicant 

choice policy have been amended to 

allow site-specific wait lists for 2+ bedroom 

public housing units. By the end of the year, 

SHA had begun wait lists for 2+ bedroom 

units at Yesler Terrace, Jackson Park Village 

and Cedarvale Village. 

Findings and recommendations 

Changes in the racial distribution of 

individual buildings continue to be minor 

and wait lists for individual buildings are 

sufficiently long to ensure that vacancies can 

be filled. No affirmative fair marketing is 

recommended at this time. 

No further recommendations are offered at 

this time. 

Housing Choice Voucher projectbasing 

policy (FY 2001) 

In 2000, SHA adopted a policy for projectbasing 

Housing Choice Voucher subsidies. 

This policy replaces HUD regulations and 

procedures and authorizes the project-basing 

of up to 25 percent of SHA’s available 

Housing Choice Voucher assistance. 

By the end of FY 2003, SHA had commitments 

for 690 project-based units or nine 

percent of voucher authority. Actual lease 

up of this many units may take several 

years, because some projects are in the 

planning stages. In the meantime, vouchers 

are used in the tenant-based program. 

Under the policy, vouchers are project-based 

for several purposes: 

• Competitive process, with housing goals 

defined by SHA: two Request for 

Proposal rounds have led to commitments 

to project-base 569 units in 23 

projects. About 240 of these units were 

leased up by year end. 

• Supporting City of Seattle low income 

housing initiatives: SHA has committed 

to project-base 121 units to date in Levyand 

Sound Families-funded projects. 

SHA also project-bases vouchers for other 

reasons outside the policy including: 

• Replacement housing for HOPE VI or 

demolished or disposed public housing: 

current commitments, 415 units. 

• Special purposes, totaling 276 units. 

These are unique situations, decided on a 

case-by-case basis, in which projectbasing 

can help preserve housing affordable 

to extremely low-income people. 

Tri-Court smoke-free policy (FY 2001) 

In 2001, SHA designated Tri-Court, 87 units 

of public housing for elderly and disabled 

households, as a smoke-free environment. 

During FY 2003, SHA rehabilitated the first 

of Tri-Court’s three buildings so that Tri- 

Court would be acceptable to residents 

especially concerned about the healthful 

quality of the living environment. At year 

end, 14 households had moved into the 

rehabbed building, and the rehab of the 

second and third buildings had begun with 

completion scheduled for February 2004. 

The rehabilitation includes: new domestic 

water supply system from the water main in 

the street to all apartments; new hot water 

tanks; renovation of kitchen cabinets, new 

vanities and fixtures in bathrooms; kitchen 

and bath ventilation improvements; new 

baseboard heaters and painting of apartment 

and common area interiors. 


Interior of an updated Tri-court unit, showing 

new light fixtures and reconfigured kitchen. 

Policies being developed 

Designation of elderly/near-elderly 

communities 

SHA received HUD approval to designate 

Westwood Heights, in West Seattle, for 

elderly 7 in 2000. Lease up of the newlyrenovated 

public-housing high-rise was 

completed during FY 2003. 

Lessons learned from SHA’s experience 

with Westwood Heights have informed 

future plans for designation of senior buildings: 

a) seniors prefer one-bedroom units 

over studios; and b) neighborhood location 

is critically important. Keeping these 

lessons in mind, during FY 2003, SHA 

identified a second building for designation 

– Ballard House – in the north end to offer a 

choice of neighborhoods to seniors. A 

designation plan for Ballard House will be 

submitted to HUD in FY 2004. 

Poverty deconcentration 

SHA is addressing the issue of deconcentration 

of poverty by continuing to create 

mixed-income communities in previously 

distressed public housing family developments 

and assisting existing SHA residents 

to gain employment or improve their existing 

employment situation to “create a mix of 

incomes from within.” 

Through acquisition and project-basing 

Housing Choice Vouchers, SHA is also 

supporting creation of affordable housing in 

non-poverty neighborhoods. Interim results 

from relocation of High Point and Rainier 

Vista residents show the effectiveness of 

these strategies. For example, several 

households were able to move to projectbased 

HCV units in SHA-owned or 

partnership housing in non-poverty 

neighborhoods. 

7 Elderly is defined as 62 years of age or older. Near 

elderly is 50 years of age or older. 


SECTION III: CHANGES IN HOUSING STOCK 

This section compares the number and types of low-income housing resources SHA had at the 

start of the MTW demonstration (as of December 31, 1998), and at the end of FY 2002 with 

actual numbers for the end of FY 2003. 

October 1, 

2003 

Projected 

Percent 

Change 

1998-2003 

Housing Program 

Pre-MTW 

1998 

October 1, 

2002 Actual 

October 1, 

2003 Actual 

Housing Choice Vouchers 4,517 7,175 7,621 7,550 67% 

Section 8 New Construction 159 151 151 151 -5% 

Low Income Public Housing 6,144 5,692 5,369 5,306 -13% 

Seattle Senior Housing Program 1,198 993 993 993 -17% 

NewHolly non-public-housing rental 5 164 164 164 3180% 

Other Affordable Housing 282 495 372 784 178% 

SHA-Managed, Owned by Others 39 31 29 n/a 

Total 12,305 14,707 14,521 14,977 22% 

In the FY 2003 Plan, SHA forecast a net increase of 375 units and tenant-based housing 

opportunities over the course of the year. By the end of the fiscal year, SHA housing resources 

increased by 532 units. Changes are described below. 

Housing Choice Vouchers 

SHA received 375 new Housing Choice Vouchers of the additional 450 vouchers anticipated in 

the FY 2003 plan: 96 fair share, 200 designated housing, 52 reallocated Welfare to Work 

vouchers, and 27 opt out vouchers. 738 vouchers converted from special purpose to MTW. 

Housing Choice Vouchers 

Pre-MTW 

(1998) 

FY 2002 

Total 

New in FY 

2003 

FY 2003 

Total 

Certificates 2,730 

Vouchers 1,787 

MTW Vouchers & Certificates 5,596 834 6,430 

Opt-Out Vouchers 62 (35) 27 

Designated Housing Vouchers 200 0 200 

Mainstream Disability 75 0 75 

Family Unification/MTW 100 (100) 0 

Family Unification 66 0 66 

HOPE VI Replacement Housing Vouchers 376 (376) 0 

Welfare to Work Vouchers 700 52 752 

Total 4,517 7,175 375 7,550 

Converted to MTW: 62 opt out, 200 designated housing, 100 family unification, 376 HOPE VI 

New MTW vouchers: 96 Fair Share 

New special purpose vouchers: 27 opt out, 200 designated housing, 52 welfare to work 

Section 8 certificates are being converted to 

Housing Choice Vouchers when a certificate 

holder leaves the program and when an 

annual recertification determines that a 

certificate holder will not become rentburdened 

with conversion. During FY 2003, 


197 certificates were converted this way. At 

the end of the year, SHA had 569 

certificates remaining. 

Public housing 

Changes in the public housing unit count 

during FY 2003 are primarily due to HOPE 

VI revitalization. In addition: 

• The FY 2003 plan projected the addition 

of 59 public housing units for Roxbury 

HOPE VI replacement. SHA has purchased 

all 59 units (9 Roxbury townhomes 

in FY 2002, 30 Longfellow Creek 

units and 20 Wisteria Court units in FY 

2003, described below). 

• As projected, 21 units at Yesler Terrace 

were disposed of to the Seattle Parks 

Department to be demolished for 

construction of a new community center. 

• The FY 2003 Plan included 11 public 

housing units coming on line at the 

Meadowbrook View and Andover Court 

partnership projects. As of the end of the 

fiscal year, HUD approval of the mixed 

financing of Meadowbrook View had 

not yet come (six units), and Andover 

Court units, still under construction, will 

be subsidized with project-based 

Housing Choice Vouchers instead. 

• The FY 2003 Plan projected 442 units to 

be demolished in the first phase of the 

High Point redevelopment. The actual 

number of units demolished was 420. 

• The FY 2003 Plan anticipated disposition 

of up to 10 scattered sites; in fact, 

two were identified for disposition and 

one was sold (930 N. 90 th Street). The 

second will be sold to the Seattle Public 

Library by the end of the calendar year. 

Another scattered site (312 NW 68 th 

Street), which had been approved for 

disposition in FY 2000, was finally sold. 

Seattle Senior Housing Program 

The SSHP unit count remained the same, as 

anticipated. 

Other housing 

During FY 2003, SHA purchased 319 

housing units, of which 160 are intended to 

replace demolished or disposed public 

housing. SHA purchases include: 

• 37 townhomes that had been leased to 

voucher holders for many years. 

Recently, however, the owner had begun 

leasing at market rate rents. These units 

represented a substantial portion of the 

large family units affordable to voucher 

holders in this gentrifying neighborhood. 

SHA purchased these properties to 

preserve the units as affordable housing 

and fulfill replacement housing goals for 

Holly Park, Yesler Terrace Community 

Center and Lake City Village. 

• A townhome in a triplex that is among 

the 37 units described above. This unit 

had been purchased by a private 

individual when the triplex was new, 

before the developer began leasing to 

Housing Choice Voucher participants. 

• Lam Bow’s Apartments, a 51-unit 

221(d)(3) below market interest rate 

complex in Delridge. SHA’s purchase 

will preserve this high quality, low cost 

housing and contribute to High Point’s 

replacement housing commitment. 

• Roxbury Apartments (renamed Westwood 

Heights East apartments). A 42- 

unit, two-building complex across the 

street from Westwood Heights, was purchased 

to improve public safety and curb 

appeal in the neighborhood to protect the 

multi-million dollar HOPE VI investment 

in Westwood Heights. Fifteen 

units count toward Holly Park and six 


units contribute to Rainier Vista 

replacement housing goals. 

• Two Westwood East four-plexes 

purchased to improve public safety and 

curb appeal in the neighborhood to 

protect the multi-million dollar HOPE 

VI investment. 

• Longfellow Creek apartments: 84 oneand 

two-bedroom units in Delridge; 30 

of the units count as Roxbury replacement 

housing. HUD has approved acquisition 

of this complex and will provide 

public housing subsidy for 30 units. 

• Wisteria Court apartments: a 96-unit 

expiring tax credit complex of spacious 

one- and two-bedroom units down the 

hill from High Point in Delridge. This 

purchase preserves these units as affordable 

housing and makes twenty of them 

affordable to extremely low-income 

households as Roxbury replacement. 

HUD approval of the acquisition as a 

mix of public and market rate housing 

has been obtained. 

Wisteria Court apartments 

• As projected, SHA completed construction 

of Lake City Commons, 15 twobedroom 

apartments for Holly Park 

replacement housing. 

Under contract for purchase at year end, 

were the final two of six four-plexes across 

from Westwood Heights, and a single family 

residence just south of Othello Place at 

NewHolly. (All purchases have since 

closed.) 

SHA entered into a management contract for 

Kateri House, an 8-unit, Section 202 

building owned by the Seattle Indian Center 

Housing Association and intends to 

purchase it, once HUD approval is obtained. 


SECTION IV: SOURCES AND AMOUNTS OF FUNDING 

This section compares projected and actual sources and amounts of funding included in the 

consolidated MTW budget and other programs. SHA’s Consolidated Financial Statement can be 

found in Appendix E. Please note that the figures in this section represent unaudited fiscal year 

end data. 

Planned vs. actual revenues – MTW budget 

Funding Sources Projected Revenues Actual Revenues 

Dwelling Rental Income $10,115,050 $9,567,723 

Investment Income 478,002 194,483 

Other Income 870,667 1,262,177 

Reserves 2,364,314 1,619,669 

Housing Choice Voucher Block Grant 55,547,238 55,166,120 

Capital Block Grant 14,633,063 14,633,063 

Public Housing Block Grant 15,063,307 14,387,507 

Total Revenues $99,071,641 $96,830,742 

Notes: Capital Block Grant revenues represent SHA’s FY 2003 allocation only. No funds from 

prior year capital grants are included. 

Differences between projected and 

actual funding 

Recent trends of declining federal support, 

low interest rates, and a shaky local economy 

continued into FY 2003, affecting 

revenues. 

Dwelling rental income is $547,000 under 

budget projections, for several reasons: 

• The actual vacancy rate was higher than 

the two percent assumed in the budget 

due to modernization, redevelopment 

and relocation activity and other factors. 

• Average tenant rent payments were flat 

compared with FY 2002. 

Investment income was 59 percent under 

budget due to low interest rates. Rate of 

return for most SHA investments decreased 

38 percent over the course of the year. In 

addition, the average investment amount 

available was less than anticipated due to 

temporary internal loans from reserves for 

replacement housing acquisition and 

HOPE VI activity. 

Other income ended the fiscal year over 

budget due to higher than expected revenue 

from space rental to service providers and a 

year-end accounting entry adjusting the 

allowance for rental collection loss. 

Operating expenses were kept low, requiring 

less use of reserves than budgeted. 

The small variance for the Housing Choice 

Voucher block grant, which includes port-in 

subsidy, can be attributed to the following. 

Although SHA assumed fewer MTW vouchers 

than the actual, per unit funding was 

higher than anticipated. This additional 

funding was offset by a shortfall in new 

MTW project reserve contributions. 

Revenue for special purpose vouchers is 

shown in other programs below. 

FY 2003 capital block grant funding was as 

anticipated. 

Public housing block grant was less than 

budgeted because anticipated Drug Elimination 

and Self-Sufficiency funds were not 

received. 


Planned vs. actual revenues – other programs 

Funding Sources Projected Revenues Actual Revenues 

Dwelling Rental Income $7,640,490 $8,985,076 

Investment Income 775,416 1,909,995 

Other Income 6,234,854 4,877,740 

Housing Choice Vouchers (special purpose) 17,557,292 17,656,999 

Grants 31,658,792 21,664,687 

Total Revenues $63,866,844 $55,094,497 

SHA operates a number of housing programs 

that are not included in the consolidated 

MTW budget: SSHP, Section 8 New 

Construction and a large and growing Other 

Affordable Housing Portfolio, as well as 

HOPE VI and other grant-supported programs. 

In addition, SHA manages housing 

for other owners and runs other programs 

that support housing operations. The table 

above compares the projected with actual 

revenues for FY 2003 non-MTW activities. 

Differences between projected and 

actual funding 

Dwelling rent revenue was more than projected 

due to the acquisition of properties in 

the other affordable housing portfolio. 8 

Because some SSHP residents were issued 

Housing Choice Vouchers, which increased 

rent revenue from those units, SSHP rent 

revenue was more than budgeted. 

Investment income was higher due to 

interest earnings in the local housing fund 

(the other affordable housing portfolio). 

These earnings cover bond interest expense 

in the fund. 

Other income was significantly less than 

budget. During FY 2003, the IPS enterprise 

fund was reorganized and a new billing and 

cost allocation system was implemented. 

This change, expressed as a mid-year budget 

8 Revenue includes Housing Assistance Payments 

that SHA receives as landlord from project- or 

tenant-based vouchers in SHA owned properties. 

revision, accounts for most of the difference 

between projected and actual revenues in the 

table above. 

Housing Choice Voucher operating subsidy 

revenue is slightly higher than budgeted. 

SHA assumed that 75 Mainstream Disability 

and 66 Family Unification Vouchers would 

be converted to MTW vouchers, but HUD 

has informed SHA that they are to remain 

special purpose vouchers. SHA received 

200 additional Designated Housing Vouchers 

mid-year; the budget had assumed 50 

new vouchers. Lower than expected 

average special purpose housing payments 

offset the funding received from additional 

vouchers. 

Grant revenue was less than budgeted primarily 

because of changes in the timing of 

redevelopment projects. Lower than anticipated 

expenditures and use of fund sources 

other than HOPE VI meant that revenue 

draws were lower than estimated: 

• NewHolly expenses were shifted to the 

limited partnership, freeing up federal 

funds. 

• The delay of the Rainier Vista mixed 

finance closing reduced obligation of 

HOPE VI funds in FY 2003. 

• High Point redevelopment appears to be 

under budget only because of timing on 

payment of invoices. 

• Westwood Heights is in the final phase 

of grant close-out; use of funds for re- 


placement housing is awaiting HUD 

approval. 

Non-capital grant revenue was slightly 

higher than budgeted. New ROSS grants 

were awarded for the Job Connection and 

Neighborhood Networks. SHA also 

received a Family Self-Sufficiency Program 

Coordinator grant for $197,000 that was not 

included in the budget. Drug Elimination 

Grant funds were $272,000 less than budgeted 

for two grants that were in effect for 

part of the fiscal year. 

Investment policy 

Under MTW, SHA uses Washington State 

Investment Policies instead of HUD Investment 

Policies so that SHA has the flexibility 

to invest its financial resources productively 

and efficiently, without regulatory duplication. 

SHA is investing only in securities 

authorized under the Washington State 

Housing Authority Law (Section 35.82.070). 

Consolidated financial statements 

SHA’s FY 2003 Consolidated Financial 

Statements can be found in Appendix E. 

Please note that these figures represent 

unaudited fiscal year end financial data. The 

audited Consolidated Financial Statements 

will be available in February 2004. 


SECTION V: USES OF FUNDS 

This section compares budgeted expenditures with actual expenditures by line item and reports 

the level and adequacy of reserve balances at the end of the fiscal year for MTW and other 

programs. Please note that the figures below are unaudited fiscal year end financial data. 

Planned vs. actual expenditures – MTW budget 

Expenses Budget Actual Expenditures 

Administration and General $20,306,467 $15,479,170 

Depreciation 7,616,857 6,665,970 

Housing Assistance Payments 52,543,443 50,852,668 

Utilities 4,236,733 4,148,178 

Maintenance and Contracts 9,473,817 11,929,027 

Capital and Development Projects 10,814,519 22,115,557 

Capital Equipment 1,696,662 1,525,894 

Total Expenses $106,668,498 $112,716,464 

Notes: Bottom line differences between actual revenues and actual expenditures are due to 

expenditure of prior year capital grants (revenue not shown in the revenue table) and 

depreciation, a non-cash expense. 

The reorganization and implementation of 

IPS as an enterprise fund required a new 

billing and cost allocation system. This new 

approach to booking expenses shifted costs 

from Administrative and General to Maintenance 

and Contracts and explains most of 

the large variance in these two categories. 

In addition, SHA's actual expenses varied 

from the budget for these reasons: 

• Administration and general: Administrative 

Salaries and Temporary help are 

under the budgeted amount, especially 

with costs for the Section 8 program 

allocated between the MTW and other 

programs budgets. Spending was also 

under budget for other miscellaneous 

administrative expenses. 

• Depreciation: Depreciation is less than 

budgeted due to demolition of public 

housing at HOPE VI sites. 

• Housing Assistance Payments: The 

FY 2003 budget assumed higher average 

Housing Assistance Payments than the 

actual average. 

• Utility expenses were close to budget 

due to conservation efforts. 

• Maintenance and contracts: This 

expense category is under budget for 

contracts associated with the IPS enterprise 

fund. In addition, spending was 

under budget for off-duty police officers 

and professional services contracts. 

• Development and capital projects: Capital 

spending was higher than budgeted 

due to more activity than anticipated and 

$7.6 million to support HOPE VI 

redevelopment. Revenues that support 

the level of expenditures in this category 

include prior years’ capital block grant 

and $1.9 million in Housing Choice 

Voucher block grant to purchase affordable 

housing for HOPE VI replacement 

or preservation. 


Planned vs. actual expenditures – other programs 

Expenses Budget Actual Expenditures 

Administration and General $10,370,163 $13,992,753 

Housing Assistance Payments 16,544,759 16,195,684 

Utilities 921,019 1,094,966 

Maintenance and Contracts 3,684,616 3,876,650 

Development and Capital Projects 30,982,450 22,720,774 

Grants 2,011,247 2,094,884 

Total Expenses $64,514,254 $59,975,711 

SHA acquired several properties in the other 

affordable housing portfolio in FY 2003. 

These acquisitions account for expenditures 

higher than budgeted in the Administrative 

and General Expenses and Utilities categories. 

Maintenance and Contracts expenses 

were also higher because of the property 

acquisitions, but these costs were partially 

offset by changes in the recording of IPS 

enterprise fund expenses. 

The average special purpose housing assistance 

payment was lower than budgeted. 

Offsetting this slight under-spending, more 

vouchers retained their special purpose 

designation than anticipated. 

Grant expenditures were less than budgeted 

due to timing of HOPE VI redevelopment 

projects, as described above. In addition, 

unanticipated grants were awarded for the 

Job Connection, Neighborhood Networks, 

and Family Self-Sufficiency. Drug Elimination 

Grant expenditures were $272,000 less 

than budgeted for two grants in effect for 

part of the fiscal year. 

Level and adequacy of reserves 

Reserves Projected Actual 

Public Housing Reserve $6,610,141 $3,430,754 

Insurance Reserve 800,000 800,000 

Housing Choice Project Reserve 4,773,502 7,628,785 

Total MTW Reserves $12,183,643 $11,859,539 

Other Program Reserves $13,838,836 $8,657,647 

The public housing reserve represents 

necessary cash flow for the public housing 

program. Actual public housing reserves are 

less than projected because of advances out 

of reserves for short- and long-term loans 

and property acquisitions. 

The insurance reserve of $800,000 is 

required by SHA policies, including 

requirements by Housing Authority Risk 

Retention Group (HARRG), the SHA 

insurance carrier, for general liability. 

The Housing Choice Voucher reserve is held 

by SHA and used to cover changes in local 

conditions that affect the program. Actual 

reserves are more than projected because of 

unanticipated timing of funds received for 

year end settlements for voucher count reconciliation 

and reserve contributions. 

Reserves of all other programs represent 

necessary cash flow for those programs. 

They are less than projected because of 

property acquisitions and internal loans. 


New ways to reduce costs 

Energy conservation 

With financial assistance from Seattle Public 

Utilities, 5,268 toilets, along with shower 

heads and faucet aerators, were replaced 

with water saving models. Estimated 

savings for FY 2003 are $400,000, and for 

FY 2004, $700,000. (Original estimates of 

annual savings of $1,000,000 were adjusted 

down to take into account the reduction in 

units from the HOPE VI revitalizations.) 

Electric boilers at two high-rises, International 

Terrace and Olive Ridge, were 

replaced by gas-fired boilers. Savings at 

International Terrace have been $1,000 per 

month, a 37 percent reduction in utility costs 

associated with domestic hot water. 

The participation of local utilities 

dramatically reduces the payback period to 

SHA of these conservation measures. 

Computer network upgrade 

Replacement of SHA’s computer network, 

including hardware and software, was 

completed in FY 2003. SHA’s network is 

now based on Windows 2000. The network 

was expanded via DSL/Cable modem 

connections to 50 remote sites where SHA 

field staff work. The Operations Support 

Center was added to the network as well. 

These changes increase productivity and 

streamline network maintenance and 

trouble-shooting. 

Time and attendance project 

The Time and Attendance Project will 

implement an automated system to replace 

SHA’s current method of time reporting on 

paper time sheets. The objectives of the 

project are to: 

• Insure the accurate reporting of hours 

worked; 

• Replace the current labor- and paperintensive 

process with an automated 

system that allows real-time entry of 

hours and work locations; and 

• Replace out-dated technology that 

supports the current process. 

A multi-disciplinary team of SHA staff 

selected the Workforce Central software 

from Kronos Incorporated as the preferred 

solution. Kronos will be tested with several 

SHA work groups in early FY 2004; assuming 

that the pilot goes well, it will be rolled 

out to the rest of SHA in the third quarter of 

FY 2004. 


SECTION VI: CAPITAL PLANNING 

This section describes FY 2003 capital 

expenditures or obligations and reports on 

the status of SHA’s four major redevelopments, 

other demolition and disposition 

activities and homeownership activities. A 

detailed listing of capital work items by 

housing program and community can be 

found in Appendix F. 

Modernization and rehabilitation 

Public housing capital work items 

Public housing capital obligations for FY 

2003 totaled $21,882,539. Following is a 

summary of the year’s activities: 

• Redevelopment of outdated housing: 

$7,648,740 in public housing capital 

funds supported redevelopment activities 

at HOPE VI sites. 

• Hazardous materials and vacant unit 

off-line: $597,497 was obligated or 

expended to eliminate hazardous materials 

in dwelling units and to repair and 

renovate vacant units that require work 

beyond normal operational capabilities. 

• Building structures: This category 

includes building structural and mechanical 

systems, site work, common area 

and dwelling unit projects. In total, 

$10,899,725 was obligated on building 

structures. Some highlights: 

- $1,774,860 was spent or obligated 

for exterior painting and repairs or site 

work such as replacement of walkways, 

drive surfaces and parking lots for a 

number of properties. 

- The new Operations Support Center 

required $1,493,525 and the Enterprise 

Service Center cost $575,426. 

- The Tri-Court rehabilitation cost 

$1,484,700. 

- SHA has begun a multi-year, multibuilding 

program to refurbish elevators 

in the public housing high-rises, obligating 

$4,973,000 for this purpose. Poorly-functioning 

elevators contribute to 

high operating costs and reduce the 

quality of life for residents. This program 

will result in completely renovated 

elevators in 21 communities by 2005. 

- SHA has also continued its interior 

finishes plan for the high-rises with the 

rehab of Denny Terrace. As 30-year-old 

common area components wear out, 

1970s color schemes are replaced with 

updated flooring and finishes to reduce 

the institutional look and feel of the 

buildings. About $379,000 was 

obligated or expended in this area for 

work in several buildings. 

Denny Terrace residents prepare for a health 

care presentation in their newly-refurbished 

community lounge. 

• Other program costs: Administrative 

costs for the capital program came to 

$1,091,431; architecture and engineering 

costs were $277,661, and overhead 

totaled $792,059. 


SSHP capital work items 

SSHP capital obligations for FY 2003 

totaled $787,871, as follows: 

• Seven building exteriors were repaired 

or painted ($328,155). The Pinehurst 

Court roof was replaced, and major 

repairs were completed on the roof of 

Fremont Place. Balconies were replaced 

at Carroll Terrace. 

• Common area floors, painting and lighting: 

A total of $232,473 was expended at 

a number of sites. 

• Fire alarm system replacement: The 

system was replaced in five buildings. 

• Floor replacement: $186,912 was 

obligated for replacement of carpet in 

several buildings, many of which had 

original 15-20 year old carpet. 

Other facilities capital work items 

SHA owns buildings that are not part of the 

public housing program or the Seattle Senior 

Housing Program. Projects completed in 

FY 2003 included replacement of common 

area floors at Argonaut, intercom and 

common area heaters at Bayview Tower and 

a new roof at Bryant Apartments. 

Federal capital funding 

expenditures 

To reflect the actual time needed to plan, 

design, procure contractors and implement 

capital activities, public housing capital fund 

and HOPE VI grant funds are normally used 

over a multi-year period. The table below 

shows the funding obligated through FY 

2003 from each allocation. 

Program Fund Source Budget 

Funds Obligated 

Through FY 2003 

Public Housing FY 2000 HUD Capital Fund $15,208,726 $15,208,726 

Modernization FY 2001 HUD Capital Fund 14,897,536 14,897,536 

FY 2002 HUD Capital Fund 14,729,498 14,729,498 

FY 2003 HUD Capital Fund 14,633,063 12,880,770 

HOPE VI Holly Park Revitalization Grant 48,116,503 48,116,503 

Holly Park Demolition Grant 1,769,100 1,769,100 

Roxbury Revitalization Grant 17,020,880 16,420,880 

Roxbury Demolition Grant 788,570 788,570 

Rainier Vista Revitalization Grant 35,000,000 14,148,000 

High Point Revitalization Grant 35,000,000 15,560,540 

High Point Demolition & Relocation 2,462,300 2,462,300 

Total $199,474,603 $156,982,423 

Note: Another $9.4 million in Rainier Vista HOPE VI Revitalization Grant funds will be obligated 

when the mixed finance closing occurs in early FY 2004. 


HOPE VI revitalization activities 

SHA has been awarded HOPE VI grants for 

demolition and redevelopment for four 

communities. FY 2003 activities are 

described here: 

NewHolly 

The first two phases of NewHolly are complete 

and occupied. 

One of the NewHolly Neighborhood 

Campus partners, South Seattle Community 

College, expressed an interest in purchasing 

its space in the campus. The campus was 

converted to a condominium to enable the 

college to do so, and a condominium association 

was formed. Other campus partners 

may follow in the college’s footsteps. SHA 

and the college both regard this step as a significant, 

long-term commitment to the revitalization 

of NewHolly and southeast 

Seattle. 

NewHolly phase III, called Othello Place, 

will consist of at least 357 units, including 

219 new multi-family rental units in a mix 

of building and unit types that reflects the 

character and density of the surrounding 

community. 163 will be public housing units 

for households with incomes at or below 30 

percent of area median income. Fifty-six tax 

credit units will serve households with 

incomes at or below 50 or 60 percent of area 

median income. Buildable lots for about 

138 for-sale houses will be sold for 

development to private homebuilders. 

Foundation and lead soil removal at the 

Othello Place site were completed in early 

FY 2003. Construction of infrastructure was 

nearly done and building construction had 

begun by year end. Rental housing 

construction is scheduled to be complete in 

May 2005. 

The financial closing for Othello Place was 

completed in August. Wachovia Affordable 

Housing Community Development 

Corporation is the investor limited partner. 

Other investors include Federal Home Loan 

Bank, HUD, Washington State Housing 

Trust Fund, City of Seattle and SHA. 

Construction of the mixed use Othello 

Building began. The building will house the 

NewHolly management office, International 

Community Health Services Clinic, retail 

space and 24 units of low-income housing. 

Othello Building 

Othello Place surrounds the corner of Martin 

Luther King Jr. Way (MLK) and S. Othello 

Street, but key parcels right on the corner 

and fronting MLK were in private ownership. 

These parcels consist of two dilapidated 

houses, several small commercial buildings 

and an auto tow yard. During FY 2003, 

SHA finished buying these properties to 

ensure success of the Othello Place vision – 

an attractive, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly 

center across the street from light rail. 

SHA also continued to buy distressed properties 

on the southern edge of Othello Place 

with the purchase of a single family house in 

September 2003. This area became isolated 

from the surrounding community when the 

site was demolished; prostitution and other 

illegal activity had increased as a result. 

These purchases will bring the area into the 

overall revitalization of the community. 

Replacement housing targets for the period 

were met. New partnership housing 

includes: 


• The 96-unit Views at Madison, 

developed by the Hearing, Speech and 

Deafness Center, began leasing. Twentyfour 

units are Holly Park replacement. 

• Twenty more units are nearing completion 

in two projects, Andover Court and 

NW 85 th , in partnership with the Low 

Income Housing Institute. 

• Four partners, including two new ones – 

Archdiocesan Housing Authority and 

Capitol Hill Housing Improvement 

Program – have proposed 28 additional 

units through the City’s competitive 

process for allocating levy funding. 

SHA finished construction and began 

leasing the 15-unit Lake City Commons to 

contribute to Holly Park replacement 

housing goals. 

Lake City Commons 

At the request of the Seattle City Council, 

the City Auditor conducted an audit of the 

Holly Park relocation program, as the City 

was entitled to do under the Holly Park 

Memorandum of Agreement. The audit 

found that: SHA provided Holly Park 

households adequate information and 

counseling to make informed choices; Holly 

Park households received moving compensation 

as called for in the Relocation Plan; 

moves were coordinated to prevent disruption; 

and 85 percent of households were able 

to move to their preferred housing option. 

Information on community and supportive 

services at NewHolly can be found in 

Section IX, Resident Programs. 

Rainier Vista 

Approval of the Rainier Vista Revitalization 

Plan was granted in November, 2002. This 

milestone contributed to the progress of the 

redevelopment in FY 2003. 

On December 24, 2002, SHA settled a 

lawsuit with the Displacement Coalition, the 

Friends of Rainier Vista (a small group of 

neighbors opposed to the project) and two 

residents. The lawsuit was intended to stop 

the project and had delayed construction. 

Some agreements reached in the settlement 

were: enhanced preservation measures for 

significant trees, establishment of a Citizen’s 

Review Committee, an analysis of the 

feasibility of replacing all the low-income 

public housing units on site, and confirmation 

of SHA’s willingness to allow residents 

who remain in good standing to return to the 

redeveloped community. 

A wide variety of permitting hurdles were 

addressed and resolved, including obtaining 

a positive decision from the Hearing 

Examiner on Rainier Vista’s Environmental 

Impact Statement and subsequent issuance 

of a Master Use Permit and the recording of 

the subdivision approval in late October, 

2003. These actions paved the way for the 

mixed-finance closing in early FY 2004. 

Demolition of 290 units and the site was 

completed. A number of significant trees 

were preserved and measures have been 

taken to protect them during construction. 

Infrastructure construction, mass grading 

and foundation work began on the 184 units 

of rental housing in phase I. 

Over 200 people attended the Rainier Vista 

phase I ground breaking in August. Mayor 


Greg Nickels, Council President Peter 

Steinbrueck, and John Meyers, Regional 

Director of HUD, addressed the crowd. 

Protestors from the labor group, LELO, also 

attended; SHA provided LELO an opportunity 

to inform the crowd of their concerns 

about minority hiring for construction jobs 

in southeast Seattle. 

The Citizen’s Review Committee, established 

as part of the lawsuit settlement, met 

several times in FY 2003. The committee 

provides a forum for SHA to keep community 

stakeholders informed of issues and 

progress in the redevelopment of Rainier 

Vista, and to give stakeholders a voice concerning 

project issues that effect them. 

Members include Rainier Vista residents 

and neighbors, services providers, nonprofit 

development partners and SHA staff. 

Bay Area Economics prepared the feasibility 

study to which SHA agreed in the settlement. 

The study confirmed SHA’s original 

conclusion that financing and HOPE VI 

programmatic concerns preclude development 

of the 71 replacement units on site. 

Similar to the situation at Othello Place, 

Rainier Vista surrounds two key properties 

at the corner of Alaska Street and MLK. The 

Alaska Street mini-mart on the west side is 

in private ownership. The Seattle School 

District owns a parcel on the east side that 

used to be part of Rainier Vista, but which 

SHA sold to the District many years ago. 

SHA continued negotiations to purchase 

both properties during FY 2003. 

SHA began condemnation proceedings to 

take the Alaska Street mini-mart by eminent 

domain. In August, SHA obtained a public 

use and necessity order from the King 

County Superior Court. The proceedings 

were still underway at year end. 

SHA’s negotiations with the Seattle School 

District were inconclusive, requiring a slight 

reconfiguration of the street grid in phase II 

excluding the property in question in order 

to record the subdivision in time for the 

mixed finance closing. This redesign was 

approved by the City, allowing the subdivision 

to record in time. SHA expects to 

purchase this parcel in FY 2004, and will reevaluate 

the street design at that time. 

SHA signed a purchase and sale agreement 

with Housing Resources Group, a nonprofit 

development partner, for a parcel of land in 

phase I for Genessee House, a 50-unit mixed 

use building with 22 Section 811 units for 

low-income people with disabilities and 28 

units of workforce rental housing. 

Grading for the new Columbian Way. 

SHA entered into negotiations for Neighborhood 

House to purchase a parcel in phase 

I for a new 10,000 square foot community 

center. The community center will house a 

Head Start program and classroom space. 

This partnership is another example of 

SHA’s strategy for long-term sustainability 

of services, with Neighborhood Housing 

owning and managing the new facility, 

rather than SHA. 


services can be found in Section IX. 

High Point 

Progress on the High Point redevelopment 

was considerable. Some highlights include: 

• HUD approved the High Point relocation 

and revitalization plans. 


• A lot on 35 th Avenue was disposed of to 

the Seattle Public Library for the new 

High Point library. A 99-year lease was 

signed with Puget Sound Neighborhood 

Health Centers for an adjacent parcel for 

construction of a new clinic. These new 

facilities, placed at the edge of the 

community, will help weave High Point 

back into the fabric of West Seattle: 

- The new 7,000 square foot High 

Point library, with 14 computers and 

capacity for over 27,000 items, a 

meeting room, program areas for 

children and teens, homework areas and 

parking, will be complete in 2004. 

- Puget Sound Neighborhood Health 

Centers opened the new High Point 

Medical Clinic and Joe Whiting Dental 

Clinic in November, 2003. This facility 

replaces the existing, substandard 

facilities in converted housing units at 

High Point. The two-story building will 

house a medical clinic and WIC program 

on the first floor and a children’s dental 

clinic on the second floor. 

• Demolition of 400 units in phase I was 

completed by year end. Another 20 

units were deconstructed, or systematically 

taken apart to recycle and salvage 

materials for reuse. High Point offers a 

wealth of quality materials, including 

doors, lights and plumbing fixtures, 

appliances, old growth lumber from the 

flooring and walls, bricks, windows, 

vinyl and cedar siding layers, and even a 

complete tool shed. Elmore Williams the 

25 year-old head of Knights Construction, 

hired three High Point residents to 

work on his crew of fifteen. Deconstruction 

is estimated to divert up to 80 

percent of the materials from the landfill. 

• Seventy-four trees were left standing 

with strong measures taken to preserve 

them during construction. The value of 

each tree was assessed and a sign was 

placed on each stating its value. The 

sign warned contractors that damage to 

the tree would result in a fine equivalent 

to the tree’s value. Some of the trees are 

valued in excess of $50,000. 

• Future High Point residents will benefit 

from $1.8 million in grants from the 

National Institute of Environmental 

Health Sciences and HUD. The fouryear 

grants provide funding for resident 

education, community involvement, 

environmental assessments and interventions 

by Neighborhood House; 

construction of up to 35 “Better New 

Homes for Asthma” by SHA; and technical 

assistance and project evaluation 

by Public Health–Seattle King County. 

A young High Point resident paints a fence 

plank, part of a fence decorated by community 

members for the High Point market garden. 

• The Partnership for High Point's Future 

advises SHA on High Point redevelopment. 

This coalition includes residents, 

neighborhood groups, West Seattle civic 

leaders, and City of Seattle officials. 


services at High Point can be found in 

Section IX. 


Westwood Heights 

The Roxbury HOPE VI grant is scheduled to 

close out in November 2003, on-time and 

on-budget. 

With the $17 million grant, SHA revitalized 

a small but severely distressed area on the 

southern city limits. Before HOPE VI, 

Roxbury House and Village consisted of a 

150-unit high-rise for elderly and disabled 

households completely surrounded by a 

poorly-designed and -constructed 60-unit 

townhouse village for large families. 

Private properties in the vicinity were badly 

maintained and managed. An adjacent park 

periodically flooded and was a gang hot 

spot. HOPE VI made possible: 

• Reconfiguration of the site from one 

super block to two regular city blocks, 

and a new street separating the high-rise 

from a new family community. 

• Rehabilitation of the high-rise, including 

all new building systems, reconfiguration 

of several studios into more desirable 

one-bedroom units, improvement of 

interior circulation, and addition of a 

welcoming new lobby, commercial 

kitchen and other community spaces; 

• Designation of the high-rise for near 

elderly/elderly and a package of support 

services for the new population also 

available to elderly residents of the 

surrounding community; 

• Development of a new 45-unit, mixed 

income family village, Longfellow and 

Westwood Courts, operated by SHA’s 

development partner, the Lutheran 

Alliance to Create Housing (LATCH). 

LATCH receives public housing subsidy 

for 15 of the units making the affordable 

to households with incomes below 30 

percent of area median; 

• A partnership with the Low Income 

Housing Institute for six replacement 

units in Meadowbrook View, a 50-unit 

complex in north Seattle. As of this 

writing, HUD approval of this partnership 

is the last remaining Roxbury grant 

activity. 

• One-for-one replacement of public 

housing units through acquisition. 

Acquisitions include: 

- Roxbury townhomes, a nine-unit 

townhouse community about 1.25 miles 

east of Westwood Heights; 

- Wisteria Court, a 96-unit apartment 

complex of which 20 units are Roxbury 

replacement units; and 

- Longfellow Creek, an 84-unit 

complex of which 30 units are Roxbury 

replacement units. 

During FY 2002, SHA saw that illegal and 

anti-social activities in privately-owned 

properties across the street from Westwood 

Heights were slowing neighborhood revitalization. 

For example, one potential tenant 

refused a beautiful, renovated Westwood 

Heights unit because of the drug activity 

across the street. SHA joined with several 

City of Seattle departments and neighborhood 

organizations in a concerted effort to 

curtail the illegal activity through surveillance, 

stepped up patrols, and enforcement 

of Housing Assistance Payment contracts 

against the less-than-diligent landlords of 

some of these properties, as well as 

acquisition and eviction of problem tenants. 

By the end of FY 2003, SHA had bought a 

42-unit apartment building and four of six 

four-plexes, using funds other than HOPE 

VI grant funds. (SHA purchased the last 

two four-plexes by early November, 2003.) 

Now that SHA owns the entire half-block 

facing Westwood Heights, improvements in 

curb appeal will be made to ensure 

revitalization of the neighborhood. 


Disposition and demolition 

activities 

HUD approval is required before SHA can 

sell or demolish public housing property, or 

enter into long-term leases. 

HUD approvals during FY 2003 

• Disposition of a portion of Yesler 

Terrace to the Seattle Parks Department 

for a new community center. Ownership 

of the area was transferred to the Parks 

Department; construction of the 

community center is underway. 

• Disposition and demolition of the old 

north end maintenance base in 

Wallingford for redevelopment. SHA 

has entered into a purchase and sale 

agreement with Housing Resources 

Group to develop the 70-unit mixed-use, 

mixed-income Stoneway Apartments, 

with 35 Holly Park replacement units. 

• Demolition of High Point as part of High 

Point revitalization plan approval. 

• Disposition of vacant land at Holly Park 

for redevelopment. 

• Demolition of Rainier Vista as part of 

revitalization plan approval. 

• Disposition of vacant land at Rainier 

Vista for redevelopment. 

Status of prior year demolition and 

disposition approvals 

• Demolition of a scattered site at 312 N. 

68 th Street which had been approved for 

disposition in 2000. SHA sold the house 

in November, 2002; the new owner has 

demolished the unit. A replacement 

townhouse has been purchased. 

• A scattered site unit at 930 N 90 th Street 

was sold to a private party (disposition 

approval was received in FY 2002). A 

replacement townhouse was purchased. 

• SHA has entered into a purchase and 

sale agreement with the Seattle Public 

Library for the scattered site unit at 2407 

24 th Avenue East. The Library will buy 

this unit by the end of December 2003, 

for a new branch library in the Montlake 

neighborhood. 

• A portion of High Point was disposed to 

the Seattle Public Library and Puget 

Sound Neighborhood Health Centers for 

community facilities serving the new 

High Point and adjacent neighborhoods. 

Homeownership activities 

Although not part of MTW, the NewHolly 

homeownership program continues to make 

the dream of homeownership a reality for 

low-income households. At the end of FY 

2003, approximately 62 households with 

incomes below 80 percent of area median 

income purchased homes at NewHolly, 

including 20 who purchased their homes 

through Habitat for Humanity’s sweat equity 

program. 

Twenty-one of 59 units in NewHolly phase 

II had sold by the end of the fiscal year, and 

six more were under contract for purchase. 

Habitat for Humanity’s eight units in phase 

II were occupied and construction had 

started on another eight units. 

SHA and King County Housing Authority 

received ROSS Homeownership Counseling 

funding in a joint application in FY 2002. 

This year, with SHA’s participation in a 

competitive selection process, KCHA 

procured the services of an ethnicallydiverse 

homeownership counseling and 

referral consortium. The consortium of the 

Urban League, El Centro de la Raza and 

International District Housing Alliance has 

begun culturally-specific outreach to 

qualified public housing tenants in FSS or 

an equivalent program to identify possible 

Section 8 homeownership recipients. 


SECTION VII: OWNED AND MANAGED UNITS 

This section compares projected management 

performance with actual performance 

during FY 2003. 

Vacancy percentages 

While vacancy rates in SHA housing 

remained low compared to the broader 

community, most housing programs experienced 

slightly higher vacancy percentages 

than in previous years: 

Vacancy percentage 

FY 2002 FY 2003 

Public housing 2.30 3.65 

SSHP 1.90 4.33 

Section 8 New Const. 1.72 2.56 

Part of the increase can be attributed to the 

soft rental market, with vacancy rates in the 

7-8 percent range, and the relative availability 

of Housing Choice Vouchers and 

other low-income housing options; part of it, 

however, is due to a temporary slow down 

of SHA’s file processing systems in the first 

part of the year, which has since been corrected. 

SHA expects the vacancy percentages 

to decline to typical levels in FY 2004. 

Vacancy percentages by community for 

SHA-owned properties can be found in 

Appendix G. 

Rent collection 

Continuing its exceptional performance 

record, SHA collected 98.78 percent of the 

public housing rents assessed during FY 

2003. This compares to 97.89 percent in 

FY 2002. 

Work orders 

Emergency work orders: SHA responded 

within 24 hours to 99.35 percent of requests 

for emergency maintenance work orders 

during FY 2003. Response to five of 758 

emergency work orders exceeded 24 hours; 

the conditions that lead to these few delays 

have been addressed. 

Regular maintenance work orders: SHA 

continues to improve its response to nonemergency 

work orders. During FY 2003, 

SHA responded to 96 percent of work orders 

within 30 days, up from 94 percent during 

FY 2002. SHA projected that this response 

rate would remain constant, yet significant 

improvements continue to be seen. 

Inspections 

SHA completed 100 percent of public housing 

inspections during FY 2003 in accordance 

with its new public housing inspection 

protocol. 

Under the new protocol each public housing 

unit received either a critical item inspection 

or a comprehensive inspection. About 1,400 

critical item and 3,800 comprehensive 

inspections were conducted. 

Security 

Twenty-four households were evicted for 

cause during FY 2003 as a result of lease 

violations other than non-payment of rent, 

while another 24 voluntarily left SHA housing 

under threat of eviction for cause; this is 

slightly higher than last year. 

During FY 2003 SHA contracted with the 

Seattle Police Department for four Community 

Police Team officers. Three of these 

officers served in the SHA large family 

communities of Yesler Terrace, Rainier 

Vista and High Point. The fourth served 

thirteen public housing high-rise buildings 

in Seattle’s north end. The officers provided 

a visible police presence in the communities 


and much positive interaction with residents, 

SHA management and service providers. 

SHA often works with the police and neighborhood 

organizations to address emerging 

and chronic public safety problems in the 

vicinity of SHA housing. In FY 2003, SHA 

focused on crime hot spots adjacent to Westwood 

Heights and High Point. SHA staff 

participated in a task force with service 

providers and the Seattle Police Department 

to address tensions between gang-involved 

youth of the High Point neighborhood and 

the White Center area to the southwest of 

the City of Seattle. 

In prior years, this section of the report 

included an analysis of crime rates for Part I 

offences (the most serious crimes). 

Unfortunately, the Seattle Police Department 

was unable to provide FY 2003 crime 

statistics for areas around SHA communities 

in time for this report. 


SECTION VIII: ADMINISTRATION OF LEASED HOUSING 

This section compares performance targets 

for the Housing Choice Voucher Program 

for FY 2003 with actual performance, and 

reports on policy and program changes 

under MTW or QHWRA. 

Leasing information 

Housing Choice Voucher utilization 

Measured by budget authority used, SHA’s 

utilization rate was 100.05 percent during 

FY 2003. SHA used about $1.9 million of 

its Housing Choice Voucher budget authority 

to purchase privately-owned properties 

that had been affordable to voucher holders, 

but which were at risk of becoming 

unaffordable because of the owner’s choice 

to serve a higher rental market. 

Because the budget authority will be renewed 

in subsequent years, property acquisition 

is a one-time use that preserves affordable 

housing units but has no long term effect on 

the availability of tenant-based vouchers. 

In the last three years, SHA has seen its 

Housing Choice Voucher program increase 

from 5,579 vouchers in FY 2000 to 7,550 in 

FY 2003. Utilization has kept pace with this 

dramatic increase; during FY 2003, SHA 

leased up 1,000 new voucher participants. 

Ensuring rent reasonableness 

During FY 2003, rent reasonableness was 

determined in the same manner as in 

previous years. Since 1988, Dupre+Scott, a 

professional real estate consulting service, 

has completed annual rent reasonableness 

surveys for SHA. Before approving a unit 

for subsidy, a trained housing inspector 

inspects the unit and determines its rental 

value using this survey. The rent reasonableness 

evaluation addresses market comparability 

for unit size, location, quality, type, 

age, amenities and utilities paid by the 

owner. The contract rent is then negotiated 

with the owner. 

SHA ensures that the contract rent is reasonable 

at all times the unit receives Housing 

Choice Voucher assistance by conducting a 

rent reasonableness assessment whenever an 

owner requests a rent increase. 

During FY 2003, a new procedure was 

designed, with implementation starting 

October 1, 2003, to standardize the rent 

reasonableness determination and improve 

its consistency and objectivity. In the new 

system, the Housing Choice Voucher New 

Move-In Team or Owner Liaison compare 

the proposed rent and unit information from 

the owner, verified at inspection, with Dupre 

+ Scott market data. Those units where the 

proposed rent is higher than the Dupre + 

Scott average rents for comparable units are 

investigated further to ensure that the higher 

rent is justified by unit characteristics. This 

process is similar in concept for both new 

move-ins and annual reviews. The procedure 

for documenting rent reasonableness is 

stated in the Section 8 Administrative Plan. 

Expanding housing opportunities 

SHA Housing Choice Voucher 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 quarterly newsletter 

sent to all owners. SHA actively markets 

the program and solicits commitments 

from landlords to advertise availability of 

their housing units for participants. An 

example of a landlord bulletin can be found 

in Appendix I. 

In spring 2002, SHA re-invigorated a longstanding 

agency-based voucher program, by 

creating a preference for up to 30 percent of 


vouchers for applicants referred by community-based 

homeless assistance providers, 

shelters, transitional housing programs, and 

case management programs for people with 

disabilities. By the end of FY 2003, 59 programs 

committed to assist clients with the 

application process and housing search. The 

agencies include the local YMCA and 

YWCA; faith-based organizations such as 

the Archdiocesan Housing Authority, Jewish 

Family Services and the Church Council of 

Greater Seattle; agencies serving various 

ethnic communities including Asian Counseling 

and Referral Services and Consejo 

Counseling Services; and agencies serving 

individuals with a wide range of disabilities, 

including the Lifelong AIDS Alliance, Community 

Psychiatric Clinic, Seattle Mental 

Health, Harborview Hospital Chemical 

Addictions program, King County Recovery 

Center, Parkview Group Homes for people 

with developmental disabilities, and others. 

Each participating agency signed an Agency 

Services Agreement specifying that case 

managers work closely with households to 

identify housing opportunities in the neighborhoods 

chosen by the families, and then 

provide translation, transportation or other 

services to remove the barriers which 

otherwise prevent their clients from using 

vouchers effectively. By the end of the 

fiscal year, 776 vouchers were leased up in 

this program, or just over 10 percent of 

voucher authority, serving 1,207 people. 

Deconcentration of low-income 

families 

SHA has issued two Requests for Proposals 

under its MTW Section 8 project-basing 

policy. By the end of 2003, a total of 569 

units were committed in 23 projects from 

both RFP rounds. The project-based 

program leads to affordable units in 

neighborhoods throughout Seattle; some 

units are project-based in mixed-income 

communities. 

The agency-based program may further 

contribute to the deconcentration of low-income 

households since case managers are 

available to help households in their housing 

search. 

Inspection Strategies 

SHA currently inspects units and facilities in 

the Housing Choice Voucher Program to 

ensure that HUD’s Housing Quality Standards 

(HQS) are met prior to executing a 

contract with a property owner. Inspections 

are repeated when the initial inspection reveals 

items that must be corrected prior to 

leasing. Thereafter, the unit is inspected 

yearly to ensure that HQS have been maintained. 

As part of MTW, SHA is continuing 

to evaluate this system and explore other 

inspection methods and protocols. 

Performance indicators 

• SHA completed 100 percent of the 

annual HQS inspections in FY 2003. 

• SHA completed 100 percent of the precontract 

HQS inspections in FY 2003. 

• SHA completed at least 30 Quality 

Control inspections in FY 2003, as 

required. 

Changes to the Housing Choice 

Voucher program 

Merger of certificates and vouchers 

SHA continues to administer Housing 

Choice vouchers and certificates separately. 

In early FY 2002, SHA began converting 

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. 197 vouchers were 

converted during FY 2003, and 569 remain. 


Preferences policy 

See Section II: Occupancy Policies for a 

discussion of changes to Housing Choice 

Voucher admissions preferences. 

Program administration 

PorchLight staff reorganization 

In July, 2003, several new staff teams were 

created to administer the Housing Choice 

Voucher Program: 

• The Issuance Team determines applicant 

eligibility, builds participant files, 

conducts background checks, and 

focuses on deconcentration strategies 

and housing search assistance. 

• The New Move-In Team focuses on 

customer service for landlords, and tasks 

such as recruitment, orientation, rent 

reasonableness and rent negotiations. 

• The Occupancy Teams complete special 

and annual reviews and administer 

special purpose voucher programs such 

as Welfare to Work. 

• The Project-Based/Mod Rehab Team 

conducts new move-in, annual and 

special reviews for these programs. 

The new structure is designed to allow staff 

to focus on specific areas, develop higher 

levels of expertise, and therefore, increase 

staff accountability. 

Agency-Based Voucher evaluation 

SHA conducted a thorough evaluation of the 

agency-based voucher program during FY 

2003 in order to identify administrative improvements. 

The evaluation found that, in 

general, the program accomplished its goals: 

• Provide a link to permanent housing for 

people in time-limited shelter or 

transitional housing programs; 

• Ensure that disabled individuals receive 

support to use a voucher successfully; 

• Transfer stabilized Shelter Plus Care 

clients to HCV subsidy; and 

• Utilize a large number of vouchers as 

quickly as possible. 

The agency-based voucher program was 

modeled on several HUD programs that 

target vouchers to special populations 

referred through partner agencies such as the 

Family Unification or Hope for Elderly 

Independence programs. 

The Section 8 Administrative Plan allows up 

to 1,500 agency-based vouchers. A wide 

variety of agencies were invited to participate; 

selections were made competitively. 

Participating agencies entered into an 

Agency Services Agreement with SHA in 

which they agreed to select eligible, first 

priority applicants using SHA criteria in a 

rational, non-discriminatory way; assist 

clients to complete the application and find 

suitable housing; and in some cases provide 

follow-up case management. 

The evaluation consisted of surveys of 

participating agencies and staff. Highlights 

of recommendations include: 

• The Agency Services Agreement should 

be revised to clarify expectations of 

service providers and to include specific 

fair housing and conflict of interest 

requirements. SHA should periodically 

audit agency compliance. 

• SHA should establish clear tracking 

methods and communication channels 

with providers concerning the status of 

their clients’ applications. 

• Agencies would benefit from regular 

training and targeted information. 

• SHA should revisit the idea of joining 

the King County Housing Access and 

Services Program, in which the YWCA 

provides a central distribution point to 

allocate vouchers to service providers. 


SECTION IX: RESIDENT PROGRAMS 

This section describes community and supportive 

services programs available during 

FY 2003 to residents of SHA communities 

and Housing Choice Voucher participants. 

Sustainability of services 

In an effort to streamline its human services 

and community building initiatives, SHA 

formed a new division in the spring of FY 

2003 called Community Services in the 

Housing Operations Department, merging 

the former Resident Services and Community 

and Supportive Services divisions. 

Effects of the merger include: 

• Annual savings of about $337,000. Staff 

reduced from 28.5 FTEs to 23.5 FTEs. 

• Better coordination of planning and 

program implementation through creation 

of one coordinator for family 

communities (NewHolly, Rainier Vista, 

High Point, Yesler Terrace, scattered 

sites) and one for employment services. 

• Better sharing of lessons learned among 

portfolios for services planning – e.g. 

applying lessons learned from Westwood 

Heights in the services plan for 

Ballard House, the proposed seniordesignated 

building. 

SHA also made a deliberate effort to 

broaden its role in securing grant resources 

for SHA communities and succeeded in 

helping to secure over $3 million through 

applications to federal and local funding 

agencies. SHA’s roles included direct grant 

recipient, grant writer for partner agencies, 

and fiscal agent through the Campus of 

Learners Foundation (see table below). 

One noteworthy success is the Health and 

Human Services Department grant award of 

$150,000 to Horn of Africa Services for 

youth leadership development. This award 

is particularly satisfying in that it replaces 

lost Drug Elimination Grant resources. 

As the economy strengthens during FY 

2004, SHA will re-examine the creation of a 

foundation or using the existing Campus of 

Learners Foundation for long-term financial 

sustainability. 

Purpose Award SHA Role Partners 

Support High Point Technology 

Center. $250,000 Awarded grant 

High Point Elementary, 

SafeFutures 

Support FSS. $199,328 Awarded grant 

Case management and community 

building. $263,397 Awarded grant 

Aging and Disability 

Services, Fremont Public 

Association 

Job Connection, Seattle- 

Job-readiness and placement services 

King Co. Out-of-School 

for out-of-school youth. $10,000 Awarded grant 

Youth leadership development, parent 

Principal grant 

advocacy in the schools. $150,000 writer 

Case management, substance abuse 

treatment and violence prevention for 

Contributed to 

High Point Youth Coalition. $280,000 grant application. 

Substance abuse prevention through 

community building activities. $90,000 


grant application. 

Consortium, SafeFutures 

Horn of Africa Services 

(grant recipient) 

SafeFutures (grant 

recipient) 

SafeFutures (grant 

recipient) 


Purpose Award SHA Role Partners 

Many Neighbors - Many Stories: 

organized cultural exchanges among 

neighbors, multicultural guide book. $14,188 

Fiscal Agent and 

staff support 

Healthy Homes initiative: asthma 

prevention $1,822,000 

TOTAL $3,078,913 


grant application, 

awarded grant. 

NewHolly Multi-Cultural 

Communications Club 

(grant recipient) 

Neighborhood House, 

SafeFutures, Health 

Department 

Family Self-Sufficiency 

During FY 2003, 65 households graduated 

from or left FSS. Of these, 22 bought 

homes and 21 started businesses, including 

house-cleaning, home care, day care, 

landscaping, catering, fashion design, 

realtor, bookkeeping and others. At the end 

of the year, there were about 325 FSS participants 

were in the Housing Choice 

Voucher program and 45 in public housing. 

Jobs and resource centers 

Rainier Vista Jobs Plus 

In FY 2003, Jobs Plus enrolled 63 new 

participants, including public housing residents 

and members of the surrounding 

community. At the end of the fiscal year, 

there were 211 active participants. Jobs Plus 

staff made 40 placements for the year, with 

an average hourly wage of $11.23, a six 

percent increase over the average hourly 

wage in FY 2002. Sixty-three percent 

received benefits. Four of the jobs were 

replacements for lost employment. 

Many Rainier Vista residents in Jobs Plus 

experienced lay-offs during the year. This 

had an impact on participation in the Jobs 

Plus rent policy, which now stands at 78 

active participants down from 94 at the end 

of FY 2002. Those who left the policy were 

unable to meet the progression of rent steps 

due to reduced earnings. 

The Job Connection 

The Job Connection has been operating out 

of High Point and Yesler Terrace since 

November 1999 and serves scattered site 

residents as well. During FY 2003, the Job 

Connection served 185 new residents and 

made 96 job placements, bringing the total 

served since inception to 732 and the total 

number of placements to 363. Of the 96 job 

placements in 2003, 90 were for first time 

employment. The average hourly wage was 

$9.99, a 10 percent increase in the average 

hourly wage from last year. Benefits were 

offered in 51 percent of these positions. 

The High Point office is at the core of 

revitalization supportive services, housing a 

HOPE VI-funded Job Developer. Ten High 

Point residents were hired by HOPE VI 

construction contractors in FY 2003. 

The Job Connection leveraged just over 

$110,000 for services such as job training, 

tuition and books, childcare, food, transportation 

costs such as bus passes and car 

repairs, clothing and specialized services for 

people with disabilities that went beyond the 

normal scope of job readiness programs. 

The Job Connection includes a Disabilities 

Case Manager who is contracted through the 

Washington Coalition for Citizens with 

disAbilities (WCCD). Robert Blumenfeld, a 

staff member of WCCD, received a Governor’s 

Trophy Award for his employment 

services work with people with disabilities. 

Mr. Blumenfeld has worked with SHA 

residents for the last three years at the Job 


Connection, providing employment services 

for more than 75 public housing residents 

and Housing Choice Voucher participants. 

NewHolly Neighborhood Campus 

The NewHolly Neighborhood Campus is the 

heart of NewHolly and the bridge to the surrounding 

neighborhood. It houses a Seattle 

Public Library branch, teen center, family 

center, Career Development Center, youth 

tutoring, South Seattle Community College 

Continuing Education Center, Head Start, 

and the gathering hall – a large meeting 

space available to the Southeast Seattle 

community. FY 2003 activities included: 

• A steering committee of Campus partners 

continued to promote the NewHolly 

community revitalization vision. The 

committee oversees needs assessments, 

facilitates a community advisory process, 

evaluates proposals from existing 

or new service partners regarding 

tenancy or types of services to be offered 

and supports efforts to secure funding. 

• SHA’s contract with TRAC to operate 

the Career Development Center (CDC) 

ended on September 30, 2003. CDC 

achieved 87 job placements, over half of 

which had benefits, at an average hourly 

wage of $7.86, six percent less than the 

average hourly wage in FY 2002. 

Individual Development Accounts 

The Individual Development Account (IDA) 

program allows residents to save money for 

homeownership, education or business 

capitalization in a special account where 

deposits are matched 2-to-1 by the State of 

Washington and 3-to-1 by the United Way. 

At the end of FY 2003, 47 SHA residents 

were enrolled in the IDA program: 19 from 

Rainier Vista; 18 from NewHolly; 8 Job 

Connection participants from High Point, 

Yesler Terrace or scattered sites; and two 

Housing Choice Voucher residents in FSS. 

One participant has used the IDA to purchase 

a home. 

Effectively communicating with 

non-English speaking residents 

SHA supports a wide variety of activities to 

support effective communication with non- 

English speaking residents and applicants: 

• SHA contracted with Horn of Africa 

Services and International District Housing 

Alliance to provide outreach and 

interpretation services to East African 

and Southeast Asian residents of Rainier 

Vista, High Point and Yesler Terrace. 

The agencies served over 500 residents. 

• In FY 2003, SHA made housing application 

materials available in Chinese, 

Russian, Somali, Spanish and Vietnamese, 

as well as English. Applicants can 

download these materials from the web 

or pick them up at PorchLight. 

• PorchLight provides interpreters for 

applicants and participants who need 

them for scheduled interviews. 

• A union-approved interpreter program 

enables employees with language skills 

to assist in translation as needed. 

• Community builders at HOPE VI sites 

coordinate translation and interpretation 

for non-English speaking residents. 

Resident outreach specialists offer 

language-appropriate information about 

services and redevelopment activities. 

• NewHolly has embraced its multi-cultural 

character by forming a Multi-Cultural 

Neighborhood Communications Club. 

The Club was awarded a City of Seattle 

Neighborhood Matching Fund grant to 

create formal and informal connections 

among people across cultures, through 

sharing information on greetings, cultural 

tips and courtesies, and histories and 


the like. The project will ultimately lead 

to a guidebook for NewHolly residents. 

• With resident participation funding, 

SHA makes interpretation and translation 

services available for duly-elected 

resident councils in public housing. 

Targeting of services 

During FY 2003, SHA focused on 

improving deployment of case management 

resources to help non-English speaking 

residents and to assist residents in crisis. 

The City of Seattle Aging and Disability 

Services (ADS) is the primary case manager 

for elderly and disabled residents. SHA increased 

annual funding for ADS by 27 percent 

to $379,740. ADS was able to leverage 

an additional $861,892, permitting an increase 

in case management staff for the second 

year in a row, from 11.6 to 12.35 FTE. 

ADS case managers provided 212 building 

hours a week or over 11,000 hours a year. 

About 70 percent of their time was spent on 

direct services to clients. The increased 

staffing level has, in the opinion of ADS 

managers, reduced the number of housing 

crises among SHA residents, as problems 

are identified and addressed before they 

reach crisis proportions. 

Of the 1,525 residents ADS served, about 30 

percent have some form of mental illness, a 

large percentage of whom are resistant to or 

refuse mental health services. When their 

illness reaches a crisis, these residents are 

the most likely to affect the quality of life 

for their neighbors. They also require a 

disproportionate share of housing and case 

managers’ attention. 

In FY 2003, SHA continued to develop its 

crisis intervention strategy. Community 

Psychiatric Clinic (CPC), a mental health 

case management provider, was selected to 

work with these hard-to-serve residents. 

CPC provided excellent mental health wraparound 

services to over 100 public housing 

high-rise residents, worked with 33 clients 

on an on-going basis, and prevented 100 

percent of evictions referred. In recognition 

of these services and other programs, CPC 

received a Service Innovation Award at the 

2003 King County Mental Health/Substance 

Abuse Exemplary Service Awards Ceremony, 

recognizing exceptional leadership 

and achievement in service provision and 

advocacy on behalf of persons with mental 

illness and alcohol/drug dependency. 

STAR Center 

SHA continues to provide both financial and 

technical support to the Special Technology 

Access Resource (STAR) Center, which 

uses state-of-the-art assistive technology and 

skilled volunteers to provide individuals 

with disabilities computer literacy and access 

to the Internet. The STAR Center offers 

Open Lab, Adult Basic Education and 

Internet, Blind Internet, Word and Excel 

classes. An average of 30 patrons visited the 

STAR Center each month, logging in an 

average of 350 hours of computer use. 

Twelve volunteers provide 150 hours per 

month of assistance to patrons. 

Tom Ross, Center Park resident and Voice Input 

Specialist volunteer at the STAR center. 


SECTION X: OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED BY HUD 

This section provides documentation that the Seattle Housing Authority Board of Commissioners 

has approved this MTW Annual Report. Board Resolution No. 4723, adopting the FY 2003 

MTW Annual report is attached. 

The appendices following this report include some materials required by HUD and some 

materials intended to further analyze, explain or illustrate SHA’s activities during the year. They 

are: 

Appendix A: FY 2002 Audit from the Washington State Auditor’s Office, dated May 3, 2002. 

Appendix B: Households and Applicant Demographics 

Appendix C: Public Housing Rent Policy Evaluation 

Appendix D: Applicant Choice Policy Evaluation 

Appendix E: Consolidated Financial Statements 

Appendix F: Capital Activities 

Appendix G: Vacancy by Community 

Appendix H: Local Preferences 

Appendix I Landlord Bulletin 


APPENDIX A: FY 2002 WASHINGTON STATE AUDIT 

FY 2003 MTW ANNUAL REPORT APPENDIX A PAGE A-1

The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Housing Authority of the City of Seattle, 

Washington, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002 is available for public review at 

SHA’s Central Office, 120 Sixth Avenue North, Seattle, Washington. 

FY 2003 MTW ANNUAL REPORT APPENDIX A PAGE A-2

APPENDIX B: HOUSEHOLD AND APPLICANT DEMOGRAPHICS 

This Appendix provides specific data on changes in the number and characteristics of 

households served by SHA or on SHA’s wait lists over the past fiscal year. Slight variations 

in totals from table to table indicate that some detailed data is missing for a few households. 

Existing Households 

Race of head of household\ 

Low-Income Public Housing Residents as of 9/30/2003 

African/ 

African 

American 

Asian/ 

Asian 

American 

Native 

Hawaiian 

& Pacific 

Islander 

Native 

Community type 

White 

American 

Total 

Garden Communities 136 434 33 546 7 1,156 

Townhouses 16 28 3 14 61 

Scattered Sites 172 336 17 149 674 

Partnership Units 4 20 2 8 34 

High-Rises 1,705 666 69 394 2,834 

LIPH Total** 2,033 1,484 124 1,111 7 4,759 

Percent of Total: Actual 42.72% 31.18% 2.61% 23.35% 0.15% 100% 

FY 2003 Plan Projection 2,065 1,530 121 1,129 0 4,845 

Percent of Total: Projected 42.62% 31.58% 2.50% 23.30% n/a 100% 

% Change from Projections -1.55% -3.01% 2.48% -1.59% -1.78% 

Difference in Ratios 0.10% -0.40% 0.11% 0.04% n/a 

Hispanic households included in their claimed race, e.g. white, black etc. 

** Excludes seven households whose race is unknown. 

Section 8 Program Participants as of 9/30/2003 

African/ 

African 

American 

Asian/ 

Asian 

American 

Native 

Hawaiian 

& Pacific 

Islander 

Native 

Program 

White 

American 

Total 

HCV Tenant-based** 2,239 2,401 111 628 12 5,391 

HCV Project-based 231 132 7 65 6 441 

S8 New Construction 105 28 3 7 0 143 

S8 Mod Rehab 429 117 23 133 2 704 

Section 8 Total 3,004 2,678 144 833 20 6,679 

Percent of Total: Actual 44.98% 40.10% 2.16% 12.47% 0.30% 100% 

FY 2003 Plan Projection 2,490 2,346 131 717 5,684 

Percent of Total: Projected 43.81% 41.27% 2.30% 12.61% 0.00% 100% 

% Change from Projections 20.64% 14.15% 9.92% 16.18% n/a 17.51% 

Difference in Ratios 1.17% -1.18% -0.15% -0.14% 0.30% 


**Excludes households that have left SHA's jurisdiction (1,509 households, a.k.a port-outs) and those 

who live in SSHP and are counted in those tables (155 households), and includes households that have 

entered SHA's jurisdiction. 

FY 2003 MTW ANNUAL REPORT APPENDIX B PAGE B-1

SSHP Residents as of 9/30/2003 

Program 

White 

African/ 

African 

American 

Native 

American 

Asian & Pacific 

Islander Total 

SSHP Total 703 103 10 120 936 

Percent of Total: Actual 75.11% 11.00% 1.07% 12.82% 100% 

FY 2003 Plan Projection *** 703 111 11 101 926 

Percent of Total: Projected 75.92% 11.99% 1.19% 10.91% 100% 

% Change from Projections 0.00% -7.21% -9.09% 18.81% 1.08% 

Difference in Ratios -0.81% -0.98% -0.12% 1.91% 


Income distribution as a percent of median income 

2003 Median Incomes Levels for the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett Area 

Family Size 30% Median 50% Median 80% Median 

Single Person Household $16,350 $27,250 $39,550 

Family of Two $18,700 $31,150 $45,200 

Family of Three $21,050 $35,050 $50,850 

Family of Four $23,350 $38,950 $56,500 

Family of Five $25,250 $42,050 $61,000 

Family of Six $27,100 $45,200 $65,550 

Distribution of Households’ Annual Income, as of 9/30/2003. 

Below 30% 

Median 

Program 

Income 

30% - 50% 

Median 

Income 

50% - 80% 

Median 

Income 

Over 80% 

Median 

Income 

Total 

Low Income Public Housing 4,164 487 93 22 4,766 

HCV Tenant-Based* 4,747 577 63 4 5,391 

HCV Project-Based 418 22 1 0 441 

Section 8 New Construction** 131 11 1 0 143 

S8 Mod Rehab 684 17 3 0 704 

SSHP 791 120 22 3 936 

Total Households 10,935 1,234 183 29 12,381 


FY 2003 Projected Total*** 9,496 1,158 145 26 10,825 


% Change from Projections 15.15% 6.56% 26.21% 11.54% 14.37% 

Difference in Ratios 0.60% -0.73% 0.14% -0.01% 

*Excludes port-outs and SSHP voucher holders 

** Excludes Admiral and Argonaut 

***Includes Admiral and Argonaut, excludes S8 Mod Rehab 


Total population by age group (minors, adults and elderly) 

Low-Income Public Housing Residents of 9/30/2003 

Non-elderly Elderly 

Total Elderly 

Development 

Minors 

Adults Adults Individuals >70 

Garden Communities 1,295 1,570 405 3,270 189 

Townhouses 142 118 7 267 2 

Scattered Sites 1,000 1,110 80 2,190 23 

Partnership Units 78 58 1 137 1 

High-Rise Developments 2 1,898 1,122 3,022 614 

LIPH Total 2,517 4,754 1,615 8,886 829 

Percent of Total: Actual 28.33% 53.50% 18.17% 100% 9.33% 

FY 2003 Plan Projection 3,301 5,008 1,520 9,829 775 

Percent of Total: Projected 33.58% 50.95% 15.46% 100% 

% Change from Projections -23.75% -5.07% 6.25% -9.59% 

Difference in Ratios -5.26% 2.55% 2.71% 

Section 8 Participants as of 9/30/2003 

Program 

Minors 

Non-elderly 

Adults 

Elderly 

Adults 

Total 

Individuals Elderly >70 

HCV Tenant-based* 5,517 6,240 1,115 12,872 645 

HCV Project-based 212 395 126 733 91 


Section 8 Mod Rehab 109 616 162 887 56 

Section 8 Total 5,838 7,362 1,446 14,646 818 


FY 2003 Plan Projection*** 5,300 6,089 1,250 12,639 


% Change from Projections 10.15% 20.91% 15.68% 15.88% 

Difference in Ratios -2.07% 2.09% -0.02% 

*Excludes port-outs and SSHP voucher holders 

**Excludes Admiral and Argonaut 

***Includes Admiral and Argonaut 


Minors 

Non-elderly 

Adults 

Elderly 

Adults 

Total 

Individuals Elderly >70 

SSHP Total 0 144 913 1,057 741 


FY 2003 Plan Projection 2 170 880 1,052 


% Change from Projections 0.00% -15.29% 3.75% 0.48% 

Difference in Ratios 0.19% -9.79% 9.60% 


People with disabilities 

Low-Income Public Housing Residents as of 9/30/2003 

Development 

Disabled 

Minor 

Elderly 

Disabled 

Non-Elderly 

Disabled 

Total 

Disabled 

Total 

Individuals 

Garden Communities 12 232 322 566 4,345 

Townhouses 1 11 2 14 267 

Partnership Units 6 160 37 203 2,190 

Scattered Sites 2 5 0 7 137 

High-Rise Developments 2 1,464 572 2,038 3,022 

LIPH Totals 23 1,997 923 2,943 8,886 


FY 2003 Projected Totals 2,844 9,906 

Percent of Total: Projected 28.71% 100% 

% Change from Projections 3.48% -10.30% 

Difference in Ratios 4.41% 

Section 8 Participants as of 9/30/2003 

Disabled Elderly Non-Elderly 

Total 

Total 

Program 

Minor Disabled Disabled Disabled Individuals 

HCV Tenant-based* 200 700 2,095 2,995 12,872 

HCV Project-based 2 31 156 189 733 


Section 8 Mod Rehab 3 104 318 425 887 

Section 8 Total 205 855 2,665 3,725 14,646 


FY 2003 Projected Total*** 3,207 12,639 


% Change from Projections 16.15% 15.88% 

Difference in Ratios 0.06% 

*Excludes port outs and SSHP voucher holders. 

** Excludes Argonaut and Admiral. 

***Includes Argonaut and Admiral. 


Disabled 

Minor 

Elderly 

Disabled 

Non-Elderly 

Disabled 

Total 

Disabled 

Total 

Individuals 

SSHP Totals 0 164 129 293 1,057 


FY 2003 Projected Totals 309 1,052 


% Change from Projections -5.18% 0.48% 

Difference in Ratios -1.65% 


Households served by unit size 

Program Year 0-Br 1-Br 2-Br 3-Br 4-Br 5+-Br Total 

Low-income Public FY 1999 257 3158 1470 935 231 36 6,087 

Housing FY 2000 196 3,004 1,287 824 211 27 5,549 

FY 2001 171 3,000 1,095 772 213 30 5,281 

FY 2002 173 2,847 900 692 212 31 4,855 

FY 2003 184 2,896 850 623 181 32 4,766 

Housing Choice FY 1999 250 1,117 1,079 872 279 82 3,679 

Voucher Tenant- and FY 2000 247 1,195 1,132 877 328 106 3,885 

Project-based FY 2001 235 1,284 1,379 1,013 389 131 4,431 

Assistance FY 2002 300 1,489 1,507 1,103 395 145 4,939 

FY 2003 477 1,766 1,750 1,231 440 168 5,832 

Section 8 FY 1999 10 141 0 0 0 0 151 

New Construction FY 2000 16 148 0 0 0 0 164 

FY 2001 17 148 0 0 0 0 165 

FY 2002 18 152 0 0 0 0 170 

FY 2003* 10 133 0 0 0 0 143 

Seattle Senior FY 1999 161 913 85 0 0 0 1,159 

Housing Program FY 2000 138 881 89 0 0 0 1,108 

FY 2001 0 864 87 0 0 0 951 

FY 2002 0 840 85 0 0 0 925 

FY 2003 0 852 84 0 0 0 936 

Total FY 1999 678 5,329 2,634 1,807 510 118 11,076 

FY 2000 597 5,228 2,508 1,701 539 133 10,706 

FY 2001 423 5,296 2,561 1,785 602 161 10,828 

FY 2002 491 5,328 2,492 1,795 607 176 10,889 

FY 2003 671 5,647 2,684 1,854 621 200 11,677 

Distribution of unit FY 1999 6.12% 48.11% 23.78% 16.31% 4.60% 1.07% 100% 

sizes FY 2000 5.58% 48.83% 23.43% 15.89% 5.03% 1.24% 100% 

FY 2001 3.91% 48.91% 23.65% 16.49% 5.56% 1.49% 100% 

FY 2002 4.51% 48.93% 22.89% 16.48% 5.57% 1.62% 100% 

FY 2003 5.75% 48.36% 22.99% 15.88% 5.32% 1.71% 100% 

Change 2002-2003 180 319 192 59 14 24 788 

% Change 2002-2003 36.66% 5.99% 7.70% 3.29% 2.31% 13.64% 7.24% 

Notes: The Morrison is excluded from SSHP after FY 2001. 

Housing Choice Vouchers excludes Mod Rehab units. 

FY 2003 Section 8 New Construction excludes Argonaut and Admiral House, which were included in 

prior years. 


Households assisted during MTW 

Households receiving housing assistance from SHA under MTW 

14,000 

12,000 

10,000 

Households 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Seattle Senior Housing Program Low -income Public Housing Section 8 

Households by bedroom size -- all housing programs 

Percent of households 

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

0-Br 1-Br 2-Br 3-Br 4-Br 5+-Br 


Applicant demographics 

Race of head of household by bedroom size 

Low-Income Public Housing Applicants as of 9/30/2003 

African/ 

African Native Asian & Pacific 

Unit Size 

White American American 


0/1 bedroom 1,026 734 71 345 2,176 

2 bedroom 502 695 51 332 1,580 

3 bedroom 237 357 30 236 860 

4 bedroom 32 62 3 34 131 

5 bedroom 6 13 0 3 22 

LIPH Total 1,803 1,861 155 950 4,769 





Difference in Ratios 2.73% -1.09% 0.67% -2.30% 

Notes: Hispanic households included in their claimed race, e.g. white, black etc. 

Race for 85 households on the NewHolly LIPH wait list is unavailable. 

Section 8 Applicants as of 9/30/2003 

Unit Size 

White 

African/ 

African 

American 

Native 

American 



0/1 bedroom 1,810 1,285 127 558 3,780 

2 bedroom 680 948 70 380 2,078 

3 bedroom 279 439 41 265 1,024 

4 bedroom 48 91 7 55 201 

5 bedroom 8 22 1 31 

Section 8 Total 2,825 2,785 245 1,259 7,114 





Difference in Ratios -1.12% -0.20% 0.28% 1.04% 



Section 8 New Construction Applicants as of 9/30/2003 

African/ 

African Native Asian & Pacific 

Unit Size 

White American American 


0/1 bedroom 677 517 55 108 1,357 

2 bedroom 1 3 0 1 5 

Section 8 New Construction Total 678 520 55 109 1,362 


FY 2003 Plan Projection 455 309 31 74 869 



Difference in Ratios -2.58% 2.62% 0.47% -0.51% 


SSHP Applicants as of 9/30/2003 

Unit Size 

White 

African/ 

African 

American 

Native 

American 



0/1 bedroom 257 64 14 126 461 

2 bedroom 16 3 1 4 24 

SSHP Total 273 67 15 130 485 


FY 2003 Plan Projection 287 61 12 135 495 


% Change from Projections -4.88% 9.84% 25.00% -3.70% -2.02% 

Difference in Ratios -1.69% 1.49% 0.67% -0.47% 


Income distribution as a percent of median income 

Applicant Household Annual Incomes as of 9/30/2003. 

Below 30% 

Median 

30% - 50% 

Median 

50% - 80% 

Median 

Over 80% 

Median 

Program 

Income Income Income Income Total 

Low Income Public Housing 4,505 312 29 7 4,853 

Section 8 Tenant-Based 6,506 550 41 20 7,117 

Section 8 New Construction 1,284 66 9 3 1,362 

Seattle Senior Housing Program 426 46 11 4 487 

Total* 12,721 974 90 34 13,819 


FY 2003 Projected Totals 10,467 926 87 36 11,516 


% Change from Projections 21.53% 5.18% 3.45% -5.56% 20.00% 

Difference in Ratios 1.16% -0.99% -0.10% -0.07% 

Applicant households may appear on more than one wait list. 


APPENDIX C: PUBLIC HOUSING RENT POLICY EVALUATION 

Introduction 

In June, 2000, SHA adopted a public housing 

rent policy following a year-long development 

process with stakeholders. The 

policy changes a number of provisions of 

the HUD rent policy. 1 The new rent policy 

is designed to accomplish several goals: 

• Remove disincentives and provide 

rewards for resident employment, job 

retention, and wage progression; 

• Preserve an economic safety net; 

• Reduce unnecessary administrative 

procedures; 

• Generate sufficient rent revenue to 

supplement federal subsidies; and 

• Increase household and community 

stability. 

In November, 2000, new and special review 

tenants began to be enrolled in the new rent 

policy. In January, 2001, enrollment started 

for all tenants at annual review, so all should 

have been enrolled by about one year later. 2 

This year’s evaluation updates information 

from last year and includes an evaluation of 

financial performance compared to 

expectations when the policy was adopted. 

1 Under HUD rent policy, a household pays 30 

percent of adjusted income for rent. Gross income is 

adjusted downward for a variety of reasons, including 

dependents, elderly status or disability and medical 

costs. As a result, households who increased income 

from employment also saw proportional increases in 

rent which were often large enough that the working 

household members left employment and returned to 

public assistance. 

2 This rent policy does not apply to public housing 

residents at NewHolly or Rainier Vista. SHA is 

testing other rent policies at these communities 

intended to achieve similar goals. These are 

summarized on pages 9-10 of this appendix. 

Policy summary 

Residents are assigned to one of three 

methods of calculating their rent based on 

the sources of income: 

Households with employment income: 

Rather than having their rent rise with their 

incomes, working residents’ progress 

through three 2-year rent ceilings that limit 

the size and frequency of rent increases. 

The rent ceilings are complemented by a 

“Tenant Trust Account,” (TTA) into which 

SHA deposits a portion of working residents’ 

rents. Residents can use the TTA for selfsufficiency 

expenses or emergencies. 

Households on Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF): Rent based on 25 

percent of gross income, which is usually 

more than the household would pay under 

HUD rules. 

Households on fixed incomes (e.g., Social 

Security): Rent is based on 30 percent of 

adjusted income, but the frequency of 

income recertification is reduced to once 

every three years; in between, rents are 

increased in proportion with the Social 

Security cost of living adjustment. 

Minimum rent: All residents pay an 

absolute minimum rent of $50 per month 

unless they have a hardship in making such 

a payment. 

Highlights of current findings 

• Foregone rent revenues to support the 

rent incentives and resident self-sufficiency 

are about what was projected, 

adjusting for actual information on 

resident incomes. 

• Far fewer residents than expected are on 

the TANF rent policy. 

• Working residents are earning more per 

month, on average, than expected. 

FY 2002 MTW ANNUAL REPORT APPENDIX C PAGE C-1

• By not adjusting the rent steps and the 

minimum rents upward each year, as the 

policy anticipated, SHA sacrificed about 

$125,000 in revenue. 

• Staff need additional procedural guidance 

to interpret the policy, particularly 

when income sources change. 

Status of recommendations from last 

year’s evaluation 

The FY 2002 MTW report contained a 

number of recommendations for procedural 

changes to the rent policy. Several have 

been implemented, including: 

• FSS participants are no longer eligible 

for a TTA account. 

• Trust accounts are begun for tenants 

whose rents reach the second step (currently 

$390) for 30 percent of rent over 

$350, or a monthly contribution of $12. 

• Property management staff have been 

assigned the responsibility for working 

with tenants who have trust accounts to 

orient them to the program and describe 

the incentive benefits. More effort could 

be put into training service providers to 

help inform eligible residents of the 

benefits of the TTA. 

• Only tenants who leave SHA in good 

standing receive their TTA balance. 

Any tenants who are evicted or abandon 

their units forfeit the balance to SHA; 

the balance is not credited to the tenant’s 

account. 

• The responsibility for periodic auditing 

of the rent policy data has been assigned. 

A set of audit reports to support that 

monitoring are being developed. 

• A formal review and adjustment of all 

rent steps and ceiling rents will be 

included in the FY 2004 budget process. 

• The implementation of the three-year 

rent reviews is proceeding as planned. 

Cost savings, requests for special 

reviews and resident reactions to less 

frequent reviews will be monitored. 

Other recommendations from last year’s 

report must still be addressed: 

• Further research is needed, including 

interviews with tenants, to determine the 

effectiveness of the rent policy: anticipated 

in FY 2004. This evaluation will 

also look at the merits of other SHA rent 

policies including Jobs Plus, Family 

Self-Sufficiency and the NewHolly rent 

policy. Changes may be recommended 

based on this comparative analysis. 

• Currently the trust account balance is 

tracked in SHA’s accounting software 

by community. When households move 

among communities, a manual transfer 

of the balances between communities is 

required. There is no reason inherent to 

the program that the balances should be 

tracked by community and it makes 

extra manual accounting work. This task 

should be eliminated or automated. 

Evaluation methodology 

The evaluation is based on review and analysis 

of data from SHA’s tenant databases. 

An extract was created of characteristics of 

households living in public housing on September 

30, 2003. Residents of the highrises 

and family villages, scattered sites, Yesler 

Terrace, High Point and Rainier Vista, as 

well as public housing residents of Denice 

Hunt, Aki Kurose, Longfellow Court and 

Westwood Court are included. Excluded are 

NewHolly and Rainier Vista Jobs Plus 

residents, as they are subject to different rent 

policies, as well as resident managers who 

are SHA staff. The 4,371 households in the 

extract constitute the population on which 

this analysis is based. Some portions of the 

analysis rely on a second extract of 487 


households who moved out of public 

housing between October 1, 2002 and 

September 30, 2003. 

Data on these households (with all identifying 

information removed) were provided to 

Dupre + Scott for comparison to the financial 

model created prior to adoption of the 

rent policy. 

Evaluation of the rent policy was complicated 

by a procedural shift to support the 

portfolio-based management structure and 

the decentralizing of annual recertifications 

to portfolio staff teams. The schedule of 

annual recertifications is moving from one 

in which every resident of a community is 

recertified in a single month, to a system 

where recertifications are done in the 

anniversary month of tenancy. As a result, 

SHA has an unusually high number of late 

recertifications. This means that various 

aspects of the rent policy, such as the 2-year 

rent steps, have not been applied as intended 

– some have run longer than two years, 

while others were not assigned to a rent step 

as early as they should have been. 

Rent calculation methods 

As of September 30, 2003, 4,348 residents 

had been assigned to a rent calculation 

formula based on income source, and 23 had 

not. Based on information available on 

SHA’s computer databases, the rent 

calculation method for about two percent of 

households may not have been correctly 

applied; either the household’s rent is being 

calculated using an incorrect formula based 

on their apparent income sources, or something 

about the rent amount itself appears 

questionable. Further investigation by 

examining these tenant files is warranted. It 

is likely that the actual error rate is less than 

two percent, but if further research highlights 

any patterns of errors, clarifications of 

procedures and further staff training may be 

warranted. 

Remove disincentives and reward 

employment, job retention and 

wage progression 

Findings 

During FY 2003, there was a slight shift of 

enrollment away from both the employed 

and TANF rent policies toward the fixed 

rent policy, taking into account the four 

percent decline in the number of households 

in the rent policy. 

Comparison of rent policy enrollment, FY 2002 and FY 2003 

FY 2002 FY 2003 

Rent Basis 

Number of 

Households 

Percent of 

Households 

Number of 

Households 

Percent of 

Households 

% change FY 

2002-2003 

Employed 1,197 26% 1,101 25% -8% 

Fixed 3,087 68% 3,104 71% 1% 

TANF 205 5% 143 3% -30% 

None 53 1% 23 1% -57% 

Total Households 4,542 4,371 -4% 

Changes in income source between 

10/1/2002 and 10/1/2003: For those 3,911 

households in public housing on both dates: 

• 87 non-working households, reported 

income from employment by year end. 

• 146 working households went to the 

fixed rent policy. 


• Sixteen households went from 

employment to TANF. 

Rent steps: 219 households are on the first 

rent step of $260, with another 17 scheduled 

to progress to that step by December. Another 

92 are at the second rent step $390, 

with another 13 scheduled to progress by 

December. Thirteen households are paying 

the market rent for their unit, up from six 

last year. 

64 households have rent steps that appear to 

have expired and are continuing to pay that 

rent step, most likely due to the transition of 

certification dates. 

Characteristics of residents who left public 

housing: This part of the evaluation shows 

differences between the residents who left 

public housing and those who remained. Of 

the 487 households who moved out of 

public housing during FY 2003, rent 

formula information could be obtained for 

457. The table below compares the groups. 

Comparison of Residents who left LIPH and Current Residents 

Residents who Residents 

left between 9/18/2002 

1/1/2001 and 

10/1/2002 

Residents who 

left between 

10/1/2002 and 

10/1/2003 

Residents 

9/30/2002 

Employed 29% 27% 27% 25% 

Average income $19,089 $19,258 $19,453 $18,527 

Median income $17,264 $17,755 $16,994 $17,152 

TANF 8% 5% 5% 3% 

Average income $6,758 $7,564 $7,386 $6,895 

Median income $6,552 $6,552 $6,934 $6,552 

Fixed 63% 69% 62% 71% 

The table below shows selected reasons for 

leaving. The rent policy may underlie some 

residents’ moves, for example those who 

rented locally or moved to other subsidized 

housing may have done so because of the 

rent policy. On the other hand, 97 households 

had to move from High Point, which 

is undergoing redevelopment. These households 

complicate the analysis, in that their 

participation in the rent policy may have 

influenced their relocation choices. For 

example, by being on a rent ceiling, 

employed High Point households could have 

saved enough to move to private market 

housing or purchase a home. Another 101 

households either died, or moved out of 

public housing because they could no longer 

live independently due to declining health. 

Selected Reasons for Moving 

Move outs January 1, 

2001-October 1, 2002 Percent 

FY 2003 

move outs Percent 

Home ownership 30 2.5% 22 4.5% 

Rented Locally 317 26.4% 116 24.0% 

Eviction/Termination 110 9.2% 65 13.4% 

Other subsidized housing 210 17.5% 21 4.3% 

Thirty-eight of the households who moved 

had rent steps in effect: 31 at $260, four at 

$390 and three at market rent for their unit. 

Of these, five moved to purchase a home 


(about 23 percent of households purchasing 

homes) and 15 moved to private market 

rental housing (or 13 percent of households 

who moved to private market housing). 

It remains difficult to draw conclusions 

about the effects of the rent policy on 

people’s decisions to move. The data suggest, 

however, that as residents’ incomes 

reach $20,000, they are more likely to look 

for other housing options in the community. 

Tenant Trust Accounts 

Another employment incentive is the Tenant 

Trust Account (TTA). Any public housing 

household with income from employment 

whose rent is more than $390 is eligible for 

a set aside of 30 percent of any rent over 

$350 in a TTA. Residents can use these 

funds to pay for job-related educational 

expenses, start a business, pay for rent or 

medical expenses in an emergency, a down 

payment on a home or first and last month’s 

rent in the private market. Administrative 

costs were to be covered by interest 

earnings which SHA retains. To obtain this 

benefit, the resident must meet with property 

management staff to learn about the benefit. 

Findings 

As of September 30, 2003, there were 395 

current accounts, with balances ranging 

from $0.60 to almost $3,000. 544 

households have participated in the program 

since it started in May, 2001. 

During FY 2003, 124 households withdrew 

funds from their TTA. Many households 

made more than one withdrawal. The table 

below compares FY 2002 and FY 2003 

withdrawal reasons and shows the amount 

withdrawn by category during FY 2003. 

Reasons for TTA withdrawals in FY 2003 

Reason FY 2002 totals Percent FY 2003 totals Percent 

Withdrawals 

FY 2003 

Self-Sufficiency 11 11% 78 48% 

Home purchase 2 14 $8,746 

Rented locally 2 25 $11,398 

Self-sufficiency 1 10 $5,250 

School tuition/supplies 6 $3,745 

Vehicle repair or purchase 6 4 $1,937 

Transfer to FSS 19 $16,069 

Safety-Net 30 31% 63 38% 

Rent 17 47 $17,079 

Medical 13 16 $4,419 

Other 56 58% 23 14% 

Vacate 53 10 $1,538 

High Point relocation (to HCV) 5 $1,742 

Deceased 1 1 $861 

Eviction 2 3 $718 

Clearing low balance 1 $2 

Reason Not Tracked 3 $1,836 

Grand Total 97 164 $75,340 

Recommendations 

The rent policy included a provision to 

protect residents from rent increases due to a 

new working member joining the household. 

This was intended to encourage existing 

public housing residents to disclose the true 


composition of their households, instead of 

pretending that a working spouse, for 

example, lived outside of public housing, 

when the spouse was really a full-fledged 

household member. All those households in 

public housing at the time of the adoption of 

this policy have had ample time to declare 

the existence of a working household 

member and benefit from the rent amnesty 

implied. Therefore, it is recommended that 

this part of the policy be changed so that 

when a new household member is added to 

the lease, a new rent will be calculated and 

the rent changed accordingly. 

Preserve the economic safety net 

The policy sets a minimum rent of $50 for 

all households but allows hardship exemptions 

in some cases, for example, those with 

very high out-of-pocket medical expenses. 

The policy also permits households who 

experience a loss of income to request 

temporary rent adjustments. The TTA is 

also considered part of the safety net, since 

it can be used for rent or medical expenses 

in an emergency. 

Findings 

224 households are currently paying the 

minimum rent of $50 (5.1 percent of 

households), down from 289 (6.2 percent of 

households) at the end of FY 2002. 

For some households, the TTA has functioned 

as part of the safety net as designed. 

Thirty-seven households used portions of 

their Tenant Trust Account to pay rent, 

amounting to over $17,000. Another 16 

withdrawals were for medical expenses. 

Some households still fall through the safety 

net. Twenty-five households were evicted 

for non-payment of rent, and another 41 left 

under threat of eviction. 

Generate sufficient rent revenue to 

supplement federal subsidies 

SHA adopted the policy expecting to forego 

rent revenue for several years, $2.26 million 

by FY 2005, in order to encourage resident 

self-sufficiency and, therefore, higher rent 

revenues in later years. Most of the foregone 

revenue was due to the rent steps for working 

households. Mike Scott, of Dupre + 

Scott prepared the impact analysis, by 

comparing the model’s financial performance 

projections to actual performance 

based on data provided by SHA. 

Findings 

The model was originally based on 5,282 

households. With redevelopment and 

modernization, the number of households 

analyzed was 4,248. The analysis takes this 

18 percent reduction into account. Results 

are summarized in the table below. 

• Utility allowance: Higher utility allowances 

are a factor that lowers rent 

revenue from households on the fixed 

income and employed rent formulas. 

The average utility allowance for 

employed households is $80 per month, 

and for fixed income households, $38. 

• Fixed income households: The model 

assumed that incomes for this group 

would increase by about three percent 

per year. Actual increases in social 

security and other fixed income sources 

have been lower. This highlights a longstanding 

problem of housing this population. 

Over time, their incomes, and 

SHA’s ability to increase their rents, fall 

farther and farther behind compared to 

the expenses required to house them. 

With declining federal subsidy, the gap 

between rent revenues and expenses 

must be filled from some other source. 

• TANF households: 

− The comparison with the model 

shows a net benefit to SHA of $67,000 


per year from TANF households. This 

benefit may be the result of too low a 

figure for the average rent assumed in 

the model – $97. The model most likely 

calculated the average rent based on 

different policy assumptions than were 

ultimately adopted and implemented. 

Comparison of model assumptions and actual conditions 

Model Assumptions 

for FY 2003 

Current 

Conditions 

Rent revenue impact 

in FY 2003 

Number of fixed income households 3,174 3,104 $(542,000) 

Percent of households 60% 71% 

Households compared to model 98% 

Average rent $166 $151 

Number of non-working households 510 143 67,000 



Average rent $97 $136 

Number of working households 1,598 1,101 (835,000) 



Average monthly income $1,310 $1,544 

Cost of rent steps $471,000 $835,000 

Average utility allowance $46.99 $51.34 (228,000) 

Adjustment to rent steps and 

minimum rent 

3% annually No change (125,000) 

• Working households: SHA staff calculated 

the difference between current 

rent and a hypothetical rent using HUD 

policy to determine a “cost” of rent steps 

of about $835,000, compared to the 

model estimate of $471,000. Most of 

this is due to higher than expected incomes 

among working residents. For 

example, the model assumed that new 

workers would earn about $7.00 an hour 

(minimum wage), while job program 

participants are earning $9.00-10.00 an 

hour. Although the revenue loss is real, 

it is the result of achieving one of the 

rent policy goals: increasing resident 

self-sufficiency. On the other hand, this 

is the only group of tenants that SHA 

houses that have the ability to increase 

their incomes in order to pay rents that 

cover the cost of housing them, and 

perhaps, help subsidize the cost of 

housing other, fixed income tenants. 

Reduce unnecessary 

administrative procedures 

3-year rent reviews for fixed income 

tenants 

The rent policy included a provision for conducting 

full-scale recertifications of tenants 

on fixed incomes every three years instead 

of annually. In the intervening years, these 

tenants’ rents were to be increased by the 

percentage of the annual social security 

increase. This aspect of the rent policy has 

not been implemented. The first year of 

avoided rent reviews will be 2004. 

Efficiency and administrative issues 

Findings 

Staff are reviewing and correcting apparent 

discrepancies in application of the rent policy. 

Audit reports exist and are readily ac- 


cessible, so that when an anomaly comes to 

light it is possible to review the tenants’ 

certification history and determine whether 

an error was made. However, the current 

on-line information sometimes is not 

detailed enough and a review of the actual 

tenant file is necessary. Better on-line 

documentation, if feasible with existing 

database design, would make internal 

auditing and evaluation easier. 

Recommendations 

Further procedural guidance will be 

provided to help staff interpret and properly 

apply the rent policy when a household’s 

circumstances change, particularly sources 

of income, so that the policy can be applied 

consistently. 

The rent policy included a 12-month rent 

freeze for public housing residents who were 

already working when the policy was put in 

place, to provide a transition for existing 

residents to the new policy. To simplify 

administration, it is recommended that the 

rent freeze be eliminated at this point, and 

that the rent steps policy be applied to all 

newly-employed households. 


Rent Policy Comparison Matrix 

LIPH Working 

Households LIPH TANF Jobs Plus NewHolly (LIPH) 

Eligibility Households with 

income from work, 

including those who still 

receive TANF benefits. 

Tenant rent 

calculation 

30% of adjusted 

income, frozen at rent 

ceilings when annual 

review results in rent 

greater than the ceiling. 

Progression to next 

ceiling is not automatic 

at the end of 2 years; 

rent goes to 30% of 

adjusted income if income 

is too low for rent 

to go to next ceiling. 

Households on TANF 

with no income from 

work 

25% of gross income, 

phased in over 2 years 

Rainier Vista residents 

who enrolled by 

03/2001, including 

those who have 

relocated. 


income at enrollment 

was calculated, tenants 

are assigned to the 

next lowest step. For 

those below the lowest 

step, their first step is 


income. 

Utility allowance Yes No Residents on market 

step have no utility 

allowance. 

Rent steps 3 ceilings: $260, $390, 

Market value. Authority 

for annual adjustment 

included in policy 

Period of each 

step 

No 

3 steps: 40% of market, 

75% of market, 

100% of market. Varies 

by unit size Steps 

evaluated every two 

years, with no more 

than 5% increase. 

Residents in LIPH 

units. 

The highest of: 30% of 

net family income; 10% 

of gross family income, 

or $50 minimum rent. 

LIPH Family Self- 

Sufficiency 

Any LIPH household – 

50 slots. 5 year 

program with up to 2 

years extension. 

Participants set goals 

and work to achieve 

them. 

LIPH working household 

policy applies. In a 

few cases residents 

also have LIPH trust 

accounts in addition to 

FSS escrow. 

Yes Yes Yes 

Ceiling rent only based 

on the 50% tax credit 

allowable rent by unit 

size. 

24 months. n/a 24 months n/a LIPH working household 

policy applies. 

Rent freeze One-time, 12-month 

freeze at initial implementation 

for residents 

with rents over 

$260/month. 

Trust accounts For residents with 

employment income 

and rent of $390 or 

higher, 30% of any rent 

over $350/month -- 

No 

No 

24 months for working 

residents below 40% of 

market step. 

Fixed amount for each 

step, varies by unit 

size. Interest bearing. 

For first 12 months of 

employment. 

No 

LIPH working household 

policy applies. 

Formula based on 

increases in earned 

income. Entire rent 

increase is put in 

account. 

LIPH Fixed Income 

Sole sources of income 

are fixed: Social 

Security, SSI, Veteran's 

benefits, pension. 


income 

No 

n/a 

No 

No 


Rent Policy Comparison Matrix 

LIPH Working 

Households LIPH TANF Jobs Plus NewHolly (LIPH) 

monthly max of $100. 

SHA keeps interest. 

Purposes Up to $1,000 for 

emergency rent, and 

$500 for emergency 

medical expenses, job 

training, business start 

up, 1st and last month's 

rent outside of public 

housing, home 

ownership. 

Maximum $7,000 including 

amounts withdrawn 

during residency. 

Additional subsidy 

from HUD 

n/a 

Up to $1,000 for 

education, starting a 

business, home 

ownership; up to 

$1,000 for employmentrelated 

emergency 

reserve. 

n/a $8,000 for 1 & 2 

bedroom units, $10,000 

for 3 bedroom units 

No n/a $900,000 contract with 

HUD to recover foregone 

rent revenue. Will 

run out in FY 2003. 

Admin fee Interest on trust 

accounts 

Frequency of rent 

reviews 

Minimum rent $50 with hardship 

exemptions. Authority 



n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

LIPH Family Self- 

Sufficiency 

Interim requests for 

goal-related expenses; 

up to 50% of amount in 

the account once every 

3 months. Goal-related 

expenses: business, 

school, work, 

transportation 

None. Automatic 

graduation of households 

when 30% of 

income would yield a 

rent equivalent to FMR 

helps regulate escrow 

account totals. 

Yes, but maybe not as 

much as pre-MTW 

n/a none n/a HUD funds some 

admin, supplemented 

by grants for staff 

salaries and benefits. 

Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual 3 years 

$25 $50 $50 w/ hardship 




LIPH Fixed Income 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

$50 w/ hardship 





APPENDIX D: APPLICANT CHOICE POLICY EVALUATION 

Introduction 

In June, 2000, SHA adopted a public 

housing applicant choice policy following a 

lengthy process including stakeholder 

consultation, with these goals: 

• Offer applicants the chance to select the 

public housing community of their 

choice; 

• Maintain racial and ethnic diversity in 

public housing communities and avoid 

any racial/ ethnic steering, whether 

conscious or inadvertent; 

• Resist concentrating the most 

disadvantaged applicants in the least 

desirable locations; 

• Increase the efficiency of the admissions 

and tenant assignment functions; and 

• Reduce high unit turnover due to resident 

dissatisfaction with their location. 

This year’s evaluation monitors changes in 

the demographics of applicant households 

and racial distribution in the public housing 

highrises, as well as the building choices 

that people are making. Future evaluations 

will look at the effect of applicant choice on 

unit turnover and leasing efficiency. 

In March 2001, existing applicants were 

placed on applicant choice wait lists of their 

choice. New applicants began signing up for 

applicant choice wait lists beginning April 1, 

2001. Placement using the applicant choice 

wait list rotation began in March, 2001. 

SHA made a number of procedural changes 

during FY 2003 based on last year’s evaluation 

and to incorporate changes required by 

new local preferences. These changes are 

described in Section II of the report. Most 

of these changes were implemented toward 

the end of the fiscal year, so it is too soon 

for this evaluation to assess their impact. 

Applicant Choice policy summary 

Under applicant choice, all applicants may 

place themselves on up to two site-specific 

wait lists. Those who qualify for an admissions 

preference may, instead, choose to 

place themselves on a wait list for those 

who are willing to accept a unit anywhere in 

the system. When a unit becomes vacant, 

SHA alternates offers between applicants 

from this “next available unit” wait list and 

applicants on the site-specific list. By 

rotating between these two lists, no SHA 

community will exclusively house applicants 

who have the financial resources to wait for 

the most desirable locations. Site-specific 

applicants who turn down a unit are permitted 

to wait for an offer of a unit in the 

second building of their choice. 

Evaluation methodology 

This evaluation is based on a combination of 

analysis of data from SHA’s tenant and 

applicant databases and discussions with 

staff involved in policy implementation. 

Until recently, the applicant choice policy 

applied to households requiring studio or 

one-bedroom units. Larger units were not 

included because the revitalizations underway 

at Rainier Vista, High Point and New- 

Holly limited a larger household’s options in 

SHA’s housing. Because for most of the 

year, applicant choice applied to studio and 

one-bedroom units, an extract was created of 

the characteristics of all households with an 

active status on public housing wait lists for 

a studio or one-bedroom unit as of September 

30, 2003. In addition, an extract of 

tenants who moved into a public housing 

high-rise unit during the year was created. 

Other data were extracted as needed for 

comparison purposes. The analysis is based 

on these extracts. 

FY 2003 MTW ANNUAL REPORT APPENDIX D PAGE D-1

Highlights of findings 

Changes in the racial distribution of 

individual buildings continue to be minor 

and wait lists for individual buildings are 

sufficiently long to ensure that vacancies can 

be filled. No affirmative fair marketing is 

recommended at this time. 

Status of recommendations from last 

year’s evaluation 

Leasing efficiency recommendations: 

Procedural improvements were put in place 

to address leasing inefficiency. Applicants 

are now permitted to only turn down an 

offered unit because of disability accommodations; 

turn downs for any other reason 

mean that applicants lose their place on all 

LIPH wait lists. Second, the rotation among 

wait lists was changed to offers of units, 

instead of placements. These changes were 

made in conjunction with changes to the 

admissions preferences. 

Tracking of language or ethnicity: SHA is 

currently considering more detailed tracking 

of language or ethnicity of residents for 

several purposes, including monitoring for 

ethnic or cultural identifiability resulting 

from applicant choice. 

Larger households: Late in FY 2003, SHA 

began accepting applications for site specific 

wait lists from larger households for Yesler 

Terrace, Cedarvale Village and Jackson Park 

Village. As of the end of the year, 142 

unique households requiring 2+ bedroom 

units were on one or more of these waitlists. 

These households are excluded from the 

analysis. 

Applicant Choice wait list 

demographics 

An applicant may choose to be on the wait 

list of two of the 28 LIPH high-rises or 

Yesler Terrace, or to be on a next available 

unit (NAU changed from “urgent needs”) 

wait list to be offered the first available unit 

of the appropriate size in any community. 

The applicant choice policy assumed that the 

more disadvantaged the applicant the more 

likely they would be to sign up for the NAU 

wait list. Income and race are considered 

indicators in this area, with lower income 

and minority households considered more 

likely to be disadvantaged. By rotating 

offers of units among the NAU and sitespecific 

applicants, the policy is designed to 

ensure that NAU applicants have access to 

all buildings. 

As of the end of the fiscal year, 2,232 

unique households were on one or more of 

the applicant choice wait lists. Of these, 43 

percent were on the NAU list, compared to 

52 percent last year, and 57 percent were on 

site specific lists. This shift toward the site 

specific lists is most likely a result of the 

length of time the policy has been in place – 

most of the people who were placed on the 

NAU list by default when the applicant 

choice policy began have been through 

admissions by now. Current applicants have 

actively chosen the list(s) on which they 

wanted to be placed. 

Monitoring so far demonstrates only slight 

difference between the NAU and sitespecific 

applicants on the indicators of 

income and race. Both groups, overall, have 

extremely low incomes and would have 

great difficulty finding affordable housing in 

the private market. 

Racial/ethnic diversity of applicants 

and residents 

The racial distribution of applicants in FY 

2003 is very similar to that of FY 2002. 

There are fewer Caucasian and Asian/Asian 

American NAU applicants and more African 

American/ African applicants on the NAU 

wait list in both years. 


FY 2002 Distribution of Waitlist Households by 

Race 

FY 2003 Distribution of Wait List Households 

by Race 

Percent of Households 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 


60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Caucasian 

African/African 

American 

Alaska 

Native/American 

Indian 

Asian/Asian 

American 

0% 

Caucasian 

African/African 

American 

Native 

American 

Asian/Asian 

American 

Site Specific Urgent Needs Total 

Site-Specific Next Available Unit Total 

Twenty-two more households lived in public housing highrises on September 30, 2003 than on 

April 1, 2001. The total number of households in the public housing highrises is 2,839 as of 

September 30, 2203. The change in the number of households by race is as follows: 

− Caucasian: -21 − Black/African American/African: +123 

− Asian/Asian American: +107 − Native American/Alaska Native: -52 

Overall for the highrises the racial distribution among heads of households has remained about 

the same: 

Racial Distribution of Heads of Households – LIPH highrises 

September 30, 2001 September 30, 2002 September 30, 2003 

Caucasian 63% 62% 60% 

African/African American 22% 23% 24% 

Native American 2% 2% 2% 

Asian/Asian American 13% 13% 14% 

The charts on page 6 shows the racial 

distribution among buildings for FY 2002 

and FY 2003. The charts on page 7 show the 

change in households by race for each high 

rise since applicant choice began on April 1, 

2001, as well as the racial composition for 

site specific wait lists for FY 2003. Changes 

in the racial distribution within individual 

buildings continue to be minor; no building 

is significantly more racially identifiable as 

a result of the policy, compared to preapplicant 

choice policy racial distributions. 

The policy also noted that the four racial 

categories (Caucasian, African 

American/African, Asian American/Asian 

and Native American/Alaska Native) hide 

distinctions within each group. For 


example, the Asian American/Asian 

category includes native- and foreign-born 

people of Japanese, Korean, Chinese, 

Vietnamese, and other countries’ descent. 

Finer grain monitoring for “racial identifiability” 

of communities with an apparent 

preponderance of one racial group was 

expected to take this into account. This 

monitoring still cannot be done reliably. 

Income 

Average and median incomes among NAU 

applicants continue to be lower than those of 

site specific applicants, although both 

groups have extremely low incomes. The 

charts below show changes in the income 

distribution among site-specific and NAU 

applicants between FY 2002 and FY 2003, 

indicating that site specific and NAU 

applicants are similarly disadvantaged based 

on their income. 

Descriptive Statistics about Applicant Annual Income 

FY 2002 FY 2003 

Site specific Urgent needs Site specific Next Available Unit 

Mode $0 $4,068 $0 $0 

Median $6,780 $6,360 $6,624 $5,280 

Average $7,671 $6,916 $7,838 $5,882 

FY 2002 Distribution of Wait List Households 

by Annual Income 

FY 2003 Distribution of Wait Lists Household 

Annual Income 


50% 

45% 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

Percent of Area Median Income (1 Person 

Households) 

Percent of households 

50% 

45% 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

Percent ofArea Median Income 

Site Specific 

Urgent Need 

Site-Specific 

Next Available Unit 

The quality of income data is not as good for 

applicants as it is for tenants since, for most 

applicants, the available income data has not 

been verified. Most likely this is the reason 

for the high number of zero income 

households on both the site specific (157 

households, or 12 percent) and urgent needs 

(193 households, or 20 percent) wait lists. 


Desirability of placements 

For the most part, people who choose two 

site-specific wait lists appear to be making 

their choices based on neighborhood, 

although many people must consider other 

factors when making their selection; for 

example, two households picked the 

combination of Tri-Court and Barton Place 

which are in opposite corners of the city. 

All buildings seem to be desirable to 

someone; they each have at least enough 

people on their site-specific wait list to fill 

every vacancy in a year, as shown in the 

table below. 

Most popular second Households Units vacated 

Ratio of households on 

wait list to units vacated in 

Community 

list choice 

on wait list in FY 2003 

FY 2003 

Yesler Terrace Cedarvale 193 13 14.8 

Jefferson Terrace Denny Terrace 61 50 1.2 

Center Park 

Barton Place/ Beacon 

Tower (tie) 17 19 0.9 

Stewart Manor Cal-mor Circle 36 13 2.8 

Cal-mor Circle Stewart Manor 44 12 3.7 

Olive Ridge 

Harvard Court/ Capitol 

Park (tie) 45 10 4.5 

Center West Ballard House 19 9 2.1 

Bell Tower Ross Manor 64 13 4.9 

Harvard Court Denny Terrace 63 14 4.5 

Denny Terrace Jefferson Terrace 104 35 3.0 

Ballard House Greenlake Plaza 100 13 7.7 

Greenlake Plaza Ballard House 87 15 5.8 

Westwood Heights Cal-Mor Circle 39 12 2.4 

Jackson Park Cedarvale 88 10 8.8 

Lake City Jackson Park 108 22 4.9 

Cedarvale Jackson Park 247 11 22.5 

Capitol Park Olive Ridge 60 17 3.5 

Lictonwood Ballard House 76 5 15.2 

Queen Anne Heights West Town View 62 4 15.5 

Barton Place Holly Court 37 18 2.1 

Tri Court Lake City 87 23 3.8 

Olympic West Queen Anne Heights 30 11 2.7 

Beacon Tower International Terrace 130 8 16.3 

University West University House 50 17 2.9 

University House University West 75 7 10.7 

International Terrace Beacon Tower 112 5 22.4 

West Town View Queen Anne Heights 35 6 5.8 

Holly Court Barton Place 90 16 5.6 

Ross Manor Bell Tower 41 10 4.1 


Racial Distribution of High Rise Tenants, 

October 1, 2002 

Racial Distribution of High Rise Tenants, September 

30, 2003 

Ross Manor 

Holly Court 

West Town View 

Int'l Terrace 

University House 

University West 

Beacon Tower 

Olympic West 

Tri-Court 

Barton Place 

Queen Anne Heights 

Lictonwood 

Capitol Park 

Cedarvale House 

Lake City House 

Jackson Park House 


Greenlake Plaza 

Ballard House 

Denny Terrace 

Harvard Court 

Bell Tower 

Center West 

Olive Ridge 

Cal-Mor Circle 

Stewart Manor 

Center Park 

Jefferson Terrace 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100 


% 

Ross Manor 

Holly Court 


Int'l Terrace 



Beacon Tower 

Olympic West 

Tri-Court 

Barton Place 


Lictonwood 

Capitol Park 






Ballard House 

Denny Terrace 

Harvard Court 

Bell Tower 

Center West 

Olive Ridge 


Stewart Manor 

Center Park 


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 


Caucasian 

African/ African American 

Alaska Native/ American Indian 

Asian/Asian American 


Change in the Number of Households by Race and 

Building 4/1/2001 to 9/30/2003 

Racial Distribution of Applicants on Site Specific Wait 

Lists September 30, 2003 

Ross Manor 

Holly Court 


Int'l Terrace 



Beacon Tower 

Olympic West 

Tri-Court 

Barton Place 


Lictonwood 

Capitol Park 






Ballard House 

Denny Terrace 

Harvard Court 

Bell Tower 

Center West 

Olive Ridge 


Stewart Manor 

Center Park 


-100 -50 0 50 100 

Number of Households 

Ross Manor 

Holly Court 


International Terrace 



Beacon Tower 

Olympic West 

Tri-Court 

Barton Place 


Lictonwood 

Capitol Park 

Cedarvale 

Lake City 

Jackson Park 



Ballard House 

Denny Terrace 

Harvard Court 

Bell Tower 

Center West 

Olive Ridge 


Stewart Manor 

Center Park 


0 50 100 150 200 

Number of households 

Caucasian 

Alaska Native/ American Indian 

Black/African American 

Asian/Asian American 


APPENDIX E: CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

Following are the Seattle Housing Authority’s Consolidated Financial Statements for FY 2003. 

Please note that these figures represent unaudited fiscal year end financial data. The audited 

Financial Statements will be available in February, 2004. 

Beginning in FY 2002, SHA adopted the reporting provisions of the Governmental Accounting 

Standards Board (GASB) Statement 34, “Basic Financial Statements – Management’s 

Discussion and Analysis for State and Local Governments.” Depreciation is now recorded for 

all funds under the new rules. 

FY 2003 MTW ANNUAL REPORT APPENDIX E PAGE E-1

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE 

Statement of Net Assets 

September 30, 2003 

Primary 

Government 

Component 

Assets Total Units 

Current assets: 

Equity in pooled cash and cash equivalents $ 934,763 536,454 

Restricted cash 3,566,342 — 

Equity in pooled investments 6,671,046 — 

Accounts receivable: 

Tenant rentals and service charges 386,460 43,553 

Other 3,434,764 48,483 

Due from: 

Other funds 22,760,003 — 

Other governments 13,733,406 — 

Affiliates — — 

Inventory and prepaid items 744,684 77,403 

Restricted investments 2,972,019 3,476,108 

Deferred charges 1,915,609 1,062,361 

Other 401,228 — 

Total current assets 57,520,324 5,244,362 

Noncurrent assets: 

Equity in pooled investments 4,771,131 — 

Restricted investments 24,069,399 22,902,252 

Capital assets: 

Land 59,559,721 — 

Structures 326,887,128 55,029,306 

Equipment 12,591,942 1,842,001 

Construction in progress 49,738,266 2,040,427 

Less accumulated depreciation (171,511,176) (5,418,456) 

Notes receivable 10,277,737 — 

Notes receivable from component units 33,077,667 — 

Total noncurrent assets 349,461,815 76,395,530 

Total assets $ 406,982,139 81,639,892 



Statement of Net Assets 

September 30, 2003 

Liabilities and Net Assets 

Primary 

Government 

Total 

Component 

Units 

Liabilities 

: 

Current liabilities: 

Accounts payable: 

Vendors and contractors $ 8,911,045 356,313 

Other 5,673,665 789,465 

Accrued liabilities 2,915,998 621,844 

Due to other funds 22,760,003 — 

Due to other governments 609,341 — 

Current portion of long-term debt 11,298,614 110,000 

Deferred revenue 1,369,323 — 

Total current liabilities 53,537,989 1,877,622 

Noncurrent liabilities: 

Security deposits 1,006,973 103,975 

Long-term debt, less current portion: 

Notes payable 35,300,830 30,896,932 

Bonds payable 56,596,988 30,175,000 

Accrued compensated absences 2,741,279 — 

Total noncurrent liabilities 95,646,070 61,175,907 

Total liabilities 149,184,059 63,053,529 

Net assets: 

Investment in capital assets, net of related debt 174,069,449 10,217,273 

Restricted for debt service 27,108,685 3,372,133 

Restricted for other purposes 3,499,075 103,975 

Unrestricted 53,120,871 4,892,982 

Total net assets 257,798,080 18,586,363 

Total liabilities and net assets $ 406,982,139 81,639,892 



Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets 

Year ended September 30, 2003 

Primary 

Government 

Total 

Component 


Operating revenues: 

Tenant rentals and sales $ 18,776,018 2,453,010 

Housing assistance payment subsidies 71,278,909 — 

Other 4,811,832 18,643 

Total operating revenues 94,866,759 2,471,653 

Operating expenses: 

Administration 27,727,088 934,034 

Tenant services 2,877,693 — 

Utility services 5,254,899 113,041 

Maintenance 16,275,910 578,640 

Housing assistance payments 65,156,211 — 

Other 16,757,997 33,400 

Depreciation and amortization 10,199,726 2,174,240 

Total operating expense 144,249,524 3,833,355 

Operating loss (49,382,765) (1,361,702) 

Non-operating income (expense): 

Intergovernmental 17,392,487 — 

Interest expense (4,002,391) (870,479) 

Interest income 2,079,480 161,515 

Total non-operating revenue 15,469,576 (708,964) 

(expenses) 

Net loss before contributions (33,913,189) (2,070,666) 

and transfers 

Contributions 

Capital contributions 43,428,970 — 

Partners' contribution — 3,852,930 

Total contributions 43,428,970 3,852,930 

Transfers: 

Transfers in 17,444,818 — 

Transfers out (17,444,818) — 

Total transfers — — 

Change in net assets 9,515,781 1,782,264 

Total net assets at beginning of year, as restated 248,282,299 16,804,099 

Total net assets at end of year $ 257,798,080 18,586,363 



Statement of Cash Flows 

Year ended September 30, 2002 

Primary 

Government 

Total 

Component 


Cash flows from operating activities: 

Receipts from residents $ 18,148,628 2,485,304 

Receipts from other sources 76,965,157 444,940 

Receipts from other funds 15,343,397 — 

Advances from affiliates 889,769 9,336 

Advances to affiliates — — 

Payments to vendors (113,872,964) (3,686,027) 

Payments to employees (15,926,256) (349,110) 

Payments to other funds (15,542,277) — 

Net cash used in operating activities (33,994,546) (1,095,557) 

Cash flow from noncapital financing activities: 

Operating grants received 17,651,032 — 

Transfer from other funds 17,444,818 — 

Transfer to other funds (17,444,818) — 

Net cash provided by noncapital financing activities 17,651,032 — 

Cash flows provided by (used in) capital/ related financing activities 

Capital and partner contributions 38,551,848 3,852,930 

Acquisition and construction of capital assets (64,342,867) (2,071,802) 

Proceeds from dispositions of property and equipment 18,723,604 — 

Issuance of notes receivable (11,624,503) — 

Proceeds from long-term borrowings 30,506,456 24,531,122 

Mortgage costs paid — (366,992) 

Payments on notes and bonds (5,370,771) (7,140,000) 

Interest payments (3,764,847) (931,474) 

Net cash provided by investing capital and 

related financing activities 2,678,920 17,873,784 

Cash flows provided by (used in) investing activities: 

Interest received 2,086,300 161,515 

Maturity of investment securities 47,146,240 8,681,512 

Purchases of investment securities (35,488,152) (26,837,157) 

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities 13,744,388 (17,994,130) 

Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 79,794 (1,215,903) 

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 4,421,311 1,752,357 

Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ 4,501,105 536,454 

Reconciliation of operating income to net cash 

Operating loss $ (49,382,765) (1,361,702) 

Adjustment to reconcile operating loss to net cash 

provided by (used in) operating activities: 

Depreciation and amortization 10,199,726 2,174,240 

Change in assets and liabilities: 

Accounts receivable 392,611 (39,740) 

Inventory and prepaid items (38,612) (74,441) 

Deferred charges (514,221) — 

Accounts payable 5,270,934 (1,802,968) 

Accrued compensated absences 72,810 — 

Other 4,971 9,054 

Total adjustments 15,388,219 266,145 

Net cash used in operating activities $ (33,994,546) (1,095,557) 


APPENDIX F: CAPITAL ACTIVITIES 

This appendix lists capital activities during FY 2003 and shows funds obligated or expended for 

projects during this period. Discussion of this information can be found in Section VI. 

FY 2003 Public Housing Capital Work Items 

Community Work Items Funds Obligated 

1-001 Yesler Terrace Window replacement, parking lot repair, 

$142,470 

replacement of unit floors. 

1-009 Jefferson Terrace Renovate community room, abate and replace 

$87,710 

common area floors. 

1-010 Center Park Elevator rehabilitation, abate and replace common $461,680 

area and unit floors. 

1-011 Stewart Manor Elevator rehabilitation, abate and replace unit 

$274,140 

floors. 

1-012 Cal-Mor Circle Elevator rehabilitation, abate and replace unit 

$263,020 

floors. 

1-013 Olive Ridge Elevator rehabilitation, abate and replace unit 

$393,020 

floors. 

1-014 Center West Elevator rehabilitation, abate and replace unit 

$255,490 

floors. 

1-015 Bell Tower Elevator rehabilitation, abate and replace common $303,340 

area floors. 

1-016 Harvard Court Elevator rehabilitation, abate and replace common $278,550 

area floors. 

1-017 Denny Terrace Elevator rehabilitation, common area 

$401,950 

marketability improvements and furnishings. 

1-020 Ballard House Exterior building repairs and elevator 

$260,410 

rehabilitation. 

1-022 Green Lake Plaza Elevator rehabilitation, abate and replace common $270,390 

area floors. 

1-024 Jackson Park House Elevator rehabilitation. $149,450 

and Village 

1-025 Lake City House Abate and replace unit floors. $1,820 

1-026 Cedarvale House and Elevator rehabilitation. $234,890 

Village 

1-027 Capitol Park Elevator rehabilitation. $297,280 

1-028 Lictonwood Elevator rehabilitation, abate and replace common $255,460 

area floors. 

1-029 Queen Anne Heights Abate and replace common area floors. $15,340 

FY 2003 MTW ANNUAL REPORT APPENDIX F PAGE F-1

FY 2003 Public Housing Capital Work Items 


1-030 Barton Place Exterior painting, elevator rehabilitation. $276,080 

1-031 Tri-Court Building and elevator rehabilitation $1,720,790 

1-032 Olympic West Elevator rehabilitation, abate and replace common $259,110 

area floors. 

1-033 Beacon Tower Exterior repairs, abate and replace common area 

$100,510 

floors. 

1-034 University West Elevator rehabilitation, abate and replace common $259,330 

area floors. 

1-035 University House Elevator rehabilitation, abate and replace common $301,120 

area floors. 

1-036 International Terrace Elevator rehabilitation. $314,080 

1-040 West Town View Hallway and community room carpeting, unit 

$66,280 

floor replacement. 

1-041 Holly Court Abate and replace unit floors. $1,100 

1-046 Ross Manor Common area floor replacement, abate and 

$113,770 

replace unit floors. 

Scattered Sites Roofs $441,360; windows $179,520; abate and 

replace unit floors $160,290; walkways, drive 

surfaces, retaining walls and fences $278,530; unit 

rehabilitation and modernization $294,240; and 

exterior repairs and painting $310,800. 

$1,664,740 

PHA-Wide 

PHA-Wide 

PHA-Wide 

PHA-Wide 

PHA-Wide 

Replace equipment for Comprehensive 

Modernization staff. 

Purchase the Enterprise Service Center to house 

Solid Waste and Fleet Services. 

Renovate the Operations Support Center for 

housing management and maintenance functions. 

Redevelop outdated housing, supporting 

redevelopment at HOPE VI sites. 

Financing costs associated with capital projects 

and tenant improvements completed in previous 

years. 

$44,000 

$575,420 

$1,739,810 

$7,648,740 

$246,170 

PHA-Wide Architectural and Engineering costs. $277,760 

PHA-Wide 

Capital Program salaries, benefits, sundry 

$1,198,160 

administrative costs, 

PHA-Wide Capital Program associated overhead costs. $729,160 

TOTAL $21,882,540 


FY 2003 SSHP Capital Work Items 


1-301 Wildwood Glen Repair and restripe parking lot, replace unit floors. $16,480 

1-302 South Park Manor Replace fire detection system panel, replace unit $16,110 

floors. 

1-303 Columbia Place Replace fire detection system panel, replace unit $36,300 

floors. 

1-304 Pleasant Valley Plaza Replace unit floors. $3,510 

1-305 Fremont Place Replace roof, replace unit floors. $37,150 

1-306 Willis House Replace exterior trim, exterior painting, common $71,180 

area floor replacement. 

1-307 Blakely Manor Replace roof, replace unit floors. $58,450 

1-308 Bitter Lake Manor Common area and unit floor replacement. $21,600 

1-309 Pinehurst Court Replace roof, replace unit floors. $32,050 

1-311 Island View Exterior painting and unit floor replacement. $43,750 

1-312 Reunion House Replace fire detection system panel. $3,260 

1-313 Primeau Place Exterior painting. $16,550 

1-314 Michaelson Manor Exterior painting and unit floor replacement. $100,740 

1-315 Fort Lawton Place Exterior painting and unit floor replacement. $30,300 

1-316 Schwabacher House Replace unit floors. $2,690 

1-317 Phinney Terrace Common area and unit floor replacement. $44,350 

1-318 Olmstead Manor Install awning over side entry, common area $16,260 

painting and install parcel boxes. 

1-319 Nelson Manor Replace roof, replace unit floors. $69,900 

1-320 Sunrise Manor Common area and unit floor replacement. $9,730 

1-321 Carroll Terrace Replace balconies, repair roof, replace unit floors. $97,400 

1-323 Gideon-Mathews 

Gardens 

Replace fire detection system panel, common area 

floor replacement and ventilation upgrades. 

$53,750 

1-326 Leschi House Replace fire detection system panel, replace unit $6,360 

floors. 

TOTAL $787,870 

Other Facilities Capital Work Items 

Community Work Item Funds Obligated 

1-126 Argonaut Replace common area floors. $3,800 

1-127 Bayview Tower Replace intercom and common area heaters. $25,070 

1-440 Bryant Apartments Replace roof $11,190 

TOTAL $40,060 


APPENDIX G: VACANCY BY COMMUNITY 

Comparison of FY 2002 and FY 2003 Vacancy Rates 

Public Housing Units FY 2002 Vacancy Rates FY 2003 Vacancy Rates 

Ballard House 79 2.13% 3.24% 

Barton Place 90 2.03% 3.10% 

Beacon Tower 108 0.72% 4.61% 

Bell Tower 119 2.31% 3.27% 

Cal-Mor Circle 74 1.13% 2.43% 

Capitol Park 125 1.89% 3.50% 

Cedarvale House 118 1.18% 1.56% 

Cedarvale Village 24 3.98% 2.93% 

Center Park 136 7.98% 2.93% 

Center West 91 2.16% 2.58% 

Denny Terrace 221 2.17% 3.48% 

Green Lake Plaza 130 1.23% 1.96% 

Harvard Court 80 1.16% 3.71% 

High Point 337 Redevelopment Redevelopment 

Holly Court 97 3.70% 2.77% 

Holly Park/NewHolly 237 See Notes See Notes 

International Terrace 100 0.67% 0.81% 

Jackson Park House 71 1.43% 2.15% 

Jackson Park Village 41 3.55% 5.95% 

Jefferson Terrace 299 2.81% 3.77% 

Lake City House 115 1.60% 3.13% 

Lictonwood 80 1.25% 0.67% 

Olive Ridge 106 1.18% 2.35% 

Olympic West 75 2.45% 1.93% 

Queen Anne Heights 52 0.51% 0.43% 

Rainier Vista 205 Redevelopment Redevelopment 

Ross Manor 100 2.06% 2.20% 

Scattered Sites 782 3.31% 5.95% 

Stewart Manor 74 2.07% 2.91% 

Tri Court 87 Modernization 0.89% 

University House 101 0.77% 0.71% 

University West 113 1.62% 2.17% 

West Town View 58 0.92% 0.72% 

Westwood Heights 130 Redevelopment Initial Lease Up 

Yesler Terrace 561 1.94% 2.41% 

Vacancy Percentage 2.30% 3.65% 

Note: Vacancy percentage is not included for NewHolly because it is not calculated in a 

manner comparable to other public housing that SHA manages. 

FY 2003 MTW ANNUAL REPORT APPENDIX G PAGE G-1

Other properties SHA manages Units FY 2002 Vacancy Rate FY 2003 Vacancy Rate 

Admiral House 15 3.09% 2.68% 

Argonaut 8 0.00% 0.00% 

Bay View Tower 100 1.95% 3.01% 

Market House 51 0.84% 2.26% 

Vacancy Percentage 1.72% 2.56% 

SSHP 23 communities 993 1.90% 4.33% 

FY 2003 MTW ANNUAL REPORT APPENDIX G PAGE G-2

APPENDIX H: LOCAL PREFERENCES 

Following are the local preferences adopted by the Seattle Housing Authority Board of 

Commissioners in FY 2003. 

The system of local preferences described herein is intended to accomplish the following goals: 

1) Address first the most urgent housing needs of applicants able to live independently in 

public housing or in subsidized private market housing; 

2) Provide a rational, efficient admissions process that treats applicants with respect, foster 

honesty and open communication between staff and applicants and minimize 

inconvenience for applicants; 

3) Maximize use of SHA housing resources, reduce low-income public housing vacancy 

rates and encourage high Housing Choice voucher utilization rates; 

4) Avoid, to the extent possible, displacement of former SHA live-in employees who leave 

their employment in good standing; 

5) Support efficient leasing of units owned or managed by non-profit organizations and 

assisted by SHA’s Section 8 Mod-Rehab, project-based Section 8, or public housing 

operating subsidy; and 

6) Support households moving through the continuum of affordable housing in Seattle from 

more highly supported environments into SHA housing. 

1. Definitions. 

Agency-Based Voucher Program. SHA’s program which allocates vouchers to participating 

agencies, as described in SHA’s Section 8 Administrative Plan dated July 2002, or as 

subsequently amended. 

Agency Referral Agreement. An agreement executed by an agency and SHA which defines the 

terms and conditions by which the agency shall submit applications for expedited processing to 

SHA’s public housing program on behalf of its clients. 

Available unit. A vacant public housing unit that is not committed to a current public housing 

resident which is to be filled by an applicant from a Waitlist. 

Expedited Processing Waitlists. Waitlists comprised of applications submitted for immediate 

processing by agencies subject to specific agreements with SHA. These include: 1) The waitlist 

of applications submitted by Qualified Providers for SHA’s Low Income Public Housing 

program, under the terms of an Agency Referral Agreement, and 2) the waitlist of applications 

submitted by participating agencies for SHA’s Agency Based Voucher Program under the terms 

of an Agency Services Agreement; 3) the waitlist for public housing partnership units owned and 

managed by nonprofit housing organizations and supported by SHA public housing operating 

subsidy; 4) the waitlist for project-based Section 8 units owned and managed by nonprofit 

housing organizations; and 5) the waitlist for units supported by Section 8 Mod-Rehab subsidy 

that are owned and managed by nonprofit housing organizations. 

FY 2003 MTW ANNUAL REPORT APPENDIX H PAGE H-1

General public waitlists. Waitlists of applications submitted directly to SHA by households 

through SHA’s public application process. These include: 1) the general waitlist for Housing 

Choice Vouchers; 2) the Next Available Unit Waitlist for public housing; and 3) the site specific 

waitlists for individual SHA public housing buildings or communities. 

Homeless. An applicant household that is: 1) living on the street, in an emergency shelter, or in 

a transitional housing facility; or 2) is a client of a case-management program serving the 

homeless; or 3) has met one of these conditions within the 12 month period prior to their 

eligibility determination. 

Median income. Area median income as established annually by the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Affairs for the Seattle-Everett area and adjusted for family size. 

Next Available Waitlist. The waitlist of applicants for SHA’s Low Income Public Housing 

program who have a local preference but who are not referred by Qualified Providers, and who 

agree to accept the next available unit without regard to building or neighborhood, or any other 

attributes of the unit. 

Qualified Provider. A nonprofit 501(c)3 corporation or division of local government whose 

mission is to provide direct service to very low income Seattle area residents, and which 1) 

enters into an Agency Referral Agreement with SHA, and 2) provides one or more of the 

following services to its clients: emergency shelter, transitional housing, service-enriched 

permanent housing, or case management services. 

Site specific Waitlists. The waitlist for specific SHA Low Income Public Housing program 

buildings or communities. 

Statement of Local Preferences. The Seattle Housing Authority shall give priority to applicants 

from specific Waitlists, as follows: 

A. Priority for Expedited Processing Waitlists 

1) For public housing: 

• Households whose current gross income is at or below 30% of area median income, who 

are referred by a Qualified Provider; 

• Households whose gross income for the 12-month period prior to the eligibility 

determination is at or below 30 percent of area median income, who are referred by a 

Qualified Provider; 

• Applicants who are homeless who are referred by a Qualified Provider; 

• Households selected by nonprofit owners or managers for units supported by SHA public 

housing operating subsidy. 

2) For Housing Choice Vouchers and Certificates: 

• Households selected by agencies participating in SHA’s Agency-Based Voucher Program 

whose current gross income is at or below 30% of area median income; 


• Households selected by agencies participating in SHA’s Agency-Based Voucher Program 

whose gross income for the 12-month period prior to the eligibility determination is at or 

below 30 percent of median income; 

• Applicants who are homeless who are selected by agencies participating in SHA’s 

Agency-Based Voucher Program; 

• Households selected by nonprofit owners or managers of units supported by SHA-funded 

Section 8 project-based subsidies. 

3) For Section 8 Mod-Rehab Waitlist: 

• Households selected by nonprofit owners or managers of units supported by SHA-funded 

Section 8 Mod Rehab subsidies. 

B. First priority for General Public Waitlists (Next Available Unit/Site-Specific/General Section 

8 Housing Choice Voucher Waitlist) 

1) For Next Available Unit/Site-Specific Waitlist: 


are not referred by a Qualified Provider; 


determination is at or below 30 percent of median income, who are not referred by a 

Qualified Provider; 

• Applicants who are homeless who are not referred by a Qualified Provider; 

• Live-in SHA employees who leave their SHA employment in good standing. 

2) For General Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Waitlist: 


are not selected by agencies participating in the SHA Agency-Based Voucher Program; 


determination is at or below 30 percent of median income, who are not selected by 

agencies participating in the SHA Agency-Based Voucher Program; 

• Applicants who are homeless who are not selected by agencies participating in the SHA 

Agency-Based Voucher Program. 

C. Second priority for General Public Waitlists (Next Available Unit/Site-Specific/General 

Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Waitlist) 

• All applicants for any program who do not meet the criteria to claim one of the 

preferences described above. 

Households in each of the above categories shall be selected in the order their applications are 

received (first come, first served). 


APPENDIX I: BULLETIN TO SECTION 8 LANDLORDS 

The June 2003 issue of The Bulletin, a quarterly newsletter about the Housing Choice Voucher 

(Section 8) Program in Seattle constitutes Appendix I and can be found on the SHA website, 

www.seattlehousing.org. It is produced by Seattle Housing Authority's PorchLight Housing 

Center and mailed free of charge to all landlords participating in SHA's Section 8 program. Other 

interested parties - including potential landlord participants, service providers and voucher 

holders - are welcome to a free subscription as well. 

FY 2003 MTW ANNUAL REPORT APPENDIX I PAGE I-4

The full report and its appendices - Seattle Housing Authority

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?