Deterioration of Public Housing in the
State and City Projects Operated by
the New York City Housing Authority

July 1999

H. Carl McCall

State Comptroller

Office of the State Deputy Comptroller for the City of New York

Report 2-2000

Contents

I. Executive Summary

II. Background

III. Condition of Major Building Components

IV. Deterioration in Major Building Components

V. Capital Needs and Available Resources

Appendix A: Condition of the State and City Projects

Appendix B: Assessment of Major Building Components

Appendix C: Comparative Rankings: 1989 to 1999

Appendix D: Capital Investment Needed to Bring Projects to a State of Good Repair

I. Executive Summary

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) operates 346 housing projects, comprising 2,800 residential buildings and 182,000 apartments. These facilities provide shelter to 536,000 low-income New York City residents, including more than 100,000 tenants who live doubled-up with family or friends. The Federal government has financial responsibility for nearly 90 percent of the apartments operated by NYCHA.⁽¹⁾

On February 11, 1999, we issued a report on the condition of the housing projects under Federal jurisdiction and concluded that NYCHA has been unable to prevent their deterioration, due largely to inadequate Federal funding.⁽²⁾

This report focuses on the condition of the housing projects for which New York State and New York City bear the financial responsibility. Together, this includes 20,000 apartments -- 11 percent of NYCHA's housing stock -- which provide shelter to about 59,000 City residents.

The report includes detailed information on each housing project operated by NYCHA in the State and City programs. The information includes an assessment of the current condition of major building components in each project, a comparison with the condition ten years ago, and an estimate of the investment needed to restore each housing project to a state of good repair.

Much to our dismay, we conclude that the buildings in the State and City projects have deteriorated significantly since we last reviewed their condition ten years ago.

The percentage of building components rated in poor condition or in need of immediate attention has increased over the last ten years in all categories with the exception of windows. The component which exhibited the greatest deterioration is elevators. We found that 38 percent of the elevators are now rated in poor condition or require immediate attention; none had been so rated in 1989. Similarly, 75 percent of the roofs were rated in excellent or good condition ten years ago; compared with only 14 percent today.

The deterioration of the State and City buildings over the last ten years can be traced directly to inadequate State and City funding.

A decade ago, we pointed out the futility of a longstanding and counter-productive dispute between the State and City over responsibility for funding modernization needs in the State program. The dispute is linked to a serious miscalculation that was made when these buildings were first constructed. It was assumed that rental revenues would be sufficient to cover both operating expenses and the cost of modernization. However, rental income did not keep up with the rapid growth in operating costs during the mid-1970s, leaving nothing for modernization.

In our report ten years ago, we urged the State and City to be more flexible and cooperative so that a realistic long-term solution could be forged, perhaps by using a combination of City and State capital resources. Unfortunately, the financial assistance provided by both the State and City has been unable to stem deterioration in the State projects.

The resources currently provided by the State and City for modernization are sufficient to address only a very small portion of the need: 2 percent of the need in the State-supported projects and 4 percent of the need in the City-supported projects. At this rate it will take 25 to 50 years to bring these assets up to a state of good repair, even assuming no further deterioration.

NYCHA currently estimates that it will cost more than $1 billion to bring the apartments under the jurisdiction of the State and City to a state of "good repair," compared with an estimated $200 million ten years ago.

This situation was made more difficult when in 1998 the State eliminated the operating budget subsidy it had provided to NYCHA since 1969.⁽³⁾ The subsidy had funded a full range of activities, including repair and maintenance. The City, which bears ultimate responsibility for any operating shortfalls in the State program, did not offset the loss of State funding. To keep the State program intact, NYCHA redirected Federal housing funds from other housing programs, funds which could have otherwise been used to provide additional low-income housing.

One major positive development is the one-time infusion of $230 million in Federal funds that was recently made available for modernization of the State and City projects. These resources will allow the State and City projects to essentially catch up to the better-funded projects in the Federal program, which themselves are in a state of serious disrepair.

Nevertheless, in the absence of an appropriately funded capital replacement and modernization program, low-income public housing will continue to deteriorate. Thus, we renew our call for the State and the City to jointly develop a comprehensive program to renovate and modernize these important and irreplaceable assets over a reasonable period of time.

II. Background

NYCHA was created in 1934 to provide decent and affordable housing for low-income City residents. Over the next thirty years, almost all of the housing projects were built and occupied. Then the changing realities of housing economics and new public policy priorities brought construction to a virtual halt. Only one small State project (344 E. 28^th St. with 225 units, in 1971) and one modest City project (Frederick Samuel with 659 units, in 1993) were constructed after 1968.

During the years when public housing was rapidly expanding, the commitment of the City and the State often rivaled that of the Federal government. Not satisfied with the pace of housing production, both the State and City financed and constructed projects on their own initiative, creating substantial City and State programs. By the late 1960s, however, much of the low and middle income housing market, public as well as private, became subject to new dynamics. Operating costs, particularly for fuel oil, began to rise precipitously, while rents, often controlled or regulated, increased less rapidly. In the private sector this led to housing abandonment; in public housing it led to higher government subsidies and the deferral of maintenance. The cost of the higher subsidies was less easily borne by the City and State than by the Federal government, especially after the onset of the City's fiscal crisis in the mid-1970s.

To ease the financial burden on the City and State, the Federal government instituted the Authority Transfer Program and, between 1977 and 1980, assumed responsibility for the operating subsidy and most of the mortgage debt for 53 City and State projects. After a hiatus of almost two decades, an additional five projects were transferred in 1997 as part of an agreement with the Federal government.

Ten years ago, we first reported on the physical condition and the modernization needs of NYCHA's State and City subsidized projects.⁽⁴⁾ For that report, we analyzed the records of inspections performed by NYCHA staff and reported specifically on the conditions of boilers, elevators, roofs, windows, kitchens and bathrooms. We concluded that "a large number of electrical, structural, plumbing and heating components are in poor condition or requiring immediate attention; appliances and fixtures need replacement and fencing, grounds, vehicles, security systems and garbage disposal systems have fallen into disrepair". At that time, NYCHA estimated that it would take $200 million to raise its 25 State and City subsidized projects to a state of good repair.

For both our recent report on the Federal program⁽⁵⁾ and for this report on the State and City programs, we expanded the scope of our review. For inspection data, we once again used the evaluations of major systems and building components by NYCHA's technical staff contained in the Authority's project data books. We selected ten major building components: heating plant, plumbing system, kitchens, bathrooms, elevators, brickface, windows, roofs, grounds, and garbage disposals. We did not review security, appliances, vehicles, doors, electrical systems, and some structural components. We then weighed the scores assigned by NYCHA staff to the several assets in each category and arrived at an overall grade for that category (see Appendix B).

The financial data were provided to us by NYCHA. Using these data, we calculated the total hard-cost need and the per-unit hard cost need for each project, and the percentage of the total need that is addressed by the several sources of capital funding.

III. Condition of Major Building Components

NYCHA's technical staff conducts inspections of key building components for each of its projects at least once every two years and compiles the results in detailed project data books. NYCHA ranks its building components on a scale of one through five. A score of one represents excellent condition, while two, three, and four represent good, fair, and poor respectively; a score of five suggests that immediate attention is necessary.

We reviewed the 15 projects of the State Program, containing 12,172 housing units and the six projects of the City Program, containing 7,980 housing units. Together the 20,152 apartments in these programs represent about 11 percent of NYCHA's total housing stock.

We analyzed NYCHA's assessment of ten major building systems and components: heating, plumbing, bathrooms, kitchens, elevators, brickwork, windows, roofs, garbage disposal, and grounds. The results of our review, which are summarized below and in Table 1, are shown in detail in Appendix B.

At least one major building component in virtually all of the projects is in poor or worse condition; two-thirds of the projects have three or more components in such condition.

The kitchens in more than half of the projects are in poor or worse condition.

The bathrooms and the grounds in almost half of the projects are in poor or worse condition.

The heating systems, plumbing systems, and garbage disposals in about one-third of the projects are in poor or worse condition.

The elevators in more than one-third of the projects are in poor or worse condition.

Table 1

Condition of Major Building Components

(percentage of projects)

Data Source: New York City Housing Authority

The data for the ten selected building components indicate the following:

Heating: Overall, the heating plants were in fair condition and none required immediate attention (see Graph 1). In 29 percent of the projects, they were rated excellent or good; in 42 percent, fair; and in 29 percent, poor. The useful life of a boiler is rated at between 25 and 40 years and most have reached or are approaching that age. Therefore, NYCHA faces the prospect of major replacement costs within the short term. Many of the projects have more than one boiler -- some have as many as five -- that would cost as much as $450,000 each to replace.

Plumbing: Overall, the plumbing systems were in fair condition, with none requiring immediate attention (see Graph 2). The systems in 24 percent of the projects were rated good; in 43 percent, fair; and in 33 percent, poor.

Bathrooms: Overall, the bathrooms were in fair to poor condition (see Graph 3). In 14 percent of the projects, they were rated excellent or good; in 43 percent, fair; and in 43 percent, poor or in immediate need of attention.

Kitchens: Overall, the kitchens were in poor condition (see Graph 4). In 24 percent of the projects, they were rated excellent; in 19 percent, fair; and in 57 percent, poor or in need of immediate attention.

Elevators: Overall, the elevators were in fair condition (see Graph 5). In 52 percent of the projects, they were rated excellent or good; in 10 percent, fair; and in 38 percent, poor or in immediate need of attention. Elevators, more than any other essential building component, are subject to a tremendous amount of additional wear and tear because of the great number of extra tenants living in "doubled up" circumstances. NYCHA officials assert that any dangerous condition is immediately addressed.

Brickwork: Overall, the brickwork in over half of the buildings was in fair condition, with none rated excellent or requiring immediate attention (see Graph 6). NYCHA rated the brickwork in 29 percent of the projects as good; in 52 percent, fair; and in 19 percent, poor.

Windows: Windows were in the best condition of all the components that NYCHA evaluated. In 62 percent of the projects, they were rated excellent or good; in 29 percent, fair; and in 9 percent, needing immediate attention (see Graph 7).

Roofs: None of the roofs were rated in excellent condition and only 14 percent were rated in good condition (see Graph 8). The majority of the roofs were in fair condition and 24 percent were in poor condition or needing immediate attention.

Garbage Disposal: Overall, the condition of the garbage disposals was fair to poor (see Graph 9). In 10 percent of the projects, they were rated excellent or good; in 57 percent, fair; and in 33 percent, poor or in need of immediate attention.

Grounds: Overall, the grounds were in fair to poor condition, with none excellent and none requiring immediate attention (see Graph 10). In 4 percent of the projects, they were rated good; in 48 percent, fair; and in 49 percent, poor. The components that were evaluated included fencing, playground equipment, benches, and asphalt and concrete surfaces. NYCHA officials informed us that other repairs had taken priority over grounds renovations, but efforts will now be made toward improving grounds.

IV. Deterioration in Major Building Components

In the decade since our last report, an interesting dichotomy has developed. The percentage of building components rated in poor condition or in need of immediate attention has increased in all categories with the exception of windows (see Table 2). The most dramatic change has taken place in elevators, where 38 percent have now deteriorated to the lowest levels, while none had received those ratings in 1989. In contrast, ratings of excellent or good condition increased in four of five areas; only roofs deteriorated. Ten years ago, 75 percent of the roofs were rated in excellent or good condition, compared with only 14 percent today.

Table 2

Comparative Rankings

1989 versus 1999

(percent of projects)

Data Source: New York City Housing Authority

Heating Systems: the heating systems in 29 percent of the City and State projects are rated poor or in need of immediate attention, compared to 19 percent ten years ago. Although a higher percentage of these systems are now rated excellent or good, the overall need for repair and replacement in this area has grown. In our earlier report we reviewed only the condition of boilers; in this report we reviewed the full systems.

Bathrooms and Kitchens: the bathrooms and kitchens in half the projects are rated poor or in need of immediate attention, compared to 40 percent ten years ago. This represents substantial deterioration. The 19 percent that are now rated excellent or good is only slightly greater than the 15 percent so rated in our prior review.

Elevators: the elevators in 38 percent of the projects are now rated poor or needing immediate attention; none were in such condition in 1989. Although the elevators in 52 percent the projects are now rated excellent or good, compared to 30 percent a decade ago, the overall picture suggests a dramatic deterioration in this essential asset.

Roofs: the roofs in 24 percent of the projects are now rated poor or needing immediate attention, compared to 15 percent in 1989. Even more dramatic is the slippage in the percentage of roofs in excellent or good condition: from 75 percent in 1989 to 14 percent currently. Such across-the-board deterioration is alarming.

Windows: the change in the condition of windows over the past decade runs counter to that of the other building components. The windows in only 9 percent of the projects are now rated poor or needing immediate attention as opposed to 30 percent in 1989. In addition, at the other end of the continuum, the windows in 62 percent of the projects are now rated excellent or good, up from 45 percent a decade ago. This improvement represents a significant achievement for NYCHA.

As one considers the full range of comparative data, a clear pattern emerges that reflects the triage strategy that NYCHA has had to adopt in an era of declining resources. NYCHA has chosen to address the worst conditions first. The consequent repair and replacement raises the most stressed components to good or excellent condition. However, of necessity, the components rated in only fair condition are neglected and rapidly deteriorate. Thus, while NYCHA does all that it can with available resources, the overall condition of the building components in the State and City program continues to worsen.

V. Capital Needs and Available Resources

NYCHA estimates that it will take $1 billion in capital resources to raise the 21 projects currently in its State and City programs to a state of "good repair."⁽⁶⁾ These are the so-called "hard costs," the costs of bricks and mortar, and exclude such "soft costs" as management, administration and planning. Using NYCHA's current Needs Assessment, we constructed a database for the 15 projects with 12,172 units in the State program and the six projects with 7,980 units in the City program (see Appendix D). We then calculated the total hard cost need and the per-unit hard cost need for each project.

Our analysis revealed an average per-unit need of about $51,000 for each of the 20,152 apartments in the two programs ($50,475 for the State projects and $51,416 for the City projects). Each is greater than the $43,692 per-unit average that we had previously determined for the Federal projects.

The existence of unfunded capital needs of this magnitude is linked to NYCHA's inability to maintain reserves for replacement and repair.⁽⁷⁾ When the State projects were built, the expectation was that the reserve would be funded from rental revenues. However, in the mid-1970s rental revenues became insufficient to even cover operating costs, so no further contributions to the reserve were made.⁽⁸⁾ DHCR officials assert that the City is responsible for the contributions needed to maintain the replacement reserve at proper levels. City officials contend that because the original funding system is flawed, it has had to fund operating expenses not covered by rents, a situation not foreseen when the funding arrangement was established.

In the absence of a funded modernization reserve, the State and City provide NYCHA with funding to make capital improvements in the State program. In FY 1999, the State provided NYCHA with about $6 million⁽⁹⁾ and the City provided about $9 million. However, these resources address only 2 percent of the need in the State program each year and the $15 million NYCHA receives from the City addresses only 4 percent of the capital needs in the City program. Moreover, the need will continue to grow as aging, wear and tear, and deferred maintenance continue to take their toll, as evidenced by the five-fold increase in the capital needs over the last ten years.

In this context, one cannot overstate the importance of a one-time infusion of $230 million in Federal capital funds that will be used to modernize the State and City projects. Under a 1997 agreement between NYCHA and the Federal government, NYCHA was allowed to retain $230 million in unspent Federal development funds it otherwise would have been obliged to return. These funds are earmarked for the capital needs of the City and State projects, including five projects which were transferred in 1997 to the Federal program. According to NYCHA officials, $202 million of the $230 million has been targeted to "bricks and mortar" -- the so-called hard costs -- and, as of the end of 1998, $154 million remained unspent. Although these resources are sufficient to address only a small portion of the capital need -- 15 percent of the $51,000 average per-unit need -- it will allow these projects to essentially catch up to the better funded projects in the Federal program, where the average per-unit need is $44,000.

Under current funding mechanisms, there is effectively a three-tiered system for funding modernization needs in NYCHA projects. As shown in Table 3, the Federal projects received a total of $388 million in FY 1999 for modernization, an average of $2,409 per unit, and the vast majority was provided by the Federal government itself. The State projects received about half that amount on a per unit basis -- $1,257 -- and more than half was funded by the City itself. The disparity with the Federal projects would have been greater had not three State projects, containing 1,739 apartments, been recently transferred to the Federal program. The City projects were funded exclusively by the City and the amount available to renovate units in the City program --$1,905 -- was significantly higher than the State projects, but still considerably less than the Federal projects.

Table 3

Sources of Modernization Resources

Data Source: New York City Housing Authority

Besides capital grants, the State pays the debt service on the bonds that were issued to construct the State projects and, until recently, provided an operating subsidy that helped pay for normal maintenance and repairs. In 1998, the State eliminated its operating budget subsidy to most housing authorities in the State. Thus far, NYCHA has been unsuccessful in its efforts compel the State to restore the subsidy through litigation, but it is still pursuing the matter in the Court of Claims⁽¹⁰⁾ and is appealing an earlier court decision.⁽¹¹⁾ DHCR officials believe NYCHA's claims are without merit. The City, which bears ultimate responsibility for any operating budget shortfalls in the State program, did not increase its own contribution to replace the loss. Instead, NYCHA tapped reserve funds from other Federal housing programs it administers to cover this reduction. These Federal funds could have been used to provide additional low-income housing.

Appendix A

Condition of the State and City Projects

Amsterdam Addition (Manhattan, 175 units, New York State): the condition of bathrooms (fair) and kitchens (poor) has worsened since 1989 when both were rated good; the condition of elevators (poor) and roofs (fair) has also worsened since 1989 when both were rated good; windows (good) are unchanged since 1989; the heating system (fair) was not reviewed by us in 1989.

Baychester (Bronx, 441 units, New York State): the condition of bathrooms (fair) and kitchens (poor) has worsened since 1989 when both were rated good; the condition of elevators (poor) and the heating system (poor) has also worsened since 1989 when both were rated good; roofs (fair) were excellent in 1989; windows (good), on the other hand, have improved from an earlier rating of fair.

Bushwick (Brooklyn, 1,221 units, New York State): the condition of bathrooms (poor), kitchens (poor) and roofs (poor) has worsened since 1989 when all were rated good; the condition of the heating system (poor) has also worsened since 1989 when it was rated fair; windows (good) were excellent in 1989; elevators (good), on the other hand, have improved from an earlier rating of fair.

Castle Hill (Bronx, 2,025 units, New York State): the condition of bathrooms (poor), kitchens (poor) and the heating system (poor) has worsened since 1989 when all were rated fair; the condition of the elevators (immediate attention) has worsened dramatically since 1989 when it was rated good; roofs (fair), on the other hand, were poor in 1989; and windows(excellent), have improved dramatically over an earlier rating of needing immediate attention.

Chelsea (Manhattan, 426 units, New York State): the condition of bathrooms (poor) and kitchens (poor) has worsened since 1989 when both were rated fair; the condition of the roofs (fair) has declined since 1989 when it was rated good; windows (immediate attention) have declined from poor in 1989, while the heating system (fair) has remained unchanged; on the other hand, elevators (good) have improved from an earlier rating of fair.

Drew Hamilton (Manhattan, 1,207 units, New York State): the condition of kitchens (immediate attention) and heating systems (poor) has worsened since 1989 when they were both rated fair; roofs (fair) and bathrooms (fair) have remained unchanged; on the other hand, elevators (good) have improved from an earlier rating of fair; windows (fair) have also improved from 1989 when they were rated poor.

344 E. 28^th Street (Manhattan, 225 units, New York State): the condition of roofs (fair) has worsened since 1989 when they were rated good; on the other hand, kitchens (excellent) and elevators (good) have improved from earlier ratings of fair; bathrooms (fair) and windows (fair) have remained unchanged ; the heating system (fair) was not reviewed by us in 1989.

Independence (Brooklyn, 744 units, New York State): the condition of bathrooms (poor), the heating system (poor), and elevators (immediate attention) has worsened since 1989 when all were rated fair; the condition of the windows (immediate attention) has worsened since 1989 when they were rated poor and the condition of roofs (immediate attention) has declined dramatically from an earlier rating of good; the condition of kitchens (fair) has remained unchanged.

Manhattanville (Manhattan, 1,272 units, New York State): the condition of roofs (fair) has worsened since 1989 when it was rated excellent; on the other hand, bathrooms (fair) improved since 1989 when they were rated poor, and elevators (good) improved from fair; the condition of kitchens (poor), windows (fair), and the heating system (fair) has remained unchanged.

Marlboro (Brooklyn, 1,765 units, New York State): the condition of the heating system (fair) has worsened since 1989 when it was rated excellent; kitchens (poor) declined from a previous rating of fair, while roofs (fair) declined from a rating of good; the condition of windows (good), bathrooms (fair), and elevators (fair) has remained unchanged.

Murphy (Bronx, 281 units, New York State): the condition of windows (good) has worsened since 1989 when it was rated excellent; on the other hand, elevators (good) have improved from a previous rating of fair; the condition of kitchens (fair), bathrooms (fair), roofs (good), and the heating system (fair) has remained unchanged.

Rutgers (Manhattan, 721 units, New York State): the condition of bathrooms (poor) has worsened since 1989 when it was rated fair, while roofs (fair) declined from an earlier rating of good; on the other hand, elevators (excellent), kitchens (excellent), and windows (good) have all improved from previous ratings of fair; the heating system (fair) was not reviewed by us in 1989.

Stapleton (Staten Island, 693 units, New York State): the condition of windows (good) has worsened since 1989 when it was rated excellent, while kitchens (immediate attention) have declined from a previous rating of poor; on the other hand, there has been significant improvement in roofs (good) which have risen from a previous rating of needing immediate attention, in bathrooms (excellent) which had formerly been rated poor, and in the heating system (good) which had been rated poor in 1989; the condition of elevators (good) has remained unchanged.

Williams Plaza (Brooklyn, 577 units, New York State): the condition of the roofs (immediate attention) has worsened dramatically since 1989 when they were rated excellent; elevators (immediate attention) declined from a previous rating of good while the heating system (poor) also declined from fair; on the other hand windows (excellent) improved from fair and kitchens and bathrooms have remained unchanged.

Wise Towers (Manhattan, 399 units, New York State): the condition of the elevators (immediate attention) has worsened since 1989 when it was rated fair; kitchens and bathrooms (poor) and roofs (fair) have remained unchanged; on the other hand, windows (fair) improved from poor; the heating system was not reviewed by us in 1989.

Bay View (Brooklyn, 1,610 units, New York City): the condition of the roofs (poor) has worsened since 1989 when it was rated good; windows (fair) also declined from a previous rating of excellent; on the other hand, the heating system (good) and the kitchens and bathrooms (good) have improved since 1989 when both were rated poor; the elevators (good) improved from fair.

Boulevard (Brooklyn, 1,436 units, New York City): the condition of the elevators (immediate attention) has worsened since 1989 when it was rated poor; roofs (fair) have declined from a rating of good; windows (good) have also declined from a rating of excellent; on the other hand, kitchens (excellent)have improved dramatically from a previous rating of needing immediate attention, and the heating system (excellent) also improved from a previous rating of fair. Bathrooms (immediate attention) have remained unchanged.

Frederick Samuel (Manhattan, 659 units, New York City): the current condition of the elevators is excellent while the heating system, roofs, kitchens and bathrooms have deteriorated to fair condition in only six years. No comparison with earlier rankings is possible since this project was completed in 1993.

Linden (Brooklyn, 1,586 units, New York City): the condition of the elevators (immediate attention) has worsened since 1989 when it was rated fair; roofs (poor) have also declined from a previous rating of good; bathrooms (immediate attention) have declined from a rating of poor; on the other hand, the heating system (excellent) and kitchens (excellent) improved significantly over the earlier rating of poor that both received.

Marble Hill (Bronx, 1,682 units, New York City): the condition of the heating system (good) worsened since 1989 when it was rated excellent; kitchens and bathrooms (poor), elevators (fair) and windows (excellent) have remained the same; on the other hand, roofs (good) have improved from a previous rating of needing immediate attention.

St. Mary's Park (Bronx, 1,007 units, New York City): the condition of kitchens (immediate attention) has worsened since 1989 when it was rated poor; roofs (fair) also declined from a previous rating of good; on the other hand, bathrooms (good) improved from poor and the heating system (excellent) improved from fair; the condition of the elevators (fair) and windows (good) have remained unchanged.

APPENDIX B

ASSESSMENT OF MAJOR BUILDING COMPONENTS

1=Excellent, 2=Good, 3=Fair, 4=Poor, 5=Immediate Attention Required

Source: New York City Housing Authority

APPENDIX C

Comparative Rankings: 1989 to 1999

1=Excellent, 2=Good, 3=Fair, 4=Poor, 5=Immediate Attention Required, NA=Not Applicable

Data Source: New York City Housing Authority

* Completed in 1993

Appendix D

Capital Investment Needed to Bring Projects to a State of Good Repair

Data Source: New York City Housing Authority.

1. New York City Housing Authority. Return

2. Public Housing at the Crossroads: Bricks, Mortar, and Public Policy at the New York City Housing Authority (Report 8-99 issued February 11, 1999). Return

3. The State continues to fund the cost of debt service on the underlying mortgages for the State projects. Return

4. Report 27-89, Public Housing at Risk: Modernization Needs in New York City Housing Projects, issued April 13, 1989. Return

5. Report 8-99, Public Housing at the Crossroads: Bricks, Mortar, and Public Policy at the New York City Housing Authority, issued February 11, 1999. Return

6. NYCHA estimates that it would cost $614 million to bring the State projects up to a state of good repair and another $410 million for the City projects. Return

7. Section 1628-1.1 of the Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. Return

8. On December 31, 1998 the balance in the State program's modernization reserve was zero. The City program is not required to and does not maintain a discrete reserve for replacement needs. However, the City may fund replacement needs from its designated operating reserve. There are currently no funds in this reserve. Return

9. DHCR allocates to NYCHA approximately one-half of the statewide modernization grant appropriated annually by the State which, for the past several years, has totaled about $12 million. According to DHCR, NYCHA's share is based on the number of its units and its estimated capital need. Return

10. Claim No. 98802. Return

11. New York City Housing Authority v. Pataki, NYLJ February 9, 1999, Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Return