The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-01-20 - Minutes - ArchiveMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF . THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS The Housing Authority of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in Regular Session at 8:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 20, 200# in the City Administration Building, Room 326, Fayetteville, AR. Gary Garton, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at approximately 8:00 a.m. Carla Williams (Mediator) explained her purpose for being present at the meeting and that she would help direct the agenda. Commissioners Present: Gary Garton, Pat Watson, Nancy Bolin, Janet Richardson, Randy Coleman Commissioners Absent: None Others Present: Fredia Sawin, Laura Higgins (Fay. Housing Auth.), Carla Williams (Mediator) Consent A eg nda The minutes of the previous meeting were amended to correct spelling of the ad hoc members under New Business to Ralph Nesson and Kathleen Vacanti. Section V., • Section VI. and the Executive Director's Report were removed from the consent agenda. Consent Agenda was then approved by motion from Ms. Bolin, seconded by Mr. Garton and carried unanimously. Old Business Resolution Authorizing Contract for Capital Funds was discussed, (Section V.) Ms. Bolin requested to see the actual bid before making any kind of decision on this issue. Ms. Sawin explained that the bid included some updates at Willow Heights and Morgan Manor and for office renovation. Ms. Bolin motioned that she is not in favor of spending capital funds for the office renovation due to possible changes to the Hillcrest Towers building in the future. Ms. Sawin advised that the bid was done as a package deal and it also includes the plumbing updates to Willow Heights and Morgan Manor. Ms. Bolin advised she only had an issue with the office renovation. Ms. Sawin advised that splitting the bid may cost the Housing Authority more money and money had already been spent to have the bid put in place. Discussion was made by all commissioners and each made their opinion. Ms. Bolin motioned that Ms. Sawin go back to the contractor and see if they will re -bid the work without the office renovation. Ms. Richardson motioned to have Ms. Sawin contact the contractor and check to see if it would cost additional money to remove the office renovation and re -bid. Ms. Williams' the mediator outlined the many motions put on the floor and that there appears to be no agreement to this issue. Mr. Coleman suggested they table this issue until more information is • received. Ms. Bolin suggested that the motion to go back to the contractor is moving it • forward. Mr. Coleman then motioned again to table the issue. Ms. Bolin seconded. Ms. Williams' advised that if you table this issue once, it must be settled at the next meeting. Mr. Coleman then requested that Ms. Sawin supply them with an itemized contract with the office space removed and if it would cost the Housing Authority more money. Ms. Bolin requested that something be mailed ahead of the meeting. Ms. Bolin added that she thought that there was a conflict in what was approved by the board in a prior meeting and that it was her understanding that there was suppose to be bids submitted for the boards review prior to any work being done to the office space. Ms. Richardson stated that the staff had negotiated contracts for many years and she felt that the board needed to trust them and not get so involved. Ms. Bolin disagreed. Ms. Bolin reviewed her reason for removing the Executive Director's Report from the consent agenda and felt that it was important that we hear from Ms. Sawin at each meeting and therefore should not be placed in the consent agenda. A. Follow Up on the Special Meeting -Ms. Bolin passed -out the minutes for the special meeting and stated that they did not need to be approved by motion. Minutes were passed to each commissioner. Ms. Bolin asked if the committee reports from the special meeting needed to be discussed at this time or under New Business, Section E. Committee Reports. Ms. Williams' advised that time was running short as two of the commissioners had to leave early. Ms. Richardson gave her report on the progress of the rules governing the resident board member and passed these out to the commissioners. Ms. Bolin asked if it had been determined that the board open this position to everyone or • keep it only for the residents of the programs. Ms. Richardson stated that the work done on this research was done with it in mind that there would be a resident board member. Ms. Richardson requested that everyone take a few minutes to review the outline as presented to them. Ms. Richardson motioned to adopt this process as written with a possible change to the number of notification days from 45 to 30. Ms. Bolin motioned to open this position to all members of the community and not exclusively for a resident. Discussion was made and Mr. Garton motioned to make it mandatory that it be either a public housing resident or Section 8 participant, seconded by Mr. Coleman, motion carried by three "I" votes and one "nay" vote. Ms. Bolin then motioned to accept the procedures as set by Mr. Coleman and Ms. Richardson, seconded by Mr. Garton and carried unanimously. New Business A. Re -vote for Resident Board Member -Ms. Watson stated for the record that she felt that Ms. Bolin had done everything in her power to keep her off of the board and that the commission on a whole had done what they needed to do to advertise the opening and only her application was submitted by the deadline. Ms. Bolin advised that since the board had just voted in new election procedures, they should be followed. Ms. Watson then motioned to vote on her application for resident board member, motion was not seconded and did not carry. 0 B. Rules Governing Special Meetings -Ms. Richardson advised that at the last special meeting Ms. Bolin chaired the meeting. Ms. Richardson felt that the special • meeting should be chaired by the Chairperson. Ms. Bolin asked if they should propose procedures on how to conduct special meetings. Ms. Richardson stated that they were in the By -Laws but she felt they needed to be refined and proposed that procedures for special meetings be outlined and she would write it, seconded by Ms. Bolin and carried unanimously. C. Mediation Contract Revisions -Ms. Bolin tabled this issue until the next meeting and all agreed. D. Markham Hill Proposal -Ms. Bolin stated that the board needed to make a determination as to whether the developers need to come to one of their board meetings and present their ideas. Ms. Bolin felt that this meeting needed to be called as a special meeting due to time constraints at the regular meetings. Ms. Richardson thought it would be good to hear from Mr. Hugh Earnest. Ms. Bolin stated that he would be at the special meeting and was very much in favor of doing it. Meeting was then tentatively scheduled for a Monday afternoon and Ms. Bolin will check with the developers to confirm the actual date and advise each board member. Due to Mr. Garton having to leave the meeting early re -voting of the new chairperson was added to the agenda. Mr. Garton made a proposal to nominate Mr. Coleman. Mr. Coleman advised that he felt that he may not be able to make every meeting due to a • heavy schedule and that maybe someone else should be nominiated. Mr. Garton then nominated Janet Richardson as Chairperson and Randy Coleman as Vice Chairperson, seconded by Ms. Bolin and carried unanimously. E. Committee Reports -Due to lack of time Ms. Bolin asked that this item be skipped, since they just formed their committees in December. However, Ms. Bolin advised it should be on the regular agenda so that each committee chair can give their report. H. Executive Session to Discuss Personnel Issues -Due to Mr. Coleman having to leave the board meeting this item was moved up on the agenda. Ms. Bolin asked when an appointment could be made that everyone could work with. It was finally agreed to be set for January 26, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. at Mr. Garton's office. Ms. Richardson will set up the schedule and notify each board member. F. Community Care Foundation Learning Series -Ms. Bolin indicated that this was not her item as indicated on the agenda, but should have been Ms. Sawin's report. Ms. Sawin advised she thought that Ms. Bolin would make the presentation and apologized for misunderstanding. Ms. Sawin stated that this is a nonprofit organization that is making a presentation on human resource law and the Housing Authority can pay for each of the commissioners to attend if they desire and it would cost $10.00 per person. Ms. Bolin encouraged that the executive • director and all commissioners attend this meeting. Per Ms. Sawin the date of the • meeting is on February 17, 2004 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and will include information on board liability, practicing board procedures and making sure you are doing it right. Ms. Richardson advised that it sounded like something they did need to attend. Ms. Sawin stated she would make the necessary arrangements for those who wanted to go. G. Hope IV Funds -Ms. Bolin indicated again that this was not to be her item on the agenda and was suppose to be presented by Ms. Sawin. Ms. Sawin advised that Hope VI Funds were used in demolishing public housing and that she felt we were not even into that phase of discussion until other decisions were made. Ms. Sawin indicated that when that time comes she will get with Hugh Earnest of the City and there will be a report made. Ms. Bolin also requested that Ms. Sawin check into the status of the FSS Coordinator as she had received information that the Housing Authority had already received this funding. Ms. Sawin pointed out that she had reported on this issue but had not received official written word from HUD and that is why it is not on the agenda. Ms. Sawin advised that she will contact Janie Fletcher at HUD to get an update. Ms.Richardson asked for more information on the Hope VI funds. Ms. Sawin reviewed this program and Ms. Richardson stated that Mr. Hugh Earnest had indicated these funds were in question, but that it is important to stay informed. 0 There being no further business, meeting was adjourned. THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS ATTEST: Se retary 0 • Fayetteville Housing Authority #1 North School Ave. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Phone: 479-521-3850 Fax: 479-442-6771 January15, 2004 Executive Directors Report #2 Please find enclosed the returned bids for the Facilities Assessment. We received two bids, one from Ledford Engineering and the other from National Facility Consultants, Inc. The bid from Ledford Engineering was based on the assessment of 100 percent of our Housing Stock. The National Facility Consultants, Inc. bid was based on only 10 percent of the assessment of our Housing Stock. As you can see the two bids are way off in comparison. The RFP submitted calls for the assessment of 100 percent of all the units, buildings and sites. The National Facility Consultants, Inc., • Ms. Clara White e-mailed me to make sure that we indeed wanted the 100 percent assessment but still bided based on the 10 percent. I called them on this date and questioned a misfiguring in the cost part of their bid and was told that they did not bid the 100 percent because they did not want to be so high that they knocked themselves out of the bid. This was a way they could negotiate. However, figuring that at 10 percent it was $8,764.00, times this figure by 10 and this 100 percent figure now turns into $87,640.00. Which now makes this figure way more than the Ledford Engineering bid. However, keep in mind that by HUD's original figures, which is what they estimated, would be around $50 per unit at a total cost of $12,600.00. This figure is way under the 100 percent bids of $36,975.00 from Ledford Engineering. At the price of $36,975.00 coming out of our Budget at this time when we are trying to build up our expendable funds we may need to rethink this and plan to spend this money out of our Capital Funds balance from the FY 2003 budget. There is no question that this will have to be re- bid. We can discuss this more at the Meeting Tuesday, January 20th, 2004. 0 COST PROPOSAL. COST SUMMARY NFC's services are proposed on a flat fee basis of $8,764 and include all travel andelated expenses based on the following hourly rales: V Partner $150/hour Senior Consultant $125/hour Consultant $100/hour Management Analyst $85/hour Physical Needs Assessment Partner Senior Consul. Labor Travel Total Task Description Hours Consul. flours Cost Cost Cost Hours Phase 1— Data Collection 0 20 20 $4,500 $1,364 $5,864 Phase li — Data Analysis 0 4 8 $1,300 $0 $17300 Phase III — Report Documentation 2 4 8 $1,600 $0 $1,600 'TOTALS 2 28 36 $10,100 $1,364 $8,764 PAYaIENT SCIIEDULE Payment for the proposed services and deliverables are to be made according to the following schedule: Physical Needs Assessment: Upon Completion of Data Collection $4,382 Upon Submission of Draft Report $2,630 Upon Completion of Report Generation IM TOTAL $89764 National Facility Consultants, Inc. Strictly Confidential r W' ➢ NFC will review its currently developed survey,instruments to ensure that the proper information will be captured during the on-site survey. Any additional information that is desired by the PFIA can be added at this time in order to ensure that the database meets the Authority's needs. ➢ NPC will review the previously completed PNA, if applicable, and discuss the progress to date, any changing priorities, current development initiatives, and Authority goals and objectives in order to identify any specific needs for the final PNA database. ➢ NFC will review the progress in addressing physical needs as well as other related operational issues by examining: ♦ Any previous or current CGP or CFP Budgets; ♦ Comprehensive modernization work the Authority has already completed and proposed, all existing [IUD engineering surveys, any Maintenance Operation Reviews, and any internal audits or surveys; ♦ PHAS scores and documentation related to management, maintenance and modernization operations; ♦ Section 504 Compliance and the status of the Transition Plan; ♦ Energy efficiency and Energy Conservation Measures; ♦ Environmental assessments (LBP, asbestos, mold, or other hazardous materials); ♦ Security situation; and ♦ Financial documentation including operating budget, energy costs, etc. D NPC will conduct on-site surveys of all grounds and all (100%) of non -dwelling facilities and a minimum of 10% of all dwelling units of various bedroom sizes. If required, NPC will enter 100% of the dwelling units to ensure that all needed modernization work requirements are identified and documented unless the additional surveys are the result of different types of construction. Building surfaces - including roofs, walls, doors, windows, porches, columns, steps, gutters, downspouts, etc. National Facility Consultand, Inc. Strictly Confidential 0 COST OF SERVICES Ledford Engineering and Planning, LLC proposes to provide services to the Fayetteville Housing Authority for the Physical Needs Assessment for a fee of: Hillcrest Tower (120 Dwelling Units, Non Dwelling Facilities and Site Inspection) $17,545.00 Willow Heights (40 Dwelling Units, I Non Dwelling Facility and Site Inspection) $ 5,945.00 Lewis Plaza (40 Dwelling Units, 1 Non Dwelling Facility and Site Inspection) $ 55945.00 Morgan Manor (52 Dwelling Units and Site Inspection) 7,540.00 $36,975.00 • IN 9 FAYETTEVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY #1 North School Ave. Fayetteville, AR 72701-5928 PH: (479)521-3850 FAX: (479)442-6771 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT JANUARY 13, 2004 1. Please find attached the documents reflecting our PHAS Score for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003. This years inspection score was down considerably. Our office sent a written dispute to the HUD area office on some of the findings. The overall inspection was very different from the years of 2000 and 2001, in respect to the 504 Regulations (Handicap Accessibility). Lewis Plaza, Willow Heights and Morgan Manor were failed due to noncompliance of a wheelchair accessible route to and from the main ground floor entrance of the • buildings inspected and for noncompliance with a handicap accessible route to all exterior common areas. The buildings that failed had a step up into the unit and therefore were not wheelchair accessible. However, keep in mind that these units are not our handicap accessible units. The exterior common areas failed due to the parking areas not having a handicap accessible route to the sidewalks. We were also failed for tenants having window air conditioners in their bedrooms at Morgan which is considered blockage of an egress (Fire exit). This has never been failed before and tenants have always had window air conditioners in their bedrooms. The Financial score was down due the 6 months expenditure fund balance. I have attached the previous year's scores and this years scores for comparison. I have also discussed with our Planning firm the possibility of correcting some of these findings with our capital funds for the FY 2004 year. 2. The Tenant Council Christmas Dinner was a success. The mayor, Mr. Dan Coody, was in attendance and the -Fire Department gave out Christmas presents to the children. Please find attached the write up in the Northwest Arkansas Times which gives a very good description. 0 PAGE 2 3. Public Housing has 5 Vacancies, 2 at Hillcrest, 2 at Lewis Plaza and 1 at Morgan Manor. The Section 8 Program is full with the exception of the 25 enhanced vouchers which we have not received the funding for at this time. 4. We have finally received word from the HUD office that our FY 2003 Capital funds will be funded an additional amount of $51,706.00. As you will recall, they were cut about $65,000 with a promise that as long as our capital funds spending was up to date, we could receive an additional amount. This brings our total funding for the FY 2003 Capital funds at $296,517.00. 5. The Resolution No. 699 awarding the contract for the Facilities Assessment (Physical Needs Assessment) will follow in a • separate mailing. The bid opening is on January 15th, 2004. L� • • Composite Score Report Page 1 of 1 individ/ uI rt REAL ESTAI E ASSESSMENT CENTER U.S.DEPARTMEN'T Of HOUSING AND URBAN UEVELOPMENI' PHAS Score Report for Fiscal Year 2003 PHA Information January I PHAS 76 Designation Standard Performer PHAS Released Score: Status: Status: Select a PHAS indicator to view details relating to the composite score. PHAS Indicator Original Score Maximum Score Housing Authority_of the_Clty_of Fiscal Year 19 PHA Code: AR097 PHA Name: 23 30 09/30 Management 25 30 Fayetteville End: 9 PHAS 76 Designation Standard Performer PHAS Released Score: Status: Status: Select a PHAS indicator to view details relating to the composite score. PHAS Indicator Original Score Maximum Score Indicator/PHAS Explanation Physical 19 30 Explanation Financial 23 30 Explanation Management 25 30 planation Resident 9 10 Explanation PHAS Total Score 76 100 Last Updated: 12/18/2003 PHAS Score Report PHAS Scoring Packet1prin[atrle version) The sum of the Indicators as displayed may not equal the composite PHAS score shown due to rounding. . , Jd ``Download Acrobat Reader Comments or Questions? Contact the REAC Technical _Asslstance Center. https://hudapps.hud. gov/HUD_Systems/nass/n_Composite_Score.c fm?pha_id=AR097&pa... 1/14/2004 0 PHYSICAL INSPECTION SUMMARY REPORT The Inspection Sununary Report is designed to achieve two objectives: 1. Provide the Public Housing Agency or owner and/or owner agent (POA) with the background information i.e. addresses, phone numbers, building names, etc., collected during inspection of a given property so that any relevant discrepancies can be identified and resolved. 2. Inform the POA of the physical condition of their property captured during a REAC inspection. The items described below introduce the information provided in the Inspection Summary Report and are intended to meet the objectives illustrated above. Inspection Number: The inspection number is unique for each inspection conducted by REAC. Each time a property is inspected by REAC, a new inspection number is utilized. These unique numbers may be used to communicate with REAC on any matter concerning a particular inspection. Property Information: Information related to a property is provided: • property identification number (in parentheses) - a unique number in HUD databases • property name • status as a scattered site (Yes/No) • relevant addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers, and e-mail addresses for property Each of these should be checked carefully for accuracy. Any discrepancies should be reported to your contact in the HUD office having jurisdiction over your properly. Building Unit Count: The total number of buildings and units on the property are given, along with the number of buildings and units actually inspected by REAC Scores: An overall numerical score is given as a value from zero to 100. Separate numerical scores are also given for each of five areas: • site • building exterior • building systems • common areas • units The five area scores range from zero to the maximum number of points possible for each area. The possible points for a given area are determined for a specific property based on the inspectable items actually present in each area. The sum of the area points identifies what the overall score would be if there were no health & safety (H&S) deficiencies. The overall numerical score is then calculated by subtracting the sum of deductions for H&S deficiencies from the sum of the individual "area points." 0 Examples of overall scores are: 95c; 67b*; 84a*; 1006; 78a; and 43c*. The asterisk indicates that H&S deficiencies were found with respect to smoke detectors. The lower-case letter indicates whether or not other kinds of H&S deficiencies were observed, as follows: • The letter "a" is given if no health and safety deficiencies were observed other than for smoke detectors. • The lower-case letter "b" is given if one or more non -life threatening H&S deficiencies, but no exigent/fire safety H&S deficiencies were observed other than for smoke detectors. • The lower-case letter "c" is given if there were one or more exigent/fire safety (calling for immediate attention or remedy) I -{&S deficiencies observed. Although all H&S deficiencies other than smoke detector problems affect the scores with appropriate deductions, the letters grades are added to highlight the serious nature of H&S deficiencies, all of which need to be addressed by the POA. Health and Safety Counts: In addition to the counts of actual H&S deficiencies observed in the inspected buildings and units, the estimated number of H&S deficiencies that would have been found had all buildings and units been inspected is also given. This projected count gives a sense of the total H&S problem for the inspected property. The projection is calculated by dividing the counts actually observed in buildings or units by the proportion of buildings or units inspected. These projected counts for buildings and units are added to the actual counts for site to determine the total projection. The percent of buildings and units inspected is additionally given to show the basis for the calculations. • Participants/Buildings/Units: Information provided includes: relevant addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers, and e-mail addresses for participants name, year built, number of units and address for each building on the property. Note: All buildings on the property should be listed. As before, each of these should be checked carefully for accuracy and any discrepancies should be reported to your contact in the HUD office havingjurisdiction over your property. Inspectable Items: This portion of the report details all deficiencies found in the inspection. The main headings in the first column refer to the inspectable area --site, building exterior, building systems, common areas, unit, or health & safety, where the deficiency was observed. The entries are "inspectable items" within which the deficiencies were found. Some items may not be present for a given property. In such cases, appropriate adjustments are made in the area weights used to obtain the overall score. Items present, but with no deficiencies found, are not listed. The potential inspectable items are: Site: fencing & retaining walls, grounds, lighting, mail boxes/project signs, market appeal, parking lots/driveways, play areas & equipment, refuse disposal, roads, storm drainage, and walkways Building Exterior: doors, fire escapes, foundations, lighting, roofs, walls, and windows 0 r� u Building Systems: domestic water, electrical system, elevators, emergency power, fire protection, heating/ventilation/air conditioning, and sanitary system Common Areas: basement/garage/carport, closet/utility/mechanical, community room, day care, halls/corridors/stairs, kitchen, laundry room, lobby, office, other community spaces, patio/porch/balcony, pools & related structures, restrooms, storage, and trash collection areas Unit: bathroom, call -for -aid, ceiling, doors, electrical system, floors, heating/ventilation/air conditioning, hot water heater, kitchen, lighting, outlets/switches, patio/porch/balcony, stairs, walls, and windows Health & Safety: emergency/fire exits, electrical hazards, flammable materials, garbage and debris, infestation, handrails, air quality, hazards, and elevator NO/OD: The inspection protocol requires the inspector to check for the existence of certificates for certain items such as lead-based paint, elevators, etc. If all of the required certificates are verified by the inspector, the report will not include any certificate information. If any appropriate certificates are not present, the first inspectable item listed will be "certificates" and the designation "NO" will be listed for each unavailable certificate. OD in this column refers to "observed deficiency" for the given item. • Observation: The column lists the specific deficiencies observed within a given inspectable item. Each deficiency has a definition, which specifies what must be observed for that deficiency to be recorded. Also noted in this column are observations about Fiealth & Safety items. These are: • (LT) — Exigent/Fire Safety (calling for immediate attention or remedy) • (NLT) — Not Life Threatening • (SD) — Smoke Detector Definitions for all deficiencies are given in the physical inspection section at REAC's web site on the Internet (www.hud.gov/reac/reaphyin.litml). Severity: Deficiencies differ by "severity." The definitions specify what must be recorded for a given deficiency under one of three possible severity levels—minor, major and severe. The severity level is given on the report to indicate which part of the definition actually applies for the specific deficiency observed. Severity levels are defined within a given deficiency and do not necessarily indicate which deficiencies are the worst. For more serious deficiencies, a major severity level may be more of a problem and may reduce the overall score more than less serious deficiencies with a severity level of "severe." Location/Comments: Cormnents are required for all "severe" deficiencies. 0 (Ver. 3.15.99) • PUBLIC HOUSING ASSESSMENT SYSTEM FINANCIAL INDICATORS Fiscal Year End Scores The following indicators are currently used to assess the financial condition of Public Housing Authorities subject to evaluation by the Real Estate Assessment Center. The financial condition of each PHA is evaluated to determine whether the PHA has sufficient financial resources and is managing those resources effectively to support the provision of decent, safe and sanitary housing. The calculations below provide a general description of the accounts used to construct each indicator. A detailed schedule of computations for each indicator is available from the summary page. 1. Current Ratio Calculation: Cash + Cash Equivalents + Current Receivables Current Liabilities The Current Ratio measures a property's liquidity and ability to meet near term financial • obligations. It is designed to indicate if a PHA could meet all current obligations if such obligations became immediately due and payable, thereby requiring the PHA to use available current resources to pay those obligations. Therefore, a PHA generally should have available current resources at least equal to their current obligations to be considered financially liquid. The maximum point value for this indicator is nine points. 2. Number of Months Expendable Fund Balance Calculation: Available Current Resources Average Monthly Operating and Other Expenses The Number of Months Expendable Fund Balance (EIB) is a measure of net asset adequacy and provides an indication of a PHA's ability to operate using its net available (unrestricted) resources. It is defined as the number of months a PHA could operate on its reserve balance, independent of additional HUD funding. The number of months EFB a PHA should have in order to be considered financially viable varies based upon the PHA's size. The maximum point value for this indicator is nine points. 3. Tenant Receivable Outstanding Calculation: Tenant Accounts Receivables • Total Rental Income 0 Tenant Receivable Outstanding measures rent collectibility. It measures the average number of days that tenant receivables are outstanding and the PHA's history in collecting those tenant receivables in a timely manner. This indicator provides insight into the effectiveness of the PHA's accounts receivable management. The maximum point value for this indicator is 4.5 points. 4. Occupancy Loss Calculation: I Unit Months Leased Unit Months Available Occupancy Loss is a measure of the degree of unit vacancy experienced by a PHA over a year. This indicator measures the extent to which management can keep its units occupied, in addition to its ability to keep turnaround time between tenants to a minimum. The maximum point value for this indicator is 4.5 points. 5. Expense Management/Utility Consumption Calculation: Sum of Weighted Expenses (Low Rent Only) . Unit Months Leased (Low Rent Only) Expense Management measures the PFIA's ability to manage key components of its annual expenditures at a level relative to its peers, adjusted for size. This indicator compares summary expenditures to unit months leased for the fiscal year for the Low Rent Public Housing program only. Total routine expenses measured include the following expense categories: administrative, tenant services, utilities, ordinary maintenance and operation, protective services, and general expenses. This indicator enables PFIA management to determine if the per unit cost is reasonable or if unnecessary operating expenditures should be reduced and/or further analyzed. The maximum point value for this indicator is 1.5 points. 6. Net Income or Loss divided by the Expendable Fund Balance Calculation: Adjusted Net Income or Loss Available Current Resources Net income or loss measures how the results of the year's current operations have affected the PHA's viability. This indicator compares the PHA's adjusted net income or loss to the net available unrestricted current resources, i.e. the expendable fund balance. It indicates whether the PFIA is adequately managing its income and expenses to maintain • a balanced budget. The maximum point value for this indicator is 1.5 points. n �J MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS INDICATOR SCORING METHODOLOGY The Management Operations Indicator score provides an assessment of each PHA's management effectiveness. The computation of this PLIAS indicator requires a maximum of six main calculations, which are: I The system scores the components first. The component score equals the weight of the component (Table 1) multiplied by the grade value as assessed by REAC. For example, a PHA which scored a "D" on Non -Emergency Work Orders, would receive 50% of the component weight of 2. Thus the score of Non -Emergency Work Orders would be 50% * 2, which equals 1. 2. The system next redistributes the weight of any non -assessed components within a sub -indicator. For example, the Timeliness of Fund Obligation component of the Capital Fund sub -indicator is not assessed if element CF I 1100 (Total funds authorized for grants over 2 FFYs old) equals 0. The weight (2) of this component is redistributed over the weight of the other components in Capital Fund. 3. Ager any component redistributions have been made, the values of the components for each sub -indicator are summed to find the sub -indicator value. 4. At this point, the system checks for any non -assessed sub -indicators. As with • components, the weight of any non -assessed sub -indicator is redistributed over the remaining sub -indicators. For example, the Capital Fund sub -indicator is not assessed if element CF 10000 (Do you have any open Capital Fund Programs) equals "NO". The weight (7.0) of this sub -indicator is redistributed over the value of the other sub -indicators. 5. If the value of a sub -indicator is changed because of redistribution of non - assessed points, the values of the components of that sub -indicator must be redistributed again. This second component redistribution does not change the value of the sub -indicator or the relative values of the components. It is simply a "resealing" that ensures the sum of the components will equal the new sub - indicator value. 6. Finally, the MASS Indicator score is determined by adding the sum of the sub - indicators. To perform these calculations, the following is needed: The weights of the six sub -indicators, which are listed in Table 1. The grades assigned under PHMAP for each component. 0 • Table 1 Management Operations Sub -Indicators and Component Weights • The grades under PHMAP for each component are assigned values to indicate the percentage of the component weight for that sub -indicator that will be awarded in the calculations. The assigned values for the grades, which are listed in Table 2, are the same for each sub -indicator that is being assessed. Table 2 Possible Grades Grades Sub - A 1.00 B Indicator C Component Sub -Indicator Weight Component Weight Unit Turnaround 4.0 Part of PHMAP Indicator # 1 Capital Fund 7.0 Unexpended Funds 1.0 (PHMAP Indicator #2) Timeliness of Fund Obligation 2.0 Contract Adminstration 1.0 Quality of Physical Work 2.0 Budget Controls 1.0 Work Orders 4.0 Emergency Work Orders 2.0 PHMAP Indicator #4) Non -Emergency Work Orders 2.0 Inspections of Units and 4.0 Inspection of Units 2.0 Systems Inspection of Systems 2.0 PHMAP Indicator #5 Security 4.0 Tracking/Reporting Crime -Related Problems 1.0 (PHMAP Indicator #8) Screening of Applicants 1.0 Lease Enforcement 1.0 Grant Program Goals 1.0 Economic Self -Sufficiency 7.0 • The grades under PHMAP for each component are assigned values to indicate the percentage of the component weight for that sub -indicator that will be awarded in the calculations. The assigned values for the grades, which are listed in Table 2, are the same for each sub -indicator that is being assessed. Table 2 Possible Grades Grades Value ' A 1.00 B 0.85 C 0.70 D 0.50 E 0.30 F 0.00 AN EXAMPLE OF COMPUTING A SUB -INDICATOR SCORE WITH A NON - ASSESSED COMPONENT When non -assessed components exist, the value of the non -assessed component must be redistributed proportionately across components that have been assessed. In this example, the Capital Funds component, Quality of Physical Work, is not assessed. To redistribute the Quality of Physical Work points (2), the value of each assessed component must be multiplied by the total possible points for the sub -indicator (7), and divided by the total possible points of the assessed components (5). The redistributed value of the total possible points for the Contract Administration component calculates to I x 3 = 1.4. If the PHA has received a grade of C for Contract Administration, the PHA then receives only 70 percent of the redistributed points value. 70 percent of 1.4 equals 0.98 points. The Capital Fund sub -indicator score is then computed by summing all the components that have been redistributed in this manner. AN EXAMPLE OF COMPUTING THE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS INDICATOR SCORE FOR A PHA WITHOUT AN ECONOMIC SELF- SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM When a PHA does not have an Economic Self -Sufficiency Program, the Economic Self - Sufficiency sub -indicator is not assessed. If a non -assessed sub -indicator exists, the value of the non -assessed sub -indicator must be redistributed proportionately across the sub - indicators that have been assessed. To redistribute the Economic Self -Sufficiency points (7), each assessed sub -indicator must be multiplied by the total possible points for the MASS indicator (30), and divided by the total possible points of the assessed sub - indicators (23). For example, assume that the Capital Funds sub -indicator score as derived from the sum of its components equals 6.16. Then Capital Fund's redistributed value calculates to: 6.16x 23 = 8.03 The final Management Operations Indicator score is derived by summing the redistributed sub -indicators. These scores are included in the PHAS • Report. Note that in the PHAS Report, scores are rounded to the nearest tenth. AN EXAMPLE OF RESCALING COMPONENTS SO THAT THE COMPONENT SUM EQUALS A REDISTRIBUTED SUB -INDICATOR In the previous example, the sub -indicator points were redistributed because the Economic Self -Sufficiency sub -indicator was not assessed. After the sub -indicator points were redistributed the components comprising each sub -indicator no longer add up to the new redistributed value of each sub -indicator. A calculation must be performed to rescale the components of each sub -indicator so that those components add up to the redistributed sub -indicator value. For example, to rescale the Capital Fund components so that they add up to the redistributed Capital Fund sub -indicator value of 8.03, the value of each component must be multiplied by a factor of L. This is the same ratio that was used to 22 redistribute the sub -indicators, above. Once the component values are resealed, their sum equals 8.03 which is the redistributed sub -indicator points for Capital Funds as shown, above. U • RESIDENT SERVICE AND SATISFACTION INDICATOR SCORING METHODOLOGY The Resident Service and Satisfaction Indicator provides an assessment of the level of resident satisfaction with living conditions at the PHA. Under the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS), the PHA's performance will be assessed by residents through a mail survey. PHAs can receive up to 10 points for this Indicator based on resident survey results; an Implementation Plan, for which PHAs are required to market the survey to residents and certify their actions on the intemet; and a Follow-up Plan, for which PHAs are required to prepare a supplement to their annual plan describing what actions they will take to address areas of the survey in which they scored below 75% of the points possible and certify on the intemet that they will prepare such a plan. A PHA may not receive any points under this Indicator if the survey is not managed as directed by HUD. Detail about the scoring for the resident Indicator is provided in the Federal Register, 65 FR 40034, June 28, 2000. Special note for the 09/30/99, 12/31/99, and 03/31/00 assessment cycles: • In order to make the transition from the Public Housing Management Assessment Program (PHMAP) to PHAS the Department will issue "advisory scores" to PHAs in the 09/30/993 12/31/99, and 03/31/00 assessment cycles. Official non -advisory scores will be issued effective the 06/30/00 assessment cycle, beginning on 10/01/00. 11 • • Composite Score Report Page 1 of 1 individual reports KLALLJIAlh A))q)MtNI (.hNiER U.S. DEPARTMENT Or HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PHAS Score Report for Fiscal Year 2002 PHA Information January ] PHA Code: AR097 PHA Name: Housing Au_thority_o_f_the City of Fiscal Year 09/30 30 Explanation Financial Fayetteville End: Explanation PHAS 88 Designation Standard Performer PHAS Released Score: Status: Status: Select a PHAS indicator to view details relating to the composite score. PHAS Indicator Original Score Maximum Score Indicator/PHAS Explanation Physical.(PASS_Incentiv_e) 26 30 Explanation Financial 28 30 Explanation Management 25 30 Explanation Resident 9 10 Explanation PHAS Total Score Be 100 Last Updated: 03/19/2003 PHAS Score Report PHAS Scorinq Packet (printable version) The sum of the indicators as displayed may not equal the composite PHAS score shown due to rounding. bm oownloa_d Acrobat Reader Comments or Questions? Contact the REAL Technical Assistance Center. haps://hudapps.hud.gov/HUD_Systems/nass/n c fm?pha_id=AR097&pa. 1/14/2004 Real Estate Assessment Center PHAS Scoring Packet Housing Authority of the City of Fayetteville Fiscal Year 2003 0 December 28, 2003 I • PHAS Score Report For Fiscal Year 2003 Report Date: 12/28/2003 PHA Information PHAS Score: 76 Designation Status: Standard Performer PHAS Indicator Original Score Maximum Score Physical Fiscal 30 PHA Code: AR097 PHA Name: Housing Authority of the City of Year End: 09/30 Resident 9 10 Fayetteville 76 100 PHAS Score: 76 Designation Status: Standard Performer PHAS Indicator Original Score Maximum Score Physical 19 30 Financial 23 30 Management 25 30 Resident 9 10 PHAS Total Score 76 100 The sum of the sub -Indicator scores may not equal the overall indicator score due to rounding. • E PHAS Physical Report For Fiscal Year 2003 PHA Information PHA Code: AR097 PHA Name: Housing Authority of the City of Fayetteville Physical Score (rounded) 19 Number of Projects: 2 Report Date: 12/28/2003 The sum of the sub -Indicator scores may not equal the overall indicator score due to rounding. (1) Includes an adjustment for physical condition and neighborhood environment, where applicable. . * Smoke detector violation. The letter "a" is given if no health and safety deficiencies were observed other than smoke detectors. The letter "b" Is given if one or more non -life threatening H&S deficiencies, but no life threatening H&S deficiencies were observed other than smoke detectors. The letter "C' is given If there were one or more life threatening H&S deficiencies observed. 0 Overall Score Inspection Release Project ID Inspection Unit Property 100- 30 - Date Number Count (Development) Point Point Bask Basis 10/03/2003 AR37P097002 189199 52 Morgan Manor 69c 20.8 09/25/2003 AR3715097001 189198 200 Hillcrest/Lewis 62c* 18.6 Plaza/Willow Hei hts The sum of the sub -Indicator scores may not equal the overall indicator score due to rounding. (1) Includes an adjustment for physical condition and neighborhood environment, where applicable. . * Smoke detector violation. The letter "a" is given if no health and safety deficiencies were observed other than smoke detectors. The letter "b" Is given if one or more non -life threatening H&S deficiencies, but no life threatening H&S deficiencies were observed other than smoke detectors. The letter "C' is given If there were one or more life threatening H&S deficiencies observed. 0 • PHAS Financial Report For Fiscal Year 2003 Report Date: 12/28/2003 0 PHA Information PHA Code: Actual Score AR097 PHA Name: Housing Authority of the City of Fayetteville Submission Type: Unaudited 3 Tenant Receivable Outstanding 2.6 4.5 Financial Score (rounded) 23 Financial Sub -Indicators Actual Score Maximum Score 1 Current Ratio 9.0 9.0 2 Number of Months Expendable Funds Balance '5.0 9.0 3 Tenant Receivable Outstanding 2.6 4.5 4 Occupancy Loss 4.5 4.5 5 Net Income or Loss Divided by the Expendable Funds Balance - 1.5 6 Expense Management/Utility Consumption 1.5 1.5 Total Financial Score 22.5 30.0 The sum of the sub -Indicator scores may not equal the overall indicator score due to rounding. I • 0 PHAS Management Report For Fiscal Year 2003 PHA Information Report Date: 12/28/2003 PHA Code: AR097 PHA Name: Housing Authority of the City of Fayetteville Management Score (rounded) 15 Management Sub -Indicator (2) Actual Score Maximum Score 1 Vacant Unit Turnaround Time 0.00 5.22 2 Capital Fund 9.13 9.13 Unexpended Funds Over Three Federal Fiscal Years (FFYs) Old Excluded Excluded Timeliness of Fund Obligation Excluded Excluded Adequacy of Contract Administration 2.28 2.28 Quality of the Physical Work 4.57 4.57 Adequacy of Budget Controls 2.28 2.28 3 Work Orders 5.22 5.22 Emergency Work Orders 2.61 2.61 Non -Emergency Work Orders 2.61 2.61 4 Annual Inspection of Dwelling Units and Systems 5.22 5.22 Annual Inspection of Dwelling Units 2.61 2.61 Annual Inspection of Systems Including Common Areas and Non-Dwellinq Space 2.61 2.61 5 Security 5.22 5.22 Tracking and Reporting Crime -Related Problems 1.74 1.74 Screening of Applicants 1.74 1.74 Lease Enforcement 1.74 1.74 Drug Prevention and/or Crime Reduction Program Goals Excluded Excluded 6 Economic Self -Sufficiency Excluded Excluded I Total Management Score I 24.8 I 30.0 The sum of the sub-indicator scores may not equal the overall indicator score due to rounding. (2)'Excluded' will be displayed In both the Actual Score and Maximum Score columns when the PHA does not use the optional sub-i nd Ica to m/components. The points will be reallocated to other sub-Indicators/components by way of renormalization. • • 0 • 0 PHAS Resident Report For Fiscal Year 2003 PHA Information Report Date: 12/28/2003 PHA Code: AR097 PHA Name: Housing Authority of the City of Fayetteville Resident Score (rounded) 9 Resident Sub -Indicators Actual Score Maximum Score 1 Survey Results 3.9 5.0 Maintenance and Repair 0.9 1.0 Communication 0.7 1.0 Safety 0.7 1.0 Services 0.9 1.0 Appearance 0.7 1.0 2 Implementation Plan 2.0 2.0 3 Follow -Up Plan 3.0 3.0 Total Resident Score 8.9 10.0 The sum of the sub -Indicator scores may not equal the overall indicator score due to rounding. r1 U 0 0 PHAS Overall Score Report For Fiscal Year 2003 Report Date: 12/28/2003 The Real Estate Assessment Center calculated the PHAS score after an assessment of the physical condition of all PHA properties had been performed, and upon reciept of all required PHA information. Public Housing Assessment System Score 76 Designation Status Standard Performer Please post this notice of your PHAS Score and Status in appropriate, conspicuous, and accessible locations in your offices. PASS FHEO Reports - FHEO Property History Pagel o1`3 physical assessment sub -system )pass) I Its EF U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) January 14, 2004 Click here for a user guide. FHEO Property History FHEO history for Hillcrest/Lewis Plaza/Willow Heights, property # 7810. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Inspection Date 09/22/2003 09/22/2003 Is there a wheelchair accessible route to and from the main ground Floor entr buildings inspected? Is the main entrance for every building inspected at least 32" wide, measure( face of the door and the opposite doorjamb? Is there an accessible route to all exterior common areas? For multi -story buildings that are inspected, are the interior hallways to all in! and common areas at least 36" wide? Inspection ID Bldg No 189198 1 189198 4 • 09/22/2003 189198 09/22/2003 189198 09/22/2003 189198 09/22/2003 189198 09/22/2003 189198 09/22/2003 189198 09/22/2003 189198 09/22/2003 189198 09/22/2003 189198 09/22/2003 189198 09/22/2003 189198 09/22/2003 189198 09/22/2003 189198 09/22/2003 189198 09/22/2003 189198 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 15 17 18 19 20 22 23 littps://htidapps.hud.gov/HUD_Systenls/pass/(heo/theo_prol)erty.cf n?iiuniber0Buildiilgs... 1/14/2004 Bldg Address Q1 401 S.LEWIS ST. # 1 FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR , 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 3, FAYETTEVILLE, No AR 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 4 FAYETTEVILLE, No AR , 401S. LEWIS ST. # 51 Fayetteville, AR No 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 6 FAYETTEVILLE, No AR , 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 7 , FAYETTEVILLE, No AR 401S. LEWIS ST. # 10 , FAYETTEVILLE, No AR 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 11 , FAYETTEVILLE, No AR 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 12 FAYETTEVILLE, No AR , 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 13 FAYETTEVILLE, No AR , 401S. LEWIS ST. # 15 , FAYETTEVILLE, No AR 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 17 FAYETTEVILLE, No AR , 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 18 , Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 19 No FAYETTEVILLE, AR , 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 20, No FAYETTEVILLE, AR 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 22 No FAYETTEVILLE, AR , 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 23 No , littps://htidapps.hud.gov/HUD_Systenls/pass/(heo/theo_prol)erty.cf n?iiuniber0Buildiilgs... 1/14/2004 PASS FHEO Reports - FHEO Property History Page 2 of 3 FAYETTEVILLE, AR • 09/22/2003 189198 25 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 25 , No FAYETTEVILLE, AR 09/22/2003 189198 26 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 26 , No FAYETTEVILLE, AR 09/22/2003 189198 27 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 27 , No FAYETTEVILLE, AR 09/22/2003 189198 28 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 28 , No FAYETTEVILLE, AR 09/22/2003 189198 29 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 29 , No FAYETTEVILLE, AR 09/22/2003 189198 30 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 30 , No FAYETTEVILLE, AR 09/22/2003 189198 31 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 31 , No FAYETTEVILLE, AR 09/22/2003 189198 32 #1 N. SCHOOL ST. , FAYETTEVILLE, AR Yes 09/22/2003 189198 33 401 N. LEWIS ST. # 8, FAYETTEVILLE, No AR 12/14/2001 145648 2 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 2, FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR 12/14/2001 145648 4 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 31 FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR 12/14/2001 145648 5 401S. LEWIS ST. # 4 , FAYETTEVILLE, Yes • AR 12/14/2001 145648 6 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 5 ,Fayetteville, AR Yes 12/14/2001 145648 7 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 6, FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR 12/14/2001 145648 8 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 7, FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR 12/14/2001 145648 9 401S. LEWIS ST. # 9, FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR 12/14/2001 145648 10 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 10 , FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR 12/14/2001 145648 11 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 11 , FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR 12/14/2001 145648 12 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 12, FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR 12/14/2001 145648 14 401S. LEWIS ST. # 14, FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR 12/14/2001 145648 15 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 15, FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR 12/14/2001 145648 16 401 S. LEWIS ST. # 16, FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR 12/14/2001 145648 17 401S. LEWIS ST. # 17, FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR 12/14/2001 145648 18 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 18 , Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR 12/14/2001 145648 19 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 19, Yes • FAYETTEVILLE, AR 12/14/2001 145648 22 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 22 , Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR 12/14/2001 145648 23 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 231 Yes https://Iiudapps.hud.gov/HUD_Systems/pass/f ieo/fheo_prol)erty.cfm?numberOfBuildings... 1/14/2004 PASS FHEO Reports - FHEO Property History Page 3 of 3 FAYETTEVILLE, AR • 12/14/2001 145648 24 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 24 , Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR 12/14/2001 145648 25 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 25 , Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR 12/14/2001 145648 26 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 26 , Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR 12/14/2001 145648 27 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 27 , Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR 12/14/2001 145648 30 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 30, Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR 12/14/2001 145648 31 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 31, Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR 12/14/2001 145648 32 #1 N. SCHOOL ST. , FAYETTEVILLE, AR Yes 11/15/2000 101876 2 401 N. LEWIS ST. # 2 , FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR 11/15/2000 101876 8 401 N. LEWIS ST. # 7 , FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR 11/15/2000 101876 14 401 N. LEWIS ST. # 14 , Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR 11/15/2000 101876 18 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 18 , Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR 11/15/2000 101876 20 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 20, Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR • 11/15/2000 101876 22 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 22 , Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR 11/15/2000 101876 25 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 25 , Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR 11/15/2000 101876 29 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 29 , Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR 11/15/2000 101876 30 10 S. WILLOW ST. # 30 , Yes FAYETTEVILLE, AR 11/15/2000 101876 32 #1 N. SCHOOL ST. , FAYETTEVILLE, AR Yes 11/15/2000 101876 33 401 N. LEWIS ST. # 8 , FAYETTEVILLE, Yes AR Back to P • Comments or Questions? Contact the REAC Technical Assistance Center, 1.888-245-4860. https:Hhudapps.hud.gov/HUD_Systems/pass/theo/Fl1eo_property.cfiii?numberOfBuildings... 1/14/2004 Vision of Learning Center comes reality for tenants BY DREW TERRY Northwest Arkansas rimes Tinsel glistened, a light- ed tree shined in the win- dow and aromas drifted from within the kitchen — the only thing missing was dozens of children and their families. Fayetteville Housing Authority officials were at Lewis Plaza on Friday after- noon putting the finishing touches on a holiday din- ner and celebration in the newest facility in the com- plex: The Residential Com- munity Learning Center. The Fayetteville Fire Department and Santa Claus visited the center Fri- day night to give the chil- dren an up -close look at a firetruck and to pass out gifts. The center will provide both children and adults Saturday, December 20, 2003 Center •Continued from Al living in Lewis Plaza, Willow Heights and Morgan Manor a place to study for school through tutoring programs and computer and Internet access. Washington Plaza has housed a similar facility for about five years, and its success led housing authority workers to estab- lish the Lewis Plaza ver- sion, which was a vision of the tenants. "It has had such a posi- tive impact in the Washing- ton Plaza community that we wanted to transfer that feeling to Lewis Plaza," said Randy Coleman, a commis- sioner on the housing authority board of direc- tors . The University of Arkansas and other donors helped fill the room with See (ENTER, page A7 ANDY SHUPE Northwest Arkansas Times Carolyn Harp, left, vice president of the resident council of the Fayetteville Housing Authority, Fredia Sawin, the authority's exec- utive director, and Terry Lawson, battalion chief for the Fayet- teville Fire Department, serve firefighters, city staff and residents Friday during a holiday celebration at The Residential Community Learning Center at Lewis Plaza in Fayetteville. tables, chairs and the 15 computers lining the wall. The room will be available to children needing help with homework or perform- ing research for a project, and adults taking online classes or earning their gen- eral education diplomas. "This is basically for the kids, but also for adults," said Fredia Sawin, executive director of the housing authority. Mission Northwest Arkansas also helped by being host of children's pro- grams. The group has become a vital part in set- ting up the room, Coleman said. Officials hoped universi- ty students in the work study program and others will volunteer to tutor chil- dren. Workers have spent the past three months on the learning center, where they also hope to establish a sub- station for the Fayetteville NORTHWEST ARKANSAS TIMES Police Department. A board comprised of neighborhood tenants will maintain the center. Deana Rhine, board pres- ident, helped prepare the room for the evening meal. "The kids need every possible way to stay cre- ative," she said. "We hope to not only do tutoring through the center, but also (have) some arts and crafts programs." Learning centers are a way to create a positive establishment within the housing complexes, Cole- . man said. It's currently in a pilot stage, and more cen- ters could be established if this one has positive results, he said. "And the centers help establish a relationship between the housing' authority and the tenants," Coleman said. "We want to establish a positive atmos- phere for learning and for these families." CI • 0 RESOLUTION NO. 696 RESOLUTION TO CHARGE OFF DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS OF FORMER TENANTS FOR PERIOD 09/1/03 -12/31/03 A resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Fayetteville Housing Authority authorizing the charge off of delinquent accounts of certain former tenants in the AR 97-1 & 2 Housing Projects for period of September 1, 2003 thru December 31, 2003. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS THAT: Accounts in the amount designated, due from the former tenants listed on the attached sheets are hereby authorized to be charged off. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF aN r\n ,r , 2004 THE HOUSING AUTHOR TY OF 4QITY OF F4YET-144VI E, Ag, 0 • a ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION CHARGE OFF OF FORMER TENANTS DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS 09/01/03 - 12/31/03 APT. NAME RENT OTHER TOTAL 2-A Michelle Clark 0.00 33.00 33.00 7-A Jamie Pate 47.00 258.00 305.00 8-A Quintessa Nickerson 171.00 569.00 740.00 9-B Andrea Smith 0.00 313.00 313.00 12-A Elicia Combs 139.00 246.00 385.00 20-A Rachel St. Clair 281.00 241.00 522.00 22-A Victoria Clyborn 393.00 604.00 997.00 30-A Tiffany Woodward 126.00 320.00 446.00 30-B Brandy Fulton 0.00 327.00 327.00 303 William Osburn 0.00 29.00 29:00 311 Elmer Horton 221.00 68.•00 289.00 507 Shirley Easter 191.00 61.00 252.00 510 Leonard Blackwood 57.00 14.00 71.00 712 Nona Harjo 8.00 160.00 168.00 905 Larry Newell 245.00 151.00 396.00 1103 Bill Burchard 193.00 363.00 556.00 1104 Albert Lehman 0.00 54.00 54.00 1112 Donald McNaughton 989.00 87.50 11076.50 TOTALS 30061.00 31898.50 TOTAL 6,959.50 • 0 RESOLUTION NO. 697 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE WRITE-OFF OF CERTAIN NON -EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT THAT WAS JUNKED. WHEREAS, the HUD Manual 7510.1 provides for the write off of certain non -expendable equipment that is junked, and WHEREAS, the most recent list of equipment that has been declared not in working order and non -repairable and has been junked needs to be written off. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FAYETTEVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY, that the attached list of equipment be written off the property ledger of the Fayetteville Housing Authority. (see attached list for equipment.) PASSED AND APPROVED THIS ��6L DAY OF, Oj]LAaq 2004. Liv �/l SECVETARY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKAN.4AS A IRPERSON • ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. LIST OF EQUIPMENT TO BE WRITTEN OFF DWELLING EQUIPMENT PROPERTY LEDGER NO. #1465.1 ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION / PROPERTY SERIAL NUMBER AMOUNT 375 Brown Gas Range 9U90063 $. 229.30 406 Kenmore Refrigerator 0948607883 371.00 410 Kenmore Refrigerator 5-62033691 371.00 431 Hot Point Refrigerator RA -31818.7 333.00 521 Kenmore Refrigerator 0526097259 371.00 608 Hot Point Refrigerator VS 787792 377.00 DWELLING EQUIPMENT PROPERTY LEDGER NO. #1475.1 24 Dell Dimension Computer XPS T450MHZ Pent. II 21156.00 25 Dell Dimension Computer 400 MHZ Pentium II 11919.00 • 26 Dell Dimension Computer 400 MHZ Pentium II 11919.00 TOTAL $8,046.30 MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PROPERTY LEGDER NO. #1475.2 $ 0.00