Summary: Our examination of selected low-rent housing program activities in the area administered by the San Francisco Regional Office of the Public Housing Administration was completed during calendar year 1960 at the regional office and during 1961 at the WA Central Office. This examination included (1) a review of basic laws authorizing the activities, and the pertinent legislative history, (2) PEA regulations, administrative policies, and instructions for conformance with the basic legislation, and (3) various records at the PHA San Francisco Regional Office, including reports on (a) technical reviews and inspections made by the regional office staff, (b) internal audits, and (c) fiscal, management, and occupancy audits of selected local housing authorities. In addition, we examined certain activities that, on the basis of our preliminary review, warranted further investigation.
Construction costs at project CAL-52-l may have been unduly increased because of uneconomical design features and use of expensive materials. A portion of this project cost considerably more per room to build than any other low-rent housing project completed during fiscal year 1961 in the area administered by the PHA San Francisco Regional Office; the project also cost more per room than the two management-type cooperative housing projects in the San Francisco Bay area that were completed during 1961 and insured by the Federal Housing Administration pursuant to section 213 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715e). On the basis of our reviews of PHA's files, we doubt that the designs for project CAL-52-l conformed completely with the intent of section 15(5) of the United States Housing Act of 1937. Project CAL-52-l of the Housing Authority of the county of Marin, Marin City, California, contains buildings oftwo basically dffferent types: (1) twenty 1- and 2-story block and frame buildings containing 132 dwelling units averaging 5.26 rooms per unit and (2) eight high-rise (5-story) reinforced concrete buildings containing 1.68 dwelling units averaging 4.5 rooms per unit. A postreview of the construction contract award of project CAL-52-l was made by the PHA Central Office Development Division to determine the reasons why the contracted construction costs were so high. The memorandum relating to this review contained an analysis of development costs showing a distribution of the costs between the eight high-rise buildings and the twenty 1- and 2-story buildings. The analysis showed that, while the estimated cost per room of constructing and equipping the entire project was less than the maximum cost limitation permitted by section 15(5) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 at the time the development program was approved, the estimated average cost per room for the 755 rooms in the high-rise buildings was about $225 more than the maximum cost limitation; the estimated average cost per room for the 695 rooms in the 1- and 2-story buildings was about $840 less than the maximum cost limitation. Section 15(5) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 provides for a limitation on the average cost per room for an entire project, and the PHA Commissioner advised us that she believes that PHA would not be authorized to apply the cost limitation on narrower basis without congressional approval.
