News

SAVE System Code 33

SAVE System Code 33   All HUD multifamily housing managers are required to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system to check the legal background of individuals applying for housing assistance. In June 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) adopted a new category code for immigrants. This new code is Code 33, "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals," or DACA.   Individuals in this category have had removal from the country deferred on a temporary basis because they are low priority removals for DHS. These individuals do not have lawful status, and it is a two-year program for people entering the country that have no criminal record, are in or have graduated from school, and are under the age of 31. Persons with DACA status are not eligible to receive HUD rental assistance.   If an applicant or resident registers a Code 33 in the SAVE system, no rental assistance should be provided to that individual. If other individuals in the household are eligible for assistance, the assistance to the household should be prorated by removing any assistance for the ineligible household member.    

HUD Proposed Rule on Pet Deposits for Multifamily Housing

HUD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on May 24, 2013 that would change the requirements for owners of HUD-assisted multifamily housing relative to the collection of pet deposits on projects intended for occupancy by elderly or disabled residents.   The current regulation requires that owners collect pet deposits only through gradual accumulation, i.e., an initial payment followed by subsequent monthly payments. The initial deposit may not exceed $50.00 followed by no more than $10.00 per month until the full deposit (no more than $300) is reached.   Other HUD programs give owners the flexibility of accumulating the deposit or requiring the full amount when the pet is brought into the unit. This proposed rule gives HUD-assisted multifamily housing the same discretion, and would apply to a number of HUD programs, including project-based Section 8.   The current requirement has at times imposed an undue hardship on property owners. If costs relating to a pet (e.g., repair, replacement, fumigation, etc.) are incurred shortly after move-in, the accumulated deposit may be inadequate to cover the cost, meaning the owner would have to use reserves or the tenant s security deposit.   While the proposed regulation encourages owners to consider allowing accumulated deposits from lower-income residents when economically feasible to do so, it does not impose any special requirement to do so.   Keep in mind that this is a proposed rule - you should make no changes in your current policies until and if the rule becomes final. Comments are due to HUD by July 23, 2013. Any final rule will be published after HUD reviews and considers all comments.  

UPCS Changes to Fence and Gate Inspection Standards

One significant change in the Uniform Physical Condition Standard (UPCS) that became effective on January 1, 2013 relates to the way inspectors will assess deficiencies in fencing and gates. Such findings have been very common in REAC and State monitoring inspections for LIHTC properties, and the revision to the Standard should eliminate the number of findings in this area and clarify actual deficiencies when the are present. Prior guidance indicated that fence/gate damage could result in a Level 1, 2, or 3 finding, and it was unclear as to how to score a particular deficiency. The three possible defects from the prior standard have been consolidated into one potential type of deficiency with two identified defects. Holes/Missing Sections/Damaged/Falling/Leaning - Non-Security/Non-Safety Fences: Examples of this type of fence are privacy or decorative fencing, and would be reported when it is rusted, deteriorated, uprooted, missing or contains holes. This will be reported as a Level 2 deficiency, but only if more than 25% of the fence or gate is damaged. (Keep in mind that if this type of fence provides any type of hazard, it will be reported as a Health and Safety violation); Holes/Missing Sections/Damaged/Falling/Leaning - Security/Safety Fences: This would be perimeter or security fencing and the finding could be any of the three levels: Level 1: Small holes or damage as defined above smaller than 12 inches by 12 inches in less than 25% of the fence; Level 2: Small holes or damage as defined above smaller than 12 inches by 12 inches in more than 25% of the fence; or Level 3: Small holes or damage as defined above greater than 12 inches by 12 inches or is missing a section. If a fence is less than four feet high, it must be considered a Non-Security/Non-Safety fence.   The addition of the "25% rule" for non-safety/non-security fences should greatly reduce the number of findings in this area.   Note: The Fencing & Gates section of UPCS does not cover swimming pool fences and gates; these are covered under "Pools and Related Structures (Common Areas)."

Processing Requests for Minimum Rent Exemption

Sequestration is resulting in considerable financial difficulty for thousands of people. In California, federal unemployment benefits have been cut for more than 400,000 people. 70,000 children in the head start program will have meals reduced, as will seniors and low-income women. Due to these cuts, some residents in assisted housing may not be able to pay the $25 minimum rent required by HUD. The minimum rent does not apply to 202, 811, RAP, Rent Supplement, 221(d)(3) BMIR, or Section 236. Households that cannot pay the minimum rent may request an exception. Who Qualifies for the Exemption? Households with a "financial hardship" may qualify. Per HUD Handbook 4350.3, 5026(D)(3), any household that "would be evicted if the minimum rent requirement was imposed" qualifies for the exemption. The specific circumstances that may lead to this conclusion include The household lost eligibility for - or is awaiting an eligibility determination for - a federal, state or local assistance program; The household would be evicted if the minimum rent requirement was imposed; The household s income has decreased because of changed circumstances, including the loss of employment; or A death of an income earner has occurred in the household. A household may qualify for either a short-term or long-term exemption. Households that can verify that circumstances will last more than 90 days qualify for a long-term exemption; Households whose circumstances are expected to last 90-days or less qualify for short-term exemptions. At the end of the 90-days, the household must pay the minimum rent, retroactive to the date of suspension. At the end of the 90-day period, the household must repay the full amount of suspended rent, subject to a reasonable repayment schedule. Steps to Take for Exemption Request Household must request exemption in writing - ask whether hardship is short-term or long-term, and get household to agree to repay suspended rent; Suspend minimum rent - as soon as a household requests an exemption, the rent must be suspended beginning with the month following the date of the request; Investigate & verify whether household qualifies for exemption - verify the circumstances that qualify the household for the exemption. If the household claims more than one reason for the exemption, choose the easiest one to verify. Decide whether the household qualifies for the exemption - -there are three possible decisions: Household is ineligible - must resume the minimum rent requirement. The household must pay back any minimum rent due from the date the obligation was suspended until the date a determination of ineligibility was made; Household qualifies for short-term exemption - give household 90-day grace period during which it does not have to pay minimum rent. At end of grace period, the household must pay minimum rent and pay back rent that accrued during the grace period; or Household qualifies for long-term exemption - the household is exempt from paying minimum rent for as long as the qualifying circumstances continue. i. The owner must recertify the household every 90-days while the suspension lasts. Give written notice to household of determination; Have the household head sign a repayment agreement (reasonable timeframe); and Keep records of exemption paperwork.

More Focus on National Origin Discrimination Since Boston Marathon Attack

Since the bombing attack at the Boston Marathon in April 2013, social media sites have been swamped with anti-Islamic sentiment. This is reminiscent of what happened just after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In the years since 9/11, the Department of Justice has investigated more than 800 incidents involving threats, assaults, acts of vandalism and violence against Muslims, Arabs, Sikhs, South Asians, and others who are perceived to be Middle Eastern. Discrimination based on national origin is illegal. National origin discrimination means treating people differently because of ancestry, ethnicity, birthplace, culture or language. The law prohibits communities from denying equal housing opportunities to someone because they or their family are from another country, because they have a name or accent associated with a national origin group, or because they are married to or associate with people with a particular national origin. Examples of discriminatory conduct include: Refusing to rent to people whose primary language is not English; Offering different rental rates based on ethnicity; Steering prospective renters to or away from certain areas because of their ancestry; and Refusing to provide the same service level or amenities because of a resident s national origin. A recent case provides an example of illegal activities in this area: [State vs. Villatree Apartments, July 2011] - the owners and managers of Villatree Apartments agreed to pay $227,500 as the result of allegations of discrimination against an Egyptian couple. The community was accused of complicating the application process to discourage the couple from renting and inspecting their unit and belongings without justification while they were in the process of moving in. The community ignored the couple s requests for repairs and initiated eviction proceedings after the couple complained.   With regard to immigration status, HUD has made clear that all individuals are protected under fair housing law - regardless of immigration status. HUD does not take immigration status into account when investigating fair housing complaints and notes that it is illegal to threaten to report anyone to immigration authorities because they have filed a discrimination complaint.   To ensure that there is no discrimination based on national origin, housing operators should remember the following:   Keep personal opinions out of the leasing process; Don t exclude applicants because of racial, ethnic, or religious background; Beware of linguistic and email profiling; Apply consistent application policies - in U.S. vs. Pine Properties, January 2008, the owners and managers of an apartment community in Massachusetts agreed to pay $158,000 to settle allegations of discrimination against Cambodian Americans. These applications were required to have employment and/or credit verified before they were even shown an apartment; this was not required of other applicants. They also needed to make an appointment to see an apartment, while interested white prospects were shown apartments immediately. In HUD vs. Peachtree Apartments, July 2012, owners were accused of requiring that Hispanic prospects provide documentation of immigration status, while this was not required of non-Hispanic prospects.   The company agreed to make $10,000 in donations to fair housing organizations, provide translation services and market housing opportunities to persons with limited English proficiency. It is not generally illegal to screen for immigration status, and is required for federal housing programs. However, it must be done for everyone and check state and local law before implementing such a policy (CA. law bans asking about an applicant s immigration status, and New York City has added fair housing protection based on "alienage or citizenship status." This means that communities may not ask for an applicant s country of citizenship or whether he is a U.S. citizen. Don t engage in unlawful steering; Consistently apply community rules; and Don t ignore complaints of discrimination or harassment - (U.S. vs. San Francisco Housing Authority, January 2004) - Housing Authority had to pay $200,000 to six Iraqi residents who were victims of verbal abuse, racial slurs, threats, assaults, vandalism and robbery at the hands of other residents. The Authority knew of the problem and did not address it.

Importance of Updating the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan

While all federally assisted housing properties are required to update their Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans (AFHMP) at least every five years, HUD requires that the Plan actually reflect the marketing realities of your community. For this reason, it is recommended that the AFHMP be updated as needed - not just every five years. When updating the Plan, two elements must be kept in mind: (1) Targeting; and (2) Outreach. Targeting Housing operators must identify the population least likely to apply at your property, and target the marketing plan to this group. Identifying the demographic components of your area will be helpful in this effort, and there are some good sources to assist in this effort. A good starting point is your local planning office, but good information is also available from the census bureau (www.census.gov). One of the most useful areas on this website is the American Factfinder page (http://factfinder2.census.gov). Outreach Your plan must describe the methods you will use to reach out to the target market, as well as how you will advertise to the general population. It is important to remember that you cannot market only to those least likely to apply. In addition to the general marketing tools you will use, the AFHMP must identify the non-traditional advertising sources that will be used to target specific groups. Such sources may include churches, advocacy groups, and targeted publications. It is also recommended that all ads, brochures and written materials be published in the languages required in your Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan. Finally, owners are required to make a "good faith" effort to carry out the plan provisions. All marketing activities must be documented and available for HUD review. And, if the Plan as it currently exists is not garnering the desired results, revision is in order.

HUD Provides Updated Guidance Regarding Assistance Animals

HUD Issues Notice Clarifying Service Animal Issues   On April 25, 2013, HUD issues FHEO Notice 2013-01, Service Animals and Assistance Animals for People with Disabilities in Housing and HUD-Funded Programs. This notice provides additional clarification of housing provider obligations under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("504") and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") relative to assistance animals. While Title II and III of the ADA limit the definition of "service animal" to dogs (and in some cases miniature horses), housing providers may not impose such limits on assistance animals for housing purposes.   Reasonable Accommodations for Assistance Animals Under the FHA and Section 504   The reasonable accommodation provisions of both the FHA and Section 504 must be considered in situations where persons with disabilities use assistance animals in housing when the provider of the housing forbids pets or otherwise imposes restrictions relating to animals.   An assistance animal is not a pet. It is an animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person s disability. For purposes of reasonable accommodation requests, neither the FHA nor Section 504 requires an assistance animal to be individually trained or certified. [Additional detail on assistance animals and the issue of training is available in the preamble to HUD s final rule, Pet Ownership for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities, 73 Fed Reg, 63834, 63835, October 27, 2008].   When a request for an accommodation is made by a person with a disability that relates to an animal, the housing provider must consider the following: Does the person seeking to use and live with the animal have a disability; and Does the person making the request have a disability-related need for the assistance animal? If the answer to either question is "no," then the FHA and Section 504 do not require an accommodation to a provider s "no pet" policy,   If the answers to both 1 and 2 are "yes," the FHA and Section 504 require the housing provider to modify or provide an exception to a no pet rule or policy in all areas of the property where persons are normally allowed to go, unless doing so would impose an undue financial and administrative burden or fundamentally alter the nature of the housing provider s services.   Requests may also be denied if: (1) the specific assistance animal in question poses a direct threat; or (2) the specific assistance animal in question would cause substantial physical damage to the property of anyone. Breed, size and weight limitations may not be applied to an assistance animal. Any such determination must be based on an individualized assessment that relies on objective evidence about the specific animal s actual conduct - not on mere speculation or fear about the types of harm or damage an animal may cause and not on evidence about harm or damage that other animals have caused.   Housing providers may ask individuals with disabilities that are not readily apparent or known to the provider to submit reliable documentation of a disability and their disability related need for an assistance animal. If the disability related need for the assistance animal is not apparent, documentation of the need may be required. For example, if an individual requests permission for an emotional support animal, they may be asked to provide documentation from a physician, psychiatrist, social worker, or other mental health professional that the animal provides emotional support that alleviates one or more of the identified symptoms or effects of an existing disability. The verification should also stipulate that the animal in question will provide the necessary assistance.   A housing provider may not ask a tenant or applicant to provide documentation showing the disability or disability related need for an assistance animal if the disability is obvious and the need for the accommodation is readily apparent or already known by the housing provider. The housing provider also may not ask for access to medical records or medical providers or for detailed or extensive information or documentation of a person s physical or mental impairments. This is critical since it means that management cannot require that the verifier complete a management required document.   ADA Definition of Service Animal   Housing providers may have some obligations under the ADA. ADA regulations define "service animal" narrowly as any dog (and in some cases miniature horses) that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks. "The provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition." [See 28 CFR, 35.104 and 36.104].   The ADA definition of "service animal" applies to state and local government programs, service activities, and facilities to public accommodations, such as leasing offices, social service centers, and schools. In ADA-covered facilities, an animal need only meet the definition of "service animal" to be allowed in. When determining whether to allow an animal into a covered facility, two questions may be asked: (1) Is this a service animal that is required due to a disability; and (2) What work or tasks has the animal be trained to perform? No documentation may be required in support of the answer to these questions.   The animal may not be denied access to the covered facility unless: (1) the animal is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it; (2) the animal is not housebroken; or (3) the animal is a direct threat to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level by a reasonable modification to other policies, practices and procedures [see 28 CFR 35.136 and 36.302(c)]. The animal must be allowed to accompany the disabled individual to all areas of the facility where members of the public are normally permitted [see 75 Fed Reg., 56166 and 56240, 9/5/10].   Adhering to Multiple Laws   Certain entities will be subject to both the service animal requirements of the ADA and the reasonable accommodation requirements of the FHA and Section 504. These include public housing agencies, leasing offices, shelters, assisted living facilities, and places of education.   In cases where all three statutes apply, HUD recommends applying the ADA service animal test first. If the animal does not meet the ADA service animal test, then the housing provider must evaluate the request based on the requirements of the FHA and Section 504. If the animal does meet the ADA service animal test, no further action is permitted and the animal must be accepted.   Housing providers must understand that the rights of the disabled relative to the use of assistance animals goes well beyond the rights of the disabled under the ADA. The right to "full use and enjoyment" of the premises is a primary element with regard to whether or not assistance animals must be permitted in a housing environment, and this is the governing factor when determining whether a disabled person has the right to an assistance animal under the FHA or Section 504.              

New Veteran Preference for New Jersey Properties

Governor Chris Christie recently signed into law legislation that will expand access to affordable housing for New Jersey veterans. This new program allows owners of affordable housing to give a preference for veterans by entering into a preference agreement with local municipalities.   Under the agreements, developers will be able to provide an occupancy preference of up to 50 percent of units in individual projects to low and moderate-income veterans. Such a preference will not affect the ability of the project to get credit for the unit from the State s Council on Affordable Housing (COAH).   Developers using the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) in New Jersey will also be able to offer this preference without violating the general public use requirements of the LIHTC program. A provision added to the tax credit laws in 2008 clarifies that a project which otherwise meets the general public use requirements shall not fail to meet the general public use requirement solely because of occupancy restrictions or preferences that favor tenants: (1) with special needs; or (2) who are members of specified group under a Federal program or State program or policy that supports housing for such a specified group; or (3) who are involved in artistic and literary activities. The New Jersey program falls under the second exception noted above.   Developers doing business in New Jersey should keep this new preference in mind while developing future affordable properties.  

Want news delivered to your inbox?

Subscribe to our news articles to stay up to date.

We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.