News

Impact of COVID-19 on Affordable Housing Properties

A recently published study by NDP Analytics, funded in part by the National Leased Housing Association, outlines the dramatic impact that COVID- 19 has had - and will continue to have - on affordable housing. According to the study, "Impacts of COVID-19 on Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Providers." the COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on renters and housing providers alike. Unlike many earlier studies, which understandably have focused on the needs of low-income renters, this study is even-handed in its description of the impact on landlords. When households cannot afford to pay rent, the owner of the property loses rental income which is needed to cover operational costs. The report analyzes the economic and business impact of COVID-19 on housing providers and the subsequent impact on renters and surrounding communities in the short and long term. Rental Landscape Before COVID-19 In 2019, nearly 36% of American households rented (44.1 million). Before the pandemic, nearly half of American households spent at least 30% of their income on rent. Clearly, even before COVID-19, low-income households were stressed about their ability to pay rent. Housing providers typically operate on small margins and rely on monthly rental payments for the income required to cover operating expenses. The average breakdown of rental income is 39% for the property s mortgage payment, 27% for personnel wages and salaries, maintenance, and other operational expenses, 14% for property taxes, 10% for capital expenditures, and 9% in income for the owners. Many property owners are small businesses and individuals who are using their retirement funds for rental properties. In short, housing providers spend 90% of rental income on property-related expenses. As a result of the COVID-19 economic and health crisis, many households lost the income needed to pay rent. At the same time, housing providers had an increase in operating expenses due to enhanced health and safety issues relating to the pandemic. The additional operating costs are largely attributed to extra cleaning and personal protective equipment (PPE). Rental Income Due to the nature of the COVID-19 economic crisis, many renters who always paid rent on time were unable to make monthly payments due to furloughs, job loss, and other economic hardships. Overall, renters have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Workers in the industries that have been most impacted by COVID-19 (food service, travel, entertainment, retail, and transportation) are the most likely to rent. Additionally, about 43% of households most likely to be affected by COVID-19 were already struggling with rent cost burdens before the crisis. More than 75% of landlords implemented flexible payment policies for renters negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, housing providers rely on rental income as the primary source of revenue. The vast majority (88.9%) of affordable housing providers experienced revenue reductions due to COVID-19. Average declines in revenue were greatest for smaller housing providers with fewer than 1,000 units and 1,000 to 5,000 units (12.8% and 12.2%, respectively). Despite the increase in non-payment of rent, few renters have been evicted for missing payments. From March to July 2020, (with some additional relief in September), a federal moratorium prevented many housing providers from evicting residents due to non-payment of rent and some states and municipalities have created similar rules. In August 2020, less than 18% of housing providers reported the eviction of renters with missed payments. Financial Losses Before the pandemic, for every dollar of rent received, 39 cents went to the mortgage, 27 cents for operating expenses, 14 cents for property taxes, and 10 cents for capital expenditures - leaving only 9 cents in profit. With an 11.8% decline in rental income, housing providers now receive 88 cents in rent instead of $1.00. To make matters worse, a 14.8% increase in operational costs raises the expenses from 27 to 31 cents, leaving only four cents of every dollar for capital expenditures and income. To offset financial losses, 56.4% of housing providers applied for and received aid from government relief programs. Only 41.5% of housing providers with under 1,000 units received assistance ($44,288 on average), compared to 76.2% of housing providers with 1,000 to 5,000 units ($310,017 on average). 60.6% of large housing providers (over 5,000 units) received an average of $730,679. Impact on Renters In the short run, renters have largely been removed from the impact of the financial hardships faced by housing providers. Government aid and protections implemented in response to the pandemic, such as expanded unemployment benefits and eviction moratoria, have provided important assistance to renters. However, these programs are expiring to a great extent, leaving uncertainty for the future. The lack of action at the federal level, particularly in the Senate, does not bode well for any relief prior to the election. This is especially problematic for renters since rent payments accrue even when evictions are restricted. In the long run, eviction moratoria and increased regulation on housing provider-renter relationships negatively impact housing supply and renter mobility. Restrictive policies, such as eviction moratoria, limit the ability of renters to move, thus limiting labor mobility. Significantly, job and income losses caused by the pandemic put many people, particularly Black and Latino adults, at increased risk of housing instability. As a result, the long-run impact on renter mobility and housing supply is likely to have a disproportionate impact on these communities and exacerbate existing racial and economic disparities accessing safe and affordable housing. Summary For those of us in the affordable housing field, nothing in this study is a surprise. We know that the policy of protecting renters from eviction while not providing support for landlords will lead to massive evictions and property failures. Unless support comes from the federal government, both in terms of rental support for residents and operational support for landlords who are prohibited from taking action against non-payers, 2021 will be a disastrous year for the affordable housing industry.

A. J. Johnson to Present Webinar on Complying with the Requirements of the IRS on Tax Credit Properties

A. J. Johnson will be conducting a webinar on October 27, 2020, on Meeting IRS Requirements for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. The Webinar will be held from 9 AM to 3:30 PM Eastern time. One of the key requirements for the protection of the credits in a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) property is a full understanding of how the IRS defines "noncompliance." These requirements are outlined in the Guide for Completing Form 8823 (the "8823 Guide") - a guide published by the IRS to assist Housing Finance Agencies in understanding the compliance monitoring requirements of the LIHTC program. This six-hour training describes in detail each of the elements of noncompliance reportable on the IRS Form 8823. A description of each type of noncompliance is discussed and includes a detailed discussion of the requirements relative to each area, as well as a description of when noncompliance occurs and acceptable methods of correction. The session features a detailed review of the program requirements in the areas most likely to result in a loss of credits - habitability, affordability, and eligibility. Also, a detailed review of all the issues relating to the establishment of eligible basis is included. Unlike most LIHTC training, this session is presented from the point of view of the IRS, which will provide owners and managers of LIHTC properties with a unique perspective regarding how to protect the credits for these important properties. Those interested in participating in the Webinar may register on the A. J. Johnson Consulting Services website (www.ajjcs.net) under "Training."

Social Security COLA - 2021

The federal government announced on October 13, 2020, that the Social Security Cost of Live Adjustment (COLA) for 2021 will be 1.3%. This increase will provide an additional $20 per month for the average retiree. This is slightly less than the 2020 increase of 1.6% and will not keep up with the actual cost of living for seniors who depend on SS as their primary source of income. Social Security recipients will receive a notice in the mail in early December showing their new benefit amount. Recipients will see the increase in their January 2021 payment. Those receiving SSI will see the increase on December 31, 2020. Owners and managers of properties that are required to determine the income of residents should use the new COLA SS rate when projecting the income of applicants and residents. This also affects persons receiving SSI, VA pensions, Civil Service Pensions, and Railroad Retirement.

Upcoming 2021 Social Security COLA

The Social Security Administration is scheduled to release the 2021 Cost-of-Living Adjustment for Social Security tomorrow (October 13, 2020). Operators of affordable housing properties should be on the look-out for the announcement and include the increase in projected income for the upcoming year (beginning in January 2021). The SSA calculates the percent change between average prices in the third quarter of the current year with the third quarter of the previous year; that s why the final number comes out in October and it s likely that those figures (the third-quarter comparison) will show an increase. Note that the Social Security Administration ties its adjustment for Social Security benefits to the wage earners consumer price index, which is similar to, but not the same as, the urban dwellers consumer price index (which drives inflation reporting). Based on the percent change during that time, I estimate about a 1.2% COLA for 2021. There have been three years (2010, 2011, and 2016) with no COLA increase. Since 2009, the average COLA has been 1.75% with the highest being 5.8% in 2009. Managers should also remember that the COLA will apply to SSI, VA, Civil Service, and Railroad retirement.

HUD Issues Fair Housing Charge Against Wyoming Property Owner, Management Agent, and Onsite Manager for Familial Status Violation

On September 9, 2020, the Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) charged the owners and managers of an apartment community in Cheyenne, Wyoming with violation of the familial status provisions of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). This case is particularly interesting in how it deals with the use of community facilities and supervision rules relating to children. The Case HUD & Complainants v. Tralee Prairie View, LLC, RAM Partners, LLC, and Pam Gunnarson (Respondents) Facts of the Case On November 2, 2017, a couple with four minor children (complainant) filed a complaint with HUD alleging that the respondents imposed discriminatory terms, conditions, or privileges and limited services or facilities in connection with a rental; printed a notice that indicated a preference, limitation or discrimination; and otherwise made housing unavailable to them because of their familial status in violation of the FHA.In June 2017, the children consisted of a one-year-old infant, and a six-year-old, an eight-year-old, and a nine-year-old.On or around June 5, 2017, Respondents posted a newsletter on the doors of all tenants, that read in part, "PLEASE SUPERVISE YOUR CHILDREN WHEN THEY ARE OUTSIDE - We are having way too many complaints about kids on bikes driving in front of cars in the parking lot and have notice [sic] that most of these children do not have helmets." [emphasis was in the original].On June 26, 2017, Respondents issued new rules at the property. The rules were posted on tenant doors and stated in part -Due to the NUMEROUS complaints, we have received regarding unsupervised children disrupting the peace of the community at all hours of the day and night these rules will be going into effect IMMEDIATELY:Children 12 and under must be supervised by an adult while outside.The playground area and field with the basketball hoop are the ONLY designated play areas - there will be no more playing or hanging out behind the building, entryways/stairwells, in parking lots, or the dog park.Curfew is 9 PM - children should not be left outside unattended after hours.Excessive noise will not be tolerated.If you are a resident who is being disturbed due to any of these abovementioned issues please do not hesitate to relay any information to the office. If behavior continues LEASE VIOLATIONS AND POSSIBLE EVICTIONS will be delivered. [emphasis was in the original].The site manager authored the Community Notice with help from the assistant property manager and issued the rules to everyone at the subject property. The content of the Community Notice was based on the manager s own judgment and beliefs.The site manager did not address the individual behavior of children that were the basis of the various complaints and instead issued the June 26, 2017 Community Notice.On June 23, 2017, the family had received a lease violation notice from Respondents. The notice was related to sunflower seeds left on the sidewalk near the family s unit.The mother of the children began keeping the children inside the unit because she was unable to provide adult supervision for them outside since the father frequently worked out of town and the mother needed to be inside to care for the infant.Children were prohibited from playing anywhere aside from the two "designated play areas." The prohibition included large grassy areas contained within the property, including the field behind the family s apartment.Based on this prohibition, the mother could no longer supervise her older children in the open field behind her unit through the glass sliding door. She would take the older children outside to the designated play areas for short periods of time when she could bring the baby, but the children often wanted to remain outside.The complainant stated the keeping the children inside without an outlet for their energy caused the kids to become "hyperactive."Keeping the children inside all summer caused tension within the family, and the family was compelled to move away from the property to another property where the kids could play outside.The family moved on or about August 31, 2017.The family moved to a trailer that they rented from a family friend.The trailer was not move-in ready and required the family to replace the carpet, mitigate a rodent problem, and address various maintenance issues such as fixing holes.The family had to send the children to a different school and attend a new church. The children were bullied at the new school, and the family could no longer attend church with the wife s mother, who now attends church alone. HUD s position is that as a result of the respondents discriminatory conduct, the family suffered actual damages including, but not limited to, emotional distress, loss of housing opportunity, inconvenience, and economic loss. HUD is asking the following from an Administrative Law Judge: A declaration that the actions of the respondent violated the Fair Housing Act;Enjoin the respondents from discriminating against any person due to familial status;Mandate that the respondents take affirmative steps to remedy the effects of the illegal, discriminatory conduct and prevent similar conduct in the future;Require respondents and their employees to attend fair housing training;Award damages to fully compensate the Complainant; andAssess a civil penalty against each respondent for each violation of the Act. The Takeaway This case is a cautionary tale for property managers when it comes to the type of behavior and supervisory rules that will be applied to families with children. In general, except in very unusual circumstances, "behavior" rules should be applied to all residents - not just children. "Safety" rules for children are fine (e.g., supervision at swimming pools, fitness centers, etc.). Also, rules relating to the supervision of children should be reasonable, and not penalize families with children to the extent that their children cannot reasonably play outside.

A. J. Johnson Webinar on Management of Tax-Exempt Bond Financed Properties

A. J. Johnson will be conducting a webinar on October 21, 2020, on Understanding the Basic Management Requirements of the Tax-Exempt Bond Program. The Webinar will be held from 1 PM to 4 PM Eastern. THIS IS A TWO HOUR COURSE THAT COVERS THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE TAX-EXEMPT BOND PROGRAM, ESPECIALLY CONCERNING ON-SITE COMPLIANCE. IT IS RECOMMENDED PRIMARILY FOR SITE AND SENIOR MANAGEMENT AS WELL AS DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL. THE COURSE COVERS THE COMPLIANCE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TAX-EXEMPT BOND AND LIHTC PROGRAMS AND PROVIDES GUIDANCE WHEN COMBINING THE TWO PROGRAMS. Those interested in participating in the Webinar may register on the A. J. Johnson Consulting Services website (www.ajjcs.net) under "Training."

Recent Court Decision Confirms that a Right of First Refusal is Not an Option to Purchase

A recent New York court case has affirmed that a non-profit s Right of First Refusal ("ROFR") is not an option to purchase a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) property. The Case Riseboro Community Partnership, Inc., formerly known as Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council, Inc., v. SunAmerica Housing Fund (SHF) 682, a Nevada Limited Partnership; SLP Housing I LLC; and 420 Stockholm Street Associates, LP Introduction to the Case The case is a basic disagreement over the meaning of a "right of first refusal" ("ROFR") held by the Plaintiff to purchase an affordable housing property in Brooklyn, NY. The property was developed under the LIHTC program.The court limited all parties' initial briefing to the issue of the meaning of the ROFR granted to Plaintiff.The court held that the Plaintiff s ROFR operates by its definition under New York common law and is not an option to purchase the subject property. Background The defendant (420 Stockholm Street Associates, LP) is a limited partnership formed under the laws of the State of New York in 1998.Riseboro, a non-profit entity, is not part of the partnership, but the agreement governing the Partnership grants Riseboro the ROFR central to the dispute.The LIHTC program makes clear, in the provision central to this dispute, that a taxpayer will not be deprived of its tax benefits merely by a non-profit entity holding a "right of 1st refusal" to purchase an affordable housing property. The exact wording in 42 (i)(7) is:No federal income tax benefit shall fail to be allowable to the taxpayer with respect to any qualified low-income building merely by reason of a right of 1st refusal held by a qualified nonprofit organization to purchase the property after the close of the compliance period for a price which is not less than an amount equal to the sum of -The principal amount of outstanding indebtedness secured by the building andAll Federal, State, and local taxes attributable to such sale.The minimum purchase price arrived at using the formula stated above will very likely be less than market value.Section 42(i)(7) recognizes the possibility - and, it is only a possibility - that were a nonprofit entity to hold a ROFR to purchase an affordable housing property at below-market value, the IRS could deem the non-profit entity the "true owner" of the property under the so-called "economic substance doctrine." If the IRS were to conclude that the non-profit ROFR-holder was the "true owner" of the property, it could limit, disallow, or redirect the flow of LIHTC Program tax credits.If the flow of tax credits were to dry up, this would remove the incentive to for-profit entities investing in affordable housing. Section 42 (i)(7) protects against this result.At the core of the dispute is a section of the 1999 Partnership Agreement, which states: "Right of First Refusal. On and after the end of the 15 year Compliance Period, [Riseboro] or its designee, if it is at that time a qualified nonprofit corporation, shall have a right of first refusal to purchase the Apartment Complex for the price equal to the sum of:The principal amount of outstanding indebtedness secured by the building (other than indebtedness incurred within the 5 years ending on the date of the sale;All Federal, State, and local taxes attributable to such sale and to any amounts paid pursuant to subsection (iii) hereof; andAny amounts of a Tax Credit shortfall which have not been paid.The 1999 Agreement states that it "shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the law of the State [of New York]. The Litigation In November 2015, after the Compliance Period expired, Riseboro notified the General Partner that it would soon exercise the ROFR.In response, the Partners asserted that because investor consent was required for the Partnership to sell the Apartment Complex and the Partnership was not interested in selling, Riseboro could not exercise its ROFR.Three years later, in February 2018, Stockholm sought to transfer ownership of the complex to Riseboro, its corporate parent, under the partnership agreement but met with the same result: counsel for SHF and SLP indicated that their clients did not consent to sell the property. - The litigation followed. Discussion Riseboro asked the court to hold that there were no conditions precedent to it exercising its ROFR, and that it may exercise its ROFR at any time after the Compliance Period has ended. In other words, Riseboro contended that its ROFR is, in fact, an option to purchase.The defendants countered that Riseboro may exercise its ROFR only after two conditions are satisfied: (1) the Partnership must be willing to sell; and (2)a third party must have made a bonafide offer to buy.The language in the partnership agreement was "unambiguous," and the language of a contract is not made ambiguous simply because the parties urge different interpretations.Under New York law, contracts are "construed in accord with the parties intent," and "the best evidence of what the parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in their writing," which here is the 1999 Partnership Agreement. New York Law "Right of first refusal" is a legal term of art with a well-established definition in New York. A ROFR "requires an owner, when and if he decides to sell, to offer the property first to the party holding the preemptive right so that he may meet a third-party offer or but the property at some other price set by a previously stipulated method."A "ROFR does not give its holder the power to compel an unwilling owner to sell." Rather, a ROFR restricts "the power of one party to sell without first making an offer of purchase to the other party upon the happening of a contingency: the owner s decision to sell to a third party."A ROFR thus "binds the party who desires to sell not to sell without first giving the other party the opportunity to purchase the property at a specified price."A ROFR stands in contrast to an "option" to purchase, which may be triggered unilaterally, even against the owner s unwillingness to sell at the time the option-holder invokes the option.The court was not persuaded by the Riseboro argument that they had a unilateral right - or "option" - to purchase the property regardless of the owner s willingness to sell or the availability of a good-faith third party purchaser. The Context of 42 and Other Terms in the 1999 Agreement "Right of first refusal" is a common-law term, and Congress is "presumed unless the statute otherwise dictates" to have incorporated its common-law meaning.The court stated - "It is a settled principle of interpretation that absent other indication, Congress intends to incorporate the well-settled meaning of the common-law terms it uses."The presumption that Congress incorporated the common law meaning of ROFR is confirmed by the legislative history of 42(i)(7). Where this section refers to "right of first refusal," a pre-enactment draft of the bill originally used the term "option." The House Report on the law makes clear that when Congress made this change, it grasped the difference between "option" and "right of first refusal," stating:The bill provides that any determination as to whether Federal income tax benefits are allowable to a taxpayer for a qualified low-income building shall be made without regard to whether the tenants are given the right of first refusal to purchase the building, for a minimum purchase price, should the owner decide to sell (at the end of the compliance period).H.R. Rep. No. 101-247 supports the conclusion that Congress "understood that a right of first refusal - in contrast to an option to purchase - could not be exercised unilaterally by the holder." This change and the explanation given in the House Report is a clear indication, not "shoddy evidence" as Riseboro suggested, that 42(i)(7) refers to common law ROFR.Riseboro also took the position that no third party in their right mind would go through the process of making an offer to purchase knowing that an entity with a ROFR purchase price set below fair market value will very likely exercise its superior purchase right.The court agreed that Riseboro may be right that a third party offer is unlikely, but the conclusion that this leads to a senseless statute or contract provision is wrong. Regardless of whether a third party offer materializes, the fact that Riseboro holds a ROFR secures its right to purchase the property at the stated price. The partnership need not wait for a third party offer before it offers the property to Riseboro at the stipulated price.In the event the Partnership attempts a sale to a third-party without first offering the property to Riseboro, the ROFR provides a contractual basis for Riseboro to defeat such a sale. Conclusion The partners granted Riseboro a right of first refusal, not an option. This case is another strong indicator that unless a partnership attempts to sell a LIHTC property to a third party purchaser, a non-profit with a ROFR has no right to invoke the ROFR and force a sale.

Helping Older Adults Age Safely in Place

With the aging of the U.S. population, the number of older adults living if affordable housing is growing and the average age of residents is increasing. Assisting residents to age in place safely is good for both property owners and residents. People typically want to live independently for as long as possible and stable tenancy reduces operational costs. However, as older adults age and their ability to live on their own changes, the features and configuration of their home can present challenges to living safely. Simple modifications can improve the comfort and safety of older persons, allowing them to live on their own much longer. Home modification refers to converting or adapting the environment to make it easier for older adults (or people with disabilities) to manage basic activities more easily and more safely. For many, the term "home modification" leads to images of structural modifications, such as converting tubs to roll-in showers or widening doorways. But, modifications can be as simple as installing tub benches, rearranging furniture, fixing uneven flooring, or improving lighting. Many simple, low-cost modifications can make a huge difference to the health and safety of older adults. Modifications that the Residents May Make Residents themselves can make many changes to their living environment to immediately improve the quality of their lives, including - Remove clutter from the floor and increase storage;Secure cords to walls or floors;Remove or secure throw rugs with gripper pads or gripper tape;Mark uneven thresholds with contrasting tape or paint;Install nightlights in the bedroom and bathroom;Stick motion sensor LED lights on baseboards;Purchase a shower seat, place adhesive anti-slip treads on shower or tub floors; andAdd seating to the bedroom to assist with dressing and in the kitchen for cooking prep. Low-Cost Improvements that Site Staff can Make Replace knob style door and faucet handles with lever style handles;Securely install grab bars around tubs, showers, and toilets and raise toilet seats;Install adjustable hand-held shower heads and anti-scald water devices;Replace bulbs with bright, non-glare lighting;Replace traditional light switches with rocker switches; andInstall double hinges to widen doorways (this can widen doorways by up to two inches). Still more improvements may be made by professional installers - if permitted by project budgets. These include - Widen the frames of entryways and doorways;Remodel bathrooms to include a shower with supports and no threshold;Install slip resistant flooring in bathrooms; andCreate level flooring by removing thresholds and other uneven areas. Home Modification & Fall Prevention Increasingly, research is showing that, in addition to helping older adults live more comfortably and independently, home modifications (including home hazard removal) can reduce the fall risk for individuals. It is estimated that one in four older adults falls each year, with more than half of all falls occurring in the home. Injurious falls can force people to move to institutional settings. Home modifications can reduce fall risks and may promote longer residency in traditional apartments, and less unit turnover. Multifamily Owners Responsibility for Modifications Owners of HUD and Rural Development-Assisted multifamily housing are subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which provides rights to people with disabilities in federally-funded programs. Under Section 504, owners have a responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations to residents with disabilities who need such accommodations to be able to participate fully in the housing. While the Fair Housing Act requires all owners to provide such accommodations, Section 504 requires that owners pay the cost of home modifications - unless it is unreasonable to do so. Resources to Assist with Home Modification Increasingly, programs and funding are available to help renters modify their home environments to support independent living. Service coordinators can help residents of HUD multifamily housing access these resources, and owners of conventional properties (including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit) can provide information on these resources to residents. Some of the best resources follow: Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs), Aging and Disability Resource Centers (ADRCs), and Centers for Independent Living (CILs). These agencies maintain information and resources on home accessibility and available programs to finance home modifications. The programs are funded by the U.S. Administration for Community Living (ACL). To find the AAAs and ADRCs in your area, visit the eldercare locator website (https://eldercare.acl.gov/) or call 1-800-677-1116.The Department of Veteran s Affairs offers Home Improvement and Structural Alteration grants to veterans and service members for medically-required home modifications. Renters are eligible for the grants if they have a signed and notarized statement from the property owner authorizing the improvement or structural alteration.Many communities offer comprehensive home modification programs, often operated through nonprofit organizations, that help older adults determine the environmental modifications they need and then carry out the modifications free of charge. Some of these programs include a visit from an Occupational Therapist or Nurse to ensure the modifications meet the needs of the resident and are part of a comprehensive approach to helping the resident live independently. The www.homemods.org website provides a directory of home modification and repair programs by state.Medicare Advantage Plans may pay for home safety inspections conducted by a qualified health professional and safety devices, such as shower stools, hand-held showers, grab bars, and raised toilet seats, to prevent home injuries.Medicaid home and community based services provide opportunities for Medicaid recipients to receive services in their own home or community rather than institutions or other isolated settings.When prescribed by a doctor, or as part of a discharge plan when returning from a hospital stay, residents may receive in-home visits form an occupational therapist, physical therapist, or nurse. During these visits, the professionals often identify specific equipment and environmental modifications that residents need for safety and independence. HUD encourages service coordinators to work with the health professionals (and residents) to ensure the residents needs are met. Owners of properties for older persons would do well to become familiar with the resources available to assist resident in remaining independent in their homes. This is good for the emotional and physical well-being of the residents as well as the financial well-being of the properties.