News

Affordable Housing Making Presidential Campaign Appearance

As we near the first Democratic Presidential debates, and push nearer the meaningful campaign season, Presidential hopefuls are beginning to flesh out positions on affordable housing. One of the first to provide specific proposals is Cory Booker, Senator from New Jersey. Pledging to make housing a priority in his 2020 campaign, Booker released his plan for affordable housing on June 5. The core of the Senator s plan is a monthly tax credit for renters who pay more than 30% of their income in rent. Such a plan could assist more than 57 million people. The credit would refund the difference between 30% of income and the neighborhood fair market rent cap, as set by HUD. The median credit is estimated to be $4,800 per family. Senator Kamala Harris released details on a similar program in 2018. Unlike most IRS refunds or credits that pay once per year, this credit would be paid monthly. Booker has also proposed a "Baby Bonds" program, which is a concept that has been developed by professors at Duke University and Ohio State University. This program is designed to close the black-white racial wealth gap. Under Booker s proposal, a federally funded savings program would invest $1,000 for every child at birth in an account that "could grow up to $2,000 every year thereafter, depending on family income." The funds could be used to help young people afford first-time down payments, and, according to the Booker campaign, could be fully funded simply be restoring the estate taxes that were assessed in 2009. Other features of Booker s plan include fully funding the National Housing Trust Fund with $40 billion, a national right to counsel fund for persons facing eviction and expanding the Fair Housing Act to include protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. He has also discussed source of income protections to prevent landlords from discriminating against recipients of housing assistance (e.g., housing choice vouchers). The most far-reaching idea in Booker s housing platform is a proposal to steer federal funds to local efforts to eliminate restrictive zoning. Booker s plan would link $16 billion for various block grants and federal spending programs to local easing or elimination of restrictive zoning. Senator Elizabeth Warren of MA previously announced a housing program that would provide first-time homebuyer down payment assistance in communities once subject to federal discrimination through "redlining." A recent report on predatory housing contracts in Chicago shows that discrimination in housing and lending siphoned billions of dollars from black households. As the campaign season heats up, more candidates will develop affordable housing plans, which for the first time in history, may become a major issue during the Presidential campaign season.

Sexual Harassment - A Fair Housing Priority

     The federal Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are making investigations of fair housing violations in three specific areas a priority for 2019. Those areas are sexual harassment, tenant-on-tenant harassment, and policies regarding criminal background checks. Over the next three weeks, I will be providing article on each of these three areas with tips and suggestions on how to avoid problems. I will start with the area that is attracting the most intense level of federal scrutiny - sexual harassment. Sexual Harassment in Housing      Federal officials with HUD and the DOJ have made the investigation of sexual harassment in housing a top priority. In 2017, the DOJ launched an initiative to combat sexual harassment in housing, and this initiative was implemented in 2018. There are three major components to the effort: (1) A DOJ/HUD task force to aggressively pursue fair housing sexual harassment cases; (2) an outreach toolkit to leverage the nationwide network of U.S. Attorney s offices; and (3) a public awareness campaign, including the launch of a national Public Service Announcement. This third part of the effort - public awareness - includes a "Call HUD; Because Sexual Harassment in Housing is Illegal," campaign. This component of the national effort is intended to educate the public about the behaviors that constitute sexual harassment and what to do and whom to contact if a person experiences such harassment where they live.      Since launching the initiative, the DOJ has filed nine lawsuits alleging a pattern or practice of sexual harassment in housing. Since January 2017, the Department has filed or settled 14 sexual harassment cases and has recovered more than $2.2 million for victims of sexual harassment in housing.      Three cases in particular show how the Feds are approaching sexual harassment in housing. U.S. v. Robert N. Hatfield (Western District of North Carolina      In April 2019, the DOJ announced a $600,000 settlement with a NC property owner for allegedly subjecting 17 female prospects and residents to sexual harassment during a more than ten-year period.      The owner ran a real estate business that involved the operation of residential rental properties and the selling of homes through "owner financing." The complaint alleged that he subjected female prospects and residents of these homes to sexual harassment by making unwanted sexual advances and comments; groping or otherwise touching their bodies without their consent; offering to reduce or eliminate down payments, rent, and loan obligations in exchange for sexual favors; and taking or threatening to take adverse action against residents when they refused or objected to his advances.      Under the settlement, Mr. Hatfield agreed to pay $550,000 in damages to former and prospective residents, as well as a $50,000 civil penalty. He is also barred from participating in the rental, sale, or financing of residential properties, and requires that he relinquish his ownership in interest in all such properties. U.S. v. Chad David Ables (Western District of Tennessee)      In April 2019, the DOJ announced that it has added more alleged victims in a sexual harassment case against the owner and manager of mobile home rental properties in Henderson County, TN. The landlord is accused of sexually harassing a number of female residents at his properties. He has been accused of conditioning housing or housing benefits on female residents agreement to engage in sexual acts; subjecting at least one female resident to unwanted sexual touching; making unwelcome sexual comments and advanced to female residents; and taking adverse housing-related actions against female residents who refused his advances. These allegations must still be proven in federal court and there has been no settlement of the case. U.S. v. Walden (Northern District of West Virginia)      In March 2019, the owners and former manager of more than 70 rental properties in West Virginia were held in civil contempt for failing to pay $600,000 still owed under a 2017 settlement with the DOJ in a sexual harassment case.      In this case, a married couple owned the properties and the husband, while serving as the manager, subjected female prospects and residents to egregious sexual harassment and retaliation. In 2015, the husband pleaded guilty to sexual abuse and other charges and was jailed for two years. The wife has since died.      The complaint alleged that the husband sexually harassed multiple female prospects and residents from at least 2006 until he was incarcerated. He was accused of engaging in unwanted sexual touching and groping; conditioning or offering tangible housing benefits in exchange for performance of sex acts; touching himself in a sexual manner and exposing himself in the presence of female residents; making unwanted and unwelcome sexual comments and verbal sexual advances; entering the apartments of female residents without permission or notice to sexually harass them; and taking or threatening to take adverse action against female residents who refused or objected to his sexual advances.      The wife was accused of failing to take appropriate steps to remedy the harassment after receiving tenant complaints. Instead, she allegedly took adverse housing actions against the complaining residents in retaliation for the complaints.      To resolve the case, the defendants agreed to a settlement, which required them to deposit $500,000 into a compensation fund for potential victims and pay the government $100,000 in civil penalties. The defendants made the first payment of $100,000 but did not deposit the remaining $400,000 into the compensation fund and did not pay the $100,000 civil penalty.      A federal judge has now held the defendants in civil contempt. The defendants admitted that they had more than $700,000 worth of property but said they could not obtain a loan secured by the properties. They did not want to sell the properties because the husband wanted to transfer his interest in the properties to his children and a forced sale of the properties at a below market price "would only punish innocent persons not party" to the settlement agreement.      The court position is that obtaining fair market value for the sale of the real estate is not a condition for the defendants to satisfy their obligations under the agreement. As stated by the court, the "innocent persons" at issue in this case are the defendant s former female residents and prospects who have yet to be compensated for the harm they suffered as a result of the husband s conduct.      These cases are reminders of the importance of a zero-tolerance sexual harassment policy for all communities. Every employee - from leasing agents to maintenance workers, whether full or part-time - should receive fair housing training, including training on sexual harassment policies, on at least an annual basis.

Federal Court Holds Tenant Screening Services Subject to the Fair Housing Act

In a landmark civil rights decision (Connecticut Fair Housing Center, et al. v. CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC, March 25, 2019), the Connecticut federal District Court established for the first time that consumer reporting agencies must comply with the Fair Housing Act (FHA) when conducting tenant screening services for landlords. Since automated decisions by third-party screening companies are rapidly becoming the norm, this ruling has significant implications for landlords, management companies, and renters. The case was filed by the Connecticut Fair Housing Center and the National Housing Law Project after CoreLogic s tenant screening product, CrimSAFE, disqualified a disabled Latino man with no criminal convictions from moving in with his mother. CrimSAFE provides landlords with an "accept or decline" decision based on CoreLogic s assessment of an applicant s criminal record. The lawsuit alleged that CrimSAFE discriminates on the basis of race, national origin, and disability. Facts of the Case In 2016, Carmen Arroyo submitted a rental application to move her son, Mikhail, out of a nursing home and into her apartment.Mikhail was in the nursing home recovering from an accident that left him unable to walk, talk, or care for himself.He was rejected because CrimSAFE determined he had a "disqualifying criminal record."CoreLogic failed to provide the landlord with any documents or explanation of their determination and unlawfully refused to provide Ms. Arroyo with copies of the background report.As a result of the denial, Mikhail had to remain in the nursing home for more than a year longer than necessary.Ms. Arroyo later learned that her son s only criminal record was a charge - from prior to his accident, and later dropped - for shoplifting, an infraction below the level of a misdemeanor.CoreLogic claimed that the case should be dismissed because fair housing laws did not apply to its services. Ruling        -        The Court rejected CoreLogic s claim and concluded that CoreLogic "held itself out as a company with the knowledge and ingenuity to screen housing applicants by interpreting criminal records and specifically advertised its ability to improve Fair Housing compliance. " The Court further held that because companies like CoreLogic essentially make rental admission decisions for landlords that use their services, they must make those decisions in accordance with fair housing requirements.The Court found CoreLogic s file disclosure policies had a "sufficiently close nexus to housing availability" for the FHA to apply.The Court held that consumer reporting agencies have a duty under the FHA not to discriminate in violation of the FHA in carrying out tenant screening activities, including a duty to make reasonable accommodations in their policies and practices that disadvantage persons with disabilities. Reasoning In 2016, HUD provided guidance indicating that excluding rental applicants due to criminal records has a disparate impact for Latinos and African Americans.To avoid this type of discrimination, an "individualized review" should be conducted in order to determine if the affected individual poses a genuine and ongoing threat to persons or property.CoreLogic did not conduct an individualized review of Mr. Arroyo s suitability for tenancy before it rejected him, nor did it offer the opportunity for such an assessment. CoreLogic also prevented the landlord from doing so by withholding information about the underlying criminal history.An individualized review would have shown that Mr. Arroyo posed no threat because he had not been convicted of a crime and was physically incapable of posing a danger to anyone. Conclusion While using third-party services to check criminal history may be fine, landlords should not rely on those services to make the final leasing decision. Landlords should insist that the third party service provide details on any criminal records discovered so that an assessment may be made as to whether the applicant is or is not suitable for occupancy. Landlords should also be certain to have a process in place whereby anyone rejected due to a criminal record has the opportunity to request and have an individualized assessment.

New HUD Income Exclusion - ABLE Accounts

On May 6, 2019, HUD published Notice H-2019-06 and Notice PIH 2019-09, Treatment of ABLE Accounts in HUD-Assisted Programs. Background The Achieving Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act was signed into law on December 19, 2014. The ABLE Act allows states to establish and maintain a program under which contributions may be made to a tax-advantaged ABLE savings account to provide for the qualified disability expenses of the designated beneficiary of the account. The designated beneficiary must be a person with disabilities, whose disability began prior to his or her 26th birthday and who meets the statutory eligibility requirements. Per the mandate of the ABLE Act, for the purpose of determining eligibility and continued occupancy, HUD will disregard amounts in the designated beneficiary s ABLE account. Applicability This income exclusion applies to the following programs: Housing Choice Voucher (including all special voucher types);Public Housing;Project-Based Section 8;New constructionState Agency financedSubstantial rehabilitationSection 202/8Rural Housing Services Section 515/8Loan Management Set-Aside (LMSA)Property Disposition Set-AsideRental Assistance Demonstration Project Based Rental Assistance (RAD/PBRA)Section 202/162 Project Assistance Contract (PAC);Section 202 Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC);Section 202 Senior Preservation Rental Assistance Contracts (SPRAC)Section 811 PRAC;Section 811 Project Rental Assistance (PRA);Section 236 (including RAP); andSection 221(d)(3)/(d)(5) Below Market Interest Rate (BMIR) Since the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) is required to follow the rules of the Section 8 program relative to the definition of income, this new exclusion also applies to LIHTC projects. The entire value of the individual s ABLE account will be excluded from the household s assets. This means actual or imputed interest on the ABLE account will not be counted as income. Distributions from ABLE accounts are also not counted as income. Contributions Made by the Designated Beneficiary If the beneficiary has a portion of his/her wages directly deposited into his/her ABLE account, then all wage income received, regardless of which account the money is paid to, is included as income. Pre-tax employer contributions to an ABLE account (that are not deducted from wages) are excluded. If the designated beneficiary subsequently deposits any amount previously included as income into his/her ABLE account, that deposited amount must not be included in the household s asset calculation or counted as income again when the beneficiary receives a distribution from the account. I.e., the distributions from the account should not be counted as income until the full amount deposited by the beneficiary has been withdrawn. Contributions Made by Others into the ABLE Account If someone other than the designated beneficiary contributes directly to the able account, that contribution will not be counted as income to the designated beneficiary. E.g., if a relative provides a recurring gift of $100 per month directly to the beneficiary, the recurring gift is considered income. If a relative deposits the $100 per month directly into the ABLE account, then it will not be counted as income. Verification In accordance with program requirements, PHAs and owners should verify the amount held in the ABLE account. PHAs and owners should develop a policy and procedure for verifying ABLE accounts that obtain the following information: The name of the designated beneficiary; andThe State ABLE program administering the account to verify that the account qualifies as an ABLE account. Owners participating in the programs noted above should obtain a copy of the Notice and ensure a full understanding of this new income exclusion.

Non-Profit Right of First Refusal on Section 42 Project - Relevant Court Case

Many nonprofit organizations participate in the development of Section 42 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties on the condition that the nonprofit has a right of first refusal to purchase the project at the end of the Section 42 compliance period. What constitutes a right of first refusal and the circumstances that apply to such rights has been the subject of much discussion and some controversy over the years. A recent court decision out of the Western District of Washington state may help clarify some of the issues. On March 27, 2019, the court released its "Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law" in the case (Housing Assistance Group v AMTAX Holdings 260, LLC, et al., W.D. Wash. No C17-1115 RSM").The court held that an exercise of right of first refusal (ROFR) under 42(i)(7) must also comply with applicable state law requirements that generally apply to a ROFR. In order to encourage non-profit participation in the LIHTC program, 42(i)(7) allows a nonprofit partner to hold a contractual ROFR to purchase the LIHTC property at the statutory minimum price, which is often referred to as "debt plus taxes." This price is often below market value. The dispute in this case was whether the nonprofit Senior Housing Assistance Group (SHAG) validly triggered and exercised its ROFR on four disputed properties in order to take advantage of the beneficial ROFR price allowed in Section 42. The court ruled in a bench trial that SHAG s attempt to exercise its ROFRs was insufficient as a matter of law and that SHAG failed to prove that it was entitled to declaratory relief because of its "unclean hands." Without delving into all the facts of the case, the basic concept that the court relied on in reaching its decision was that in order for a 42(i)(7) ROFR to be properly triggered, it must also comply with applicable state common law requirements. The court looked at the following ROFR principles under Washington state law, which are similar to the laws of other states: The owner must have a genuine intent to sell the property;The owner must receive a "bona fide offer from a third party, acceptable to the property owner;"To constitute a bona fide offer, the offer must be "made in good faith, without fraud or deceit" and must be "sincere" and "genuine," (i.e., not designed simply to trigger the ROFR); andEven if a third party s interest in the property is genuine, to constitute an offer the communications in question must be enforceable and not merely an expression of interest or invitation to negotiate. In this case, the court held that SHAG s attempted exercise of its ROFRs failed at least one of the principles noted above. According to the court, SHAG "could only exercise its ROFR if all the elements necessary to trigger the ROFR under common law had been satisfied." Even though the investor partner had agreed to give up consent rights as the limited partner in connection with SHAGs exercise of its ROFRs, the court noted a distinction between a ROFR and an option, effectively holding  that SHAGs treatment of the ROFR would impermissibly convert the ROFR into an option. The court also found SHAG to have unclean hands because they solicited sham offers or otherwise attempted to induce offers in bad faith solely to trigger the ROFR. While this ruling does provide an indication of how state courts may interpret the requirements relating to exercising a ROFR, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Homeowner s Rehab, Inc. v. Related Corporate V SLP, L.P., 479 Mass. 741 (Mass. 2018) concluded that no bona fide offer was required in order to trigger the ROFR. Exercising of ROFRs is an evolving area of the law, but this recent Washington case provides a clear indicator of how future courts may interpret disputed efforts with regard to ROFRs. Any nonprofit with a ROFR clause in their partnership agreement should carefully review both these cases prior to exercising a ROFR.

Senior Housing – What the Law Requires to Exclude Families with Children from Multifamily Housing

When the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 passed, amending the Fair Housing Act, it added protections for families with children as well as for the disabled. The familial status provisions made it unlawful to discriminate against applicants or residents because they have, or expect to have, a child under 18 in the household. The children may live with (1) a parent; (2) an individual with legal custody; or (3) an individual who has the written permission of the parent or custodian. The protections also apply to pregnant women and anyone in the process of securing legal custody of children under 18. Congress did permit one exception to the protection for families with children - senior housing or housing for older persons. There are three types of communities that are eligible for the senior housing exemption: Publicly funded senior housing communities: These are communities where HUD has determined that the dwelling is specifically designed for and occupied by elderly persons under a federal, state, or local government program;62 and older communities: Every resident in the community must be 62 or older; or55 and over communities: At least one person age 55 or older must live in at least 80% of the occupied units and it must be clear that the intent of the property is to serve only people age 55 and older. Basic Rules for Qualifying as Senior Housing Comply with the technical requirements for the senior housing exemption - complying with the law governing the 62+ exemption is easy; everyone living in the community must be 62 or older. For example, a 62 year old man with a 59 year old wife would not be eligible. The 55+ rule is more difficult to understand and comply with. To qualify, a property must meet each of the following requirements: (1)at least 80% of the occupied units must have at least one occupant who is 55 or older; (2) the community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent to operate as "55 or older" housing; and (3) the community must comply with HUD s regulatory requirements for age verification of residents. Each of these three requirements must be fully understood in order to ensure compliance with the law.The 80% Rule: at least one person age 55+ must live in 80% of the occupied units. The law does not restrict the age of the other occupants in those units. The "occupied" rule applies to temporarily vacant units if the primary occupant has resided in the unit in the past year and intends to return on a periodic basis. It is a good idea to always have more than 80% of units occupied by someone 55+ so that if an older person with a younger spouse dies, the surviving spouse will not have to move.Intent to operate as senior housing: a community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate its intent to operate as housing for older persons. For example, (1) written rules, regulations, lease provisions, etc., are clearly intended for seniors; (2) the actual practices of the community enforce the rules; (3)the advertising should be clearly intended to attract only seniors; and (4)the community must have age verification procedures and be able to prove required occupancy.Verification of occupancy: through the use of reliable surveys and affidavits, owners must be able to produce verification of compliance with the 80% rule. The age verification procedure should be part of the move-in process and then once every two years. While HUD will accept a certification signed by any household member age 18+ that at least one person in the unit is 55+, it is best to have actual verification of age in the file (e.g., birth certificate, driver s license, passport, immigration card, etc.).Market the community as senior housing - advertising and marketing are a critical element of a property s ability to qualify as senior housing. The property must demonstrate a clear intent to provide housing for older persons. Using the wrong words to describe the property could undercut a property s ability to demonstrate an intent to operate as "55 or older" housing. For example, properties should avoid terms such as "active adult," "empty nester," or "adult only." However, the use of one of these terms, by itself, does not destroy the community s ability to meet the intent requirement. All the elements of the project s marketing and operation are taken into consideration. However, better terms are "senior housing," "55 and older community," "retirement community."Don t discriminate based on race or other protected characteristics - e.g., a senior facility that gives preference to applicants of a certain religion would be in violation of the law.Enforce rules to prevent harassment by or against residents - bullying or any other form of harassment based on protected characteristics should not be tolerated. The following case is instructive in this area:Wetzel v. Glen Street Andrews Living Community, August 2018.Facts:The resident alleged that she endured months of physical and verbal abuse by other residents at an Illinois retirement community due to her sexual orientation.Despite her complaints, the community did nothing to stop it, and in fact retaliated against her because of her complaints.The resident was able to prove that (1) she had endured unwelcome harassment based on a protected characteristic, and (2) the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to interfere with her tenancy.Ruling: A federal court has reinstated the case, ruling that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation qualifies as discrimination based on sex and the same is true for housing claims. The court also ruled that the harassment was severe and pervasive - it lasted for 15 months and involved threats, slurs, derisive comments about her family, physical violence, and spit. If the court determines that management knew of the harassment and was indifferent to it, the Fair Housing Act will have been violated. It should be noted that this court ruling applies in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Another federal court in Missouri found that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not sex discrimination (Walsh v. Friendship Village of South County, January 2019). Ultimately, unless a senior housing community rents only to persons age 62 or older, great care must be taken with regard to advertising, programs, and procedures to ensure that the property clearly intends only to rent to older persons.

HUD Publishes 2019 Income Limits

On April 24, 2019, HUD published the 2019 income limits for HUD programs as well as for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Tax-Exempt Bond programs. The limits are effective on April 24, 2019. The limits for the LIHTC and Bond projects are published separately from the limits for HUD programs. HUD has indicated that the U.S. median income limit is higher this year than it was in 2018. The median has increased by 5.01% and is now $75,500. LIHTC and Bond properties use the Multifamily Tax Subsidy Project (MTSP) limits and are held harmless from income limit (and therefore rent) reductions. These properties may use the highest income limits used for resident qualification and rent calculation purposes since the project has been in service. HUD program income limits are not held harmless. Projects in service prior to 2009 may use the HERA Special Income Limits in areas where HUD has published such limits. Projects placed in service after 2008 may not use the HERA Special Limits. Projects in rural areas that are not financed by tax-exempt bonds may use the higher of the MTSP limits or the National Non-Metropolitan Income Limits (NNMIL). According to HUD, the NNMIL have gone up 3.8% from 2018 to 2019. Owners of LIHTC projects may rely on the 2018 income limits for all purposes for 45 days after the publication date of the newly issued limits. This 45-day period ends on June 8, 2019. The limits for HUD programs may be found at www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html. The limits for LIHTC and Bond programs may be found at www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/mtsp.html

HUD Guidance On Voluntary Conversion of Small PHA Public Housing to Section 8

            On March 21, 2019, HUD issued Notice PIH 2019-05 (HA), creating a streamlined procedure for Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) with 250 or fewer public housing units to convert the public housing to Section 8 assistance. PHAs may receive Tenant Protection Vouchers (TPVs) which must be offered to tenants as tenant-based assistance but may be project-based in the tenant agrees.             This notice revises the current Section 22 requirements to make it easier for small PHAs to convert public housing to Section 8. Section 22 allows PHAs to convert public housing to Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher assistance if the conversion: (1) is not more expensive than continuing to operate public housing; (2) principally benefits residents, the PHA, and the community; and (3) has no adverse impact on the availability of affordable housing in the community. The regulations require that PHAs conduct a conversion assessment including a cost analysis, market value analysis, rental market analysis, and an impact analysis.             In order to make the process more feasible for small PHAs, the Notice exempts small PHAs from the conversion assessment requirement, except they must still provide an impact analysis. In order to qualify, the PHA must convert all of its public housing units through Section 22 and close out its public housing program. If a PHA without a voucher program wishes to participate, it must find a willing PHA with a voucher program to administer the vouchers.             Applications will be processed by the PIH Special Applications Center (SAC) and must include: Environmental Review;Impact Analysis, including the impact on available affordable housing, concentration of poverty and other neighborhood impacts;Resident consultation;PHA Plan/Significant Amendment;Local Government Review; andPlan for the future use of the project Conversion requirements include: Income screening - only families at or below 80% of the area median income qualify for HCV assistance;Relocation - the Uniform Relocation Act (URA) applies. PHAs must provide relocation assistance to all displaced families, including over-income families who do not qualify for TPVs; andDavis-Bacon Wage Rates apply to any work associated with demolition or rehabilitation. If the converted public housing continues to operate as rental housing, residents must be provided the opportunity to remain using a voucher. PHAs may only project-base the voucher assistance if the tenants provide informed, written consent after the PHA holds an informational briefing for families at which HUD personnel are present - either in-person or on the phone. Families must be given at least 30-days to decide whether or not to provide consent, and project-based HAP contracts must exclude any units occupied residents with tenant-based vouchers if the resident elects not to allow conversion to project-based assistance.             Small PHAs interested in such conversion should carefully review the HUD Notice and contact HUD at SACTA@hud.gov for additional information.