HUD has posted the Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for FY 2008, which took effect October 1, 2007. The FMRs are determined for each metropolitan area and non-metropolitan county and are used to determine the respective payment standard amounts under the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, and rents under certain other HUD programs.

Effective March 30, 2007, the Secretary of HUD may delegate his power to waive certain HUD handbook and directives provisions to HUD Regional Directors. While there are certain safeguards and requirements regarding the the issuance of such waivers, the National Low Income Housing Coalition and other housing advocacy groups counsel advocates to be in touch with local HUD officials and monitor for any waivers that would have a negative impact on low income persons. [Download]

“This Notice implements the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program funding provisions resulting from enactment of the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2006 HUD Appropriations Act … signed into law on November 30, 2005.” Among other things, this Notice describes the method by which HUD will allocate funds for FFY 2006 to public housing authorities (PHAs) consistent with the HUD Appropriations Act. Most important for housing advocates and PHA directors and staff is the provision permitting a PHA to apply to HUD for funds to adjust (increase) its baseline funding allocation. Congress has appropriated $45 million dollars for such adjustments. The adjustments are available only to (1) adjust allocations for Calendar Year 2005 renewal funding that was based on leasing and cost data averaged for the months of May, June and July of 2004 which, due to temporarily low leasing levels during these months did not accurately reflect actual leasing levels and costs for such period; and (2) adjust allocations for PHAs that experienced a significant increase in renewal costs from unforeseen circumstances or portability.

Is that crystal clear? The bottom line is that the application deadline for adjustment funds is close of business (5:00 p.m. EST) January 31, 2006. So, advocates and PHAs in jurisdictions that may be eligible should take note and act quickly. Surprisingly, the application form which is attached to this Notice is short and simple. [Download]

This rule implements a new law, enacted as part of HUD’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 appropriations (Public Law 109-115, 199 Stat. 2936), that restricts certain students enrolled in institutions of higher education from receiving assistance under Section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. Subsection (a) of Section 327 bars Section 8 assistance to any individual who meets all of the following criteria: (1) is enrolled as a student in an institution of higher education, as defined in 20 U.S.C. § 1002; (2) is under 24; (3) is not a veteran; (4) is unmarried; (5) does not have a dependent child; and (6) is not otherwise individually eligible or has parents who, individually or jointly, are not eligible to receive Section 8 assistance.

Subsection(b) provides that, except for a person over the age of 23 with dependent children, for purposes of determining a person’s eligibility for Section 8, any financial assistance (in excess of amounts received for tuition) that a student received under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. § 1001), from private sources, or an institution of higher education, shall be counted as income.HUD states that the new law and regulation were enacted to address incidents of college students obtaining federal housing assistance without counting their educational financial assistance as income.

HUD states that the new law and regulation were enacted to address incidents of college students obtaining federal housing assistance without counting their educational financial assistance as income. [Download] 

Having become aware that PHAs may be admitting ineligible college students to its public and assisted housing programs, HUD issued this Notice which: (1) outlines policy for determining the eligibility of full-time college students; (2) implements newly-enacted policy (Section 224 of the FY 2005 Appropriations Act) regarding the effect of receipt of athletic scholarships on rent determination; and (3) “identifies tools for better assuring that families in need of assistance are able to participate in HUD’s programs.” The Notice includes two charts – one covering the steps a PHA is required to take to determine a student’s eligibility to participate in a PIH rental assistance program and a second containing suggested steps to make such determination. [Download]

On July 30, 2004, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2004-82, which, among other things, clarified that the Internal Revenue Code Section 42(h)(6)(B)(i) requires “commitments” (regulatory agreements between the state tax credit agency and owners of tax credit properties), to include the prohibition against evictions or terminations of tenancy of existing tenants except for good cause and the prohibition against any rent increases except as permitted under IRC Section 42. In Q & A – 5 of Section 42(h)(6)(B)(i) requires state tax credit agencies to review existing commitments by December 31, 2004 to ensure that each contains the aforementioned prohibition.

Rev. Proc. 2005-37 creates a safe harbor for agencies with respect to the aforementioned review obligations. Specifically, it says that for any commitments entered into before January 1, 2006, the agency may satisfy its compliance review obligation as follows:

(1) that 42(h)(6)(B)(i) is satisfied if the commitment (regulatory agreement) contains catch-all language requiring owners to comply with IRC Section 42;

(2) the agency must notify owners on or before December 31, 2005 that such catch-all language prohibits evictions without good cause or rent increases outside of the requirements of Section 42

(3) owners must certify compliance with the prohibitions in (2) annually;

(4) the agency shall file an IRS Form 8823 re noncompliance if it does not receive an owner certification as described in (3) or the agency learns of a violation or the aforementioned prohibitions.

Bottom line: The IRS’ clarification of the good cause eviction requirement remains intact, but the tax credit agency’s obligation with respect to compliance review and enforcement is significantly lessened. [Download]