This post is part of a series on QAPs:

1. Introduction
2. Set-Asides
3. Thresholds
4. Selection Criteria
5. Underwriting
6. Creating a Competition
7. Special Case of Cost Policies
8. 114 Different Criteria
9. Drafting Considerations
10. Providing Effective Input

This post is a compilation of policies used by one or more allocating agencies. Most could exist as a set-aside, threshold requirement, selection criterion, and/or underwriting standard. The list is separated into categories using the familiar “who, what, when, where, why and how” convention. However there is no “why,” but instead second groupings of “who” and “what” items, plus a miscellaneous “other” collection.

Being included in this list is absolutely not an endorsement. Some items create practical problems or even raise legal concerns.

Very many of the criteria require making a choice about where to fall on the continuum of complexity:

• on one end, the rule is very easy/simple to implement and risks being often wrong,
• on the other, the rule is very complicated to administer but almost always right.

For example, a uniform statewide standard versus one applied differently for each separate parcel.

Who. Population targeted/housed (POP)

Grouping includes criteria that: relate to characteristics of the households intended to occupy some or all of the development units.

Not addressed: is whether these policies are a preference or occupancy requirement, which matters from both from a practical and legal perspective.

Criteria in this grouping also listed in another: #67, #92, #93, #100, #112, #113

1. income targeting below 60% of the area median income (AMI) (e.g., 30% AMI) POP
2. rents set at levels below 60% AMI (e.g., 30% AMI) POP, OTHER
3. connection to Section 8 waitlist POP
4. large families (e.g., three-plus bedroom) POP
5. family in general (open occupancy) POP
6. elderly (age-restricted) POP
7. people with disabilities in general POP
8. specific disability types (e.g., mobility impaired, mental illness) POP
9. specific relationships (e.g., custodial grandparents) POP
10. people experiencing homelessness POP
11. young adults aged out of foster care POP
12. victims of domestic violence POP
13. veterans POP
14. policies relating to credit, eviction, and/or criminal background screening POP
15. some units targeted to one or more populations listed in numbers 7 to 14 above POP
16. all units targeted to one or more populations listed in numbers 7 to 14 above POP
17. mixed-income with unrestricted, “market rate” units POP
18. mixed-income with both 60% AMI and deeper targeting POP
19. certain occupations (e.g., artists, farmworkers) POP
20. “workforce” housing, however defined POP
21. residents currently living in a particular city/county POP
22. Native American/tribal land POP, WHO, LOC
23. transitional housing POP
24. efficiencies, single room occupancy, or studios POP, DESIGN
25. assisted living POP, DESIGN

Second Who. Participants involved (WHO)

Grouping includes criteria that: cover those who develop, own or manage.

Not addressed is: exactly how the participants are involved; can be as the developer, general partner, or consultant.

Criteria in this grouping also listed in another: #22

26. entities based locally or in-state WHO
27. entities with in-state experience, regardless of where based WHO
28. for-profit developers/owners WHO
29. nonprofits WHO
30. certain types of nonprofits (e.g., community housing development organizations, community development corporations) WHO
31. public housing authorities WHO
32. right of first refusal other than list item #61 WHO
33. minority/women-owned businesses WHO
34. developers’ financial capacity WHO
35. extent of developers’ experience in rental housing and/or subsidy programs WHO
36. extent of developers’ experience specifically in LIHTCs WHO
37. extent of management agents’ experience in rental housing and/or subsidy programs WHO
38. extent of management agents’ experience specifically in LIHTCs WHO
39. building capacity for those without experience in LIHTCs  WHO
40. joint venture development or co-managing WHO
41. amount of LIHTCs awarded per principal in a cycle WHO
42. negative development/compliance history in other programs WHO
43. negative development/compliance history in LIHTCs WHO
44. relationship between real estate buyer and seller (e.g., identity of interest) WHO

What. Design and costs (DESIGN)

Grouping includes criteria that: describe the housing’s physical structure, design characteristics, or uses of capital funds.

Not addressed is: working with existing housing, as that is covered in the next category.

Criteria in this grouping also listed in another: #24, #25

45. new construction in general DESIGN
46. number of units (e.g., encouraging less than 50, maximum of 200) DESIGN
47. budgeted construction costs per unit or square foot DESIGN
48. eligible basis per unit or square foot DESIGN, FUND
49. lower soft costs (e.g., intermediary, developer/consultant fees) DESIGN, OTHER
50. particular unit characteristics (e.g., square feet, washer/dryer, high-speed internet) DESIGN
51. property amenities (e.g., playground, community room) DESIGN
52. property appearance (e.g., brick veneer, broken roof lines) DESIGN
53. how buildings relate to the site and/or surroundings (e.g., layout, wetlands, design compatibility with neighbors) DESIGN
54. more features for physical accessibility (e.g., curbless showers) and/or greater number of accessible units) DESIGN
55. mixed use in general DESIGN
56. certain nonresidential uses in addition to basic common areas (e.g., day care) DESIGN
57. “green” design, construction, and/or siting (e.g., Energy Star, solar, near transit) DESIGN, LOC
58. adaptive re-use of historic buildings DESIGN
59. scattered site DESIGN
60. single family detached houses or duplexes DESIGN
61. eventual homeownership/lease-purchase DESIGN, OTHER

Second What. Existing housing (REHAB)

Grouping includes criteria that: describe considerations for the rehabilitation/preservation of existing housing units.  Many of these could be in Design above, but together are sufficiently numerous and distinct to justify a separate category.

Not addressed is: who conducts the physical needs assessment and the standards used.

Criteria in this grouping also listed in another: none

62. rehabilitation or preservation in general REHAB
63. extent of buildings’ need for rehabilitation work REHAB
64. amount of rehabilitation work proposed REHAB
65. risk of opting out of affordability REHAB
66. age of development/when placed in service REHAB
67. number of tenants to be permanently relocated REHAB, POP
68. number of households with tenant vouchers or units with project-based operating assistance REHAB, FUND
69. capital funds from a federal program REHAB, FUND
70. state appropriated capital funds REHAB, FUND
71. older LIHTC properties, including those at Y15 REHAB

When. Time for construction and being in program (TIME)

Grouping includes criteria that: apply to the development process or duration of program restrictions.  There are only a few items because both are largely governed by Section 42.

Not addressed are: interim deadlines between award and being placed in service.

Criteria in this grouping also listed in another: 108

72. readiness to proceed (e.g., permits in place) TIME
73. duration of the extended use period (e.g., 55 years) TIME
74. waiver of the qualified contract option TIME
75. disaster rebuilding TIME, LOC

Where. Geographic location (LOC)

Grouping includes criteria that: could be determined with a map and data or opinions.

Not addressed is: who determines subjective considerations, such strength of the market.

Criteria in this grouping also listed in another: #22, #57, #75

76. certain geographic regions within a state LOC
77. rural areas/small towns LOC
78. downtowns/central business districts LOC
79. community revitalization areas LOC
80. Qualified census tracts and/or difficult to develop areas LOC
81. other local, state or federally designated areas (e.g., Empowerment Zones) LOC
82. high or low poverty areas LOC
83. promoting racial diversity LOC
84. high-cost, supply-constrained cities/areas LOC
85. near bus or mass transit stops LOC
86. proximity to certain amenities (e.g., schools, grocery stores) LOC
87. area economic trends (e.g., growth or decline) LOC
88. area land use pattern (e.g., residential or not) LOC
89. lack of problematic area characteristics (e.g., junkyards) LOC
90. lack of problematic site characteristics (e.g., underground tanks) LOC
91. distance to other LIHTC properties or number of units/properties within a particular jurisdiction LOC
92. in strong markets, or how the unit mix/targeting fits the market POP, LOC
93. absence of market problems (e.g., high capture rate, effect on other LIHTC properties) POP, LOC
94. housing needs statistics (e.g., overcrowding, cost burden) LOC
95. area median income relative to that of a larger area (e.g., Census tract and county) LOC

How. Sources of funds (FUND)

Grouping includes criteria that: describe different types of capital sources and operating subsidies.

Not addressed are: guarantees.

Criteria in this grouping also listed in another: #48, #68, #69, #70

96. loans from state agencies FUND
97. loans from local governments FUND
98. other local government contribution (e.g., donated land, waived fees) FUND
99. public housing authority capital FUND
100. specialized funding sources (e.g., HUD 202, NAHASDA) POP, FUND
101. other sources below market loans (e.g., FHLB, NeighborWorks) FUND
102. amount of deferred developer fee (maximum or encouraging more) FUND
103. project-based operating contract (e.g., Section 8, Annual Contributions Contract) FUND
104. historic rehabilitation tax credit equity FUND
105. amount of LIHTCs per unit or award FUND
106. anticipated LIHTC equity price FUND
107. previously awarded developments that need additional LIHTCs FUND
108. previously awarded developments that need additional time to place in service (“recycled” allocation) TIME, FUND

Other policy goals. - Miscellaneous (OTHER)

Grouping includes criteria that: involve considerations not adequately addressed other categories.

Criteria in this grouping listed in another: #2, #49, #61

109. short and long-term financial feasibility (e.g., minimum debt coverage ratio) OTHER
110. coordination with Consolidated Plan OTHER
111. politically endorsed by a local government OTHER
112. connection to supportive services OTHER, WHO
113. tenants’ participation in services is not a requirement of occupancy OTHER, WHO
114. lottery OTHER

Conclusion

The list is not meant to increase the complexity of QAPs. Rather, its purpose is to move forward the dialogue of LIHTC policy in two related ways.

First, those advocating for causes will have a better idea of the complexity involved in QAP drafting. While their particular issue(s) may seem paramount, there are many, many others for allocating agencies to evaluate with their limited staff time.

Another way in which this post may advance the discussion is to help those involved in QAPs think about them differently. The people involved include all interested parties, not just state decision-makers. LIHTC policy is ultimately a collective process. Allocating agencies need constructive input from a wide variety of program participants in order to continually improve outcomes.

Next Post in Series