EDITION FROM THE DOCUMENT'S OWN FACE: 'DATES: Effective date: December 18, 1998' and 'Dated: December 14, 1998. Eva M. Plaza, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.' This notice adopts, as HUD's policy for Fair Housing Act enforcement, the memorandum of General Counsel Frank Keating to Regional Counsel dated 20 March 1991, reprinted in full as Appendix A. WHY IT IS NOT ORDINARY SUB-REGULATORY GUIDANCE: section 589 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461) REQUIRED HUD to publish it and provided that 'the specific and unmodified standards provided in the March 20, 1991, Memorandum ... shall be the policy of [HUD]'. It is statutorily prescribed, which is the first of the three retention criteria FHEO applied in the 2026 withdrawal programme. WITHDRAWAL STATUS CHECKED 2026-08-31: absent from both 91 FR 17292 and 91 FR 44868. THE SUBSTANCE THAT IS ROUTINELY MISQUOTED: the memorandum says two persons in a bedroom is reasonable 'as a general rule' and then says in the next sentence that 'the reasonableness of any occupancy policy is rebuttable' and that HUD will not determine compliance 'based solely on the number of people permitted in each bedroom'. It is not a safe harbour in either direction. It lists bedroom and unit size, unit configuration, age of children and other special circumstances as factors, with worked hypotheticals in both directions.

Three sections: applicability, the maximum income limit table, and the definition and enumeration of income sources. The 2026 AMI for a household of four is $166,100 for the Washington D.C. MSA. Limits are AMI times 50 or 70 percent times a household-size adjustment factor of 70/80/90/100/108/116/124/132 percent for one through eight persons, rounded to the nearest $50, producing $58,150-$109,650 at the 50 percent tier and $81,400-$153,450 at the 70 percent tier. Section III defines maximum household income as annual gross income received by all household members before taxes and EXCLUDES THE INCOME OF ANY FULL-TIME STUDENT, then lists eighteen income sources. NOTE THE DIVERGENCE FROM THE RENT SCHEDULE, which is recorded on the rules rather than resolved: this document sets rental ADU income CEILINGS at 50 and 70 percent of AMI, while the County Executive's ADU rent schedule derives rents from 50 and 65 percent. They are a ceiling and a price basis respectively, not a contradiction, but conflating them produces a wrong number. The document publishes no revision history, so a prior year's limits cannot be reconstructed from it.

USEFUL BEYOND ITS TABLE: page 3 reproduces a VERBATIM EXCERPT of Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance Art. 5, Sect. 5101.8.B, paragraph 4, headed 'FORMULAS FOR RENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY UNITS'. That excerpt is a County-signed reproduction of the operative ordinance text and corroborates the adopted-ordinance PDF word for word on the 65/50 percent bases, the 70/80/90/100 percent bedroom factors and the divide-by-12, multiply-by-25-percent, round-to-nearest convention. Published maximum rents effective 1 July 2026: efficiency $1,211 / $1,574, one bedroom $1,384 / $1,799, two bedroom $1,557 / $2,024, three bedroom $1,730 / $2,249, at the 50 and 65 percent bases respectively. NO SCHEDULE IS PUBLISHED FOR FOUR-BEDROOM OR LARGER MULTIFAMILY ADUs -- both the ordinance excerpt and the table stop at three bedrooms. The table's column heading reads 'Household Size Adjustment Factors' against a 'Unit Size' row; the factors are unit-size factors keyed to bedroom count and the label is misleading. NO UTILITY ALLOWANCE is published: rents are stated 'Excluding Utilities' and no allowance, schedule or method appears anywhere.

A BOARD POLICY, NOT AN ORDINANCE, and the document says so: the Guidelines are 'the preferred administrative tool for the implementation and administration of Workforce Dwelling Units that are proffered in conjunction with a rezoning application', and the Board 'will consider such variations' where an applicant demonstrates an alternative furthers the Comprehensive Plan WDU policies. A WDU obligation therefore binds through the proffer and the recorded covenants, not through this document directly. It also records that on 30 October 2018 the Board delegated its authority to administer and regulate the sale and rental of WDUs to the FCRHA. Sections read and used: I Overview incl. the Opt-In for pre-2025 proffers; II Technical Requirements (integration, dispersion, equivalency and the for-sale-to-rental transfer flexibility); III Determination of Sales Price and Rent incl. the annual Maximum Price and Maximum Rent Schedules and the 70/85/100/115/130 percent bedroom factors; IV Declaration of WDU Covenants and Notice of Proffer for both for-sale and rental developments incl. the six-month pre-RUP recording requirement and the seniority and successor-binding terms; V Notice of Availability and Offering Agreement; VI Term of Price Control and First Rider incl. the renewable 30-year for-sale period and the 50-YEAR RENTAL PERIOD; VII Initial Sale/Rental and the FCRHA's rights to purchase and to lease up to one third; X Occupancy Eligibility incl. the Certificate of Qualification for purchasers, the annual occupancy affidavit, the 30-day and 60-day automatic terminations and the replacement-WDU designation requiring FCRHA notice and DHCD approval; XI Reporting and Monitoring incl. the MONTHLY COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION and its eight per-unit data items; XII Financing Control and Foreclosure incl. the for-sale refinancing cap, the rule that Rental Covenants must NOT be released on foreclosure of an all-rental multifamily development, the 90-day lender notice, the FCRHA right to acquire and the excess-proceeds payment to the Housing Trust Fund. NOT READ IN FULL: Section VIII (Resale of For-Sale WDUs), which defines the Maximum Control Price relied on by Section XII, and Section IX (Conversion of WDUs from Rental to Condominium).

The source of the WDU income tier tables, which the 2025 Administrative Policy Guidelines do not restate. Provisions used: the 8 percent rental / 12 percent for-sale combined ADU-and-WDU minimum; the statement that the WDU policy works in tandem with the ADU program, that required ADUs are calculated FIRST and that in no instance may the ADU count fall below the ADU Ordinance requirement; the bonus density provisions and Tables 1 and 2; TABLE 3 Countywide income tiers (for-sale 4 percent each at 101-120, 81-100 and 71-80 percent of AMI totalling 12 percent; rental 4 percent at 71-80, 2 percent at 61-70 and 2 percent at up to 60 percent totalling 8 percent); TABLE 4 Tysons income tiers other than high-rise condominiums, including the two rental options; TABLE 5 Tysons high-rise condominium tiers at 4.67 or 5.33 percent per band; the minimum unit sizes (efficiency 450, one bedroom 600, two bedroom 750, three bedroom 900, four bedroom 1,050 square feet); the Tysons proportional bedroom mix and the 10 percent average size rule outside Tysons; and the Implementation and Flexibility provisions. AUTHORITY WEIGHT IS 'persuasive_agency_guidance' DELIBERATELY: a Comprehensive Plan is a policy document and every figure in it is expressed as what a proposal 'should' include. What binds a development is its proffer.

CITES A SUPERSEDED CODIFICATION THROUGHOUT. These regulations were adopted 21 January 2021 and the zMOD recodification took effect 1 July 2021, so every internal citation is to the former Article 2, Part 8, Sections 2-801 to 2-821 -- a numbering that no longer exists. The provisions were carried forward substantively by zMOD; the citations were not updated. Addendum B reproduces the pre-zMOD ordinance text. Sections read and used for the Fairfax ADU overlay: Section 1 Applicability; Section 2.C ADU Covenants incl. the requirement to record before the first RUP and to file a rider fixing the RUP date, and 2.D-2.E on building permit and RUP limits and the Notice of Availability; Section 3.A.1-3 for-sale eligibility, the eligibility list, the one-year Certificate of Qualification, first-time homebuyer rules and the screening priorities; Section 3.C the FCRHA's 90-day exclusive right to purchase up to one third of for-sale ADUs; Section 4 in full -- 4.A eligible renters, the two income tiers and the rental priorities incl. the accessibility preference; 4.B allowed rents; 4.C initial offering and the FCRHA's 30-day multifamily referral option; 4.D occupancy, the minimum and maximum person counts by unit size, the annual occupancy affidavit, the 30-day and 60-day automatic terminations, the over-income vacate rule and the replacement-unit exception; 4.E control period and covenants incl. all four vintages and the foreclosure treatment by recordation date; 4.F lease restrictions; 4.G landlord responsibilities incl. THIRD-PARTY VERIFICATION OF INCOME and the monthly sworn statement; 4.H rental under other affordable housing programmes; 4.I condominiums and condominium conversions. Addendum A (resale credit policy) and the for-sale resale mechanics in Section 3.M were skimmed rather than read in full and no rule is authored on them.

FIVE PAGES BECAUSE IT CARRIES PROJECT-SPECIFIC SCHEDULES AS WELL AS THE STANDARD TABLE. The standard table states limits at 60, 70, 80, 100 and 120 percent of AMI, computed as $166,100 times the tier times a household-size adjustment factor of 70/80/90/100/108/116/124/132 percent, rounded to the nearest $50, running from $69,750 (one person at 60 percent) to $263,100 (eight persons at 120 percent). A separate page sets a single limit at 83 PERCENT of AMI for The Ridgewood by Windsor Apartment Community. A rent or income figure taken from the standard table for a development that has its own page is wrong. The tier a given unit carries is a term of its proffer and its recorded covenant, not of this schedule -- the schedule prices whatever tier was agreed, which is why bespoke pages exist at all.

Standard table at 60, 70, 80, 100 and 120 percent of AMI with unit-size factors of 70/85/100/115/130 percent for efficiency through four bedrooms, from $1,453 to $5,398. TWO PROJECT-SPECIFIC PAGES follow: The Ridgewood by Windsor at 83 percent of AMI (efficiency $2,011, one bedroom $2,441, two bedroom $2,872), and Vista at Fairfax Corner, The Russell at Reston Station and Skymark at 90 percent of AMI (efficiency $2,180 through four bedroom $4,049). A CONFLICT IN THE ROUNDING IS RECORDED RATHER THAN RESOLVED: this schedule states the method as 'rounding up to the nearest dollar', while Section III.B.2 of the 2025 Administrative Policy Guidelines says the result is 'rounded to the nearest whole number'. Both are current County documents. NOTE ALSO that the WDU bedroom factors (70/85/100/115/130) are NOT the ADU bedroom factors (70/80/90/100) even though both schedules are signed by the same County Executive on the same HUD AMI. As with the ADU schedule, no utility allowance is published.

Section 5101 read in full for the Fairfax ADU overlay. Provisions used: 5101.1 Purpose; 5101.2 Applicability incl. the 50-unit / one-unit-per-acre / sewer-service test, the anti-piecemeal provision and its recorded written statement, 5101.2.A the 'site or portion thereof at one location' aggregation rule, 5101.2.D compliance with federal, state and other local programmes; 5101.4 Affordable Dwelling Unit Calculations incl. the ADU% formulas and the 6.25 / 12.5 percent caps and the 17 percent range increase for post-2004 Type 5 elevator multifamily; 5101.8.B Rental Affordable Dwelling Units incl. the Authority's administrative rulemaking power and the live-or-work priority, the initial right to lease and the 30-day multifamily referral window at 50 percent of median, the lease conditions, continued tenant eligibility, THE MONTHLY STATEMENT VERIFIED UNDER OATH, and the rental price formulas with the 65/50 percent bases, the 70/80/90/100 percent bedroom factors, the divide-by-12 and 25 percent convention, the no-economic-loss constraint and the semiannual review; 5101.8.C Covenant, Price, and Financing Control incl. the four control-period vintages, the rental covenant requirements, the continual applicability of rental rate limits, the pre-2006 early release option, and the financing and foreclosure provisions by recordation vintage. NOT READ IN FULL THIS PASS and recorded as open questions on the rules that need them: 5101.3 (Developments Exempt), 5101.4.D (density range where the Plan states none in units per acre), 5101.5 to 5101.7, 5101.8.A (for-sale ADUs), 5101.8.C(8)(b)(5) (the definition of 'Eligible Lender'), and 5101.8.E(3) (land conveyance and Housing Trust Fund contribution in lieu of units).

Confirmed reachable 2026-08-22 via direct curl. 7 pages, sha256 066eb304e835a89d347e3dac6f53ed26642626e25011146390d7dd855ef8fbed. Describes the affirmative owner opt-in notification (Attachment A/B) and 24-month placed-in-service wait required before Maryland grants the federal 100%-building recertification exemption, substituting an annual Self-Recertification (Attachment C) for existing tenants rather than a bare waiver.

ADDED BECAUSE §10.625'S ONLY SUBSTANCE LIVES IN THIS FIGURE. §10.625 was one of the eight sections amended by TRD-202601552, and the adoption preamble states the substance of the amendment: 'Staff appreciates the recommendation and has updated Figure §10.625 to include a new event of noncompliance for an owner failing to report an elevator outage to the Department within the required timeframe.' The adopted figure carries the row 'Failure to report an inoperable elevator within the required timeframe' with Program(s) 'All programs' and 'If HTC, on Form 8823?' = 'No'. That last column matters: the event is NOT reportable to the IRS, so it must not be mapped onto any viol.lihtc.* Form 8823 category. This corpus's violation taxonomy carries no TDHCA events-of-noncompliance family at all (only Form 8823, HUD MOR, RD and HOME/HTF families), so no violation record was created for it in this pass and no rule carries a violation_ref for the elevator event. Building a TDHCA violation family from all seven pages of this figure is a separate, well-scoped piece of work and this source is the whole input to it. TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf, whose own copy of Figure §10.625 is the 2 January 2025 version and does not contain the elevator row.

Fetched as the whole chapter rather than per-rule because the corpus's existing per-rule Florida sources (src.fl.fac_67_48_014, src.fl.fac_67_48_020) are pinned to a tid that identifies a single adopted version, and the SAIL rules span 67-48.002, .009, .0095, .010, .0105 and .013. Cited here for the SAIL provisions only.

The corpus already holds src.fl.fac_67_53_008 for the same rule, but its url points at law.cornell.edu — a republisher. This record is the Florida Department of State's own printing, fetched from the codifier, and is what the SAIL rules in this batch cite. The two were not compared line by line; if they diverge, this one is the official text.

Fetched from the official Florida Administrative Register (flrules.org rule page for 67-48.014), which serves only the in-force text; sha256 89d544d616870e3127ba4862271139453d848d7f3aef4fa7bf97b028a7ae5ec6 (2026-08-26). The chapter is repromulgated or amended almost annually (7-10-25, then 8-13-26), and floridahousing.org still serves a superseded 'effective 8-27-24' chapter PDF that search prefers -- cite the flrules text, not the agency PDF. Implements Fla. Stat. 420.5089(2), the statute under which FHFC administers the state HOME allocation.

Fetched from flrules.org; sha256 ddb97efde7e05e5a7e4901b44d2f3a16d6e5dbc7fa4f63c987384bbf83eff891 (2026-08-26). The 8-13-2026 amendment moved the annual financial reporting deadline to 151 days after fiscal year end with a $500 late fee (Form SR-1 Rev. 01-26), which conflicts with the unamended 120-day/$250 schedule still printed in 67-53.008(15); the conflict is recorded on fl.home.financial.annual_audited_financials_sr1.

Authoritative for what it covers but not substantively amended since 2009, so it is silent on the average income test, NSPIRE and HOTMA. Read via a government-rule mirror because floridahousing.org was unreachable.

Fetched 2026-08-29. This is a STATE statute recorded under a local-layer pass because it is the instrument that constrains what Miami-Dade County may require of a surtax borrower, and several County-level rules rest on it directly. Subsections used: (1) the authority to levy the surtax 'for the purpose of establishing and financing a Housing Assistance Loan Trust Fund', the 50 percent low-income benefit floor, and the definitions of low-income (not exceeding 80 percent of area median) and moderate-income (in excess of 80 percent but less than 140 percent); (3) the permitted uses of revenue, the 50 percent ceiling on new construction, and the prohibition 'The proceeds of the surtax shall not be used for rent subsidies or grants'; (4) the 10 percent administrative cost ceiling; (5)(a) the 35 percent homeownership and 35 percent rental allocation floors and the reallocation rule for uncommitted funds; (5)(c) the prohibition on a county imposing any borrower requirement beyond proof that income does not exceed 140 percent of area median income; and (6) the constraint on rehabilitating government-owned housing. Subsection (7), the housing choice assistance voucher programme, was read but is not encoded.

Fetched 2026-08-30. Face reads '2026 Florida Statutes'; no print date. The county counterpart of s. 166.04151; the operative subsection (7) tracks the municipal text. Recorded so that a development in unincorporated county territory cites the provision that actually governs it rather than the municipal one.

Fetched 2026-08-30; subsections (6) and (7) read directly. Face reads '2026 Florida Statutes'; no print date. Supplies the 'eligible persons' term that s. 196.1978(1)(a) incorporates. The definition reaches households earning up to 150 percent of the state or county median and treats every person 65 or older as eligible regardless of income — far wider than the exempt-portion measure in the same sentence, which is the s. 420.0004 bands.

Fetched and read in full 2026-08-30. Face reads '2026 Florida Statutes'; no print date. History line ends 's. 15, ch. 2026-14; s. 2, ch. 2026-163; s. 2, ch. 2026-179', and the section's footnote reads: 'Section 3, ch. 2026-179, provides that “[t]he amendments made by this act to ss. 125.01055(7)(n) and 166.04151(7)(n), Florida Statutes, are intended to be remedial and clarifying in nature and apply retroactively to January 1, 2024.”' Replaces reliance on src.fl.live_local_land_use, which is a Florida Housing Coalition overview PDF whose own record says 'the consolidated statutory text was not retrieved directly'. The county twin is s. 125.01055(7), whose text on the same points is word-for-word identical with 'county' substituted for 'municipality'.

Cited because ss. 196.1978(3)(a)3., 196.1978(4)(b)1. and 196.19782(1)(c) all import 'substantially completed' from s. 192.042(1) and none of them restates it. The imported definition is a USE test, not a certificate-of-occupancy test: 'Substantially completed shall mean that the improvement or some self-sufficient unit within it can be used for the purpose for which it was constructed.' The same subsection also supplies the January 1 assessment date and the rule that improvements not substantially completed on January 1 have no value placed on them.

Fetched 2026-08-30; subsections (1) through (10) read directly. Face reads '2026 Florida Statutes'; no print date, so `published` is null. This is the provision that makes every Florida ad valorem exemption an annual filing rather than a standing status, and it carries the forfeiture language ('shall constitute a waiver of the exemption privilege for that year') that distinguishes the Florida consequence model from a curable agency finding.

Fetched and read in full 2026-08-30. Face reads '2026 Florida Statutes'; no print date. History line ends 's. 3, ch. 2000-228', so the text has been stable for a quarter century. Supplies the five reasonableness criteria and the no-inurement showing that s. 196.1978(1)(a) requires property appraisers to apply 'on an annual basis'.

Fetched and read in full 2026-08-30. Face reads '2026 Florida Statutes'; no print date. History line ends 's. 10, ch. 2023-157'. Subsection (5) is the affordable-housing 'affirmative steps' pathway and the only true CLAWBACK in the Florida exemption set: five years to put the property into actual affordable use, else back taxes plus 15 percent interest per annum and a 50 percent penalty, recorded as a tax lien.

Amended in most recent sessions. The 2026 amendments (HB 1389) first apply to the 2027 tax roll and add a local opt-out with continuity protection for projects permitted before the opt-out. URL repaired 2026-08-27: previous address https://law.justia.com/codes/florida/title-xiv/chapter-196/section-196-1978/ no longer served it. Edition confirmed on the document's own face before repointing -- Page title reads "Chapter 196 Section 1978 - 2025 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate", and the body carries the full text of s. 196.1978 "Affordable housing property exemption" including the note "Section 17, ch. 2025-208, provides that '[t]he amendments made by this act to s. 196.1978(1)(b) and (4)(b), Florida Statutes, first apply to the 2026 tax roll.'" -- i.e. the 2025 edition, matching the record's citation "Fla. Stat. 196.1978 (2025)".

Fetched and read in full 2026-08-30. A SEPARATE RECORD from src.fl.stat_196_1978, which is the 2025 edition; the two texts differ and this one is what is in force. Edition established from the document's own face, not from the url: the page title reads 'Chapter 196 Section 1978 - 2026 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate' and the breadcrumb reads '2026 Florida Statutes'. No print date appears anywhere on the page, so `published` is left null rather than invented. The History line ends 's. 5, ch. 2026-179', and the section's only footnote reads: 'Section 6, ch. 2026-179, provides that “[t]he amendments made by this act to s. 196.1978, Florida Statutes, first apply to the 2027 property tax roll.”' Diffed against the 2025 edition fetched in the same session: ch. 2026-179 adds the “Multifamily project” definition at (3)(a)2. (common ownership or control, same site plan, excluding detached single-family and parcels separated by more than 200 feet), tightens the (3)(o)2. local opt-out finding to a three-consecutive-year test, and adds (3)(o)8., the building-permit continuity protection for permits issued on or after 1 July 2026. Everything else is identical. flsenate.gov is the codifier's own live page and re-renders current text, so this source is NOT in the codified-law-cited-as-a-fixed-file blind spot and needs no codified_watch.

The whole section is 2,374 characters of operative text — five subsections. Created whole by s. 18, ch. 2025-208; the History line reads 's. 18, ch. 2025-208.' and nothing else. The statutory note printed on the page is the act's own s. 19: '[t]he exemption created by this act in s. 196.19781, Florida Statutes, first applies to the 2026 tax roll.' EDITION CONTROL: the 2025 edition of the same section (https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/196.19781, sha256 a7704e15511057c80635b4756a5677363a6559d789cc23807de752e864de85bd) was also fetched 2026-09-02; its operative text is identical to the 2026 edition at 2,373 characters, so the section has not been touched since enactment. Three things this section does NOT contain, each verified by reading the whole text rather than inferred: no rent ceiling of any kind, no certification step by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation or anyone else, and no repeal date (its sibling s. 196.19782 repeals 31 December 2061). It also does not carry the 'Notwithstanding ss. 196.195 and 196.196' opening that ss. 196.1978(3), 196.1978(4), 196.19782 and 196.1979 all carry.

Created whole by s. 20, ch. 2025-208; History line reads 's. 20, ch. 2025-208.' The first-application and repeal dates are inside the section itself, at subsection (7): 'This section first applies to the 2026 tax roll and is repealed December 31, 2061.' Unlike its sibling s. 196.19781 this section defines its own terms — 'Governmental entity' at (1)(a) reaches the Federal Government as well as state bodies and political subdivisions, and 'Newly constructed' at (1)(b) is dated from 1 July 2025 rather than being open-ended. Like s. 196.19781 it imposes no rent ceiling and requires no certification by any housing agency. The applicant it names is the LESSEE, not the owner: subsection (4) reads 'a lessee must submit an application on a form prescribed by the Department of Revenue by March 1'.