THIS PAGE IS STALE AGAINST THE ORDINANCE IT SUMMARISES and is recorded for that reason. It states a 10-unit applicability threshold where SJMC 5.08.320.A.2 exempts developments of fewer than 20; it states a 99-year affordability period where SJMC 5.08.600.B sets 55 years; and its 'UPDATED OBLIGATIONS TO IHO' table prints a rental on-site split of 5 percent at 100 percent AMI / 5 percent at 60 percent / 5 percent at 50 percent, or 10 percent at 30 percent, where SJMC 5.08.400.A.2 requires 5 percent moderate / 5 percent at 60 percent / 5 percent at 80 percent. Its narrative describes the February 2021 amendments as the current ones and does not mention Ordinance No. 31303. Three rules in ca.san_jose.json cite it as the second half of a recorded conflict. Also the only source obtained for the Affordable Housing Compliance Plan application fees ($4,986.00 standard, $1,107.00 abbreviated). It links the 'IHO Regulations 2026' PDF at https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/133095/639196182136600000, which could not be downloaded.

The City's own summary of the 2026 amendments codified as Ordinance No. 31303. It corroborates the codified text on all three points where the Ordinances and Fees Programs page contradicts it: the 20-unit threshold, the 55-year affordability period, and the removal of the 110 percent AMI rental tranche for projects at 30 or more dwelling units per acre. It dates the Council action to 27 January 2026; SJMC 5.08.740.C dates the ordinance's adoption to 10 February 2026. Neither states an operative date, and unlike the 2021 amendments the chapter contains no operative-date provision for Ordinance No. 31303.

The structural fact this page establishes is the one that matters even without the numbers: SANTA MONICA MAINTAINS THREE PARALLEL LIMIT SERIES AT ONCE, keyed to the date a project received planning approval -- pre-1990 at a 25 percent affordability standard, 1990 to 2013 at 30 percent, and after 2013 at 30 percent. SMMC 9.64.030(B) is the reason: a project approved before the 2015 ordinance stays subject to the chapter as it existed at approval. An operator with several Santa Monica assets can hold units on different charts, and picking the wrong chart is the obvious error.

The only published statement of several obligations that appear nowhere in the ordinance or the Guidelines: the monitoring fee schedule (rental annual report/monitoring $190.78, initial start-up $240.24, re-occupancy $204.91; ownership $42.39, $190.78 and $169.58), the expectation that vacant units are leased within 60 days, the City's own statement of how to compute income and assets for the AHPP certification, the instruction NOT to collect income or asset information from voucher tenants while still filing an annual report summary for their units, and the requirement to notify the City of changes of ownership, management or leasing documents. It is a web page and carries persuasive weight only; where it and the Guidelines both speak, the rules cite both.

TWO OF ITS ATTACHMENTS ARE SEVEN YEARS OLDER THAN THE DOCUMENT AND SAY SO. Attachment 3-C is headed '2015 Income Limits' and Attachment 3-D '2015 Maximum Allowable Rent Limits', with a footnote that the rent limits 'reflect a hold-harmless approach and are therefore held at their highpoint reached in 2011'; Attachment 2-B's base fee is 'Effective November 1, 2015'. A 2022 document therefore carries 2015 dollars, and SMMC 9.64.100 requires the City to publish current levels annually instead. The dollar figures in this overlay's rules are cited as the Guidelines' own 2015 attachments and are NOT presented as current; the current charts live on the City's limits page and were bot-walled this session. What the attachment does give, and what is durable, is the FORMULA: 'Rents: Median Income for 4-person household x Income Level x Bedroom Adjustment x Affordability Standard (30%) / 12. (Ref: CA H&SC 50053, H&SC 50052.5(h), SMMC 9.64.020(D))'. Attachment 3-E is a complete sample deed restriction -- 'Agreement Imposing Restrictions on Rents & Occupancy of Real Property' -- whose clause 21 terminates it fifty-five years from issuance of the certificate of occupancy and whose clause 24 requires a yearly report.

The single best statement in this corpus of how a utility allowance actually bites inside a gross rent cap. It grounds the rule in California law -- 25 Cal. Code Regs. 6918 defines 'Rent' to include a utility allowance for all utilities -- and then says the Maximum Allowable Rent must be reduced by the scheduled allowance for each separately charged utility REGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL AMOUNT the tenant pays third parties. It applies the same reasoning to fees: separately charged fees or service charges normally required of all tenants (credit reporting, processing, keys, fobs, renters' insurance, personal liability insurance, parking) are also 'Rent', so the landlord must either provide them free or reduce the rent by their total. It also carries the caveat that governs the whole overlay: 'while these are generally applicable rules, landlords must comply with the specific requirements of their recorded deed-restriction, which may differ from what is set forth below.'

2 pages, 172,702 bytes, sha256 8ad335f388201a82960b4d278557fceed401841c812aa95a2176fb2449c9e8a6, fetched 2026-08-29. The document prints no publication date; its own face states 'the effective date of 2/1/2025' and a 90-day implementation date of 5/1/2025 for existing residents, so 'published' is null rather than taken from the PDF CreationDate metadata of 2025-02-12. Four utility categories by bedroom count (tenant pays all utilities; electricity and heat; electricity only; no utilities) plus a renter's insurance estimate OH obtains from the Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner. Carries the mid-lease rent reduction requirement and the direction that a property with other affordable housing commitments (LIHTC, Levy funded, HOME) adjust to its most restrictive funder.

4 pages, 77,509 bytes, sha256 b1d4a148cb031a5cb8bd0565896782a372dbfeade3609bafd16969f64c21043c, fetched 2026-08-31. Establishes: appeals lie only from a WRITTEN notice of denial, which must state the reason, reference the specific policy or criterion applied, and include the appeals policy itself; a 10-business-day deadline from the date on the denial notice, with late appeals refused unless an extension was granted in advance for good cause; submission in writing by email to the entity that issued the denial, copying inclusionary@somervillema.gov with the subject line 'Appeal - Attention: Housing Programs Coordinator', and a verbal request route for limited-English-proficient applicants or those needing a reasonable accommodation; a required content list; and a taxonomy of appealable determinations. CRUCIALLY, IT IS NOT ALL HEARD BY THE CITY: 'Appeals are heard by the entity that issued the decision (the City of Somerville, the Property Manager, or the Lottery Agent).' Pre-lottery eligibility and post-lottery income-certification denials are heard by the City's Housing Division within 10 business days, and a unit is held during a post-lottery appeal where the applicant is in first position.

70,252 bytes as served, sha256 2e558dcd629e061289e65aefb1b4ee6ad0232c52698c1e6fbca782c7ff09c46a, fetched 2026-08-31. States the open and close dates of the current application window ('The Consolidated Rental Waitlist opens February 2, 2026 and closes on March 2, 2026. Applications will be available on SomervilleWaitlist.org') and publishes the application flyer, the library application-assistance notice, the FAQ and the applicant slide deck in seven languages each: English, Spanish, Portuguese, Nepali, Haitian Creole, Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese. That language set is the practical content of the City's affirmative-marketing posture and is why it is cited in the Somerville marketing rule.

5 pages, 108,001 bytes, sha256 7d4b1c74f4856bb21df4732f01f2d44d7764e71d8ca8d233bdd36d87b1256242, fetched 2026-08-31. The only published statement of the CRW preference and priority structure: three preference tiers (Tier 1 current Somerville residents including those experiencing homelessness in Somerville, and households with a child in Somerville public or charter schools; Tier 2 households with a member working in Somerville at least 20 hours a week and households that left Somerville within the last two years; Tier 3 everyone else), with one qualifying member enough for the household; and six non-cumulative priority statuses within a tier (homelessness; domestic violence; a unit unsafe by poor condition as determined by Inspectional Services; need for a mobility-accessible or adaptable unit or one for the vision- or hearing-impaired; holding a mobile voucher; and at risk of losing housing, such as being served a notice to quit). Also states: no income or asset documents at application, only accessibility documentation; income, asset and tax documentation plus preference and priority documentation on selection, followed by property-level screening; a minimum of one person per bedroom unless a disability or medical need justifies an extra; that lack of rental or credit history does not affect waitlist eligibility; that an applicant may decline a unit before viewing it with no penalty and no loss of position; that mobile vouchers may be used and confer priority; and that homeownership lotteries remain per-project because each requires a pre-approval covering that unit's price. TWO PASSAGES CONFLICT WITH THE CITY'S LIVE PAGE ON DATES: the FAQ says 'After the waitlist closes on May 30, 2025, it will likely not reopen for at least one to two years', while somervillema.gov/consolidated-rental-waitlist as served the same day says 'The Consolidated Rental Waitlist opens February 2, 2026 and closes on March 2, 2026.' Both are recorded; neither was chosen.

80,246 bytes as served, sha256 198ea6c57f3615478ade5e8982c3465156f339da7bfc408c18a926f6a7323316, fetched 2026-08-31. The operative developer-side document, and the only place several numbers exist. Carries: the submission sequence (deed, certification of organization, plans with amenities and an executed Affordable Housing Acknowledgement to open an AHIP; a fully executed AHIP before the vertical building permit, with two to three months' notice asked for); the marketing document set (tenant fee disclosure form, utility form, language access plan, parking plan, model lease, rental and screening criteria); Table 1.a estimated BASE rents by tier and bedroom count and Table 1.b the same figures net of an assumed $150 of tenant-paid fees and a high-rise all-electric utility allowance; Table 2.a estimated maximum sales prices and Table 2.b monthly standard fee deductions for FY 2026; the fractional-buyout formula and the FY'25 average Somerville condominium sale prices by bedroom count that feed it, sourced to a Warren Group data subscription; the entire pricing method for units permitted under the 6 MAY 2016 update (Tier R1 = HUD LOW HOME RENT, Tier R2 = HIGH HOME RENT, Tier R3 = 30 percent of the household's own gross income, with a published Tier R3 monthly gross rent range by household size, and a six-step maximum-sales-price calculation at 28 percent of income); the most recent initial sales prices actually set, by bedroom and AMI band, naming the properties; the three-bedroom quality standards and their predecessor; and the pre-lease-up staff walkthrough. THE RENT AND PRICE TABLES ARE LABELLED ESTIMATES ON THEIR FACE -- 'Maximum rents and maximum sales prices are the base amounts provided, deducting applicable fees and utilities for which an occupant is responsible' -- so no figure from them is a cap for a specific unit.

355,542 bytes as served, sha256 fff458e0b0f5eb5259e2d86b991e74ef31ef7ae0728ff6e9d91d7b205e359b96, fetched 2026-08-31. The applicant- and resident-facing statement of the regime. Carries: that the programme dates from 1990 and that units 'remain affordable permanently'; that it serves roughly 50 to 140 percent of AMI; the four-step description of how a unit is filled (developer builds, City holds a lottery, household certifies income and assets, household leases or buys under a long-term restriction); links to the current rental, ownership and RECERTIFICATION income limits, all captioned 'Effective 7/1/2026'; the statement that annual recertification is initiated by the property manager a few months before lease renewal and that 'Maximum income limits for annual recertifications are higher than the limits for your first income certification', with hdcompliance@somervillema.gov as the compliance contact; the homeownership requirements (first-time buyer, completed homebuyer course accepted for three years, a 30-year fixed pre-approval covering price less down payment, from an institution that ran a hard credit check); the principal-residence covenant with its annual verification and the prohibition on subletting in the short or long term; and the requirement to notify the City for consent before a resale or a refinance, with resale prices calculated by the City and the buyer's eligibility verified before a sale can proceed. Also links the FY2023 and FY2024 annual reports, the Inclusionary Program Appeals Policy and the Homeownership Stabilization Program.

DATED FROM ITS OWN FACE ('Effective May 1, 2026'), not from the filename or the link label. It states income limits at 70 percent and 80 percent AMI for household sizes 1 through 6, maximum rental rates at 70 percent and 80 percent for studio through four-bedroom with imputed household sizes (studio 1 person, 1-bed 1.5, 2-bed 3, 3-bed 4.5, 4-bed 6), and a utility allowance column footnoted 'Set by Tacoma Housing Authority, must be included in rent'. TWO CELLS IN THIS TABLE ARE INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT AND ARE RECORDED, NOT RESOLVED: the 3-bedroom maximum rent at 80 percent AMI ($2,293) is LOWER than the same unit's 70 percent figure ($2,317), and the 2-bedroom 80 percent figure ($2,038) is only $32 above its 70 percent figure ($2,006) where every other row shows a 12-to-14 percent gap. Nothing read this pass explains either. Only the 70 percent column is operative for a Tacoma twelve-year MFTE rental unit; the 80 percent column corresponds to the statutory low-income-household definition in RCW 84.14.010(9) and TMC 6A.110.010 and is not the City's twelve-year commitment level.

STALE IN THREE PLACES AND STILL LINKED AS 'Tip Sheet' FROM THE CURRENT PROGRAMME PAGE. It gives the application fee as '$1,000 to $5,000' where the June 2026 programme page gives $2,000 to $10,000; it describes the twenty-year exemption as 'permanent affordability for 20% of the units' where TMC 6A.110.020.H.6 and RCW 84.14.021(1)(a) both require 25 percent; and it states no affordability requirement for the eight-year option, which Substitute Ord. 29059 changed in October 2025 for projects under twenty units. It is cited here ONLY for the rent-derivation formula it states in words -- 'AMI x .7 x .3 = max rental rate' -- which is the only place any read document writes the Tacoma maximum-rent arithmetic out, and for the 120-day move notice, which the ordinance states identically. NOTHING ELSE IN THIS OVERLAY RESTS ON IT.

DATED FROM ITS OWN FACE: the page prints 'Content current as of 06/23/26'. It is the only document read this pass that states the annual report month, the affidavit contents, the current application fee schedule and the next-available-unit consequence of an over-income household, and it is the ONLY place any of those appear. It is agency guidance, not law, and where it and the ordinance differ both figures are recorded and neither is resolved -- see the reporting rule, where the ordinance says the declaration is filed 'annually, when requested by the Department' and state law says thirty days after the anniversary of the certificate, while this page says February.

23 numbered pages, 428,095 bytes, sha256 b76bbb2627fd0c614ab2c8c88c543d00e13c258a1b7fa88361a5a11cc3f1ac6a. The most recent FINAL-form QAP NMHC serves (linked from nmhcgov.net/allocation-plan-2023-2024-cnmi-lihtc-qap/); its successor, the 2025-2026 QAP, is watermarked DRAFT on every page even though the 2025 application cycle ran under it - see src.mp.nmhc_qap_2025_2026_draft. No adoption date is printed anywhere in the document; the 'published' date above is the plan's own first effective year, not a verified adoption date, and the wp-content upload path (2025/01) is a posting date. NMHC publishes NO standalone compliance manual: Section V 'Compliance Monitoring Plan' (pp. 11-19) is the whole published monitoring regime, near-verbatim to GHURA's - same February 1 annual report, triennial 20% audit, 30-day correction period - with the CNMI-specific fee schedule at sec. V.9 (application fee $2,500; good faith deposit 5% with 75% retained at 8609; monitoring fee up to $200/unit; qualified contract fee $150/unit; reallocation fee $500 with a two-year reallocation limit; Transfer of Credit Fee of 50% of proceeds; all fees non-refundable, by cashier's check). Every provision cited by the mp rules was read in both this edition and the 2025-2026 draft and is verbatim-identical across the two.

24 PDF pages (public-notice cover + 23 numbered), 655,084 bytes, sha256 6f69cea9a56160e1d1ad7b601e31ab5cb6d1ec0de9aefb50f0560910f143cc3f. THE ONLY 2025-2026 EDITION NMHC SERVES IS WATERMARKED DRAFT, yet the attached Notice to the Public ran the real 2025 cycle: NMHC 'is the agency authorized to allocate $3,455,000 of Low Incoming Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) in the CNMI', applications due 4:30 pm August 29, 2025 with a $2,500 fee, 14-day deficiency-cure window, Nov/Dec 2025 board awards, and 'There are no changes from the previous QAP.' No final-stamped 2025-2026 edition was located on nmhcgov.net on 2026-08-25 (the LIHTC page and the public-notice page both link this file). Cited only as corroboration that the 2023-2024 final's compliance plan remains NMHC's current text - every provision encoded in the mp rules is verbatim-identical across the two editions, including the Additional Use Period recertification sentence whose wording conflicts with its Guam twin.

AUTHORITY WEIGHT IS DELIBERATELY 'persuasive_agency_guidance' AND NOT 'regulation'. This is a NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTION, not an adopted regulation: the issue's own index states 'There are no notices of final action published in this issue', and DHCD's web page says the rules 'will remain in draft form until they are adopted by the Department'. Every rule in the Baltimore overlay that rests on this source says so in its statement and carries an open question directing the reader to re-check adoption. Regulations read in full and used: .01 Scope; .02 Definitions (41 defined terms, including 'Income' by reference to Md. Family Law Art. Sec. 12-201, 'Independent accountant' by reference to Md. Business and Occupations Art. Sec. 2-302, 'Over-income', 'Student', 'Technical modification' and 'Wholly renovated'); .03 Applicable Projects; .04 Required Inclusionary Units incl. the 10 percent total, the 5/5 split, the penthouse exclusion from the denominator and the round-up to the low-income tier; .05 Additional Inclusionary Units and the 15 percent cap; .06 Occupancy Permits; .07 Building Requirements incl. the over-income rule; .08 Inclusionary Unit Requirements incl. the 10 percent size variation; .09 Plan submission, review and notification with the 10/5/15/45 business-day clocks; .10 Building Permit Approval and Release; .11 Modifications; .12 Tenant Eligibility incl. student tenants and the annual reverification at lease renewal; .13 Tenant Screening; .14 Tenant Review; .15 Waitlist; .16 Affirmative Marketing Plan incl. the source-of-income and credit-score prohibitions and the three-year eviction record limit; .17 Leasing Requirements; .18 Subletting; .19 Management; .20 Eviction and re-letting of a vacated unit; .21 Annual Residential Project Report due 31 January; .22 Annual Commissioner Report; .23 Assessment of the efficacy of the High-Performance Inclusionary Housing Tax Credit.

CORRECTION TO A COMMON MIS-CITE: the Act is only TWO sections, 58.1-439.29 and 58.1-439.30. There is no § 58.1-439.31 or § 58.1-439.32; 13VAC10-200-10 defines the enabling legislation as those two sections and nothing more. Read 2026-08-29. Cited for (B)(1), the assignment of an interest in the credit (an assignment among pass-through entities and qualified taxpayers, NOT a certificated sale to unrelated parties -- subsection (J) directs the Authority to advise the money committees on the structure of a 'separately authorized' certificated program, which is the clearest evidence such sales are not yet authorised); (B)(2), the claim window closing for taxable years beginning on or after 1 January 2031 with awarded credits still claimable through their credit period; (D), the eligibility certificate that must accompany the return, with a fallback to the award letter and a duty to amend; and (E), recapture equal to the percentage of federal credit 'subject to recapture OR OTHERWISE DISALLOWED' -- wider than a pure recapture trigger.

Colorado names REFUSE TO SHOW in the operative text, protects veteran or military status, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, and bars causing to be made any written or oral inquiry or record concerning a protected characteristic. Text retrieved is the publisher's 2023 printing.

Read 2026-08-29. Cited for 39-22-2101(1) (allocation certificate), (3) (fifteen-year compliance period), (5) (SIX-year credit period, dated from the last building where a development has more than one) and (10) (qualified development defined purely by reference to section 42, and reaching a development CHFA determines eligible for a federal credit 'whether or not a federal tax credit is allocated'); 39-22-2102(4), the recorded restrictive covenant requiring fifteen taxable years 'or such longer period as may be agreed', with an express accessibility and Title VIII undertaking -- note this is HALF the federal thirty-year extended use period, so Colorado state law adds no affordability term; 39-22-2102(8), the piggyback provision directing eligibility and allocation per section 42 standards with combined credits held to the least amount necessary; 39-22-2103, Colorado's OWN recapture regime triggered by a decrease in qualified basis with the accelerated portion measured against a fifteen-year ratable baseline applied to a six-year credit; 39-22-2104, the filing duty falling on the owner AND on each qualified taxpayer allocated a share; and 39-22-2107, CHFA monitoring with noncompliance reported to the Department of Revenue.

Housing-relevant provisions used here: 570.3 (definitions of Income, Low- and moderate-income household/person, Low-income household), 570.200(a)(2)-(3) (national objective and 70 percent primary objective), 570.208(a)(3) (the LMH national objective for housing activities, the 51 percent occupancy test and the recipient-adopted affordable-rent standard), 570.502(a)(7) (record retention as modified from 2 CFR part 200), 570.503(b)(7) (subrecipient reversion of assets), 570.505 (use of real property and change of use), 570.506 (records to be maintained). 'published' carries the latest amendment_date eCFR records across the part's 203 content versions (2025-04-20). eCFR re-renders current text, so this source is not in the codified-law blind spot described in CLAUDE.md. NOTE for the reader: 570.502(a)(7) still cross-references 2 CFR 200.333 for record retention; the current 2 CFR part 200 puts retention at 200.334 and uses 200.333 for fixed amount subawards.

25 pages, 564,112 bytes, sha256 a0d77e62810b4baf1a89cde7c3f70fc48c68ee7d21e4cc258f868a5fcaa34ca1, fetched 2026-08-29. BOTH DATES COME OFF THE DOCUMENT'S OWN COVER, which prints 'Published: December 31, 2025' and 'Effective Date: February 17, 2026'. The URL segment reads '12.31.2025' and the PDF's internal ModDate is 2025-12-31; the effective date is seven weeks later and is the date the obligations bind. The cover title is 'Compliance Manual for Market Incentive and/or Land Use (MILU) Regulatory Agreements' while the page footer and the OH web page both call it the 'Incentive Program Compliance Manual'. Sections used for the Seattle overlay: Ch.1 Key Terms (Annual Property Certification, AMI, housing cost limit, MILU agreement, restricted unit, pp. 1-2); Ch.2 (45-day pre-lease inspection, two-week affirmative marketing lead, Resident Demographic Form, lease contents and the 12-month minimum term, 25/50/75% lease-up reports, 45-day vacancy notice, ADA unit swap, pp. 2-4); Ch.3 (the four-step certification and the 120-day/5-day windows, the 10% self-certification ceiling, annual recertification on the lease anniversary with full documentation every third year, the MFTE/MHA/IZ recertification caps, requalification triggers, the next available unit rule, student and voucher-holder qualification, pp. 4-11); Ch.4 (housing cost limits inclusive of utilities, renter's insurance and mandatory fees, the utility estimate 90-day rule and the mid-lease rent reduction, the ratio-utility-billing prohibition, contract rent derivation, the MFTE rent increase cap and the 180-day notice, pp. 11-13); Ch.5 (initial file review in the first six months and recurring reviews every three years at 20%/10 files, required file contents, the January 31 APC, the document-request escalation, the Summary of Non-Compliance and the 30-day cure before OH may instruct the King County Assessor to remove the exemption, ownership and unit-count change notice, the May 1/June 30 compliance fee cycle, the WBARS carve-out, pp. 13-16); Ch.6 (compliance periods by agreement type, expiration and TRAO notice, change of use, the final APC, MFTE extensions, pp. 16-17).

Sets the state agency's monitoring obligations, the owner annual certification, recordkeeping and record retention, the vacant unit rule, and the physical inspection/file review sampling minimums.

The enforcement half of the affirmative fair housing marketing regime. 108.15 sets the 90-day Notification of Intent to Begin Marketing; 108.20(d) gives ten days to cure delinquent documentation; 108.25(c) enumerates the twelve categories of record HUD may demand at a compliance meeting; 108.40(b) authorises periodic compliance reviews throughout the life of the mortgage and, for Section 8 assisted housing, throughout the HAP contract term, with no complaint required. Last substantively amended 64 FR 44095-97, 12 Aug 1999.

'Lawful source of income' was added as a protected class by P.A. 89-288. The chapter page carries the annotation that a security deposit guarantee is a lawful source of income (302 C. 263).

'published' carries the LATEST AMENDMENT DATE eCFR's own versions metadata records for part 578 (2026-05-20), not the part's original publication and not a date inferred from the URL. The part was originally published at 77 FR 45442 (July 31, 2012); the sections cited here carry source credits running through 81 FR 80810-80811 (Nov. 16, 2016) and 88 FR 30499 (May 11, 2023).