What the agencies' own materials left open

3740 questions across 59 jurisdictions. Each one is a point where the source was silent, ambiguous, or could not be reached — so no rule was written. These are not rules held at low confidence. They are the places this corpus declined to guess, recorded rather than quietly rounded off, because an answer invented here is indistinguishable from one that was researched.

fl Florida · 319

26 CFR 1.42-10(b)(4)(ii) makes several methods available subject to agency involvement. Florida Housing's published Energy Consumption Model procedures establish that it exercises the (b)(4)(ii)(E) approval power, but whether Florida Housing restricts, conditions or declines any of the other methods -- in particular whether it provides an Agency Estimate under (b)(4)(ii)(C) -- and whether the annual review under (c)(2) must be filed with the agency, could not be confirmed from a Florida Housing source and is not assumed.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
How a property appraiser is meant to apply the s. 159.603 'eligible persons' condition where no housing finance authority has made any determination for the property is not addressed by either statute. 159.603(7) defines the term by reference to a determination 'by the housing finance authority', and a nonprofit owner with no HFA involvement has no such determination to produce.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
Whether a particular county has exercised the 196.011(10) waiver of the annual filing is a county-by-county fact that no state source enumerates. It has to come from the county's own ordinance record, and an unrecorded status must be treated as 'not waived' for filing purposes and as unknown for reporting purposes.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
The statute says the subleased land 'is exempt', without saying who applies for that exemption or on which parcel line it is granted. DR-504AFH puts the question in the nonprofit's own Section B rather than giving the household a return of its own, which suggests the nonprofit claims it, but neither document says so.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This programme's record in data/programs/programs.json is named 'Live Local Act - Local Option Exemption after Fifteen Years' but its statutory_authority is Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2), which is not a local option: it is a state exemption granted by the property appraiser once fifteen years have run. The actual local-option exemption is s. 196.1979, adopted by county or municipal ordinance, reaching projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable at or below 60 percent AMI, exempting up to 75 percent of assessed value (100 percent where the whole project is affordable), and expiring before the fourth 1 January after adoption unless renewed. These rules encode 196.1978(2), following the program record's statutory_authority. s. 196.1979 is unmodelled and has no program record of its own.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This programme's record in data/programs/programs.json is named 'Live Local Act - Local Option Exemption after Fifteen Years' but its statutory_authority is Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2), which is not a local option: it is a state exemption granted by the property appraiser once fifteen years have run. The actual local-option exemption is s. 196.1979, adopted by county or municipal ordinance, reaching projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable at or below 60 percent AMI, exempting up to 75 percent of assessed value (100 percent where the whole project is affordable), and expiring before the fourth 1 January after adoption unless renewed. These rules encode 196.1978(2), following the program record's statutory_authority. s. 196.1979 is unmodelled and has no program record of its own.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This programme's record in data/programs/programs.json is named 'Live Local Act - Local Option Exemption after Fifteen Years' but its statutory_authority is Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2), which is not a local option: it is a state exemption granted by the property appraiser once fifteen years have run. The actual local-option exemption is s. 196.1979, adopted by county or municipal ordinance, reaching projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable at or below 60 percent AMI, exempting up to 75 percent of assessed value (100 percent where the whole project is affordable), and expiring before the fourth 1 January after adoption unless renewed. These rules encode 196.1978(2), following the program record's statutory_authority. s. 196.1979 is unmodelled and has no program record of its own.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This programme's record in data/programs/programs.json is named 'Live Local Act - Local Option Exemption after Fifteen Years' but its statutory_authority is Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2), which is not a local option: it is a state exemption granted by the property appraiser once fifteen years have run. The actual local-option exemption is s. 196.1979, adopted by county or municipal ordinance, reaching projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable at or below 60 percent AMI, exempting up to 75 percent of assessed value (100 percent where the whole project is affordable), and expiring before the fourth 1 January after adoption unless renewed. These rules encode 196.1978(2), following the program record's statutory_authority. s. 196.1979 is unmodelled and has no program record of its own.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This programme's record in data/programs/programs.json is named 'Live Local Act - Local Option Exemption after Fifteen Years' but its statutory_authority is Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2), which is not a local option: it is a state exemption granted by the property appraiser once fifteen years have run. The actual local-option exemption is s. 196.1979, adopted by county or municipal ordinance, reaching projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable at or below 60 percent AMI, exempting up to 75 percent of assessed value (100 percent where the whole project is affordable), and expiring before the fourth 1 January after adoption unless renewed. These rules encode 196.1978(2), following the program record's statutory_authority. s. 196.1979 is unmodelled and has no program record of its own.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This programme's record in data/programs/programs.json is named 'Live Local Act - Local Option Exemption after Fifteen Years' but its statutory_authority is Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2), which is not a local option: it is a state exemption granted by the property appraiser once fifteen years have run. The actual local-option exemption is s. 196.1979, adopted by county or municipal ordinance, reaching projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable at or below 60 percent AMI, exempting up to 75 percent of assessed value (100 percent where the whole project is affordable), and expiring before the fourth 1 January after adoption unless renewed. These rules encode 196.1978(2), following the program record's statutory_authority. s. 196.1979 is unmodelled and has no program record of its own.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This programme's record in data/programs/programs.json is named 'Live Local Act - Local Option Exemption after Fifteen Years' but its statutory_authority is Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2), which is not a local option: it is a state exemption granted by the property appraiser once fifteen years have run. The actual local-option exemption is s. 196.1979, adopted by county or municipal ordinance, reaching projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable at or below 60 percent AMI, exempting up to 75 percent of assessed value (100 percent where the whole project is affordable), and expiring before the fourth 1 January after adoption unless renewed. These rules encode 196.1978(2), following the program record's statutory_authority. s. 196.1979 is unmodelled and has no program record of its own.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
The county provision at s. 125.01055(7)(a)1. was fetched and confirmed to track the municipal text, but the citation to it here carries no quote because the comparison was made on the operative subsection as a whole rather than by capturing the county sentence separately. A development in unincorporated county territory should be defended on the s. 125.01055 text, and that sentence should be quoted before it is relied on.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
The exclusion for open-character land development regulations is keyed to regulations 'in existence before July 1, 2026'. Whether a particular district qualifies is a question about the local code's history, and no state source enumerates the districts that meet it.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
data/programs/programs.json records 'Fla. Admin. Code 67-70' as this programme's primary regulation. On 2026-08-30 flrules.org answered 'Chapter Not Found' for 67-70, and the full chapter list for department 67 (Florida Housing Finance Corporation) contains no chapter for this exemption. s. 196.1978(3)(m) says only that 'The corporation may adopt rules to implement this section'. On the evidence available Florida Housing administers the certification without a rule chapter, and the programme record's primary_regulations entry is unsupported.
data/programs/programs.json records 'Fla. Admin. Code 67-70' as this programme's primary regulation. On 2026-08-30 flrules.org answered 'Chapter Not Found' for 67-70, and the full chapter list for department 67 (Florida Housing Finance Corporation) contains no chapter for this exemption. s. 196.1978(3)(m) says only that 'The corporation may adopt rules to implement this section'. On the evidence available Florida Housing administers the certification without a rule chapter, and the programme record's primary_regulations entry is unsupported.
data/programs/programs.json records 'Fla. Admin. Code 67-70' as this programme's primary regulation. On 2026-08-30 flrules.org answered 'Chapter Not Found' for 67-70, and the full chapter list for department 67 (Florida Housing Finance Corporation) contains no chapter for this exemption. s. 196.1978(3)(m) says only that 'The corporation may adopt rules to implement this section'. On the evidence available Florida Housing administers the certification without a rule chapter, and the programme record's primary_regulations entry is unsupported.
data/programs/programs.json records 'Fla. Admin. Code 67-70' as this programme's primary regulation. On 2026-08-30 flrules.org answered 'Chapter Not Found' for 67-70, and the full chapter list for department 67 (Florida Housing Finance Corporation) contains no chapter for this exemption. s. 196.1978(3)(m) says only that 'The corporation may adopt rules to implement this section'. On the evidence available Florida Housing administers the certification without a rule chapter, and the programme record's primary_regulations entry is unsupported.
Nothing located states what enforces the sworn three-year restriction after an owner stops applying. The statement is made under penalty of perjury to Florida Housing, but the exemption itself is granted by the property appraiser, and 196.1978(3)(i) reaches back ten years only against a person 'who was not entitled to an exemption'. Whether abandoning the restriction in year two makes the year-one exemption improperly granted is unaddressed.
data/programs/programs.json records 'Fla. Admin. Code 67-70' as this programme's primary regulation. On 2026-08-30 flrules.org answered 'Chapter Not Found' for 67-70, and the full chapter list for department 67 (Florida Housing Finance Corporation) contains no chapter for this exemption. s. 196.1978(3)(m) says only that 'The corporation may adopt rules to implement this section'. On the evidence available Florida Housing administers the certification without a rule chapter, and the programme record's primary_regulations entry is unsupported.
data/programs/programs.json records 'Fla. Admin. Code 67-70' as this programme's primary regulation. On 2026-08-30 flrules.org answered 'Chapter Not Found' for 67-70, and the full chapter list for department 67 (Florida Housing Finance Corporation) contains no chapter for this exemption. s. 196.1978(3)(m) says only that 'The corporation may adopt rules to implement this section'. On the evidence available Florida Housing administers the certification without a rule chapter, and the programme record's primary_regulations entry is unsupported.
Whether a particular taxing authority has adopted or renewed an opt-out ordinance is a county-level and taxing-authority-level fact that no state source enumerates. The statute requires the authority to deliver the ordinance to the property appraiser and the Department of Revenue, but neither is required to publish a list, and none was located. An unrecorded status must be treated as unknown rather than as 'not opted out'.
The guidebook predates HOTMA; Florida Housing has published no HOTMA-era update to its verification chapter. Whether FHFC will adopt the HUD Notice H 2023-10 verification hierarchy (as OHFA and PHFA have) is unpublished.
floridahousing.org has historically blocked automated fetch; reachability confirmed 2026-08-26 may be intermittent.
Unpublished: whether FHFC treats the HOTMA/HUD Notice H 2023-10 six-level hierarchy (tenant-provided documents ranked above agency verification forms) as superseding this older three-method ordering.
The guidebook nowhere defines a maximum age for the underlying source document itself (e.g. how recent a bank statement must be), only the 120-day validity of the verification.
The guidebook anchors the 120 days to 'the date of verification by the owner'; whether that is the source's signature date or the owner's receipt date is not defined (IHDA and OHFA answer this question differently in their manuals; Florida does not answer it).
Central conflict: HOTMA raised the federal imputation threshold to $50,000 (1/1/2024, inflation-adjusted) and permits asset self-certification up to that figure, but Florida's January 2026 TIC-1 and 2009 guidebook still operate at $5,000. Florida Housing has published no HOTMA implementation notice that could be located on floridahousing.org on 2026-08-26. Which figure FHFC monitors against is the single most consequential unpublished question in this state's eligibility layer.
The TIC-1 change log shows deliberate annual passbook-rate maintenance through 1/1/2026, so the retention of $5,000 appears to be a policy position rather than neglect -- but that inference is not a source statement.
HOTMA narrowed the federal disposed-asset rule (1-year look-back, applies only when the amount exceeds the threshold, self-certification permitted); Florida's stated two-year/$1,000 rule is the pre-HOTMA 4350.3 standard and Florida has published no update.
The guidebook does not define 'recurring' or address one-time guarantor payments; treatment of a guarantor who pays rent directly to the owner (rather than to the household) is also unaddressed.
OHFA and PHFA both moved to a two-consecutive-stub minimum under HOTMA guidance; whether Florida Housing intends its four-to-six figure to survive HOTMA is unpublished.
Florida states no equivalent of the IHDA/OHFA rule that the household's original qualification survives so long as one original member remains; how FHFC treats a household whose original members have all departed is unpublished in the guidebook chapters read.
Florida's exception list wording ('married and file a joint tax return') predates the IRS-confirmed reading that eligibility to file jointly suffices; whether FHFC follows the entitled-to-file reading (as IHDA and OHFA state) is unpublished.
The guidebook does not state Florida's position on part-month or non-consecutive-month counting for the five-month test.
Appendix X (March 2013) predates the average-income minimum set-aside; how the log is to be kept for AIT projects, where the applicable limit varies by unit designation, is unpublished.
The 31-day floor appears only in the 2013 Appendix X instructions, not in the guidebook or in federal regulation; its regulatory basis and whether FHFC still enforces it are unpublished.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.1978(4) but is authored under `fl_live_local_mmm`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(3)"]. s. 196.1978(4) has NO programme record in data/programs/programs.json and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_live_local_mmm` is the least-wrong existing record -- same statutory section, same Florida Housing Finance Corporation, same `restriction_origin: tax_exemption`, same property-appraiser monitoring pattern, and the corpus already reaches subsection (4) through the MMM exclusivity rule fl.live_local_mmm.exclusivity_with_florida_housing_agreements_local_ordinance_exemptions_and_transient_lodging. It is still wrong in a way that matters: the two exemptions are mutually exclusive by s. 196.1978(4)(f), so a property cannot in fact be both. The applicability predicate therefore requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_1978_4_lura99`, which no genuine Missing Middle property carries. A programme record for s. 196.1978(4) is the fix.
The statute conditions the start on the date the property 'was placed in service allowing the property to be used as an affordable housing property'. It does not define placed in service, does not import the s. 192.042(1) substantial-completion test for this purpose (that test is imported separately, at (4)(b)1., for the newly-constructed condition), and does not say whether a phased project is placed in service building by building. Nothing read this session resolves it.
DOR GLOSS. DR-504AFH Section E tells the applicant to complete it for a project 'placed into service on or before January 1 of the current year'. The statute says the exemption begins with the assessment 'immediately succeeding' placement in service. On a property placed in service exactly on 1 January the two readings diverge: the form admits it for that year's roll, the statute defers it to the next. Unresolved.
The moderate-income band is inside the 99-year agreement required by (4)(b)3. but outside the exemption granted by (4)(a). Whether the appraiser taxes a moderate-income unit at full value while the agreement still restricts its rent is not addressed anywhere in the section, and it is the ordinary case for a mixed-band project.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.1978(4) but is authored under `fl_live_local_mmm`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(3)"]. s. 196.1978(4) has NO programme record in data/programs/programs.json and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_live_local_mmm` is the least-wrong existing record -- same statutory section, same Florida Housing Finance Corporation, same `restriction_origin: tax_exemption`, same property-appraiser monitoring pattern, and the corpus already reaches subsection (4) through the MMM exclusivity rule fl.live_local_mmm.exclusivity_with_florida_housing_agreements_local_ordinance_exemptions_and_transient_lodging. It is still wrong in a way that matters: the two exemptions are mutually exclusive by s. 196.1978(4)(f), so a property cannot in fact be both. The applicability predicate therefore requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_1978_4_lura99`, which no genuine Missing Middle property carries. A programme record for s. 196.1978(4) is the fix.
The section says nothing about a phased project. Where buildings in one multifamily project are substantially completed in different years, whether the two-year window runs from the first or the last is unaddressed in the statute and on the DR-504AFH.
'the first submission of an application for exemption under this subsection' is not qualified by owner. Whether a denied application, or an application by a predecessor owner, starts the clock is unresolved on the text read this session.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.1978(4) but is authored under `fl_live_local_mmm`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(3)"]. s. 196.1978(4) has NO programme record in data/programs/programs.json and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_live_local_mmm` is the least-wrong existing record -- same statutory section, same Florida Housing Finance Corporation, same `restriction_origin: tax_exemption`, same property-appraiser monitoring pattern, and the corpus already reaches subsection (4) through the MMM exclusivity rule fl.live_local_mmm.exclusivity_with_florida_housing_agreements_local_ordinance_exemptions_and_transient_lodging. It is still wrong in a way that matters: the two exemptions are mutually exclusive by s. 196.1978(4)(f), so a property cannot in fact be both. The applicability predicate therefore requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_1978_4_lura99`, which no genuine Missing Middle property carries. A programme record for s. 196.1978(4) is the fix.
The s. 420.0004 bands are not uniform in their geography. Low-income, moderate-income and very-low-income each take the GREATER of the state figure and the MSA-or-county figure; extremely-low-income is defined against the state median only, subject to a Florida Housing rule that may adjust it up in lower income counties and down in higher income ones. Whether Florida Housing has adopted such a rule for the 2026 roll was not established this session.
'used to provide affordable housing' -- s. 196.1978(4) contains no analogue of the vacant unit relief that s. 196.1978(3)(c) and s. 196.1979(2) both give. On the text as read a unit vacant on 1 January is not being used to provide housing, which could drop a project below 71 on ordinary turnover. Nothing read this session addresses it.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.1978(4) but is authored under `fl_live_local_mmm`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(3)"]. s. 196.1978(4) has NO programme record in data/programs/programs.json and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_live_local_mmm` is the least-wrong existing record -- same statutory section, same Florida Housing Finance Corporation, same `restriction_origin: tax_exemption`, same property-appraiser monitoring pattern, and the corpus already reaches subsection (4) through the MMM exclusivity rule fl.live_local_mmm.exclusivity_with_florida_housing_agreements_local_ordinance_exemptions_and_transient_lodging. It is still wrong in a way that matters: the two exemptions are mutually exclusive by s. 196.1978(4)(f), so a property cannot in fact be both. The applicability predicate therefore requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_1978_4_lura99`, which no genuine Missing Middle property carries. A programme record for s. 196.1978(4) is the fix.
The statute names no execution or recording deadline. It requires the property to BE SUBJECT to a recorded agreement, which on its face is tested at the 1 January assessment, but nothing read this session says whether recording after 1 January and before the 1 March application is sufficient for that year's roll.
s. 196.1978(4)(b)3. does not say who may be a party besides the counterparty -- whether a ground lessee, a limited partner or a successor owner must join, and what happens to the exemption on a transfer that the agreement permits, are all unaddressed.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.1978(4) but is authored under `fl_live_local_mmm`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(3)"]. s. 196.1978(4) has NO programme record in data/programs/programs.json and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_live_local_mmm` is the least-wrong existing record -- same statutory section, same Florida Housing Finance Corporation, same `restriction_origin: tax_exemption`, same property-appraiser monitoring pattern, and the corpus already reaches subsection (4) through the MMM exclusivity rule fl.live_local_mmm.exclusivity_with_florida_housing_agreements_local_ordinance_exemptions_and_transient_lodging. It is still wrong in a way that matters: the two exemptions are mutually exclusive by s. 196.1978(4)(f), so a property cannot in fact be both. The applicability predicate therefore requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_1978_4_lura99`, which no genuine Missing Middle property carries. A programme record for s. 196.1978(4) is the fix.
'the total amount financed by the corporation, or a housing finance authority' is undefined. Whether it means the principal advanced, the principal outstanding, the face of a bond issue, or the value of an allocation is not stated in s. 196.1978(4), is not asked on the DR-504AFH, and no Florida Housing rule implementing subsection (4) was found this session -- s. 196.1978(3)(m) authorises rules for subsection (3) and there is no counterpart in subsection (4).
The penalty formula produces no number for a project financed at zero by the counterparty -- a property under a land use restriction agreement that carries no money at all. On the text, the clause is still required and would compute to zero. Nothing read this session addresses whether such an agreement satisfies (4)(b)3.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.1978(4) but is authored under `fl_live_local_mmm`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(3)"]. s. 196.1978(4) has NO programme record in data/programs/programs.json and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_live_local_mmm` is the least-wrong existing record -- same statutory section, same Florida Housing Finance Corporation, same `restriction_origin: tax_exemption`, same property-appraiser monitoring pattern, and the corpus already reaches subsection (4) through the MMM exclusivity rule fl.live_local_mmm.exclusivity_with_florida_housing_agreements_local_ordinance_exemptions_and_transient_lodging. It is still wrong in a way that matters: the two exemptions are mutually exclusive by s. 196.1978(4)(f), so a property cannot in fact be both. The applicability predicate therefore requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_1978_4_lura99`, which no genuine Missing Middle property carries. A programme record for s. 196.1978(4) is the fix.
s. 196.1978(4) is not given a repeal date of its own, unlike s. 196.1978(3)(n) (repealed 31 December 2059) and s. 196.19782(7) (repealed 31 December 2061). So the release clause in (4)(b)3. contemplates a repeal that no statute currently schedules. Whether a repeal of s. 196.1978(3) or an expiry elsewhere in the section would trigger it is unresolved.
The statute says the agreement 'may be terminated or modified without penalty' on a repeal. It does not say by whom, on what notice, or whether the counterparty may refuse. That is contract mechanics the section leaves to the instrument.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.1978(4) but is authored under `fl_live_local_mmm`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(3)"]. s. 196.1978(4) has NO programme record in data/programs/programs.json and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_live_local_mmm` is the least-wrong existing record -- same statutory section, same Florida Housing Finance Corporation, same `restriction_origin: tax_exemption`, same property-appraiser monitoring pattern, and the corpus already reaches subsection (4) through the MMM exclusivity rule fl.live_local_mmm.exclusivity_with_florida_housing_agreements_local_ordinance_exemptions_and_transient_lodging. It is still wrong in a way that matters: the two exemptions are mutually exclusive by s. 196.1978(4)(f), so a property cannot in fact be both. The applicability predicate therefore requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_1978_4_lura99`, which no genuine Missing Middle property carries. A programme record for s. 196.1978(4) is the fix.
s. 196.1978(4)(c) does not say the application must be on a department form, where s. 196.1978(3)(e), s. 196.19782(4) and s. 196.1979(3)(f) all do. The Department has nevertheless prescribed Section E of the DR-504AFH for it. Whether an appraiser may accept another writing under subsection (4) is unresolved.
Neither the statute nor the form states a records retention period for the evidence behind the application. The nearest figure is the ten-year lookback other subsections give the appraiser, and subsection (4)(e) does not even carry that -- see the lien rule.
DOR GLOSS, not statute. Page 1 of form DR-504AFH presents all eight affordable housing exemptions in one table under the instruction "All applicants must select which type of exemption you are applying for below", with a single "Select one" column. Nothing in ss. 196.1978, 196.1979, 196.19781 or 196.19782 says an owner may claim only one exemption on one return, and the statutory exclusivity that does exist is narrower and specific (s. 196.1978(3)(k), s. 196.1978(4)(f)). Whether the form's single-election design is an administrative convenience or a substantive limit is unresolved on the documents read this session.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.1978(4) but is authored under `fl_live_local_mmm`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(3)"]. s. 196.1978(4) has NO programme record in data/programs/programs.json and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_live_local_mmm` is the least-wrong existing record -- same statutory section, same Florida Housing Finance Corporation, same `restriction_origin: tax_exemption`, same property-appraiser monitoring pattern, and the corpus already reaches subsection (4) through the MMM exclusivity rule fl.live_local_mmm.exclusivity_with_florida_housing_agreements_local_ordinance_exemptions_and_transient_lodging. It is still wrong in a way that matters: the two exemptions are mutually exclusive by s. 196.1978(4)(f), so a property cannot in fact be both. The applicability predicate therefore requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_1978_4_lura99`, which no genuine Missing Middle property carries. A programme record for s. 196.1978(4) is the fix.
'fairly attributable' is not defined and the statute prescribes no allocation basis -- unit count, square footage and value would give three different answers on the same project. The same undefined phrase appears at s. 196.1978(3)(d)2., s. 196.19781(2), s. 196.19782(3) and s. 196.1979(7), so whatever practice develops will be shared across all five exemptions. No Department of Revenue guidance on the point was found this session.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.1978(4) but is authored under `fl_live_local_mmm`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(3)"]. s. 196.1978(4) has NO programme record in data/programs/programs.json and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_live_local_mmm` is the least-wrong existing record -- same statutory section, same Florida Housing Finance Corporation, same `restriction_origin: tax_exemption`, same property-appraiser monitoring pattern, and the corpus already reaches subsection (4) through the MMM exclusivity rule fl.live_local_mmm.exclusivity_with_florida_housing_agreements_local_ordinance_exemptions_and_transient_lodging. It is still wrong in a way that matters: the two exemptions are mutually exclusive by s. 196.1978(4)(f), so a property cannot in fact be both. The applicability predicate therefore requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_1978_4_lura99`, which no genuine Missing Middle property carries. A programme record for s. 196.1978(4) is the fix.
THE MISSING TEN-YEAR LIMIT IS A READING, NOT A HOLDING. s. 196.1978(4)(e) says 'for any year' where its four siblings say 'for any year during the immediately previous 10 years'. That difference is on the face of the 2026 codified text from both hosts and in the ch. 2024-158 printing of the new subsection. Whether it is a drafting omission that a court or the Department would read as carrying the ten-year limit, or a deliberate difference, is not resolved by anything read this session. Nothing should be represented to a taxpayer as settled either way. Because the subsection first applies to the 2026 roll, no lookback longer than one year can yet have arisen in practice.
The reach is 'any property owned by that person', not merely the property that got the exemption -- so the lien follows the taxpayer across parcels and, by the second sentence, across the state. Whether the notice of intent must issue in each county where such a property sits is unaddressed.
No statute read this session gives the taxpayer a cure period, a right to correct, or an administrative appeal against the notice of intent. The value adjustment board route in s. 194.011 was not examined for this purpose.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.1978(4) but is authored under `fl_live_local_mmm`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(3)"]. s. 196.1978(4) has NO programme record in data/programs/programs.json and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_live_local_mmm` is the least-wrong existing record -- same statutory section, same Florida Housing Finance Corporation, same `restriction_origin: tax_exemption`, same property-appraiser monitoring pattern, and the corpus already reaches subsection (4) through the MMM exclusivity rule fl.live_local_mmm.exclusivity_with_florida_housing_agreements_local_ordinance_exemptions_and_transient_lodging. It is still wrong in a way that matters: the two exemptions are mutually exclusive by s. 196.1978(4)(f), so a property cannot in fact be both. The applicability predicate therefore requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_1978_4_lura99`, which no genuine Missing Middle property carries. A programme record for s. 196.1978(4) is the fix.
SIMULTANEOUS EXEMPTIONS, ESTABLISHED FROM THE TEXT 2026-09-02. The only exclusivity clauses in the group are s. 196.1978(3)(k) (bars a property receiving s. 196.1979, and bars transient public lodging units), s. 196.1978(3)(j) (bars units under a chapter 420 agreement with the corporation) and s. 196.1978(4)(f) (bars a property receiving s. 196.1978(3) or s. 196.1979). ss. 196.19781 and 196.19782 contain NO exclusivity provision of any kind, and neither is named in any other section's exclusivity provision. Whether the practical overlap is empty anyway -- a project on state-owned land could also carry a 99-year Florida Housing agreement -- is a factual question the statutes do not answer.
The one-directionality means a property that took subsection (4) first and then qualifies for s. 196.1978(3) is not barred by any sentence read this session from switching. Whether the two-year new-construction window in (4)(b)1. and the five-year window in (3)(a)3. make that sequence possible in practice was not worked through.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.19781 but is authored under `fl_nonprofit_exemption`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(1)"]. s. 196.19781 has NO programme record and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_nonprofit_exemption` is the closest existing record because both exemptions work by DEEMING a charitable purpose rather than by proving one, both are administered by the county property appraiser alone with no housing-agency certification step, and both are keyed to who holds the land rather than to a funding award. It is wrong in one respect worth stating: s. 196.19781 imposes no nonprofit ownership requirement at all, so the programme's central eligibility hinge does not apply to it. The applicability predicate requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_19781_state_land` so that the rule cannot fire for a s. 196.1978(1) nonprofit property.
'owned by this state' is not defined in the section and s. 196.19781 imports no definition. Whether land held by a state university, a water management district, a state agency's trust or the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund is 'this state' for this purpose is unaddressed in the statute and on the DR-504AFH, which asks only 'Does the state of Florida own the land'.
The section grants the exemption to 'portions of property' but conditions it on land ownership by the state. It does not say what happens where a project straddles state-owned and privately owned land, which is the ordinary shape of a ground-lease deal assembled from more than one parcel.
Unlike s. 196.1978(3) and s. 196.1979 this exemption has no rent ceiling whatsoever. Nothing in the section, and nothing on DR-504AFH Section G, limits what an owner may charge a qualifying household; the only control is the income band and the recorded instrument's own terms.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.19781 but is authored under `fl_nonprofit_exemption`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(1)"]. s. 196.19781 has NO programme record and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_nonprofit_exemption` is the closest existing record because both exemptions work by DEEMING a charitable purpose rather than by proving one, both are administered by the county property appraiser alone with no housing-agency certification step, and both are keyed to who holds the land rather than to a funding award. It is wrong in one respect worth stating: s. 196.19781 imposes no nonprofit ownership requirement at all, so the programme's central eligibility hinge does not apply to it. The applicability predicate requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_19781_state_land` so that the rule cannot fire for a s. 196.1978(1) nonprofit property.
The section names no counterparty for the lease or restrictive use agreement, so on the text a covenant recorded unilaterally by the owner appears to satisfy (1)(b) as long as it requires 60 years of affordable use. Whether a property appraiser would accept that, and whether the state as landowner must be a party, is unaddressed in the statute and on the form.
'used to provide affordable housing' in (1)(b) is unqualified by income band, while (1) and (3) both tie the exemption to the four s. 420.0004 bands. Whether an instrument reciting a different affordability standard satisfies (1)(b) is not resolved by the text.
No date is given by which the instrument must be recorded, and no rule states whether recording between 1 January and the 1 March application date qualifies the property for that year's roll.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.19781 but is authored under `fl_nonprofit_exemption`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(1)"]. s. 196.19781 has NO programme record and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_nonprofit_exemption` is the closest existing record because both exemptions work by DEEMING a charitable purpose rather than by proving one, both are administered by the county property appraiser alone with no housing-agency certification step, and both are keyed to who holds the land rather than to a funding award. It is wrong in one respect worth stating: s. 196.19781 imposes no nonprofit ownership requirement at all, so the programme's central eligibility hinge does not apply to it. The applicability predicate requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_19781_state_land` so that the rule cannot fire for a s. 196.1978(1) nonprofit property.
Because the annual application is a CONDITION at (1)(c) as well as a filing under s. 196.011, it is unresolved whether the s. 196.011(8) and (9) relief valves can rescue a late filer here at all: relief from the waiver does not obviously supply the missing element of the eligibility test. Nothing read this session addresses the interaction.
'owner or operator' is not defined and the two are not the same person on a ground-leased state parcel. s. 196.19781(5) then serves its lien notice on 'the operator' and reaches 'any property owned by that operator', so the section uses the word to mean a property holder. Whether a managing agent could file, and whose property the lien would then reach, is unaddressed.
DOR GLOSS, not statute. Page 1 of form DR-504AFH presents all eight affordable housing exemptions in one table under the instruction "All applicants must select which type of exemption you are applying for below", with a single "Select one" column. Nothing in ss. 196.1978, 196.1979, 196.19781 or 196.19782 says an owner may claim only one exemption on one return, and the statutory exclusivity that does exist is narrower and specific (s. 196.1978(3)(k), s. 196.1978(4)(f)). Whether the form's single-election design is an administrative convenience or a substantive limit is unresolved on the documents read this session.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.19781 but is authored under `fl_nonprofit_exemption`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(1)"]. s. 196.19781 has NO programme record and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_nonprofit_exemption` is the closest existing record because both exemptions work by DEEMING a charitable purpose rather than by proving one, both are administered by the county property appraiser alone with no housing-agency certification step, and both are keyed to who holds the land rather than to a funding award. It is wrong in one respect worth stating: s. 196.19781 imposes no nonprofit ownership requirement at all, so the programme's central eligibility hinge does not apply to it. The applicability predicate requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_19781_state_land` so that the rule cannot fire for a s. 196.1978(1) nonprofit property.
s. 196.19781(2) is drafted as a duty to APPLY the exemption to the common area share, while its four counterparts are drafted as a duty to INCLUDE the share when determining value. Whether the difference in wording produces a different number, particularly where the land is state-owned and separately non-taxable, is not resolved by anything read this session.
'fairly attributable' is undefined here as in every sibling section, and no Department of Revenue guidance allocating it was found this session.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.19781 but is authored under `fl_nonprofit_exemption`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(1)"]. s. 196.19781 has NO programme record and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_nonprofit_exemption` is the closest existing record because both exemptions work by DEEMING a charitable purpose rather than by proving one, both are administered by the county property appraiser alone with no housing-agency certification step, and both are keyed to who holds the land rather than to a funding award. It is wrong in one respect worth stating: s. 196.19781 imposes no nonprofit ownership requirement at all, so the programme's central eligibility hinge does not apply to it. The applicability predicate requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_19781_state_land` so that the rule cannot fire for a s. 196.1978(1) nonprofit property.
THE 70-UNIT DISCONTINUITY IS UNRESOLVED AND IS RECORDED, NOT DECIDED. s. 196.19781(1) reads 'more than 70 units'; s. 196.19781(3) reads 'at least 70 units'. Both readings were confirmed against the flsenate.gov and leg.state.fl.us renderings and against the ch. 2025-208 printing on 2026-09-02, so it is not an extraction artefact. A property with exactly 70 qualifying units sits in the gap. Nothing read this session resolves it, and the DR-504AFH restates only the 'more than 70' form.
The section says the property 'is no longer eligible', not that the exemption is forfeited, revoked or recaptured. Whether losing eligibility in one year permanently ends the exemption or merely denies it for that roll -- the property could satisfy every condition again the following 1 January -- is not stated. s. 196.1978(4)(b)3. uses the same 'no longer eligible' formula with the same ambiguity.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.19781 but is authored under `fl_nonprofit_exemption`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(1)"]. s. 196.19781 has NO programme record and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_nonprofit_exemption` is the closest existing record because both exemptions work by DEEMING a charitable purpose rather than by proving one, both are administered by the county property appraiser alone with no housing-agency certification step, and both are keyed to who holds the land rather than to a funding award. It is wrong in one respect worth stating: s. 196.19781 imposes no nonprofit ownership requirement at all, so the programme's central eligibility hinge does not apply to it. The applicability predicate requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_19781_state_land` so that the rule cannot fire for a s. 196.1978(1) nonprofit property.
The clerical-mistake carve-out in this section protects 'the property', where the same sentence in ss. 196.1978(3)(i), 196.1978(4)(e), 196.19782(6) and 196.1979(8) protects 'the property owner'. Read literally the exemption from penalty attaches to the parcel rather than to the person here. Nothing read this session says whether that is substantive.
Serving 'the operator' where the taxes were exempted on a property the state owns and a third party operates leaves open who bears the tax where the operator has changed since the improper year. The section does not address succession.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.19781 but is authored under `fl_nonprofit_exemption`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(1)"]. s. 196.19781 has NO programme record and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_nonprofit_exemption` is the closest existing record because both exemptions work by DEEMING a charitable purpose rather than by proving one, both are administered by the county property appraiser alone with no housing-agency certification step, and both are keyed to who holds the land rather than to a funding award. It is wrong in one respect worth stating: s. 196.19781 imposes no nonprofit ownership requirement at all, so the programme's central eligibility hinge does not apply to it. The applicability predicate requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_19781_state_land` so that the rule cannot fire for a s. 196.1978(1) nonprofit property.
DOR GLOSS, ESTABLISHED 2026-09-02. The exclusivity on DR-504AFH page 8 is not in s. 196.19781 (read in full, 2,374 characters of operative text, from flsenate.gov and leg.state.fl.us, both editions 2025 and 2026) and not in s. 196.1978 (read in full, 21,748 characters, same two hosts). WHAT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED: whether some other instrument supplies it. Rule 12D-16.002, F.A.C., which prescribes the form, was not fetched this session, and no Department of Revenue Property Tax Oversight bulletin or technical assistance advisement on ss. 196.19781 or 196.19782 was searched for. The gloss may rest on one of those, or on the general principle that one parcel cannot be exempted twice over. It is recorded here as a gloss because it could not be traced to the statute, not because it has been shown to be wrong.
The form's bar is asymmetric in a way the statutes are not: it stops a s. 196.1978 property taking s. 196.19781, and says nothing about a s. 196.19781 property taking s. 196.1978, nor anything at all about s. 196.19782, which sits on the next page under no such sentence.
DOR GLOSS, not statute. Page 1 of form DR-504AFH presents all eight affordable housing exemptions in one table under the instruction "All applicants must select which type of exemption you are applying for below", with a single "Select one" column. Nothing in ss. 196.1978, 196.1979, 196.19781 or 196.19782 says an owner may claim only one exemption on one return, and the statutory exclusivity that does exist is narrower and specific (s. 196.1978(3)(k), s. 196.1978(4)(f)). Whether the form's single-election design is an administrative convenience or a substantive limit is unresolved on the documents read this session.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.19782 but is authored under `fl_nonprofit_exemption`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(1)"]. s. 196.19782 has NO programme record and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_nonprofit_exemption` is the closest existing record because both exemptions work by DEEMING a charitable purpose rather than by proving one, both are administered by the county property appraiser alone with no housing-agency certification step, and both are keyed to who holds the land rather than to a funding award. It is wrong in one respect worth stating: s. 196.19782 imposes no nonprofit ownership requirement at all, so the programme's central eligibility hinge does not apply to it. The applicability predicate requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_19782_governmental_land` so that the rule cannot fire for a s. 196.1978(1) nonprofit property.
'after July 1, 2025' excludes 1 July 2025 itself. That reading is the ordinary one and the statute offers nothing to displace it, but the date is also ch. 2025-208's own effective date, so a project completed exactly that day sits on the boundary. Nothing read this session addresses it.
The DR-504AFH Section H asks only 'Is the property within a newly constructed multifamily project?' and never asks for the substantial completion date, so the two limbs of the statutory definition are not tested on the form. An applicant answering the form accurately can still fail the statute.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.19782 but is authored under `fl_nonprofit_exemption`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(1)"]. s. 196.19782 has NO programme record and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_nonprofit_exemption` is the closest existing record because both exemptions work by DEEMING a charitable purpose rather than by proving one, both are administered by the county property appraiser alone with no housing-agency certification step, and both are keyed to who holds the land rather than to a funding award. It is wrong in one respect worth stating: s. 196.19782 imposes no nonprofit ownership requirement at all, so the programme's central eligibility hinge does not apply to it. The applicability predicate requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_19782_governmental_land` so that the rule cannot fire for a s. 196.1978(1) nonprofit property.
'dedicated to housing' is not defined. Whether dedication is established by the recorded 30-year lease, by a separate restriction, by the project's own leasing policy, or by actual occupancy on 1 January is unaddressed in the section and on the DR-504AFH, which asks how many units 'are used to provide' affordable housing -- the other formula.
The section never says how income is to be verified or by whom, and requires no certification from any agency. On the text the property appraiser is the only verifier, under the general power at (4) to request additional information.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.19782 but is authored under `fl_nonprofit_exemption`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(1)"]. s. 196.19782 has NO programme record and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_nonprofit_exemption` is the closest existing record because both exemptions work by DEEMING a charitable purpose rather than by proving one, both are administered by the county property appraiser alone with no housing-agency certification step, and both are keyed to who holds the land rather than to a funding award. It is wrong in one respect worth stating: s. 196.19782 imposes no nonprofit ownership requirement at all, so the programme's central eligibility hinge does not apply to it. The applicability predicate requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_19782_governmental_land` so that the rule cannot fire for a s. 196.1978(1) nonprofit property.
'predominantly used for' is undefined in s. 196.19782. s. 196.1978(1)(b)3. defines predominant use for its own paragraph as more than 50 percent of the square footage of improvements, but by its terms that definition is 'For purposes of this paragraph' and does not reach s. 196.19782. Whether a property appraiser will borrow it is unresolved.
The lease must be 'from the governmental entity', so a sublease chain in which the operator's own lease is from an intermediate party may not satisfy (2)(c) on the text. Nothing read this session addresses layered leasehold structures.
Including the Federal Government in the definition means federal land can ground a Florida ad valorem exemption for the improvements on it. Whether federal land is already outside the tax base for other reasons, making the paragraph relevant only to the leasehold interest, was not examined this session.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.19782 but is authored under `fl_nonprofit_exemption`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(1)"]. s. 196.19782 has NO programme record and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_nonprofit_exemption` is the closest existing record because both exemptions work by DEEMING a charitable purpose rather than by proving one, both are administered by the county property appraiser alone with no housing-agency certification step, and both are keyed to who holds the land rather than to a funding award. It is wrong in one respect worth stating: s. 196.19782 imposes no nonprofit ownership requirement at all, so the programme's central eligibility hinge does not apply to it. The applicability predicate requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_19782_governmental_land` so that the rule cannot fire for a s. 196.1978(1) nonprofit property.
The statute says 'a lessee must submit'. It does not say the exemption is unavailable where the applicant is the fee owner of the improvements, nor what happens where the leasehold is held by an entity different from the operator. The DR-504AFH does not ask which capacity the applicant signs in.
No records retention period is stated in the section, on the form, or in s. 196.011. The ten-year lookback at (6) is the only figure available and it is a lookback, not a records rule.
DOR GLOSS, not statute. Page 1 of form DR-504AFH presents all eight affordable housing exemptions in one table under the instruction "All applicants must select which type of exemption you are applying for below", with a single "Select one" column. Nothing in ss. 196.1978, 196.1979, 196.19781 or 196.19782 says an owner may claim only one exemption on one return, and the statutory exclusivity that does exist is narrower and specific (s. 196.1978(3)(k), s. 196.1978(4)(f)). Whether the form's single-election design is an administrative convenience or a substantive limit is unresolved on the documents read this session.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.19782 but is authored under `fl_nonprofit_exemption`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(1)"]. s. 196.19782 has NO programme record and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_nonprofit_exemption` is the closest existing record because both exemptions work by DEEMING a charitable purpose rather than by proving one, both are administered by the county property appraiser alone with no housing-agency certification step, and both are keyed to who holds the land rather than to a funding award. It is wrong in one respect worth stating: s. 196.19782 imposes no nonprofit ownership requirement at all, so the programme's central eligibility hinge does not apply to it. The applicability predicate requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_19782_governmental_land` so that the rule cannot fire for a s. 196.1978(1) nonprofit property.
The section exempts moderate-income units at 100 percent of assessed value while s. 196.1978(3)(d)1.a. exempts a comparable band (above 80 and up to 120 percent AMI) at 75 percent. Nothing read this session explains the difference; it is recorded because a resolver comparing the two exemptions on the same project will meet it.
'fairly attributable' is undefined, as in every sibling section, and no Department of Revenue allocation guidance was found this session.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.19782 but is authored under `fl_nonprofit_exemption`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(1)"]. s. 196.19782 has NO programme record and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_nonprofit_exemption` is the closest existing record because both exemptions work by DEEMING a charitable purpose rather than by proving one, both are administered by the county property appraiser alone with no housing-agency certification step, and both are keyed to who holds the land rather than to a funding award. It is wrong in one respect worth stating: s. 196.19782 imposes no nonprofit ownership requirement at all, so the programme's central eligibility hinge does not apply to it. The applicability predicate requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_19782_governmental_land` so that the rule cannot fire for a s. 196.1978(1) nonprofit property.
THE 70-UNIT DISCONTINUITY, same shape as in s. 196.19781. s. 196.19782(2)(b) grants on 'more than 70 units dedicated to housing'; s. 196.19782(5) disqualifies property not providing 'at least 70 units of affordable housing'. Different comparator AND different predicate -- dedicated versus provided. A project with exactly 70 dedicated units, or with 71 dedicated but 69 occupied on 1 January, sits between the two. Confirmed on both hosts 2026-09-02; not an extraction artefact, and not resolved by anything read this session.
The section does not say whether losing eligibility under (5) ends the exemption permanently or only for that roll. The 'newly constructed' definition would in practice close the door on a fresh first application more than five years after substantial completion, but the section does not connect the two provisions.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD MISMATCH. This rule states s. 196.19782 but is authored under `fl_nonprofit_exemption`, whose statutory_authority is ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(1)"]. s. 196.19782 has NO programme record and an authoring pass may not create one. `fl_nonprofit_exemption` is the closest existing record because both exemptions work by DEEMING a charitable purpose rather than by proving one, both are administered by the county property appraiser alone with no housing-agency certification step, and both are keyed to who holds the land rather than to a funding award. It is wrong in one respect worth stating: s. 196.19782 imposes no nonprofit ownership requirement at all, so the programme's central eligibility hinge does not apply to it. The applicability predicate requires `property.exemption_pathway == fl_196_19782_governmental_land` so that the rule cannot fire for a s. 196.1978(1) nonprofit property.
The section says it is 'repealed December 31, 2061' without saying which tax roll is the last it applies to. Because the assessment date is 1 January, a repeal on 31 December 2061 leaves the 2061 roll intact and ends the exemption from the 2062 roll on the ordinary reading, but the section does not say so.
s. 196.19781 was created by the same act, on the same day, with the same first-application roll, and carries no repeal date. Whether that asymmetry is deliberate is not addressed in ch. 2025-208 or in either section.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD IS WRONG, and this rule is authored under it anyway because programs.json is off limits to an authoring pass. `fl_live_local_local_option` carries statutory_authority ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2)"]. That is NOT a local option: s. 196.1978(2) is a state exemption for a property under a recorded Florida Housing agreement whose availability is deferred until the sixteenth year. The statutory_authority for this programme SHOULD READ "Fla. Stat. 196.1979" -- the county and municipal affordable housing property exemption, which exists only where a board of county commissioners or a municipal governing body adopts an ordinance, reaches multifamily projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable, and expires before the fourth 1 January after adoption. The two exemptions have different grantors, different unit thresholds, different income bands and different terms, so a resolver that reads the programme record instead of the rules will be wrong about all four. Until the record is corrected, the rules in this file that state s. 196.1979 are distinguished from the s. 196.1978(2) rules in data/rules/state/fl_live_local_depth.json and data/rules/state/fl.json by the `property.exemption_pathway` term in their applicability predicate.
DATING, and it is not the date the section names. s. 196.1979(9) reads "This section first applies to the 2024 tax roll", but the text served today is not the text that first applied to that roll. Established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them word by word: the 2023 edition (sha256 efb55ae9...) has 8,861 characters of operative text; the 2024 edition (sha256 482b0304...) has 9,931 and is word-for-word identical to the 2025 (718530968...) and 2026 (3be83408...) editions. The 2024 amendments came from s. 14, ch. 2024-158, whose s. 64 makes it effective 1 July 2024, and s. 5, ch. 2024-188, whose s. 12 makes it effective on becoming law, 16 May 2024. Neither act gives its s. 196.1979 amendments a first-application roll of their own. So provisions present in the 2023 edition are dated here to 2024-01-01, the roll the section itself names, and provisions ADDED by the 2024 acts are dated to 2025-01-01, the first January 1 assessment date after both acts were in force. OPEN: neither act says so expressly, and a property appraiser applying the amended text to the 1 January 2024 assessment would not be contradicting any sentence read this session. A point-in-time question about the 2024 roll must be answered from the 2023 edition (src.fl.stat_196_1979_2023ed), which is held for exactly that purpose.
The corpus holds no inventory of which Florida counties and municipalities have adopted a s. 196.1979 ordinance, for which tax years, at which exemption percentage, or for which of the two income bands. The statute requires each ordinance to be delivered to the Department of Revenue and the property appraiser within 10 days of adoption, so the Department holds the list, but no such list was located this session. Without it the programme cannot be resolved for any property from state-level data alone.
The statute does not say what happens to a property inside a municipality where the county has adopted an ordinance and the city has not, beyond confining each exemption to its own levy. Whether the local entity designated by the county certifies a property inside city limits is unaddressed.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD IS WRONG, and this rule is authored under it anyway because programs.json is off limits to an authoring pass. `fl_live_local_local_option` carries statutory_authority ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2)"]. That is NOT a local option: s. 196.1978(2) is a state exemption for a property under a recorded Florida Housing agreement whose availability is deferred until the sixteenth year. The statutory_authority for this programme SHOULD READ "Fla. Stat. 196.1979" -- the county and municipal affordable housing property exemption, which exists only where a board of county commissioners or a municipal governing body adopts an ordinance, reaches multifamily projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable, and expires before the fourth 1 January after adoption. The two exemptions have different grantors, different unit thresholds, different income bands and different terms, so a resolver that reads the programme record instead of the rules will be wrong about all four. Until the record is corrected, the rules in this file that state s. 196.1979 are distinguished from the s. 196.1978(2) rules in data/rules/state/fl_live_local_depth.json and data/rules/state/fl.json by the `property.exemption_pathway` term in their applicability predicate.
DATING, and it is not the date the section names. s. 196.1979(9) reads "This section first applies to the 2024 tax roll", but the text served today is not the text that first applied to that roll. Established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them word by word: the 2023 edition (sha256 efb55ae9...) has 8,861 characters of operative text; the 2024 edition (sha256 482b0304...) has 9,931 and is word-for-word identical to the 2025 (718530968...) and 2026 (3be83408...) editions. The 2024 amendments came from s. 14, ch. 2024-158, whose s. 64 makes it effective 1 July 2024, and s. 5, ch. 2024-188, whose s. 12 makes it effective on becoming law, 16 May 2024. Neither act gives its s. 196.1979 amendments a first-application roll of their own. So provisions present in the 2023 edition are dated here to 2024-01-01, the roll the section itself names, and provisions ADDED by the 2024 acts are dated to 2025-01-01, the first January 1 assessment date after both acts were in force. OPEN: neither act says so expressly, and a property appraiser applying the amended text to the 1 January 2024 assessment would not be contradicting any sentence read this session. A point-in-time question about the 2024 roll must be answered from the 2023 edition (src.fl.stat_196_1979_2023ed), which is held for exactly that purpose.
The section supplies no income determination methodology at all: no verification tier, no documents, no definition of annual household income, and no annual recertification duty. The DR-504AFH asks only how many units were occupied by tenants in each band on 1 January. How a property appraiser is to be satisfied of a household's income is unaddressed in everything read this session.
The bands leave a gap and an overlap that the statute does not resolve. A household at exactly 30 percent falls in band (a)1.b. ('does not exceed 30 percent') and outside band (a)1.a. ('greater than 30 percent'). A property under an ordinance electing only the 30-to-60 band therefore cannot count its very poorest households.
No source of the MSA or county median is named -- not HUD, not Florida Housing, not the Department. The rent ceiling in the same subsection names a Florida Housing chart derived from HUD's MTSP limits, but the income test names no publisher.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD IS WRONG, and this rule is authored under it anyway because programs.json is off limits to an authoring pass. `fl_live_local_local_option` carries statutory_authority ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2)"]. That is NOT a local option: s. 196.1978(2) is a state exemption for a property under a recorded Florida Housing agreement whose availability is deferred until the sixteenth year. The statutory_authority for this programme SHOULD READ "Fla. Stat. 196.1979" -- the county and municipal affordable housing property exemption, which exists only where a board of county commissioners or a municipal governing body adopts an ordinance, reaches multifamily projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable, and expires before the fourth 1 January after adoption. The two exemptions have different grantors, different unit thresholds, different income bands and different terms, so a resolver that reads the programme record instead of the rules will be wrong about all four. Until the record is corrected, the rules in this file that state s. 196.1979 are distinguished from the s. 196.1978(2) rules in data/rules/state/fl_live_local_depth.json and data/rules/state/fl.json by the `property.exemption_pathway` term in their applicability predicate.
DATING, and it is not the date the section names. s. 196.1979(9) reads "This section first applies to the 2024 tax roll", but the text served today is not the text that first applied to that roll. Established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them word by word: the 2023 edition (sha256 efb55ae9...) has 8,861 characters of operative text; the 2024 edition (sha256 482b0304...) has 9,931 and is word-for-word identical to the 2025 (718530968...) and 2026 (3be83408...) editions. The 2024 amendments came from s. 14, ch. 2024-158, whose s. 64 makes it effective 1 July 2024, and s. 5, ch. 2024-188, whose s. 12 makes it effective on becoming law, 16 May 2024. Neither act gives its s. 196.1979 amendments a first-application roll of their own. So provisions present in the 2023 edition are dated here to 2024-01-01, the roll the section itself names, and provisions ADDED by the 2024 acts are dated to 2025-01-01, the first January 1 assessment date after both acts were in force. OPEN: neither act says so expressly, and a property appraiser applying the amended text to the 1 January 2024 assessment would not be contradicting any sentence read this session. A point-in-time question about the 2024 roll must be answered from the 2023 edition (src.fl.stat_196_1979_2023ed), which is held for exactly that purpose.
The 20 percent is measured against 'a multifamily project', and the section does not define multifamily project -- where s. 196.1978(3)(a)2. defines it by common ownership or control, a shared site plan or development order, and a 200-foot separation rule. Whether that definition travels to s. 196.1979 is unresolved, and it determines the denominator.
Vacant units qualifying under subsection (2) are counted toward the 20 percent by the DR-504AFH, which lists them in the same tally, but the statute counts units 'used to provide affordable housing' and reaches vacant units through a separate subsection. Whether they belong in the denominator, the numerator, both or neither is not stated.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD IS WRONG, and this rule is authored under it anyway because programs.json is off limits to an authoring pass. `fl_live_local_local_option` carries statutory_authority ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2)"]. That is NOT a local option: s. 196.1978(2) is a state exemption for a property under a recorded Florida Housing agreement whose availability is deferred until the sixteenth year. The statutory_authority for this programme SHOULD READ "Fla. Stat. 196.1979" -- the county and municipal affordable housing property exemption, which exists only where a board of county commissioners or a municipal governing body adopts an ordinance, reaches multifamily projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable, and expires before the fourth 1 January after adoption. The two exemptions have different grantors, different unit thresholds, different income bands and different terms, so a resolver that reads the programme record instead of the rules will be wrong about all four. Until the record is corrected, the rules in this file that state s. 196.1979 are distinguished from the s. 196.1978(2) rules in data/rules/state/fl_live_local_depth.json and data/rules/state/fl.json by the `property.exemption_pathway` term in their applicability predicate.
DATING, and it is not the date the section names. s. 196.1979(9) reads "This section first applies to the 2024 tax roll", but the text served today is not the text that first applied to that roll. Established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them word by word: the 2023 edition (sha256 efb55ae9...) has 8,861 characters of operative text; the 2024 edition (sha256 482b0304...) has 9,931 and is word-for-word identical to the 2025 (718530968...) and 2026 (3be83408...) editions. The 2024 amendments came from s. 14, ch. 2024-158, whose s. 64 makes it effective 1 July 2024, and s. 5, ch. 2024-188, whose s. 12 makes it effective on becoming law, 16 May 2024. Neither act gives its s. 196.1979 amendments a first-application roll of their own. So provisions present in the 2023 edition are dated here to 2024-01-01, the roll the section itself names, and provisions ADDED by the 2024 acts are dated to 2025-01-01, the first January 1 assessment date after both acts were in force. OPEN: neither act says so expressly, and a property appraiser applying the amended text to the 1 January 2024 assessment would not be contradicting any sentence read this session. A point-in-time question about the 2024 roll must be answered from the 2023 edition (src.fl.stat_196_1979_2023ed), which is held for exactly that purpose.
DOR GLOSS. DR-504AFH Section F item 6 asks whether rent exceeded 'the rent limit chart published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development'. The statute names the chart POSTED BY THE CORPORATION -- Florida Housing -- and merely says it is DERIVED FROM HUD's MTSP limits. An applicant or appraiser working from the form could compare rent against a HUD table rather than against Florida Housing's chart, which are different documents with different numbers. The same misattribution appears in the form's s. 196.1978(3) section and is already recorded on fl.live_local_mmm.rent_cap_series_is_the_fhfc_chart_derived_from_hud_mtsp.
The statute gives no as-of date for 'the most recent' chart. Whether the controlling chart is the one in force on 1 January, on the certification application date, on the exemption application date, or on the date each lease was signed is unaddressed, and the chart is republished annually.
The rent test speaks of the amount for which a unit 'must be rented' and says nothing about utilities, whether the figure is gross or net of a utility allowance, or how a unit vacant under subsection (2) is tested. The vacancy subsection requires evidence of the PUBLISHED rent amount, which implies the published figure is the tested one for a vacant unit, but the section does not say so.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD IS WRONG, and this rule is authored under it anyway because programs.json is off limits to an authoring pass. `fl_live_local_local_option` carries statutory_authority ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2)"]. That is NOT a local option: s. 196.1978(2) is a state exemption for a property under a recorded Florida Housing agreement whose availability is deferred until the sixteenth year. The statutory_authority for this programme SHOULD READ "Fla. Stat. 196.1979" -- the county and municipal affordable housing property exemption, which exists only where a board of county commissioners or a municipal governing body adopts an ordinance, reaches multifamily projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable, and expires before the fourth 1 January after adoption. The two exemptions have different grantors, different unit thresholds, different income bands and different terms, so a resolver that reads the programme record instead of the rules will be wrong about all four. Until the record is corrected, the rules in this file that state s. 196.1979 are distinguished from the s. 196.1978(2) rules in data/rules/state/fl_live_local_depth.json and data/rules/state/fl.json by the `property.exemption_pathway` term in their applicability predicate.
DATING, and it is not the date the section names. s. 196.1979(9) reads "This section first applies to the 2024 tax roll", but the text served today is not the text that first applied to that roll. Established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them word by word: the 2023 edition (sha256 efb55ae9...) has 8,861 characters of operative text; the 2024 edition (sha256 482b0304...) has 9,931 and is word-for-word identical to the 2025 (718530968...) and 2026 (3be83408...) editions. The 2024 amendments came from s. 14, ch. 2024-158, whose s. 64 makes it effective 1 July 2024, and s. 5, ch. 2024-188, whose s. 12 makes it effective on becoming law, 16 May 2024. Neither act gives its s. 196.1979 amendments a first-application roll of their own. So provisions present in the 2023 edition are dated here to 2024-01-01, the roll the section itself names, and provisions ADDED by the 2024 acts are dated to 2025-01-01, the first January 1 assessment date after both acts were in force. OPEN: neither act says so expressly, and a property appraiser applying the amended text to the 1 January 2024 assessment would not be contradicting any sentence read this session. A point-in-time question about the 2024 roll must be answered from the 2023 edition (src.fl.stat_196_1979_2023ed), which is held for exactly that purpose.
'cited for code violations' is not defined and no citing authority is named. Whether a county code enforcement citation, a municipal one, a fire marshal's notice or a state agency's finding counts, and whether a citation later dismissed still counts as a citation, are all unaddressed.
The bars are measured against 'the submission of a tax exemption application', but the section has TWO applications -- the certification application to the local entity under (3)(c) and the exemption application to the property appraiser under (3)(f). Which one starts the 24-month window is not stated, and the two can fall in different months.
Nothing says the bars are tested again after the exemption is granted, so a property cited three times in the year after certification appears to keep the exemption for that roll and to fail at the next application.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD IS WRONG, and this rule is authored under it anyway because programs.json is off limits to an authoring pass. `fl_live_local_local_option` carries statutory_authority ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2)"]. That is NOT a local option: s. 196.1978(2) is a state exemption for a property under a recorded Florida Housing agreement whose availability is deferred until the sixteenth year. The statutory_authority for this programme SHOULD READ "Fla. Stat. 196.1979" -- the county and municipal affordable housing property exemption, which exists only where a board of county commissioners or a municipal governing body adopts an ordinance, reaches multifamily projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable, and expires before the fourth 1 January after adoption. The two exemptions have different grantors, different unit thresholds, different income bands and different terms, so a resolver that reads the programme record instead of the rules will be wrong about all four. Until the record is corrected, the rules in this file that state s. 196.1979 are distinguished from the s. 196.1978(2) rules in data/rules/state/fl_live_local_depth.json and data/rules/state/fl.json by the `property.exemption_pathway` term in their applicability predicate.
DATING, and it is not the date the section names. s. 196.1979(9) reads "This section first applies to the 2024 tax roll", but the text served today is not the text that first applied to that roll. Established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them word by word: the 2023 edition (sha256 efb55ae9...) has 8,861 characters of operative text; the 2024 edition (sha256 482b0304...) has 9,931 and is word-for-word identical to the 2025 (718530968...) and 2026 (3be83408...) editions. The 2024 amendments came from s. 14, ch. 2024-158, whose s. 64 makes it effective 1 July 2024, and s. 5, ch. 2024-188, whose s. 12 makes it effective on becoming law, 16 May 2024. Neither act gives its s. 196.1979 amendments a first-application roll of their own. So provisions present in the 2023 edition are dated here to 2024-01-01, the roll the section itself names, and provisions ADDED by the 2024 acts are dated to 2025-01-01, the first January 1 assessment date after both acts were in force. OPEN: neither act says so expressly, and a property appraiser applying the amended text to the 1 January 2024 assessment would not be contradicting any sentence read this session. A point-in-time question about the 2024 roll must be answered from the 2023 edition (src.fl.stat_196_1979_2023ed), which is held for exactly that purpose.
DATED TO 2025-01-01 rather than to the roll the section names. Subsection (6), which supplies the appraiser's review power and the bar on granting an uncertified property, does not appear in the 2023 edition at all -- it was added by the 2024 amendments. The certification requirement itself is in the 2023 text; the prohibition on the appraiser is not. A point-in-time question about the 2024 roll must be answered from src.fl.stat_196_1979_2023ed.
The certification deadline is set locally and published locally. The corpus holds no inventory of those deadlines, and 'adequate time' is not a period the statute quantifies.
Nothing states the form or content of the certification the entity forwards, how long it is valid, or whether it must be renewed annually -- though the annual exemption application to the appraiser implies an annual certification. The DR-504AFH requires a copy of the certification to be attached to each application.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD IS WRONG, and this rule is authored under it anyway because programs.json is off limits to an authoring pass. `fl_live_local_local_option` carries statutory_authority ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2)"]. That is NOT a local option: s. 196.1978(2) is a state exemption for a property under a recorded Florida Housing agreement whose availability is deferred until the sixteenth year. The statutory_authority for this programme SHOULD READ "Fla. Stat. 196.1979" -- the county and municipal affordable housing property exemption, which exists only where a board of county commissioners or a municipal governing body adopts an ordinance, reaches multifamily projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable, and expires before the fourth 1 January after adoption. The two exemptions have different grantors, different unit thresholds, different income bands and different terms, so a resolver that reads the programme record instead of the rules will be wrong about all four. Until the record is corrected, the rules in this file that state s. 196.1979 are distinguished from the s. 196.1978(2) rules in data/rules/state/fl_live_local_depth.json and data/rules/state/fl.json by the `property.exemption_pathway` term in their applicability predicate.
DATING, and it is not the date the section names. s. 196.1979(9) reads "This section first applies to the 2024 tax roll", but the text served today is not the text that first applied to that roll. Established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them word by word: the 2023 edition (sha256 efb55ae9...) has 8,861 characters of operative text; the 2024 edition (sha256 482b0304...) has 9,931 and is word-for-word identical to the 2025 (718530968...) and 2026 (3be83408...) editions. The 2024 amendments came from s. 14, ch. 2024-158, whose s. 64 makes it effective 1 July 2024, and s. 5, ch. 2024-188, whose s. 12 makes it effective on becoming law, 16 May 2024. Neither act gives its s. 196.1979 amendments a first-application roll of their own. So provisions present in the 2023 edition are dated here to 2024-01-01, the roll the section itself names, and provisions ADDED by the 2024 acts are dated to 2025-01-01, the first January 1 assessment date after both acts were in force. OPEN: neither act says so expressly, and a property appraiser applying the amended text to the 1 January 2024 assessment would not be contradicting any sentence read this session. A point-in-time question about the 2024 roll must be answered from the 2023 edition (src.fl.stat_196_1979_2023ed), which is held for exactly that purpose.
DATED TO 2025-01-01. The 2023 edition of (3)(f) set the deadline as a bare 'March 1'; the cross-reference to s. 196.011 was substituted by the 2024 amendments. The resulting date is unchanged, but the statutory relief valves and the April 1 incomplete-application rule now travel with it, which they did not on the 2023 text.
s. 196.011(9) requires a late applicant to file 'on or before the 25th day following the mailing by the property appraiser of the notices required under s. 194.011 (1)'. That mailing date is a county fact the corpus does not hold, so the relief window cannot be computed from state-level data.
DOR GLOSS, not statute. Page 1 of form DR-504AFH presents all eight affordable housing exemptions in one table under the instruction "All applicants must select which type of exemption you are applying for below", with a single "Select one" column. Nothing in ss. 196.1978, 196.1979, 196.19781 or 196.19782 says an owner may claim only one exemption on one return, and the statutory exclusivity that does exist is narrower and specific (s. 196.1978(3)(k), s. 196.1978(4)(f)). Whether the form's single-election design is an administrative convenience or a substantive limit is unresolved on the documents read this session.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD IS WRONG, and this rule is authored under it anyway because programs.json is off limits to an authoring pass. `fl_live_local_local_option` carries statutory_authority ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2)"]. That is NOT a local option: s. 196.1978(2) is a state exemption for a property under a recorded Florida Housing agreement whose availability is deferred until the sixteenth year. The statutory_authority for this programme SHOULD READ "Fla. Stat. 196.1979" -- the county and municipal affordable housing property exemption, which exists only where a board of county commissioners or a municipal governing body adopts an ordinance, reaches multifamily projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable, and expires before the fourth 1 January after adoption. The two exemptions have different grantors, different unit thresholds, different income bands and different terms, so a resolver that reads the programme record instead of the rules will be wrong about all four. Until the record is corrected, the rules in this file that state s. 196.1979 are distinguished from the s. 196.1978(2) rules in data/rules/state/fl_live_local_depth.json and data/rules/state/fl.json by the `property.exemption_pathway` term in their applicability predicate.
DATING, and it is not the date the section names. s. 196.1979(9) reads "This section first applies to the 2024 tax roll", but the text served today is not the text that first applied to that roll. Established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them word by word: the 2023 edition (sha256 efb55ae9...) has 8,861 characters of operative text; the 2024 edition (sha256 482b0304...) has 9,931 and is word-for-word identical to the 2025 (718530968...) and 2026 (3be83408...) editions. The 2024 amendments came from s. 14, ch. 2024-158, whose s. 64 makes it effective 1 July 2024, and s. 5, ch. 2024-188, whose s. 12 makes it effective on becoming law, 16 May 2024. Neither act gives its s. 196.1979 amendments a first-application roll of their own. So provisions present in the 2023 edition are dated here to 2024-01-01, the roll the section itself names, and provisions ADDED by the 2024 acts are dated to 2025-01-01, the first January 1 assessment date after both acts were in force. OPEN: neither act says so expressly, and a property appraiser applying the amended text to the 1 January 2024 assessment would not be contradicting any sentence read this session. A point-in-time question about the 2024 roll must be answered from the 2023 edition (src.fl.stat_196_1979_2023ed), which is held for exactly that purpose.
DATED TO 2025-01-01. Subsection (7), the common-area share, does not appear in the 2023 edition and was added by the 2024 amendments; the words 'of each residential unit used to provide affordable housing' in (1)(b)2. were also added then. The 75 and 100 percent caps themselves are in the 2023 text.
The corpus holds no inventory of the percentages adopted by ordinance, so for any real property the exempt figure cannot be resolved from state-level data. The ordinance is delivered to the Department of Revenue within 10 days of adoption, which is where such an inventory would come from.
'100 percent of the multifamily project's residential units' is measured against the project, and multifamily project is undefined in this section. The denominator therefore depends on an undefined term, which is the same gap recorded on the 50-unit rule.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD IS WRONG, and this rule is authored under it anyway because programs.json is off limits to an authoring pass. `fl_live_local_local_option` carries statutory_authority ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2)"]. That is NOT a local option: s. 196.1978(2) is a state exemption for a property under a recorded Florida Housing agreement whose availability is deferred until the sixteenth year. The statutory_authority for this programme SHOULD READ "Fla. Stat. 196.1979" -- the county and municipal affordable housing property exemption, which exists only where a board of county commissioners or a municipal governing body adopts an ordinance, reaches multifamily projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable, and expires before the fourth 1 January after adoption. The two exemptions have different grantors, different unit thresholds, different income bands and different terms, so a resolver that reads the programme record instead of the rules will be wrong about all four. Until the record is corrected, the rules in this file that state s. 196.1979 are distinguished from the s. 196.1978(2) rules in data/rules/state/fl_live_local_depth.json and data/rules/state/fl.json by the `property.exemption_pathway` term in their applicability predicate.
DATING, and it is not the date the section names. s. 196.1979(9) reads "This section first applies to the 2024 tax roll", but the text served today is not the text that first applied to that roll. Established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them word by word: the 2023 edition (sha256 efb55ae9...) has 8,861 characters of operative text; the 2024 edition (sha256 482b0304...) has 9,931 and is word-for-word identical to the 2025 (718530968...) and 2026 (3be83408...) editions. The 2024 amendments came from s. 14, ch. 2024-158, whose s. 64 makes it effective 1 July 2024, and s. 5, ch. 2024-188, whose s. 12 makes it effective on becoming law, 16 May 2024. Neither act gives its s. 196.1979 amendments a first-application roll of their own. So provisions present in the 2023 edition are dated here to 2024-01-01, the roll the section itself names, and provisions ADDED by the 2024 acts are dated to 2025-01-01, the first January 1 assessment date after both acts were in force. OPEN: neither act says so expressly, and a property appraiser applying the amended text to the 1 January 2024 assessment would not be contradicting any sentence read this session. A point-in-time question about the 2024 roll must be answered from the 2023 edition (src.fl.stat_196_1979_2023ed), which is held for exactly that purpose.
'a reasonable effort is made to lease the unit' is not defined, no evidence is specified, and no marketing period is stated. The DR-504AFH asks the applicant to count such units and requires no attachment for them. What a property appraiser will accept is unresolved.
The relief runs to a unit that 'in the previous year received the exemption', so it cannot bridge the first year of a newly certified property, and a unit that missed the exemption for one year on a filing failure appears to lose the vacancy relief in the next. Nothing read this session addresses either case.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD IS WRONG, and this rule is authored under it anyway because programs.json is off limits to an authoring pass. `fl_live_local_local_option` carries statutory_authority ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2)"]. That is NOT a local option: s. 196.1978(2) is a state exemption for a property under a recorded Florida Housing agreement whose availability is deferred until the sixteenth year. The statutory_authority for this programme SHOULD READ "Fla. Stat. 196.1979" -- the county and municipal affordable housing property exemption, which exists only where a board of county commissioners or a municipal governing body adopts an ordinance, reaches multifamily projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable, and expires before the fourth 1 January after adoption. The two exemptions have different grantors, different unit thresholds, different income bands and different terms, so a resolver that reads the programme record instead of the rules will be wrong about all four. Until the record is corrected, the rules in this file that state s. 196.1979 are distinguished from the s. 196.1978(2) rules in data/rules/state/fl_live_local_depth.json and data/rules/state/fl.json by the `property.exemption_pathway` term in their applicability predicate.
DATING, and it is not the date the section names. s. 196.1979(9) reads "This section first applies to the 2024 tax roll", but the text served today is not the text that first applied to that roll. Established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them word by word: the 2023 edition (sha256 efb55ae9...) has 8,861 characters of operative text; the 2024 edition (sha256 482b0304...) has 9,931 and is word-for-word identical to the 2025 (718530968...) and 2026 (3be83408...) editions. The 2024 amendments came from s. 14, ch. 2024-158, whose s. 64 makes it effective 1 July 2024, and s. 5, ch. 2024-188, whose s. 12 makes it effective on becoming law, 16 May 2024. Neither act gives its s. 196.1979 amendments a first-application roll of their own. So provisions present in the 2023 edition are dated here to 2024-01-01, the roll the section itself names, and provisions ADDED by the 2024 acts are dated to 2025-01-01, the first January 1 assessment date after both acts were in force. OPEN: neither act says so expressly, and a property appraiser applying the amended text to the 1 January 2024 assessment would not be contradicting any sentence read this session. A point-in-time question about the 2024 roll must be answered from the 2023 edition (src.fl.stat_196_1979_2023ed), which is held for exactly that purpose.
DATED TO 2025-01-01. The 'but no later than January 1' outer limits on both delivery duties were added by the 2024 amendments and are absent from the 2023 edition, which required only delivery within 10 days of adoption. The four-year expiry itself is in the 2023 text and is dated to the 2024 roll in the 2023-edition record.
The statute does not say what happens where the ordinance is adopted but not delivered within the ten days, or is delivered after 1 January of the effective year. No consequence attaches to the taxing body on the text, and it is not stated whether a late-delivered ordinance can still ground an exemption for that roll.
'must expire before the fourth January 1 after adoption' fixes the outer limit but not the ordinance's actual term, which is a local choice. An ordinance adopted in December has barely three calendar years; one adopted in January has almost four.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
PROGRAMME RECORD IS WRONG, and this rule is authored under it anyway because programs.json is off limits to an authoring pass. `fl_live_local_local_option` carries statutory_authority ["Fla. Stat. 196.1978(2)"]. That is NOT a local option: s. 196.1978(2) is a state exemption for a property under a recorded Florida Housing agreement whose availability is deferred until the sixteenth year. The statutory_authority for this programme SHOULD READ "Fla. Stat. 196.1979" -- the county and municipal affordable housing property exemption, which exists only where a board of county commissioners or a municipal governing body adopts an ordinance, reaches multifamily projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable, and expires before the fourth 1 January after adoption. The two exemptions have different grantors, different unit thresholds, different income bands and different terms, so a resolver that reads the programme record instead of the rules will be wrong about all four. Until the record is corrected, the rules in this file that state s. 196.1979 are distinguished from the s. 196.1978(2) rules in data/rules/state/fl_live_local_depth.json and data/rules/state/fl.json by the `property.exemption_pathway` term in their applicability predicate.
DATING, and it is not the date the section names. s. 196.1979(9) reads "This section first applies to the 2024 tax roll", but the text served today is not the text that first applied to that roll. Established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them word by word: the 2023 edition (sha256 efb55ae9...) has 8,861 characters of operative text; the 2024 edition (sha256 482b0304...) has 9,931 and is word-for-word identical to the 2025 (718530968...) and 2026 (3be83408...) editions. The 2024 amendments came from s. 14, ch. 2024-158, whose s. 64 makes it effective 1 July 2024, and s. 5, ch. 2024-188, whose s. 12 makes it effective on becoming law, 16 May 2024. Neither act gives its s. 196.1979 amendments a first-application roll of their own. So provisions present in the 2023 edition are dated here to 2024-01-01, the roll the section itself names, and provisions ADDED by the 2024 acts are dated to 2025-01-01, the first January 1 assessment date after both acts were in force. OPEN: neither act says so expressly, and a property appraiser applying the amended text to the 1 January 2024 assessment would not be contradicting any sentence read this session. A point-in-time question about the 2024 roll must be answered from the 2023 edition (src.fl.stat_196_1979_2023ed), which is held for exactly that purpose.
The exemption applies only to the levy of the government that granted it, but the lien reaches 'the taxes exempted by the improper exemption' without saying whether the county appraiser recovers only that body's millage. On the text the recovery follows what was exempted, which would be the granting body's levy alone, but the section does not say so.
Because the section first applied to the 2024 tax roll, the ten-year lookback cannot yet reach further back than 2024 in practice.
The two applications in this section create two places an error can originate -- the local entity's certification and the appraiser's determination. Whether an owner who obtained a certification in good faith on an entity's error is 'not entitled' for the purpose of subsection (8), and whether the entity's mistake is a 'clerical mistake or an omission by the property appraiser', are both unaddressed.
Cross-host control run 2026-09-02. Every Florida statute quoted in this rule was fetched from flsenate.gov and again from the Legislature's Online Sunshine viewer at leg.state.fl.us. The two hosts return DISTINCT sha256 hashes and byte-identical operative text after whitespace normalisation, so neither is a host echoing one payload at every path. Hashes are recorded in data/sources/pending_fl_exemptions.json.
Rule 67-48.014(6) states the 80/20 income mix without the federal five-unit threshold, but does not say expressly how it applies to a development with fewer than five HOME-assisted units (where 20 percent rounds to less than one unit). Whether FHFC rounds up to one very-low-income unit in small developments is not stated in the rule text and could not be verified against FHFC guidance (floridahousing.org is unreachable to automated fetch).
Individual competitive solicitations (RFAs) routinely commit developments to deeper set-asides (e.g., ELI units) than the chapter floor. Those commitments live in the LURA and are property-overlay terms, not encodable at the state layer.
The rule's rent-math phrases predate HUD's current published HOME rent schedule mechanics (HUD now publishes the High/Low HOME rent tables directly). The published-table figure and the rule's formula should coincide; if they ever diverge, which controls in Florida is not stated.
As with the income mix, no five-unit threshold is stated for the 20 percent Low HOME rent requirement; treatment of very small developments is unverified against FHFC guidance.
Rule 67-48.014(6)(c) does not restate the federal LIHTC carve-out at 24 CFR 92.252(i)(2) (an over-income tenant in a HOME/LIHTC unit may pay the section 42 rent). Whether FHFC applies the carve-out administratively could not be verified against fetchable FHFC guidance.
The rule is silent on fixed versus floating mechanics when the over-income event occurs (which unit's designation moves); 67-48.014(6)(g) supplies only the comparable-substitution principle. See fl.home.unit_designation.comparable_substitution.
The rule does not state what happens to the compliance period on foreclosure or deed-in-lieu (the federal termination provision at 24 CFR 92.252(e) has its own revival rule). The LURA's own terms govern; not inferred.
Whether FHFC ever approves a Compliance Period shorter than the loan term for a demonstration or disaster development with forgivable terms under 67-48.020(4) is not stated.
Rule 67-48.014(6)(g) does not use the words 'fixed' or 'floating' and does not state a default where the LURA is silent (Georgia publishes a default of fixed; Florida publishes none). A silent Florida LURA is an unknown, not a default.
Rule 67-53.008 was last amended 20 August 2009 and names form PR-1 Rev. 01/09. FHFC's current monitoring in practice runs through contracted compliance monitors and newer form generations; whether the operative form is still designated PR-1 Rev. 01/09 could not be verified because floridahousing.org and its program pages are unreachable to automated fetch. The regulation's obligation stands; the form generation is the open item.
The rule does not state a grace or late-fee mechanism for a missed monthly PR-1 (contrast the financial report's $500 late fee); the consequence path runs through the correction-period machinery.
The rule does not say whether more than one 60-day extension may ever be granted (the text says 'a 60-day extension', singular); one is encoded and further discretion is not assumed.
How the 90-day regulatory correction period interacts with the loan-document default remedies in 67-48.020(10)-(11) -- whether FHFC may accelerate before the correction period runs -- is not stated in either rule; the correction rule says the development 'shall not be deemed non-compliant prior to the expiration of the correction period', which suggests but does not state that acceleration waits.
Whether FHFC accepts tenant self-certification in interim years under the 24 CFR 92.203 six-year cycle (as Illinois expressly does) or requires third-party verification annually is not stated in 67-53.008 and could not be verified: floridahousing.org, its compliance-forms pages and the Novoco mirror of the Florida Housing Compliance Guidebook (src.fl.compliance_guidebook) were all unreachable to automated fetch on 2026-08-26. The guidebook, if obtainable in a browser session, is the document most likely to answer this.
The rule incorporates 24 CFR 92.203 and 92.252 'as of the date of this rule chapter' (2009 editions). Whether FHFC monitors against the 2013/2025 federal text or the incorporated 2009 text has real consequences (six-year cycle, safe harbors) and is unresolved.
67-48.020(14) (151 days, $500, SR-1 Rev. 01-26) and 67-53.008(15) (120 days, $250, SR-1 Rev. 02/09) conflict on their face. The newer, HOME-loan-specific text is encoded; whether FHFC's servicer still applies the 120-day/$250 schedule to any HOME cohort is unresolved. The conflict itself is the finding.
Whether electronic records satisfy the 50-mile requirement (i.e., whether the rule reaches paper originals only) is not addressed in the 2009 text and is unresolved; management software has changed more than the rule has.
The site list grew in three steps and this rule states the last one. ch. 2023-17 (SB 102) reached only areas zoned for commercial, industrial or mixed use, as the 2023 text quoted here shows. ch. 2025-172 added religious-institution property and the portions of flexibly zoned areas. The 2026 group added property owned by a county, municipality or school district, together with both co-applicant sentences. A development entitled before 1 July 2026 must be judged against the edition then in force. CHRONOLOGY of s. 166.04151, established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them (sha256 2108cff2..., the 2024 artifact in acquisitions/fl_166_2024.20260902T065816, dc3db11c..., de4c230b...). ch. 2023-17 (SB 102) created subsections (6) and (7) with commercial/industrial/mixed-use zoning only, a bare density floor, a one-mile height floor, administrative approval, and a duty merely to CONSIDER a parking reduction. ch. 2024-188 (SB 328) added floor area ratio at 150 percent, the single-family adjacency height cap and its ten-foot story, the quarter-mile military installation bar, the website administrative-approval policy, transit-oriented parking elimination and the anti-bootstrap exclusions. ch. 2025-172 added religious-institution and flexibly-zoned sites, the 1 July 2023 baselines, the 10 percent nonresidential ceiling, the longer list of prohibited entitlement demands, the historic-parcel provisions, administrative demolition approval, the 15 percent parking reduction on request, the (7)(n) definitions, the building-moratorium prohibition at subsection (9), the annual report at subsection (10) and the $250,000 attorney-fee cap. The 2026 group (ss. 15 ch. 2026-14; 2 ch. 2026-163; 2 ch. 2026-179) added county, municipal and school-district property as sites, the co-applicant sentences, the 15-foot assemblage rule, the open-character-district exclusion and the setback/stepback anti-workaround sentence, and amended (7)(n).
Effective dates for Florida general acts are recorded here as 1 July of the session year, the ordinary default. They are NOT established from the documents fetched: a codified page prints chapter numbers and no effective dates, and the session laws themselves were not fetched. Where a chapter law carried its own effective date this rule may be wrong by up to a year, and the chapter law should be read before a point-in-time position is taken.
The statute states the continuing-worship condition without a remedy. s. 166.04151(8) gives a reasonable time to cure a breach of the AFFORDABILITY requirement and says nothing about this one. What happens to an approved development whose house of public worship later closes is unresolved on the text.
The prohibited list grew. The 2023 text, quoted here, barred a zoning or land use change, special exception, conditional use approval, variance or comprehensive plan amendment. ch. 2025-172 added the transfer of density or development units, an amendment to a development of regional impact and an amendment to a municipal charter. Dated from the longer list, which is what the current text says. CHRONOLOGY of s. 166.04151, established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them (sha256 2108cff2..., the 2024 artifact in acquisitions/fl_166_2024.20260902T065816, dc3db11c..., de4c230b...). ch. 2023-17 (SB 102) created subsections (6) and (7) with commercial/industrial/mixed-use zoning only, a bare density floor, a one-mile height floor, administrative approval, and a duty merely to CONSIDER a parking reduction. ch. 2024-188 (SB 328) added floor area ratio at 150 percent, the single-family adjacency height cap and its ten-foot story, the quarter-mile military installation bar, the website administrative-approval policy, transit-oriented parking elimination and the anti-bootstrap exclusions. ch. 2025-172 added religious-institution and flexibly-zoned sites, the 1 July 2023 baselines, the 10 percent nonresidential ceiling, the longer list of prohibited entitlement demands, the historic-parcel provisions, administrative demolition approval, the 15 percent parking reduction on request, the (7)(n) definitions, the building-moratorium prohibition at subsection (9), the annual report at subsection (10) and the $250,000 attorney-fee cap. The 2026 group (ss. 15 ch. 2026-14; 2 ch. 2026-163; 2 ch. 2026-179) added county, municipal and school-district property as sites, the co-applicant sentences, the 15-foot assemblage rule, the open-character-district exclusion and the setback/stepback anti-workaround sentence, and amended (7)(n).
Effective dates for Florida general acts are recorded here as 1 July of the session year, the ordinary default. They are NOT established from the documents fetched: a codified page prints chapter numbers and no effective dates, and the session laws themselves were not fetched. Where a chapter law carried its own effective date this rule may be wrong by up to a year, and the chapter law should be read before a point-in-time position is taken.
The 10 percent ceiling was added by ch. 2025-172. It is absent from both the 2023 and the 2024 editions fetched this session, which carry the 65 percent residential floor alone. Dated from the amendment, not from the original enactment. CHRONOLOGY of s. 166.04151, established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them (sha256 2108cff2..., the 2024 artifact in acquisitions/fl_166_2024.20260902T065816, dc3db11c..., de4c230b...). ch. 2023-17 (SB 102) created subsections (6) and (7) with commercial/industrial/mixed-use zoning only, a bare density floor, a one-mile height floor, administrative approval, and a duty merely to CONSIDER a parking reduction. ch. 2024-188 (SB 328) added floor area ratio at 150 percent, the single-family adjacency height cap and its ten-foot story, the quarter-mile military installation bar, the website administrative-approval policy, transit-oriented parking elimination and the anti-bootstrap exclusions. ch. 2025-172 added religious-institution and flexibly-zoned sites, the 1 July 2023 baselines, the 10 percent nonresidential ceiling, the longer list of prohibited entitlement demands, the historic-parcel provisions, administrative demolition approval, the 15 percent parking reduction on request, the (7)(n) definitions, the building-moratorium prohibition at subsection (9), the annual report at subsection (10) and the $250,000 attorney-fee cap. The 2026 group (ss. 15 ch. 2026-14; 2 ch. 2026-163; 2 ch. 2026-179) added county, municipal and school-district property as sites, the co-applicant sentences, the 15-foot assemblage rule, the open-character-district exclusion and the setback/stepback anti-workaround sentence, and amended (7)(n).
Effective dates for Florida general acts are recorded here as 1 July of the session year, the ordinary default. They are NOT established from the documents fetched: a codified page prints chapter numbers and no effective dates, and the session laws themselves were not fetched. Where a chapter law carried its own effective date this rule may be wrong by up to a year, and the chapter law should be read before a point-in-time position is taken.
The 1 July 2023 baseline and the two exclusions from the survey are not original. The 2023 text read simply: a municipality may not restrict density 'below the highest allowed density on any land in the municipality where residential development is allowed'. ch. 2025-172 added the alternative 2023 baseline, the least-restrictive rule and the bonus and prior-Live-Local exclusions. Dated from that amendment. CHRONOLOGY of s. 166.04151, established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them (sha256 2108cff2..., the 2024 artifact in acquisitions/fl_166_2024.20260902T065816, dc3db11c..., de4c230b...). ch. 2023-17 (SB 102) created subsections (6) and (7) with commercial/industrial/mixed-use zoning only, a bare density floor, a one-mile height floor, administrative approval, and a duty merely to CONSIDER a parking reduction. ch. 2024-188 (SB 328) added floor area ratio at 150 percent, the single-family adjacency height cap and its ten-foot story, the quarter-mile military installation bar, the website administrative-approval policy, transit-oriented parking elimination and the anti-bootstrap exclusions. ch. 2025-172 added religious-institution and flexibly-zoned sites, the 1 July 2023 baselines, the 10 percent nonresidential ceiling, the longer list of prohibited entitlement demands, the historic-parcel provisions, administrative demolition approval, the 15 percent parking reduction on request, the (7)(n) definitions, the building-moratorium prohibition at subsection (9), the annual report at subsection (10) and the $250,000 attorney-fee cap. The 2026 group (ss. 15 ch. 2026-14; 2 ch. 2026-163; 2 ch. 2026-179) added county, municipal and school-district property as sites, the co-applicant sentences, the 15-foot assemblage rule, the open-character-district exclusion and the setback/stepback anti-workaround sentence, and amended (7)(n).
Effective dates for Florida general acts are recorded here as 1 July of the session year, the ordinary default. They are NOT established from the documents fetched: a codified page prints chapter numbers and no effective dates, and the session laws themselves were not fetched. Where a chapter law carried its own effective date this rule may be wrong by up to a year, and the chapter law should be read before a point-in-time position is taken.
Not verified: whether any Florida court has construed 'any land in the municipality where residential development is allowed' to include land in a district that permits residential use only as an accessory or conditional use. The corpus records the text, not a construction of it.
There was no floor area ratio provision at all in the 2023 text. ch. 2024-188 created it at 150 percent, and ch. 2025-172 added the 1 July 2023 alternative baseline quoted here. A development entitled in the first year of the Act had no FAR entitlement under this section. CHRONOLOGY of s. 166.04151, established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them (sha256 2108cff2..., the 2024 artifact in acquisitions/fl_166_2024.20260902T065816, dc3db11c..., de4c230b...). ch. 2023-17 (SB 102) created subsections (6) and (7) with commercial/industrial/mixed-use zoning only, a bare density floor, a one-mile height floor, administrative approval, and a duty merely to CONSIDER a parking reduction. ch. 2024-188 (SB 328) added floor area ratio at 150 percent, the single-family adjacency height cap and its ten-foot story, the quarter-mile military installation bar, the website administrative-approval policy, transit-oriented parking elimination and the anti-bootstrap exclusions. ch. 2025-172 added religious-institution and flexibly-zoned sites, the 1 July 2023 baselines, the 10 percent nonresidential ceiling, the longer list of prohibited entitlement demands, the historic-parcel provisions, administrative demolition approval, the 15 percent parking reduction on request, the (7)(n) definitions, the building-moratorium prohibition at subsection (9), the annual report at subsection (10) and the $250,000 attorney-fee cap. The 2026 group (ss. 15 ch. 2026-14; 2 ch. 2026-163; 2 ch. 2026-179) added county, municipal and school-district property as sites, the co-applicant sentences, the 15-foot assemblage rule, the open-character-district exclusion and the setback/stepback anti-workaround sentence, and amended (7)(n).
Effective dates for Florida general acts are recorded here as 1 July of the session year, the ordinary default. They are NOT established from the documents fetched: a codified page prints chapter numbers and no effective dates, and the session laws themselves were not fetched. Where a chapter law carried its own effective date this rule may be wrong by up to a year, and the chapter law should be read before a point-in-time position is taken.
The one-mile-or-three-stories floor is original to ch. 2023-17 and the 2023 form is quoted here too. Two things were added later and both are in the quoted current text: ch. 2025-172 added the 1 July 2023 alternative baseline and the exclusions from the survey, and the 2026 group added the sentence barring the municipality from reaching the same result through setbacks or stepbacks. That sentence appears in no edition before 2026, which is why this rule is dated 2026 rather than 2023. CHRONOLOGY of s. 166.04151, established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them (sha256 2108cff2..., the 2024 artifact in acquisitions/fl_166_2024.20260902T065816, dc3db11c..., de4c230b...). ch. 2023-17 (SB 102) created subsections (6) and (7) with commercial/industrial/mixed-use zoning only, a bare density floor, a one-mile height floor, administrative approval, and a duty merely to CONSIDER a parking reduction. ch. 2024-188 (SB 328) added floor area ratio at 150 percent, the single-family adjacency height cap and its ten-foot story, the quarter-mile military installation bar, the website administrative-approval policy, transit-oriented parking elimination and the anti-bootstrap exclusions. ch. 2025-172 added religious-institution and flexibly-zoned sites, the 1 July 2023 baselines, the 10 percent nonresidential ceiling, the longer list of prohibited entitlement demands, the historic-parcel provisions, administrative demolition approval, the 15 percent parking reduction on request, the (7)(n) definitions, the building-moratorium prohibition at subsection (9), the annual report at subsection (10) and the $250,000 attorney-fee cap. The 2026 group (ss. 15 ch. 2026-14; 2 ch. 2026-163; 2 ch. 2026-179) added county, municipal and school-district property as sites, the co-applicant sentences, the 15-foot assemblage rule, the open-character-district exclusion and the setback/stepback anti-workaround sentence, and amended (7)(n).
Effective dates for Florida general acts are recorded here as 1 July of the session year, the ordinary default. They are NOT established from the documents fetched: a codified page prints chapter numbers and no effective dates, and the session laws themselves were not fetched. Where a chapter law carried its own effective date this rule may be wrong by up to a year, and the chapter law should be read before a point-in-time position is taken.
The adjacency cap, the ten-foot story definition and the area-of-critical-state-concern base flood elevation rule were added by SB 328 (ch. 2024-188), effective 1 July 2024. The 2023 text enacted by SB 102 had no adjacency limitation at all, so a project entitled in the first year of the Act was not subject to this cap. Dated accordingly.
The statute says the municipality 'may' restrict height on these terms. Whether a municipality that has never adopted such a restriction may impose one project-by-project, or must have it in its land development regulations, is not addressed in the text and is not recorded here.
SB 102 already required administrative approval in 2023, but none of the four conditions recorded here were in that text. ch. 2024-188 added the quarter-mile military installation bar, the floor area ratio exception and the website administrative-approval policy; ch. 2025-172 added the words 'without further action', the definition of allowable density and the administrative demolition mandate. Dated from the later of those. CHRONOLOGY of s. 166.04151, established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them (sha256 2108cff2..., the 2024 artifact in acquisitions/fl_166_2024.20260902T065816, dc3db11c..., de4c230b...). ch. 2023-17 (SB 102) created subsections (6) and (7) with commercial/industrial/mixed-use zoning only, a bare density floor, a one-mile height floor, administrative approval, and a duty merely to CONSIDER a parking reduction. ch. 2024-188 (SB 328) added floor area ratio at 150 percent, the single-family adjacency height cap and its ten-foot story, the quarter-mile military installation bar, the website administrative-approval policy, transit-oriented parking elimination and the anti-bootstrap exclusions. ch. 2025-172 added religious-institution and flexibly-zoned sites, the 1 July 2023 baselines, the 10 percent nonresidential ceiling, the longer list of prohibited entitlement demands, the historic-parcel provisions, administrative demolition approval, the 15 percent parking reduction on request, the (7)(n) definitions, the building-moratorium prohibition at subsection (9), the annual report at subsection (10) and the $250,000 attorney-fee cap. The 2026 group (ss. 15 ch. 2026-14; 2 ch. 2026-163; 2 ch. 2026-179) added county, municipal and school-district property as sites, the co-applicant sentences, the 15-foot assemblage rule, the open-character-district exclusion and the setback/stepback anti-workaround sentence, and amended (7)(n).
Effective dates for Florida general acts are recorded here as 1 July of the session year, the ordinary default. They are NOT established from the documents fetched: a codified page prints chapter numbers and no effective dates, and the session laws themselves were not fetched. Where a chapter law carried its own effective date this rule may be wrong by up to a year, and the chapter law should be read before a point-in-time position is taken.
Not verified for any particular jurisdiction: whether the municipality has in fact published the administrative-approval policy s. 166.04151(7)(e)1. requires. FHFC does not collect this and the state land planning agency report under subsection (10) does not cover it.
CORRECTED DURING AUTHORING. SB 102's 2023 text DID contain parking relief -- but only a duty to CONSIDER reducing requirements for a development within one-half mile of a major transit stop, quoted here so the difference is visible. ch. 2024-188 made a reduction mandatory and added transit-oriented elimination; the 15-percent-on-request formulation quoted from the current text is ch. 2025-172's. Dated from that. CHRONOLOGY of s. 166.04151, established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them (sha256 2108cff2..., the 2024 artifact in acquisitions/fl_166_2024.20260902T065816, dc3db11c..., de4c230b...). ch. 2023-17 (SB 102) created subsections (6) and (7) with commercial/industrial/mixed-use zoning only, a bare density floor, a one-mile height floor, administrative approval, and a duty merely to CONSIDER a parking reduction. ch. 2024-188 (SB 328) added floor area ratio at 150 percent, the single-family adjacency height cap and its ten-foot story, the quarter-mile military installation bar, the website administrative-approval policy, transit-oriented parking elimination and the anti-bootstrap exclusions. ch. 2025-172 added religious-institution and flexibly-zoned sites, the 1 July 2023 baselines, the 10 percent nonresidential ceiling, the longer list of prohibited entitlement demands, the historic-parcel provisions, administrative demolition approval, the 15 percent parking reduction on request, the (7)(n) definitions, the building-moratorium prohibition at subsection (9), the annual report at subsection (10) and the $250,000 attorney-fee cap. The 2026 group (ss. 15 ch. 2026-14; 2 ch. 2026-163; 2 ch. 2026-179) added county, municipal and school-district property as sites, the co-applicant sentences, the 15-foot assemblage rule, the open-character-district exclusion and the setback/stepback anti-workaround sentence, and amended (7)(n).
Effective dates for Florida general acts are recorded here as 1 July of the session year, the ordinary default. They are NOT established from the documents fetched: a codified page prints chapter numbers and no effective dates, and the session laws themselves were not fetched. Where a chapter law carried its own effective date this rule may be wrong by up to a year, and the chapter law should be read before a point-in-time position is taken.
'An area recognized by the municipality as a transit-oriented development or area' is not defined in the section and there is no state register of such areas, so whether the total elimination applies is a local-record question this corpus cannot resolve.
The two texts are not a drafting slip that later harmonised: they were both current in the 2026 edition read on 2026-09-02 and each was fetched separately (flsenate.gov 2026 renderings, sha256 de4c230b... for 166.04151 and f0303168... for 125.01055). Recorded as divergent because they are divergent.
The municipal test at (7)(g) is original to ch. 2023-17 and is unchanged in the 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions fetched this session, which is why this rule is dated 2023. WHEN the county provision took its multicounty-independent-special-district form was NOT established: only the 2026 edition of s. 125.01055 was fetched, so a point-in-time question about a county project before 2026 must be answered from that year's edition of s. 125.01055 rather than from here.
Effective-from is 1 January 2024, not the 2026 enactment date, because s. 3, ch. 2026-179 makes these definitions remedial and clarifying and applies them retroactively to that date. This is the rare case where a rule's window legitimately opens before the instrument that created it.
The retroactivity note is on its face limited to ss. 125.01055(7)(n) and 166.04151(7)(n). The other 2026 amendments to these sections carry no such statement and take effect on their own terms; nothing here should be read to backdate them.
The (7)(n) block itself was created by ch. 2025-172 -- it is absent from the 2023 and 2024 editions fetched this session -- and then amended by ch. 2026-179, which is the instrument the retroactivity note attaches to. Before 1 January 2024 there was no statutory definition of commercial, industrial or mixed use in this section and the question turned on local nomenclature. CHRONOLOGY of s. 166.04151, established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them (sha256 2108cff2..., the 2024 artifact in acquisitions/fl_166_2024.20260902T065816, dc3db11c..., de4c230b...). ch. 2023-17 (SB 102) created subsections (6) and (7) with commercial/industrial/mixed-use zoning only, a bare density floor, a one-mile height floor, administrative approval, and a duty merely to CONSIDER a parking reduction. ch. 2024-188 (SB 328) added floor area ratio at 150 percent, the single-family adjacency height cap and its ten-foot story, the quarter-mile military installation bar, the website administrative-approval policy, transit-oriented parking elimination and the anti-bootstrap exclusions. ch. 2025-172 added religious-institution and flexibly-zoned sites, the 1 July 2023 baselines, the 10 percent nonresidential ceiling, the longer list of prohibited entitlement demands, the historic-parcel provisions, administrative demolition approval, the 15 percent parking reduction on request, the (7)(n) definitions, the building-moratorium prohibition at subsection (9), the annual report at subsection (10) and the $250,000 attorney-fee cap. The 2026 group (ss. 15 ch. 2026-14; 2 ch. 2026-163; 2 ch. 2026-179) added county, municipal and school-district property as sites, the co-applicant sentences, the 15-foot assemblage rule, the open-character-district exclusion and the setback/stepback anti-workaround sentence, and amended (7)(n).
CORRECTED DURING AUTHORING. This rule was first drafted saying subsection (9) was a 2026 addition, on the strength of a partial grep of the 2025 edition. It is not. The 2025 edition fetched in this session (flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/166.04151, sha256 dc3db11c...) contains s. 166.04151(9)(a) in the words quoted above, and the 2023 and 2024 editions do not. Subsection (9) is ch. 2025-172's and the rule is dated 2025. The wrong version was caught before anything was written to data/ or loaded. CHRONOLOGY of s. 166.04151, established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them (sha256 2108cff2..., the 2024 artifact in acquisitions/fl_166_2024.20260902T065816, dc3db11c..., de4c230b...). ch. 2023-17 (SB 102) created subsections (6) and (7) with commercial/industrial/mixed-use zoning only, a bare density floor, a one-mile height floor, administrative approval, and a duty merely to CONSIDER a parking reduction. ch. 2024-188 (SB 328) added floor area ratio at 150 percent, the single-family adjacency height cap and its ten-foot story, the quarter-mile military installation bar, the website administrative-approval policy, transit-oriented parking elimination and the anti-bootstrap exclusions. ch. 2025-172 added religious-institution and flexibly-zoned sites, the 1 July 2023 baselines, the 10 percent nonresidential ceiling, the longer list of prohibited entitlement demands, the historic-parcel provisions, administrative demolition approval, the 15 percent parking reduction on request, the (7)(n) definitions, the building-moratorium prohibition at subsection (9), the annual report at subsection (10) and the $250,000 attorney-fee cap. The 2026 group (ss. 15 ch. 2026-14; 2 ch. 2026-163; 2 ch. 2026-179) added county, municipal and school-district property as sites, the co-applicant sentences, the 15-foot assemblage rule, the open-character-district exclusion and the setback/stepback anti-workaround sentence, and amended (7)(n).
Effective dates for Florida general acts are recorded here as 1 July of the session year, the ordinary default. They are NOT established from the documents fetched: a codified page prints chapter numbers and no effective dates, and the session laws themselves were not fetched. Where a chapter law carried its own effective date this rule may be wrong by up to a year, and the chapter law should be read before a point-in-time position is taken.
Subsection (6) was enacted by SB 102 (ch. 2023-17) reaching only parcels zoned for commercial or industrial use; ch. 2025-172 added the religious-institution parcel and its contiguous parcels. The 2023 text is quoted alongside the current one so the difference is visible, and the rule is dated from the amendment. Subsection (6) is not subject to the 1 October 2033 expiry in s. 166.04151(7)(p), which is addressed to subsection (7) alone. CHRONOLOGY of s. 166.04151, established 2026-09-02 by fetching the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions from flsenate.gov and diffing them (sha256 2108cff2..., the 2024 artifact in acquisitions/fl_166_2024.20260902T065816, dc3db11c..., de4c230b...). ch. 2023-17 (SB 102) created subsections (6) and (7) with commercial/industrial/mixed-use zoning only, a bare density floor, a one-mile height floor, administrative approval, and a duty merely to CONSIDER a parking reduction. ch. 2024-188 (SB 328) added floor area ratio at 150 percent, the single-family adjacency height cap and its ten-foot story, the quarter-mile military installation bar, the website administrative-approval policy, transit-oriented parking elimination and the anti-bootstrap exclusions. ch. 2025-172 added religious-institution and flexibly-zoned sites, the 1 July 2023 baselines, the 10 percent nonresidential ceiling, the longer list of prohibited entitlement demands, the historic-parcel provisions, administrative demolition approval, the 15 percent parking reduction on request, the (7)(n) definitions, the building-moratorium prohibition at subsection (9), the annual report at subsection (10) and the $250,000 attorney-fee cap. The 2026 group (ss. 15 ch. 2026-14; 2 ch. 2026-163; 2 ch. 2026-179) added county, municipal and school-district property as sites, the co-applicant sentences, the 15-foot assemblage rule, the open-character-district exclusion and the setback/stepback anti-workaround sentence, and amended (7)(n).
Effective dates for Florida general acts are recorded here as 1 July of the session year, the ordinary default. They are NOT established from the documents fetched: a codified page prints chapter numbers and no effective dates, and the session laws themselves were not fetched. Where a chapter law carried its own effective date this rule may be wrong by up to a year, and the chapter law should be read before a point-in-time position is taken.
The subsection states no affordability PERIOD and no monitoring mechanism. Whether a local government may impose a term as a condition of its discretionary approval is not addressed in the text; the corpus records the absence rather than supplying a term.
Effective-from is 1 January 2027, not the enactment of ch. 2026-179, because s. 6 of that chapter provides that its amendments to s. 196.1978 first apply to the 2027 property tax roll. The definition is printed in the 2026 edition of the statutes and is not the law for the 2026 roll. Confirmed by diffing against the 2025 edition fetched in the same session (flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/196.1978, sha256 22d58230...), whose s. 196.1978(3)(a) has only two defined terms, 'Corporation' and 'Newly constructed'.
The statute does not say how the 200-foot separation is measured -- boundary to boundary, or between the nearest improvements -- and Florida Housing's FAQ does not address it. Left open.
The measuring point changed. The 2023 text enacted by SB 102 measured five years back from 'an applicant's first submission of a request for certification OR an application for an exemption pursuant to this section, whichever is earlier'; the current text measures from the first submission of a request for a certification notice under this subsection alone. Both texts are quoted here because a 2024-roll question is answered by the first and a 2025-or-later question by the second.
Whether a market-rate building converted to affordable use by rehabilitation can be 'newly constructed' is unresolved: Florida Housing says in terms that the question 'is not under the statutory authority of Florida Housing and should be addressed with the local property appraiser'. There is no statewide answer to record.
The lookback provision has been in the subsection since SB 102 (ch. 2023-17), where it sat at s. 196.1978(3)(j); it is now (3)(i) after the 2024 renumbering. The figures -- ten years, 50 percent, 15 percent -- are unchanged across the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions fetched in this session.
The statute does not say what starts the ten-year clock running backwards: the year of the appraiser's determination, or the year of the notice. Not resolved on the text.
The 2023 text said only that a determination 'does not constitute final agency action pursuant to chapter 120'. The words 'does not constitute a grant of an exemption pursuant to this subsection or' were added by the 2024 amendments and are in the 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions fetched in this session.
Because the corporation's determination is not final agency action, there is no ch. 120 remedy for a refusal to certify. What remedy an owner does have -- whether the refusal can be challenged at all, and in what forum -- is not addressed in the statute and is not recorded here.
The two-week figure and the 1 January opening are Florida Housing's own statement of practice in a document that disclaims legal force ('provided for information purposes only and is not legal advice'), not a statutory deadline. They are cited as persuasive agency guidance and should not be relied on as a date certain.
s. 196.1978(3)(h) requires the corporation to POST the certification-request deadline. The programme page fetched on 2026-09-02 (sha256 0503a466...) links the Middle Market Portal and the FAQ but posts no deadline on its face. Whether the deadline is published elsewhere -- inside the portal, or on a listserv -- could not be established without portal credentials.
The FHFC income and rent limits page could not be reached this session. Three candidate paths on floridahousing.org (/programs/property-owners-and-managers/compliance/income-and-rent-limits and two variants) each answered HTTP 200 with a soft 404 whose body reads 'the page or document that you're attempting to access has been relocated'. The chart itself is therefore NOT bound to a limit_table id here, and limit_table_ids is left empty rather than pointing at a table nobody verified. The series is identified from the statute and the programme page instead.
Because the cap is tied to 'the most recent chart posted', the operative figure changes without any amendment to the statute and without any hash on the statute moving. This is exactly the freshness blind spot CLAUDE.md describes for codified law cited as a fixed file, inverted: here the law is stable and the number is not.
This paragraph does not appear in the 2023 edition of s. 196.1978(3)(d) fetched in this session; it was added by the 2024 amendments and appears in the 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions. Dated from 1 January 2024 because the subsection as a whole first applied to the 2024 tax roll, which is the earliest roll any part of it can govern.
The statute says 'fairly attributable' and supplies no method. Whether the share is computed by unit count, by square footage or by value is left to the property appraiser and is not recorded here.
Three of the four citations here are to Florida Housing's FAQ, which disclaims legal force. The student and guarantor positions in particular appear nowhere in s. 196.1978 and are recorded as the corporation's stated practice rather than as law. A property appraiser is not bound by them.
No retention period is stated anywhere -- not in the statute, not in the FAQ, not on the DR-504AFH. The ten-year lookback is the only figure available and is not a records rule.
The transient public lodging exclusion was added by the 2024 amendments; the 2023 text carried only the s. 196.1979 exclusion. Subsection (4) and its reciprocal exclusion were created by ch. 2024-158 and first apply to the 2026 tax roll, so the (3)/(4) conflict cannot arise on a roll before 2026.
s. 196.1978(4) -- the 99-year land use restriction agreement exemption, 100 percent exempt from the January 1 assessment after placement in service, with a penalty equal to 100 percent of the amount financed multiplied by each year remaining -- is a live exemption on the 2026 tax roll and has NO programme record in data/programs/programs.json. It is modelled here only through this exclusivity rule. So are ss. 196.19781 (state-owned land, 60-year agreement) and 196.19782 (governmental-entity land, 30-year lease), both created by ch. 2025-208 and both first applying to the 2026 roll; the DR-504AFH covers all of them in one form.
Dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the codified page does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier roll must be answered from that year's edition. This follows the dating convention already used by the Florida exemption rules in data/rules/state/fl.json.
s. 196.011 governs every chapter 196 exemption, not only this one. It is authored under this programme because the programme is the one whose own section says least about filing mechanics; the same text governs fl_nonprofit_exemption and fl_live_local_mmm and a resolver should read it across.
Dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the codified page does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier roll must be answered from that year's edition. This follows the dating convention already used by the Florida exemption rules in data/rules/state/fl.json.
The statute prints a footnote marker at s. 196.011(7)(a) in the 2026 edition. The footnote text was not isolated in this session's extraction, so whether paragraph (7)(a) carries a delayed-application note of its own is unresolved.
Dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the codified page does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier roll must be answered from that year's edition. This follows the dating convention already used by the Florida exemption rules in data/rules/state/fl.json.
Whether any particular Florida county has adopted the s. 196.011(10)(a) waiver is a county-by-county fact this corpus does not hold. It matters: in a waiver county the owner carries an affirmative continuing duty that does not exist in a non-waiver county, and the recapture attaches to breach of that duty.
Dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the codified page does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier roll must be answered from that year's edition. This follows the dating convention already used by the Florida exemption rules in data/rules/state/fl.json.
The programme record for fl_live_local_local_option is named 'Local Option Exemption after Fifteen Years' but its statutory_authority is s. 196.1978(2), which is not a local option: it is a state exemption the property appraiser applies once fifteen years have run. The real local option is s. 196.1979, adopted by county or municipal ordinance, reaching projects of 50 or more units with at least 20 percent affordable at 30 to 60 percent AMI, exempting up to 75 percent of assessed value (100 percent where every unit is affordable), requiring certification by a designated local entity, barring properties with three or more code citations in 24 months or unremedied violations or unpaid fines, and expiring before the fourth 1 January after adoption unless renewed. s. 196.1979 was fetched and read in full this session and remains unmodelled; this rule follows the programme record's statutory_authority, as the existing rules in data/rules/state/fl.json do.
Dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the codified page does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier roll must be answered from that year's edition. This follows the dating convention already used by the Florida exemption rules in data/rules/state/fl.json.
s. 196.196 was last amended by s. 10, ch. 2023-157, per the History line on the 2026 edition read this session. Its subsections (1), (2) and (4) predate the Live Local Act and were not altered by it.
Dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the codified page does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier roll must be answered from that year's edition. This follows the dating convention already used by the Florida exemption rules in data/rules/state/fl.json.
The relationship between this subsection and the rental income an affordable housing nonprofit necessarily receives is not addressed in the text, and no Florida Department of Revenue guidance on the point was fetched this session. Rent from qualifying households is plainly not what the subsection is aimed at, but the boundary is not drawn in any document read here.
Dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the codified page does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier roll must be answered from that year's edition. This follows the dating convention already used by the Florida exemption rules in data/rules/state/fl.json.
The extension in s. 196.196(5)(b)4. states no ceiling and no procedure. Who grants it, whether it must be applied for, and what evidence of 'continuing' affirmative steps satisfies a property appraiser are all unaddressed in the statute and in the DR-504AFH, which asks only whether affirmative steps are claimed and requires documentation of them to be attached.
Dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the codified page does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier roll must be answered from that year's edition. This follows the dating convention already used by the Florida exemption rules in data/rules/state/fl.json.
s. 420.0004 was last amended by s. 146, ch. 2024-6 per the History line on the 2026 edition. The band constructions themselves are older than the Live Local Act and were not changed by it.
s. 420.0004(9) authorises Florida Housing to adjust the extremely-low figure annually by rule. Whether it has done so, and by what rule, could not be established this session: the FHFC income and rent limits page answered a soft 404 at three candidate paths.
Dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the codified page does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier roll must be answered from that year's edition. This follows the dating convention already used by the Florida exemption rules in data/rules/state/fl.json.
s. 196.011(4) says the appraiser 'may' accept the sworn statement. Nothing in the statutes read this session says how an owner asks for that treatment or how an appraiser's refusal is reviewed, and the DR-504AFH provides no short form for it.
67-48.010(17) fixes the rent at 30 percent of the IMPUTED income limitation, but the SAIL income definition at 67-48.002(116)(a)2. uses the highest of the area, MSA, county or statewide median, while section 42's imputed limitation is computed on the area median. The rule does not say which median feeds the imputation for a SAIL-only unit, and this pass could not resolve it from the chapter.
No published SAIL rent limit table was located. FHFC publishes combined income and rent limit tables for its multifamily programmes, but nothing fetched this session ties a SAIL unit to a specific series, so unit.programs[state_htf].maximum_gross_rent has to be supplied from the LURA or the credit underwriting report.
Several Florida counties and municipalities protect classes the state does not, including source of income and sexual orientation. Those ordinances govern where they apply and this corpus holds them only where it has read them.
Florida's Live Local Act preempts certain local land use requirements. Whether any of that preemption reaches a local fair housing ordinance is not addressed in § 760.23 and is not established here.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

tx Texas · 265

TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. Its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels the file 'effective 1/02/2025', every one of the PDF's Source Notes reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the subsection encoded here does not appear in that PDF at all. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
The two routes do not name the same programs. The new-Contract route reaches 'HOME, TCAP-RF or HOME Match Units' and omits HOME-ARP; the opt-in route reaches 'HOME, HOME-ARP, TCAP-RF and HOME Match Units' and includes it. On the face of the text a HOME-ARP development whose Contract is executed on or after 30 April 2026 is not brought in by the first route and has nothing to opt in to under the second, because the second requires a Contract or LURA executed BEFORE 30 April 2026. TDHCA answered no comment on 10.601 and has published no clarification. No inference is drawn; the encoded predicate reaches HOME-ARP developments so that the question surfaces rather than being silently answered 'not subject'.
Subchapter F took effect 29 April 2026 but the cutover date inside 10.601(g) is 30 April 2026, and the Subchapter E adoption that supplies the opt-in mechanism (TRD-202601581, §§10.400, 10.401, 10.405 - 10.408) took effect 30 April 2026. A Contract executed on 29 April 2026 - the one day the switch exists but the cutover has not arrived - is caught by neither route unless an opt-in amendment is later executed. Whether the one-day offset is deliberate alignment with the Subchapter E effective date or a drafting artefact is not stated.
The opt-in must be 'the applicable amendment(s) to opt-in the entirety of rule (to the extent allowed under federal or state law determined by the Department's Legal Division)'. TDHCA has published no template amendment, no list of provisions the Legal Division may carve out, and no statement of whether an opt-in that excludes anything is still an opt-in to 'the entirety'. A development whose amendment excluded some provision cannot be classified from the published rule alone.
The first route turns on a 'Contract with the Department', the second on 'a Contract or a LURA'. Which instrument controls where a development has both and their execution dates straddle 30 April 2026 is not addressed. Nor is what happens when a pre-cutover development receives new Department funds under a fresh Contract after the cutover: the text says a development 'with one or more HOME ... Units' is subject if a Contract is executed on or after the date, which read literally converts the whole development, but TDHCA has not said so.
10.601(g) states only who the 2025 HOME Final Rule applies TO. It does not state which edition of 24 CFR part 92 applies to everyone else, name the prior edition, or give any transition instruction for a certification, a rent determination or a lease in flight across the cutover. Compare Ohio, which published a policy matrix with an implementation date, a mandatory-use date for certifications and a deferred enforcement date. Texas has published none of those.
The adoption preamble for TRD-202601552 says notice, dispute and appeal procedures connected to the new rule 'will be addressed in forthcoming revisions to 10 TAC §10.802, Written Policies and Procedures, which will be presented to the Board in May 2026'. That May 2026 action was not located in this pass, so the procedural half of the regime this switch turns on may exist and be unencoded.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. Its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels the file 'effective 1/02/2025', every one of the PDF's Source Notes reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the subsection encoded here does not appear in that PDF at all. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
The Department's Consolidated Plan Amendment is named as the document that describes which elements of the 2025 HOME Final Rule reach NSP units. It is not a Subchapter F document, it was not located in this pass, and no citation to it is made here. Until it is read, the corpus cannot state which elements bind an NSP development, and this record deliberately says only that the question is document-bound.
'Elements of the HOME Final rule' is not defined and no list is published anywhere in Subchapter F. Two NSP developments with materially identical facts may therefore be subject to different sets of provisions depending on what their Contract and LURA say.
The second branch requires the development to have 'one or more Units subject to the 2025 HOME Final Rule' already. A pure-NSP development with a pre-30-April-2026 Contract therefore has no opt-in route on the face of the text. Whether TDHCA intends that exclusion is not stated.
NSP is not a separately modelled program in this corpus (data/programs holds no 'nsp' record), so this rule is carried under program_id 'home' and its applicability predicate is broader than the obligation. A resolver must read the statement, not just the predicate, before applying it. Modelling NSP as its own program is a corpus-level decision that was not taken in this pass.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. Its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels the file 'effective 1/02/2025', every one of the PDF's Source Notes reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the subsection encoded here does not appear in that PDF at all. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
TDHCA's Government Growth Impact Statement for this adoption says the amendment 'will not increase or decrease the number of individuals subject to the rule's applicability', which characterises the addition of 'inclusive of 501c3 bonds' as a clarification of existing reach rather than an expansion of it. The adoption preamble's substantive summary does not mention 10.601(b)(3) at all and no comment was received on it. Whether a 501(c)(3)-bond development was already inside Subchapter F before 29 April 2026, and therefore whether an owner has exposure for periods before that date, is not resolved by the published record and no inference is drawn here.
The rule says 'inclusive of 501c3 bonds' without distinguishing bonds the Department issued from bonds issued by a local housing finance corporation or another conduit issuer. Subchapter F reaches developments the Department funds or administers, so a 501(c)(3) issue that never passed through TDHCA is presumably outside it, but the amended text does not say so.
This corpus carries no other TDHCA rule under program_id 'tax_exempt_bond'. The whole of Subchapter F now reaches Bond developments and is encoded here only for Housing Tax Credits and HOME, so the Texas Bond overlay is a single scope rule with no substantive obligations beneath it. That is a coverage gap, not a statement that no obligations exist.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. Its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels the file 'effective 1/02/2025', every one of the PDF's Source Notes reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the subsection encoded here does not appear in that PDF at all. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
'Department business day' is used throughout the amended Subchapter F but is defined nowhere in it. 10.621(j) and (k) gloss 72 hours as 'three Department business days', which equates one Department business day with 24 hours and makes the phrase indistinguishable from calendar hours; 10.607(k) states 'five (5) Department business days' with no hour equivalent at all. Whether state holidays and Department closures are excluded, and whether the clock runs from the event or from the next business day, is not stated.
The rule does not say what event starts the clock. 'A change to the Development Owner or management company' could be the closing of the transfer, the recording of the deed, the date the Department approved the transfer under 10.406, or the date the new management agent actually takes over the property. These can be weeks apart on a real transaction and TDHCA has published no guidance choosing among them.
The obligation is placed on 'the new Owner or management company', which on a management change alone leaves the property owner - the party TDHCA holds accountable everywhere else in Subchapter F - not named at all. Whether a failure by an incoming agent is attributed to the owner for enforcement purposes is not stated, though 10.611(a) says generally that certification duties remain the owner's even when a management company performs them.
No content is prescribed for the notice and no Department form is referenced, unlike 10.621(k) which names a Department form. Whether a bare statement that ownership changed suffices, or whether the notice must carry contact details, rent and income implications or the tenant-protection information that 10.406(b)(5) and (6) require on a deed-in-lieu or foreclosure notice, is not addressed.
'Contemporaneously update this information via the CMTS Attachment system' does not say what must be attached - the notice itself, a certification that it was issued, or the new ownership and contact information. TDHCA publishes no CMTS instruction for this filing that was located in this pass.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. Its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels the file 'effective 1/02/2025', every one of the PDF's Source Notes reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the subsection encoded here does not appear in that PDF at all. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
The rule requires 'the Department's form, which is posted on the website'. TDHCA's Compliance Forms page at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/compliance-forms was fetched 2026-08-27 (HTTP 200, 98,255 bytes, sha256 d5249857a649ab9694be5be5b37cbd3c19ca35d259cb7bee701a6f079e7325b8) and lists 53 downloadable forms, none of which matches 'elevator' by title or filename. Four months after the rule took effect the form it requires could not be located on the page. It may exist elsewhere on tdhca.texas.gov or be distributed through CMTS. Until it is found, the corpus cannot describe what the report must contain, and no evidence_type is asserted for it.
'Department business day' is used throughout the amended Subchapter F but is defined nowhere in it. 10.621(j) and (k) gloss 72 hours as 'three Department business days', which equates one Department business day with 24 hours and makes the phrase indistinguishable from calendar hours; 10.607(k) states 'five (5) Department business days' with no hour equivalent at all. Whether state holidays and Department closures are excluded, and whether the clock runs from the event or from the next business day, is not stated.
The rule does not say when the clock starts. 'Non-operable' is undefined, so an elevator taken out of service for scheduled maintenance, one running but with a failed door operator, and one entirely dead are all candidates. Commenters asked for a duration threshold - 'exempting short outages (e.g., under 48 hours)' - and staff declined without substituting a definition.
Whether the report must be renewed while an outage continues, updated on repair, or closed out at all is not stated. 10.621(j) requires an affirmative certification of correction for life-threatening and severe deficiencies; 10.621(k) requires only the initial report.
Figure 10 TAC §10.625 now carries 'Failure to report an inoperable elevator within the required timeframe' as an event of noncompliance for all programs. This corpus's violation taxonomy has no TDHCA events-of-noncompliance family - it holds Form 8823 items, HUD MOR items, RD items and HOME/HTF items only - so no violation_ref is attached to this rule. Attaching viol.lihtc.11q ('Other noncompliance issues') would be wrong on its face, because the Figure marks this event NOT reportable on Form 8823. Building a TDHCA violation family is a data-model decision that was not taken in this pass.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits and HOME. Bond, THTF, TCAP, Exchange, NSP, 811 PRA, TCAP RF, NHTF, HOME-ARP and ERA developments are within the adopted text of this subsection and are NOT separately encoded. Absence of a rule under those program ids is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach them.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. Its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels the file 'effective 1/02/2025', every one of the PDF's Source Notes reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the subsection encoded here does not appear in that PDF at all. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
The rule requires 'the Department's form, which is posted on the website'. TDHCA's Compliance Forms page at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/compliance-forms was fetched 2026-08-27 (HTTP 200, 98,255 bytes, sha256 d5249857a649ab9694be5be5b37cbd3c19ca35d259cb7bee701a6f079e7325b8) and lists 53 downloadable forms, none of which matches 'elevator' by title or filename. Four months after the rule took effect the form it requires could not be located on the page. It may exist elsewhere on tdhca.texas.gov or be distributed through CMTS. Until it is found, the corpus cannot describe what the report must contain, and no evidence_type is asserted for it.
'Department business day' is used throughout the amended Subchapter F but is defined nowhere in it. 10.621(j) and (k) gloss 72 hours as 'three Department business days', which equates one Department business day with 24 hours and makes the phrase indistinguishable from calendar hours; 10.607(k) states 'five (5) Department business days' with no hour equivalent at all. Whether state holidays and Department closures are excluded, and whether the clock runs from the event or from the next business day, is not stated.
The rule does not say when the clock starts. 'Non-operable' is undefined, so an elevator taken out of service for scheduled maintenance, one running but with a failed door operator, and one entirely dead are all candidates. Commenters asked for a duration threshold - 'exempting short outages (e.g., under 48 hours)' - and staff declined without substituting a definition.
Whether the report must be renewed while an outage continues, updated on repair, or closed out at all is not stated. 10.621(j) requires an affirmative certification of correction for life-threatening and severe deficiencies; 10.621(k) requires only the initial report.
Figure 10 TAC §10.625 now carries 'Failure to report an inoperable elevator within the required timeframe' as an event of noncompliance for all programs. This corpus's violation taxonomy has no TDHCA events-of-noncompliance family - it holds Form 8823 items, HUD MOR items, RD items and HOME/HTF items only - so no violation_ref is attached to this rule. Attaching viol.lihtc.11q ('Other noncompliance issues') would be wrong on its face, because the Figure marks this event NOT reportable on Form 8823. Building a TDHCA violation family is a data-model decision that was not taken in this pass.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits and HOME. Bond, THTF, TCAP, Exchange, NSP, 811 PRA, TCAP RF, NHTF, HOME-ARP and ERA developments are within the adopted text of this subsection and are NOT separately encoded. Absence of a rule under those program ids is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach them.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. Its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels the file 'effective 1/02/2025', every one of the PDF's Source Notes reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the subsection encoded here does not appear in that PDF at all. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
The two branches are not symmetrical and TDHCA did not explain the asymmetry. A floating-unit development must notify ALL households; a fixed-unit development need notify only the Designated Units. A development with both fixed and floating units satisfies both conditions as drafted and is on the wider duty.
How 10.622(m) interacts with 10.622(l) is not stated. An increase of $75 or more at a 2025-HOME-Final-Rule development appears to require the 75-day notice, so a single 75-day notice would satisfy both; an increase under $75 requires only the 60-day notice. TDHCA addressed the 90-day utility allowance notice expressly and said it does not cover the new requirement, but said nothing about the 75-day notice, and the two carry different refund remedies - 10.622(l) refunds only amounts in excess of $75 per month, 10.622(m) refunds any increase at all.
Unlike 10.622(b), (d) and (e), subsection (m) does not state a deadline for presenting the refund check where the household makes no election. Those subsections say 'within thirty days'; (m) says only 'a full refund check must be presented to the household'. Whether the 30-day convention carries over is not stated.
Whether the refund runs for as long as the un-noticed increase was collected, or is a one-time repayment of the increment, is not stated, and neither is whether the owner may cure by giving notice and re-imposing the increase 60 days later.
The trust-account mechanism in 10.622(f) is expressly tied to refunds required 'under subsection (b), (d) or (e)'. It was not amended to name (m), so where an owner owes a refund under (m) and cannot locate the resident, no disposition is prescribed.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. Its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels the file 'effective 1/02/2025', every one of the PDF's Source Notes reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the subsection encoded here does not appear in that PDF at all. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
As adopted, this subsection carries NO limitation to developments subject to the 2025 HOME Final Rule, while 10.622(m) immediately above it carries that limitation expressly. On its face it therefore reaches every development monitored under Subchapter F, including HTC-only, Bond, THTF, NHTF and 811 PRA developments. The adoption preamble's opening summary says the package 'add[s] new program requirements to developments that are subject to the new HOME Final rule', and the underlying federal provision is a 2025 HOME Final Rule tenant protection, which cuts the other way. TDHCA did not reconcile the two and answered no comment on the point. The applicability predicate encoded here is the narrower reading (HOME units at TDHCA-monitored developments) because that is the population the corpus can defend; the broader reading is recorded here rather than resolved by inference, and an operator with HTC-only Texas assets should treat the question as open.
'Additional out of pocket costs' is not defined. Whether it reaches a convenience fee only, or also the cost of a money order, postage, or travel to a payment location, is not stated. Nor is it stated whether a fee absorbed by the owner and recovered through rent is an out-of-pocket cost to the household.
The rule says an owner 'must provide an option'. It does not say the option must be practical for every household - a no-fee ACH debit is free but unavailable to an unbanked household, and cash at the leasing office is free but not available outside office hours. TDHCA received and answered no comment on 10.622(n) and published no guidance.
No remedy is stated in the subsection, unlike (m), which carries its own refund mechanism. Whether a household that paid convenience fees while no free option existed is entitled to reimbursement is not addressed.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits and HOME. Bond, THTF, TCAP, Exchange, NSP, 811 PRA, TCAP RF, NHTF, HOME-ARP and ERA developments are within the adopted text of this subsection and are NOT separately encoded. Absence of a rule under those program ids is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach them.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. Its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels the file 'effective 1/02/2025', every one of the PDF's Source Notes reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the subsection encoded here does not appear in that PDF at all. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
'Full rent' is not defined and TDHCA declined to define it. Four commenters asked whether it means base rent alone or includes mandatory fees, utilities and other lease-authorised charges; the staff response addressed the due date and prior balances and did not answer. Since Subchapter F elsewhere computes GROSS rent as rent plus utility allowance plus mandatory fees (10.622(a), (d), (e)), a reading either way is arguable and the corpus does not choose.
'Outstanding previous rent balances' is likewise undefined. Whether an unpaid late fee, a damage charge or a utility arrears counts as a rent balance is not stated, and on the broader reading almost any ledger item would switch the prohibition off.
No remedy is stated. Unlike 10.622(m) the subsection carries no refund or credit mechanism, so the consequence is the ordinary Subchapter F finding with a correction period, and what correction looks like after a refused tender - accept it late, unwind an eviction, waive fees - is not addressed.
Whether the prohibition survives a lease termination notice or a filed eviction, which is the situation in which a tender is most often refused, is not addressed. Texas landlord-tenant law is not displaced by the rule and the interaction is not stated.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits and HOME. Bond, THTF, TCAP, Exchange, NSP, 811 PRA, TCAP RF, NHTF, HOME-ARP and ERA developments are within the adopted text of this subsection and are NOT separately encoded. Absence of a rule under those program ids is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach them.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. Its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels the file 'effective 1/02/2025', every one of the PDF's Source Notes reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the subsection encoded here does not appear in that PDF at all. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
'Full rent' is not defined and TDHCA declined to define it. Four commenters asked whether it means base rent alone or includes mandatory fees, utilities and other lease-authorised charges; the staff response addressed the due date and prior balances and did not answer. Since Subchapter F elsewhere computes GROSS rent as rent plus utility allowance plus mandatory fees (10.622(a), (d), (e)), a reading either way is arguable and the corpus does not choose.
'Outstanding previous rent balances' is likewise undefined. Whether an unpaid late fee, a damage charge or a utility arrears counts as a rent balance is not stated, and on the broader reading almost any ledger item would switch the prohibition off.
No remedy is stated. Unlike 10.622(m) the subsection carries no refund or credit mechanism, so the consequence is the ordinary Subchapter F finding with a correction period, and what correction looks like after a refused tender - accept it late, unwind an eviction, waive fees - is not addressed.
Whether the prohibition survives a lease termination notice or a filed eviction, which is the situation in which a tender is most often refused, is not addressed. Texas landlord-tenant law is not displaced by the rule and the interaction is not stated.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits and HOME. Bond, THTF, TCAP, Exchange, NSP, 811 PRA, TCAP RF, NHTF, HOME-ARP and ERA developments are within the adopted text of this subsection and are NOT separately encoded. Absence of a rule under those program ids is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach them.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. Its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels the file 'effective 1/02/2025', every one of the PDF's Source Notes reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the subsection encoded here does not appear in that PDF at all. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
As adopted, this subsection carries NO limitation to developments subject to the 2025 HOME Final Rule, while 10.622(m) immediately above it carries that limitation expressly. On its face it therefore reaches every development monitored under Subchapter F, including HTC-only, Bond, THTF, NHTF and 811 PRA developments. The adoption preamble's opening summary says the package 'add[s] new program requirements to developments that are subject to the new HOME Final rule', and the underlying federal provision is a 2025 HOME Final Rule tenant protection, which cuts the other way. TDHCA did not reconcile the two and answered no comment on the point. The applicability predicate encoded here is the narrower reading (HOME units at TDHCA-monitored developments) because that is the population the corpus can defend; the broader reading is recorded here rather than resolved by inference, and an operator with HTC-only Texas assets should treat the question as open.
The governing period is not a figure TDHCA publishes. 'The longer of the required period identified by the applicable federal program, or as directed by state law' requires the reader to identify a federal period and a state-law period and compare them, and the rule names neither. No cross-reference, no example and no table was published, and the parameter for the period is therefore emitted here with no value rather than with a guessed one.
'An Owner that controls utilities' is not defined. Whether it reaches only master-metered service in the owner's name, or also a submetered arrangement billed through a third-party billing company under 10.614(b)(6), is not stated - though the submetered case is the one in which an owner most plausibly could cut service.
The prohibition is on stopping service 'during' a period, which implies a period that begins somewhere. What starts it - a disaster declaration, a nonpayment, a termination notice, the tenancy itself - is not stated, and the answer determines whether the rule is an emergency protection or a permanent one.
No exception is stated for a stoppage the owner does not choose: a utility provider disconnecting the master account, a casualty, or a repair requiring a shutdown. Read literally the subsection is absolute.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits and HOME. Bond, THTF, TCAP, Exchange, NSP, 811 PRA, TCAP RF, NHTF, HOME-ARP and ERA developments are within the adopted text of this subsection and are NOT separately encoded. Absence of a rule under those program ids is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach them.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. Its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels the file 'effective 1/02/2025', every one of the PDF's Source Notes reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the subsection encoded here does not appear in that PDF at all. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
'Units subject to the 2013 HOME Rule' is used as the disqualifying condition in all three sentences but is defined nowhere in Subchapter F, and 10.601(g) - the only place the amendments define anything about rule editions - says only which developments are subject to the 2025 rule. Whether every unit at a pre-cutover development that has not opted in is a '2013 HOME Rule' unit, or whether the phrase reaches only units committed under the 2013 regulations specifically, is not stated. On a mixed-vintage development the answer decides whether the PHA method is available at all.
The three sentences do not agree with one another. 10.614(c) reaches 'a Development with HOME-ARP Units OR Units subject to the 2025 HOME Final Rule'; 10.614(d)(3) reaches 'a Development that is subject to the 2025 HOME Final Rule' and separately preserves a HOME-ARP-only route; 10.614(k)(3) reaches 'a Development with HOME-ARP Units THAT IS subject to the 2025 HOME Final Rule', requiring both. A HOME-ARP development that has not opted in therefore appears to keep the method under (c) and (d)(3) but to lose it at application under (k)(3). TDHCA answered no comment on 10.614 and published no reconciliation.
10.614(k)(3) is a NARROWING as adopted. The 2 January 2025 text read simply 'HOME-ARP may use subsection (c)(3)(A) of this section.' with no condition attached. From 29 April 2026 an applicant with HOME-ARP units that is not subject to the 2025 HOME Final Rule, or that holds any 2013-HOME unit, may no longer use the PHA schedule at application. No transition instruction was published for an application already prepared on the prior permission.
10.614(d)(3) requires that 'the methodology must be annually reviewed and approved by the Department' but does not say whether a development electing the PHA schedule under the new sentence must also meet the 1 October request deadline in 10.614(d)(4), after which the Department calculates the allowance itself using the HUD Utility Schedule Model. The two paragraphs sit adjacent and are not cross-referenced.
'Cannot combine two methods in one building' was carried over from the 2 January 2025 text, where it applied only to HOME-ARP. It now attaches to a much wider population without any statement of how it interacts with 10.614(i), which permits combining methods per utility service type in general but forbids it for RHS and certain HUD-regulated buildings, a class 10.614(c)(2) says includes every MFDL development.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
Subchapter F as adopted 29 April 2026 contains no HOTMA implementation date, no reference to the 2023 HOTMA final rule, and no statement of whether the '24 CFR 5.609 as amended from time to time' language automatically pulls in the HOTMA-amended 5.609 for LIHTC files. TDHCA's compliance division should be asked directly; nothing in the rule text answers it and it is not guessed here.
The Bond sentence gives the owner 'HUD Handbook 4350.3 or the IRS guidance ... (if applicable)' without saying who elects, when the election is made, or whether it can vary between certifications at the same property.
The rule does not say whether the prescribed veteran statement must appear verbatim or whether substantially similar wording suffices, nor whether a missing statement is curable by reissuing the application to an existing household.
'Signed by all adults' is not defined against an age; TDHCA's Income Certification form is the operative definition and was not read in this pass. Do not assume the HUD 18-or-older convention without checking the form.
'Obvious attempts at forgery, alteration, or generation of falsified documents' sets no standard of review and names no required step (no duty to call the employer, no duty to compare against a second source). Whether an owner who accepted a convincing forgery is cited is left to monitoring discretion.
The 60-day MFDL floor is expressed in months and days ('at least two months (60 days)'). Which controls for a household paid semi-monthly whose two most recent statements span 62 days is not addressed.
The rule lists 'rental assistance (if any)' without saying what granularity is required -- the fact of assistance, the programme, or the amount.
Ethnicity and race are collected under HUD conventions that permit a household to decline to report. The rule does not say how a declination is documented so that the file is not read as incomplete at monitoring.
The 120-day window is anchored to 'the anniversary of the effective date of the original Income Certification'. For a household that has transferred units or been re-designated, which certification is 'original' is not stated, and 10.616 keeps the original move-in date for some transfers but not all.
The Bond re-designation to Eligible Tenant is phrased permissively ('it may be possible'), with no stated criteria, approval route or deadline. Treated here as an option whose availability is undetermined, not as a right.
The Texas Register filing states 'Effective date: April 29, 2026' for TRD-202601555 while 10.628(b) says the rule is effective beginning 1 August 2026. Encoded as effective.from 2026-04-29 with compliance_date 2026-08-01; TDHCA should confirm which date it will monitor against for a lease renewal effective between the two.
10.628(e)(4) requires 'adequate written notice' and DHS contact information on a SAVE-based denial but defers the notice content, timing, delayed and inconclusive result handling, and any dispute or appeal process to forthcoming revisions of 10 TAC 10.802, which staff said would go to the Board in May 2026. Those revisions were not located in this pass and are not encoded.
Whether a household that fails verification may remain in occupancy pending a DHS correction, and for how long, is not stated anywhere in 10.628.
Commenter 16 argued in the adoption that 'sufficient' transmittal systems and 'sufficient' evidence in 10.628(f)(2)(D) are discretionary standards that will produce inconsistent files. TDHCA did not tighten the wording; the record contents encoded here are the ones the rule states expressly, and no additional inference is drawn.
The Department's documentation checklist or flowchart referenced in 10.628(f)(2)(A) had not been published at adoption -- staff said the household verification form and other documents 'will be made available'. It was not located in this pass, so the acceptable-document list itself is not encoded.
The Owner-Department SAVE delegation agreement required by 10.628(f)(2)(E) is not published; its tenant-notice and data-privacy terms are therefore unknown.
The rule requires the policy to 'address how the waiting list ... will be managed' without prescribing an ordering rule, so two Texas properties can run lawful but incompatible lists. What TDHCA will accept as adequate management is not stated.
'Unless otherwise approved at Application, underwriting, and cost certification' is conjunctive as written. Whether an approval recorded at only one of those three stages suffices is not addressed.
The rule redesignates the HOUSEHOLD as over income but expresses the cure against the UNIT on turnover. Whether the unit's AMI designation itself changes in the interim -- and therefore what rent limit binds the over income household until it moves -- is not stated in 10.615(d).
10.615(d) gives no band for a household sitting at or below the 50%, 40%, 30% or 20% designations in an average income project; read literally, paragraph (1)'s 'less than the 60% limits' sweeps them all into the 60% band, which is more generous than a band-by-band reading. Not resolved.
Nothing states how long the owner has to find a replacement household that restores the 60% average, or what happens if the next qualified applicant would satisfy the rent-level test but not the average test.
The rule does not say which years' Qualified Allocation Plans carried the incentive, so whether a given LURA contains the requirement can only be established from the LURA itself.
'Student rules do not apply' is unqualified. Whether that also disapplies the student-status data collection duty of 10.612(b)(2) for these units, or only the section 42 eligibility test, is not stated.
Nothing addresses what happens if an 80% household's income later rises; with no recertification there is no mechanism to detect it and no over-income consequence is described.
10.615(f) and 10.611(d) come from different sections adopted on different dates and are not cross-referenced to each other. Whether TDHCA reads them as one prohibition or two independent ones matters if a household's designation change is permitted under 10.611(d) but the effect is to unwind over-designation.
'Attrition and new move ins' is not defined. Whether an internal transfer under 10.616 counts as attrition for the vacated unit is not stated.
'100% of the households pay rent equal to 30% of their adjusted income' does not say how a household with zero income, or one whose rent is fixed by a layered federal programme at something other than 30%, affects the property's qualification for the carve-out.
Whether the property must notify TDHCA that it is operating under 10.615(g), or whether the carve-out is self-executing from the rent roll, is not stated.
10.616(a)(2)'s average income branch tests the transferring household's designation against 'the percentage represented at the time of Application', which is the underwriting figure rather than the current project average. Whether TDHCA reads those as the same number for a project whose designations have since shifted is not addressed.
10.616(d) says the Unit designations 'will swap status' on a same-building transfer but does not say whether the household's own designation, move-in date or recertification anniversary travel with it.
The third exception, 'program rules required the change', is circular on its face: it permits an increase whenever some other rule requires one, without naming which rules those are. HOME's over-income rent adjustment at 10.622(g) is the obvious candidate but the rule does not say so.
The protection is expressed against the household's 'lowest designation'. For a household that has transferred units under 10.616 and swapped designations under 10.616(d), which designation is the protected one is not addressed.
TDHCA's Governing Board approved a proposed new 10 TAC Chapter 10, Subchapter F on 15 January 2026, scheduled for publication in the 30 January 2026 Texas Register with public comment closing 3 March 2026, expressly to reflect the HOME Final Rule published by HUD on 24 May 2024 with an implementation date of 30 April 2026 (board-approved draft at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/10TAC10F-CMRules.pdf). A further rule action on Section 10.614 Utility Allowances was approved by the Board on 9 July 2026 and released for public comment. As of 2026-08-24 TDHCA's own Compliance Manuals and Rules page still lists the Subchapter F effective date as 2 January 2025, which is the text encoded here. Whether either amendment has since been adopted, and what it changes for HOME, must be checked before this rule is relied on for an event after 30 April 2026.
Section 10.611(c)'s second sentence is ungrammatical as adopted -- 'This permission is removed if any entity that is in the Control of the operation of the Development or is in any way associated with the certifying Housing Authority.' -- with no predicate. The reading encoded here is that the permission is removed where such an association exists, which is the only reading that gives the sentence work to do, but TDHCA has not published a clarification and the sentence survives unchanged into the board-approved 2026 draft.
Whether the 2025 HOME Final Rule's safe harbour income determinations are available at all in Texas is unresolved. Section 10.611(c) closes means-tested verifications other than the voucher route, and the currently effective Subchapter F predates HUD's rule; the pending amendment is the document that would answer it. Not inferred.
Section 10.611(d) makes an over-income determination turn on the unit going 'over income as defined in ... the HOME Final Rule' without naming a section or a version. Which edition of part 92 that phrase points to for a project committed before 20 April 2025 is not stated, and Texas has published no transition matrix of the kind Ohio issued.
TDHCA's Governing Board approved a proposed new 10 TAC Chapter 10, Subchapter F on 15 January 2026, scheduled for publication in the 30 January 2026 Texas Register with public comment closing 3 March 2026, expressly to reflect the HOME Final Rule published by HUD on 24 May 2024 with an implementation date of 30 April 2026 (board-approved draft at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/10TAC10F-CMRules.pdf). A further rule action on Section 10.614 Utility Allowances was approved by the Board on 9 July 2026 and released for public comment. As of 2026-08-24 TDHCA's own Compliance Manuals and Rules page still lists the Subchapter F effective date as 2 January 2025, which is the text encoded here. Whether either amendment has since been adopted, and what it changes for HOME, must be checked before this rule is relied on for an event after 30 April 2026.
Section 10.612(c) does not say what happens to the six-year clock when a household's intervening-year self-certification triggers a full verified recertification. Whether that verified recertification resets the cycle, so the next sixth-year event moves, or is an extra event that leaves the LURA-anchored cycle in place, is not addressed. The example at 10.612(c)(1)-(2) works only for a household that never triggers.
The 120-day student-status window at 10.612(b)(2) and the 120-day self-certification window at 10.612(c)(3) both run from the anniversary of the original income certification, while the sixth-year recertification at 10.612(c)(1) is 'due on the anniversary of the household's move-in date'. Where those dates differ, which anniversary governs the intervening years for a household that moved in mid-cycle is unresolved.
TDHCA's Income Certification form, Annual Eligibility Certification and Certification of Student Eligibility are named as mandatory but were not separately fetched or version-checked in this pass; the requirement is encoded from the rule's own words. Form versions change without a rule amendment, so a version check is needed before relying on any copy.
TDHCA's Governing Board approved a proposed new 10 TAC Chapter 10, Subchapter F on 15 January 2026, scheduled for publication in the 30 January 2026 Texas Register with public comment closing 3 March 2026, expressly to reflect the HOME Final Rule published by HUD on 24 May 2024 with an implementation date of 30 April 2026 (board-approved draft at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/10TAC10F-CMRules.pdf). A further rule action on Section 10.614 Utility Allowances was approved by the Board on 9 July 2026 and released for public comment. As of 2026-08-24 TDHCA's own Compliance Manuals and Rules page still lists the Subchapter F effective date as 2 January 2025, which is the text encoded here. Whether either amendment has since been adopted, and what it changes for HOME, must be checked before this rule is relied on for an event after 30 April 2026.
A separate Section 10.614 rule action was approved by the TDHCA Governing Board on 9 July 2026 and released for public comment, and the 2026 Multifamily Direct Loan Rule draft states its purpose as allowing 'greater flexibility regarding Utility Allowances at HOME-assisted properties that are subject to the 2025 HOME Final Rule'. That strongly suggests the HUD-regulated-building classification and the resulting exclusion of the PHA schedule are the provisions being relaxed. Neither the direction nor the adoption date is confirmed, and the currently effective text is what is encoded.
10.614(c)(2) rests the classification on the absence of 'further guidance ... from the U.S. Department of Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service', which are the Housing Credit authorities rather than the HOME authority. Why HOME utility-allowance treatment is made contingent on Treasury or IRS guidance rather than HUD guidance is not explained anywhere in the rule.
The rule says an allowance is 'considered implemented once the Unit Status Report is updated and rents are restricted' but does not say how long an owner has to implement an approved allowance, or whether the effective date is the approval date or the implementation date. Where those differ, which one a rent overcharge is measured from is unresolved.
TDHCA's Governing Board approved a proposed new 10 TAC Chapter 10, Subchapter F on 15 January 2026, scheduled for publication in the 30 January 2026 Texas Register with public comment closing 3 March 2026, expressly to reflect the HOME Final Rule published by HUD on 24 May 2024 with an implementation date of 30 April 2026 (board-approved draft at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/10TAC10F-CMRules.pdf). A further rule action on Section 10.614 Utility Allowances was approved by the Board on 9 July 2026 and released for public comment. As of 2026-08-24 TDHCA's own Compliance Manuals and Rules page still lists the Subchapter F effective date as 2 January 2025, which is the text encoded here. Whether either amendment has since been adopted, and what it changes for HOME, must be checked before this rule is relied on for an event after 30 April 2026.
10 TAC 10.403 refers the substance of the submission to the Post Award Activities Manual, which was not fetched or hash-verified in this pass. The manual may add required attachments, a submission portal or interim deadlines that the rule does not state. The August 1 date and the 30-day turnaround are taken from the rule itself and are safe; the packet contents beyond the four named items are not.
Neither chapter says what an owner may charge between August 1 and the date the approval letter issues, nor whether an increase may take effect while the review is pending. Ohio has the same gap. Given 10.622(d)'s refund remedy for any rent above the applicable limit, the exposure of guessing wrong is a per-household refund rather than a finding alone.
10.403(a) limits the requirement to commitments on or after 23 August 2013 but 10.622(j) states the compliance obligation without that limit. Whether a pre-2013 Texas HOME development is outside the annual approval requirement entirely, or inside it via 10.622(j), is unresolved on the face of the two rules.
TDHCA's Governing Board approved a proposed new 10 TAC Chapter 10, Subchapter F on 15 January 2026, scheduled for publication in the 30 January 2026 Texas Register with public comment closing 3 March 2026, expressly to reflect the HOME Final Rule published by HUD on 24 May 2024 with an implementation date of 30 April 2026 (board-approved draft at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/10TAC10F-CMRules.pdf). A further rule action on Section 10.614 Utility Allowances was approved by the Board on 9 July 2026 and released for public comment. As of 2026-08-24 TDHCA's own Compliance Manuals and Rules page still lists the Subchapter F effective date as 2 January 2025, which is the text encoded here. Whether either amendment has since been adopted, and what it changes for HOME, must be checked before this rule is relied on for an event after 30 April 2026.
The rule does not say whether the twelve months run from the effective date of the previous increase, from the lease anniversary, or on a rolling basis. Nor does it say how a mid-year unit transfer to a same-size unit is treated, since only a transfer to a unit with additional bedrooms is excepted. Not inferred.
'Governed by a federal housing program that requires such changes' is undefined. Whether a Housing Choice Voucher household whose tenant portion is recalculated by the housing authority falls inside the exception, and whether a HOME unit layered with Housing Credits counts as governed by a federal housing program for this purpose, is unresolved and is the exception operators will most often reach for.
10.622(f) ties the trust account's outer bound to 'the expiration of the Extended Use Agreement', which is Housing Credit vocabulary. What the analogous date is for a HOME-only development whose restriction is a LURA rather than an extended use agreement is not stated.
TDHCA's Governing Board approved a proposed new 10 TAC Chapter 10, Subchapter F on 15 January 2026, scheduled for publication in the 30 January 2026 Texas Register with public comment closing 3 March 2026, expressly to reflect the HOME Final Rule published by HUD on 24 May 2024 with an implementation date of 30 April 2026 (board-approved draft at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/10TAC10F-CMRules.pdf). A further rule action on Section 10.614 Utility Allowances was approved by the Board on 9 July 2026 and released for public comment. As of 2026-08-24 TDHCA's own Compliance Manuals and Rules page still lists the Subchapter F effective date as 2 January 2025, which is the text encoded here. Whether either amendment has since been adopted, and what it changes for HOME, must be checked before this rule is relied on for an event after 30 April 2026.
The rule does not say who determines 'comparable Market rent' at a mixed-income development, how current the determination must be, or whether the Department will accept the owner's own market units as the comparison. A development with market units of a different bedroom mix has no obvious comparator, and TDHCA publishes no methodology.
The three branches are drafted as though a development falls into exactly one, but a HOME development layered with Housing Credits AND carrying market-rate units satisfies both 10.622(g)(2) and 10.622(g)(3). Which governs is not stated. Taking the lesser of all three figures is the conservative reading but it is a reading, not the rule's text, and it is not encoded as such.
24 CFR 92.252(i) distinguishes fixed from floating HOME units in its over-income treatment and 10.622(g) does not mention the distinction at all. Whether TDHCA's branches displace the federal fixed/floating analysis or sit on top of it is unresolved, and it matters because the federal rule can require the next available unit to be redesignated rather than the rent to be raised.
TDHCA's Governing Board approved a proposed new 10 TAC Chapter 10, Subchapter F on 15 January 2026, scheduled for publication in the 30 January 2026 Texas Register with public comment closing 3 March 2026, expressly to reflect the HOME Final Rule published by HUD on 24 May 2024 with an implementation date of 30 April 2026 (board-approved draft at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/10TAC10F-CMRules.pdf). A further rule action on Section 10.614 Utility Allowances was approved by the Board on 9 July 2026 and released for public comment. As of 2026-08-24 TDHCA's own Compliance Manuals and Rules page still lists the Subchapter F effective date as 2 January 2025, which is the text encoded here. Whether either amendment has since been adopted, and what it changes for HOME, must be checked before this rule is relied on for an event after 30 April 2026.
10.602(b) sets no corrective action period for a violation that poses an imminent hazard or threat to health and safety; it only excludes such violations from the 30 and 90 day rule. What period applies instead, and whether it is set case by case in the notice, is not stated anywhere in the subchapter. That is a deliberate gap in this rule rather than an oversight, and no value is encoded for it.
10.602(g) lets a shorter federal or state deadline displace the 90 days. Which federal HOME deadlines TDHCA treats as doing so is not enumerated. An owner cannot tell from the rule whether a given HOME finding carries 90 days or less until the notice arrives.
The HUD Texas Field Office escalation route at 10.604(3) is available for HOME matters but the rule does not say whether requesting it tolls the corrective action period. Given that ADR expressly does not toll the parallel IRS filing deadline for Housing Credit matters, the safer reading is that it does not toll, but TDHCA does not say so for HOME.
TDHCA's Governing Board approved a proposed new 10 TAC Chapter 10, Subchapter F on 15 January 2026, scheduled for publication in the 30 January 2026 Texas Register with public comment closing 3 March 2026, expressly to reflect the HOME Final Rule published by HUD on 24 May 2024 with an implementation date of 30 April 2026 (board-approved draft at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/10TAC10F-CMRules.pdf). A further rule action on Section 10.614 Utility Allowances was approved by the Board on 9 July 2026 and released for public comment. As of 2026-08-24 TDHCA's own Compliance Manuals and Rules page still lists the Subchapter F effective date as 2 January 2025, which is the text encoded here. Whether either amendment has since been adopted, and what it changes for HOME, must be checked before this rule is relied on for an event after 30 April 2026.
10.607 is written for all twelve programs Subchapter F covers and does not say which parts of the Annual Owner's Compliance Report a HOME-only development must complete beyond 'some or all of the Report'. Part A's content is defined by reference to Treasury Regulation 1.42-5(b)(1) 'or the applicable program rules', which are not enumerated for HOME. Which questions a HOME-only owner answers is not resolvable from the rule.
The rule sets no deadline relationship between the April 30 Annual Owner's Compliance Report and the August 1 rent approval packet, which go to different divisions and cover different periods. Whether the rent packet may rely on the data already certified in the April filing, or must restate it, is not addressed.
TDHCA's Compliance Monitoring and Tracking System is the required channel and the rule makes correspondence sent to the email or physical address shown in CMTS deemed delivered. Whether a HOME development that has never been issued CMTS credentials -- for example one funded by a local political subdivision rather than directly by the Department -- is nonetheless subject to this section was not resolved.
TDHCA's Governing Board approved a proposed new 10 TAC Chapter 10, Subchapter F on 15 January 2026, scheduled for publication in the 30 January 2026 Texas Register with public comment closing 3 March 2026, expressly to reflect the HOME Final Rule published by HUD on 24 May 2024 with an implementation date of 30 April 2026 (board-approved draft at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/10TAC10F-CMRules.pdf). A further rule action on Section 10.614 Utility Allowances was approved by the Board on 9 July 2026 and released for public comment. As of 2026-08-24 TDHCA's own Compliance Manuals and Rules page still lists the Subchapter F effective date as 2 January 2025, which is the text encoded here. Whether either amendment has since been adopted, and what it changes for HOME, must be checked before this rule is relied on for an event after 30 April 2026.
Neither subsection says how long a development has to re-lease the vacated unit to a program-eligible household. Part 92 has no vacant-unit clock for HOME comparable to the Housing Credit vacant unit rule, and 10.616 supplies none. A development that transfers a household and leaves the vacated unit empty is out of the mix for an unspecified period, and whether that is itself a finding is unresolved.
10.616(b) covers floating units for Bond, THTF, NHTF, HOME, TCAP RF, NSP and HOME-ARP together; 10.616(c) covers fixed units for the same list minus Bond and THTF. Whether the omission of Bond and state Housing Trust Fund from the fixed-unit subsection is deliberate or a drafting artefact is not explained, and it matters at a HOME development layered with bonds.
The rule says a certification is not required 'at the time of transfer' but does not say whether the household's existing certification carries over unchanged to the new unit, including its income designation, where the new unit carries a different income restriction under the LURA. 10.611(d) bars increasing a household's lowest designation except in three cases, none of which is a transfer.
TDHCA's Governing Board approved a proposed new 10 TAC Chapter 10, Subchapter F on 15 January 2026, scheduled for publication in the 30 January 2026 Texas Register with public comment closing 3 March 2026, expressly to reflect the HOME Final Rule published by HUD on 24 May 2024 with an implementation date of 30 April 2026 (board-approved draft at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/10TAC10F-CMRules.pdf). A further rule action on Section 10.614 Utility Allowances was approved by the Board on 9 July 2026 and released for public comment. As of 2026-08-24 TDHCA's own Compliance Manuals and Rules page still lists the Subchapter F effective date as 2 January 2025, which is the text encoded here. Whether either amendment has since been adopted, and what it changes for HOME, must be checked before this rule is relied on for an event after 30 April 2026.
10.618(b)(6) triggers an accelerated in-person schedule at a score of 70 or below but never states the accelerated interval, and no TDHCA document located on 2026-08-24 supplies one. The parameter therefore carries the trigger and not the consequence; no interval value is invented.
The rule sets the sample as 'an interior inspection of a sample of Units' without a minimum count or percentage, where New York's SRDI plan publishes explicit minimums of all units in a 1-4 unit project and 20 percent but no fewer than 4 per building in larger ones. Whether TDHCA follows the HUD sampling table at 24 CFR 92.504(d) or its own is not stated.
10.618(a) bounds the monitoring right by 'the end of the Compliance Period or the end of the period covered by the LURA, whichever is later'. Compliance Period is a Housing Credit term. For a HOME-only development the operative bound is presumably the LURA, but the rule does not say so and the phrase is not defined for HOME anywhere in the subchapter.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. The file served at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf was re-fetched 2026-08-28: its §10.613 ends at subsection (n), its Source Note reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the strings 'surety', 'tenancy addendum', 'lease template' and 'P.O. Box 13941' do not occur anywhere in it. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
'Designated Unit' carries every obligation in 10.613(o)(1) - (o)(3) and is not defined anywhere in the text this adoption republished. 10.601(f) says only that capitalized terms 'are defined in this title'; the definitions sections of Chapter 10 were not part of TRD-202601552 and were not read in this pass. Whether a floating unit is a Designated Unit only while it is currently designated, or from the point of designation onward, decides which leases (o)(2) and (o)(3) reach on a floating-unit development and is not resolved here.
'instruments similar to surety bonds or security deposit insurance' is not defined and no example is given. Whether a third-party deposit-replacement subscription, a lease-guarantee product bought by the owner rather than the resident, or a co-signer guaranty falls inside the phrase is not addressed, and TDHCA published no guidance on it in this adoption.
The paragraph says the ban applies 'for any Unit in a Development with floating Units'. It does not say what happens at a development that holds BOTH floating and fixed units, which is common where HOME and Housing Credits are layered. Read literally the floating-unit branch swallows the development.
No transition or grandfathering language appears. Whether a policy already in force on 28 April 2026 must be terminated, allowed to run to the end of its term, or replaced at the next lease renewal is not stated anywhere in the adoption or its preamble.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits, HOME and Tax Exempt Bond. Absence of a rule under another program id is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach that program.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. The file served at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf was re-fetched 2026-08-28: its §10.613 ends at subsection (n), its Source Note reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the strings 'surety', 'tenancy addendum', 'lease template' and 'P.O. Box 13941' do not occur anywhere in it. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
'Designated Unit' carries every obligation in 10.613(o)(1) - (o)(3) and is not defined anywhere in the text this adoption republished. 10.601(f) says only that capitalized terms 'are defined in this title'; the definitions sections of Chapter 10 were not part of TRD-202601552 and were not read in this pass. Whether a floating unit is a Designated Unit only while it is currently designated, or from the point of designation onward, decides which leases (o)(2) and (o)(3) reach on a floating-unit development and is not resolved here.
The adopted text sets no deadline for returning the deposit and no interest requirement. Tex. Prop. Code §92.103 gives Texas landlords 30 days generally; the rule neither adopts that period nor displaces it, and the corpus does not assert which controls for a TDHCA-monitored development.
Whether a non-refundable fee charged ALONGSIDE a fully refundable deposit - a separately styled administration or redecorating fee - is reached is not stated. The sentence governs the deposit, and 10.613 carries no general fee provision.
Unlike 10.624(f)(2)(A)(ii), which for 811 PRA units requires the deposit to sit in a segregated interest-bearing account, (o)(1) imposes no custody requirement at all.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits, HOME and Tax Exempt Bond. Absence of a rule under another program id is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach that program.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. The file served at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf was re-fetched 2026-08-28: its §10.613 ends at subsection (n), its Source Note reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the strings 'surety', 'tenancy addendum', 'lease template' and 'P.O. Box 13941' do not occur anywhere in it. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
'Designated Unit' carries every obligation in 10.613(o)(1) - (o)(3) and is not defined anywhere in the text this adoption republished. 10.601(f) says only that capitalized terms 'are defined in this title'; the definitions sections of Chapter 10 were not part of TRD-202601552 and were not read in this pass. Whether a floating unit is a Designated Unit only while it is currently designated, or from the point of designation onward, decides which leases (o)(2) and (o)(3) reach on a floating-unit development and is not resolved here.
'two months' rent' does not say WHICH rent. Gross rent as limited by the applicable HOME rent limit, the contract rent actually charged, and the household's own share after utility allowance or rental assistance can all differ for the same unit, and on an over-income household under 10.622(g) the household share can be several times the restricted rent. TDHCA published no gloss.
Whether the ceiling is tested at lease execution only, or continuously as rent changes during the tenancy, is not stated. A deposit lawful at move-in does not become unlawful when rent rises, but the rule is drafted as a flat prohibition rather than as a collection limit.
Whether a pet deposit, or a deposit for a reasonable accommodation, counts toward the two months is not addressed. 10.624(f)(2)(B) treats pet deposits separately for 811 PRA units; 10.613(o)(1) says only 'security deposits'.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits, HOME and Tax Exempt Bond. Absence of a rule under another program id is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach that program.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. The file served at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf was re-fetched 2026-08-28: its §10.613 ends at subsection (n), its Source Note reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the strings 'surety', 'tenancy addendum', 'lease template' and 'P.O. Box 13941' do not occur anywhere in it. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
'Designated Unit' carries every obligation in 10.613(o)(1) - (o)(3) and is not defined anywhere in the text this adoption republished. 10.601(f) says only that capitalized terms 'are defined in this title'; the definitions sections of Chapter 10 were not part of TRD-202601552 and were not read in this pass. Whether a floating unit is a Designated Unit only while it is currently designated, or from the point of designation onward, decides which leases (o)(2) and (o)(3) reach on a floating-unit development and is not resolved here.
Whether HUD has in fact published a HOME tenancy addendum under the 2025 HOME Final Rule, and if so which form number and edition, was NOT established in this pass. The rule's own conditional shows TDHCA did not know either at adoption. Until it is established, an operator cannot tell from this corpus which of the two documents it must attach, and the parameter recording the answer is deliberately left without a value.
The rule does not say what happens on the transition if HUD publishes an addendum AFTER a development has papered its leases with the Department's version - whether existing leases must be amended, or only new and renewed ones use the HUD form.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits, HOME and Tax Exempt Bond. Absence of a rule under another program id is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach that program.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. The file served at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf was re-fetched 2026-08-28: its §10.613 ends at subsection (n), its Source Note reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the strings 'surety', 'tenancy addendum', 'lease template' and 'P.O. Box 13941' do not occur anywhere in it. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
'Designated Unit' carries every obligation in 10.613(o)(1) - (o)(3) and is not defined anywhere in the text this adoption republished. 10.601(f) says only that capitalized terms 'are defined in this title'; the definitions sections of Chapter 10 were not part of TRD-202601552 and were not read in this pass. Whether a floating unit is a Designated Unit only while it is currently designated, or from the point of designation onward, decides which leases (o)(2) and (o)(3) reach on a floating-unit development and is not resolved here.
The adopted text requires submission 'prior to being implemented' and says nothing about approval. The preamble says the Department will 'receive, review and approve' templates and 'anticipates this review being done at property level'. Whether an owner may implement a submitted template while review is pending, and what the Department's turnaround is, is unresolved; 'anticipates' in a preamble is not an adopted rule and is not encoded as one here.
No submission channel is named. 10.607(a) routes reports through CMTS and names cmts.requests@tdhca.texas.gov for two specific forms; 10.613(o)(3)(A) names neither CMTS nor an address. No TDHCA form for a lease-template submission was located in this pass.
'Upon any revision' carries no materiality threshold, so on its face a typographical correction triggers a fresh submission.
The rule speaks of 'the lease template' in the singular. A development that uses one template for Designated Units and another for the rest - the very case (o)(3)(C) is drafted for - must submit at least the Designated Unit template, but whether the other template is also caught is not stated.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits, HOME and Tax Exempt Bond. Absence of a rule under another program id is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach that program.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. The file served at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf was re-fetched 2026-08-28: its §10.613 ends at subsection (n), its Source Note reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the strings 'surety', 'tenancy addendum', 'lease template' and 'P.O. Box 13941' do not occur anywhere in it. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
'Designated Unit' carries every obligation in 10.613(o)(1) - (o)(3) and is not defined anywhere in the text this adoption republished. 10.601(f) says only that capitalized terms 'are defined in this title'; the definitions sections of Chapter 10 were not part of TRD-202601552 and were not read in this pass. Whether a floating unit is a Designated Unit only while it is currently designated, or from the point of designation onward, decides which leases (o)(2) and (o)(3) reach on a floating-unit development and is not resolved here.
'more than one method to communicate directly with the Owner and the property management' does not say whether two methods in total satisfy it, or whether more than one is needed for EACH of the owner and the management. Where the two are separate entities the difference is between two entries and four.
'Directly' is not defined. Whether a management company's shared call centre, a ticketing portal or a monitored generic mailbox counts as direct communication with the Owner is not addressed.
The rule does not require the contact details to be kept current, and names no obligation to re-paper leases when a management company changes - though 10.607(k) separately requires households to be notified of such a change within five Department business days.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits, HOME and Tax Exempt Bond. Absence of a rule under another program id is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach that program.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. The file served at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf was re-fetched 2026-08-28: its §10.613 ends at subsection (n), its Source Note reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the strings 'surety', 'tenancy addendum', 'lease template' and 'P.O. Box 13941' do not occur anywhere in it. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
'Designated Unit' carries every obligation in 10.613(o)(1) - (o)(3) and is not defined anywhere in the text this adoption republished. 10.601(f) says only that capitalized terms 'are defined in this title'; the definitions sections of Chapter 10 were not part of TRD-202601552 and were not read in this pass. Whether a floating unit is a Designated Unit only while it is currently designated, or from the point of designation onward, decides which leases (o)(2) and (o)(3) reach on a floating-unit development and is not resolved here.
The comment and staff response for this safeguard are printed in the Texas Register under the heading 'Rule Section §10.613(o)(3)(D)', but the response answers the different-lease-template condition, which is (o)(3)(C). Either the heading or the response is misaligned in the published adoption. The provision itself is unambiguous; the misalignment is recorded because it will confuse anyone reconciling the preamble to the rule.
'The provisions that will go into effect' is not enumerated. Whether it means the rent and income restrictions, the good-cause eviction protection, the HOME tenancy addendum, or all of the above, is left to the drafter.
The rule does not say what happens to a resident who does not consent to the changed provisions when their unit is designated, nor whether stating them in advance is itself sufficient to make them binding at that point.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits, HOME and Tax Exempt Bond. Absence of a rule under another program id is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach that program.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. The file served at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf was re-fetched 2026-08-28: its §10.613 ends at subsection (n), its Source Note reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the strings 'surety', 'tenancy addendum', 'lease template' and 'P.O. Box 13941' do not occur anywhere in it. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
'Designated Unit' carries every obligation in 10.613(o)(1) - (o)(3) and is not defined anywhere in the text this adoption republished. 10.601(f) says only that capitalized terms 'are defined in this title'; the definitions sections of Chapter 10 were not part of TRD-202601552 and were not read in this pass. Whether a floating unit is a Designated Unit only while it is currently designated, or from the point of designation onward, decides which leases (o)(2) and (o)(3) reach on a floating-unit development and is not resolved here.
The rule prints the Department's postal address, telephone number and email address as rule text. It does not say what a lease should carry if TDHCA changes any of them before the rule is amended, and gives no 'or successor' formula of the kind 10.614(b) uses for external URLs.
No wording, placement or prominence is prescribed, and no statement of what the resident may contact the Department ABOUT accompanies the block. A lease that prints the three values with no explanation satisfies the text as adopted.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits, HOME and Tax Exempt Bond. Absence of a rule under another program id is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach that program.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. The file served at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf was re-fetched 2026-08-28: its §10.613 ends at subsection (n), its Source Note reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the strings 'surety', 'tenancy addendum', 'lease template' and 'P.O. Box 13941' do not occur anywhere in it. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
'Notice to Vacate' is not defined in Subchapter F. Texas law uses the term for the statutory notice under Tex. Prop. Code §24.005 that precedes an eviction suit, while 10.613(a) and (b) speak of a 30-day written notice specifying grounds for termination and 10.610(g) of non-renewal and termination notices. Whether a non-renewal notice, a lease-violation cure notice or a notice of intent not to renew is a 'Notice to Vacate' for this paragraph is not settled by the text.
No submission channel is named - not CMTS, not an email address, not a form. No TDHCA form or instruction for filing a Notice to Vacate was located in this pass.
The 14-day clock is qualified '(in the case of a 30-day notice)'. What window applies to a notice that is neither a 30-day notice nor a shortened imminent-threat notice - a 3-day notice to vacate under Tex. Prop. Code §24.005, for instance - is not stated in either limb of the paragraph.
The rule says nothing about what the Department does with the notices, whether the household is told they were filed, or whether personally identifying information should be redacted.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits, HOME and Tax Exempt Bond. Absence of a rule under another program id is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach that program.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. The file served at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf was re-fetched 2026-08-28: its §10.613 ends at subsection (n), its Source Note reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the strings 'surety', 'tenancy addendum', 'lease template' and 'P.O. Box 13941' do not occur anywhere in it. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
'Upon issuance' is not quantified. Whether a copy sent later the same day, on the next business day, or within 24 hours satisfies it is not stated, and TDHCA fixed an explicit hour count in the same adoption for a different obligation (72 hours for a non-operable elevator at 10.621(k)), so the omission here is not obviously an oversight to be filled by analogy.
'Imminent threats to other tenants, employees, or property' is the trigger and is not defined. The owner decides in the first instance, and the rule provides no review of that decision - though 10.613(n) says the Department does not determine whether an owner has good cause.
The rule does not say what length of notice counts as 'shorter'. Read with the first limb, anything under 30 days is shorter, which would sweep in notices shortened for reasons other than imminent threat and leave them with no stated filing deadline at all.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits, HOME and Tax Exempt Bond. Absence of a rule under another program id is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach that program.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. The file served at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf was re-fetched 2026-08-28: its §10.613 ends at subsection (n), its Source Note reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the strings 'surety', 'tenancy addendum', 'lease template' and 'P.O. Box 13941' do not occur anywhere in it. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
'Designated Unit' carries every obligation in 10.613(o)(1) - (o)(3) and is not defined anywhere in the text this adoption republished. 10.601(f) says only that capitalized terms 'are defined in this title'; the definitions sections of Chapter 10 were not part of TRD-202601552 and were not read in this pass. Whether a floating unit is a Designated Unit only while it is currently designated, or from the point of designation onward, decides which leases (o)(2) and (o)(3) reach on a floating-unit development and is not resolved here.
Subchapter F does not define 'direct loan funds' for 10.613(p). 10.614(b)(4) defines 'Multifamily Direct Loan (MFDL)' for utility-allowance purposes and excludes Housing Tax Credits, Tax Exempt Bonds, CDBG and Project Based Vouchers; 10 TAC §13.2 (Definitions) is cross-referenced elsewhere in the same Register issue but Chapter 13 was repealed and readopted in that issue without §13.2 being republished, so it was not read in this pass. Whether the two definitions are the same is not established.
'have or had' has no end date. On its face the prohibition survives repayment of the loan and expiry of the affordability period, which would reach a development that carries no current TDHCA program obligation at all. TDHCA published no limiting principle, and this corpus does not supply one.
This rule is filed under program_id 'home' because the nearest in-subchapter definition of a Department direct loan is the HOME-family list at 10.614(b)(4), which excludes Housing Tax Credits. A development whose only current program is Housing Credits but which 'had' a direct loan is inside the adopted text and may not be loaded by a resolver that filters rules by program id. That gap is recorded rather than closed by duplicating the rule under 'lihtc', because the adopted text is not program-agnostic and duplicating it would assert reach the text does not give.
Nothing in (p) requires the prohibition to be stated in the lease, unlike 10.613(e) which requires its lockout and seizure prohibitions to be included in the lease or lease addendum.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs (10.601(b)), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits, HOME and Tax Exempt Bond. Absence of a rule under another program id is a coverage gap in this corpus, not evidence that the obligation does not reach that program.
TDHCA HAS NOT REISSUED CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. The file at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf was re-fetched 2026-08-28 and is byte-identical to the corpus hash (1,362,467 bytes, sha256 2bfceae19671d1ec69fc7d318f4f31ca431aa8dc7c8b4e55763bc059f3569c2f). Its Source Notes all read 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and its 10.613(e) and 10.613(h) carry the pre-amendment program lists. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will get the superseded text. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
'Lock out' and 'seize' are not defined in Subchapter F and the adoption did not define them. Texas Property Code 92.0081 governs residential lockouts and interruption of utilities generally and permits a lockout in narrow circumstances that this rule does not repeat, so an owner may face a state-law permission and a TDHCA prohibition on the same facts. The rule's own carve-outs - repairs or construction work, emergency, and abandonment - are stated without any notice, duration or documentation condition.
No required wording is prescribed for the lease clause. TDHCA publishes no model lockout and seizure clause located in this pass, so what satisfies 'these prohibitions must be included in the lease or lease addendum' is left to the owner's drafting and the monitor's reading.
The window opens 2025-01-02 because that is the effective date of the adoption whose text was read (the Source Notes on TDHCA's own Subchapter F PDF). The prohibition is older than that - it was not introduced in 2025 - but no earlier adopted text was read in this pass, so no earlier date is asserted.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs under 10.601(b), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits, HOME and Tax Exempt Bond. TCAP, Exchange, TCAP RF, NSP, NHTF, ERA and HOME-ARP have no program_id here, so a unit in one of them cannot match any predicate in this corpus. Absence of a rule under those names is a coverage gap, not evidence that the obligation does not reach them.
TDHCA HAS NOT REISSUED CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. The file at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf was re-fetched 2026-08-28 and is byte-identical to the corpus hash (1,362,467 bytes, sha256 2bfceae19671d1ec69fc7d318f4f31ca431aa8dc7c8b4e55763bc059f3569c2f). Its Source Notes all read 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and its 10.613(e) and 10.613(h) carry the pre-amendment program lists. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will get the superseded text. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in the sections that key off it, so a development's status under the 2025 HOME Final Rule is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
'Lock out' and 'seize' are not defined in Subchapter F and the adoption did not define them. Texas Property Code 92.0081 governs residential lockouts and interruption of utilities generally and permits a lockout in narrow circumstances that this rule does not repeat, so an owner may face a state-law permission and a TDHCA prohibition on the same facts. The rule's own carve-outs - repairs or construction work, emergency, and abandonment - are stated without any notice, duration or documentation condition.
The adoption preamble is silent on 10.613(e). The published comment threads on 10.613 concern (a), (b) and (o) only, so TDHCA gave no reason for the widening and no transition guidance. Whether leases already executed at a 2025-HOME-Final-Rule development must be amended to add the clause, or only new and renewed leases must carry it, is not addressed anywhere in the adoption.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs under 10.601(b), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits, HOME and Tax Exempt Bond. TCAP, Exchange, TCAP RF, NSP, NHTF, ERA and HOME-ARP have no program_id here, so a unit in one of them cannot match any predicate in this corpus. Absence of a rule under those names is a coverage gap, not evidence that the obligation does not reach them.
TDHCA HAS NOT REISSUED CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. The file at https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/sites/default/files/pmcdocs/CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf was re-fetched 2026-08-28 and is byte-identical to the corpus hash (1,362,467 bytes, sha256 2bfceae19671d1ec69fc7d318f4f31ca431aa8dc7c8b4e55763bc059f3569c2f). Its Source Notes all read 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and its 10.613(e) and 10.613(h) carry the pre-amendment program lists. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will get the superseded text. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
THIS RECORD OPENS AT 2026-04-29 AND THE CORPUS HAS NO RULE FOR 10.613(h) BEFORE THAT DATE. The obligation is much older - the 2 January 2025 text carries it for NHTF, TCAP RF, NSP, HOME and HOME-ARP - but the encoded statement includes ERA, which was not in the earlier list, so back-dating this record would assert ERA was covered when it was not. Splitting the record into a pre- and post-amendment pair is a supersession and was deliberately out of scope for this pass. A point-in-time question about the VAWA addendum for a date before 29 April 2026 is not answered by this corpus.
TWO FURTHER OBLIGATIONS IN THE SAME SUBSECTION ARE NOT ENCODED, both concerning 811 PRA, for which this corpus has no TDHCA overlay: that 811 PRA Units are prohibited from using the expired 2005 VAWA lease addendum, and that after OMB approval of a VAWA lease addendum all 811 PRA households must have a valid and executed one. The second is conditional on an OMB approval whose status was not established here.
The Department-created VAWA lease addendum is required by form but not identified by form number, edition or revision date anywhere in the adopted text, and no TDHCA form was located in this pass. An owner cannot tell from this corpus which document satisfies the requirement, which is why the form-edition parameter is recorded without a value.
'Contract' is capitalised and so is a defined term, but the definitions sections of Chapter 10 were not part of TRD-202601552 and were not read in this pass. Which instrument is the Contract for a development carrying several awards - and therefore which execution date is tested against 16 December 2016 - is not resolved here.
Subchapter F reaches twelve TDHCA programs under 10.601(b), but this corpus carries a TDHCA overlay only for Housing Tax Credits, HOME and Tax Exempt Bond. TCAP, Exchange, TCAP RF, NSP, NHTF, ERA and HOME-ARP have no program_id here, so a unit in one of them cannot match any predicate in this corpus. Absence of a rule under those names is a coverage gap, not evidence that the obligation does not reach them.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf, so the agency's own published Subchapter F still shows the superseded 2 January 2025 text and its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels it 'effective 1/02/2025'. This rule is encoded from the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026, which is the adopting instrument. If TDHCA later republishes a PDF whose wording differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
Section 10.611(c)'s second sentence is still ungrammatical as adopted -- 'This permission is removed if any entity that is in the Control of the operation of the Development or is in any way associated with the certifying Housing Authority.' -- with no predicate. TDHCA republished the subsection on 29 April 2026 and left the sentence exactly as it stood in the 2 January 2025 text. The reading encoded here is that the permission is removed where such an association exists, which is the only reading that gives the sentence work to do, but it is a reading and TDHCA has published no clarification.
The adoption preamble for TRD-202601552 carries comment-and-response entries for 10.613(a), 10.613(b), 10.613(o)(3)(A), 10.613(o)(3)(D), 10.613(o)(4), 10.621(K), 10.622(m), 10.622(o), 10.622(p) and 10.625 only. It says nothing about the change to 10.611(c), so TDHCA has published no statement of why the voucher limitation was widened to project-based vouchers, and no transition instruction for a certification whose verifications were gathered before 29 April 2026 but whose effective date falls after it.
Whether the 2025 HOME Final Rule's safe harbour income determinations are available at all in Texas remains unresolved. The amended 10.611(c) still closes with 'No other means tested verifications are allowable', which on its face forecloses them, and the amendments were adopted expressly to codify the HOME Final Rule. TDHCA did not reconcile the two and no inference is drawn here.
10.611(d) makes an over-income determination turn on the unit going over income 'as defined in 10.615 ..., IRC 42(g), or the HOME Final Rule' without naming a section or an edition of 24 CFR part 92. Which edition that phrase points to for a project committed before 20 April 2025 is still not stated, and Texas has published no transition matrix of the kind Ohio issued. Unchanged by the April 2026 amendments.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf, so the agency's own published Subchapter F still shows the superseded 2 January 2025 text and its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels it 'effective 1/02/2025'. This rule is encoded from the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026, which is the adopting instrument. If TDHCA later republishes a PDF whose wording differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
The adoption preamble for TRD-202601552 responds to comments on 10.622(m), 10.622(o) and 10.622(p) but says nothing at all about 10.622(g). TDHCA has therefore published no explanation of why the HTC-layered branch was rewritten from 'the lesser of 30% of the household's adjusted income or the rent allowable under the other Program' to a bare ceiling at 'the applicable HTC limit', and no transition instruction for an over-income rent already set under the prior branch.
As adopted, 10.622(g)(3) states only a ceiling. Read literally an owner at an HTC-layered development may charge an over-income household any gross rent up to the applicable HTC limit, including one above 30 percent of that household's adjusted income, which the pre-29-April text did not permit. Whether TDHCA intends that reading or intends the 30 percent figure to survive as a floor or cap is not stated. No inference is drawn: the parameter for the layered branch is encoded as the HTC limit, which is what the text says.
A development that contains HTC Units but no market-rate units, holding a HOME unit that is NOT itself layered with HTC, falls outside all three branches as drafted: (g)(1) requires the development to contain no HTC Units, (g)(2) requires market-rate units, and (g)(3) requires the unit to be layered with HTC. The prior text had an overlap problem between (g)(2) and (g)(3); the amendment fixed the overlap and opened a gap. TDHCA has not addressed it.
10.622(g)(2) now adds 'the rent being charged for the same Unit Type on a Market Rate Unit' as a third figure in the least-of test but does not say which market unit supplies it where several units of the same Unit Type are charged different rents, nor whether the figure is a current asking rent or an in-place contract rent. TDHCA publishes no methodology. The older question of who determines 'comparable Market rent', how current the determination must be, and whether the owner's own market units may be the comparison is equally unanswered.
24 CFR 92.252(i) distinguishes fixed from floating HOME units in its over-income treatment and 10.622(g) still does not mention the distinction. Whether TDHCA's branches displace the federal fixed/floating analysis or sit on top of it is unresolved, and it matters because the federal rule can require the next available unit to be redesignated rather than the rent to be raised. Note that 10.601(g), also new on 29 April 2026, is now the switch that decides which Texas developments are subject to the 2025 HOME Final Rule at all; the corpus does not yet encode it.
TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf, so the agency's own published Subchapter F still shows the superseded 2 January 2025 text and its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels it 'effective 1/02/2025'. This rule is encoded from the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026, which is the adopting instrument. If TDHCA later republishes a PDF whose wording differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
The carve-out added to 10.613(d) reaches only NHTF Units, and the corpus has no NHTF program record for Texas and no tx rule scoped to NHTF units, so the exception itself is not encoded anywhere. A resolver asked whether a fixed, unlayered Texas NHTF unit needs the student-status reporting clause will find no rule. That is a coverage gap opened by this amendment, not an assertion that no obligation exists.
10.613(d) turns on whether a unit is layered with 'another program with a student rule' without listing which Department programs have one. HTC is named; Bond, HOME, TCAP RF and HOME-ARP all carry student restrictions of some kind under 10.612(b)(2), but TDHCA does not say whether those count for the purpose of this carve-out.
The adoption preamble for TRD-202601552 carries no comment or response on 10.613(d), so TDHCA published no explanation of the carve-out and no instruction on whether an existing lease at an affected NHTF development may be amended to drop the clause.
The predecessor record tx.lihtc.student_status_lease_clause carries effective.from 2026-04-30, which is later than the 2026-04-28 date at which its window has now been closed, leaving that record with an empty validity window. The 2026-04-30 date appears to have been taken from the 'published'/'version' fields of src.tx.tac_10f, which describe the Subchapter F PDF as 'Filed 20 Jan 2026, effective 30 Apr 2026'; the PDF is in fact the 2 January 2025 adoption (all 27 Source Notes read '49 TexReg 10513'). The correct predecessor window is 2025-01-02 to 2026-04-28. Correcting the from date was out of scope for this pass, which was authorised to change only effective.to, and the same stale from date is on all nine rules in data/rules/state/tx.json.
The source record src.tx.lgc_303 states version 'as amended by HB 21 (2025)' and published 2025-09-01. The document served at that url on 2026-08-30 does not support it: the site declares itself current through the 89th 2nd C.S. (2025), and every source note in 303.042, 303.0421, 303.0425 and 303.0426 reads 'Acts 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1169 (H.B. 2071)'. No 'Acts 2025' note appears anywhere in ch. 303. HB 21 (89R, 2025) amended Local Government Code ch. 394, which governs housing finance corporations, not ch. 303. The source record's version and published fields need correcting; this pass may not edit sources.json.
Whether the exemption must be re-applied for at the appraisal district each year is not answered by ch. 303 or by the Tax Code. Tex. Tax Code 11.43(b) requires an annual application 'except as provided by Subsection (c)', and the 11.43(c) list of once-only exemptions names Tax Code sections, not an exemption arising under Local Government Code 303.042(c). 11.18 (charitable organizations) IS on the (c) list, and 303.042(c) deems the corporation 'engaged exclusively in performance of charitable functions', so an appraisal district could reasonably treat the exemption as reached through 11.18 and therefore once-only. Neither statute says so. The corpus records the annual audit duty under 303.0426, which is certain, and leaves the application question open rather than asserting a filing deadline a district might not impose.
10 TAC ch. 10 subch. I (10.1101 Purpose, 10.1102 Definitions, 10.1103 Reporting Requirements, 10.1104 Audit Requirements, 10.1105 Income and Rent Requirements, 10.1106 Penalties, 10.1107 Options for Review) is TDHCA's PFC monitoring rule and is not encoded, because its text could not be obtained. TDHCA links each section to the Texas SOS Appian portal, which on 2026-08-30 rendered only the section heading, chapter and a chapter review date of 05/10/2024, with no rule body; TDHCA publishes no PDF of subchapter I on its rules page. The section titles and the 10.1103(6) auditor-qualification consequence quoted here come from TDHCA's own monitoring page. 10.1105 Income and Rent Requirements in particular may state operating detail that ch. 303 does not, and is unread.
303.0421(b)(5) applies only to an acquired occupied development 'not otherwise subject to a land use restriction agreement under Section 2306.185, Government Code'. Whether a particular development is subject to such an agreement is a property-level fact that has to come off the recorded instruments; the encoded test therefore reaches every acquired development so that the question surfaces rather than being silently answered 'not subject'.
Disability is absent from § 301.021(a) and (b). Other sections of ch. 301 address disability; this pass read only § 301.021, and where Texas states the disability protection was not established here.
The carve-out reaches manufacture and distribution convictions only. Whether a possession conviction or an arrest without conviction falls outside it is not stated, though the text reaches only what it names.
Texas' list does not include source of income. Texas Local Government Code § 250.007 further preempts a municipality from requiring a landlord to accept a housing voucher, which this corpus does not yet hold; the practical effect is that neither state nor local law reaches the question in most of Texas.
Texas' PFC and HOME programme rules in this corpus do not name the Fair Housing Act's class list or this carve-out.

id Idaho · 109

The 'last business day of February' is a floating date IHFA does not restate annually in a notification letter (unlike KHRC's April 15); no published notice for a specific reporting year was located to confirm the practice has not changed since the 2020 manual. Re-verify against Procorem notifications.
Whether IHFA grants extensions for the owner certification (as distinct from post-audit correction responses, where extensions are case-by-case) is not stated in the manual. Not guessed.
The manual describes the AOR window two ways in current text: Ch. 5 says the report covers 'all tenant activity, by unit for the preceding calendar year', while Ch. 1 and Ch. 8 say 'for that year' / 'for the past 12 months'. Whether a September AOR reports the prior calendar year or the trailing 12 months is not reconciled in the manual and was not guessed; confirm with IHFA.
No late fee specific to the AOR is priced; the located consequences are noncompliance status and the $1,500 watch-list/not-in-good-standing fee. Whether a late AOR alone triggers that status change is at IHFA's discretion.
The manual does not state the mechanism (whether the Procorem AOR data doubles as the HERA submission or a separate upload is required); the manual lists the AOR and the tenant data collection as separate items with separate due dates, so they are encoded separately. Confirm the submission mechanics with IHFA.
Whether the April 1 date has been altered by later HUD collection-cycle changes was not verified beyond the 2020 manual.
IHFA DOES NOT PUBLISH THE PER-UNIT DOLLAR AMOUNT of the monitoring fee - the manual gives only the structure (per unit, CPI-adjusted, invoiced annually). The per-unit amount parameter below is encoded with its value absent for that reason: the current figure must be read from the property's annual invoice, and no peer-state or historical figure was borrowed.
The manual does not state a grace period or late charge for the fee itself; the located consequences are noncompliance and not-in-good-standing status (which carries its own $1,500 annual fee - see id.lihtc.audit_scoring_watch_list_upcs).
Whether a property that placed in service but deferred the credit start owes a fee for the deferral year is not addressed. Not guessed.
INSPECTION STANDARD. The 2020 manual and the December 2024 owner certificate both name UPCS, the certificate calling it 'as formerly defined by HUD' - language that acknowledges HUD's move to NSPIRE without adopting it. No IHFA NSPIRE adoption notice could be located on 2026-08-25. Encoded as UPCS because that is what both current IHFA documents say; re-verify at the next manual or certificate revision.
The audit scoring rubric (what earns 'satisfactory' vs 'below average' in each category) is not published; only the categories and the cycle consequences are.
How much advance notice IHFA gives of a scheduled audit is not stated beyond 'advance notice to ensure arrangements' - contrast Montana's stated 15 days. The three-week file-upload requirement implies at least that much notice in practice. Not guessed.
The relationship between the 'typically 30 days' audit correction window and the 'not to exceed 90 days' outline is not spelled out - the 90 is encoded as the ceiling and the 30 as IHFA's typical election within it, which is the only reading consistent with both passages, but IHFA has not been asked.
Extension length during the compliance period is unpublished ('certain circumstances', case-by-case); only the extended use period states a figure (an additional 90 days for good cause). The federal 1.42-5 six-month good-cause ceiling presumably bounds compliance-period extensions, but the manual does not say so.
The manual does not state whether IHFA treats noncompliance corrected before its notice as unreported (the KHRC-style bright line); its statement that findings 'whether corrected or not, may be considered binding' suggests otherwise. Not guessed.
The memo is self-described as 'a temporary revision to the existing policy' pending a manual revision 'which should occur in 2023'; no revised manual has been published as of 2026-08-25, so the memo remains the operative statement while the superseded 5%-cap text still stands in the published 2020 manual. The memo is encoded as governing because it is the later, agency-issued statement posted beside the manual in IHFA's own library; IHFA has not been asked to confirm.
Whether an increase over 10% requires affirmative IHFA approval or only pre-notification review is not stated - the memo says 'submitted for review', not 'approved'. Not guessed.
The memo does not state a consequence for an unreviewed over-10% increase; the 2020 manual's rollback-and-refund remedy attached to the old 5% approval rule and its survival under the memo regime is unconfirmed.
Whether IHFA's 'resume full recertifications until 100% of units are back in compliance' remedy is triggered by any single disqualified household or by a pattern is not stated; the manual's text reads as any-single. Not guessed.
How the HOTMA de-minimis and safe-harbor income determinations (IHFA memo, effective January 1, 2025) interact with the self-certification forms was not reconciled by IHFA in any located document - the memo says HOTMA-compliant forms replace the prior forms but does not restate the recertification waiver overlay.
IHFA publishes no standalone utility allowance policy document - the agency stub src.id.ua_policy in the agency record resolves to nothing; the UA procedure lives entirely inside the compliance manual and is recorded from there. The absence is stated, not filled.
Whether the $250 consumption-analysis fee amount has changed since 2020 (fees are 'subject to review and change on a yearly basis') was not verifiable from any later published document.
The manual's 60-day rate-currency rule for the HUSM is stated confusingly ('no older than the rates in place 60 days prior to the beginning of 90 days after the change'); it was not paraphrased into the statement beyond the submission-timing requirement. Read the manual text directly when applying the HUSM method.
The memo's exemption for PBS8/RD units 'until July 1, 2025' implies those units joined the HOTMA regime on that date, but no follow-up IHFA notice confirming the July 2025 transition (or any further delay in the federal subsidy-program date) was located on 2026-08-25. The end of the exemption is stated as the memo wrote it, not asserted as having occurred.
The memo notes IHFA discovered errors in its first HOTMA form set and republished; whether the currently posted forms are the corrected set is assumed from the December 2024 date but not separately confirmed.
The 2020 manual has not been revised for HOTMA, so manual passages on asset verification and imputed income are superseded in part by the memo and the HOTMA forms; the manual/memo boundary is not documented anywhere by IHFA.
The manual requires the transfer to be 'reported' before closing but does not state that IHFA approval is a condition of closing - contrast NE (prior written approval) and MT (120-day pre-listing notice). Whether IHFA can block a transfer, or only fee and report it, is not stated. Not guessed.
The threshold for what counts as 'a transfer of ownership interest' (any limited partner interest vs. controlling interests) is not defined; the fee note's reference to general partnership transfers suggests the rule reaches partner-level changes.
No published Idaho position was located on whether the qualified contract right is waived for newer allocations (as Kansas requires by covenant); the current QAP was not reviewed for this pass and the manual expressly declines to give qualified-contract guidance beyond the fee and intake route.
No processing fee for a management change is priced (contrast the $350 ownership transfer fee); whether IHFA charges one administratively is unknown.
The condition on syndicator approval - 'if necessary and property is in compliance period' - does not say who decides necessity. Not guessed.
No review turnaround is stated (contrast Montana's 15-day staff review window), so how far before the intended assumption date the package must be filed is unpublished.
DEPTH PASS 2026-08-29: the IHFA QAP was still not fetched. Everything the corpus says about Idaho award-cycle thresholds, minimum affordability beyond the manual's 30-year statement, and qualified-contract policy beyond the $20,000 fee and the intake route to the Housing Compliance Manager remains unsourced. The income-averaging restriction to 100% affordable tax-exempt bond developments is a 2020 manual policy and a QAP is exactly where an agency would change it - confirm before relying on it.
THE CITY OF BOISE IS ITS OWN HOME PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION. IHFA's June 3 2025 memo states 'IHFA is the Participating Jurisdiction (PJ) for the State of Idaho with the exception of City of Boise, which is the PJ for HOME funds within its city boundaries.' The corpus therefore has NO coverage of HOME rules for units inside Boise city limits, and id.home.rent_increase_prior_written_approval does not reach them. Boise's own HOME requirements were not researched.
The IHFA HOME Compliance Manual (June 26, 2020) was fetched this pass but only its rent-increase approval provision, as restated and partly waived by the June 2025 memo, has been authored. A full Idaho HOME program pass remains outstanding.
The 2020 manual's 21-year hard-copy tenant-file retention rule and the October 2025 Electronic Tenant File Stacking Guide's all-digital submission regime have not been reconciled by IHFA in any published document. Both are recorded as published; which governs a property that has fully converted to digital files is unresolved.
The manual's fee schedule ($250 UA review, $1,500 noncompliance, $1,000 no-show, $350 ownership transfer, $20,000 qualified contract) is from June 2020 and the manual itself says fees are 'subject to review and change on a yearly basis'. No later published fee schedule exists on IHFA's compliance page. The figures are recorded as the only published ones; confirm against the property's invoice.
The manual states the foster-care student exception as reaching a member 'previously in foster care' within five years of the initial income certification. 26 U.S.C. 42(i)(3)(D)(ii)(I) contains no five-year limit. IHFA's gloss is narrower than the statute and is recorded as IHFA states it; whether IHFA enforces the five-year limit was not confirmed.
The manual's income-averaging text predates the October 2022 final regulations (T.D. 9967) and IHFA has published no conforming revision, so its income-averaging mechanics should be read as an availability policy rather than a current statement of federal law.
The manual's casualty-loss section does not mention Rev. Proc. 2014-49 relief in a Presidentially declared major disaster area, which suspends the year-end restoration rule the manual states categorically.
The manual gives 120 days two ways - 'valid up to 120 days before the effective date of move-in' and 'no older than 120 days from the date of receipt by the owner'. Both are encoded as the 120-day window the manual states; which endpoint IHFA measures from in an audit is not reconciled in the document.
The five-day pre-signature recommendation is written as a recommendation ('IHFA recommends'), not a requirement, and is encoded in the statement as such rather than as an obligation.
The manual does not state whether the 120-day verification window is tolled by a documented extenuating-circumstance signature delay.
The two-week attempt floor is stated as 'should' in the hierarchy paragraph but the manual elsewhere treats an unsupported descent to second-party verification as an audit finding. Encoded as an obligation on the strength of the audit treatment; the word in the source is 'should' and is quoted here so a reader can see it.
The manual cites HUD Handbook 4350.3 REV-1 CHG-3 page 5-55 for second-party verification after several attempted requests, which is a superseded HUD edition; IHFA has not restated the hierarchy against 4350.3 REV-1 CHG-4 or against the HOTMA-era verification guidance.
How the hierarchy interacts with the HOTMA safe harbors IHFA adopted on January 1 2025 is not addressed in either the manual or the HOTMA memo.
The 120-day start is written as 'should begin'; the anniversary deadline is written as a hard noncompliance line. Only the second is encoded as an obligation; the 120-day figure is carried in the statement as the process the manual prescribes.
The manual does not state whether the late-recertification effective-date rule (effective date = tenant signature date) itself generates an 8823 or is simply how the file is dated once the lateness is recorded.
How this cadence interacts with IHFA's HOTMA implementation - recertifications effective on or after May 1 2025 must use the HOTMA forms - is not restated in the manual, which has not been revised for HOTMA.
The manual's sentence 'The six-month requirement may include Succeeding leases are not subject to a minimum lease period' is garbled in the published PDF; the encoded reading - a six-month floor on the initial lease only - is the only one both halves support, and is corroborated by the section heading. Not repaired beyond that.
IHFA does not publish a model LIHTC lease or a required lease form (contrast the HOME lease addendum, which is published and mandatory), so the ten minimum terms are a content checklist rather than a form requirement.
Whether IHFA treats a missing program-participation statement in the lease as an 8823-reportable finding or as an IHFA preference is not stated; the manual distinguishes the two categories elsewhere but does not classify this one.
The policy is stated in the 2020 compliance manual. The current IHFA QAP was NOT fetched this pass, and a QAP is the ordinary place for an allocating agency to change an availability policy of this kind. Whether IHFA has since opened income averaging to 9% developments must be confirmed against the current QAP before relying on the restriction.
'Reasonable parity between different bedroom sizes and unit types' is not quantified and no IHFA parity test is published.
The manual predates the October 2022 final income-averaging regulations (T.D. 9967), which changed the compliance consequences of a failed average and introduced the mitigating-action framework. IHFA has not published a conforming revision, so the manual's income-averaging text should be read as the agency's availability policy rather than as a current statement of federal mechanics.
The manual's worked examples use 2018/2019 Mountain Home limits; the figures are illustrative and are deliberately not encoded as parameters.
The manual says elsewhere that when new limits are released the owner has 45 days to establish the new rent, which is Rev. Rul. 94-57's implementation window stated as an owner deadline rather than a reliance period. That is authored separately as id.lihtc.income_and_rent_limit_series_mtsp.
Whether IHFA treats mandatory renter's insurance as gross rent where the tenant may satisfy it by naming the owner on an existing policy is not addressed.
IHFA PUBLISHES NO IDAHO INCOME OR RENT LIMIT TABLE OF ITS OWN. The manual routes owners to HUD's MTSP series via a third-party calculator (Novogradac), and the agency's current Tax Credit Compliance document library carries no limit chart. The limit_table binding below is to the HUD MTSP series for that reason; no Idaho-specific table exists to bind.
The 45-day figure is stated inside a worked example rather than as a numbered rule, and is the owner-side statement of the Rev. Rul. 94-57 reliance period rather than a separate IHFA deadline. Encoded as the manual states it, with that provenance noted.
The manual does not address the HERA hold-harmless / national-cap mechanics or the gross rent floor election beyond naming the gross rent floor date as a calculator input.
The manual's HUSM rate-currency sentence - 'no older than the rates in place 60 days prior to the beginning of 90 days after the change' - is not parsable as written and is NOT paraphrased into a numeric rule here beyond the submission timing. Read the manual text directly when applying the HUSM method. The same caveat is recorded on the existing id.lihtc.utility_allowance_annual_review_procorem_approval rule.
IHFA publishes no standalone utility allowance policy document; the agency stub src.id.ua_policy resolves to nothing and the procedure lives entirely inside the compliance manual. The absence is recorded, not filled.
The manual reprints a HUD minimum-sample table for the actual-consumption method (1-20 units: all; 21-61: 20; up to 389 and above: 29). The table is described rather than transcribed as parameters, because it is HUD's table and not an Idaho election.
The manual does not say what allowance applies to a HOME-layered property whose HOME units and LIHTC units have different tenant-paid utility configurations, beyond the single-allowance rule.
The manual states the deeper-skewed trigger twice and slightly differently ('above 140% of the 60% income limit, 50% or 60%, depending on the elected minimum set-aside on the 8609'); the encoded reading is that the 140 percent multiplier attaches to the ELECTED minimum set-aside limit rather than to the unit's deeper designation, which is both readings' common ground and is the federal rule.
The manual does not address the interaction between the available unit rule and an income-averaging election, which is unsurprising given that IHFA permits income averaging only at 100 percent bond properties where the rule does not apply.
The extended-use-period variant of this rule (one-for-one replacement, comparable-or-smaller no longer applying) is authored separately as id.lihtc.extended_use_monitoring_overlay.
IHFA does not state whether a swap must be reported to the agency, approved in advance, or simply recorded on the annual occupancy report. No swap form appears in the current IHFA forms library. Not guessed.
Whether 'comparable' here carries the same meaning as in the available unit rule (same measurement method as qualified basis, similar square footage and amenities) is not stated; the manual uses the word without cross-reference.
The manual does not address whether a swap can cure a designation problem retroactively or only prospectively from the date of the swap.
The 30-day rent-ready standard is written with 'can be defined as' rather than as a fixed deadline, and it appears in the suitability-and-casualty discussion rather than in the vacant unit section. Encoded at exactly that strength: it is IHFA's stated working definition, not a published bright line, and the manual ties the consequence to a high vacancy rate with a large number of unsuitable units rather than to any single unit.
The manual does not state how long documentation of marketing attempts must be retained separately from the general record retention rule, nor what a sufficient attempt log looks like beyond the Rev. Rul. 2004-82 examples.
IHFA's empty/vacant distinction has consequences for the applicable fraction that the manual states but does not work through for a partially leased first credit year.
The manual does not say whether the six-month clock runs from the move-in date or from the initial certification effective date. The two are normally the same under IHFA's own effective-date rule, so the distinction only matters in the acquisition/rehab case; not guessed.
The 120-day post-determination recertification for a household that does not vacate after an eviction is initiated is stated once and not elaborated - in particular the manual does not say what the certification is for, given that the household is by hypothesis noncompliant.
IHFA 'strongly recommends' screening subsequent household members as new households (credit check, landlord reference) before occupancy and adding them to the lease at move-in. That is a recommendation in the source and is not encoded as an obligation.
The current form (Revised September 2025) postdates the 2020 manual and is the operative document; it asks the five exception questions and names the proof for each (marriage certificate or joint return, tax return, TANF award letter or third-party verification, foster care paperwork from the welfare agency, and a similar-programme showing). The manual and the form agree on substance.
The manual states the foster-care exception as 'previously within five years of the effective date of the initial income certification'. That five-year gloss is IHFA's; the statute at 26 U.S.C. 42(i)(3)(D)(ii)(I) says only 'previously received foster care assistance'. Recorded as IHFA states it and flagged, because it is narrower than the statute.
Neither the manual nor the form addresses HOTMA's changes to the treatment of student financial assistance in income, although IHFA publishes a separate Student Financial Assistance Certification form. The boundary is not documented by IHFA.
IHFA's default treatment - separate projects until the agency is aware of the election - is stated as an agency practice rather than as a rule about the owner's tax position, and the manual does not say how an owner puts IHFA on notice beyond submitting the completed Form 8609.
The manual publishes a Documentation of Unit Transfer form in the current forms library but does not state a submission deadline or whether the form is filed with IHFA or held in the file. Not guessed.
The recertification-before-transfer requirement at exempt properties is stated for the 140 percent test only; whether the resulting certification restarts an anniversary or is treated as an interim record is not addressed.
IHFA publishes a Building Casualty Loss Notification form in its current forms library; the manual predates it and does not name it, so whether the ten-business-day notice must now be given on that form specifically is not stated. The form's existence is cited; the requirement is encoded as the manual writes it.
The manual does not address the federal casualty-loss relief available in a Presidentially declared major disaster area under Rev. Proc. 2014-49, which suspends the year-end restoration rule. An Idaho owner in a declared disaster should not read the December 31 statement as the whole law.
IHFA does not state a maximum 'reasonable time' for restoration beyond the year-end occupancy test.
The 21-year hard-copy requirement sits awkwardly beside IHFA's own mandatory electronic submission through Procorem and its October 2025 Electronic Tenant File Stacking Guide, which prescribes an order for digital files. IHFA has not reconciled the two in any published document: the manual's hard-copy rule has not been withdrawn and the stacking guide does not address retention. Both are recorded.
'Original hard copy form' is not defined - in particular whether a wet-signature original is required or a printed copy suffices.
The manual's note that a scanned disc has an approximate ten-year shelf life, with re-saving recommended, is guidance rather than a requirement and is not encoded.
The stacking guide postdates the manual by five years and is the operative statement of file ORDER; it expressly permits properties already converted to digital files to use an alternate order 'if that order is consistent among all files', which the manual does not contemplate.
The three-week upload deadline implies at least three weeks of audit notice, but IHFA states its notice practice only as 'advance notice to ensure arrangements'. The inference is not encoded as a notice rule; the existing id.lihtc.audit_scoring_watch_list_upcs rule records the same gap.
The point value of the deduction for a late or incorrect upload is not published; only that a deduction follows.
EVERY FIGURE HERE IS FROM THE JUNE 2020 MANUAL AND THE MANUAL SAYS THE FIGURES CHANGE YEARLY. No later fee schedule is published on IHFA's Tax Credit Compliance page, which carries forms and memos but no fee sheet. The amounts are recorded as the only published figures, with that staleness as the controlling caveat; confirm current amounts against the property's invoice before relying on them.
The utility allowance review fee's August 2013 dividing line for HOME-layered properties is stated without explanation of what changed on that date.
The $1,500 noncompliance fee is the same instrument as the watch-list fee recorded on id.lihtc.audit_scoring_watch_list_upcs; it is restated here as part of the published schedule rather than duplicated as a separate obligation.
The manual does not price a maximum application fee; it states an actual-cost standard, which is what is encoded. No IHFA cap was located.
The optionality of the cleaning fee in IHFA's own example did not save it, which is the point of the example, but the manual does not state a general rule about when an optional charge nevertheless becomes rent. The gross rent rule authored separately covers non-optional charges only.
Whether IHFA treats a prohibited unit-preparation fee as a gross rent violation (with the tax-year consequence) or as a separate finding is answered only by the worked example, which places it in the overcharging-rent discussion.
The manual warns that premature implementation of the extended use period is itself noncompliance requiring an 8823, and puts the burden of tracking the transition on the owner and agent, building by building where necessary. That warning is stated here in the notes rather than encoded as a separate obligation.
The 10-percent-capped-at-15 inspection sample is stated as a maximum, not a floor, so a smaller sample is within the policy. The federal minimum-unit sample table of the 2019 final regulations does not apply after the compliance period because 1.42-5 monitoring ends with it; the manual does not say so expressly.
The manual does not state whether the extended use available unit rule's 'next unit in the same building' includes units of larger size, although dropping the comparable-or-smaller requirement implies it does. Not resolved by IHFA.
The memo quotes the HOME Compliance Manual's section 1.07 rather than reproducing it, and it partially waives the manual's own submission mechanic while leaving the approval requirement intact. The IHFA HOME Compliance Manual (June 26, 2020) was fetched this pass but only this provision is authored; a full Idaho HOME pass is separate work.
The request form the memo attaches ('we also have a form to request an increase which I have attached to this email') was distributed by email and is not published on IHFA's HOME compliance page. The form is named but not located.
The memo does not state a review turnaround, so how far ahead of a proposed effective date a request must be filed is unpublished.
BOISE IS CARVED OUT. The memo states that the City of Boise is the participating jurisdiction for HOME funds within its city boundaries, so this IHFA approval requirement does not reach HOME units inside Boise. What Boise requires instead was not researched this pass and is a genuine gap in the corpus.
Which subsections of § 67-5909 are the housing provisions was not established in this pass, so which acts carry the age and disability protections in a housing context is unresolved here. That is the single most important thing to read before relying on this rule.
The disability proviso is written for employment ('prevents the performance of the work required in that job') but sits in a section that also governs housing. How it applies to a housing act is not addressed.
Idaho's list does not include familial status in the opening sentence, which the federal statute protects. Whether familial status appears elsewhere in the Idaho Human Rights Act was not established in this pass.
Idaho's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in Idaho on this section's text.

il.chicago Chicago · 102

The QAP does not state the AOC's reporting period. The ARO Annual Owner's Certification form for the same Department expressly covers a calendar year (1/1 to 12/31), but the LIHTC AOC's October 1 due date does not sit naturally after a calendar year end, and no published DOH document says whether the LIHTC AOC reports on the prior calendar year, the trailing twelve months, or the owner's fiscal year. Not guessed.
No late fee, penalty schedule or grace period for a missed October 1 LIHTC AOC was located. The QAP routes failure to submit into the notification and 90-day corrective action process and, separately, lists 'history of non-compliance' among the Unacceptable Practices that can disqualify a sponsor from future City Financial Assistance, but publishes no monetary charge. Note that the QAP DOES publish a $20-per-unit late penalty for late submission of compliance monitoring information generally -- whether DOH applies that penalty to a late AOC is not stated.
No DOH-published blank LIHTC Annual Owner's Certification form was located on chicago.gov this pass; the QAP describes the contents and says the Department sends the forms to owners. The certification's exact questions, its signature and notarization requirements, and its submission channel (portal, email or paper) are therefore not encoded. The ARO AOC form, which IS published, is notarized -- whether the LIHTC AOC is too is not established.
The 2025 QAP (Section XII.D.ii) reserves to DOH the right to 'retain an agent or private contractor to perform compliance monitoring' and to 'delegate all or some of its compliance monitoring responsibilities to another LIHTC allocating agency within the State of Illinois' -- i.e. to IHDA. DOH publishes no list of which projects, or which monitoring functions, are delegated. Where DOH has in fact delegated, IHDA's manual, its Compliance Connection filing cycle and its fee schedule may govern the same property instead of these rules. This is not resolvable from any published document and must be confirmed per property with DOH's Bureau of Construction and Compliance, Long-term Monitoring Division.
The 2025 QAP PDF carries no adoption, approval or effective date on its face -- unlike the ARO Rules, which are signed and dated by the Commissioner. The effective.from date encoded here (2025-06-16) is the file's own publication timestamp at the DOH-hosted 'current' URL, not a stated legal effective date. The QAP is issued on a roughly two-year cycle (2019, 2021, 2023, 2025) and DOH expressly reserves the right to amend it, so confirm the edition in force on the date of any audited event before relying on this rule point-in-time.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'il.chicago.doh'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'il.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for a DOH-monitored Chicago property. Whether a Chicago property was allocated credits by the City of Chicago or by IHDA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded LIHTC Regulatory Agreement; it is not derivable from the address, and Chicago contains many IHDA-allocated properties. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the Chicago layer.
The QAP says only that the fee is 'payable and due in the manner prescribed by the Department's Construction and Compliance Bureau.' No invoice date, no due date, no payee, no delivery channel and no published fee form was located on chicago.gov this pass. An owner cannot determine from published material when the fee is due -- confirm with the Bureau.
Whether the $25 per residential unit fee continues at the same rate during the Extended Use Period, and whether it is charged on a project or per-building basis for multi-building projects, is not stated.
The QAP does not define 'late submission of compliance monitoring information' for penalty purposes -- whether a late AOC, a late supporting document, a late response to a monitoring request, or each of them separately constitutes an 'occurrence' is not published, and the $20-per-unit figure multiplies quickly on a large property.
The 2025 QAP (Section XII.D.ii) reserves to DOH the right to 'retain an agent or private contractor to perform compliance monitoring' and to 'delegate all or some of its compliance monitoring responsibilities to another LIHTC allocating agency within the State of Illinois' -- i.e. to IHDA. DOH publishes no list of which projects, or which monitoring functions, are delegated. Where DOH has in fact delegated, IHDA's manual, its Compliance Connection filing cycle and its fee schedule may govern the same property instead of these rules. This is not resolvable from any published document and must be confirmed per property with DOH's Bureau of Construction and Compliance, Long-term Monitoring Division.
The 2025 QAP PDF carries no adoption, approval or effective date on its face -- unlike the ARO Rules, which are signed and dated by the Commissioner. The effective.from date encoded here (2025-06-16) is the file's own publication timestamp at the DOH-hosted 'current' URL, not a stated legal effective date. The QAP is issued on a roughly two-year cycle (2019, 2021, 2023, 2025) and DOH expressly reserves the right to amend it, so confirm the edition in force on the date of any audited event before relying on this rule point-in-time.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'il.chicago.doh'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'il.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for a DOH-monitored Chicago property. Whether a Chicago property was allocated credits by the City of Chicago or by IHDA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded LIHTC Regulatory Agreement; it is not derivable from the address, and Chicago contains many IHDA-allocated properties. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the Chicago layer.
The 2025 QAP names no physical inspection protocol. The withdrawn, undated 'CITY OF CHICAGO 20[__]' draft QAP template still hosted on chicago.gov (Daley-era, Department of Housing and Economic Development) said inspections would apply 'City Building Code or HUD uniform physical condition standards (REAC)' and set a different cadence (all buildings in one third of monitored projects each year). Nothing currently published says what standard DOH applies now, and HUD has been retiring UPCS/REAC in favour of NSPIRE. Not guessed either way; confirm with the Long-term Monitoring Division before preparing for an inspection.
The QAP does not state a re-inspection process, a re-inspection fee, a deficiency-correction deadline, or the form of any repair certification. It says only that non-compliance discovered by inspection enters the notification and 90-day corrective action process. It does state that a workout plan may never include corrective action for open findings for health and safety violations in connection with the physical condition of a property (Section XII.D.ii.e, p. 54), which implies but does not establish a stricter track for life-threatening conditions.
The QAP does not say what 'appropriate notification' to the residents of all LIHTC units means -- no form, no lead time, no delivery method, and no statement of whether the notice may be a standing lease provision rather than a per-inspection mailing. It also does not address what happens when a resident refuses entry, or whether the lease must make refusal a default.
The 2025 QAP (Section XII.D.ii) reserves to DOH the right to 'retain an agent or private contractor to perform compliance monitoring' and to 'delegate all or some of its compliance monitoring responsibilities to another LIHTC allocating agency within the State of Illinois' -- i.e. to IHDA. DOH publishes no list of which projects, or which monitoring functions, are delegated. Where DOH has in fact delegated, IHDA's manual, its Compliance Connection filing cycle and its fee schedule may govern the same property instead of these rules. This is not resolvable from any published document and must be confirmed per property with DOH's Bureau of Construction and Compliance, Long-term Monitoring Division.
The 2025 QAP PDF carries no adoption, approval or effective date on its face -- unlike the ARO Rules, which are signed and dated by the Commissioner. The effective.from date encoded here (2025-06-16) is the file's own publication timestamp at the DOH-hosted 'current' URL, not a stated legal effective date. The QAP is issued on a roughly two-year cycle (2019, 2021, 2023, 2025) and DOH expressly reserves the right to amend it, so confirm the edition in force on the date of any audited event before relying on this rule point-in-time.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'il.chicago.doh'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'il.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for a DOH-monitored Chicago property. Whether a Chicago property was allocated credits by the City of Chicago or by IHDA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded LIHTC Regulatory Agreement; it is not derivable from the address, and Chicago contains many IHDA-allocated properties. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the Chicago layer.
The QAP's retention arithmetic and its stated total do not obviously reconcile. Six years past the return due date for each of years 1-15, with first-year records held six years past the last compliance year's return, produces roughly 21-22 years from the start of the credit period, not 36. The 36-year figure appears to fold in the 30-year extended use period, but the QAP does not show the derivation and expressly defers to each Project's LIHTC Regulatory Agreement for the governing number. Use the recorded agreement for a specific building; this rule carries the QAP's stated figure without reconciling it.
The QAP requires records 'for each year in each building during a project's Compliance Period and Extended Use Period' but applies the federal six-year formula, which is written for the compliance period only. Whether DOH expects extended-use-year records to be held six years past that year's return, or to the end of the 36-year horizon, is not stated.
The QAP does not state a format, an organisation standard, or an electronic-records policy, and does not say whether DOH accepts electronic copies of the 'documents on any legal or administrative action' in place of originals.
The 2025 QAP (Section XII.D.ii) reserves to DOH the right to 'retain an agent or private contractor to perform compliance monitoring' and to 'delegate all or some of its compliance monitoring responsibilities to another LIHTC allocating agency within the State of Illinois' -- i.e. to IHDA. DOH publishes no list of which projects, or which monitoring functions, are delegated. Where DOH has in fact delegated, IHDA's manual, its Compliance Connection filing cycle and its fee schedule may govern the same property instead of these rules. This is not resolvable from any published document and must be confirmed per property with DOH's Bureau of Construction and Compliance, Long-term Monitoring Division.
The 2025 QAP PDF carries no adoption, approval or effective date on its face -- unlike the ARO Rules, which are signed and dated by the Commissioner. The effective.from date encoded here (2025-06-16) is the file's own publication timestamp at the DOH-hosted 'current' URL, not a stated legal effective date. The QAP is issued on a roughly two-year cycle (2019, 2021, 2023, 2025) and DOH expressly reserves the right to amend it, so confirm the edition in force on the date of any audited event before relying on this rule point-in-time.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'il.chicago.doh'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'il.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for a DOH-monitored Chicago property. Whether a Chicago property was allocated credits by the City of Chicago or by IHDA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded LIHTC Regulatory Agreement; it is not derivable from the address, and Chicago contains many IHDA-allocated properties. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the Chicago layer.
The QAP does not publish a VAWA Adherence Plan template, a required content list, an approval standard, or a re-approval cadence. 'Subject to approval by the Department' is the whole of the standard.
Whether the HUD-91067 addendum must be re-executed annually at a 100% low-income building where Section 42(g)(8)(B) relieves annual income recertification -- i.e. where there is no recertification event to attach it to -- is not addressed. Not guessed.
The City's SAFE Transfer Pilot Program is named in the QAP as something the tenant selection and/or VAWA Adherence Plan must reflect 'where relevant', but no DOH document defining the pilot, its eligibility, or what 'reflect coordination' requires was located this pass.
No consequence specific to a VAWA failure is published. The QAP lists failure to remedy 'any violation of fair housing, housing accessibility and/or any law that prohibits discrimination' among the Unacceptable Practices, but does not say whether a missing HUD-91067 addendum is a Form 8823 finding, a fair-housing matter, or both.
The 2025 QAP (Section XII.D.ii) reserves to DOH the right to 'retain an agent or private contractor to perform compliance monitoring' and to 'delegate all or some of its compliance monitoring responsibilities to another LIHTC allocating agency within the State of Illinois' -- i.e. to IHDA. DOH publishes no list of which projects, or which monitoring functions, are delegated. Where DOH has in fact delegated, IHDA's manual, its Compliance Connection filing cycle and its fee schedule may govern the same property instead of these rules. This is not resolvable from any published document and must be confirmed per property with DOH's Bureau of Construction and Compliance, Long-term Monitoring Division.
The 2025 QAP PDF carries no adoption, approval or effective date on its face -- unlike the ARO Rules, which are signed and dated by the Commissioner. The effective.from date encoded here (2025-06-16) is the file's own publication timestamp at the DOH-hosted 'current' URL, not a stated legal effective date. The QAP is issued on a roughly two-year cycle (2019, 2021, 2023, 2025) and DOH expressly reserves the right to amend it, so confirm the edition in force on the date of any audited event before relying on this rule point-in-time.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'il.chicago.doh'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'il.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for a DOH-monitored Chicago property. Whether a Chicago property was allocated credits by the City of Chicago or by IHDA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded LIHTC Regulatory Agreement; it is not derivable from the address, and Chicago contains many IHDA-allocated properties. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the Chicago layer.
The credential table appears in Section VIII (Mandatory Application Components), which governs what a sponsor must demonstrate at application, while the annual attestation appears in Section XII (Operations and Monitoring). The QAP does not state whether the full table binds an operating property for thirty years, or only the annual attestation and single proof of certification at item (xiii) does. This rule encodes the annual obligation as stated and describes the table; a portfolio model should not assume every listed credential must be held continuously by every staff member.
'At least one member of on-site management staff' is the stated proof threshold, but the attestation is that 'on-site management staff' generally attended training and received certification. Whether DOH audits beyond the one proof of certification is not stated.
No cure path, grace period, or substitute credential is published for a property whose certified staff member departs mid-year, and no list of acceptable equivalent certifications is published beyond the parenthetical examples for fair housing.
Whether these credentials apply to a Project whose compliance monitoring DOH has delegated to IHDA, which publishes its own management-agent requirements, is not addressed.
The 2025 QAP (Section XII.D.ii) reserves to DOH the right to 'retain an agent or private contractor to perform compliance monitoring' and to 'delegate all or some of its compliance monitoring responsibilities to another LIHTC allocating agency within the State of Illinois' -- i.e. to IHDA. DOH publishes no list of which projects, or which monitoring functions, are delegated. Where DOH has in fact delegated, IHDA's manual, its Compliance Connection filing cycle and its fee schedule may govern the same property instead of these rules. This is not resolvable from any published document and must be confirmed per property with DOH's Bureau of Construction and Compliance, Long-term Monitoring Division.
The 2025 QAP PDF carries no adoption, approval or effective date on its face -- unlike the ARO Rules, which are signed and dated by the Commissioner. The effective.from date encoded here (2025-06-16) is the file's own publication timestamp at the DOH-hosted 'current' URL, not a stated legal effective date. The QAP is issued on a roughly two-year cycle (2019, 2021, 2023, 2025) and DOH expressly reserves the right to amend it, so confirm the edition in force on the date of any audited event before relying on this rule point-in-time.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'il.chicago.doh'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'il.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for a DOH-monitored Chicago property. Whether a Chicago property was allocated credits by the City of Chicago or by IHDA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded LIHTC Regulatory Agreement; it is not derivable from the address, and Chicago contains many IHDA-allocated properties. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the Chicago layer.
'The least restrictive screening criteria permitted by the Project's funding sources and applicable regulations' is a standard, not a rule: it cannot be evaluated without enumerating every funding source's own screening floor for the specific property. DOH publishes no template plan, no model criteria, and no safe harbour for LIHTC projects. By contrast DOH DOES publish concrete criteria for ARO units (the Credit Review Criteria Form at Exhibit C and the Criminal History Review Criteria Form at Exhibit D of the ARO Marketing and Tenant Screening Plan Rules). Whether DOH applies those ARO forms to LIHTC projects it monitors is not stated anywhere read this pass.
The Just Housing Amendment is a Cook County ordinance enforced by the Cook County Commission on Human Rights, not a City of Chicago instrument, and the corpus has no Cook County jurisdiction record. This rule carries DOH's requirement that the plan align with the JHA; it does not encode the JHA's own mechanics (the prohibition on a criminal-history checkbox, the pre-screening/post-screening sequence, the individualized assessment factors, the applicant's dispute window, the 180-day complaint deadline). Those bind independently of DOH.
The QAP does not say what happens to an operating property whose approved plan drifts, whether DOH must approve amendments to the plan after closing, or whether a plan approved under an earlier QAP must be brought up to the 2025 standard.
The 2025 QAP (Section XII.D.ii) reserves to DOH the right to 'retain an agent or private contractor to perform compliance monitoring' and to 'delegate all or some of its compliance monitoring responsibilities to another LIHTC allocating agency within the State of Illinois' -- i.e. to IHDA. DOH publishes no list of which projects, or which monitoring functions, are delegated. Where DOH has in fact delegated, IHDA's manual, its Compliance Connection filing cycle and its fee schedule may govern the same property instead of these rules. This is not resolvable from any published document and must be confirmed per property with DOH's Bureau of Construction and Compliance, Long-term Monitoring Division.
The 2025 QAP PDF carries no adoption, approval or effective date on its face -- unlike the ARO Rules, which are signed and dated by the Commissioner. The effective.from date encoded here (2025-06-16) is the file's own publication timestamp at the DOH-hosted 'current' URL, not a stated legal effective date. The QAP is issued on a roughly two-year cycle (2019, 2021, 2023, 2025) and DOH expressly reserves the right to amend it, so confirm the edition in force on the date of any audited event before relying on this rule point-in-time.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'il.chicago.doh'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'il.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for a DOH-monitored Chicago property. Whether a Chicago property was allocated credits by the City of Chicago or by IHDA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded LIHTC Regulatory Agreement; it is not derivable from the address, and Chicago contains many IHDA-allocated properties. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the Chicago layer.
The QAP does not state the Continuum of Care set-aside's ongoing compliance mechanics: no vacancy-hold period, no marketing-release rule if the Continuum of Care cannot fill a unit within a stated time, no re-designation procedure, and no statement of whether a household that remains after its income rises still counts toward the 5%. Everything published is application-stage and closing-stage.
Whether the 5% is measured on total Project units or total residential units (and how commercial or manager units are treated) is not spelled out beyond the phrase 'total Project units'. Rounding is not addressed, so the requirement for a 19-unit project is not determinable from the text.
The QAP says the Department 'may require' that the Regulatory Agreement memorialize the requirement. Whether it in fact does so for a given property is property-overlay material readable only from the recorded agreement, and the durability of the obligation past the City's contract term therefore varies property by property.
The interaction between a referral-restricted 30%-AMI set-aside and the general public use requirement at Treas. Reg. 1.42-9 is not addressed in any DOH source read this pass. Not resolved here.
The 2025 QAP (Section XII.D.ii) reserves to DOH the right to 'retain an agent or private contractor to perform compliance monitoring' and to 'delegate all or some of its compliance monitoring responsibilities to another LIHTC allocating agency within the State of Illinois' -- i.e. to IHDA. DOH publishes no list of which projects, or which monitoring functions, are delegated. Where DOH has in fact delegated, IHDA's manual, its Compliance Connection filing cycle and its fee schedule may govern the same property instead of these rules. This is not resolvable from any published document and must be confirmed per property with DOH's Bureau of Construction and Compliance, Long-term Monitoring Division.
The 2025 QAP PDF carries no adoption, approval or effective date on its face -- unlike the ARO Rules, which are signed and dated by the Commissioner. The effective.from date encoded here (2025-06-16) is the file's own publication timestamp at the DOH-hosted 'current' URL, not a stated legal effective date. The QAP is issued on a roughly two-year cycle (2019, 2021, 2023, 2025) and DOH expressly reserves the right to amend it, so confirm the edition in force on the date of any audited event before relying on this rule point-in-time.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'il.chicago.doh'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'il.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for a DOH-monitored Chicago property. Whether a Chicago property was allocated credits by the City of Chicago or by IHDA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded LIHTC Regulatory Agreement; it is not derivable from the address, and Chicago contains many IHDA-allocated properties. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the Chicago layer.
The QAP does not publish a form of LIHTC Regulatory Agreement, and no template was located on chicago.gov this pass. Whether Chicago's agreement includes the tenant right of enforcement, the applicable-fraction floor, the anti-retaliation covenant and the three-year decontrol protections that Section 42(h)(6)(B) and (E) contemplate is therefore readable only from a specific recorded instrument, not from published material.
The QAP states the term as 'not less than thirty (30) years' without saying when it starts (first year of the credit period, placed-in-service date, or recording date), and the record-retention section separately defers to the Regulatory Agreement for the governing number of years. The recorded agreement, not this rule, is authoritative for a specific property.
The Qualified Contract waiver is stated as a 2025 QAP application term. Whether owners allocated credits under earlier Chicago QAPs (2019, 2021, 2023, and the undated Daley-era plan) are equally bound is not established, and a property acquired out of an older allocation may retain a qualified contract right.
No consequence is published for recording the Regulatory Agreement out of priority, or for late submission of the Form 8609 to Long-term Monitoring, beyond the general 90-day corrective action process and the $20-per-unit late penalty for compliance monitoring information.
The 2025 QAP (Section XII.D.ii) reserves to DOH the right to 'retain an agent or private contractor to perform compliance monitoring' and to 'delegate all or some of its compliance monitoring responsibilities to another LIHTC allocating agency within the State of Illinois' -- i.e. to IHDA. DOH publishes no list of which projects, or which monitoring functions, are delegated. Where DOH has in fact delegated, IHDA's manual, its Compliance Connection filing cycle and its fee schedule may govern the same property instead of these rules. This is not resolvable from any published document and must be confirmed per property with DOH's Bureau of Construction and Compliance, Long-term Monitoring Division.
The 2025 QAP PDF carries no adoption, approval or effective date on its face -- unlike the ARO Rules, which are signed and dated by the Commissioner. The effective.from date encoded here (2025-06-16) is the file's own publication timestamp at the DOH-hosted 'current' URL, not a stated legal effective date. The QAP is issued on a roughly two-year cycle (2019, 2021, 2023, 2025) and DOH expressly reserves the right to amend it, so confirm the edition in force on the date of any audited event before relying on this rule point-in-time.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'il.chicago.doh'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'il.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for a DOH-monitored Chicago property. Whether a Chicago property was allocated credits by the City of Chicago or by IHDA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded LIHTC Regulatory Agreement; it is not derivable from the address, and Chicago contains many IHDA-allocated properties. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the Chicago layer.
The due date is stated as June 30 in ARO Rules Article 10.6 and on DOH's ARO Annual Owner Certification page, but the published 2025 form for compliance year 2024 says 'returned to the Department of Housing by July 3, 2025.' The two cannot both be the general rule. DOH's page also says an assigned auditor emails the packet 'specifying the due date for the AOC report', which suggests the operative date is set per property per year. Encoded as June 30 because that is the rule text; confirm the actual date from the auditor's notice.
ARO Rules Article 10.6 requires 'fully executed copies of all the affordable unit leases' while the 2025 form asks for 'copies of the first and last pages of the lease.' Whether DOH now accepts partial leases generally, or only for the specific form year, is not stated.
No late fee, penalty amount or cure period is published for a late or missing ARO Annual Owner's Certification. Article 11 refers penalties for failures to pay fees or to construct, lease or sell affordable units to the enforcement provisions of ARO Subsection (P), and the Marketing and Tenant Screening Plan Rules publish a $500 per unit per day penalty for failure to lease in accordance with the ARO, but neither is expressly attached to a late certification.
For units leased or sold to an authorized agency (the Chicago Housing Authority or the Chicago Low-Income Housing Trust Fund), ARO Rules Article 6.1 requires a DIFFERENT annual owner's certification -- the form attached as an exhibit to the IHA, reporting unit counts in inventory, monthly rental rates, tenant household composition, demographics and gross income, and the affordable units' operating expenses and revenues. That variant is not encoded here.
The ARO applies in several versions (the 2021 ARO at MCC 2-44-085, the 2015 ARO at 2-44-080, and the Pilsen-Little Village, Near North/Near West and Milwaukee Corridor pilot areas at 2-44-105, 2-44-090 and 2-44-100). Which version binds a property turns on the date of City Council approval and, for some, the date of the building permit application. This rule encodes the Article 10 rental regime, which the Rules apply across versions, but the underlying ordinance obligations differ and the recorded Agreement governs.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'il.chicago.doh'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'il.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for a DOH-monitored Chicago property. Whether a Chicago property was allocated credits by the City of Chicago or by IHDA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded LIHTC Regulatory Agreement; it is not derivable from the address, and Chicago contains many IHDA-allocated properties. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the Chicago layer.
The ARO Rules (Article 10.4) route the application package to 'CAC', which the Rules elsewhere define as DOH's Construction and Compliance bureau, while the Marketing and Tenant Screening Plan Rules route it to 'ARO Long-Term Monitoring and Compliance staff'. The two documents describe the same process with different timelines in places (the Rules give the appeal window as 10 business days from the landlord's notification; the MTSP gives 10 business days from the email notification or the postmark on a mailed denial letter). Both are current and neither supersedes the other on its face.
The 40% rent-to-income ceiling appears in the Marketing and Tenant Screening Plan Rules as a DOH requirement and as a stated reason for denial, while ARO Rules Article 10.2 states only that a rent payment above 30% of gross income triggers a case-by-case rent-burden review. Whether 40% is a hard ceiling in every case, or a presumption DOH can waive after the 30% review, is not reconciled in either document.
Neither document states how the 40% and 30% ratios are computed -- whether on contract rent or on gross rent including the utility allowance, and whether on gross or adjusted household income. The published rent tables are gross-rent tables adjusted by CHA utility allowances, which suggests gross rent, but this is not stated.
Whether a household whose income has risen may remain in an ARO unit at the next lease renewal, and what rent applies if it does, is not addressed. Requalification occurs only on a household composition change, and no over-income or next-available-unit mechanic is published for the ARO.
DOH publishes income limits at AMI bands (10%, 15%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 115%, 120%, 140%, 150%) that HUD does not publish, stating they are 'calculated per HUD methodology, based on Very Low Income Limit'. The precise arithmetic, including whether HUD's high-housing-cost and national-cap adjustments are carried through, is not published, so the non-HUD bands cannot be independently reproduced.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'il.chicago.doh'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'il.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for a DOH-monitored Chicago property. Whether a Chicago property was allocated credits by the City of Chicago or by IHDA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded LIHTC Regulatory Agreement; it is not derivable from the address, and Chicago contains many IHDA-allocated properties. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the Chicago layer.
The $500-per-unit-per-day penalty in the Marketing and Tenant Screening Plan Rules is attached to 'failure to lease the affordable unit in accordance with the ARO'; the marketing failures in the same table carry a penalty 'determined on a case-by-case basis, capped at twice the original in lieu fee per unit amount.' Which applies to a marketing-schedule failure that delays leasing is not stated, and the two caps are computed on entirely different bases.
The Marketing and Tenant Screening Plan Rules were signed December 9, 2022 under the prior Commissioner and have not visibly been reissued, while the ARO Rules were reissued February 9, 2024. Where the two overlap (the marketing intake meeting, the tenant qualification process) the 2024 Rules are the later instrument but do not expressly supersede the 2022 Plan Rules, which state on their face that they apply regardless of which version of the ARO applies. Neither document resolves the precedence.
The MTSP requires marketing 'in formats that are accessible to persons with disabilities and in languages other than English' but names no language list, no threshold, and no accessible-format standard.
The accessible-unit preference is stated as 10% of 'total affordable accessible units' in Section 2.5.1 and as 10% of 'on-site and accessible units in ARO-subject properties' in Exhibit A. The worked example in Section 2.5.1 computes 10% of the twenty affordable units, not 10% of the accessible units, which is a third reading. The denominator is not determinable from the document.
The in-building transfer obligation for a non-disabled tenant occupying an accessible unit is stated to apply to 2015 ARO projects and to 2021 ARO projects with off-site affordable units. Whether it applies to a 2021 ARO project with on-site affordable units -- the ordinary case -- is not stated, and the omission reads as unintentional.
Annual fair housing training is required of 'landlords agents' with no stated provider, curriculum, duration, proof-of-attendance requirement, or filing obligation.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'il.chicago.doh'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'il.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for a DOH-monitored Chicago property. Whether a Chicago property was allocated credits by the City of Chicago or by IHDA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded LIHTC Regulatory Agreement; it is not derivable from the address, and Chicago contains many IHDA-allocated properties. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the Chicago layer.
The Rules state that a rent burden over 30% of gross income triggers a case-by-case DOH determination, but publish no standard, threshold or factor list for that determination and no appeal from it distinct from the income-qualification appeal in Article 10.5. Whether a household can be refused an ARO unit purely on rent burden, and on what record, is not stated. Not guessed.
'Gross income' in the 30% rent-burden test is not expressly tied to the HUD Handbook Chapter 5 annual gross household income that Article 10.2 adopts for qualification. Whether the two are the same figure -- and in particular whether the rent-burden test uses annual income including the Chapter 5 imputed asset income -- is not stated.
The Rules cite HUD Handbook 4350.3 Chapter 5 by its title and a portal URL, without an edition, revision number or date. HUD has revised Chapter 5 materially since -- most significantly for HOTMA Sections 102 and 104, which changed the asset rules, the de minimis asset threshold and the treatment of imputed income. Whether DOH intends the Chapter 5 in force at the time of certification or the version current when the Rules were signed in February 2024 is not stated, and the difference changes qualifying incomes. Confirm with the ARO Project Manager before relying on the HOTMA treatment for an ARO-only property.
Chapter 5 governs calculation, but the Rules do not adopt the Handbook's VERIFICATION hierarchy (EIV, third-party written, third-party oral, tenant declaration) by reference. Article 10.4 instead points to the documentation specified in DOH's affirmative fair housing marketing and screening plan. Whether Chapter 5's verification order also binds an ARO landlord is not established.
The published table is the operative rent schedule, and the corpus does not hold its values as a limit table: the 2026 PDF is a scanned-style layout from which no reliable text could be extracted, so the figures are not encoded and no rent test can run against them. The rule states the mechanism and cites the table; the numbers must be read off DOH's published PDF for the year in question.
Whether the DOH table's rents are gross rents inclusive of a utility allowance or net rents to which the CHA allowance is then applied is not stated in the Rules. Article 10.1 says the rents are computed 'based on' HUD income limits and CHA utility allowances, which describes the derivation, not what the published figure represents at the point a lease is signed. Read the table's own headings before applying it.
The Rules name CHA as the publisher of the utility allowances and say nothing further. They do not state which CHA schedule applies (CHA publishes allowances that vary by building type and by which utilities the tenant pays), when a revised CHA schedule takes effect for an ARO property, or whether an owner may instead use an actual-consumption or energy-consumption model as LIHTC permits under 26 CFR 1.42-10. Absent any of that, no utility allowance figure is encoded here.
Whether an ARO property that ALSO has LIHTC uses the CHA schedule or the LIHTC utility allowance is not addressed. Article 1.2 says a development receiving LIHTCs is monitored 'according to the more restrictive requirements of such programs, rather than the ARO', which resolves the monitoring question but not which allowance produces the lower permitted rent in a given year.
The Rules make the pair effective when HUD 'makes both maximum incomes and rents available', but the ARO rents are computed and published by DOH, not by HUD. Article 10.1 says DOH publishes them 'typically between February and June'. Whether the operative date is HUD's release of the underlying limits or DOH's publication of its own derived table -- which can be months later -- is not stated, and the gap is exactly the window in which an owner setting a new lease rent has to choose. Confirm with the ARO Project Manager.
This is the opposite of the LIHTC habit and the difference is worth stating plainly: an ARO-only property does not annually recertify income. The Rules say so expressly. What they do not say is what happens where a property is BOTH ARO and LIHTC -- Article 1.2 makes the more restrictive program's requirements govern, which points to the LIHTC annual certification, but no Rule says the ARO adopts it.
The Rules do not say whether a requalification triggered by adding or removing a tenant re-runs the full initial process (application package to CAC, 10-business-day review, approval letter before a lease amendment) or is a lighter check, nor what happens if the reconstituted household no longer qualifies. Article 10.4's process is written for initial leasing. Not guessed.
The Rules require a one-year term and permit a shorter one only by mutual agreement. They are silent on renewal term: whether a renewal must also run a year, and whether a month-to-month tenancy after the initial year is permitted, is not stated. Read together with the good-cause renewal protection in the same Article, a landlord who must renew absent good cause but has no stated renewal term has an unresolved question. Not guessed.
The eight prohibitions track HUD's model lease prohibitions almost word for word, but the Rules neither cite that model nor say what happens to a lease that contains one: whether the provision is void and the lease survives, whether the lease is unenforceable, or whether the consequence is a compliance finding against the owner under Article 11. Not stated in any published ARO document located this pass.
The Rules give no address, portal or form for serving DOH, and no ARO document located this pass names the recipient bureau. An owner who serves the tenant correctly and cannot identify where to serve the City has not met the requirement. Confirm the service channel with the ARO Project Manager.
Whether the 30-day notice runs concurrently with, or in addition to, the notice periods the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance requires for the same action is not addressed. The Rules require conformity with the RLTO generally but do not reconcile the two clocks.
'Other good cause' is undefined, and no ARO document publishes examples, a standard, or a tenant challenge procedure for a landlord's good-cause assertion. Whether DOH reviews the grounds on receiving the notice, or merely receives it, is not stated.
No retention period is stated. The Rules require the records to be kept separate and available 'at all times' without saying for how long after a tenancy ends, or whether retention runs to the end of the 30-year Inclusionary Housing Agreement term. Compare the Chicago LIHTC overlay, which does state a retention period. Not guessed.
The audit right is 'during business hours by City representatives' with no notice period, no named bureau and no stated scope. Whether an owner may require advance notice, and whether the right reaches records held by a third-party management agent at the agent's own offices, is not addressed beyond the flow-down clause requirement.
The Rules bar criteria and fees not applied to market rate applicants, and do not address the reverse asymmetry: whether a landlord may waive or reduce a fee for affordable applicants. Read literally the prohibition is one-directional, but no ARO document confirms that reading.
The appeal runs 'through the landlord', so the landlord both receives the appeal of a rejection it did not make and controls when CAC's 10-day clock starts by deciding when to forward the documents. The Rules set no deadline for the landlord to forward an appeal and provide no route for a tenant to appeal directly to CAC or DOH. A landlord holding an appeal indefinitely also holds the unit off the market indefinitely, which the Rules do not address.
No consequence is published for leasing the unit to someone else before the final determination arrives, and no remedy is published for the appealing applicant.
The obligation is encoded as 'should', not 'must', because that is the word the Rules use twice in this section, and the penalty they point to is the Inclusionary Housing Agreement's rather than the ARO's own. The actual force of the deadline is therefore in the recorded IHA for the specific property, which the corpus does not hold. Read the IHA before treating this as a hard deadline or as merely advisory.
No published ARO document located this pass states the penalty amount or formula for affordable units not leased within the six months. Article 11 routes non-compliance to the enforcement provisions of MCC Subsection (P), which the corpus does not yet hold as a source.
The clock starts when the LAST affordable unit is first leased, which means the start date is not knowable until lease-up completes and can be later than any single unit's own first lease. Where a development never fully leases its affordable units, no published Rule says when or whether the term begins. Not guessed.
The rental-to-owner conversion restart in Article 12.3 means a converted project can carry affordability well past 30 years from original lease-up. Whether the restart applies unit by unit on each initial sale, or once for the whole project on the first such sale, is not stated -- the text says 'the date of the initial sale of the owner-occupied unit', in the singular, for a project that may contain several.

nc North Carolina · 100

effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
NCHFA's two documents give two implementation dates. The manual says HOTMA was implemented 'as of January 1, 2024'; Policy Update 7.0 says it is 'required for all certifications effective 7/1/2025 or later'. Which governs a certification effective between those dates -- and whether the 2024 date refers to an earlier policy version in the same series -- is not stated in either document.
The series is at 7.0 with no stated cadence. Version 8 should be expected and this rule will need a new record_version when it lands; NCHFA publishes no changelog beyond the two-line change history at the foot of each update.
The policy does not say what happens to a certification effective on or after 1 July 2025 that was completed under the previous version before 7.0 was published in December 2025 -- whether it must be redone or is grandfathered.
Neither document states a currency requirement for the stubs -- how recent the most recent stub must be relative to the certification effective date. Georgia sets 120 days on both ends; NCHFA's published materials read here set none.
Where an applicant has been employed for less than two pay periods, the policy does not say what substitutes -- whether a verification of employment alone is acceptable and, if so, what it must contain.
'HOME/NHTF only' is not defined against NCHFA's own RPP structure, where the Agency selects the fund source for an RPP loan in its sole discretion; whether an RPP property whose proceeds turned out to be state Housing Trust Fund rather than HOME is inside or outside the carve-out is unresolved.
Policy Update 7.0 does not name the NCHFA safe harbor form or say where it lives beyond the general website path, and the form itself is not attached to the update, so the field list the 'equivalent documentation' test must satisfy is not in the cited source.
Unlike Georgia, NCHFA does not say whether the safe harbor is available for HOME or NHTF units, or only for tax credit units. The 7.0 change history says the update aligns with the HOME and NHTF final rule changes 'and including the Safe Harbor changes', which suggests it reaches HOME, but does not say so.
It is not stated whether NCHFA requires the safe harbor determination to be no more than twelve months old at receipt, as the federal rule and Georgia's manual both do.
NCHFA prints the 2024 and 2025 thresholds and no later one. The 2026 parameter is recorded with no value; the figure must come from HUD's annual notice or a later NCHFA policy update before any 2026 certification is tested.
Policy Update 7.0 says the Asset Self Certification is permissible at annual recert 'for ALL funding sources', which appears to override the HOME/NHTF-only move-in rule at recertification but does not say so expressly.
It is not stated whether the threshold test uses net family assets after the HOTMA exclusions (retirement accounts, necessary personal property, non-necessary personal property under the threshold) or a gross figure before them.
'Demonstrate the asset is inaccessible' is not given a documentary standard. The real-property example (no legal authority to sell) is the only illustration; whether a bank's signature requirement, a co-owner's refusal, or a court order is enough for a financial account is not stated.
The policy does not say whether an asset jointly held between two members who both live in the unit is affected at all, or whether the rule is aimed only at co-owners outside the household.
It is not stated whether counting the total cash value applies equally to the disposed-of-asset calculation for a jointly held asset that was given away.
NCHFA does not state a lookback period for disposed-of assets anywhere in Policy Update 7.0, so the period over which a disposal remains countable in North Carolina is unresolved and is deliberately not recorded.
'All disposed of assets need to be considered' does not say whether 'considered' means always counted, or identified and then valued under the ordinary less-than-fair-market-value test.
The policy does not restate which disposals are outside the rule (foreclosure, bankruptcy, divorce settlements, assets spent on non-assets), so whether NCHFA keeps those federal carve-outs alongside the removed threshold is not established from this document.
'Local office' is not defined. It most naturally means the county tax office that classifies a manufactured home as real or personal property, but NCHFA does not say so, and does not say what document evidences the classification.
The policy does not say what happens when the classification changes during a tenancy -- for example when a manufactured home is later converted to real property -- or whether the asset must then be added at the next recertification.
It is not stated whether a manufactured home the household occupies elsewhere and rents out is affected, or only one held vacant.
'Authorized placement agency (e.g. public child welfare agency)' is illustrative rather than exhaustive; whether a licensed private placement agency or an out-of-state agency qualifies is not stated.
The policy does not say what document evidences the placement, or whether a self-certification plus the placement agency's name is sufficient where the agency will not correspond directly.
It is not stated whether a former foster child who has aged out but remains in the unit continues to be excluded, or becomes an ordinary household member at that point.
The NCHFA Compliance Manual carries no cover date, no footer revision date and no PDF metadata date. Its only self-dating is a Document Revision History table with a single row, '12/2025 ... Updated Sections: 7.4b, 7.6a, 7.7, 8.1, 8.6c', and this rule's section is not among those updated -- so the text cited here is older than 12/2025 by an unknown margin. effective.from is set to 2025-12-01 as the latest date the document asserts about itself; data/sources/sources.json's 'June 2026' is derived from the URL directory /2026-06/, not from the document. NCHFA should be asked to date its editions.
NCHFA's seven-item HOME list omits prongs that appear in the federal rule -- notably the orphan or ward of the court status, and the 'established a household separate from parents or guardians for at least one year' route to independence that Georgia's manual spells out. Whether NCHFA intends those to remain available or has narrowed the test is not stated.
The manual says 'Student status is verified annually' but does not say what verification is required where a household self-certifies that no member is a student, nor whether the annual verification is required at 100% tax credit properties in years 16-30 where s7.10 drops student status from the annual update.
'Independent and individually eligible, or has parents who are income eligible' does not state the income limit against which the parents are tested; the federal rule uses the low-income limit, but NCHFA does not name it here.
The NCHFA Compliance Manual carries no cover date, no footer revision date and no PDF metadata date. Its only self-dating is a Document Revision History table with a single row, '12/2025 ... Updated Sections: 7.4b, 7.6a, 7.7, 8.1, 8.6c', and this rule's section is not among those updated -- so the text cited here is older than 12/2025 by an unknown margin. effective.from is set to 2025-12-01 as the latest date the document asserts about itself; data/sources/sources.json's 'June 2026' is derived from the URL directory /2026-06/, not from the document. NCHFA should be asked to date its editions.
The manual says the designation moves to 'the next higher set-aside' without saying what happens at the top band -- whether a unit already at the highest designation in the project simply loses low-income status, or is treated under the ordinary federal rule.
'An increase in rent to the next level' is stated without reference to the lease. Whether the rent may be raised mid-term or only when the lease permits, as Georgia's manual expressly requires for HOME over-income households, is not addressed.
The rule does not say how quickly the next available unit must be rented at the lower set-aside, nor whether more than one unit must be backfilled where several units go over-income at once.
The NCHFA Compliance Manual carries no cover date, no footer revision date and no PDF metadata date. Its only self-dating is a Document Revision History table with a single row, '12/2025 ... Updated Sections: 7.4b, 7.6a, 7.7, 8.1, 8.6c', and this rule's section is not among those updated -- so the text cited here is older than 12/2025 by an unknown margin. effective.from is set to 2025-12-01 as the latest date the document asserts about itself; data/sources/sources.json's 'June 2026' is derived from the URL directory /2026-06/, not from the document. NCHFA should be asked to date its editions.
The manual does not say what an owner should do where the RCRS figure and the current HUD publication disagree -- for example in the 45-day window after HUD releases new limits and before the Agency loads them.
'Highest of the income and rent limits' does not say whether the highest is taken per set-aside per county on the income side and the rent side independently, or whether one series is selected and used for both.
It is not stated whether an Average Income property that later loses its election, or a property whose 8609 election is corrected, moves onto the deeper-targeting limits prospectively or retroactively.
The NCHFA Compliance Manual carries no cover date, no footer revision date and no PDF metadata date. Its only self-dating is a Document Revision History table with a single row, '12/2025 ... Updated Sections: 7.4b, 7.6a, 7.7, 8.1, 8.6c', and this rule's section is not among those updated -- so the text cited here is older than 12/2025 by an unknown margin. effective.from is set to 2025-12-01 as the latest date the document asserts about itself; data/sources/sources.json's 'June 2026' is derived from the URL directory /2026-06/, not from the document. NCHFA should be asked to date its editions.
The manual requires screening criteria 'no more restrictive than described in the policy' but the policy itself is not in the manual -- it is on the Agency's website with a sample TSP and checklists. The substantive screening ceiling is therefore not encodable from the cited source.
Submission is required 'prior to loan closing', which does not obviously cover a tax-credit-only property with no Agency loan; the manual does not state the equivalent trigger for those properties.
The manual does not state a turnaround for Agency review, so how long a property may operate on a changed plan awaiting approval is unresolved.
The NCHFA Compliance Manual carries no cover date, no footer revision date and no PDF metadata date. Its only self-dating is a Document Revision History table with a single row, '12/2025 ... Updated Sections: 7.4b, 7.6a, 7.7, 8.1, 8.6c', and this rule's section is not among those updated -- so the text cited here is older than 12/2025 by an unknown margin. effective.from is set to 2025-12-01 as the latest date the document asserts about itself; data/sources/sources.json's 'June 2026' is derived from the URL directory /2026-06/, not from the document. NCHFA should be asked to date its editions.
'Effective 2016' is given without a month or day for the extension to bond properties. The parameter records 1 January 2016; NCHFA should be asked for the operative date, which matters for a bond property placed in service during 2016.
The manual does not say whether the 10% is of total units or of low-income units, nor how it is rounded at a small property.
'A disability source of income' is not defined. Whether SSI or SSDI is required, or whether any documented disability-related income (including a private disability policy) qualifies, is not stated, and the interaction with a household that has a disability but no disability income is not addressed.
The NCHFA Compliance Manual carries no cover date, no footer revision date and no PDF metadata date. Its only self-dating is a Document Revision History table with a single row, '12/2025 ... Updated Sections: 7.4b, 7.6a, 7.7, 8.1, 8.6c', and this rule's section is not among those updated -- so the text cited here is older than 12/2025 by an unknown margin. effective.from is set to 2025-12-01 as the latest date the document asserts about itself; data/sources/sources.json's 'June 2026' is derived from the URL directory /2026-06/, not from the document. NCHFA should be asked to date its editions.
No hold period is published. How long a unit stays in V&R before it may be released and marketed normally is governed by 'program guidelines' the manual does not reproduce or cite, so no figure is recorded.
The manual does not state a deadline for entering a vacancy -- only the earliest point at which it may be entered -- so whether a late entry is itself a finding is unresolved.
It is not stated whether a denial of a DHHS referral requires Agency or DHHS concurrence, or whether uploading the denial letter with supporting documentation is the whole of the obligation.
NCHFA says the period 'typically' begins at permanent-loan conversion and runs 20 years, and section 7.6 directs owners to the loan documents and deed restrictions for specific property requirements. The manual does not say what makes a project atypical, or whether the shorter federal tiers at 24 CFR 92.252(e) are ever used for small per-unit HOME investments in North Carolina. Not inferred; resolve against the project's commitment letter and recorded restriction.
The manual's Document Revision History records its last change as 12/2025 (sections 7.4b, 7.6a, 7.7, 8.1, 8.6c) while the source record and the file's publication path describe it as the June 2026 edition. The effective date encoded for manual-sourced North Carolina rules in this batch is 2026-06-01, taken from the source record; whether the June 2026 posting carried substantive changes that the revision history does not list was not determinable.
NCHFA does not state what happens at the end of the HOME affordability period at a project that also carries a Housing Credit extended use agreement running to year 30, nor whether the HOME restrictions simply fall away. Chapter 10 covers the Extended Use Period for tax credits only.
effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
NCHFA does not define 'qualified units' in Appendix G. At a project layered with Housing Credits the phrase most naturally means the low-income units under section 42, but it could also mean the RPP-assisted units or all restricted units, and the three differ. The 40 percent is encoded against qualified units because that is the published wording; the denominator should be confirmed with the Agency for a specific project.
Appendix G states the requirement as an underwriting requirement -- projects that cannot meet it 'will be ineligible for RPP funds' -- and the compliance manual enforces set-aside maintenance separately under State Noncompliance without restating the 40 percent. Whether the 40 percent is monitored as an ongoing occupancy covenant or only tested at underwriting is not stated in either document. The rule is encoded as continuous because the wording is 'affordable to and occupied by', which is an occupancy test, but this should be confirmed.
Appendix G is republished with each annual QAP and its terms bind that year's awards. Whether the 40 percent figure has been constant across award years, and what governs a project awarded under an earlier appendix, was not researched this pass. The project's commitment letter is the controlling instrument.
Appendix G does not say whether the 15 percent of total units carrying Low HOME rents must be the same units as the 40 percent of qualified units occupied at or below 50 percent AMI, or whether the two sets may be disjoint. In practice they will overlap, but which units carry which restriction determines what happens when a household's income rises, and NCHFA does not address it.
The Agency's reserved right to reduce net rents on a HOME limit decrease is stated in Appendix G section H, which is framed around the period between the final commitment letter and permanent conversion. Whether the same power is exercised during the operating affordability period, and what notice a tenant receives of a compelled decrease, is not stated. NCHFA's rent-increase machinery in manual section 7.6a addresses increases only.
NCHFA publishes no tenant-notice period for a rent increase anywhere in the manual or Appendix G, only the 60-day pre-submission window to the Agency. The federal 30 days at 24 CFR 92.253(d) therefore governs the tenant notice in North Carolina by default; that is a conclusion from the absence of a state figure rather than an affirmative NCHFA statement, and should be treated as such.
NCHFA does not say when the five-year prohibition starts running, whether it can be lifted by later post-approval, or whether it survives a transfer of the property to an unrelated owner. 'Place a five (5) year prohibition on rent increases on the property' is encoded literally as a property-level consequence; the mechanics are unresolved and matter a great deal in an acquisition.
The manual says a refund to affected tenants is required 'unless post-approval is granted', but does not describe how post-approval is requested, on what standard it is granted, or whether obtaining it also lifts the five-year prohibition and the management-list removal. The three consequences are listed together without saying whether they stand or fall together.
NCHFA reviews rent increase submissions 'on an as needed basis, preferably once each calendar year' and publishes no turnaround commitment. With a 60-day minimum lead time and no service standard, an owner cannot tell whether to serve the federal 30-day tenant notice before or after approval. Neither document resolves it.
effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
NCHFA keys this rule to the funding vehicle ('RPP or any Agency loan'), not to the HOME program. A HOME-assisted property in North Carolina that is not financed by an NCHFA loan -- for example one assisted by a local participating jurisdiction's own HOME allocation -- is outside the manual's stated scope, and NCHFA does not address it. This rule's applicability predicate is the standard state overlay predicate and will match such a property; that over-reach is flagged rather than papered over.
NCHFA publishes no verification currency window (how old a third-party verification may be at the certification effective date), no pay stub count and no zero-income re-verification interval; the manual defers to HUD Handbook 4350.3 practice without saying so expressly. The state coverage index already carries this as an open question for the Housing Credit overlay and it is equally open for HOME.
Whether the annual full recertification NCHFA requires is a HOME certification, a Housing Credit certification, or one document serving both is not stated. At a layered project the two programs' income definitions have converged under HOTMA but their forms and their treatment of over-income households have not.
effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
NCHFA does not publish a correction window for ordinary (non-severe) physical findings; the Final Report 'notifies owner and management of corrective dates for noncompliance cited', set case by case. The 30-day response window in nc.home.monitoring_review.thirty_day_corrective_action_response is a deadline for responding, not for curing.
The manual does not say whether the 10 percent annual sample has a minimum unit floor. Iowa sets a floor of 4 units and Ohio adopts HUD's chart, which also floors at 4; at a small North Carolina RPP project 10 percent could be a single unit and NCHFA does not address it.
Whether an external RD or REAC inspection is accepted in lieu of an NCHFA inspection is unresolved. The manual requires external RD/REAC inspection reports to be uploaded to RCRS as management documents, which implies NCHFA reads them, but it does not say they substitute. Ohio answers the equivalent question yes for NSPIRE-based reports under 12 months old; North Carolina does not answer it.
effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
NCHFA publishes no length for the correction period itself for any finding type. The state coverage index already carries 'Which correction clock applies to which finding type' as an open question for the North Carolina Housing Credit overlay, and it is equally open on the HOME side. The 30 days encoded here is the response deadline only.
The manual does not say what happens if the 30-day response deadline is missed -- whether the finding is simply carried as uncorrected into the Final Report, or whether the miss is itself a further noncompliance. It also does not say whether an extension of the response window can be requested.
For a HOME-only project there is no Form 8823, so the manual's repeated framing of consequences around the 8823 does not apply. What does apply -- reporting to HUD annually until resolved, per section 7.2 -- is stated in the affordability period section rather than in the noncompliance chapter, and the two are not cross-referenced. Whether an uncorrected HOME finding is reported to HUD on a schedule NCHFA controls or on HUD's own monitoring cycle is not stated.
effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
NCHFA states the upload requirement for move-ins and is silent on whether supporting documentation must also be uploaded for recertifications, transfers and updates. Encoded literally as move-in only; not extended by inference.
The manual does not say what consequence attaches to a late unit event entry standing alone, or whether it is Program or State noncompliance. Section 8.6a lists 'Household qualifications (RCRS reporting, income certifications, etc.)' among the AOC certification topics but does not name late entry as a noncompliance category.
Section 7.5a says that once the AOC is accepted by the Agency no changes can be made to unit events in RCRS, but does not say how an error discovered after acceptance is corrected, or whether the AOC can be reopened. This is a real operational trap and the manual leaves it unanswered.
effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
NCHFA says the questions on the AOC vary depending on funding source but the HOME-specific question set was not inspected this pass; the form is generated inside RCRS rather than posted publicly. Whether a HOME-only project certifies to different propositions than a Housing Credit project is unresolved.
The manual gives no grace period and no late-filing fee for the AOC. It also does not say whether a returned-for-corrections AOC resubmitted after 10 February is treated as late.
Section 7.2 says HOME program noncompliance results in the project being reported to HUD annually until resolved, but the AOC section frames consequences around the Form 8823 and good standing. Whether a defective AOC at a HOME-only project is among the items reported to HUD is not stated.
effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
NCHFA lists PHA methodology among the seven generally available methods without qualifying it by program or commitment date. Under the 2013 HOME Final Rule the PHA allowance was unavailable to HOME projects committed funds on or after 23 August 2013 -- Georgia's manual states that prohibition expressly and OHFA records that the 2025 HOME Final Rule restored the PHA option for HOME units. Whether NCHFA's list is post-2025-rule current, or is a Housing Credit list applied loosely across programs, is unresolved and matters for any North Carolina HOME project using a PHA allowance.
The manual refers to a 'required processing fee (if applicable)' without stating the amount or when it applies, and directs owners to the Agency website for the Utility Allowance Policy, Sample Utility Allowance Effective Dates, Approved Vendors and Instruction Sheet. None of those four documents was read this pass; the effective-date rules in particular are likely to carry timing detail this rule does not.
NCHFA publishes no resident notice requirement for a utility allowance change, no waiting period between approval and implementation, and no minimum time before a methodology may be changed. Georgia publishes all three (90 days notice, 15 business days for the Agency's response, 18 months after placed in service before a methodology change). The absence in North Carolina is an absence, not a permission, and was not resolved.
effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
G.S. 122E-5(b)(6) and 122E-8 both direct the Agency and the Partnership to promulgate rules governing the Fund. This pass did not locate a codified NCHFA Housing Trust Fund rule in the North Carolina Administrative Code, and reports.oah.state.nc.us was not searched successfully within this session. Whether the Partnership's policies exist as published administrative rules or only as agency guidelines is unverified.
G.S. 122E-2(6) makes affordability a function of the OCCUPANT'S actual income. Nothing located this session says how NCHFA operationalises that -- whether a Trust Fund guaranteed unit whose occupant's rent burden rises above 30 percent (because income fell, not because rent rose) ceases to count toward the 20 percent guarantee, or whether the Agency measures against AMI-derived rent schedules only. The corpus records both figures and resolves neither.
G.S. 122E-6(b)(2) cross-references 'affordable housing units as defined in G.S. 122E-2(9)', and the codified chapter carries a bracketed editorial correction to 122E-2(6). Subsection (9) is the Diamond Shamrock Litigation Funds definition. The bracket is the codifier's, not the legislature's; the statute as enacted contains a wrong cross-reference.
Appendix G states no lead time for a rent increase submission -- only that reviews happen 'on an "as needed" basis, preferably once each calendar year'. The corpus's HOME rule for NCHFA records a 60-day advance requirement from a different document. Whether the 60 days also binds an RPP project financed from the North Carolina Housing Trust Fund without HOME funds is unverified.
'Handicapping condition' is defined at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41A-3; that definition was not read in this pass, and whether it tracks the federal definition of handicap is not established here.
North Carolina's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in North Carolina on this section's text. Charlotte and other municipalities have considered ordinances; those are local law this corpus does not yet hold.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

ny New York · 95

HCR does not publish a SLIHC 90% AMI limit series inside the Capital Programs Manual and the manual gives no pointer to where the 90% figures come from. Whether SLIHC uses HUD MTSP limits extrapolated to 90%, HUD's own 80% figures scaled, or a separate HCR publication is unresolved and must not be guessed -- the arithmetic differs by hundreds of dollars per household size.
The manual states the income averaging ceiling as 80% AMI 'provided that the average imputed income limit for the entire project is at or below 60% AMI' without addressing the 10-designation structure of the federal rule or what happens when a project's average drifts above 60%. Section 7.10.04's NAUR paragraph is the only remedial mechanism named.
The manual says 'more than 35% of the household's income' without saying whether that is annual income as certified, adjusted income, or gross monthly income. The parallel HTFC provision at 7.06.02 uses the same phrasing. Not resolved; the difference between annual and adjusted income moves the ratio materially for a household with dependents.
'Projects funded under the 2025 9% LIHTC RFP and going forward' is the trigger at 7.06.02 while 7.10.03 says only 'projects funded under the 2025 9%LIHTC RFP'. Whether a 2026 or later round inherits the 35% figure automatically is clear in one sentence and not in the other.
The SAMU waiver at 7.06.02 is expressed for the HTFC affordability requirements. Whether the same waiver route is available against the 7.10.03 LIHTC ceiling is not stated; encoded as a test branch with that uncertainty recorded rather than dropped.
The manual names HUD Handbook 4350.3 rev-1 chg-4 specifically, a document HUD has not updated since 2013 and which predates HOTMA's rewrite of 24 CFR 5.609. HCR's manual contains no HOTMA implementation date, no reference to the HOTMA final rule, and no statement of whether 'or its successor' is intended to pull in HOTMA-era guidance. This is the single largest unresolved question in New York's eligibility regime and it is recorded, not guessed.
Texas's 10.611(e) exempts lifetime benefits (pension, annuities, Social Security) from the 120-day rule; New York's manual states no exception at all. Whether HCR expects a fresh Social Security award letter every certification is not addressed.
Whether HCR accepts the HUD 4350.3 under-5,000-dollar asset self-certification convention by virtue of adopting the handbook wholesale, or requires third-party verification of every asset regardless of value as 7.06.07's flat 'income and assets' language suggests, is genuinely unresolved. Both readings are defensible from the text and the difference is a large operational cost.
The manual's 'or its successor' for HUD Handbook 4350.3 rev-1 chg-4 is doing significant work: HUD's HOTMA-era guidance changes the asset definition substantially. HCR has published nothing stating whether it treats that guidance as the successor for LIHTC files.
No HCR document located in this pass addresses HOTMA at all for the Housing Credit portfolio. Compare CTCAC, which issued a dedicated HOTMA memo naming exactly three applicable sections and a 1 January 2027 mandatory date.
The manual gives no window for the annual verification -- no anniversary anchor, no days-before rule of the kind Texas states at 10 TAC 10.612(b)(2). 'Annually' is all HCR says, so what makes a verification late in New York is undetermined.
'Any LIHTC or LIHTC blended project' does not say whether it reaches SLIHC-only units in a blended property, which are not LIHTC units per 7.10.04.
The manual's 7.10 introduction refers the reader to 'Section 7.09.05' for ineligible students, but 7.09 is Asset Management Performance Reviews and has no paragraph 05; the students subsection is 7.10.06. A cross-reference error in the published 2026 edition, noted so a reader does not conclude a separate student provision exists somewhere unread.
HCR gives no NAUR mechanics for a project that elected income averaging: no band structure of the kind Texas states at 10 TAC 10.615(d), and no statement of whether the 140% base is the unit's own designation or the 60% project average. Section 7.10.01 permits designations up to 80% AMI, so the question is live and unanswered.
'Document to the satisfaction of SAMU' names no artifact, format or deadline. What a blended New York project must actually hold is undetermined.
Whether a SLIHC unit at or below 60% AMI can serve as the qualified next available unit for a LIHTC NAUR cure follows logically from 7.10.04's exclusion of SLIHC units above 60%, but the manual does not say so expressly and it is not asserted here.
HPD's own occupancy standards are not encoded here and the corpus's ny.nyc local layer does not currently carry them. Any New York property with HPD funding therefore has an unresolved occupancy standard in this corpus. Recorded rather than filled by assumption, because the brief for this batch is the state layer and HPD is a different administrator.
The chart is stated for 'Owners of HTFC funded projects'. Whether it binds a 9% LIHTC project with no HTFC subsidy is not stated anywhere in 7.06 or 7.10, and 7.10 lists no occupancy provision of its own.
'A project may go above the maximum limit for the household size for a specific unit if it is reasonable to do so' names HUD's reasonableness factors but no HCR approval step, while the next paragraph requires a waiver to exceed the chart. Whether reasonableness is self-executing or waiver-gated is contradictory on the face of the manual.
9 NYCRR 2040.8(b)(2)(ii)(b) as amended ends mid-sentence at 'unless:'. The amendment document reproduces only the amended clause, and the exception conditions sit in un-amended text the filing does not reprint. The full current text of Part 2040.8 was not located in a form that includes them. Until it is, the conditions under which DHCR withdraws the 100%-LIHTC recertification relief are unknown, and the corpus records that rather than assuming the relief is unconditional.
The manual's three cases do not cover a project that is, for example, 100% low income with SOME buildings blended with HTF. 7.10.05 is written in whole-project terms ('all the low-income buildings in the project') and the mixed case falls to the general annual rule at 7.06.07 by default rather than by statement.
Whether the one-page self-attestation form for HTF and HOME buildings is the same instrument HCR describes at 7.06.08 -- the manual says it is 'the identical form used for HOME funded projects' -- and whether it is acceptable in a LIHTC-blended building is not addressed.
Part 2188 is dated May 2021 and its supersession risk is recorded as medium in sources.json. Whether HFA has since reissued the 4% QAP was not established in this pass; the hash matched the corpus's, which proves the URL still serves the same bytes, not that it is the current edition.
The reproduced text of (g)(11) breaks mid-sentence in the PDF's layout at 'then the provisions of IRC §42(g)(2)(D)((ii) with' and the continuation was not captured cleanly. The 170% trigger is unambiguous; the exact form of the consequent clause for the deep rent skewed case is not encoded beyond what the vacancy paragraph independently states.
Section 2188.7's own subsection lettering skips (h): the printed text runs (a) through (g) and then jumps to (i) 'Waiver of Annual Tenant Income Recertification Requirement' and (j) 'Inspection and Review', while the internal cross-references at 2188.7(f)(v) and (g)(4) point to '§2188.7(h)' for the waiver and '§2188.7(i)' for inspection. The document is internally inconsistent by one letter. The locators above therefore name the subsection by its heading as well as its letter, and a defensible citation should quote the heading rather than rely on the letter.
The guidelines and protocols for obtaining HFA's concurrence are said to be posted on the Agency's website. They were not located in this pass, so what an owner must actually submit, and how long HFA takes, are unknown.
The waiver condition -- 'no residential unit in the project is occupied by a new resident whose income exceeds the applicable income limit' during the year -- is tested annually, but nothing states whether a single non-qualifying new resident revokes an already-concurred waiver automatically or only prospectively.
The guide is written for 'state-funded housing' and says the policy applies 'broadly to all recipients of HCR funding'. Whether a project whose only HCR nexus is a Housing Credit allocation -- no HCR loan, no HTFC subsidy -- is a 'recipient of HCR funding' is a genuine open question. The Capital Programs Manual's own carve-out at 1.01 that it does not apply to bond financed transactions makes the question sharper for a 4% deal, since the manual is what otherwise imports the policy into the compliance regime.
Step 3 of Part I directs a provider whose policy does not consider FICO to 'proceed directly to Step 3 of the worksheet', and Step 4's failure branch says to 'proceed to Part II of the worksheet' while Step 3's says to 'proceed to Step 3'. The guide's internal step references do not line up with its own headings; the worksheet, not the guide, is the operative instrument and was not read in this pass.
The COVID-19 protection covers negative findings 'during the State of Emergency in New York State (specifically, March 7, 2020 through June 23, 2021)' AND requires the hardship to be pandemic-caused. Whether an applicant must evidence causation or whether findings in that window are presumed pandemic-caused is not stated.
The guide cites the Human Rights Law provision as 'Section 269(16)' twice in its General Policies and again in Section 2 Question 1, and as 'NYS Human Rights Law § 296(16)' elsewhere in the same Question. Section 296(16) is the correct provision; 269(16) does not exist. The corpus encodes the substance and records the drafting error rather than silently repairing a quoted citation.
HCR's Marketing Plans and Policies page describes the sample additional-information request letter as giving applicants '10 business days', while this guide, the credit guide and the Capital Programs Manual all say 14 business days. The three primary documents agree on 14 and the page does not; which governs a provider using HCR's own sample letter is unresolved.
The guide anchors to the HFA Fair Housing and Tenant Selection Guidelines section 4.1.2.2 (July 2019 Revision) and Management Bulletin Memorandum 2016-B-04. Neither document was locatable on hcr.ny.gov in this pass, so the underlying tenant selection framework they establish is not in the corpus and this rule stands on the guide alone.
Whether a project whose only HCR nexus is a Housing Credit allocation is inside 'state-funded housing' is the same open question carried on the credit policy rule.
The manual does not say whether the portal requirement reaches turnover leasing after initial rent-up or only the initial lottery. 'The applications, lottery and tenant selection must be run through' the portal reads broadly; the waiting-list paragraphs that follow describe post-rent-up selection without mentioning the portal again.
'A marketing and application period agreed upon with the Fair and Equitable Housing Office' sets no minimum length, and none is stated elsewhere in Section 7.
Whether a resyndication or an acquisition-rehab with sitting tenants must run a public lottery, and how sitting households interact with it, is not addressed anywhere in 7.06.01.
HCR's MIHP stretch is stated as 'up to 20% higher than the proposed rent affordability level' and illustrated with 90% AMI to 110% AMI. Read as 20 percentage points that example is right; read as 20 percent of the level it would give 108% AMI. The example is consistent with the percentage-point reading and the wording with the proportional one. Not resolved, and the parameter records both readings rather than choosing.
'Maximum target income for the unit' is not defined in 7.06.02 and no cross-reference is given; for an HTFC-subsidised unit that is not also LIHTC there is no set-aside election to derive it from, so it must come from the regulatory agreement.
The MIHP 30 percent floor is a minimum tenant contribution, which is unusual in an affordability regime. Nothing states how it interacts with a household holding a rental subsidy that fixes the tenant portion at a different share.
These rules encode the NYS HOME Small Rental Development Initiative regime and are scoped to it by an extra applicability term, because the SRDI Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan is the only published NYS HOME rental compliance document located on 2026-08-24. Whether HTFC applies the same POA monitoring requirements to NYS HOME rental awards made outside SRDI -- for example larger multifamily awards underwritten through HCR's Office of Finance and Development Capital Programs Manual -- is unresolved. hcr.ny.gov returns HTTP 403 to automated requests for documents under /system/files/, and the Capital Programs Manual could not be retrieved to check. A resolver must not widen these rules to every New York HOME unit on the strength of this batch.
The Monitoring Plan's every page footer reads 'Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan 3-2021' and it is posted at a 2021/04 path. SRDI itself is current -- HCR published a 2025-2026 SRDI Request for Applications with a $10,000,000 allocation -- but no Monitoring Plan later than 3-2021 is linked from the SRDI programme page, and the plan predates both HOTMA and the 2025 HOME Final Rule. Whether a revised plan exists and is distributed only to award recipients is unknown, and every income, rent and certification requirement below should be re-verified against a current plan before it is relied on.
The plan gives a single 15-year figure for rehabilitation without reference to per-unit HOME investment, where 24 CFR 92.252(e) gives 5, 10 or 15. Whether HTFC has elected the longest federal term as a matter of policy, or whether SRDI per-unit investments always exceed $40,000 so the question never arises in practice, is not stated. The effect on a low-subsidy project is the same either way and is encoded as published.
'Acquisition' does not appear in the plan's two-way rehabilitation/new-construction split. Which term an SRDI acquisition-and-rehabilitation project carries -- 15 as rehabilitation, or the federal 20 for acquisition of newly constructed housing -- is not addressed. Not inferred.
These rules encode the NYS HOME Small Rental Development Initiative regime and are scoped to it by an extra applicability term, because the SRDI Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan is the only published NYS HOME rental compliance document located on 2026-08-24. Whether HTFC applies the same POA monitoring requirements to NYS HOME rental awards made outside SRDI -- for example larger multifamily awards underwritten through HCR's Office of Finance and Development Capital Programs Manual -- is unresolved. hcr.ny.gov returns HTTP 403 to automated requests for documents under /system/files/, and the Capital Programs Manual could not be retrieved to check. A resolver must not widen these rules to every New York HOME unit on the strength of this batch.
The Monitoring Plan's every page footer reads 'Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan 3-2021' and it is posted at a 2021/04 path. SRDI itself is current -- HCR published a 2025-2026 SRDI Request for Applications with a $10,000,000 allocation -- but no Monitoring Plan later than 3-2021 is linked from the SRDI programme page, and the plan predates both HOTMA and the 2025 HOME Final Rule. Whether a revised plan exists and is distributed only to award recipients is unknown, and every income, rent and certification requirement below should be re-verified against a current plan before it is relied on.
The plan does not say what event the annual anniversary runs from -- move-in, lease execution, or the initial certification effective date -- and names no permitted window for dating a recertification relative to it. Texas publishes 120 days, Alabama 180, Georgia 120; New York publishes nothing, and none of them may be imported.
Self-certification is permitted 'after initial occupancy' with no stated ceiling and no periodic verified recertification anywhere in the plan. Whether a household certified with source documents at move-in can then self-certify for the whole of a 20-year period with no third-party verification at any point appears to be what the plan says, and no HTFC document located on 2026-08-24 contradicts it. Flagged because it is a surprising reading of a HOME regime rather than because the text is ambiguous.
The plan predates HOTMA. Whether HTFC has adopted the HOTMA income and asset provisions for SRDI, and how they interact with a self-certification regime, is not addressed anywhere in the 3-2021 plan.
These rules encode the NYS HOME Small Rental Development Initiative regime and are scoped to it by an extra applicability term, because the SRDI Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan is the only published NYS HOME rental compliance document located on 2026-08-24. Whether HTFC applies the same POA monitoring requirements to NYS HOME rental awards made outside SRDI -- for example larger multifamily awards underwritten through HCR's Office of Finance and Development Capital Programs Manual -- is unresolved. hcr.ny.gov returns HTTP 403 to automated requests for documents under /system/files/, and the Capital Programs Manual could not be retrieved to check. A resolver must not widen these rules to every New York HOME unit on the strength of this batch.
The Monitoring Plan's every page footer reads 'Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan 3-2021' and it is posted at a 2021/04 path. SRDI itself is current -- HCR published a 2025-2026 SRDI Request for Applications with a $10,000,000 allocation -- but no Monitoring Plan later than 3-2021 is linked from the SRDI programme page, and the plan predates both HOTMA and the 2025 HOME Final Rule. Whether a revised plan exists and is distributed only to award recipients is unknown, and every income, rent and certification requirement below should be re-verified against a current plan before it is relied on.
The plan requires the calculator at determination but does not say whether a self-certification year requires a fresh calculator run, or whether the initial summary carries forward. Given that self-certification reports income and the calculator computes it, the two requirements meet awkwardly in every year after the first, and the plan does not resolve it.
The HUD CPD Income Eligibility Calculator is a HUD-hosted web tool whose behaviour changes when HUD updates it, most consequentially for HOTMA. A determination summary produced in one year and a summary produced in another may embody different rules with no change to the New York plan. Whether HTFC treats the calculator's current behaviour as authoritative for a certification made under an earlier version is not addressed.
Whether the Part 5 election extends to NYS HOME rental awards outside SRDI, or whether HTFC has made a different election for those, is unknown for the reasons in the scope open question above.
These rules encode the NYS HOME Small Rental Development Initiative regime and are scoped to it by an extra applicability term, because the SRDI Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan is the only published NYS HOME rental compliance document located on 2026-08-24. Whether HTFC applies the same POA monitoring requirements to NYS HOME rental awards made outside SRDI -- for example larger multifamily awards underwritten through HCR's Office of Finance and Development Capital Programs Manual -- is unresolved. hcr.ny.gov returns HTTP 403 to automated requests for documents under /system/files/, and the Capital Programs Manual could not be retrieved to check. A resolver must not widen these rules to every New York HOME unit on the strength of this batch.
The Monitoring Plan's every page footer reads 'Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan 3-2021' and it is posted at a 2021/04 path. SRDI itself is current -- HCR published a 2025-2026 SRDI Request for Applications with a $10,000,000 allocation -- but no Monitoring Plan later than 3-2021 is linked from the SRDI programme page, and the plan predates both HOTMA and the 2025 HOME Final Rule. Whether a revised plan exists and is distributed only to award recipients is unknown, and every income, rent and certification requirement below should be re-verified against a current plan before it is relied on.
The plan does not say what happens when a fixed assisted unit is unrentable -- destroyed by casualty, subject to a long rehabilitation, or persistently vacant. A floating regime absorbs that by moving the designation; a fixed one cannot, and the plan provides no substitution mechanism and no vacant-unit clock. Not inferred.
The baseline is the operations budget approved at contract close-out, which the owner also updates annually. Whether an approved annual update can change the unit mix, or whether the close-out version remains the fixed baseline for the whole period of affordability, is unresolved and matters because the two readings differ by every subsequent year's approvals.
Whether a household in a fixed assisted unit may transfer within the project at all, and what happens to the designation if it does, is not addressed anywhere in the plan. Texas answers the same question expressly at 10 TAC 10.616(c); New York does not.
These rules encode the NYS HOME Small Rental Development Initiative regime and are scoped to it by an extra applicability term, because the SRDI Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan is the only published NYS HOME rental compliance document located on 2026-08-24. Whether HTFC applies the same POA monitoring requirements to NYS HOME rental awards made outside SRDI -- for example larger multifamily awards underwritten through HCR's Office of Finance and Development Capital Programs Manual -- is unresolved. hcr.ny.gov returns HTTP 403 to automated requests for documents under /system/files/, and the Capital Programs Manual could not be retrieved to check. A resolver must not widen these rules to every New York HOME unit on the strength of this batch.
The Monitoring Plan's every page footer reads 'Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan 3-2021' and it is posted at a 2021/04 path. SRDI itself is current -- HCR published a 2025-2026 SRDI Request for Applications with a $10,000,000 allocation -- but no Monitoring Plan later than 3-2021 is linked from the SRDI programme page, and the plan predates both HOTMA and the 2025 HOME Final Rule. Whether a revised plan exists and is distributed only to award recipients is unknown, and every income, rent and certification requirement below should be re-verified against a current plan before it is relied on.
The plan sets no deadline for submitting proposed rents to SAMU, no turnaround commitment on the approval, and no statement of what rent applies while an approval is pending. Texas publishes an August 1 owner deadline and a 30-day agency turnaround; New York publishes neither, so an owner cannot plan a rent change against a calendar.
Appendix G to the plan, 'SRDI Guidance - Changes in HOME Rents', is referenced for additional information and was not separately analysed in this pass. It may supply the deadlines and the pending-approval answer the body of the plan omits. Anyone relying on this rule for a live rent change should read Appendix G first.
Because rents are approved through the proforma operations budget at close-out and reviewed annually thereafter, the operative approved rent for a given year may live in an approved budget rather than in a standalone rent schedule. Which document a monitor treats as the approval of record is not stated.
These rules encode the NYS HOME Small Rental Development Initiative regime and are scoped to it by an extra applicability term, because the SRDI Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan is the only published NYS HOME rental compliance document located on 2026-08-24. Whether HTFC applies the same POA monitoring requirements to NYS HOME rental awards made outside SRDI -- for example larger multifamily awards underwritten through HCR's Office of Finance and Development Capital Programs Manual -- is unresolved. hcr.ny.gov returns HTTP 403 to automated requests for documents under /system/files/, and the Capital Programs Manual could not be retrieved to check. A resolver must not widen these rules to every New York HOME unit on the strength of this batch.
The Monitoring Plan's every page footer reads 'Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan 3-2021' and it is posted at a 2021/04 path. SRDI itself is current -- HCR published a 2025-2026 SRDI Request for Applications with a $10,000,000 allocation -- but no Monitoring Plan later than 3-2021 is linked from the SRDI programme page, and the plan predates both HOTMA and the 2025 HOME Final Rule. Whether a revised plan exists and is distributed only to award recipients is unknown, and every income, rent and certification requirement below should be re-verified against a current plan before it is relied on.
Appendix A to the plan, the NYS HOME SRDI Guidance on Determining Utility Allowances, is the document that says which methods are permitted, and it was not separately analysed in this pass. The rule therefore encodes the cadence, the submission logic and the retention duty, all of which are in the body of the plan, and records the method as agency_published_guidance rather than naming a method the corpus has not read. Read Appendix A before advising on method.
The plan does not say what effective date an updated allowance takes, or how long an owner has to implement one, which matters because the allowance is deducted from the published limit and a late implementation can put the contract rent over the limit retroactively.
Whether SAMU approves an allowance or merely receives it is ambiguous. The plan speaks of an 'approved process' for determining allowances and of submission to SAMU, but never of SAMU approving the resulting figure, while it is explicit that SAMU must approve rents. The test is written against the existence of a determination for that reason.
These rules encode the NYS HOME Small Rental Development Initiative regime and are scoped to it by an extra applicability term, because the SRDI Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan is the only published NYS HOME rental compliance document located on 2026-08-24. Whether HTFC applies the same POA monitoring requirements to NYS HOME rental awards made outside SRDI -- for example larger multifamily awards underwritten through HCR's Office of Finance and Development Capital Programs Manual -- is unresolved. hcr.ny.gov returns HTTP 403 to automated requests for documents under /system/files/, and the Capital Programs Manual could not be retrieved to check. A resolver must not widen these rules to every New York HOME unit on the strength of this batch.
The Monitoring Plan's every page footer reads 'Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan 3-2021' and it is posted at a 2021/04 path. SRDI itself is current -- HCR published a 2025-2026 SRDI Request for Applications with a $10,000,000 allocation -- but no Monitoring Plan later than 3-2021 is linked from the SRDI programme page, and the plan predates both HOTMA and the 2025 HOME Final Rule. Whether a revised plan exists and is distributed only to award recipients is unknown, and every income, rent and certification requirement below should be re-verified against a current plan before it is relied on.
The plan sets no consequence for a late or missing annual filing, and no correction period. The escalation ladder in the risk section is the only published consequence and it is not tied to any particular failure. consequence_model is recorded as contract_remedy on the strength of that ladder rather than because the plan says so for this obligation.
The two 120-day deadlines are both measured from 'the project's fiscal year end' but the plan never says how a project's fiscal year is established, whether SAMU must be told of a change to it, or what happens in a short first year after transfer from OCR. For a portfolio owner with several SRDI projects this determines several different filing calendars.
The annual financial health examination at ten or more assisted units is described as something SAMU does rather than as a filing the owner makes, but every item on the list is a document only the owner has. Whether the package is submitted with the annual forms, on request, or on a separate cycle is not stated, so no separate financial-reporting rule is encoded for it.
These rules encode the NYS HOME Small Rental Development Initiative regime and are scoped to it by an extra applicability term, because the SRDI Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan is the only published NYS HOME rental compliance document located on 2026-08-24. Whether HTFC applies the same POA monitoring requirements to NYS HOME rental awards made outside SRDI -- for example larger multifamily awards underwritten through HCR's Office of Finance and Development Capital Programs Manual -- is unresolved. hcr.ny.gov returns HTTP 403 to automated requests for documents under /system/files/, and the Capital Programs Manual could not be retrieved to check. A resolver must not widen these rules to every New York HOME unit on the strength of this batch.
The Monitoring Plan's every page footer reads 'Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan 3-2021' and it is posted at a 2021/04 path. SRDI itself is current -- HCR published a 2025-2026 SRDI Request for Applications with a $10,000,000 allocation -- but no Monitoring Plan later than 3-2021 is linked from the SRDI programme page, and the plan predates both HOTMA and the 2025 HOME Final Rule. Whether a revised plan exists and is distributed only to award recipients is unknown, and every income, rent and certification requirement below should be re-verified against a current plan before it is relied on.
The plan names HUD Uniform Physical Condition Standards, which HUD has since replaced with NSPIRE for HOME under 24 CFR 92.251 as amended. Whether SAMU now inspects to NSPIRE, and whether the sampling minimums survived that change, is not addressed in the 3-2021 plan and no later HTFC document was retrievable on 2026-08-24. The standard is the part of this rule most likely to be stale; the cadence and sampling figures are the part worth relying on.
'Corrected immediately' is not quantified and the plan sets no owner deadline for non-health-and-safety deficiencies at all. The 12-month figure in the same paragraph is SAMU's re-inspection obligation, not the owner's cure period, and must not be read as one.
The sample must be 'statistically valid' as well as meeting the stated minimums. What SAMU treats as statistically valid where the minimums produce a very small sample, and whether the sample must be drawn afresh each cycle, is not stated.
These rules encode the NYS HOME Small Rental Development Initiative regime and are scoped to it by an extra applicability term, because the SRDI Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan is the only published NYS HOME rental compliance document located on 2026-08-24. Whether HTFC applies the same POA monitoring requirements to NYS HOME rental awards made outside SRDI -- for example larger multifamily awards underwritten through HCR's Office of Finance and Development Capital Programs Manual -- is unresolved. hcr.ny.gov returns HTTP 403 to automated requests for documents under /system/files/, and the Capital Programs Manual could not be retrieved to check. A resolver must not widen these rules to every New York HOME unit on the strength of this batch.
The Monitoring Plan's every page footer reads 'Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan 3-2021' and it is posted at a 2021/04 path. SRDI itself is current -- HCR published a 2025-2026 SRDI Request for Applications with a $10,000,000 allocation -- but no Monitoring Plan later than 3-2021 is linked from the SRDI programme page, and the plan predates both HOTMA and the 2025 HOME Final Rule. Whether a revised plan exists and is distributed only to award recipients is unknown, and every income, rent and certification requirement below should be re-verified against a current plan before it is relied on.
The contents of the Appendix D NYS HOME Lease Addendum were not separately analysed in this pass; the rule encodes the obligation to execute and attach it, which the body of the plan states, rather than its terms. Whether the addendum imposes obligations beyond those already carried by other rules in this file -- a term minimum, prohibited provisions, a good-cause clause -- is unknown and should be checked before advising on lease content.
The plan does not say whether the addendum must be re-executed on renewal, on a lease assignment, or when HTFC revises the form. A file with a superseded addendum version is a foreseeable finding and the plan gives no version rule.
24 CFR 92.253(a) requires a one-year minimum lease term unless the tenant and owner agree otherwise, and 92.253(b) prohibits nine specific lease provisions. Neither appears anywhere in the Monitoring Plan. They apply of their own force and are not restated as New York rules, but whether SAMU monitors for them is not stated.
These rules encode the NYS HOME Small Rental Development Initiative regime and are scoped to it by an extra applicability term, because the SRDI Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan is the only published NYS HOME rental compliance document located on 2026-08-24. Whether HTFC applies the same POA monitoring requirements to NYS HOME rental awards made outside SRDI -- for example larger multifamily awards underwritten through HCR's Office of Finance and Development Capital Programs Manual -- is unresolved. hcr.ny.gov returns HTTP 403 to automated requests for documents under /system/files/, and the Capital Programs Manual could not be retrieved to check. A resolver must not widen these rules to every New York HOME unit on the strength of this batch.
The Monitoring Plan's every page footer reads 'Period of Affordability Monitoring Plan 3-2021' and it is posted at a 2021/04 path. SRDI itself is current -- HCR published a 2025-2026 SRDI Request for Applications with a $10,000,000 allocation -- but no Monitoring Plan later than 3-2021 is linked from the SRDI programme page, and the plan predates both HOTMA and the 2025 HOME Final Rule. Whether a revised plan exists and is distributed only to award recipients is unknown, and every income, rent and certification requirement below should be re-verified against a current plan before it is relied on.
The plan names a 'NYS HOME Program Risk Based Monitoring System' as the source of the risk determination but does not reproduce it, and no separate published document by that name was located on 2026-08-24. Whether it contains the correction periods, escalation triggers and scoring thresholds the Monitoring Plan omits is unknown, and it is the single document most likely to close the gaps in this rule.
Nothing in the plan maps a risk level to an intervention stage. Level 3 is defined by gross negligence, fraud, discrimination or imminent threat, and Stage 3 is legal action, but the plan does not say that a Level 3 finding produces a Stage 3 response, and Stage 2 is triggered by 'continued non-compliance' rather than by a level. The correspondence is suggestive and is not asserted.
Stage 2 requires 'full repayment of all HOME funds invested in the project' with no reference to the remaining period of affordability, no proration and no appeal route. Whether an owner has any right of review before repayment is demanded is not addressed anywhere in the plan.
Article 2-A says a SLIHC unit must be 'rent-restricted' but never defines the term for the state credit; section 25(2) imports section 42, whose definition at 42(g)(2) fixes rent at 30 percent of the imputed income limitation. Read together that produces a 30-percent-of-90-percent rent for a SLIHC-only unit, but HCR has not stated that arithmetic in the regulation or in Part 2040, and the term sheets were not read for this rule. Confirm with HCR's SLIHC term sheet before relying on a SLIHC-only rent above the federal limit.
Subdivision 5(a)(4) exempts an owner-occupied building of not more than two families and certain room rentals; those exemptions do not describe a property this corpus models but should be read before relying on the prohibition as universal.
Age is protected without a floor or ceiling, which sits awkwardly beside senior housing operated under the federal 55-and-older exemption.
Citizenship or immigration status is protected, while several LIHTC manuals in this corpus permit a uniform citizenship screen. In New York that permission does not survive § 296, and neither document acknowledges the other.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

hi Hawaii · 95

The manual (p. 6-2) and the QAP (p. 29) both name the components but neither states a late fee, a grace period, or what 'may be determined noncompliant' converts into procedurally -- whether a late package is itself an 8823 category or only a trigger for further review. No fee schedule for late annual reporting was located on dbedt.hawaii.gov/hhfdc on 2026-08-24. Not guessed.
The manual routes the electronic Status Report through software downloaded from spectrumlihtc.com; the QAP says the report is submitted 'in such format as required by HHFDC or its Authorized Delegate'. Whether Spectrum has migrated Hawaii to a web portal (as it has for other states it monitors) since the April 2024 manual was written was not confirmable from any HHFDC-published document.
The QAP requires 'Annual submission of required tenant data in accordance with the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008' (p. 29) as a second numbered reporting item, separate from the Annual Report. Whether that HERA tenant-data submission is satisfied by the Status Report or is an additional filing with its own deadline is not stated in either document.
HAR 15-313-13(b) and the 2026 QAP p. 29 state different fee bases (excluding manager units vs. all units). Which HHFDC actually invoices was not determinable from published material and is recorded rather than resolved.
Neither document states what happens if the fee is not paid with the Annual Report -- whether non-payment is itself a compliance finding, a debt, or a bar to Good Standing with the HHFDC Finance Branch. The 'Not in Good Standing' provision (QAP p. 31) is written around unresolved noncompliance findings, not unpaid fees.
The QAP reserves an annual January 1 fee adjustment and the $25 figure is fixed by administrative rule. Whether an adjustment can raise the fee above the rule's stated $25 without amending the rule is unresolved; HHFDC has not published an adjusted figure as of 2026-08-24.
The manual does not say whether the year-two full recertification requires the same third-party verification as the initial certification, or whether the household's move-in verifications can be updated. Not guessed.
The manual says HHFDC 'can require' a property with inadequate procedures to revert to full annual recertification but does not state how that directive is issued, how long it lasts, or how it is lifted. No published form or notice was located.
The manual's self-certification permission is stated for 100% tax credit properties. Whether a property that is 100% LIHTC but subject to multiple income targets (an income-averaging project, or one with 50% and 60% units) counts as '100% tax credit' for this purpose is not addressed. Maine answers exactly this question explicitly and Hawaii does not.
HHFDC's 2026 QAP conditions the average income minimum set-aside on the project containing no unrestricted market rate units (p. 23). Whether an income-averaging project therefore always falls in the 'no market units' branch of the recertification policy is an inference not stated in either document.
The manual's bar on the agency-estimate method is conditional ('shall not be available until such time as the HHFDC agrees to provide such estimates'). Whether HHFDC has since agreed to provide estimates was not determinable: no utility allowance schedule, memorandum or notice was located anywhere on dbedt.hawaii.gov/hhfdc on 2026-08-24, and the LIHTC program page links only the two manual PDFs. Encoded as unavailable because that is what the current manual says; re-check before relying on it.
Hawaii is a single-utility-territory state for electricity on most islands and has the highest residential electricity rates in the United States, which makes the choice of allowance method unusually consequential here. Neither HHFDC document acknowledges that or gives island-specific guidance. Not inferred.
The manual does not say whether the 90-day implementation window runs from the date the utility company or PHA publishes a new figure or from the date the owner obtains it. The federal text at 1.42-10(c) is the only anchor and the manual does not restate the 90-day period at 1.42-10(c)(1) that precedes it.
No Hawaii guidance was located on whether a utility allowance may be changed mid-year in the tenant's favour, or on sub-metered and RUBS arrangements, both of which the 2008 utility allowance final regulations reprinted in manual Section 28 address at the federal level.
The QAP ('no more than 15 days prior') and the manual ('at least 15 days in advance') state the same number as a ceiling and as a floor respectively. They cannot both be operative. The QAP is newer (November 2025 vs April 2024) but the manual is the document given to owners. Not resolved.
The QAP sizes the unit sample as the LESSER of 20% of low-income units or the 1.42-5(c)(2)(iii) minimum sample size. Read literally that can produce a sample below the federal minimum at projects with more than roughly 100 low-income units. Whether 'lessor' is a drafting error for 'greater' was not determinable; the text is encoded as published.
Neither document states whether the physical inspection sample and the file review sample must be the same units. The manual's expectations list says 'The IRS requires that unit inspections be performed on the same units that are selected for file review', which is the federal position, but the QAP describes them as one combined sample without saying so.
The manual says submissions arriving after an IRS Form 8823 has been generated 'will not be reviewed without HHFDC authorization' but does not say how that authorization is requested or on what standard it is granted.
2026 QAP Section J contradicts itself inside one paragraph: it gives the owner 'forty-five (45) days to correct any discovered violations' and then says HHFDC 'will be required to notify the IRS within forty-five (45) days after the end of the thirty-day correction period'. The thirty-day figure appears nowhere else in the compliance-period text and looks like unamended legacy language, but that is an inference and it is not encoded as one.
The QAP AU section says 45 days and the compliance manual AU section says 'at least thirty (30) days'. Encoded as 45 with 30 read as a floor; HHFDC has not published a reconciliation.
'Not in Good Standing' is defined by consequence (an entity 'may be deemed' so) but neither document states who makes the determination, whether the owner is notified of it, how long it lasts, or what it bars beyond the QAP's separate statement that poor performance can make an applicant ineligible 'for at least the current application cycle' (p. 9).
Neither document states whether the 45-day response clock runs from the date the Owner's Report is transmitted or from the date it is received, which matters because HHFDC separately has 30 days from completion of the audit to transmit it.
The manual names NSPIRE but does not state which NSPIRE edition or scoring version applies, nor whether HHFDC has adopted the NSPIRE deficiency severity tiers or continues to use the manual's own 'health and safety' versus 'routine' violation split (p. 7-6).
Which State, City or County building codes apply is left open; Hawaii's four counties adopt building codes separately and the manual gives no county-by-county reference. A resolver cannot evaluate the local-code half of this rule from any fact in this corpus.
The manual does not state the re-inspection fee for a unit that could not be entered, nor whether re-inspection is at the monitor's discretion or automatic.
Whether HHFDC has issued any NSPIRE transition guidance since the April 2024 manual -- for instance on the NSPIRE affirmative-obligation and self-inspection provisions -- could not be determined; no notices, memoranda or FAQ pages were located on dbedt.hawaii.gov/hhfdc on 2026-08-24, and the LIHTC program page links only the two manual PDFs and the Spectrum portal.
The manual directs owners to download all required and recommended forms from the Authorized Delegate's website rather than from HHFDC. Whether the current forms posted there still match the April 2024 manual's list, and whether any have been revised for HOTMA, was not verified against the Spectrum Hawaii portal, which was not fetched this pass.
The HI Tenant Income Certification is named as a required form but no HHFDC-hosted copy was located, so the form's own content requirements are not encoded and no evidence_required block is attached to this rule.
The manual's instruction that third party verifications 'should be mailed or faxed to the source, never hand-carried' predates routine electronic verification. HHFDC has published no guidance on emailed or portal-delivered third-party verifications, and none is inferred.
The manual states the five-day signature window with 'should', not 'must' (Section 3.8), but the monitoring section states it as a file-review expectation whose breach is a finding (Section 7.1). Whether HHFDC treats a signature dated six days early as a citable finding or as an advisory point is not stated, and 'should' versus 'must' was not resolved. The requirement obligation is encoded as 'must' because Section 7.1 is the enforcement text.
The manual says signatures 'no greater than 5 days prior' but is silent on signatures dated AFTER the effective date, which is the more common file defect. Not inferred.
HHFDC does not prescribe a model lease and its content list is stated with 'should include, but is not limited to'. Which of the listed items is mandatory is therefore unresolved; only the six-month term, the absence of an early-termination clause, the gross rent cap and the student-status notification provision are stated in mandatory terms anywhere in the two documents.
The manual's transitional-housing carve-out cross-references its own Section 2.7(E). Whether HHFDC applies any Hawaii-specific definition of transitional housing beyond section 42(i)(3)(B)(iii) was not determinable.
The QAP states the 45-year minimum as an application threshold. Whether HHFDC applies it retroactively to projects awarded under earlier QAPs, or whether each project's term is simply whatever its own recorded Declaration says, is not stated. The rule's effective date is the 2026 QAP's date for that reason; property-level terms must be read off the recorded document.
The QAP does not state the form of the qualified contract waiver, when it is executed, or whether it is recorded in the Declaration. Not guessed.
For acquisition/rehabilitation, 'any pre-existing affordability period' is not defined -- whether it reaches a prior LIHTC extended use agreement only, or also HOME affordability periods, Rural Development restrictive-use provisions and state or county restrictions, is unresolved.
Criterion 12 is headed '0 to 7 points' but the published table tops out at 6 points for perpetuity. The missing seventh point is unexplained in the QAP text. It does not affect the compliance obligation encoded here, but it means the scoring table as printed should not be relied on as complete.
Neither document says whether the modified test is applied at move-in only or also at each annual recertification. The QAP's Additional Use Period section requires move-in certification 'according to the same procedure as the compliance period' but separately says recertification is not required during the period unless an adult is added to the household, which leaves an all-student household that becomes all-student after move-in unaddressed.
'Proof required' for independent-student status is not specified. Whether a parent's tax return, a signed affidavit, or a FAFSA independence determination satisfies it is not stated in either document.
The modified test speaks to a household 'comprised entirely of full-time students'. Whether the K-12 member exception is intended to reach a household of one adult full-time college student plus that student's minor children -- which the federal single-parent exception at 42(i)(3)(D)(ii)(III) reaches by a different route -- is not addressed, though the K-12 branch would appear to cover it if the children are enrolled.
Hawaii's Additional Use Period rules for recertification (not required unless an adult is added), for unit transfers (permitted without new income qualification) and for the Available Unit Rule and 140% rule (both inapplicable at projects with market rate units) are real state-layer departures that are NOT encoded as separate rules in this pass, purely to stay within the twelve-rule budget for this jurisdiction. They are cited in this rule's sources and should be authored next.
Neither document states what the owner must record or retain to evidence the annual inspection, whether results must be submitted to HHFDC, or whether HHFDC publishes a form for it. No such form was located on dbedt.hawaii.gov/hhfdc on 2026-08-24.
The site audit provision reads 'site audits for projects MAY be conducted AT LEAST once every five years', which combines a permissive verb with a floor. Whether the five-year cycle is a commitment HHFDC makes or a maximum interval it reserves the right to use is genuinely ambiguous in the published text.
'Substantial outstanding non-compliance beyond the correction period' is the trigger for more frequent audits but is not defined, and no threshold, category list or scoring is published.
Whether the owner's annual inspection must apply the same NSPIRE-plus-local-codes standard the agency uses is not stated. The carry-forward sentence ('unless noted below, the policy and procedure for compliance during the initial compliance period shall continue to apply') suggests it does, but that is an inference and is not encoded as a parameter value.
HHFDC'S OWN SAFE HARBOUR PUNCTURES ITS OWN BAR. Sec. 3.11 permits a Section 8 tenant to supply 'a signed copy of the appropriate HUD form 50058 or 50059' -- a document the tenant carries. Whether the sec. 3.6(B) prohibition yields to sec. 3.11 for those tenants, or whether the 50058/50059 must also arrive from the PHA directly, is not stated. See hi.lihtc.income_eligibility.section_8_income_verification_substitutes.
On a Hawaii property layered with project-based Section 8 or another HUD program, the HUD determination is made under Table J2 and the LIHTC determination under sec. 3.6(B), and the two point at different documents obtained in incompatible ways. HHFDC does not address layered properties on this point at all.
Section 6's document-integrity instructions were read and not given their own rule: 'Never use correction tape or liquid to revise information on any document. If revision or correction is required, draw a line through the change, then write the correct information above it. All parties must initial each change or correction', and 'Make certain that all forms are filled out completely, including returned verification forms. Do not assume that a blank line means "Not Applicable."' They are recordkeeping rather than eligibility determinations and are recorded here.
EIV is not mentioned anywhere in the manual, the QAP or HAR 15-313. The absence is recorded as an absence, not as a prohibition.
HHFDC's cited authority is Notice PIH 2023-27, the public housing and voucher companion, rather than Notice H 2023-10, the multifamily housing companion that reaches LIHTC properties. The two notices carry the same substance; the citation is to the one addressed to PHAs.
The manual states no HOTMA exclusion list. Delaware reproduces HUD's whole exclusion table; Hawaii's sec. 3.4 covers imputation and disposal and refers the reader to Section 23 of the companion volume for what is and is not an asset. That companion volume is a reprint of federal reference material and no Hawaii-specific text appears in it.
Sec. 3.4 permits a 'sworn statement' for assets and never states a threshold for it in prose. The threshold exists only in a form name in the manual's own form list, and the forms actually served do not match it. See hi.lihtc.asset_treatment.self_certification_instruments_in_conflict.
FOUR ARTEFACTS, NO TWO IN AGREEMENT, ALL CURRENT ON 2026-08-28. (1) The manual's substantive rule at $50,000. (2) The manual's form list naming a $50,000 form. (3) A $5,000 form that counts retirement accounts HOTMA excludes. (4) A mandatory certification form printing a $5,000 trigger and two different rates. HHFDC has reconciled none of them and the corpus picks no winner.
Delaware, monitored by the same delegate, serves the HOTMA edition of the same certification form ('Rev. 9-2024', whose Part IV instruction reads 'if actual cannot not be determined and net assets exceed imputed income limitation'). Hawaii's library serves the January 2021 edition. This is therefore a Hawaii-specific defect and not a limitation of the monitor's form set.
Whether HHFDC would treat use of the NCSHA Asset Self-Certification as a substitution requiring submission to the Authority under Section 6.C is unstated. That form is not on either the required or the recommended list by that name.
The form prints multipliers for weekly, bi-weekly, semi-monthly and monthly pay and none for hourly work, which is the case the trigger most often arises in. The manual states no hourly multiplier either.
'Does not closely match' is not quantified anywhere. Whether a five per cent divergence requires the form is a judgement the documents do not constrain, which is why this rule's confidence is medium.
The form is not listed among the manual's required or recommended forms. It is served in the same library and carries the delegate's copyright line. Whether HHFDC treats its absence as a finding is unstated.
The form directs the owner to a third-party website (www.timeanddate.com) as the measuring instrument. That is unusual enough to record: a state compliance procedure whose arithmetic depends on a commercial web tool named on the form.
The affidavit's three parts collect exactly the inputs HOTMA's calculation needs -- 479B amounts, other student financial assistance, and fee-for-service contributions -- so the form was plainly built for that calculation. HHFDC has adopted the form without adopting or restating the calculation. The corpus records the gap rather than importing the federal procedure as if Hawaii had stated it.
The Interview Checklist's bracketed note ('Amounts received which exceed the cost of tuition may have to be counted in total income') states the PRE-HOTMA test, which measured assistance against tuition alone. HOTMA measures against actual covered costs including housing for a student who is not the head, co-head or spouse. The checklist is dated 11/2024, after the manual.
Whether HHFDC requires the affidavit at all, or merely serves it, is unstated: it is not on the required list at Section 6.A and not on the recommended list at Section 6.C under this name.
The sec. 3.11 permission and the sec. 3.6(B) prohibition on tenant-carried verification are not reconciled. A 'signed copy of the appropriate HUD form 50058 or 50059' is ordinarily a document the tenant holds. Whether it must arrive from the PHA directly is unstated.
HHFDC does not say who must sign the 50058 or 50059. North Dakota rejects the 50059 for LIHTC precisely because it is not signed by a PHA representative; Hawaii accepts both forms without addressing the point.
The Contract Administrator letter must state that income is 'less than the applicable LIHTC income limit', so it is a comparison against a limit rather than a statement of an amount. HHFDC does not say which limit series or which household size the PHA is to use, nor how the owner checks the comparison.
HHFDC attributes the tax-year interpretation to the IRS ('The IRS has made it clear') without citing a ruling, procedure or notice. The interpretation is stated as HHFDC states it; the corpus does not supply the missing authority.
The manual gives two alternative definitions of full-time joined by 'or' -- twelve credit hours a semester, or attendance five months a year -- so a member taking nine credit hours across a full year may satisfy the second and not the first. HHFDC does not say whether either alone suffices or whether the institution's own determination governs.
Sec. 2.7(G) is printed twice in the manual, at pages 2-17 and 2-18, and the second printing is garbled mid-sentence ('Owners and managers should adjust tenant certification procedures to consider student status of eligibility because the tenant was not a student status when they moved in'). The first printing is the coherent one and is what is quoted; the duplication is recorded because it means a reader who finds the second copy first reads a mangled rule.
THE PREGNANCY-DOCUMENTATION DUTY IS CONDITIONED ON A STATE LAW THE QAP DOES NOT IDENTIFY. 'If permitted by state laws, the owner shall require documentation of pregnancy in such circumstances.' No Hawaii statute or administrative rule is cited, and HAR ch. 15-313 contains nothing on the subject. An owner cannot determine from HHFDC's documents whether the condition is satisfied. The duty is recorded as HHFDC states it, condition included.
The manual excludes live-in attendants and foster members from the income-limit household size and says nothing about counting them for unit size, which is how HUD's handbook and most state manuals handle the same categories. Whether HHFDC intends the exclusion to reach unit size as well is unstated.
'Households may choose whether or not to count permanently absent family members' is stated without the corollary the HUD handbook attaches: that a household electing to include such a member must also include that member's income. HHFDC does not state it.
The QAP does not define 'adult' for this trigger. The certification form treats members over 18 as signatories; the manual's income section treats members 18 or older as adults; neither is stated to define the trigger.
Recertification is not required but the student rule continues in modified form, and the manual's default sentence ('Unless noted below, the policy and procedure for compliance during the initial compliance period shall continue to apply') keeps the compliance-period duty to re-verify student status annually. How an owner re-verifies student status annually without recertifying is not addressed.
HAR 15-313-14(b) authorises monitoring 'for the term of the extended use period' and says nothing about what is monitored. Every substantive Additional Use Period rule is in the QAP and the manual. This is the only rule in the Hawaii batch that cites the administrative rule at all, and it cites it for authority rather than for content.
The QAP's notice procedure is written in HUD Handbook 4350.3 terms -- an interview, days and hours, what to bring -- and the manual describes no interview at recertification, only at application. Whether HHFDC expects a recertification interview or has imported the notice language wholesale is unstated.
The manual says the first-year recertification is 'expected'; the QAP says recertification 'is to be completed'. Neither states a consequence beyond the past-due label, and the manual expressly notes that failing to recertify annually 'is no longer cause for the issuance of IRS Form 8823'.
effective.from is 2026-01-01, the first day of the calendar year the QAP names as its own. effective.from is the first day of the calendar year the QAP itself names: 'This allocation plan is effective for reservations and awards of LIHTC for the calendar year 2026.' The document prints no date of any kind. The 11/14/25 in the source record's version string and in `published` comes from the filename, not the document, and five previously published Hawaii rules carry 2025-11-14 on that basis.
The manual calls the Interview Checklist 'recommended' in the same sentence that requires the interview to be documented with it, and Section 6 lists it as required form 2 while also offering the Household Eligibility Questionnaire as a substitute for it ('This may be used in place of the interview checklist or recertification update form'). Whether an owner may document the interview some other way is unclear.
Section 6.C's general substitution rule -- comparable forms may continue in use, but 'noncompliance will occur if the form in use does not adequately meet LIHTC and HUD certification or verification requirements', with forms to be submitted to the delegate for approval -- sits against sec. 3.5's flat statement that the Application for Housing 'is required for use by all tax credit properties in Hawaii'. HHFDC does not say whether the application is substitutable.
The emancipation question appears only on the Interview Checklist. Neither the manual nor the QAP addresses whether an unemancipated minor may be a tenant or co-tenant, or what proof of emancipation consists of in Hawaii.
HHFDC does not define 'comparable' anywhere. Delaware states the federal test (the method used to determine qualified basis, bedrooms or square footage); Hawaii's manual uses the word without a definition.
The restoration test and the single-next-unit test can diverge at a property with several over-income units. HHFDC states the restoration test in sec. 2.7(B) and the single-unit test two sentences earlier in the same paragraph, and does not say which governs where they differ.
The Additional Use Period disapplication is expressed for 'projects which include market rate units'. What happens at a 100% Additional Use Period property, where the rule has no work to do anyway, is not addressed.
HHFDC states the ready-to-rent duty as 'as soon as possible' and attaches no period. The corpus emits the parameter with its value key absent rather than importing another state's number.
The manual states the rule's scope inconsistently within one paragraph: 'the next available comparable or smaller size unit' and 'no other comparable or smaller size units in the project'. The first is unit-level and the second project-level. HHFDC does not reconcile them.
The worked example says credit is lost on all three vacant units. Whether that reaches vacant units in other buildings of the same project is not stated; the example says 'an owner of three vacant units' without locating them.
Both commitments are made at application and become Declaration terms property by property, so their operative force at a given property depends on that property's Declaration of Restrictive Covenants rather than on the QAP alone. confidence is medium for that reason.
HHFDC states that it 'will establish additional parameters and specifics, including the approach to affordability, at a later date' for the referral commitment. No such parameters appear in the 2026 QAP. An owner cannot determine from the QAP what a 'timely basis' is or what the state-coordinated system is.
The manual asserts that Hawaii law adds marital status and age as protected classes without citing the statute (Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 515 is the likely reference but the manual does not say so). The classes are recorded as HHFDC states them; the citation is not supplied.
effective.from is 2026-01-01. effective.from is the first day of the calendar year the QAP itself names: 'This allocation plan is effective for reservations and awards of LIHTC for the calendar year 2026.' The document prints no date of any kind. The 11/14/25 in the source record's version string and in `published` comes from the filename, not the document, and five previously published Hawaii rules carry 2025-11-14 on that basis.
effective.from was 2025-11-14, which appears ONLY in the source PDF's filename (2026-QAP.LIHTC_.FINAL_.11.14.25-223p-v2.pdf). The QAP prints no date anywhere on its face -- a regex over all 33 pages returns nothing but a 2009 cross-reference. Its only self-dating is 'effective for reservations and awards of LIHTC for the calendar year 2026'. Corrected to 2026-01-01 on 2026-08-28. Whether HHFDC treats board adoption or the calendar year as operative is unresolved.
Hawaii's list does not include source of income in this subsection. HRS ch. 515 was amended to reach source of income on some accounts; this corpus records only the retrieved text and does not assume an amendment it has not read.
Age is protected without a floor or ceiling, which sits awkwardly beside senior housing operated under the federal 55-and-older exemption.
The HIV class and the disability class overlap. Hawaii does not say whether a claim may be brought on both, or what turns on the difference.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly.

ca California · 91

The statute says a default must be 'not cured within a reasonable cure period' but fixes no number of days, and the CTCAC regulations read for this pass do not supply one for regulatory agreement defaults either (the 90-day figure at 4 CCR 10337(a)(1)(D) is a ground lessor's notice period, not the sponsor's cure period). The operative cure period is therefore whatever the executed agreement states; extract it from the property document.
The statute sets no deadline for this notification and the CTCAC regulations read for this pass do not supply one. Whether the executed regulatory agreement fixes a period is a property-document question.
The memo's sentence 'Income and asset documentation shall be collected within 120 days of this date' is ambiguous: read literally it anchors the 120-day collection window to 1 January 2027 itself, but the 120-day rule everywhere else in CTCAC policy (and in the existing rule ca.lihtc.tic_signature_window) anchors to the certification effective date. Not resolved; CTCAC's compliance section should be asked which anchor is intended.
The memo notes the IRS 'has not released specific guidance for the HOTMA final rule provisions' as of 4 August 2026. If the IRS speaks before 1 January 2027, CTCAC says its stated policies may be revised; this rule will need a new record_version.
Whether a project that opted in partially (memo: 'implementation can be partial or full') must document WHICH HOTMA provisions it adopted, and where, is not stated in the memo.
The memo pins non-necessary personal property at $52,787 'as adjusted by an inflationary factor (current passbook rate)' -- an odd formulation, since HUD indexes the HOTMA asset threshold by CPI-W and the passbook rate is a separate figure used for imputing. Which index CTCAC will actually follow for the 2027 figure is unresolved.
The memo does not state how a mid-year statement cycle interacts with the 120-day documentation window for the 'most recent statement' checking-account value (e.g., a statement 100 days old at certification).
The memo's item 7 says 'the actual asset value (if it can be determined) OR the imputed value' where HOTMA's convention is about actual asset INCOME versus imputed income; the memo's own worked example (p. 5) computes income, not value. Read as income, per the example -- but the drafting slip is noted in case CTCAC intended something narrower.
Whether the passbook rate CTCAC applies is HUD's rate in effect on the certification effective date or the rate stated in the most recent CTCAC memo is not addressed.
The manual's sentence describing the deeper-target cure is garbled in the published PDF: 'as long as the ifs the deeper targeting requirement with the next available vacant unit' (p. 86). The evident intent -- restore the deeper-target set-aside with the next available vacant unit -- is encoded, but the exact mechanism (does the replacement unit take the deeper designation, or the household's unit?) is not stated and not guessed.
Whether the 75% test uses the federal set-aside limit or any deeper-targeted limit applicable to the specific unit is not stated; the examples use the maximum limit for household size.
The manual does not say whether the three-attempt trail must be recreated at every subsequent recertification for the same non-responsive employer, or whether one documented failure carries forward.
The manual states the fallback 'may suffice' -- permissive, not automatic. What CTCAC auditors accept when the fallback itself is incomplete (e.g., start date undocumentable) is not specified.
The manual's sentence conditions the exclusion on 'the estranged spouse does not have access to the other spouse's income' -- literally the reverse direction of the exclusion it grants (it is the tenant's access to the spouse's income that should matter). Encoded per the evident intent, with the drafting noted; a defensible file should document that the TENANT cannot access the spouse's income.
What happens when the spouse is added after the one-year window -- ordinary household-addition income counting at next recertification, or nothing until recertification -- is not stated in Part 5.5(J).
The memo dates the removal of the Section 8 exception 'as of January 1, 2024' (HUD's multifamily HOTMA date) while making CTCAC enforcement mandatory 1 January 2027. Whether an opt-in project that implemented HOTMA in 2025 was expected to count aid under the new methodology from its opt-in date is implied but never stated.
The memo's step 5-6 ordering nets HEA aid against covered costs before private aid; it does not say how mid-year aid changes (a spring-semester scholarship) interact with the annual certification cycle.
How the memo's methodology interacts with the manual's requirement that the Student Financial Aid Verification form be used only for Section 8 households (Part 5.5(N)) is unresolved -- the form's trigger population presumably widens in 2027, but no updated form had been posted as of 2026-08-26.
CTCAC frames the foster-care exception as 'under age 24 and has exited the Foster Care system within the previous 6 years'. Whether that age-and-lookback framing matches the current text of IRC s42(i)(3)(D) as amended by the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act was not verified against the statute in this pass; CTCAC's criteria are encoded as CTCAC states them.
The manual requires part-time documentation 'updated regularly (each semester/quarter)' but sets no consequence for a file whose part-time verification is one term stale; how CTCAC cites that at audit is not published.
For exception (4), the manual names the Workforce Investment Act, which was itself replaced by WIOA in 2014; whether CTCAC accepts WIOA program participation as 'similar federal law' is presumably yes but is not stated.
Direct conflict between the two CTCAC sources on a foster member's own unearned income: the manual (July 2026, Part 3.6(E)) counts SSA/SSI received by foster members as household income; the HOTMA memo (August 2026, p. 2) excludes any income, earned or unearned, received by the foster child/adult. The memo is later and HOTMA-aligned, and becomes mandatory 1 January 2027; which treatment CTCAC expects on a non-opt-in 2026 certification is unresolved and CTCAC should be asked. Not silently harmonised.
Whether a foster member's assets are similarly excluded pre-HOTMA is not addressed in the manual (the memo excludes them from income and assets from its effective scope).
The AD907/AD558 documentation option is stated for children in the formal adoption process; what documents CTCAC expects for a foster ADULT's status was not located in the manual.
The manual does not state what income limit vintage applies if the requalification is performed some days after the departure (the limit current at departure or at requalification); in a limit-change window the difference is real.
Whether the requalification failure makes the unit immediately non-qualifying or opens a cure window before Form 8823 is not stated in Part 3.5(E).
The manual's Part 4.3(D) AIT-specific NAUR mechanics (redesignation on over-income in an average-income project) were not separately encoded this pass; the Texas AIT band rule (tx.lihtc.next_available_unit.ait_140_band_redesignation) shows the shape a future CA AIT rule should take, and CTCAC's is likely similar but was not read closely enough to encode without guessing.
How a deeper-target overage is documented pending the 'next available vacant unit' restoration (a note of clarification, a designation change) is not specified in Part 3.5(D).
The memo requires the Resyndication Clarification Form be 'print[ed] on colored paper' without saying which color or why; presumably a file-navigation aid. Whether black-and-white printing is a citable deficiency is unknown.
The memo says households qualify automatically 'in accordance with IRS guidance' without citing which guidance; the underlying authority was not identified in this pass.
For the mixed-income resyndication case, the memo requires anniversary-date recertification for 140% tracking but does not say what happens to households already on a mass-recertification schedule from the prior allocation.
The regulation states the minimum period but not the event from which it runs. 24 CFR 92.252(e) runs the period from project completion; HCD's own text is silent, and 25 CCR 8214 leaves the commencement date to the recorded restriction. Whether HCD dates the 55 years from project completion, from the recorded regulatory agreement, or from IDIS completion was not resolvable from any HCD document read on 2026-08-24. Resolve against the recorded instrument, not by importing the federal date.
The edition read is the one HCD posts as 'State HOME Regulations' (file dated effective 1 January 2017). Whether 25 CCR Subchapter 17 has been amended in the underlying California Code of Regulations since that edition was posted could not be confirmed: hcd.ca.gov returns HTTP 403 to automated requests on several of its regulation pages, and the CCR publisher's site was not reachable on 2026-08-24. Re-verify against the official CCR before relying on the exact tier values.
The table's rehabilitation rows use 'per unit' language for the first row and bare dollar figures for the others ('Less than 15,000 per unit', '$15,000 to $40,000', 'More than $40,000'). Whether the second and third rows are also per-unit figures is not stated in the regulation, though the federal table they track is per-unit. Not inferred.
The regulation does not say how a deeper approved AMI-percentage level is memorialised, who may change it, or whether a change requires an amendment to the recorded regulatory agreement. 25 CCR 8214 requires legal documents but does not enumerate a rent schedule among their contents. Resolve against the project's regulatory agreement rather than assuming the NOFA level survived to closing.
HCD publishes no turnaround commitment on the fiscal-integrity exception at 8208(b) and no standard for what counts as a factor that 'could not be reasonably foreseen'. Whether an approved exception is time-limited, and what an owner may charge while a request is pending, is not addressed in any HCD document read on 2026-08-24.
Whether the utility allowance for a California State HOME unit is set by any HCD-specific method, or simply by 24 CFR 92.252(d), was not resolvable. The Annual Project Compliance Report instructions require the monitoring jurisdiction to collect 'completed utility allowance schedule(s) (form HUD-52667)', which points at the HUD Utility Schedule Model, but neither 25 CCR Subchapter 17 nor the Uniform Multifamily Regulations prescribes a method. Not inferred, and no California utility-allowance rule is encoded in this batch as a result.
25 CCR 8306(a) does not say what verification California requires at recertification, does not name a permitted window for dating the recertification relative to the anniversary, and does not say whether the anniversary runs from move-in or from the initial certification effective date. Alabama publishes 180 days, Georgia 120, Texas 120; California publishes nothing. A resolver must not import any of them.
Whether the six-year source-document option at 24 CFR 92.203 is available at all in California, or whether HCD has formally elected against it as the participating jurisdiction, is not stated anywhere in 25 CCR Subchapter 17. The annual duty is unambiguous; its relationship to the federal option is inferred from the text's silence and is recorded here rather than asserted in the statement.
The rule reaches HOME projects through 25 CCR 8212.2's incorporation by reference, which also permits State Recipients to 'request a deviation from these rules on a case by case basis', approved or refused at HCD's sole discretion. Whether any deviation from annual recertification has ever been granted, and whether a granted deviation is recorded anywhere a resolver could read, is unknown.
The regulation requires procedures 'approved by the Department' but names no submission route, no turnaround, and no re-approval trigger. Whether a plan approved at closing must be re-approved when the sponsor amends it, and whether HCD issues an approval letter a resolver could look for, is not stated in any HCD document read on 2026-08-24.
Special Needs Populations are targeted 'in accordance with the Regulatory Agreement and applicable laws' and are defined by cross-reference to 25 CCR 7301(s), a Multifamily Housing Program definition. Whether that definition is imported into the State HOME program wholesale, and what happens where a HOME project's regulatory agreement names a population the MHP definition does not cover, was not resolved.
Whether HCD has in fact approved any local residency preference under either enumerated ground, and whether such approvals are published anywhere, is unknown. The rule encodes the gate; it cannot tell a resolver whether a specific project passed through it.
HOME Management Memo #08-03 is dated 16 June 2008 and links to a 2007 NOFA copy of the Uniform Multifamily Regulations, which have since been reissued effective 15 November 2017. The schedule it reproduces is identical to the schedule in the 2017 regulations, so the memo's substance is current, but whether HCD still treats the memo as operative guidance -- it remains posted on HCD's program-specific compliance requirements page as of 2026-08-24 -- and whether the prior-approval sequencing it adds survived the 2017 reissue was not confirmable from the regulation alone.
The regulation gives no schedule for MAXIMUM occupancy, and the Annual Project Compliance Report instructions refer to 'HOME minimum / maximum occupancy standards'. Where California's maximum standards come from -- state housing law, local code, or an unpublished HCD position -- was not located on 2026-08-24. Only the minimum is encoded.
Whether HCD's prior approval of an under-occupancy assignment is issued per household or can be obtained as a standing categorical exception through the tenant selection plan is stated as an alternative in the regulation but the memo describes only the per-household route. Which one HCD applies in practice, and what a monitoring jurisdiction looks for in the file, is unresolved.
The regulation makes every rental agreement 'subject to Department approval' but names no submission route, no turnaround and no evidence of approval a resolver could look for. Whether HCD approves a form once at closing, approves each amendment, or in practice delegates approval to the monitoring jurisdiction was not resolvable from any HCD document read on 2026-08-24.
24 CFR 92.253(b) lists nine prohibited lease provisions and 92.253(a) requires a minimum one-year term unless the tenant and owner agree otherwise. 25 CCR 8307 is silent on both. Whether HCD's lease approval is conducted against the federal list as well as the state enumeration is not stated; the federal requirements apply of their own force either way, and are not restated as California rules in this batch.
8307(d) preserves local requirements that 'further limit good cause for eviction'. Which California localities have such ordinances, and how a monitoring jurisdiction reconciles a local just-cause ordinance with the state enumeration where the two overlap imperfectly, is outside what any HCD document says. The parameter is marked overridable at the local layer to record that the question is live rather than to assert an answer.
The regulation requires an impartial body but does not say who may sit on it, whether an employee of the Sponsor or its management agent can ever be impartial for this purpose, or whether HCD reviews the composition when it approves the procedure. Nothing HCD publishes resolves it, and the answer determines whether a large share of California HOME projects are in compliance.
No time limits appear anywhere in 8307(b): no deadline to request a hearing, no deadline to hold one, and no deadline to issue the final decision. Whether HCD imposes any through the approval process is unknown.
The section reaches 'actions taken by Sponsors with respect to tenants' occupancy', which plainly covers termination and refusal to renew, and 'prospective tenants' applications for occupancy'. Whether it also covers a required transfer to an appropriately sized unit under 25 CCR 8306(b), or a rent increase, is not addressed. Not inferred.
8304(b) freezes the mix 'For the full loan term' while 8208(a) sets an affordability period that for acquisition and new construction is 55 years. Where a HOME loan is repaid, forgiven or assumed before the affordability period ends, whether the mix freeze survives is not stated. Not inferred either way.
'Shall not differ substantially in size or amenity level' sets no tolerance -- no square-footage percentage, no amenity list. Whether HCD applies a numeric threshold in monitoring, and what counts as an amenity for this purpose, was not located in any HCD document read on 2026-08-24.
The redesignation permission at 8304(a) and the federal fixed-or-floating election at 24 CFR 92.252(j) are not reconciled anywhere in 25 CCR Subchapter 17. Whether a California HOME written agreement that designates units as fixed forecloses the state redesignation permission, or whether the state permission means California projects are effectively always floating, is unresolved and matters at every turnover.
The regulation names the filers as 'State recipients, Developers, CHDOs, or other borrowers'. Whether the owner of a HOME rental project that received its funds through a State Recipient city or county is an 'other borrower' filing directly with HCD, or reports only to the State Recipient under the separate Annual Project Compliance Report route, is not stated. The two routes are encoded as separate rules because the documents describe them separately; whether a given project owes one, the other or both is a project-level question.
25 CCR 8216(a)(3) points at 25 CCR 8214(a)(4)(C) for the report's substance. That cross-reference was not separately verified against the 8214 text in this pass beyond confirming the section exists, so the exact contract clause the deadline derives from should be re-read before the deadline is relied on for a specific project.
No form number, submission portal or late-filing consequence is published for this report in the regulation, and none was located on hcd.ca.gov on 2026-08-24. Whether HCD treats a late annual performance report as a monitoring finding, a default under the standard agreement, or both, is unresolved; consequence_model is recorded as agency_finding_with_cure as the corpus default rather than on the strength of a published statement.
The instructions are dated January 2009 and the form versions HCD posts carry effective dates of August 2011 (one-to-four unit version) and January 2013 (Annual Monitoring Report questionnaire for five or more units). They remain the current posted documents on HCD's program-specific compliance requirements page as of 2026-08-24, and the instructions link to a hcd.ca.gov path that no longer resolves. Whether HCD has issued newer versions distributed only to State Recipients, and whether HOTMA and the 2025 HOME Final Rule have been reflected in the form, is unresolved and is the largest single freshness risk in the California set.
The instructions describe checks against 'HOME minimum / maximum occupancy standards'. Management Memo #08-03 and 25 CCR 8305(b) supply the minimum; no HCD source located on 2026-08-24 supplies a maximum. A reviewer applying a maximum is applying something this corpus cannot cite.
No due date is published for the Annual Project Compliance Report. The instructions say 'at least annually' and leave the date to the monitoring State Recipient, so the deadline is a local variable rather than a state one and no due parameter is encoded. Do not import the 31 July annual performance report date; that is a different filing to a different body.
SOURCES ARE STAGED, NOT MERGED. Every source cited by this rule lives in data/sources/pending_ca_welfare.json and not yet in data/sources/sources.json. scripts/integrate_pending.py must run before any database load, or the citation lands with nothing behind it. The `ca_welfare_exemption` programme record was staged in data/sources/pending_programs_wave9.json by an earlier pass and has since been merged into data/programs/programs.json by someone other than this pass; the staged copy is still in the pending file and must not be merged a second time.
NO agency_id IS SET. The exemption is co-administered by the State Board of Equalization (which decides whether the ORGANISATION qualifies, via the Organizational and Supplemental Clearance Certificates) and by the county assessor of each of 58 counties (which decides whether the USE qualifies and grants or denies the exemption). Neither has a record in data/agencies/agencies.json. ca.hfa is CTCAC and does not administer this exemption; naming it would assert a monitoring relationship that does not exist. Agency records for the BOE and for county assessors are the fix.
Rule 140(b) says 'three types of qualified claimants' and does not mention the veterans' organisation route that 214(g)(1) opens on its own terms. Whether the BOE treats a veterans' organisation claiming on low-income rental housing as outside Rule 140 entirely, or simply did not enumerate it, is not stated in any document read this session.
Neither 214(g)(1) nor Rule 140 says what happens for the fiscal year in which the managing general partner changes mid-year. Rule 140.1(c) permits substitution 'without affecting the organizational qualification' where withdrawal and admission share an effective date, but the lien-date-driven annual claim is not reconciled with a substitution occurring after 1 January.
SOURCES ARE STAGED, NOT MERGED. Every source cited by this rule lives in data/sources/pending_ca_welfare.json and not yet in data/sources/sources.json. scripts/integrate_pending.py must run before any database load, or the citation lands with nothing behind it. The `ca_welfare_exemption` programme record was staged in data/sources/pending_programs_wave9.json by an earlier pass and has since been merged into data/programs/programs.json by someone other than this pass; the staged copy is still in the pending file and must not be merged a second time.
NO agency_id IS SET. The exemption is co-administered by the State Board of Equalization (which decides whether the ORGANISATION qualifies, via the Organizational and Supplemental Clearance Certificates) and by the county assessor of each of 58 counties (which decides whether the USE qualifies and grants or denies the exemption). Neither has a record in data/agencies/agencies.json. ca.hfa is CTCAC and does not administer this exemption; naming it would assert a monitoring relationship that does not exist. Agency records for the BOE and for county assessors are the fix.
Section 214(a)(3)(A)-(D) carves occasional fundraising and once-weekly outside meetings out of the exclusive-use test, conditioned on the outside organisation also holding an OCC or an IRS/FTB letter. That carve-out reaches the community rooms common in this stock and is NOT encoded in this pass.
Neither section 214 nor Rule 140 says whether a developer fee, a deferred developer fee, or an asset-management fee paid to a for-profit affiliate of a limited partner is an 'excessive charge' under 214(a)(4). Nothing read this session addresses the ordinary tax-credit capital structure against this test.
SOURCES ARE STAGED, NOT MERGED. Every source cited by this rule lives in data/sources/pending_ca_welfare.json and not yet in data/sources/sources.json. scripts/integrate_pending.py must run before any database load, or the citation lands with nothing behind it. The `ca_welfare_exemption` programme record was staged in data/sources/pending_programs_wave9.json by an earlier pass and has since been merged into data/programs/programs.json by someone other than this pass; the staged copy is still in the pending file and must not be merged a second time.
NO agency_id IS SET. The exemption is co-administered by the State Board of Equalization (which decides whether the ORGANISATION qualifies, via the Organizational and Supplemental Clearance Certificates) and by the county assessor of each of 58 counties (which decides whether the USE qualifies and grants or denies the exemption). Neither has a record in data/agencies/agencies.json. ca.hfa is CTCAC and does not administer this exemption; naming it would assert a monitoring relationship that does not exist. Agency records for the BOE and for county assessors are the fix.
For a limited partnership claimant the dedication clause has to live somewhere, and section 214.01(a) enumerates corporate and non-corporate formative documents without naming a limited partnership agreement or a certificate of limited partnership. Whether the Board reads the MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER'S articles as satisfying 214.01 for the partnership's property, or looks to the partnership's own documents, is not stated in 214.01, Rule 140.1, Rule 140.2 or Rule 143 as read this session. The practical answer is probably the managing general partner's articles, since Rule 140.2(b) requires the MGP to hold the OCC, but that is inference and is not encoded.
214.01(b) gives 'until the next succeeding lien date' to amend. It does not say what happens to the exemption for the year in which the defect was found -- whether the cure is retroactive to that lien date or only prospective. Nothing read this session resolves it, and the difference is a full year of tax.
SOURCES ARE STAGED, NOT MERGED. Every source cited by this rule lives in data/sources/pending_ca_welfare.json and not yet in data/sources/sources.json. scripts/integrate_pending.py must run before any database load, or the citation lands with nothing behind it. The `ca_welfare_exemption` programme record was staged in data/sources/pending_programs_wave9.json by an earlier pass and has since been merged into data/programs/programs.json by someone other than this pass; the staged copy is still in the pending file and must not be merged a second time.
NO agency_id IS SET. The exemption is co-administered by the State Board of Equalization (which decides whether the ORGANISATION qualifies, via the Organizational and Supplemental Clearance Certificates) and by the county assessor of each of 58 counties (which decides whether the USE qualifies and grants or denies the exemption). Neither has a record in data/agencies/agencies.json. ca.hfa is CTCAC and does not administer this exemption; naming it would assert a monitoring relationship that does not exist. Agency records for the BOE and for county assessors are the fix.
Rule 140.1 does not say who counts the duties or on what record. The claim form BOE-267-L1 has the managing general partner certify the count under penalty of perjury; whether the county assessor or the Board re-derives it from the Rule 140.1(b) documents, and how often, is not published.
'Actually performs' is a present-tense operational test but the exemption is claimed against a 1 January lien date. Whether the five duties must have been performed during the preceding calendar year, be in force on the lien date, or both, is not stated in Rule 140.1 or on BOE-267-L1.
Duty (L) -- ensuring charitable services are provided OR that information about them is made available -- is far softer than the other eleven, and is the one most likely to be the fifth. What evidence satisfies 'information regarding charitable services or benefits are made available' is not specified anywhere read this session.
SOURCES ARE STAGED, NOT MERGED. Every source cited by this rule lives in data/sources/pending_ca_welfare.json and not yet in data/sources/sources.json. scripts/integrate_pending.py must run before any database load, or the citation lands with nothing behind it. The `ca_welfare_exemption` programme record was staged in data/sources/pending_programs_wave9.json by an earlier pass and has since been merged into data/programs/programs.json by someone other than this pass; the staged copy is still in the pending file and must not be merged a second time.
NO agency_id IS SET. The exemption is co-administered by the State Board of Equalization (which decides whether the ORGANISATION qualifies, via the Organizational and Supplemental Clearance Certificates) and by the county assessor of each of 58 counties (which decides whether the USE qualifies and grants or denies the exemption). Neither has a record in data/agencies/agencies.json. ca.hfa is CTCAC and does not administer this exemption; naming it would assert a monitoring relationship that does not exist. Agency records for the BOE and for county assessors are the fix.
Rule 140.1 says 'annually' for both acts and names no due date, no anniversary and no window. Whether the BOE or an assessor reads it as once per calendar year, once per fiscal year, or within twelve months of the last one is not published, and the difference decides compliance in any year where the interval slips.
Rule 140.1(a)(7)(D) prescribes no scope, no standard and no record for the physical inspection -- it is not NSPIRE, not UPCS, and not a sample size. What an assessor accepts as evidence that it happened is not specified beyond Rule 140.1(b)(8), 'documents related to property inspections'.
No form number is published for the annual certification to the county assessor. It is distinct from BOE-267-A and BOE-267-L1, both of which are the partnership's own claim forms; whether assessors accept the L1 as discharging (a)(7)(E) or require a separate instrument was not resolvable from any document read this session.
SOURCES ARE STAGED, NOT MERGED. Every source cited by this rule lives in data/sources/pending_ca_welfare.json and not yet in data/sources/sources.json. scripts/integrate_pending.py must run before any database load, or the citation lands with nothing behind it. The `ca_welfare_exemption` programme record was staged in data/sources/pending_programs_wave9.json by an earlier pass and has since been merged into data/programs/programs.json by someone other than this pass; the staged copy is still in the pending file and must not be merged a second time.
NO agency_id IS SET. The exemption is co-administered by the State Board of Equalization (which decides whether the ORGANISATION qualifies, via the Organizational and Supplemental Clearance Certificates) and by the county assessor of each of 58 counties (which decides whether the USE qualifies and grants or denies the exemption). Neither has a record in data/agencies/agencies.json. ca.hfa is CTCAC and does not administer this exemption; naming it would assert a monitoring relationship that does not exist. Agency records for the BOE and for county assessors are the fix.
Rule 140.1(c) requires withdrawal and admission on 'the same effective date' but says nothing about a partnership that loses its managing general partner and admits a replacement days or weeks later. Read literally the safe harbour is unavailable and organisational qualification is broken in the interval; whether the Board treats a short gap as fatal is not published.
Rule 140.2(f) sets a reporting deadline but states no consequence for missing it, and no separate consequence for the underlying disqualification. The forfeiture recorded here follows from the organisational test failing, not from a stated penalty for late reporting.
Nothing read this session says whether the substitute managing general partner must hold its own Organizational Clearance Certificate BEFORE the substitution date or may obtain one afterwards, nor whether the property's existing Supplemental Clearance Certificate survives the swap or must be re-applied for under Rule 140.2(a).
Section 12955(p)(2) permits an inquiry about the level or source of income; it does not say what an owner may then do with the answer, and every other subdivision forbids acting on it. The line between a lawful question and unlawful use of its answer is not drawn in the statute.
A landlord is excluded from 'representative of a tenant' unless the income is a HUD-VASH voucher, which means the definition treats VASH differently from every other subsidy without saying why or what follows.
Rhode Island bars a written or oral inquiry concerning lawful source of income outright. An owner or management company operating in both states cannot apply one application form.

nd North Dakota · 89

NDHFA publishes NO fixed calendar due date for the annual restriction review - the manual says only that the deadline is 'stated in the review notification' sent by email to the management agent, and the late-fee clause keys to that same notification deadline. The due-date parameter is therefore encoded without a value. Not guessed; the operative date must be read from each year's notification.
Whether the review covers the prior calendar year for all projects or shifts for fiscal-year owners is not stated; the manual fixes the review period as 01/01-12/31 and that is what is encoded.
The QAP's requirement that Replacement Reserve account activity for the prior fiscal year be provided 'in conjunction with submission of the project's annual compliance monitoring materials' (2027 plan sec. 1.M) overlaps the manual's reserve-statement item; whether NDHFA treats these as one submission or two is not stated.
The manual charges the fee 'during the compliance period' while the QAP states monitoring continues 'through the end of the Extended Use Period'; whether the $50+$40 fee itself continues at the same rate after year 15 is not stated in either document. Not guessed - contrast SD, whose manual says fees continue to the end of the extended use period explicitly.
The compliance page notes a compliance fee increase notification dated September 23, 2019; the current amounts postdate it. No published schedule of future adjustments exists - the manual says only that the fee 'will be reviewed periodically'.
Whether 'set-aside unit' counts only LIHTC units or also units restricted solely by other layered NDHFA programs on the same property is not defined.
Whether the daily fees accrue per project, per building, or per deficiency is not stated for any of the per-day items. Not guessed.
No cap, waiver standard, or appeal route for late and noncompliance fees is published. Manual sec. 3.06 lists remedial actions but no fee-dispute process.
The extension mechanics in item (C) - who approves, on what form, for how long - are not published; the manual says only that the extension must be requested and approved prior to the due date.
Whether the quarterly vacancy report remains required during the extended use period is not stated; Section 4 (Y15 Policy) modifies recertification, inspections, and the student and next-available-unit rules but is silent on vacancy reporting. Not guessed.
Whether a fully occupied property must file a nil report is not stated, though the obligation is written as unconditional ('Properties are required to report vacancy information on a quarterly basis').
The manual states both 'approximately 14 days' for the notification letter and 'reasonable notice of inspection is no more than 15 days'; the 15-day figure is encoded as the ceiling and the 14 days as practice. Which governs if they diverge is NDHFA's to say.
The moderate/30-day and low/60-day NSPIRE correction windows come from the inspection-report letter framework in sec. 3.04(B); how they interact with the general 30-day correction period in sec. 3.05 (which itself excepts severe/life-threatening issues) for the same deficiency is not stated.
Whether the $250/day critical-violation fine is capped or how it is invoiced is not published.
Whether the six-month extension ceiling is measured from the notice date or from the end of the initial 30 days is not stated ('An extension of up to six months may be granted'). Treas. Reg. 1.42-5(e)(4) permits a total of six months from notice, but NDHFA's own arithmetic is not published. Not guessed.
No extension-request form or procedure for the correction period is published (contrast Kansas's State Form 7); the manual is silent on how good cause is demonstrated.
Whether the 30-day correction period also applies to state-only LURA covenants (elections, reserve funding) or only to Code noncompliance is not distinguished in sec. 3.05.
North Dakota is a heavy USDA RD Section 515 state and the manual adopts the RHS utility-allowance rules, but it nowhere states whether NDHFA accepts the Treas. Reg. 1.42-5(c)(4) exemption from first-year-after recertification review for RD-assisted projects, or accepts RD tenant certifications in lieu of TICs. Not guessed; confirm with NDHFA before relying on RD paperwork at a layered property.
The manual does not name a deadline (relative to the move-in anniversary) for the annual student status verification at 100% projects - contrast SD's 120-day AHCU window. The Emphasys reporting cycle is the de-facto collection point but no per-household due date is published.
HOTMA: sec. 1.05 applies HOTMA to certifications effective on or after 1/1/2024 and stated that NDHFA would not issue 8823s for HOTMA-specific issues during calendar 2024; that grace period has expired and no successor policy is published.
The manual says owners 'must contact NDHFA when considering a transfer' and prohibits transfers to listed non-compliant organisations, but does not state that NDHFA's affirmative written approval is required for a transfer to a clean buyer, nor any review timeline. The obligation is encoded as notice-plus-conditions rather than consent; confirm with NDHFA whether consent is in practice withheld outside the prohibited list.
Whether the $5,000/$500 fee is per project or per building where BINs transfer separately is not stated.
Since the 2020 QAP all ND owners waive the qualified-contract right, so no QC-on-transfer interaction exists for 2020+ allocations; whether pre-2020 LURAs preserved a QC right that survives transfer is a document-by-document question for the property overlay. Not generalised.
The trigger includes 'a change of staff within the existing management agent' without limiting it to key or site staff; read literally any staffing change starts the 30 days. How NDHFA applies this in practice is not published. Not guessed.
No consequence specific to a missed 30-day notification is published; the general late-fee and remedial-action framework presumably applies but the manual does not say so.
The manual does not state a restoration deadline beyond the owner's own plan timeframe, nor address the federal-disaster-area credit relief under Rev. Proc. 2014-49/2014-50. Not guessed.
Whether the 10-day clock runs from the incident or from the owner's discovery of it is not stated; the manual's words are 'within 10 days of an incident'.
NDHFA publishes a Utility Allowance Worksheet (SFN 62597, marked 'new' on the compliance-forms page) that postdates the manual's sec. 1.19 text; whether the worksheet is mandatory for the annual submission or a convenience form is not stated on the page or in the manual.
The manual restates the 1.42-10 sub-metering rules including the $5/month administrative-fee ceiling 'unless state law provides otherwise'; no North Dakota statute modifying that ceiling was located, but its absence was not exhaustively verified.
For a building where RD's allowance and a HOME-required project-specific allowance would both claim to govern, the manual's hierarchy (RD wins over everything, HOME needs project-specific) is not reconciled. The federal answer favours RD under 1.42-10(b) but the manual does not say so.
Whether the quarterly vacancy report and the annual compliance monitoring fee continue during the extended use period is not stated in Section 4 ('all other guidelines remain unchanged' implies yes, but the fee clause says 'during the compliance period'). See the fee rule's open question.
The waiver text says owners 'may not be eligible' where other funding programs conflict; it does not say NDHFA will screen for this or that the owner must certify it. Allocation of that diligence burden is unpublished.
For pre-2020 allocations whose LURAs did not waive the qualified contract, the interaction between a QC request and this Y15 policy is unaddressed in the current manual - the 2020-QAP-forward waiver (manual sec. 1.03) moots it only prospectively.
NDHFA narrows HUD's Level 3 condition to the tenant's inability to supply Level 4 documentation and says nothing about the owner-rejection ground HUD provides. An owner who receives a pay stub they reasonably doubt therefore has no stated route to descend to their own form, and no stated route to reject it. Not resolved here.
The chart ranks Level 2 'Medium', the same word it gives Level 3, where HUD ranks Level 2 'Low'. Whether NDHFA intends oral third-party verification to sit level with the written form or merely mis-transcribed HUD's ranking word is unknowable from the document, and the LEVEL NUMBERS - which are unchanged - are what the parameter encodes.
NDHFA requires 'two months minimum' of pay stubs where HUD requires two stubs. For a monthly payroll the two coincide; for weekly pay they differ by a factor of four. Which NDHFA intends where a household is paid weekly is not stated, and the corpus encodes the months figure NDHFA printed.
The manual directs that the COLA 'should be factored in when anticipating household income' and Compliance Memorandum 25-05 publishes the figure annually with two different effective dates - 1/1/2026 for Social Security and 12/31/2025 for SSI. Nothing says which date governs a certification effective between them.
A Non-Employment Affidavit is required of an unemployed member receiving unearned income. Whether it is also required of an unemployed member with no income at all, who would separately complete the Certification of Zero Income, is not stated.
NDHFA's manual approves eight programs and NDHFA's own form prints six. An owner using the form cannot record a LIHTC determination or a later HUD-announced program. Which document governs is not stated in either.
The manual permits reliance on a LIHTC income determination as the safe harbour. It does not say whose - another property's, an earlier certification at the same property, or a determination made under another state's agency - and the form omits the category entirely, so the question has no published answer.
The five date anchors are alternatives, so a determination whose effective date is eighteen months old still qualifies if the administrator signed the verification within the last twelve. NDHFA does not address whether the underlying determination can be that stale, and the generosity is unusual enough that it is recorded as stated rather than narrowed.
NDHFA refuses the 50059 as income verification and its PBRA policy simultaneously requires EIV documents to be retained in the Section 8 tenant file under HUD Notice H 2013-06 while keeping them out of the tax credit file. For an owner maintaining one set of files, the policy's own answer is that electronic submission of tax credit files resolves it; for an owner maintaining two, NDHFA says it does not recommend the duplication. Neither is stated as a requirement.
The manual says a signed PHA statement may be used 'If it is not possible to obtain the 50058 from the PHA'. What makes it impossible, and what the file must record about the attempt, is not stated - unlike the self-certification descent, which does carry a documentation duty.
The descent is permitted only 'When maximum potential household income would put an applicant over the income limit'. Whether NDHFA intends that as a limit on the exception or merely as the case it had in mind is not stated, and read literally it requires a household far below the limit to be certified at a figure the owner knows overstates their income - which then follows them into the 140% over-income test at every recertification.
'Credible documentation to confirm that the maximum estimate is unrealistic' is not defined and no instrument is named. The Wage Calculation Worksheet records the arithmetic, not the judgement.
NDHFA requires current circumstances generally and known future changes where available, and separately permits seasonal income to be anticipated from the previous 12 months where current information will not serve. Which governs a seasonal worker whose current circumstances and last year's earnings differ is not stated.
The prohibition on year-to-date figures and the instruction to use a stated annual wage as-is sit one line apart and can conflict: an employer verification that states only a year-to-date total and an annual salary leaves the owner using the salary, but an employer verification stating only year-to-date leaves nothing usable and NDHFA does not say what to do.
For part-time and variable employment the multiplier is 'the number of hours the family expects to work annually', so the deterministic test above cannot reach those households. NDHFA names no documentation for the expectation.
Sec. 2.08 prorates a jointly owned asset by ownership percentage and defaults to an even split; sec. 2.06 includes the TOTAL value unless the household demonstrates inaccessibility or another owner's refusal. The two rules give different answers for the same asset and NDHFA does not reconcile them.
The procedure does not say what happens where a household member is a student at an institution that is not an institution of higher education - a trade or technical school below that level - whose aid would be neither HEA assistance nor, arguably, other student financial assistance from an institution of higher education.
Covered costs include housing costs only for a student who is not head, co-head or spouse and who is 'not residing in an assisted unit'. A student who lives in the LIHTC unit itself therefore has no housing cost to count, which the procedure implies rather than states.
NDHFA gives the calculation and no worked example, and no instruction on the period over which the figures are measured - an academic year and a certification year rarely coincide.
NDHFA writes the threshold test as 'combined value > $50,000' to include and 'combined value < $50,000' to exclude, leaving a value of exactly $50,000 in neither branch. The imputation conditions use 'exceeds', so exactly $50,000 does not trigger imputation; the non-necessary property exclusion has no such tie-breaker on its face.
North Dakota publishes no indexed dollar figure anywhere. Compliance Memorandum 25-05 announces that HUD's values are effective 1 January and links to HUD's table; the asset self-certification form prints 'the applicable Imputed Income Limitation'. An owner working only from North Dakota documents cannot determine the current-year threshold.
NDHFA's HOTMA enforcement grace covered calendar 2024 only, while HUD's own compliance date for multifamily owners is 1 January 2027. On a layered property a HOTMA-specific file error can be a reportable state finding and a non-penalised federal observation at the same time. NDHFA does not address the gap.
NDHFA serves two asset self-certification forms with different thresholds and incompatible asset definitions, and withdraws only one of them and only for units under a HAP contract. For every other unit both are live and nothing says which governs. A household completing the $5,000 form as printed reports IRA, 401(k), Keogh and trust balances that sec. 2.06 of the same agency's manual excludes from net family assets.
The $5,000 form was re-stamped (10/25), twenty-two months after NDHFA's stated HOTMA applicability date of 1 January 2024, and still cites 24 CFR 813.102. Whether the re-stamping was a substantive republication or a routine re-save is not discoverable from the document.
Sec. 2.06 counts the TOTAL value of a jointly owned asset unless the household demonstrates inaccessibility or a co-owner's refusal; sec. 2.08 prorates by ownership percentage and defaults to an even split. The two sections give different answers for the same asset and NDHFA does not reconcile them.
Condition 2 requires 'sufficient documentation to confirm the previous income qualification' and NDHFA does not say what is sufficient, nor what happens where the prior owner's files were not transferred - which is the ordinary case in an arm's-length acquisition.
Sec. 2.16 is headed Resyndication and sec. 2.15 Acquisition Rehabilitation, and the 120-day window is stated only in 2.15. Whether a resyndication that is also an acquisition gets the 120-day window, the grandfathering, or both, is not stated.
The grandfathering has no stated end. Nothing says whether a grandfathered household that later moves within the property, or whose composition changes, keeps the status.
The six-month requalification applies to an addition; NDHFA does not say whether the clock runs from the original household's move-in or, where members have come and gone, from the most recent certification. 'The first six months of tenancy' points at the former.
At a 100% project the new member's income is added to the ORIGINAL certification rather than the most recent. For a long-tenured household that produces a combined figure with no relation to current circumstances, and NDHFA does not say how it interacts with the annual student-only recertification such a project performs.
The VAWA carve-out cites the 2013 reauthorization. NDHFA does not say which additions it covers - an incoming survivor, a household member removed and later returning, or both.
NDHFA's form tests 'the current and/or upcoming calendar year' where IRC 151(c)(4) tests the calendar year in which the taxpayer's taxable year begins. The wider period can make a household ineligible in North Dakota on facts that would not reach the federal test, and the manual does not acknowledge the difference.
The manual says student status must be verified annually 'as per IRS ruling' and does not name the ruling. Rev. Rul. 2004-82 Q5 and the 8823 Guide are the usual sources; neither imposes an annual student certification on a 100% project as such, so the annual obligation appears to be NDHFA's own.
The extended-use carve-out on the student rule is stated only inside a suggestion about lease drafting. Whether NDHFA means the student rule genuinely stops applying after year 15 or only that a lease-termination clause becomes inappropriate is not clear, and the difference is substantial.
NDHFA requires the plan to state 'any minimum income requirements imposed by management' and separately bars applying one to assisted applicants and units. It does not say how the requirement should be expressed - a multiple of rent, an absolute figure - nor whether a plan silent on the point may impose one in practice.
The PBRA policy forbids terminating an existing HUD-assisted tenant who fails LIHTC eligibility and permits a voluntary move incentive not paid from Section 8 or FHA project funds, with written notice of the right to remain given first. It does not say what the unit's LIHTC status is while such a tenant remains, which is the question an owner actually needs answered.
The 2027 Allocation Plan's five tenant protections are an award condition on the ownership entity and management agent. Whether NDHFA monitors them at a file review, and against what standard, is not stated - the same gap Kansas's QAP leaves.
NDHFA states the 60-day hold and the rolling obligation and does not say what happens if the project never regains its pledged percentage. The commitment is a LURA term, so the remedies are contractual, but no fee, finding or escalation is named for a persistent shortfall.
'Diligent efforts to market the available unit to the Target Population shall be demonstrated during this time period' names no evidence and no standard. NDHFA's referral-agency arrangements for permanent supportive housing are not described in the manual at all.
The 90-day lease-up priority ends at the earlier of the commitment being met or 90 days from placed-in-service. For a project leasing up slowly, the priority can therefore expire before the commitment is met, and NDHFA does not say whether the 60-day turnover rule then begins to run on units that never held a Target Population household.
'Typically no more than 45 days' is an expectation with an express escape - 'dependent on situational facts'. NDHFA names no factors, unlike Kansas, which lists size, location, turnover, market conditions and advertising methods for the analogous judgement. The parameter is encoded with its hedge recorded rather than hardened.
The consequence attaches to a unit 'determined to be unsuitable for occupancy in a reasonable timeframe' and NDHFA does not say who determines it or when - at the quarterly vacancy report, at a file review, or at an inspection.
The bond-financed transfer exception says a transfer between buildings must always be a new move-in. It does not say what happens to the vacated unit's status in that case, where the ordinary rule is that the two units swap.
The VAWA Lease Addendum is mandated by name but NDHFA does not say whose addendum -- its own, HUD's, or the owner's -- nor is a form number given for it.
'All projects subject to VAWA compliance' is not defined in this section. Whether NDHFA reads LIHTC alone as triggering VAWA, or only LIHTC layered with a covered federal program, is not stated here.
The manual does not say what a project-specific emergency transfer plan must add to HUD's model, so an owner cannot tell what makes a plan sufficiently specific.
Whether a compliance monitoring submission to NDHFA itself counts as a disclosure requiring one of the three exceptions is not addressed, though NDHFA elsewhere requires files to be produced for review.
'Shared database' is undefined. Whether a property management system used by a single management company across its own portfolio is 'shared' is not stated.
The manual states the protections but names no complaint route -- an applicant or tenant reading it cannot tell whether to raise retaliation with NDHFA, with HUD, or in court.
Whether NDHFA treats a retaliation finding as LIHTC noncompliance reportable on Form 8823 is not stated.
HUD withdrew 'Implementation of OGC Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records' (10 June 2022) effective 17 September 2025, and has published no replacement. This agency still directs owners to that framework by name. The state requirement stands as the agency's own -- see xp.fair_housing.eight_fheo_guidance_documents_withdrawn_effective_september_2025 -- but an owner following it is following a document HUD says is not authoritative, and the agency has issued no correction.
NDHFA's LIHTC manual leaves screening criteria to owner discretion subject to fair housing law without naming this statute or its public assistance class. An owner reading only the manual would not learn that a voucher refusal is a state fair housing violation in North Dakota.
'Public assistance' is not defined in the quoted subsection. Whether a Housing Choice Voucher is public assistance for this purpose is not answerable from it alone.
Age is protected without a floor or ceiling, which sits awkwardly beside senior housing operated under the federal 55-and-older exemption.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

ks Kansas · 87

The April 15 due date is published per report year in KHRC's December notification letter, not fixed in the compliance manual, which says only that reports are due 'generally in the Spring'. April 15 is verified for report year 2025 (due 2026). Earlier and later report years were not verified and the date should be re-read from each year's letter.
The extension length is stated inconsistently across current KHRC documents. Manual sec. 16.4 Step 3 says 'for annual report submissions, only an additional two months will be approved'; the December 2025 letter and State Form #34 both say 30 days (to May 15, 2026). The 30 days is encoded because the later, report-year-specific documents say so, but which controls has not been confirmed with KHRC.
The link text on KHRC's compliance page reads '2024 Annual Report Notification Letter' while the linked file is the 2025 letter. Not treated as evidence of a separate 2024 letter.
The $40 per-assisted-unit HUD Resources add-on is described in the 2026 QAP as 'the current per unit fee', which signals it is set administratively and may change between QAP editions. Re-read at each QAP cycle.
The QAP states the years 1-15 fee is due 'for all placed-in-service properties following the first year of the LIHTC'. Whether a property that has placed in service but deferred the credit start under Form 8609 line 10a owes a fee for the deferral year is not addressed in either document, and the notification letter's Non-Credit Election route says only that 'no other documentation is required'. Not guessed.
No published grace period or interest rate for a late fee was located; the consequence located is the Chapter 18 violation fee of $50 per qualifying unit plus 'not in good standing' status.
The manual does not say whether the per-qualifying-unit fees are assessed once per violation or per period of continued violation, nor whether items A-F can be stacked for the same underlying failure. Not guessed.
'$50 per qualifying unit or episode' in item F leaves KHRC to choose the measure; no criterion for that choice is published.
No appeal route specific to violation fees was located. Manual sec. 16.4.4 describes an appeal process for compliance findings generally; whether it reaches fee assessments is not stated.
The manual states the extension as 'four months' on top of 60 days but describes the result as 'up to a total of six months', which is only consistent if the 60 days is read as two months. Encoded as a six-month ceiling measured from the first notice, as the manual's own parenthetical directs, but the arithmetic is KHRC's.
Whether the three monitoring streams' separate 60-Day Notices run on independent clocks or are consolidated when issued together is not stated.
The annual-report-specific limit of 'an additional two months' in sec. 16.4 conflicts with the 30-day extension stated in the December 2025 notification letter and State Form #34. See ks.lihtc.annual_report_april15_procorem_package.
The 24-hour cure and 72-hour proof-of-correction obligations are stated for 'life threatening and severe' deficiencies together. NSPIRE's own HUD-side correction windows differ by severity and by inspectable area; whether KHRC intends to displace those or restate them is not stated.
The manual gives no correction window for Moderate and Low deficiencies beyond the general 60-Day Notice.
Inspection frequency is not stated as a flat rule in sec. 16.7. Sec. 16.7.1 says that for Alignment Program properties the physical inspection cycle is set by the inspection score and the files cycle is three years (or five in parts of the extended use period). The base three-year cycle at Treas. Reg. 1.42-5(c)(2)(iii) is assumed to govern otherwise but is not restated in this section.
This rule is built on the 2024 manual. The 2021 edition, still live on kshousingcorp.org, elects UPCS with REAC software instead; an overlay built from that edition would encode the wrong standard.
The drug-free lease addendum is listed as a mandatory tenant file document but no KHRC policy establishing the requirement, prescribing its content, or stating which allocations it attaches to was located in the manual. Not guessed; confirm with KHRC.
The manual says KHRC provides 'a minimum two week notice prior to inspections' in the file-review section while sec. 16.7 gives 28 days for physical inspections. Whether the two-week figure is the file-review-specific notice or a floor for both is not stated.
Sample sizes come from the chart at sec. 16.1 (pp. 158-159), which is the standard REAC-derived table; the manual also reserves the right to expand the sample where extensive noncompliance is found, without stating a ceiling.
The manual does not say what KHRC does when a household refuses to complete its sections of Sample Form 18 while remaining in occupancy, beyond the general due-diligence standard. Not guessed.
Sample Form 18 is described as a self-certification that does not require verifications 'unless documenting a student exception being met' (sec. 21.7). Whether that verification carve-out also applies during years 1-15 at 100% properties, or only in the extended use period where the sentence appears, is not stated.
The 2024 manual contains no HOTMA content at all - the word does not appear - so it does not address whether the HOTMA income and asset rules change what Sample Form 18 collects, nor the treatment of the 1.42-5 safe harbours. No separate KHRC HOTMA notice was located on kshousingcorp.org on 2026-08-24.
The manual's sec. 8.8.4(b)(ii) describes a KHRC agency utility estimate as an available method and sets the consumption-data window for it, but the December 2025 annual report checklist annotates the same method 'KHRC not currently offering'. The rule records the availability as the checklist states it; when or whether KHRC will resume offering agency estimates is not published.
KHRC publishes an 'Actual Usage Utility Allowance Spreadsheet' on its compliance page, last uploaded in 2019. Which of the 1.42-10 methods that spreadsheet supports, and whether its use requires State Form 11 approval, is not stated in the manual. Not guessed.
No standalone KHRC utility allowance policy document exists; the procedure lives inside the compliance manual and the QAP. The agency key_documents entry naming 'KHRC utility allowance policy' as a separate source was not borne out.
The one-change-per-year limit is stated without an exception clause. Whether a mid-year change forced by a PHA discontinuing its schedule counts against the annual limit is not addressed.
The manual says failure to file 30 days ahead 'may result in point penalties'; the QAP prices the penalty at 5 points and applies it to changes after January 1, 2023. Whether KHRC has any remedy against the transaction itself - as opposed to the transferee's future scoring - is not stated. Not guessed.
State Form 22 is described as the vehicle for both an entity sale and a general partner/managing member substitution. Whether a change in the members of a corporate general partner, short of replacing the general partner itself, triggers the form is not addressed.
The manual asks that KHRC 'should also be provided with a copy of the bond that was posted or a statement from new owner that the property will continue to serve low income tenants', without a deadline or a named form.
KHRC's 'management experience requirements' are referred to repeatedly but the threshold itself is not stated in the manual - the only quantity given is the list of at least seven out-of-state properties requested as supporting information. What qualifies a company as experienced in Kansas is not published. Not guessed.
The manual notes that a company approved under a consulting or probationary agreement 'may not meet the requirements provided under the Qualified Allocation Plan' for an acquisition/rehabilitation application, and refers to the most recent QAP without a section cite.
Whether the 30-day filing obligation is discharged by filing or by KHRC's approval - that is, whether an unapproved but timely-filed change may proceed - is not stated.
Sec. 21.9 conditions the Next Available Unit Rule on the owner wishing to move an over-income household to market rent. Whether the rule is genuinely inapplicable when the owner has no such intention, or merely unenforced, is not stated, and the reading matters because it is more permissive than IRC 42(g)(2)(D). Not resolved here; encoded as the manual states it.
The five-year file and physical inspection cycles are stated as minimums ('at least once every five (5) years') while sec. 16.7.1 describes a files inspection cycle of 'a three year cycle to meet IRS requirements, or a five year cycle depending on what year of the extended use period the property is in' without giving the boundary year. Which properties are on three and which on five is not published.
Sec. 21.11 says no specific amount must be deposited into the replacement reserve in year 16 and beyond but that KHRC 'expects the reserve to continue to be funded at the same rate of increase seen in operating costs' - an expectation without a stated measure, so no reserve deposit parameter is encoded for year 16+.
The required funding rate lives in Exhibit B of each property's Restrictive Use Covenant, not in any published KHRC schedule, so the per-property amount is a property-layer fact and is deliberately absent here.
'24 months of aggregate funding' is not defined - whether it means 24 times the monthly deposit required by Exhibit B, or 24 months of budgeted capital spending, is not stated. Not guessed.
Sec. 21.11 removes any specific deposit requirement in year 16 and beyond while saying KHRC 'expects the reserve to continue to be funded at the same rate of increase seen in operating costs'. No measurable standard for the extended use period is published.
For properties allocated credit in 1996 or later the covenant requirement of prior KHRC approval before drawing on the reserve has been rescinded except for TCAP and Credit Exchange properties (sec. 21.11), which sits awkwardly with sec. 15.5.3's unqualified State Form 4 requirement. Which properties currently need prior approval to draw is not stated cleanly in either place.
KHRC states no position on whether a tenant-supplied third-party document (its method B) outranks its own verification form (its method A). HUD's Table J2 says it does. On a Kansas property layered with a HUD program the two determinations may be made from different documents in different orders; KHRC does not address the conflict and the corpus does not resolve it.
The manual never mentions EIV, HUD Form 50058, HUD Form 50059 or any upfront income verification database, in 200 pages, including in the sections on Section 8 and Rural Development tenants. Whether KHRC would accept a Work Number report as method A or method B, or at all, is unstated. The absence is recorded as an absence and not as a prohibition.
KHRC says a verification is 'valid for 120 days from the date of receipt' and separately that nothing over 240 days old may be used. Where a document was received 100 days before the effective date and is itself 200 days old at that date, both limbs pass; the manual does not say whether the 120-day validity runs from receipt or is capped by the 240-day age limit where the two would give different answers. Encoded as two independent bounds, which is what the text says.
The exemption list is introduced with 'such as', so whether it is exhaustive is unstated. Race, ethnicity and Social Security number are collected on the KTIC and are equally unlikely to need re-verification, but KHRC does not name them.
The form forbids using itself to bring an over-income applicant under the limit. It does not say what the owner should do when a genuine clarification from the source would have that effect - obtain a fresh written verification, presumably, but KHRC does not say so and names no consequence for the household in the meantime.
Sample Form 21's printed footer reads 'Last Updated Oct 19' and its content predates the manual by five years. Whether KHRC intends its four limits to survive the 2024 manual unchanged is not stated anywhere; the form is still the current one on KHRC's document library as of 2026-08-28.
KHRC publishes the form and no rule. Whether a returned Sample Form 9 relieves the owner of calculating income itself, or merely verifies one source among several, is not stated in the form, the manual or the QAP. Encoded as an available instrument with obligation 'may' rather than as a safe harbour.
The manual contains no reference to EIV in 200 pages. Every neighbouring state that has addressed HOTMA either bars EIV for LIHTC by name or requires EIV documents to be segregated from the tax credit file. Kansas does neither, and a Kansas owner running a layered Section 8 property has no state instruction on what to do with an EIV report at a KHRC file review.
Sample Form 9's printed footer reads 'Last Updated Oct 19' while its filename ends 'TemplateJune14'. The footer governs; the five-year gap between the two is noted because it is a live example of why the corpus does not date from URLs.
KHRC says the threshold will remain $5,000 'until further guidance is received from the IRS'. No such guidance is identified, no expected date is given, and the manual does not say what happens to certifications completed under the $5,000 rule if the IRS later blesses $50,000. Not guessed.
Sample Form 4's asset list and the manual's Chapter 6 exclusions cannot both be followed. The form asks the household to report stocks, bonds, trust funds and personal property held as an investment; sec. 6.5 excludes IRS-recognised retirement accounts entirely and excludes all non-necessary personal property whose combined value does not exceed $50,000. A Kansas household completing KHRC's own form as printed reports assets that KHRC's own manual says are not net family assets. Nothing in either document says which governs.
Whether the $5,000 test is applied to net family assets after the Chapter 6 exclusions, or to the gross list printed on the form, is not stated. The form's own certification line says 'net family assets (as defined in 24 CFR 813.102)', a definition that no longer exists in the CFR.
KHRC states the threshold is 'annually adjusted for inflation' and never publishes the adjusted figure. Its annual income and rent limit sheets carry income and rent only. An owner following Kansas documents alone cannot determine the current-year threshold and must go to HUD's inflationary adjustment table, which KHRC does not link.
The manual reproduces HOTMA's asset regime, cites HUD Notice H 2023-10 by number on trusts, and never states an effective date, a transition rule or a treatment for certifications completed before the manual took effect. Whether KHRC treats the regime as applying from 1 January 2024 like its neighbours, from the manual's own 'Effective 2024', or from some other date is not published.
Sec. 6.5 item 2 is printed as an incomplete sentence in the source PDF - 'The combined value of all non-necessary items of personal property if the combined total value does not exceed $50,000 (' - with the parenthesis never closed. The rule is stated completely at sec. 6.6 and that is what is encoded here; the truncation is recorded so a later reader does not treat it as a substantive qualification that was lost.
KHRC applies HOTMA's income and asset definitions and never names the regime, states no effective date and publishes no transition or grace policy. Whether a Kansas certification effective in 2023 or early 2024 was expected to have been computed on the pre-HOTMA basis is unanswerable from KHRC documents.
Kansas has no student financial assistance calculation anywhere. The mandatory KTIC asks at question D.15 whether any member receives 'tuition assistance in the form of grants or scholarships (not excluded under Title IV, 479B of the Higher Education Act of 1965)' and Sample Form 19A asks the educational institution the same question, but no Kansas document says what to include in income once the answer is yes. Contrast North Dakota, which prints the two-step calculation. Not filled in from HUD.
The 'raises and bonuses not based on performance' formulation excludes performance-based bonuses from the forward projection by implication. KHRC does not say whether such a bonus is instead counted when received or not at all.
KHRC directs that an applicant 'must be denied' where State foster-care documentation cannot be produced. It does not say what happens to an EXISTING household whose foster-care documentation is later found insufficient at a file review, nor whether the unit is out of compliance from move-in or from the review. Sec. 4.3's general answer - advise the household to terminate or risk noncompliance - is written for a change in composition, not for a documentation failure.
Sample Form 19's own definition of 'students' includes children attending elementary, middle and senior high schools, which is what IRC 151(c)(4) requires in years 1-15 and is the opposite of what sec. 21.6 requires from year 16. KHRC publishes both and reconciles neither.
Sample Form 19A asks the school whether the student receives financial aid in the form of grants or scholarships, excluding loans. Nothing in the Kansas corpus says what the owner does with a yes.
KHRC states the narrowed test at sec. 21.6 and requires Sample Form 19 as its student affidavit; Sample Form 19's own parenthetical defines students to include those attending elementary, middle and senior high schools. The two cannot both be applied to a year-16 household, and neither document acknowledges the other. Recorded, not resolved.
'Dependent of a third party' is not defined and no verification instrument is named for it. The IRC exceptions use a tax-return test for dependency, and sec. 21.7 says Sample Form 18 needs no verifications except where documenting an exception - so the dependency question that decides whether the rule applies at all appears to rest on self-certification. KHRC does not say so.
Sec. 21.6 is written for LIHTC. Where a Kansas property is layered with HOME or HTF, sec. 4.2's warning that one program's student rules do not supersede another's still applies, and the year-16 narrowing does not reach the other programs. KHRC does not restate that in Chapter 21.
Kansas's test is 'whether a reasonable person would determine there was no intent to mislead or manipulate'. That is agency judgement and the corpus cannot render it; the test is document_interpretation for that reason and asserts only the two file postures that make the question moot.
The consequence of a manipulation finding runs to the date of initial occupancy, which may be years earlier and may pre-date the current owner or agent. KHRC does not say whether the finding is curable, whether the correction period in sec. 16 applies to it, or how it interacts with the three-year uncorrected-noncompliance rule at sec. 9.2.
Sec. 5.10 requires households who 'reasonably believe they will be adding members' to disclose that at initial certification. No form field captures it - the KTIC's section B asks for the total number of members expected to occupy the unit during the next 12 months, which is close but not the same question - and no consequence for non-disclosure is stated beyond the general fraud warning.
KHRC says the request 'should' be made using State Form 12 while the surrounding sentence says the submission is required prior to renting. Whether an owner who documented reasonable efforts thoroughly but never submitted them has breached the Kansas rule or only the federal standard is not stated.
The waiver runs 'up to six (6) months, depending on the unique situation of the property'. No criteria for the length are published, no renewal procedure is described, and nothing says what happens to units rented in reliance on a waiver that has expired.
Sec. 21.8 exempts mixed properties from the Vacant Unit Rule entirely from year 16 and permits market units to be rented first 'regardless of unit size', subject to maintaining LURA set-asides. The manual does not say whether an outstanding State Form 12 waiver survives the transition or becomes unnecessary.
'As soon as feasibly possible, normally with the next move in' is not a period. KHRC does not say how many turnovers may pass before temporary noncompliance becomes the 'continued failure' that carries a fine, and the Chapter 18 schedule prices the outcome without defining the trigger.
KHRC 'recommends' a full third-party recertification once a Sample Form 18 shows a lost target. Whether an owner who acts on the self-certification alone, and re-rents accordingly, has satisfied the covenant is not stated. The recommendation is encoded as evidence guidance rather than as an obligation because that is how it is written.
The rent may be increased to the 60% level once the target is restored, 'when their current lease allows'. Nothing says what happens where the lease does not allow it until renewal and the unit's rent therefore stays at the deeper band while the unit is counted at the higher one.
KHRC says it 'can determine the owner to be grossly negligent' after three years. The three years is stated; the determination is discretionary, no procedure or notice is described, and nothing says whether the determination is appealable under sec. 16.4.4. The corpus records the trigger and does not treat the outcome as automatic.
Nothing states how a project whose status has changed to mixed use for the balance of the compliance period returns to 100% status, or whether it can. The parallel first-year rule expressly provides for switching back once all units are properly rented; sec. 9.2's three-year rule does not.
The two-thirds credit fraction is stated by the state agency for a federal credit consequence. Whether KHRC is describing the effect of Treas. Reg. 1.42-5 and the first-year applicable fraction or asserting a Kansas position is not clear from the text, and no IRC or regulation is cited alongside it.
The QAP fixes the election at application and the covenant carries it, so the operative numbers for any given Kansas property come from its LURA and not from this rule. The parameters here are the 2026 QAP's, and a property allocated under an earlier QAP will have different ones. The corpus does not hold prior-year Kansas QAPs.
'Rents within the appropriate Public Housing Authority voucher threshold' is a condition tied to a figure KHRC does not publish and does not identify by name - payment standard, fair market rent and exception payment standard would all answer to that description and give different answers. Not resolved.
The QAP is silent on what happens if a metropolitan property's 30% deeper-target share is not maintained after lease-up. The manual's sec. 15.3 restoration obligation covers targets 'outlined in the LURA', which will normally include these, but neither document joins the two expressly.
KHRC writes 'should maintain two separate waiting lists' and then demonstrates that a single list produces a covenant violation. Whether an owner who keeps one list but applies a written preference achieving the same result has complied is not addressed; sec. 3.5 says preferences 'can be given when written company policies establish such preferences', which may be an alternative route KHRC does not label as one.
Sec. 3.3 requires the criteria to state income minimums and KHRC never says whether a minimum income requirement is permitted, how it may be calculated, or whether it may be applied to a household holding a voucher. The 2026 QAP is silent too. North Dakota answers all three.
The 2026 QAP's five tenant-protection duties are described as 'A post-award documentation requirement', so they bind through the allocation rather than through the compliance manual. Whether KHRC monitors them at a file review, and against what standard, is not stated.
THIS IS A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN STATE AGENCIES ON FEDERAL LAW, and it decides real cases. Kansas says a non-renewal is not a termination under Rev. Rul. 2004-82 and needs no good cause. Oregon says the prohibition 'includes the non-renewal of a lease or rental agreement for any reason other than for good cause'. Arkansas's HOME manual says an owner 'cannot refuse to renew the lease ... for other than good cause'. Chicago's ARO and Indiana's manual read the same way as Oregon. An operator applying the Kansas reading in another state, or a Kansas operator assuming the majority reading, will be wrong. The corpus states each agency's position in its own overlay and does not adjudicate between them -- that is a legal question, and the IRS has not resolved it in any document located.
KHRC's own obligation language is 'should do so only with good cause', not must, which is weaker than the flat prohibition Rev. Rul. 2004-82 requires the extended use agreement to contain. The recorded agreement for a given property governs, and the corpus does not hold it.
Kansas's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in Kansas on this section's text.
'Negotiate in good faith' is not defined. What distinguishes hard bargaining from a refusal to negotiate in good faith is left to adjudication.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

vt Vermont · 86

VHCB publishes no income limit table for its own state fund. The limit tables on vhcb.org that were located in this pass are the federal HOME and national HTF series (HOME_IncomeLmts_State_VT_2026.pdf, HTF_IncomeLmts_State_VT_2026.pdf). Whether VHCB in practice applies one of those series to state-fund-only units, or leaves it wholly to the covenant, is not stated in any document fetched.
10 V.S.A. § 303(5) defines lower income against 'the median income based on statistics from State or federal sources' without saying which -- state median or HUD area median. In Vermont those differ materially between Chittenden County and the rest of the state. The statute leaves the choice open and this pass does not close it.
NO CERTIFICATION OR RECERTIFICATION CYCLE IS PUBLISHED FOR THE VERMONT STATE FUND, which is why this batch carries no rule in the certification or recertification domain for Vermont. Nothing in 10 V.S.A. ch. 15, in 27 V.S.A. § 610, in the Board's published housing policies or on its Staying in Compliance page states when a household's income must be verified, by whom, on what form, how often it is re-examined, or what happens when an occupant goes over income. The certification duty stated here is the one the recorded covenant imposes under 27 V.S.A. § 610(b). On a co-funded Vermont property the certification cycle actually being run will be the tax credit's, HOME's or the national HTF's. VHCB's HOME Program Handbook chapters on income verification were located but deliberately not used: they are dated 1/2004 and 2014 and state federal HOME rules, not state-fund rules.
No VHCB document fetched in this pass states a state-fund rent limit, a utility allowance treatment, or a rent-increase approval requirement. The rent charts on vhcb.org are the federal HOME and national HTF series. It is possible VHCB's standard covenant form incorporates one of those by reference; the covenant form itself is not published on vhcb.org and was not obtained.
VHCB's Housing Policies index lists no rent policy of any kind, which is consistent with the covenant-governs reading but does not prove it.
VHCB publishes no ongoing monitoring interval after the initial post-construction visit, no unit-sample percentage, no physical inspection standard (NSPIRE, UPCS or otherwise), no exit-report timetable and no correction period for its state fund. The 'Staying in Compliance' page is the only published description of monitoring and it describes the initial visit only.
The page carries no date anywhere in its text -- acquire.py flagged that no four-digit year appears in it -- so its currency cannot be established from its own face. Confidence on this rule is medium for that reason.
VHCB issued a Request for Proposals titled 'Inspection Compliance Alignment' (vhcb.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Request-for-Proposals-Inspection-Compliance-Alignment-.pdf), which was located but not fetched in this pass. If a Vermont funders' aligned inspection protocol has since been adopted, this rule is the one it would change.
No grantee-facing annual reporting requirement for VHCB state funds was found in any document fetched in this pass -- no owner certification, no rent roll filing, no reporting portal. Whether one exists in VHCB's standard grant agreement could not be established: VHCB publishes Standard HOME Conditions (6/2017) and Standard HTF Conditions (3/16/2022) for the two FEDERAL programmes it administers, but no equivalent standard conditions document for state Housing and Conservation Trust Fund awards.
The § 323 report is an obligation of the Board, not of an owner, so it will not surface as a finding against a property. It is recorded because its existence, and the absence of any grantee-side counterpart, is the fact a diligence question about Vermont reporting actually needs.
No published VHCB policy addresses REFINANCING of a multifamily rental property or subordination of VHCB's mortgage deed. The Refinancing Guidelines (April 2013) on vhcb.org are captioned 'Single-Family Housing' and govern refinance and home equity requests on restricted homes and condominiums. Whether a rental refinance needs VHCB consent, and on what terms, is not published.
The share of gain VHCB may require on a release is described only as 'based upon its participation in the financing of the project'. No formula is published.
10 V.S.A. § 325c gives VHCB a right of first refusal over age-restricted residential properties, assignable to a nonprofit housing provider, with a contractual commitment to maintain existing affordability requirements. That is a separate acquisition mechanism rather than a disposition rule for VHCB-funded property, and was not authored in this pass.
The manual requires 'annual partnership audited financial statements' while the QAP requires 'annual operating statements showing property income and expenses in a format acceptable to VHFA' - whether an unaudited operating statement satisfies both for small properties is not stated. Not guessed.
No late-submission fee or fixed penalty is published; the stated mechanism is the warning letter, the correction period, and Form 8823.
The manual predates HOTMA and no VHFA HOTMA guidance could be located as of 2026-08-25; how HOTMA income and asset rules flow into the certification package has not been published by VHFA.
Because VHFA sets the specific period per notice ('up to 90 days'), the operative deadline for any given finding is in the notice itself, not in this rule; 90 days is the ceiling, not a guarantee.
Whether the six-month good-cause extension runs from the notice date or extends the specified period by six months is ambiguous in both documents ('extend the correction period for up to six months'). Both readings exist among peer states; not resolved for Vermont.
No expedited cure window for life-threatening physical deficiencies is published; the manual predates NSPIRE.
Whether VHFA requires its own Resident Annual Self Certification form or accepts an owner's equivalent is not stated in the manual; the Forms & Documents page publishes a Student Status Verification Form (2024) and an older student self-certification (10/2019).
The manual does not address how HOTMA's self-certification allowances interact with the first-anniversary full-recertification condition; no VHFA HOTMA guidance was located as of 2026-08-25.
VHFA does not quantify the annual training (no hour count, no recognized-trainer list, no designation requirement) - contrast NH's six hours from a listed trainer plus a national designation. The hour parameter is encoded with its value absent rather than borrowed from NH.
No certification form or submission channel for training evidence is published; the stated verification point is the on-site file review.
Which organizations count as 'local and regional organizations providing services to the homeless' for the vacancy-notice obligation, and in what form or timeframe notice must be given, is not published.
The six-month minimum lease restates the federal non-transient safe harbor and is included here for completeness of the QAP provision, not as a Vermont tightening; the SRO exception's scope is not defined beyond the parenthetical.
The six-month bar is stated without exceptions - whether births, adoptions, court-ordered custody or VAWA-protected additions are exempt is not addressed in the manual. VAWA and fair-housing law may compel exceptions the manual does not describe; not guessed.
The manual does not state what happens if the combined household would exceed the income limit at the next recertification in a 100% project where recertification is waived - the available-unit-rule interaction runs through the Resident Annual Self Certification.
THE MANUAL'S SUBMETERING POSITION CONFLICTS WITH THE CURRENT FEDERAL REGULATION. Treas. Reg. 1.42-10(e), amended effective March 2019 (before this manual's September 2019 date), treats costs paid under an actual-consumption submetering arrangement as paid directly by the tenant, allowance-eligible, with a capped administrative fee. The manual states the opposite and has not been corrected in the 2022-corrections printing. The manual's text is encoded as VHFA's published position; whether VHFA would actually deny an allowance for a 1.42-10(e)-conforming submetering arrangement must be confirmed with VHFA before an owner relies on either reading. NH's policy follows the federal rule, so a two-state operator faces opposite published positions.
The 90-day tenant notice is stated for 'options 2-5' (all owner-obtained estimates); the manual does not state a notice obligation for PHA schedule changes, which under the federal rule take effect 90 days after the PHA makes them available.
The policy applies in practice only to 1990-2002 allocations - later Vermont allocations waive or lack the opt-out (see vt.lihtc.perpetual_affordability_ceiling_credits) - but the policy text does not itself state an allocation-year cutoff for eligibility; eligibility is determined by the property's Housing Subsidy Covenant. The property layer governs.
Whether the $2,500 application fee and 0.25% transfer fee amounts have been revised since the 2020 policy revision could not be verified; no newer fee notice was located.
The three-year tenant protection is the statutory 42(h)(6)(E)(ii) decontrol period; VHFA adds an annual owner certification during those three years, whose form was not located.
The 1998 and 2002 vintage boundaries come from the Year 15 Policy's narrative history; the exact allocation dates at which perpetuity and the no-opt-out rule first bound were not verified against the covenants or QAPs of those years. For any given property the recorded Housing Subsidy Covenant / Extended Use Agreement controls and must be read at onboarding.
Whether Vermont's perpetual covenants are enforceable in perpetuity against successors under Vermont common law limits on restrictive covenants is a legal question the QAP does not address (Vermont's housing subsidy covenant statute, 27 V.S.A. 610, is the usual authority); the statute was not independently verified this pass.
The fact sheet's certificate form lists only the 20-50 and 40-60 minimum set-aside options; how an average-income-test project certifies during the extended use period is not addressed (the AIT postdates most year-15 transitions but not all future ones).
'The Student and Next Available Unit rule will no longer be enforced' is VHFA's election for the extended use period; the Housing Subsidy Covenant for a specific property may nonetheless impose either rule contractually, and the covenant controls. Property layer must check.
Whether the $5/unit/month fee is billed monthly, annually, or on another cycle is not stated.
VHFA's published documents state a notification obligation, not a prior-written-consent requirement, for ownership changes generally - unlike Nebraska ($1,500 fee, prior approval) or Kansas (30-day notice rule). However, the recorded Housing Subsidy Covenant for a given property commonly contains transfer-consent provisions; whether consent is required is a covenant term the property layer must extract. Not generalized from the manual's silence.
No deadline for the event-triggered notification is published ('update VHFA on any material changes'); the certain backstop is the annual certificate. No fee for processing an ownership change is published.
What makes a change 'material' below the level of an ownership transfer (for example a passive investor substitution) is not defined.
Section 5930u contains no recapture provision at all -- a full-text search of the section as served by the codifier on 2026-08-29 found no occurrence of 'recaptur'. Vermont's downtown and historic credits do carry express recapture sections, so the omission looks deliberate rather than accidental, but the corpus does not assert that there is no consequence: enforcement appears to run through the perpetual subsidy covenant instead. Confirm with VHFA before advising on the consequence of noncompliance.
VHFA demotes The Work Number and state benefit databases below third-party verification, which is the reverse of HUD's Table J2 ranking of the same technique. The manual gives no reason and does not mention HOTMA, so it is unclear whether this is a considered Vermont position or simply a 2019 document that predates the reordering.
The manual never addresses tenant-provided source documents - pay stubs, benefit letters, bank statements the applicant brings in. It is not clear whether VHFA would treat them as within its first method, within its second, or not at all. This is the single ordering question HOTMA's Table J2 exists to settle and Vermont's published guidance does not reach it.
'Delayed beyond four weeks' is measured from an unstated event - the date the request was sent, or the date of receipt, or the effective date of the certification. Not guessed.
The manual bars EIV output from the tax credit file but does not say what an owner should do where a single combined file is maintained for a layered Section 8 / LIHTC household, which is common practice. Nor does it say whether an EIV-derived figure may inform a third-party verification request.
'A Subsidized Housing Unit is project based rental assistance ... These federal projects require use of EIV' appears three lines below the bar, without reconciling the two. Whether a project-based Section 8 property must therefore keep EIV out of the tax credit half of the same file is not addressed.
The two sentences state the 120 days from two different anchors - 'from the date of receipt by the owner' and 'more than 120 days old from the effective date of the tenant income certification' - and VHFA does not say which governs where they diverge. A verification received on day one and used on day 119 passes both; one received on day one of a 200-day gap passes neither. Encoded from the effective-date anchor because that is the limb tied to the obligation.
The manual is silent on how early a verification may be obtained before the effective date. Several states cap intake as well as age; Vermont states only the age limit.
VHFA publishes the affidavit but publishes no instruction for using it. The September 2019 manual, which is the current manual, does not mention student financial assistance at all and sends the reader to HUD Handbook 4350.3 Chapter 5 - whose treatment of student assistance was superseded by HOTMA. An owner has the form and no stated rule.
Whether the affidavit is required annually for every student or only at initial certification is not stated on its face or anywhere else; it carries no frequency.
Neither the affidavit nor any VHFA document identifies HOTMA, 24 CFR 5.609(b)(9) or HUD Notice H 2023-10 as the source of the two-bucket structure. The classification of Vermont as having adopted the regime is made from the form's content, not from an attribution.
VHFA PUBLISHES NO FIGURE FOR THE THRESHOLD ITS MANDATORY FORM TURNS ON. The TIC instructions direct the owner to an Asset Self-Certification Worksheet that is not on VHFA's Forms & Documents page and was not located anywhere on vhfa.org on 2026-08-28. Without it an owner cannot complete Part IVA or IVB from Vermont sources alone.
The phrase 'Imputed Income Limitation' is a term of art in section 42(g)(1)(C) for the income designation of a unit in an Average Income Test project, and VHFA's own Average Income Test Policy uses it in exactly that sense. The TIC uses the same phrase for the HOTMA net-family-assets threshold. The two are unrelated quantities and the form does not distinguish them.
No VHFA document states an effective date, a transition rule, or which certifications the 2024 forms apply to. The forms print '(2024)' and no month. Whether a household certified in 2023 under the $5,000 regime must be redetermined is unaddressed.
The word HOTMA, the citation 24 CFR 5.603 or 5.609, and HUD Notice H 2023-10 appear nowhere on the TIC, its five pages of instructions, or the Asset Self-Certification. The identification of the regime is made from its content.
24 CFR 813.102 WAS REMOVED FROM THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS IN 1996. Net family assets have been defined at 24 CFR 5.603 since, and HOTMA rewrote that definition effective 1 January 2024. VHFA's operative asset form therefore defines the term the whole calculation turns on by reference to a part of the CFR that has not existed for thirty years. South Dakota's UNDER $50,000 ASSET CERTIFICATION, revised February 2024, carries the identical citation. Recorded, not corrected.
The manual and the 2024 TIC cannot both be followed. VHFA has published no statement of which governs, no effective date for the 2024 forms, and no withdrawal of the 2019 form. An owner choosing the manual under-verifies a household with $40,000 in assets; an owner choosing the TIC has no published threshold to test against.
'After the initial year of verification of assets' does not say whether the initial year is the move-in year or the first year of the credit period, which differ at an acquisition/rehabilitation property.
The form's text layer does not extract: pdftotext returns a substitution-ciphered stream. The quotes above were taken from a 150 dpi render of the page. Anyone re-verifying this rule must render rather than parse.
VHFA publishes two student forms with overlapping purposes on the same page: the 'Student Status Verification Form' (Student-Self-Certification-Form-FINAL-2024.pdf, which is the tenant self-certification quoted here) and a 'Full-time Student Eligibility Form' (student_self_certification_-_10_2019.pdf). The link labels and the file names are crossed over, and the manual names both as 'helpful tools' without saying which satisfies the Owner's Certificate.
The Student Self-Certification is the tenant's own statement. Neither it nor the manual names the third-party instrument for verifying part-time status with an institution; South Dakota publishes a Student Status Verification form for exactly that and Vermont does not.
The manual's list of exceptions omits the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and names the repealed Job Training Partnership Act, while the 2024 form names WIOA. The form is the later statement of the same exception.
VHFA's determination is a state agency's reading of a federal silence, and it is a reading the IRS has not endorsed. An 8823 examiner is not bound by it. The rule records what Vermont says, which is the whole point of the state layer, and does not assert that the position is correct.
The determination is written for 'a single pregnant woman who is a full-time student'. Whether it extends to a pregnant member of a two-full-time-student unmarried household, or to a household where the pregnant member is not the head, is not addressed.
The manual counts unborn children for the student rule in the same sentence that counts them for household size, but the 2024 Student Self-Certification form has no line for an unborn child and is signed only by members aged 18 or older. The form cannot record the fact the manual makes decisive.
Vermont's list names live-in aides and foster children in the same breath as full-time members, for a purpose it states as 'determining household size and income limits'. Most agencies exclude a live-in aide from the income-limit count on the ground that the aide is not a member of the family. VHFA does not distinguish, and the corpus does not resolve it - but an owner following Vermont's text and an owner following South Dakota's reach different income limits for the same household.
'Live in the unit at least 50 percent of the time' for a joint-custody child is stated without a measurement period or a tie-breaker at exactly 50 percent, and without saying what happens when two LIHTC households in different properties each claim the same child.
The manual gives the counting list under a heading about how many bedrooms a family may need, then states inside it that the same count drives income limits. Whether every item on the list is intended for both purposes, or only the unborn child that carries the parenthetical, is genuinely ambiguous on the page.
The manual says a late certification is 'effective the date the last adult signs' while the TIC instructions say 'Date of tenant signature'. Where adults sign on different days the two phrasings could give different dates. The manual is the more specific and is the one encoded.
The instructions' resyndication row distinguishes grandfathering under 'the existing extended use agreement' from a new move-in, but does not say what happens to a household that was income eligible at the original move-in, is over the limit today, and is in place at the new allocation. The manual's grandfathering sentence suggests it carries; the available unit rule suggests the unit is over-income. Not resolved by either document.
The five-day signature recommendation appears only in the TIC instructions and only for move-in. There is no corresponding guidance for recertification signatures.
The policy limits the election to federal 9% credit awards. Vermont also administers a state Affordable Housing Tax Credit under 32 VSA 5930u and 4% bond credit; the 4% section of the same policy describes how bond deals combine the elections without repeating the 2020 date limit, so whether the date limit reaches 4% deals is unclear on the page.
The frozen-designation rule is stated for 'projects with less than 100% tax credit units'. What VHFA does at a 100 percent project, where recertification is waived and the self-certification is the only income the agency sees, is not stated.
The policy is 'subject to change at the discretion of the Vermont Housing Finance Agency' and carries a revision date rather than an effective date. Its 2/2/2023 revision predates the 2024 forms suite and does not mention it.
The TIC's parenthetical says Average Income properties 'use 60% for all units with income designations that are 60% or lower' while the instructions say 'For units designated at 50 percent or below in Average Income Test developments, use 60% limit'. The two are the same rule stated with different boundaries at exactly 60 percent, where they agree in effect.
Neither document addresses a deep rent skewed Average Income project, which would need both the 170 percent factor and the 60 percent substitution.
The manual's own statement of the available unit rule uses 'the income limit' without qualification, which predates the Average Income Test entirely. Where the manual and the 2024 TIC differ, the TIC is the later and more specific instrument, and it is the one an owner actually fills in.
The manual makes every inter-building transfer a new move-in and never mentions the Form 8609 Part II line 8b multiple-building-project election, which is what most agencies use to decide the question. VHFA's own Average Income Test Policy DOES address line 8b and says the opposite: 'If the owner has elected "yes" to the multiple building project, then tenants may transfer between buildings within the project without having to recertify for the program, as long as the household is not above the 140% limit.' The manual and the policy disagree and neither cites the other.
'A reservation that is binding under local law' is not defined and no Vermont statute is cited. Whether a signed lease with a future start date, a holding deposit, or a housing authority referral qualifies is unstated.
The manual does not say how a unit's status is recorded when two units exchange status on an intra-building transfer, nor which unit's move-in date and income limit follow the household. The 2024 TIC instructions answer part of this and the manual does not acknowledge them.
VHFA states the vacant unit rule project wide and the available unit rule building by building, three paragraphs apart, and does not reconcile them. 26 CFR 1.42-15 applies the available unit rule per building; the vacant unit rule in 1.42-5(c)(1)(ix) speaks of 'any units in the project'. Vermont's split tracks the regulations' own wording, but the manual never says so and an owner reading only one paragraph will apply the wrong scope.
No duration limit is published for how long a low-income unit may stand vacant, and no factors are named for judging 'reasonable attempts'. Vermont gives an owner no bright line and gives a monitor no stated standard.
'A binding legal agreement or a signed lease' takes a unit out of availability, but the manual does not say whether an executed lease that is later cancelled restores the unit's vacancy clock.
The fetched text wraps this clause across lines and the quote reproduces one line of it. The surrounding enumeration of protected classes should be read in the statute itself before relying on the full list.
'Public assistance' is not defined in § 4503. Whether a Housing Choice Voucher is public assistance for this purpose is not answerable from this section alone.
Vermont uses a status construction rather than a source-of-income construction. Whether that changes the analysis where the subsidy is paid to the landlord rather than the tenant is not addressed.

ga Georgia · 83

The manual says a TSP 'may be reviewed by DCA/GHFA when conducting monitoring duties' but does not say whether a missing TSP is itself a citable finding or only an observation, nor which 8823 category it would be reported under.
'If an owner accepts electronic applications, the TSP must be posted on their website' does not say whether a third-party listing portal that collects applications (for example georgiahousingsearch.org, which DCA separately requires properties to be listed on) counts as accepting electronic applications.
The required-topic list says screening criteria must include 'required drug-related or criminal activity criteria' without stating which federal criteria DCA/GHFA treats as mandatory for a LIHTC-only property with no HUD subsidy.
The manual says DCA/GHFA 'does not forbid' conservative methodologies but does not say how it treats a property whose investor-mandated method excludes a household that HUD methodology would qualify -- whether that is a Fair Housing exposure the Agency would note, or simply outside its scope.
'Basic HUD methodology' is not defined by enumeration. The manual gives averaging within a supplied range as the example; whether other common practices (annualising the most recent stub, using a 12-month lookback for a stable salary) fall inside the safe harbour is not stated.
'Reasonable expenses' is not enumerated or costed. Whether an owner must test against a published standard budget, or may use its own, is not stated.
The manual does not say whether an incomplete questionnaire discovered at a monitoring review can be cured by obtaining a complete one after the fact, or whether the unit is out of compliance for the period between certification and cure.
It is not stated whether the questionnaire is required at recertification for a household that has been at zero income for several years, or only at the certification where the condition first appears.
The manual does not state what happens where a household in a dual LIHTC/HOME unit has a qualifying means-tested determination: whether the owner may use the safe harbor for the LIHTC certification and separately verify for HOME, or whether the HOME exclusion defeats the safe harbor for both.
'Other programs administered by the HUD' is listed without enumeration, so whether a state-administered HUD-funded program (for example a state ESG or HOPWA determination) qualifies is unresolved.
The manual does not say whether the safe harbor may be used at a recertification as well as at move-in, though the twelve-month framing implies it can.
The manual requires the PHA determination 'at move-in and recertification' but does not say what an owner must do when the PHA will not supply the 50058 or a signed statement -- whether the ordinary third-party route is then acceptable, or whether the file is simply incomplete.
It is not stated how the requirement interacts with the every-sixth-year full source documentation cycle for HOME: whether the sixth-year certification also runs on the PHA determination or reverts to source documents.
Whether 'gross income' means the PHA's annual income figure before deductions, or before both deductions and any income exclusions the PHA applied, is not spelled out.
The manual does not say whether a TIC signed within the recommended five-day window but effective on a later move-in date that then slips is treated as late, or whether the effective date simply moves with the move-in.
'Completed late' is defined by two anchors -- after occupancy, and after the anniversary -- but the manual does not state whether a TIC signed on the anniversary date itself is timely.
Whether the electronic signature policy (Ch. 2, and the separate March 2021 Electronic Signature Policy) changes the signature-date rule for e-signed TICs is not addressed in this section.
The manual gives the household the choice whether to count a permanently confined member but does not say whether the choice can be revisited at a later recertification, or whether it binds for the tenancy.
Foster children and adults are defined 'as defined by state law' without a citation to the Georgia provision, so the boundary of the exclusion is not resolvable from the manual alone.
Where a joint-custody child is in the unit exactly 50% of the time the manual's example counts the child, but the text says 'at least 50%' in one place and 'less than 50%' for the exclusion, leaving no gap -- but it does not say how the 50% is measured (nights per year, days, or a court order's terms).
The manual says a member addition triggers 'other paperwork required for new move-ins ... including background checks', but does not say whether a failed background check is a ground to refuse the addition or purely a lease matter.
Where the household is entirely recertified after an addition and qualifies, the manual says this 'essentially created a new qualified original household'. It does not say whether that resets the anniversary or the original move-in date used elsewhere (for example for the 120-day recertification window).
For HOME, the manual applies LIHTC rules between certifications and HOME rules at the next annual recertification, but does not address a HOME unit where all original members vacate mid-year.
DCA/GHFA's own two documents state the full-time student definition differently and one month apart. The March 2024 manual says 'all or part of any 5 months out of the calendar year'; the Certification of Student Status form dated 4/15/2024 says 'has been enrolled on a full-time basis for more than four months (need not be consecutive) out of the current calendar year'. The two are not obviously the same test at the boundary -- a student enrolled for parts of exactly five months satisfies the manual but arguably not 'more than four months' read as four full months. DCA should be asked which controls.
The manual's fifth exception requires the training programme administrator to verify a 'mission similar to the one for the former JTPA program (see below)' but the referenced comparison material is a graphic that carries no extractable text, so the mission test itself is not encoded here.
The form's Section One asks whether at least one listed member 'is a part of the original qualifying household', which is a totem-pole question rather than a student question; the manual does not explain what role that answer plays in the student determination.
The memorandum predates the manual by eight years and is still served on DCA's current downloads page. Whether DCA regards it as live guidance or as a historical notice is not stated anywhere on the document or the page.
The manual lists 'a dependent of the household' as a qualifying status and separately requires that a non-independent student not be claimed as a tax dependent by parents outside the household; the interaction where a student is a dependent of the in-unit household AND claimed by an outside parent is not addressed.
The owner must establish 'a policy on how they will consistently address the verification process' for parental income, but the manual does not say whether that policy must be in the Tenant Selection Policy or documented separately.
DCA/GHFA's two documents conflict on rent. The March 2024 manual says the household is treated as over-income and 'the rules relating to income increases will be applied', and separately that parental income enters the adjusted-income calculation for a non-independent student. The still-published HOME Student Form memorandum says at Q4 that rent should NOT be adjusted for a student-rule failure and should be adjusted only where the household's adjusted income actually exceeds 80% AMI. The manual is eight years newer and should control, but DCA has not withdrawn the memorandum and both sit on the same downloads page. Not resolved here.
The manual says the replaced household 'loses the protections of the HOME program, including HOME rent, as allowed by their lease', while the memorandum says the loss occurs 'at the end of their lease'. Which anchor governs a mid-term lease with a rent-change clause is unresolved.
Neither document states whether a student-ineligible HOME household that later becomes eligible again returns to HOME status, or whether the redesignation of the replacement unit is permanent.
The manual prints '$50,000, as adjusted' throughout but publishes no adjusted figure for any year after the start of HOTMA, and gives no Georgia-specific source for the current year's number beyond the HUD notice. No adjusted value is recorded here.
Step 5 says to subtract 'any tax return or refundable tax credit the household received in the past 12 months' from the asset total, but the worked example subtracts a refund received eleven months earlier from net family assets before testing the threshold, while the HOTMA exclusion is normally framed as a twelve-month exclusion from assets rather than a subtraction at the threshold test. Which framing DCA intends is not stated.
The manual does not say what to do where the passbook rate published in the HUD notice before 1 September changes between a certification's effective date and the date the file is reviewed.
The manual says to prorate 'according to the percentage of ownership by household members if this can be documented' but does not say what documentation suffices -- whether the three HUD indicia (contribution, interest receipt, tax payment) are alternatives or cumulative, and whether a title showing tenants in common settles it.
The $1,000 threshold is attributed to 'HUD rules', but HOTMA's treatment of disposed-of assets is not stated by the manual to have changed it, and North Carolina's HOTMA guidance says the threshold is removed. Whether Georgia's retention is a considered position or a carry-over from the pre-HOTMA text is unresolved.
For the imputed income on a disposed asset the worked example prorates by month within the certification year; the manual does not say whether the same proration applies where the asset was disposed of mid-month.
The manual does not define 'comparable', leaving open whether comparability is by bedroom count, square footage, or both, which decides how many market units must be rented when an over-income unit is larger.
'A legally binding agreement is in place' is not defined -- whether a signed lease is required, or a signed application with a paid holding deposit suffices, is not stated.
For 100% LIHTC properties the manual conditions the single-unit consequence on 'a reasonable measure of due diligence' without describing what evidence of due diligence DCA/GHFA expects to see.
DCA says 'most' HOME projects run 20 years and does not say what determines the length for the rest, beyond restating the federal factors (type of project and amount of HOME investment). Whether Georgia ever uses the 5, 10 or 15-year tiers at 24 CFR 92.252(e) is not stated. Resolve against the recorded HOME LURA.
The manual does not state what event starts the Georgia HOME affordability period. Chapter 7 says the affordability period 'starts on a specific date as defined in the HOME regulations and documented in the IDIS system', which points outward to a HUD database rather than naming an event. That is a weaker anchor than Alabama's loan closing or North Carolina's permanent-loan conversion, and it means the full-verification years cannot be computed from the manual alone.
The manual is the March 2024 Edition and no 2025 or 2026 edition exists, so nothing in it reflects the 2025 HOME Final Rule. Whether DCA has changed its affordability-period practice since is unknown; the source record already flags that a 2016 edition still resolves at a DCA URL and is orphaned from current pages, so a version check is essential before relying on any stored copy.
DCA does not say whether the 120-day notice and the penalty-free termination right attach to an increase driven purely by a fall in the utility allowance, where net tenant rent rises but gross rent does not. The threshold is written against net tenant rent, which suggests it does, but the manual does not address it.
The manual does not define 'certification period' for the one-increase-per-period limit. At a HOME unit certified annually the period is presumably the year between certification effective dates, but at a Georgia HOME project on the every-sixth-year full-verification cycle the phrase is genuinely ambiguous. Not inferred.
DCA requires its own resident notice form to be used but the form itself was not located or read this pass; the manual says only that it is available on the Agency website. Whether the form requires the new rent amount, the utility allowance and the termination instructions to be disclosed is unresolved.
DCA says the affordability period 'starts on a specific date as defined in the HOME regulations and documented in the IDIS system'. IDIS is a HUD database the owner does not administer, so the year of the cycle for a specific Georgia project cannot be computed from the manual or from the owner's own records. Which IDIS date DCA uses -- project completion, the date of the last HOME draw, or another -- is not stated and was not resolved.
The manual does not state the currency window for a third-party verification at a Georgia HOME certification, only the 120-day process window. The Georgia coverage index records that the Housing Credit side's verification currency and pay stub questions were closed by reading the manual, but those answers sit in the LIHTC verification chapter and the manual does not say they apply to the HOME determination.
DCA says an owner 'should' switch to source documents where a household self-certifies over the 80 percent limit at a HOME-only property and adjusted-income rent must be calculated. Whether that is a requirement or a recommendation, and what happens if the owner calculates adjusted-income rent from a self-certification, is not stated.
DCA's HOME Lease Addendum form itself was not located or read this pass; the manual describes it and requires its verbiage without reproducing it. Its content, its form number and whether it has been revised since the March 2024 manual are unresolved. The manual's Chapter 2 'Compliance Forms' section directs owners to the DCA/GHFA website for current forms.
The manual requires the addendum's verbiage to be 'part of all lease HOME agreements' AND the signed addendum to be attached to the lease. Whether reproducing the language inside the lease without attaching a separately signed addendum satisfies DCA, or vice versa, is not stated; the safe reading is that both are required and that is how the rule is encoded.
The corpus has no evidence_type for a state HOME lease addendum, so ev.lease_addendum_s8 is used as the nearest fit. A dedicated ev.home_lease_addendum type would serve this rule and the Ohio PC-E54 rule; creating evidence types is outside this pass.
This rule is stale against federal law and is encoded as published rather than updated. The March 2024 manual predates the 2025 HOME Final Rule, and OHFA's September 2025 policy matrix records that the 2025 rule permits owners to use the PHA-established utility allowance for HOME units, reversing the 2013 prohibition Georgia states here. DCA has published no 2025 or 2026 edition. Whether Georgia now permits the PHA allowance -- and therefore its own published schedule -- at post-2013 HOME projects is genuinely unresolved and must be confirmed with DCA before an owner relies on either position.
DCA says residents 'have the right to question the requested change in utility allowance methodology during this 90-day time frame' but does not say what a question obliges the owner or DCA to do, whether it pauses the change, or how it is answered. The right is stated without a procedure.
The manual does not say whether the 90-day resident notice period may run concurrently with DCA's 15-business-day review, or whether the notice may only be given after approval. Running them concurrently risks noticing a methodology DCA rejects.
DCA does not define 'comparably sized' for the floating-transfer test beyond the bedroom-count implication of its worked examples, and does not say whether comparability turns on bedroom count alone or also on square footage, amenities or accessibility features. The Georgia Housing Credit overlay carries unit transfer rules that were closed by an earlier pass; whether the same comparability definition governs HOME is not stated.
The assumption that units are Fixed if the LURA and QAP are silent is stated without saying whether it can be rebutted -- for example by the HOME written agreement, by IDIS, or by DCA's own project file. It is encoded as a default rather than as a conclusive presumption, and the distinction was not resolved.
DCA does not address what happens to a fixed HOME designation when the unit is taken out of service by casualty or extended repair, which is exactly the case in which 'never change for any reason' is hardest to apply. Chapter 9 covers casualty loss for the Housing Credit program only.
The 45-day correction period is stated in Chapter 9, which opens on the Housing Credit noncompliance process, and DCA does not say in terms that the same period governs a HOME finding; the HOME Penalties section that follows describes corrective actions without restating a period. It is encoded as governing HOME because the section is written generically ('the results of a compliance review') and Chapter 9 covers both programs, but the point should be confirmed with DCA for a HOME-only project.
DCA does not state what the correction period is for an accessibility finding at a HOME property. The manual says separately that undisputed, unresolved accessibility findings at a property with HOME funds 'will result in the audit remaining open until sufficient documentation has been received to close the accessibility finding', which is an open-ended regime rather than a 45-day one, and the two are not reconciled.
Whether repayment of HOME funds is preceded by its own notice and cure opportunity, or follows directly from HUD CPD's demand on DCA, is not stated. The owner's exposure runs through DCA rather than directly to HUD, and the manual does not describe the process by which DCA passes it on.
DCA does not define 'higher-risk projects' for the accelerated cadence, does not say what triggers the designation, and does not say what the accelerated interval becomes. The reserved right to adjust any project's schedule 'for any reason' sits alongside it and is equally unquantified.
The HOME Asset Management Fee is described only as something newer HOME properties 'may' be charged as part of underwriting. No schedule, no rate and no definition of 'newer' is published; src.ga.dca_fees carries the Office of Portfolio Management fee table, which was not read this pass and may or may not include it. The per-unit re-inspection fee is likewise referred to the Agency website.
The manual does not state a correction window for physical findings at a HOME property. The general 45-day correction period is encoded separately on ga.home.monitoring_review.forty_five_day_correction_period; whether it governs a NSPIRE life-threatening deficiency, and how it interacts with the open-ended accessibility regime described in the same chapter, is unresolved.
DCA says 'HOME has similar requirements throughout the HOME affordability period' without saying whether the HOME certification is the same form on the same March 1 deadline or a separate submission. The Housing Credit certification is described in detail and the HOME one by analogy. Whether a HOME-only Georgia project files the same AOC in Emphasys is unresolved.
The audited financial statement deadlines for DCA/GHFA HOME loans are set 'by predetermined submitted deadlines' in the loan documents, which the manual does not publish. No figure is encoded for them; the loan documents are the source and were not available this pass.
DCA does not describe a late-filing fee, a grace period, or a cure route for a missed AOC, and does not say whether the 45-day correction period in Chapter 9 attaches to it. Given that DCA calls a late filing a federal finding, the cure route is the question that matters most and the manual does not answer it.
The manual's sentence describing the consequence is truncated in the published PDF at a column break -- it reads 'will trigger state noncompliance and possible' and the continuation was not recoverable from the extracted text. What else is 'possible' beyond state noncompliance is therefore unknown and is not guessed at.
DCA does not say whether the quarterly update obligation runs on calendar quarters or on quarters measured from the initial listing date, nor what evidence of a quarterly update DCA expects to see at a file review beyond the suggestion that owners send a link.
The requirement is written for 'all DCA/GHFA properties' rather than for HOME properties specifically, so it is encoded under program_id home because it binds HOME projects, not because it is HOME-specific. The identical obligation will need encoding again for the Georgia Housing Credit overlay. Whether a HOME-only property with no Housing Credit allocation is within DCA's phrase 'DCA/GHFA-funded properties' is not spelled out, though the plain reading is that it is.
The statutory text behind this rule was read from a secondary publisher's capture marked "Current as of March 28, 2024", because Georgia's official code is LexisNexis-only and served no text to any fetch attempted this session. HB 1199 (2026) amended O.C.G.A. 48-7-29.6 to cap aggregate awards at $100 million per year for taxable years 2026 through 2028 -- DCA says so in its own QAP amendment memorandum -- and the enrolled text of that act was NOT located. The provisions cited here are definitional and procedural and are not the ones HB 1199 is described as changing, but they have not been verified against post-2024 official text. Verify against the official code before relying on the exact words.
The victim bears the cost of a transfer they need in order to be safe. DCA states it flatly and does not address a household that cannot afford to move, nor whether any programme funds may be used, which is the question that decides whether the protection is real for a low-income tenant.
The victim chooses where they will feel safest, including leaving the property altogether. What the owner owes a victim who chooses to leave -- release from the lease, return of a deposit, a transfer of any assistance -- is not stated.
The line between a victim's 'own lease violations' and conduct that directly resulted from the abuse is exactly where HUD's 2016 rule places the protection -- a poor rental history or criminal record flowing from the violence cannot be held against the victim. DCA states the limit without restating that qualification alongside it, and the two together are what an owner needs to decide a real case.
'A reasonable time' for a remaining household to find other housing is not quantified.
DCA is explicit that this is a state requirement rather than a federal one, which matters for an owner reasoning from the Code: nothing in Section 42 produces this obligation and it binds in Georgia anyway. It also means the requirement can move with state policy without any federal change.
The plan is due before the 8609 issues -- before the property is placed in service and leased -- so the outreach relationships it describes are prospective at the moment they are committed to. The manual does not say how the first five-year resubmission tests them.
Quote verification note, 2026-09-07: this rule's quote does not match a pdftotext extraction of the March 2024 manual, and the text IS in the document. Two causes were identified and neither is a corpus defect. Ligature loss: the PDF drops a handful of ti and tt ligatures, so 'divorce, or separation settlements' extracts as 'divorce, or separa on se lements'. And table flattening: a quote drawn from a table reads across rows and columns, which no linear extraction reproduces. Do NOT 'correct' the quote to match the broken extraction -- verify against the PDF as rendered.
The exemptions at § 8-3-202(b) and (d) and at § 8-3-205 were not read in this pass.
Atlanta and other Georgia municipalities have considered source-of-income ordinances; those are local law this corpus does not yet hold.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

nj New Jersey · 80

NJHMFA's manual states that certifications 'should not be more than 120 days old' without identifying the reference date the age is measured against - signature to effective date, effective date to the date of review, or execution to move-in - and the corpus does not guess among them. The 120-day figure is therefore recorded as a parameter but NOT asserted by any test on this rule, because each candidate reading produces a different finding on the same file: an annual TIC is by definition more than 120 days old before its successor is due, so a literal reading of the sentence would place every compliant recertifying file out of compliance for two-thirds of the year. What would make it evaluable is an NJHMFA statement fixing the reference date, or its own review practice showing which document date it measures from. The rule's separate scope ambiguity - whether the sentence reaches annual recertifications as well as the initial certification, which its placement in the Tenant Income Certification step of Chapter 4 suggests but does not say - compounds this and is recorded in the rule's notes.
The NJHMFA manual, as read for this rule, does not record which alternative under 26 CFR 1.42-5(d)(2) NJHMFA has elected -- local codes or other habitability standards, or the HUD standards at 24 CFR 5.703 (now NSPIRE). No NJHMFA document in this corpus names UPCS or NSPIRE. Not guessed.
'One-third requirement' is the manual's own term and is not defined numerically beyond the notice provision; the manual does not restate what percentage of units or files is reviewed during the initial compliance period.
As with the initial-period monitoring rule, no NJHMFA document in this corpus records which alternative under 26 CFR 1.42-5(d)(2) applies to these extended-use-period inspections. The 10% sample and five-year cycle are published; the physical standard the units are inspected against is not, and is not guessed.
Chapter 3 cites 'IRS Regulation 1.42-5(b)(vii)'; the actual paragraph is 26 C.F.R. 1.42-5(b)(1)(vii). A typographical slip in the manual, not a substantive one, but it is what the document says.
NJHMFA's compliance page now labels the manual download 'Under Revision'. Whether the revision will replace this deferral with a published state methodology, and on what date, is not stated anywhere on the page.
The manual gives no citation for the exclusion (no reference to 26 U.S.C. 529A, to HUD's 2019 ABLE notice, or to an IRS ruling), so the authority NJHMFA is relying on is not recoverable from the document.
The manual does not say whether the exclusion depends on the designated beneficiary being a member of the household, which is the condition HUD's Section 8 guidance attaches. Encoded without the condition because NJHMFA states it without one.
The bulletin says 'should not be counted', not 'must not be counted'. Whether NJHMFA treats counting such income anyway as a finding, or merely as a discouraged practice, is not stated; the encoded obligation follows the bulletin's own verb.
The bulletin does not say from what date the three months are measured -- the certification effective date, the date the verification was obtained, or the date of application -- nor how a household with irregular but non-zero receipt inside the window is handled.
It also does not address the converse case the federal handbook covers: support that is court-ordered and being received sporadically, where HUD 4350.3 would look to amounts actually received rather than to a bright-line lookback.
The bulletin does not define what it means by 'Safe Harbor Method' -- HOTMA and HUD Notice H 2023-10 use the term for accepting income determinations from other means-tested federal programmes, which is the reading applied here, but NJHMFA does not say so.
It also does not say whether the non-adoption is permanent or an implementation-phase decision that may change when the manual revision lands.
The manual directs owners to '24 CFR 813.102' for the Net Family Assets definition. That part no longer exists; HUD recodified the definition at 24 CFR 5.603. NJHMFA has not updated the citation. Which text an auditor would actually apply -- the repealed 813.102 language or current 5.603 -- is unresolved and should be put to NJHMFA's compliance staff.
The window is closed at 2025-12-31 because the bulletin ties the replacement to the HOTMA implementation date of 1 January 2026. The bulletin also says that a property which implemented early will be audited under HOTMA from that point, so for an early implementer this rule stopped governing before 2026-01-01 -- a date the corpus cannot know per-property. Treat the window as the default, overridable by evidence of early implementation.
Exhibit C10 carries a form date of 2019 while the manual is a July 2024 revision, so the form predates the edition that transmits it.
NJHMFA publishes no dollar threshold for the Asset Self-Certification. Whether it intends the household's imputed income limitation under the project's set-aside election, or HUD's indexed $52,787 net-family-asset threshold, or something else, is genuinely unresolved and is the highest-value question to put to NJHMFA's Tax Credit Compliance staff.
The bulletin's third-year relief is written as a consequence of the 100%-project self-certification regime ('since owners of 100% LIHTC projects are permitted...'). Whether it reaches a mixed-use project in the extended use period, where self-certification is also the annual document, is not addressed.
A separate search result asserted that HUD extended the HOTMA compliance date again, from 1 January 2026 to 1 January 2027, in late December 2025. That was not verified against any primary HUD document in this pass, and NJHMFA's own current guidance still states 1 January 2026. If the extension is real it postdates this bulletin by days and would make even the bulletin stale -- check HUD's notice series before relying on the date.
NJHMFA also serves an Asset Self-Certification Worksheet and an unlinked alternate Tenant Income Certification (TenantIncomeCertification_HOTMA.pdf) that is not referenced from the compliance page. Neither was read for this pass.
The bulletin says 'should be third party verified', not 'must'. The manual's own language for the same obligation is 'is required to verify', so the encoded obligation follows the manual; whether NJHMFA intends the bulletin's softer verb to relax the manual is not stated.
The bulletin does not say what satisfies the requirement where a household member has been employed for less than two pay periods, which is the common short-tenure case other agencies address explicitly.
'Social Security Retirement income, etc.' is not defined. Whether SSI, SSDI and pension income fall inside the 'etc.' is unresolved.
The bulletin scopes the obligation to 'the Initial Compliance period'. What replaces it in the extended use period at a mixed-use project is not stated here; the manual's extended-use chapter provides a self-certification for all projects, which appears to conflict, and the conflict is not resolved by either document.
'Mixed use' is used in the bulletin to mean a project with both LIHTC and non-LIHTC residential units. It is not defined in the bulletin and the term is used elsewhere in the industry for residential-plus-commercial projects; the reading here follows the LIHTC sense because the sentence is about recertifying LIHTC units against market units.
The manual's filing instruction uses 'should', while the bulletin's verification prohibition uses 'cannot'. Whether a physically merged file is a finding in its own right, or only evidence toward one, is not stated.
Neither document says what an owner should do where the only available third-party verification for a household is one the HUD side obtained through EIV -- for example a Social Security amount confirmed only through the EIV report.
The manual does not say whether the extended-use waiver means NJHMFA will not ask for the document during a file audit, or that the owner need not determine student status at all. The former reading is the conservative one and is what the rule's notes state; the document supports neither exclusively.
The current self-certification form on NJHMFA's compliance page carries no revision date on its face, so it cannot be tied to a specific manual edition. It differs from the Exhibit C13 form printed inside the July 2024 manual (which cites the Job Training Partnership Act rather than WIOA and omits online schools), which means the manual's own exhibit is behind the form the agency currently serves.
The manual does not state what happens to an addition made in the first year at a property that has adopted the average income set-aside, where the applicable limit is the unit's designated imputed income limitation rather than a single project-wide limit.
'First year of occupancy' is not defined as the household's first year or the building's first credit year. The 8823 Guide passage it cites is about the household, which is the reading applied here.
MITAS is NJHMFA's tenant-data system. The manual does not say whether the mailed certification is a substitute for, or in addition to, the ordinary annual MITAS tenant-data submission.
The manual says the recertification 'should' be completed each year, and does not say what NJHMFA does where an owner stops recertifying an ineligible household. Whether the missing years are themselves separate findings is not stated.
It does not address the interaction with the available unit rule: while the unit is not credit-eligible the applicable fraction is reduced, and whether the owner must also rent the next available comparable unit to a qualified household to restore it is not discussed in this passage.
Nor does it say whether the Initial Certification's effective date is the date the household's income fell below the limit or the date the certification is executed.
The manual does not say what happens where an existing household is found not income qualified within the 120-day window -- whether the unit is simply not credit-eligible from acquisition, or whether the ineligible-household path in Chapter 4 item 6 applies.
It does not reconcile the two branches' limit bases where an owner certifies some households before and some after the acquisition date, which would put two different limit vintages in the same building's first-year file set.
The 'SAFE HARBOR' heading in this passage refers to acquisition-date qualification, not to the HOTMA safe harbor NJHMFA declined in its December 2025 bulletin. The two are unrelated and the shared word is a genuine hazard when searching the manual.
The manual does not name the Supreme Court of New Jersey decision it relies on, so the holding's scope -- whether it reaches every municipal preference or only preferences in particular programme contexts -- cannot be verified from the document.
It says HUD's mandatory federal preferences 'must be considered' before a regional preference without saying what consideration means operationally, or which federal preferences it has in mind for a project with no HUD contract.
COAH -- the Council on Affordable Housing -- was restructured by P.L. 2024, c.2, and the manual predates that. Whether 'COAH-designated housing region' still names a live geography under the current Fair Housing Act framework is not addressed.
The manual does not state the process, the form, or the turnaround for obtaining 'express Agency approval' of a designation change, nor whether approval can be sought retroactively after a unit has been rented.
It does not say whether the fixed-designation rule survives into the extended use period. It is stated as fixed 'for the initial compliance period', which implies designations may move afterwards, but the extended-use chapter is silent.
The federally-permitted-change carve-out lists four statutes as examples ('This may include'), so the list is open. What else NJHMFA would accept is not stated.
NJHMFA's published UHAC regional income limit table (linked from the Agency's regulations page as UHAC_Income Limits.pdf) was not fetched in this pass, so the corpus holds the derivation method but no year's actual figures and no limit_table_id is bound.
26.3(b)1 says to use 'the Decennial Census's estimated number of households' as the weight but does not say which decennial census, nor when the weights are refreshed. The regulation is silent; do not assume the most recent one.
UHAC pins 24 CFR 5.609 to its 20 December 2024 text but pins net family assets at 5:80-26.17(b)3 to 24 CFR 5.603(b) 'as it may be updated from time to time'. Two cross-references in the same paragraph, one frozen and one live. Whether that asymmetry is deliberate is not stated anywhere in the rule or in the adoption notice's responses to comments as read in this pass.
The rule cites 'Chapter 5 of HUD Handbook 4350.3' without an edition or change number, and 26.17(d) cites 'Appendix 3 of HUD Handbook 4350.3 REV-1'. Which change to REV-1 governs is not stated.
The Census SIPP 'State-Level Wealth, Asset Ownership & Debt of Households' table is released on its own schedule and UHAC does not say which release year's figure governs a given certification date, nor who publishes the operative dollar amount to administrative agents. The Census table itself was not fetched in this pass, so the corpus holds no value for the net asset limit.
UHAC imposes no annual income recertification on restricted rental households, and no provision was found stating what happens if a household's income rises above its tier DURING the control period. The only over-income mechanic located is 26.12(c)2, which operates after the control period has ended. Whether a mid-control-period over-income household is addressed elsewhere -- in N.J.A.C. 5:99, in the Appendix E deed restriction form, or in a municipal ordinance -- was not established; the Appendix E form was not fetched in this pass.
Whether a municipality's failure to designate an administrative agent has any consequence separate from the general enforcement provisions at 26.19 and N.J.A.C. 5:99-5.6 was not established. 26.15 states the duty without naming a sanction.
N.J.A.C. 5:99-7.3 makes the designation 'subject to review and approval by the Division', and 5:99-7.5 and 5:99-9 impose education requirements, but the Division's published list of approved administrative agents (if one exists) was not located in this pass, so the corpus cannot resolve whether a named agent is in fact approved.
N.J.A.C. 5:99 was read for subchapters 5 (monitoring), 6 (municipal housing liaison), 7 (administrative agent) and the definitions; subchapters 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 were skimmed only. Additional reporting or monitoring obligations may sit in the unread portions.
No source was located describing the Affordable Housing Monitoring System (AHMS) itself -- what it collects field by field, who has access, or where its output is published beyond the annual municipal status report the Division must post under 5:99-5.3(c).
N.J.S.A. 52:27D-320 itself was not obtained. law.justia.com is Cloudflare-walled, casetext answered HTTP 410, and lis.njleg.state.nj.us serves the statutes through a legacy Folio gateway. The citation above is quoted from UHAC's own definition of AHTF, not from the statute.
N.J.A.C. 5:43, the DCA chapter UHAC names alongside the statute as establishing the AHTF, was not fetched. It is where DCA's own AHTF programme rules -- as distinct from HMFA's affordability controls -- would be, and is the obvious next document for this state.
UHAC was rewritten by special amendment R.2025 d.019 effective 20 December 2024 and readopted with non-substantial changes by R.2025 d.151 effective 6 November 2025, and the sections were RENUMBERED in the process. Any citation to a pre-2024 UHAC section number points at different text. The 2004 edition is still served at nj.gov/dca/divisions/lps/hss/admin_files/uhac/uhac.pdf and is what a web search returns first.
UHAC does not state an annual recertification requirement for tenants of restricted rental units. The word 'recertification' does not appear in the November 2025 compilation. What UHAC provides instead is a control-period tail at 5:80-26.12(c): after the control period ends, controls persist until the household vacates or its income is found to exceed 80 percent of regional median. Whether income is re-examined during the control period, and by whom, is not stated in UHAC and would have to come from the AHTF grant agreement or the administrative agent's operating manual.
The net asset limit is a published Census figure that changes annually and is not reproduced in UHAC. It is not bound to a limit table in this corpus.
UHAC was rewritten by special amendment R.2025 d.019 effective 20 December 2024 and readopted with non-substantial changes by R.2025 d.151 effective 6 November 2025, and the sections were RENUMBERED in the process. Any citation to a pre-2024 UHAC section number points at different text. The 2004 edition is still served at nj.gov/dca/divisions/lps/hss/admin_files/uhac/uhac.pdf and is what a web search returns first.
UHAC's rent sections say nothing about utility allowances for restricted rental units. Whether the 30-percent computation is a gross rent inclusive of tenant-paid utilities, and if so how the allowance is set, is not stated in the November 2025 compilation.
UHAC was rewritten by special amendment R.2025 d.019 effective 20 December 2024 and readopted with non-substantial changes by R.2025 d.151 effective 6 November 2025, and the sections were RENUMBERED in the process. Any citation to a pre-2024 UHAC section number points at different text. The 2004 edition is still served at nj.gov/dca/divisions/lps/hss/admin_files/uhac/uhac.pdf and is what a web search returns first.
TWO PUBLISHED FIGURES CONFLICT AND ARE BOTH RECORDED. UHAC 5:80-26.12(a)1 sets 40 years for a rental unit created on or after 20 December 2024. DCA's FY2026 AHTF RFP Guide, released 5 September 2025, scores projects with 'affordability controls longer than the 20-year requirement of AHTF'. Nothing fetched reconciles them; the likeliest explanations are that the RFP text predates the December 2024 UHAC rewrite or that AHTF's own rules at N.J.A.C. 5:43 state a separate minimum, and neither was verified.
UHAC was rewritten by special amendment R.2025 d.019 effective 20 December 2024 and readopted with non-substantial changes by R.2025 d.151 effective 6 November 2025, and the sections were RENUMBERED in the process. Any citation to a pre-2024 UHAC section number points at different text. The 2004 edition is still served at nj.gov/dca/divisions/lps/hss/admin_files/uhac/uhac.pdf and is what a web search returns first.
UHAC states no ongoing recertification cycle for tenants of restricted rental units; the word does not appear in the November 2025 compilation. Any annual income review on an AHTF property therefore comes from the grant agreement or the administrative agent's operating manual under N.J.A.C. 5:99-7.2, neither of which was fetched.
N.J.A.C. 5:99-7, which UHAC repeatedly incorporates for the administrative agent's practices, procedures and operating manual, was not fetched and is the other obvious next document for New Jersey.
UHAC was rewritten by special amendment R.2025 d.019 effective 20 December 2024 and readopted with non-substantial changes by R.2025 d.151 effective 6 November 2025, and the sections were RENUMBERED in the process. Any citation to a pre-2024 UHAC section number points at different text. The 2004 edition is still served at nj.gov/dca/divisions/lps/hss/admin_files/uhac/uhac.pdf and is what a web search returns first.
UHAC sets no date for the annual tenant mailing or the annual lease submission. 'Annual' is the only timing stated, so the anchor is presumably the administrative agent's own calendar under its operating manual.
The municipality, not the owner, reports to DCA's Division of Local Planning Services: 5:80-26.19(c)6 and 7 require the municipal housing liaison to maintain a list of all affordable units including deed restriction expiration dates and income limits, and to report it to the Division each year. That is a municipal obligation and is not modelled as a property-level rule here.
UHAC was rewritten by special amendment R.2025 d.019 effective 20 December 2024 and readopted with non-substantial changes by R.2025 d.151 effective 6 November 2025, and the sections were RENUMBERED in the process. Any citation to a pre-2024 UHAC section number points at different text. The 2004 edition is still served at nj.gov/dca/divisions/lps/hss/admin_files/uhac/uhac.pdf and is what a web search returns first.
UHAC prescribes no routine monitoring inspection of restricted rental units -- no cycle, no sample, no physical standard. Enforcement is complaint- and report-driven through the administrative agent and the municipal housing liaison. Whether DCA monitors AHTF-funded properties separately under its grant agreement was not established.
How the control-period extension is computed and recorded -- whether an amended deed restriction is required, and who determines the length of the noncompliance -- is not stated.
UHAC was rewritten by special amendment R.2025 d.019 effective 20 December 2024 and readopted with non-substantial changes by R.2025 d.151 effective 6 November 2025, and the sections were RENUMBERED in the process. Any citation to a pre-2024 UHAC section number points at different text. The 2004 edition is still served at nj.gov/dca/divisions/lps/hss/admin_files/uhac/uhac.pdf and is what a web search returns first.
Appendix E addresses sale, foreclosure and bankruptcy. It does not address REFINANCING of a rental project, and UHAC's indebtedness limits at 5:80-26.9 are captioned for ownership units. Whether a rental owner needs the administrative agent's consent to refinance is not established from the documents fetched.
The AHTF grant agreement itself will carry DCA's own recapture and repayment terms on a sale, and no template grant agreement is published on the DCA AHTF page.
UHAC was rewritten by special amendment R.2025 d.019 effective 20 December 2024 and readopted with non-substantial changes by R.2025 d.151 effective 6 November 2025, and the sections were RENUMBERED in the process. Any citation to a pre-2024 UHAC section number points at different text. The 2004 edition is still served at nj.gov/dca/divisions/lps/hss/admin_files/uhac/uhac.pdf and is what a web search returns first.
'Source of lawful income used for rental or mortgage payments' ties the class to the use of the money. Whether a subsidy paid directly to the landlord rather than to the tenant is income 'used for rental payments' by that tenant is not resolved in the text.
New Jersey's LIHTC manual and its Uniform Housing Affordability Controls, both in this corpus, do not name the LAD's source-of-income class. An operator reading only the programme documents would not learn that a voucher refusal is unlawful in New Jersey.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

de Delaware · 80

Whether the one-time 30-day warning notice is one-time per property per year or one-time over the property's life is not stated; the manual's phrasing ('only a one-time notice will be issued') and the example both leave it ambiguous. Not guessed.
The QAP directs the certification to a named DSHA staff member by mail while the manual's MITAS chapter describes electronic reporting; whether a paper filing is still literally required alongside MITAS data entry was not confirmed.
The February 2024 manual predates HOTMA implementation and contains no HOTMA guidance; no separate DSHA HOTMA notice for LIHTC properties was located on 2026-08-25. Recorded as an absence.
No published deadline (day of month) for the monthly MITAS submission was located, and no stated consequence specific to a missed month short of the annual-certification machinery. Not guessed.
Whether DSHA treats a property's failure to keep MITAS current as reportable noncompliance by itself, or only as an inadequate annual report, is not stated in either document.
The February 2024 manual still prices the one-time fee at $500 per unit; the 2025-2026 QAP prices it at $750 ($1,000 with income averaging). The QAP is later and is where DSHA publishes fees, so $750/$1,000 is encoded and the manual's $500 is treated as superseded - but the manual has not been corrected, and which figure DSHA actually invoices for a 2024-vintage allocation was not confirmed.
Whether post-1996, pre-year-16 properties owe ANY annual monitoring fee is answered only by negative implication (the $15 annual fee is stated for 1990-1996 allocations and for the extended use period); the one-time upfront fee appears to cover years 1-15 for post-1996 allocations. Not stated in so many words.
No late-fee amount or interest rate for an unpaid monitoring fee is published; the stated consequence is the January 15 warning-notice-then-8823 machinery shared with the annual certification.
The manual (45 days, six-month ceiling) and the QAP (60 days, open-ended written extension) are both current and disagree on the initial correction period. Both fit inside the 1.42-5(e)(4) envelope. The manual's 45 is encoded as the operative monitoring-procedure figure because the manual is the document the monitoring contractor follows; the QAP's 60 is carried here and should be confirmed with DSHA before relying on either.
Whether the six-month ceiling runs from the notification date or from the end of the initial 45 days is not stated; the manual says 'extended up to a total of 6 months', which reads as a ceiling on the whole period.
The QAP says Spectrum Enterprises is contracted 'for the next two-year period' without dating the period; which entity issues the notice (DSHA or Spectrum) and whether that affects the notification date was not stated.
The manual says 'lessor [lesser] of the HUD Sample Size Chart or 20%' for the annual review while the QAP says 'at least twenty percent (20%) of all LIHTC developments' - a lesser-of versus at-least framing on the same 20%. Encoded as 20% with the HUD sample chart alternative noted; not reconciled.
The manual's example 6 still labels the smoke-detector finding a 'UPCS violation' inside a chapter that otherwise adopts NSPIRE - residue of the pre-2023 standard. The same-working-day cure is stated regardless.
No advance-notice period from DSHA/Spectrum to the OWNER for an inspection is published (the 2-day figure is the tenant-notice minimum under the Delaware Landlord Tenant Code). Contrast RIHousing's published 15 days. Not guessed.
The manual states DSHA 'will now be conducting 100% file reviews' of initial certifications at 100% properties, without saying whether that is a standing practice or an initial-review-only intensity. Not guessed.
Which signatures the Annual Self-Certification requires (all adults vs head of household) is specified on the form (Appendix E / the Annual Tenant Income Self-Certification posted on DSHA's LIHTC page), which was not parsed for this record; the manual text does not say.
The trigger for resuming full recertification is 'insufficient documentation ... or it is determined for any reason that one or more households do not qualify', at DSHA's discretion; no threshold count of failed files is published.
DSHA publishes no standalone utility allowance policy document and no agency-estimate schedule of its own on the LIHTC page (the 'Allowance for Tenant-Furnished Utilities' posting is the blank HUD-52667-style form); whether DSHA offers an agency estimate as a method, as RIHousing does, is not stated in the manual. Recorded as an absence.
The manual's list of engineering-firm data requirements is stated for 'existing properties'; what an ECM for a new-construction property must contain beyond the 1.42-10 baseline is not specified.
No processing time for DSHA's annual approval is published, which matters because rents cannot move until it is received.
No advance-notice period and no transfer fee are published - the regime is notice-plus-documentation, not priced prior consent. Contrast Nebraska ($1,500 fee, prior written approval) and Kansas (30-day notice). Not guessed.
Whether DSHA's 'recognition' gate can block a closing, or only shifts compliance liability, is not stated; the operative text allocates responsibility rather than requiring consent.
The manual's list still includes the 'low income housing tax credit disposition bond' even though the same section notes that after the 2008 amendment of 42(j)(6) owners are no longer required to post one - the package list was not updated. Which items DSHA actually insists on today was not confirmed.
The Post-15 procedures (2010 text, reproduced unchanged in the 2024 manual) hold extended-use units to UPCS (item 8) while the same manual's compliance-period chapter elects NSPIRE. Both are current DSHA text; the conflict is carried here, not resolved. HUD retired UPCS scoring for its own programs in 2023-2025.
'Good standing ... within three years of the end of the compliance period' is the eligibility gate, but what happens to a property that fails it - presumably full compliance-period-style monitoring continues - is not spelled out.
Whether the 5-year cycle's 'minimum of 5 units or 10%' means the greater or lesser of the two is not stated (read here as whichever is greater, the conservative reading, but not confirmed).
The waiver is verified for applications under the 2025-2026 QAP only. Which earlier QAP first introduced it - and therefore which allocation vintages in the existing Delaware portfolio carry a recorded waiver versus a live qualified contract right - was not established. A buyer must read the property's own recorded Declaration; this rule cannot answer for pre-2025 allocations.
Whether DSHA treats the waiver as extending to the foreclosure exception's abuse clause (42(h)(6)(E)(ii) tenant protections) beyond the statutory three years is not stated in the QAP.
The pre-approval sentence uses 'should', not 'must'; whether DSHA treats an unapproved lease form as noncompliance or as a recommendation-not-followed is not stated. Encoded with obligation 'should' deliberately.
The one-year initial term is stated as a Delaware requirement ('this means that in Delaware, tax credit residents must sign leases for an initial term of one year') - stricter than the federal six-month non-transient floor - but no authority for the longer term (statute vs DSHA policy) is cited in the manual.
THE MANUAL REQUIRES FIVE FORMS AND THE LIBRARY IT POINTS AT SERVES FOUR, AND NOT THE SAME FOUR. Appendix C of the manual is a single page directing owners to https://spectrumlihtc.com/state-monitoring/delaware/. That page's Required Forms table, fetched 2026-08-28, lists Tenant Income Certification (Rev. 9-2024), DE Student Status Household Affidavit, DE Self Certification and DE Certification of Zero Income. There is no Asset Certification form and no Income/Asset Checklist anywhere in the library, and the Certification of Zero Income is not on the manual's list of five. An owner cannot obtain two of the five mandatory forms from the source the manual designates. DSHA has not reconciled the two lists and the corpus does not pick a winner.
The manual says the DSHA TIC is at Appendix E. The 85-page PDF contains Appendices A (Glossary), B (Compliance Monitoring Procedures) and C (the Spectrum link) and stops. There is no Appendix D or E in the document, so the 'management checklist (Appendix D-1)' and the TIC 'Appendix E' referenced in chapters VIII and IX resolve to nothing inside the manual.
Whether the 120-day verification currency window runs from the date the verification is dated or the date the owner receives it is not stated. Ch. IX sec. C requires all income verifications to be date-stamped as received, which implies receipt, but the sec. B sentence says only 'valid for 120 days prior to move-in or re-certification date'.
EIV is not mentioned anywhere in the manual, the QAP or the Post-15 Procedures -- not permitted, not forbidden, not named. Whether DSHA would accept an upfront income verification database as a substitute for its own form is unstated. The absence is recorded as an absence and not as a prohibition.
Delaware's order is stated per income type (employment, self-employment, Social Security, unemployment, child support, gifts, zero income) rather than per verification technique, so it cannot be mapped onto Table J2 mechanically for every income source. The Level 4 / Level 3 inversion is unambiguous for employment income, which is where the manual is most explicit; for benefit income sec. D.3 puts the agency's benefit verification form first and an award letter second, which is the same ordering.
The manual does not say what happens when a tenant supplies a document that is NOT on letterhead -- whether it may be used at a lower rank or must be refused. Sec. C's sentence is permissive in form ('may be hand-delivered ... only if') and states no consequence.
THE SOURCE RECORD FOR src.de.dsha_manual_2024 SAYS 'The manual predates HOTMA implementation and does not mention it.' Both halves are false: the manual names HOTMA in the exclusion table heading and in the annuities cross-reference, and reproduces the whole HOTMA asset regime. The record is not edited here because other agents are running and sources.json is shared, but the correction is reported.
The asterisk on '$50,000*' is unexplained. Delaware publishes no inflation-adjusted figure for any year and gives no instruction to consult one. An owner following this manual literally applies an unindexed $50,000.
The exclusion table's heading, as reproduced in the manual, cites '25 CFR 5.603(b)'. The correct citation is 24 CFR 5.603(b); 25 CFR is Indians. The error is in the pasted HUD image, not in DSHA prose, and it is reproduced here verbatim in the locator rather than silently corrected.
Ch. IX sec. G.3's disposition-of-assets rule (two-year look-back, $1,000 de minimis) is federal and is not given a rule this pass. DSHA's own Annual Tenant Income Self-Certification prints the question with the figure on its face -- 'Has the family disposed of any assets valued at $1,000 or more in the last 2 years for less than Market value?' -- which is the only Delaware-specific residue and is recorded here rather than encoded.
The dual-annualisation sentence uses 'We recommend' while sitting in a section of otherwise mandatory calculations, and the manual states no consequence for using only one method. Whether DSHA treats a single-method calculation as a finding is unstated. The rule records the instruction as DSHA words it and the test asserts only that both calculations were performed where a year-to-date figure existed.
The zero-income package the manual requires -- affidavit plus a signed prior-year federal return, or Form 4506(T) -- is not what the library's Certification of Zero Income asks for. That form asks the household to answer yes or no to seventeen income sources and to explain in writing how it will pay for rent, utilities, food, clothing, school supplies, telephone, medical care, prescriptions, personal care products, vehicle costs and transportation. It requests no tax return and no 4506(T). Which package satisfies DSHA is unresolved.
Ch. IX sec. E's inclusion and exclusion lists were read and not encoded: they are 24 CFR 5.609 restated. Two Delaware-specific residues are recorded here rather than given rules. Sporadic child support may be averaged -- 'If sporadic payments were received over the past 12 months, DSHA will allow support payments received to be averaged when calculating child support income.' And the HERA military housing allowance disregard carries a Delaware carve-out that is now a dead letter: 'This does not apply to Dover Air Force Base, Dover, Delaware or New Castle County Reserve Base, New Castle, Delaware', the disregard itself having expired 1 January 2012.
THE CONTRADICTION IS THE FINDING AND IT IS NOT RESOLVED HERE. Two paragraphs on printed page 30 of the same chapter of the same manual give opposite answers for a household with no Section 8 assistance. Both are current. The corpus states both and picks neither.
The subtraction procedure as printed says 'Subtract the two amounts from the total cost to attend school', which describes a single subtraction of Higher Education Act assistance plus other assistance from covered costs. HOTMA's own procedure is a two-step subtraction with a sign test at each step. Whether DSHA intends the HOTMA sequence or the simpler one cannot be determined from the sentence.
Delaware publishes no student financial assistance affidavit. Hawaii, monitored by the same delegate, does -- the NCSHA Affidavit of Student Financial Assistance (2024). Whether DSHA accepts it is unstated.
The Kent and Sussex qualifier is unexplained. New Castle County is Delaware's third county and the chart says nothing about a Tax Credit plus Section 8 property there. Whether such a property uses HERA limits by default, or whether the row was written for a specific set of properties, cannot be determined from the manual.
The chart and the placed-in-service test can point in opposite directions -- a Tax Credit plus HOME property placed in service in 2005 is 'HERA' by the federal test and 'HUD' by the chart. DSHA states no priority between them.
'HDF' is the Delaware Housing Development Fund and 'AHDP' appears on the required TIC's Program Type block as a fourth program column. Neither is defined in the manual's glossary.
DSHA'S OWN REQUIRED FORM CONTRADICTS THE FIVE-YEAR LIMIT ON ITS FACE. The Student Status Affidavit served in the library the manual designates asks, with no time qualifier, 'A student who was previously in a foster care program under Part B or Part E of title IV of the Social Security Act?'. A household that truthfully answers yes about a placement eight years ago satisfies the form and fails the manual. Neither document mentions the other. The corpus states both and does not pick a winner.
The five years run from 'the effective date of the initial income tenant certification'. For a household that has lived in the unit for a decade the anchor is therefore a date long past, so a member who entered foster care after move-in can never satisfy the exception. Whether DSHA intends that is not stated.
DSHA states that a household losing its exception 'ceases to count as a tax credit unit immediately' and prefaces it with 'it appears that' -- a hedge, not a determination. No correction path is stated for that situation anywhere in the manual.
The Post-15 Procedures are dated 08/13/10 and are reproduced in a February 2024 manual, so the effective window opens in 2010. Whether DSHA regards the 2024 reproduction as a re-adoption that resets the date is not stated; effective.from is the earlier printed date, which is the conservative reading for a point-in-time question.
The waiver turns on 'good standing', which the Procedures define by reference to the monitoring requirements and the Declaration but do not reduce to a test. Whether a single uncorrected finding removes it is a matter of DSHA discretion.
The Post-15 Procedures do not say what happens to a household that became all-full-time-student during the compliance period and is still in place when the extended use period begins.
Delaware's rule that a temporarily absent member on active military duty 'must be removed from the household, and his or her income must not be counted unless that person is the head of the household, spouse, or co-head' (ch. IX sec. E.1, printed p. 26) is a household composition rule and is recorded here rather than given its own rule. Hawaii states a different test on the same fact pattern: a son or daughter on active military duty is counted only 'if this person leaves dependents or a spouse in the unit'.
The manual gives the addition rule for 100% properties as 'a new certification should be created' with 'The only signature required is the new household member', while the required TIC's signature block is a household certification signed by every adult. Which governs where an addition occurs is not stated.
DSHA sets no safe harbour period for additions and states no test for manipulation. Unlike Kansas, which names the two evidential routes it uses, DSHA gives the consequence without the standard.
'Comparable size' is defined by reference to the method used to determine qualified basis for the credit year, either bedrooms or square footage. DSHA does not say which method a property is on or how an owner establishes it.
The reasonable accommodation exception to the transfer bar is stated without procedure: no request form, no decision timeline, no reviewer. Delaware's rejection-notice procedure (ch. VIII sec. D) is applied to applicants, not to transfer requests.
The QAP's compliance monitoring procedures restate the federal available unit rule on a PROJECT basis ('the next available unit of comparable or smaller size in the project was or will be rented to tenants having a qualifying income') while the manual states it per building. The QAP sentence is a transcription of the Form 8609 certification language rather than a policy statement, but the two documents do not read the same and DSHA does not note the difference.
The thirty-day sentence is oddly drafted -- 'within or after a thirty-day (30) day period of being vacated' -- and reads as if both being ready within thirty days and being ready after it could put the unit out of compliance. The plain intent is a thirty-day deadline and the rule encodes that, but the drafting is recorded rather than smoothed over.
DSHA states the thirty-day standard inside the physical-standards section (ch. XIV sec. K) rather than in the vacant unit section (sec. A), so an owner reading only the vacant unit rule does not encounter it.
The manual carries the pre-2010 IRS position on units that are unsuitable for occupancy without inspection, citing an 'IRS Chief Counsel Advisory released October 22, 2010'. It gives no CCA number, so the citation cannot be followed.
THE QAP AND THE MANUAL CONTRADICT EACH OTHER AND DSHA HAS NOT RECONCILED THEM. The QAP calls the figures a threshold requirement; the manual says 'DSHA does not have minimum occupancy standards' and prints the same figures as a recommendation. Both documents are current. The Post-15 Procedures' waiver of 'all minimum occupancy requirements' points to the QAP, but it is a 2010 document and does not cite either. confidence is medium for that reason.
The QAP threshold is addressed to applicants for an allocation, so whether it binds occupancy decisions at an operating property or only the application is not stated in terms. The waiver machinery -- a written request from 'a development owner', assessed against absorption and vacancy at an operating property -- reads as if it does.
The four-bedroom minimum of six persons is not derived from any stated ratio and is not explained. The three-bedroom minimum is three.
Most of the waiting list section is written in recommendation voice ('we suggest', 'we recommend', 'should') while the QAP's recordkeeping and annual certification lists treat the waiting list as a record DSHA expects to see. The rejection-procedure sentences are the same mixture: 'must include' for the notice contents, 'should' for the meeting and the five-day decision. The rule states DSHA's requirements as DSHA words them and the test asserts only the elements stated as requirements.
DSHA does not name the State of Delaware rental assistance programs the wider voucher duty covers. The QAP's own definitions section defines Target Units by reference to 'a Referral System managed by DSHA' and the manual mentions SRAP vouchers in passing, but no document lists the programs.
The manual's list of nine waiting list fields includes ethnicity and race. It does not state that collection is voluntary or that a refusal to answer is recorded, which is how the required TIC handles the same data ('Tenant did not respond').
The 'one-page Annual Self-Certification' DSHA names is served in the library as DE - Self Certification. Its face carries no HOME election, no reference to 24 CFR 92.203 and no six-year marker, so nothing on the form tells an owner which year of the cycle a household is in.
Ch. XXII states the HOME project rule ('at least 40% of the units must be occupied by households at or below 50% of the median income limit per building') with the qualifier 'BUILDINGS PLACED IN SERVICE AFTER 07/30/09, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THIS PROVISION', and the Post-15 Procedures item 16 release that provision '(with DSHA approval)'. That is a HOME set_aside rule rather than a certification rule and is not encoded this pass.
The consequence_model is contract_remedy because DSHA states the HOME consequence as repayment of the HOME funds under 24 CFR 92.504(c)(2), which is neither a LIHTC finding with a cure period nor an automatic forfeiture.
The conversion to month-to-month after the initial year is at the OWNER's option, so a tenant has no stated right to a further one-year term. Read against the good-cause protection that runs through the extended use period, an owner who declines both to renew for a year and to convert to month-to-month raises the non-renewal question Kansas and Oregon answer differently; DSHA's manual does not address it.
DSHA observes that a mandatory charge may not be allowed under the Delaware Landlord Tenant Code at all, without saying which charges those are. An owner therefore has two questions -- is the charge part of rent for Section 42, and is it lawful under state landlord-tenant law -- and the manual answers only the first.
'Housing status' is not defined in § 4603 itself. Whether it reaches a screening criterion requiring prior rental history, rather than only an express refusal because someone is homeless, is not answered in this section.
Delaware protects both source of income and housing status. A criterion that screens out voucher holders indirectly -- a minimum income multiple applied to the tenant's share -- engages both, and the statute does not address indirect criteria.
Age is protected without a floor or a ceiling, which sits awkwardly beside senior housing operated under the federal 55-and-older exemption. Delaware does not reconcile the two in this section.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

sd South Dakota · 80

SDH publishes NO monetary late fee for a late annual report - the stated consequence is Form 8823 after notification and non-response. The absence is deliberate in this encoding; do not import ND's or KS's late fees.
The Owner's Certificate text makes the owner certify each building is suitable for occupancy 'within the local health, safety, building codes and UPCS as defined by HUD' (p. 10) while the manual's Physical Review section says SDH inspects to NSPIRE (p. 38). Both are in the current September 2024 edition. The conflict is carried here and on the inspection rule; not silently harmonised.
Whether the first-Friday-in-March deadline moves for weekend/holiday conflicts is moot (always a Friday), but no time-of-day or submission-channel cutoff is published for the Certificate itself (NextGen carries the tenant data).
No invoice due date, grace period, or late-payment charge is published; the QAP treats non-payment of monitoring fees as prior performance that can bar future applications, but no monetary penalty is stated. Absence recorded, not filled.
Whether 'low-income unit' is counted at the LURA's applicable fraction or the actual qualified-unit count in the billed year is not stated - material for projects using the vacancy or Average Income flexibility.
The manual states the first review must occur 'by the end of the calendar year following the year the last building is placed in service' (p. 5) and also 'no later than the end of the second year after the last building is placed in service' (p. 38). The first formulation is stricter than the federal floor; the second IS the floor. Both are in the current edition; not harmonised here. Confirm with SDH which governs.
The pre-review contact is described as agreeing a meeting time, yet the confirmation-letter date is the 8823 safe-harbour cutoff; how much time typically separates contact, letter, and review is not published.
'Documentation of Crime Free Housing training every three years' is requested 'if available in your community' - whether its absence in a community without the program is a finding is not stated (the noncompliance section suggests not).
The current manual names TWO inspection standards: the Physical Review section elects NSPIRE (p. 38) while the Annual Owner's Certificate makes the owner certify suitability to 'UPCS as defined by HUD' (p. 10). The NSPIRE election is encoded as the inspection standard because it is the operative protocol text; the UPCS certificate language is carried here, unresolved - the same current-documents conflict Nebraska has, in mirror image.
First-review timing is stated two ways in the same manual (end of calendar year following placed-in-service, p. 5; end of second year after, p. 38). Not harmonised; the stricter reading is not assumed.
No correction windows for non-Life/Safety NSPIRE deficiencies are published (contrast ND's 30/60-day moderate/low ladder), and no fine for an uncured Life/Safety issue is published (contrast ND's $250/day). The general 30-day correction period presumably governs; the manual does not say so explicitly.
The 30 days is written as a CEILING ('not to exceed 30 days'), so SDH may specify a shorter period in the notice; the encoded value is the maximum, and the operative deadline is whatever the notice states.
Whether the six-month extension runs from the notice date or from day 30 is not stated. Not guessed.
No extension-request procedure or form is published, and no daily fee or monetary penalty attaches to noncompliance continuing past the correction period (contrast ND's $25/day). The published consequences are the 8823 during the compliance period and specific performance / negative points during extended use.
South Dakota is a heavy USDA RD 515 state and the manual adopts the RD utility-allowance rules, but nowhere states whether SDH applies the Treas. Reg. 1.42-5(c)(4) review exemption or accepts RD tenant certifications in lieu of the AHCU/TIC at RD-layered properties. Not guessed; confirm with SDH before relying on RD paperwork.
The manual's phrase 'completed any time prior to 120 days of the anniversary date' is grammatically ambiguous; it is encoded as the KS-style within-120-days-of-anniversary window because the mixed-income paragraph uses the parallel construction 'begin 120 [days] prior to the anniversary date'. Confirm the boundary with SDH.
The over-140% no-relocation statement (p. 18) is stated flatly for 'another unit within the same development', which is stricter than the federal same-building swap rule the manual also recites in its unit transfer section (transfer to a different building barred above 140%). Which reading SDH enforces for same-building transfers of over-income households is unclear.
No transfer fee is published by SDH (contrast ND's $5,000/$500). The absence is encoded, not filled.
No submission deadline relative to the transfer, and no review timeline for SDH's approval decision, is published in either the manual or the QAP.
Whether a partial change in the ownership entity (e.g. limited partner exit at year 15) requires the Notice of Intent form is not distinguished - the form's own title covers 'Change Owner Name or Status', which suggests yes, but the manual text addresses only 'a sale or transfer'.
The Year 15 Plan's $1,000 QC application fee dates to December 2004 and should be reconfirmed with SDHDA before reliance; it is the only published figure.
The manual does not state whether the extended-use physical review keeps the triennial cadence of the file review it accompanies; the five-unit minimum is stated without an interval. Read as triennial alongside the file review, but not published as such.
The three-year decontrol report's due date ('at the end of each year') is not fixed to a calendar date or form. Not guessed.
Whether SDH's specific-performance right and negative-points sanction (pp. 41-42) extend to breaches of the three-year decontrol obligations after the LURA itself has expired is not addressed.
The manual does not state what the 30-day plan must contain (contrast ND, which requires a reconstruction timeframe), nor any restoration deadline, nor the treatment of federally-declared disaster relief under Rev. Proc. 2014-49/2014-50. Not guessed.
Whether the 90-day 8823 is filed in every casualty or only where units remain unrestored at 90 days is ambiguous in the manual's wording; ND's parallel provision reports loss and replacement within 90 days with the owner's plan attached if unrestored. Not harmonised.
The manual's UA section does not restate the 90-day implementation period for allowance changes in its own text (it references the 90-day period in the HUD-model and consumption-model constraints); whether SDH enforces 1.42-10(c)(2)'s 90-day rule by its terms or by a state gloss is not published. The federal rule governs regardless; no state parameter is encoded for it.
The Owner's Average of Actual Consumption sample table stops at 120 units; the sampling rule for larger properties is not published.
No SDH pre-approval step is stated for the Energy Consumption Model beyond the professional being 'approved by SDH' (contrast ND, which reviews the proposed allowance itself before use).
The $400/3% figures are from the 2026-2027 QAP and bind projects awarded under it; earlier SD awards carry whatever their own QAP and LURA required, which this rule does not restate. The property overlay (the recorded Declaration) governs per-project amounts.
No funding schedule (monthly versus annual deposits) or account-type requirement (escrow versus owner-controlled) is published in the QAP; SDHDA's practice is not documented.
Whether SDHDA monitors the reserve level annually (the balance appears only in the triennial file-review list and not in the annual report items) is not stated - contrast ND, where reserve statements with draw invoices are an annual restriction review item.
SDH PRINTS THE OWNER'S OWN VERIFICATION FORM AS LEVEL 4. HUD's Table J2 assigns it Level 3 and assigns Level 4 to third-party source documents, which is the inversion HOTMA introduced and the reason the table exists. SDH's own skip instructions still refer to 'Level 3', so the manual is internally inconsistent and the number is almost certainly a transcription error - but the corpus records what the manual says and does not repair it. An owner following SDH's numbering literally has no basis to prefer a pay stub over its own form.
The 'level 6/5' band groups EIV with non-EIV upfront verification while a later page states 'EIV (Earned Income Verification) cannot be used to verify income for Section 42.' The manual does not reconcile the two.
SDH says self-certification is allowed where 'family assets that do not exceed $50,000' - an unclosed parenthesis and no 'as adjusted by inflation', where the same figure is written 'as adjusted' everywhere else in the manual and is published as $51,600 for FY 2025 on SDH's own worksheet. Whether the hierarchy section means the unadjusted 2024 figure is unstated.
The 120 days runs 'from the date of receipt' while the hierarchy's 120 days runs from the document's own date to receipt. SDH never states the composed outer limit, which is 240 days, and never says whether a document that was already 100 days old when received is still usable 100 days later.
SDH names no items exempt from the time limit. Age, disability status, family membership and citizenship status do not need annual re-verification under HUD's own rules and most state manuals say so; South Dakota's does not, so whether a birth certificate expires after 120 days is unaddressed.
The manual bars EIV for Section 42 and, four pages earlier, groups EIV with non-EIV upfront verification as 'level 6/5' at the top of the hierarchy. Read together an owner is told the highest tier is both the best available and unusable.
'First-year (rent-up) tenant files' is not defined. Whether it means the first year of the credit period, the year of the placed-in-service date, or the lease-up period regardless of credit year is unstated, and at an acquisition/rehabilitation property those differ.
SDH's Section 8 Eligibility Verification form was not located on the HTC Program Management Forms and Resources page on 2026-08-28; the eight forms published there are the TIC, Student Status Verification, Student Self-Certification, Certification of Zero Income, Asset Self-Certification, Asset Self-Certification Worksheet, Affidavit of Student Financial Assistance and Under $50,000 Asset Certification. The manual names a form the page does not carry.
SDH states the $480 student income cap as the statutory figure and says HUD adjusts it annually, without publishing the adjusted figure. It publishes the adjusted asset threshold on a worksheet, so the omission here is inconsistent with its own practice on the other HOTMA figure.
The manual says both 'received from all sources by each member of the family 18 years or older' and 'All amounts received by the head of household, co-head, or spouse ... are included in income regardless of age.' Where a head of household is 17 and not emancipated the two sentences give different answers.
The Certification of Zero Income is required of 'an applicant', while the form SDH publishes is headed 'Each adult household member claiming zero income must complete this form'. The form is the stricter and more specific statement.
SDH'S PUBLISHED SERIES STOPS AT FY 2025. The threshold is inflation-adjusted annually by HUD and the operative figure for a 2026 certification is not published by South Dakota in any document located on 2026-08-28. The corpus records the two published years and leaves the current year absent rather than importing another state's figure.
The manual says '$50,000' five times without the inflation qualifier in three of them, including in the hierarchy section's self-certification carve-out. Only the worksheet distinguishes fiscal years.
'Add the greater of the actual asset income, or the imputed income' is stricter than 24 CFR 5.609 as amended, which imputes only where actual income cannot be determined for all assets. Two sentences later SDH states the regulation's own rule. Which governs at a South Dakota property is unresolved on the page.
SDH publishes two overlapping self-certification forms: the Under $50,000 Asset Certification, which the manual names, and the Asset Self-Certification with its Worksheet, which the TIC references. They collect different fields - the first has an interest-rate column and a single total, the second separates NNPP from real property and subtracts tax refunds - and SDH does not say which to use.
THE UNDER $50,000 ASSET CERTIFICATION, REVISED FEBRUARY 2024, DEFINES NET FAMILY ASSETS BY 24 CFR 813.102. That part was removed from the CFR in 1996 and net family assets have been defined at 24 CFR 5.603 since, rewritten by HOTMA effective 1 January 2024 - the month before this revision. Vermont's 2019 form carries the identical citation. Recorded, not corrected.
The 10 percent conversion cost is stated for real estate and the general definition speaks of 'reasonable costs that would be incurred in disposing of the asset' for every asset class. Whether 10 percent is a floor, a ceiling, a safe harbour or a rebuttable default, and whether it applies to non-real assets, is unstated.
Real property is 'not an asset if ... subject to co-ownership' while the Asset Ownership Guidelines count a jointly held asset at full value unless the household cannot dispose of it without permission. Co-owned real estate falls under both sentences and they give opposite answers.
The Under $50,000 Asset Certification carries 'Form cannot be used for HOME/HTF at move-in', a restriction that appears on the form and in no SDH manual.
SDH names the Workforce Investment Act for the job-training exception in its manual and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act on its 2024 Student Self-Certification. WIOA repealed and replaced WIA in 2014; the form is the later statement and the manual has not caught up.
The unborn-child determination is stated flatly and without authority. It is the opposite of Vermont's published determination on the same silence in the Code. Neither is IRS guidance and an 8823 examiner is bound by neither.
'A household with an unborn child does not invoke the full-time student rule' could mean the rule is not applied at all to such a household, or only that the unborn child is not counted as a student. The two readings give different answers for a pregnant full-time student living alone, which is the case the sentence is presumably about.
The manual counts foster children for 'unit size' and not for 'income limit determination', but never says what unit size is used for in the LIHTC context - occupancy standards are expressly left to the owner's Management Plan and there is no other place a unit-size count feeds a determination.
The household's election over an institutionalised member has no stated form, no stated timing, and no stated rule for changing it at a later recertification.
'Temporarily absent family members' is illustrated only by dependants away at school. Whether a member absent for months in a rehabilitation facility or serving a short custodial sentence is temporarily absent or permanently confined is not addressed, and the two categories carry opposite counting rules.
'Certified as a new income-qualified household' does not say against which income limits - those in effect at the original move-in or those current at the date the last original tenant leaves - nor whether the unit's move-in date and recertification anniversary reset. At a property where limits have fallen this decides whether the remaining household can stay.
The six-month interval is a recommendation with no stated consequence for departing from it, so an owner who adds a member in month two is not in breach of anything SDH has published.
SDH requires third-party documentation for an added member's income but does not say whether adding a member triggers a new effective date on the TIC or leaves the recertification anniversary on the original move-in date. The unit transfer section preserves the anniversary in the analogous case; this section is silent.
THE MANUAL CONTRADICTS ITSELF ON WHETHER AN OVER-INCOME HOUSEHOLD MAY MOVE WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT. Page 17: 'Tenants whose income exceeds 140 percent of median income are not allowed to relocate to another unit within the same development.' Page 20: 'The main implication is the households that are over-income at recertification can move into a different unit in the same building.' One forbids what the other describes as the point of the rule. SDH does not acknowledge the conflict.
The same paragraph gives two dates for the same 1997 amendment - 'Effective September 6, 1997' and 'leases entered into or renewed after September 26, 1997'. The federal amendment is dated 26 September 1997, so the first is very likely a typographical error, but it is on the page.
'Different phases of a development' is not defined and is not a Form 8609 concept. Whether a phase is a separate project, a separate BIN, a separate allocation year or a construction phase is unstated, and the answer decides whether a transfer is possible.
THE RELOCATION BAR AND THE TRANSFER SWAP CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE. 'Tenants whose income exceeds 140 percent of median income are not allowed to relocate to another unit within the same development' (p. 17) against 'the households that are over-income at recertification can move into a different unit in the same building' (p. 20). The stricter reading is encoded and the conflict is recorded; SDH should be asked which governs.
SDH writes '140 percent of the federal Minimum Set-Aside' and '140 percent of median income' in two places for what Treas. Reg. 1.42-15 measures as 140 percent of the applicable income limitation. Those are three different quantities and only the third is the regulation's.
'Rent restricted at the state set-aside' is not defined and no cross-reference is given. Read with the minimum set-aside section it means the deeper restriction elected in the Declaration of Land Use Restrictive Covenants, but the manual does not say so.
'All over-income units of comparable size or larger' loses status. The federal test is framed the other way, on units for which the let unit was comparable or smaller. The two are equivalent restatements, but SDH's phrasing is easy to apply backwards.
The state set-aside is elected development by development in a competitive round and recorded only in that development's covenant. SDH publishes no statewide list of elected set-asides and the QAP's scoring criteria were not read for this batch, so what is typically elected is unknown. The parameter is left without a value deliberately.
'The units do float' is stated for the elected state set-aside without saying whether floating survives into the extended use period alongside the maintenance obligation, or whether the covenant may fix units.
SDH says the 45 days runs 'from the HUD effective date' and that limits remain in effect 'until the annual limits are officially published'. Publication and effectiveness are different dates and HUD's own convention makes the effective date the later of the two; SDH does not say which starts the 45 days.
SDH's grandfathering sentence covers income qualification and says nothing about student status, where Vermont's expressly excludes it. Whether a household that became a full-time student household after its original qualification carries into a South Dakota resyndication is unaddressed.
The window is described as 240 days and as 120 days each side, but the consequence sentence reads 'Any certifications completed after 120 days of acquisition' without saying after 120 days of what direction. Read with the preceding sentences it means more than 120 days AFTER acquisition.
The manual says the pre-acquisition branch uses 'the current income limits' and the post-acquisition branch 'the limits in effect, as of the date of acquisition'. Where HUD publishes new limits between the two, the same household certified two weeks apart is measured against different limits with the same effective date.
SDH requires emancipated minors to sign the lease but does not say how emancipation is established or documented, and South Dakota emancipation is a court determination that would not normally appear in a tenant file.
Student status, good cause eviction and annual reporting lease provisions are 'recommended' rather than required, so an owner whose lease omits them has not breached anything SDH has published - although good cause eviction is separately required by section 42(h)(6)(B)(i) and Rev. Rul. 2004-82.
SDH sets no occupancy standard and requires only consistency. Consistency is not testable from a single file, and the manual names no factors for judging it, so the obligation is real and unmonitorable from the record the corpus holds.
The advertising quote is truncated at the point the source page breaks ('not solicite'); the subsection continues and should be read in full.
The protection attaches to the characteristics 'of the person or persons intending to reside there', which is broader than the applicant. South Dakota does not say how an owner is expected to know who intends to reside there without making the inquiry other states forbid.
South Dakota's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in South Dakota on this section's text.
'Creed' and 'religion' are both listed without either being defined in this section.

oh Ohio · 71

The manual's note that 'HUD does not mandate the Work Number' and to 'provide level 4 documentation' if unused leaves open whether OHFA expects agents with Work Number access to prefer it over tenant-provided stubs.
Whether OHFA accepts a functionally equivalent industry questionnaire in place of PC-E01 is not stated; the manual says the form 'may be amended from time to time' but not that it may be substituted.
The manual states verifications must be 'dated within 120 days of the effective date' AND 'valid for 120 days from the date they are received' -- two anchors that can disagree for a verification received long after its source date. Which anchor OHFA audits against in that case is unstated.
The two-calculation requirement uses 'the higher amount must be used', which can make an otherwise-eligible household ineligible; whether OHFA intends that conservative bias at move-in (vs only at recertification for NAUR purposes) is not distinguished.
For a weekly-paid tenant at a layered unit, 'a full two months' implies eight-plus stubs (IHDA says eight explicitly); OHFA does not give the per-frequency counts.
OHFA does not say whether the year runs from the letter's date or the benefit year it describes; IHDA reaches the same result by exempting SSA letters from its 120-day rule without stating an outer bound at all.
The manual's five-exception list orders and words the exceptions slightly differently from 26 USC 42(i)(3)(D) (e.g. 'government-sponsored job training program, such as programs funded by the Workforce Investment Act'); no OHFA position on state- or locally-funded programs without federal analogues is given.
OHFA does not restate IHDA's carve-out that a fully-replaced household can stand if each new member independently qualified at joining; whether Ohio recognizes that 8823-Guide reading is unstated.
'Testing income at credit deferral' as a third over-income determination point is an OHFA-specific framing (Rev. Proc. 2003-82 territory); the manual does not spell out the testing mechanics beyond the acquisition/rehab section.
The manual cites 'IRC Section 42 1.42-15(c)' (a regulation, not the statute) and asserts the UVR is project-basis -- consistent with Rev. Rul. 2004-82 but the manual's own citation form is imprecise; encoded as OHFA states it.
No ready-to-rent turnaround time is stated for making vacant units 'suitable for occupancy'.
OHFA states it will publish additional guidance on 24 CFR 92.253 once HUD makes public its intentions regarding the delayed tenant-protection revisions. That guidance had not appeared on OHFA's Compliance Policies page as of 2026-08-24, and the currently posted lease addendum (PC-E54) is dated 07/01/2025, before the 30 October 2025 date the matrix names. Whether PC-E54 has been conformed to the 2025 rule is unresolved.
The matrix is dated 09/01/2025 and describes HUD's delay of 92.253 as still pending. It has not been reissued. Whether OHFA's position has moved since, and whether the 20 April 2026 enforcement start actually took effect on schedule, was not confirmable from any document published on ohiohome.org on 2026-08-24.
OHFA's LIHTC Compliance Manual points HOME owners to an 'HDAP Compliance Manual' that could not be located at any public URL on ohiohome.org on 2026-08-24. If that manual exists and is distributed to owners privately, it may state this transition differently. Not inferred.
OHFA's Applicant/Tenant Sworn Income and Asset Statement, Safe Harbor Income Verification form, Income Verification Federal State Rental Assistance Program form and 'annual inspection form' are each named in the matrix as mandatory but none was located as a posted document on ohiohome.org on 2026-08-24. The form numbers, their content and whether an equivalent is ever accepted are unresolved. The forms are also expressly subject to amendment 'from time to time', so a version check is needed before relying on any copy.
The matrix says safe harbor determinations may be used for all certifications, and separately that households WITHOUT public assistance must use two months of source documents at move-in and the sixth year. It does not say what happens to a household that has a safe harbor available at move-in and loses it later, or vice versa -- whether the six-year clock resets or the source-document obligation attaches mid-cycle. Not inferred.
OHFA's 'sixth-year full recertification' language presumes the federal six-year cycle at 24 CFR 92.203 but OHFA does not restate the cycle itself or say from what event year one is counted. Alabama anchors it to HOME loan closing and Georgia to the affordability-period start documented in IDIS; Ohio names neither. Resolve against the project's HOME written agreement.
OHFA says a Housing Credit project with market-rate units must complete 'full annual recertifications' but does not say whether that means full source documentation for the HOME certification specifically or whether the section 42 full recertification satisfies the HOME requirement as well. The two programs' income definitions have converged under HOTMA but the required documents have not. Not inferred.
OHFA does not state the effective date or anniversary from which the HOME recertification year runs, and its documents do not name a permitted window for dating the recertification relative to that anniversary. Alabama publishes 180 days, Georgia 120; Ohio publishes nothing. A resolver must not import either figure.
Whether a HOME project layered with Housing Credits under the Average Income Test but with no market-rate units falls inside or outside the 'LIHTC with market rate units' exception is not addressed. OHFA's Average Income Policy (src.oh.ohfa_ait) is written for the Housing Credit program and does not mention HOME.
OHFA publishes no turnaround commitment on the rent approval and does not say what an owner may charge while the approval is pending, nor whether an increase may take effect on the limits' effective date when the form was filed inside the 30-day window but not yet approved. The form's reference to 'last year's approval letter' shows an approval letter is issued, but no service standard is published.
Whether the $25 cap is per household per year, per certification period, or per rent-approval cycle is not stated. The form places it in the 'Proposed Rent Structure for Existing Tenants' column of an annual submission, which suggests annual, but OHFA does not say so and does not address a mid-year increase.
OHFA does not say whether the $25 cap survives a household's move from one unit to another within the project, or whether an internal transfer makes the household a 'future tenant' of the new unit for rent-setting purposes. The distinction is worth a substantial amount of rent at a project doing accessibility transfers.
OHFA does not say whether the 60-day tenant notice may run concurrently with OHFA's review of the rent request or must follow approval. Serving it before approval risks noticing a rent OHFA does not approve; serving it after approval pushes the effective date well past the limits' effective date while the 30-day filing window has already closed. AHFA leaves the same question open in Alabama; neither agency resolves it.
The form does not state what the notice must contain -- whether it must disclose the proposed new rent and utility allowance, or only that an increase is coming. Iowa expressly says its notice need not disclose the amounts; OHFA says nothing.
Whether 'reduction in rent and restitution paid to affected tenants' is a discretionary remedy OHFA may impose or an automatic consequence is not stated; the form says 'may require'. The period over which restitution is computed, and whether it runs to households that have since moved out, is also unaddressed.
OHFA does not define 'project completion' for the 12-month initial inspection clock, and the HDGF guidelines use the same phrase without defining it. Whether it is the HUD IDIS completion date, the certificate of occupancy, or OHFA's own closeout letter is unresolved, and the three can be a year apart on a rehabilitation.
OHFA publishes no correction window for a physical deficiency found at a HOME inspection and does not adopt the NSPIRE per-deficiency correction timeframes by reference. The general HDGF 60-day cure period is encoded separately on oh.home.monitoring_review.sixty_day_correction_period; whether it governs a life-threatening NSPIRE finding, which NSPIRE itself treats as a 24-hour item, is not stated.
HUD's Minimum Unit Sample Size Chart as reproduced by OHFA stops at 50 HOME-assisted units. OHFA does not say what sample applies above 50, and does not state whether the file-review sample and the physical-inspection sample must be the same units.
The addendum is dated 07/01/2025, which precedes the 30 October 2025 date on which HUD's revisions to 24 CFR 92.253 became effective, and OHFA's own HOME matrix says it will publish additional guidance on 92.253 once HUD makes its intentions public. Whether PC-E54 has since been conformed to the 2025 rule's tenant-protection revisions was not determinable on 2026-08-24. Check the form's footer date before relying on a stored copy.
The corpus has no evidence_type for a state HOME lease addendum, so ev.lease_addendum_s8 is used as the nearest available type. A dedicated ev.home_lease_addendum type would be a better fit and would also serve the Georgia rule in this batch; not created here because adding evidence types is outside this pass.
OHFA requires 'a signed Lease Addendum for each tenant' as an attachment to the annual PC-E50 filing, but does not say whether that means every current HOME household every year or only those whose leases were executed or renewed since the last filing. The literal reading is burdensome at a large project and the practical reading is unstated.
The 40/35 split is published in the PY2026 HDGF round guidelines, which govern applications in that round, and OHFA attributes it to the state's annual Consolidated Plan rather than to the guidelines themselves. Whether the same percentages bind a HOME project awarded in an earlier round, and whether a change in the Consolidated Plan reaches back to closed projects, is not stated. A specific project's Restrictive Covenant is the controlling instrument. Not inferred.
OHFA does not define 'affordable units' for this calculation beyond saying that for HDGF purposes they are 'strictly the HDGF units'. At a project layered with Housing Credits, whether the base is the HDAP units, the low-income units or all restricted units is unresolved, and the three can differ substantially.
The HDGF guidelines say OHFA 'may, at its discretion, limit or add to which HDAP sources (OHTF, NHTF, and/or HOME) will be used in this round', so a PY2026 HDGF award may carry no HOME funds at all. This rule is encoded under program_id home because HOME is a named HDAP source and OHFA applies the same restrictions to OHTF as its HOME match; a project with OHTF but no HOME is outside this rule's applicability predicate even though Ohio treats it identically.
The 60-day cure period is published in the PY2026 HDGF Guidelines, which govern that gap-financing round. OHFA's HDAP Compliance Manual, which the LIHTC manual names as the authority for HOME compliance policy, could not be located at any public URL on ohiohome.org on 2026-08-24, so whether the same 60 days governs a HOME project awarded outside HDGF or in an earlier program year is unresolved. It is encoded because HOME is a named HDAP source and OHFA states the period as its general Notice of Noncompliance practice, not as a round-specific term; but it should be confirmed against the project's own Restrictive Covenant.
OHFA does not say whether the six-month good-cause extension runs from the notification date or from the expiry of the initial 60 days, nor what form an extension request must take or by when it must be made. Georgia publishes both (written, received before the last day of the correction period); Ohio publishes neither.
Whether the 60-day cure period applies to a life-threatening or 24-hour NSPIRE deficiency is not addressed. NSPIRE's own protocol treats severe items as 24-hour corrections and OHFA adopts NSPIRE for HOME units, but OHFA does not reconcile the two timeframes.
The March 1 deadline and the code-violation disclosure requirement are published in the PY2026 HDGF Guidelines. Whether the same calendar governs a HOME project awarded outside the HDGF round, and what form or portal the AOC is filed on for a HOME-only project, is not stated; OHFA points to its Compliance Policies webpage, where form PC-E33 'Multifamily Annual Owner Certification Requirements' is posted but was not read this pass.
OHFA does not publish a late fee or other monetary penalty for a missed or defective AOC, and does not say what happens between the missed deadline and a formal Notice of Noncompliance. Whether the 60-day cure period in oh.home.monitoring_review.sixty_day_correction_period attaches to a late filing is unresolved.
The relationship between the AOC's tenant data submission and the separate Annual HOME/HOME-ARP/NHTF Rent and Occupancy Report (PC-E50), which carries unit-level household information on its own schedule tied to the HOME rent limits, is not explained. Whether the two are reconciled by OHFA, or can disagree without consequence, is unknown.
ORC 174.02(A) states no percentage for the OHFA allocation, and OHFA confirms it: 'the annual amount dedicated to OHFA under O.R.C §174.03 is not specifically outlined'. The size of the OHFA share is set outside the statute and was not established.
OAC 122:6-1-01(B) still defines 'ODSA' as the Ohio development services agency, the department's 2012-2023 name. The rules have not been conformed to the 2023 renaming even though several were 'last updated' in August 2026, so the code and the statute use different names for the same body.
ORC 174.03(E)(2) refers to money 'not granted or loaned pursuant to division (F)(1) of this section'. Division (F) of 174.03 as served at codes.ohio.gov is the 35-percent preference and has no numbered subdivisions; the referent is evidently (E)(1). Recorded, not resolved.
ORC 174.04 has the department determine county medians on its own criteria, while OHFA's HDGF Appendix C speaks throughout of 'AMI' and cross-references HUD's HOME limits. Whether the department's published OHTF limits are simply HUD's county figures, or an independently derived series, was not established from any document fetched. The two could differ.
OHFA's HDAP Compliance Manual is the document OHFA itself names as carrying the regulations and policies for OHTF, and it is not published. Probed 2026-09-02: four filename guesses 404; ohiohome.org/compliance/hdap.aspx and /compliance/manuals.aspx both return the same 10,203-byte payload titled '404 Page | The Ohio Housing Finance Agency'; the Compliance landing page and the Compliance Policies page list only the LIHTC manual and HOME/NHTF forms. This rule is therefore authored from the statute, the administrative code and the published HDGF Guidelines, and does not state what the manual may add.
Appendix C states the rent rules for HDGF-round OHTF awards. OHFA says elsewhere in the same document that it 'may, at its discretion, limit or add to which HDAP sources (OHTF, NHTF, and/or HOME) will be used in this round', so whether these same terms bind an OHTF award made outside the HDGF round -- for instance one made directly by Development rather than by OHFA -- is not established.
No utility allowance method for an OHTF unit is published. The HDAP Compliance Manual is where OHFA would state it.
OHFA's HDAP Compliance Manual is the document OHFA itself names as carrying the regulations and policies for OHTF, and it is not published. Probed 2026-09-02: four filename guesses 404; ohiohome.org/compliance/hdap.aspx and /compliance/manuals.aspx both return the same 10,203-byte payload titled '404 Page | The Ohio Housing Finance Agency'; the Compliance landing page and the Compliance Policies page list only the LIHTC manual and HOME/NHTF forms. This rule is therefore authored from the statute, the administrative code and the published HDGF Guidelines, and does not state what the manual may add.
Neither the statute nor the rules define 'useful life' or say who determines it. For a property whose covenant states a bare 30 years the two could diverge, and nothing published says which governs.
The household certification and recertification cycle for an OHTF unit is not published: no income definition is named, no verification currency, no recertification frequency, no over-income consequence, no student rule and no file retention period. This is the single largest thing OHFA's unpublished HDAP Compliance Manual would supply.
OHFA's Multiple Programs Guide says 'Ohio Housing HDAP Trust (OHTF) projects follow HOME rules', which is the only published statement locating OHTF's certification rules. The sentence garbles the fund's name (it is the Ohio Housing Trust Fund, administered through the Housing Development Assistance Program), the guide's language is licensed from a third-party trainer, and the document prints no edition date, so it is recorded as an indication rather than relied on. Confidence on this rule is medium for that reason.
OHFA's HDAP Compliance Manual is the document OHFA itself names as carrying the regulations and policies for OHTF, and it is not published. Probed 2026-09-02: four filename guesses 404; ohiohome.org/compliance/hdap.aspx and /compliance/manuals.aspx both return the same 10,203-byte payload titled '404 Page | The Ohio Housing Finance Agency'; the Compliance landing page and the Compliance Policies page list only the LIHTC manual and HOME/NHTF forms. This rule is therefore authored from the statute, the administrative code and the published HDGF Guidelines, and does not state what the manual may add.
The AOC and Tenant Data requirements are stated in the HDGF round guidelines. Whether an OHTF award made outside an OHFA HDGF round -- one administered directly by Development -- carries the same March 1 electronic filing is not published; OAC 122:6-1-05(A) requires only 'periodic' reporting 'in the manner prescribed by the administering body', and the two administering bodies may prescribe differently.
The unit sample size for an OHTF audit is not published as a number -- OHFA defers to 'the regulatory requirements for the specific source'. For OHTF used as HOME match that points at the HOME sampling rules, but no OHFA document says so expressly.
No physical inspection standard is named for OHTF in the HDGF Guidelines. The guidelines refer to 'non-compliance with habitability standards through regular site visits' without electing NSPIRE, UPCS or a state standard.
OHFA's HDAP Compliance Manual is the document OHFA itself names as carrying the regulations and policies for OHTF, and it is not published. Probed 2026-09-02: four filename guesses 404; ohiohome.org/compliance/hdap.aspx and /compliance/manuals.aspx both return the same 10,203-byte payload titled '404 Page | The Ohio Housing Finance Agency'; the Compliance landing page and the Compliance Policies page list only the LIHTC manual and HOME/NHTF forms. This rule is therefore authored from the statute, the administrative code and the published HDGF Guidelines, and does not state what the manual may add.
No published OHFA or Development document states a procedure for transferring an OHTF award to a new owner, for assuming the loan, or for releasing the restrictive covenant early. 'Sale' appears in the financing terms only as the event that accelerates the balloon.
Whether OHFA will subordinate its mortgage on a later refinance is addressed only for the original financing structure ('OHFA may agree to subordinate to other government investors and accept payments consistent with their terms', on a case-by-case basis). Refinance during the affordability period is not covered.
OHFA's HDAP Compliance Manual is the document OHFA itself names as carrying the regulations and policies for OHTF, and it is not published. Probed 2026-09-02: four filename guesses 404; ohiohome.org/compliance/hdap.aspx and /compliance/manuals.aspx both return the same 10,203-byte payload titled '404 Page | The Ohio Housing Finance Agency'; the Compliance landing page and the Compliance Policies page list only the LIHTC manual and HOME/NHTF forms. This rule is therefore authored from the statute, the administrative code and the published HDGF Guidelines, and does not state what the manual may add.
OAC 122:6-1-06 states no notice procedure, no appeal and no time limit. What process precedes a direction to repay is not published.
OHFA requires the good-cause language in writing at initial occupancy and says 'preferably in the lease', so a separate document satisfies it. Where the definition sits outside the lease, whether it binds as a lease term in an Ohio eviction proceeding is a question the manual does not reach.
The written warning before eviction is 'strongly encouraged', not required. A tenant evicted for conduct with no prior written notice has no remedy under this manual.
OHFA states the gap plainly: the IRS has issued no VAWA compliance guidance for LIHTC, and OHFA supplies the standard itself. That means the applicable rule for an Ohio LIHTC property can change when OHFA amends a policy document, with no federal change and no notice period the manual commits to -- it says the policy 'may be amended at any time'.
HUD's 2022 Final Rule is written for HUD-assisted housing and its procedures assume a HUD programme's forms and appeal routes. Which of those an LIHTC-only Ohio property must operate, and against whom a tenant appeals, is not addressed.
The plan must be 'regularly' reviewed and updated, with no interval given -- compare Oregon and Georgia, which both set five years. An Ohio plan can therefore go stale without breaching any stated deadline.
OHFA requires submission for approval and does not say what happens while approval is pending, nor whether a project may market units before its plan is approved.
Ohio's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in Ohio on this section's text. Several Ohio municipalities have adopted their own source-of-income ordinances; those are local law this corpus does not yet hold.
'Military status' is defined at § 4112.01; that definition was not read in this pass.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

wa Washington · 70

Commerce's Section 501.1.1 carries a bracketed note that HOTMA 'will be assessed and implemented by Commerce in due time', so the 24 CFR 5.609 the Handbook points at may not be the current post-HOTMA federal text. Which vintage of 5.609 Commerce applies today is not stated in the May 28, 2026 Handbook.
The statute keys eligibility to the COUNTY median; Commerce's programme page and its limit tables speak of Area Median Income. In a multi-county HUD area these are not the same figure. Which series Commerce's published HTF limits actually use was not established from the documents fetched -- the limits themselves are hosted on Box and were not opened for this pass.
Commerce publishes the HTF/HOME/NHTF Rent & Income Limits on a Box share linked from its HOME webpage. That table was not opened for this pass, so the numeric limits are described here and not embedded. The limit_table_ids entry names the series; it is not bound to a fetched table.
The Handbook states the 30 percent tenant-share figure as an 'intent' measured against 'the monthly income of the target AMI population' -- not against the occupant's own income. Whether Commerce enforces it as a rule against an actual household is not stated.
Handbook Section 203.2 attributes the 40-year commitment to RCW 43.185A.150(6)(b). In the chapter text fetched the same day that language is at 43.185A.150(6)(f); (6)(b) is the habilitation-and-support-services criterion. Both citations are recorded and neither is resolved. The operative floor is RCW 43.185A.060 regardless.
'Every sixth year of the household's occupancy' is not defined further. Whether the sixth year is counted from move-in or from the first annual recertification -- and therefore whether it falls in occupancy year 6 or year 7 -- is not stated in the May 28, 2026 Handbook, and the two readings differ by a full year for every long-tenured household.
Appendix B (Household Income Calculations for Commerce's State Funded Projects, pp. 113-129) carries the detailed calculation method. It was not read line by line for this pass, so asset, income-exclusion and imputation rules for HTF are not yet in the corpus.
The Handbook says there are five report tables but assigns deadlines to only four (1, 2, 3 by January 31; 4 by June 30). Table 5's deadline is not stated. Commerce's Compliance and Reporting webpage was recorded in an earlier pass as listing 'Tables 1, 2, 3 and 5 due January 31', which would fill the gap, but that page was not re-fetched for this pass and the Handbook is not made to agree with it here.
The May 28, 2026 Handbook names no physical inspection protocol for HTF-only projects -- not NSPIRE, not UPCS. Whether Commerce has adopted NSPIRE for its state-funded portfolio could not be established from this document.
The Handbook states the shared appreciation concept and its triggers but publishes no formula for computing the state's share. RCW 43.185A.060(1) describes it as 'a share of the appreciation in the project in proportion to the state's contribution to the project'; the actual calculation is left to the individual contract.
Sections 507.2 through 507.2.3 describe a waiver of the audit requirement for an 'eligible organization' that submits a written waiver request. The eligibility criteria and the substitute financial statement requirements at 507.2.1 and 507.2.3 were not read in full for this pass and are not encoded.
Every WSHFC chapter dates itself to a month ('Rev. December 2024') and prints no day. effective.from is the first of that month, following the convention already used for src.wa.tax_credit_manual_ch3; the day is an assumption, not a reading.
The manual says self-certification 'may be used as highest form of verification when a family reports ... net family assets under $50,000' while the asset chapter says the threshold is 'adjusted annually by HUD for inflation'. Whether the Level 1 carve-out floats with the HUD figure (which CHFA's companion sheet puts at $52,787 for 2026) or is frozen at the printed $50,000 is not stated.
The manual lists The Work Number, VeriFast, Confirmation.com and the DSHS Benefits Verification System as Level 5 examples and then disclaims that naming a source 'is not a directive or endorsement'. It does not say what makes an unnamed commercial service qualify as Level 5 rather than Level 4.
The manual measures the 120 days 'prior to the certification effective date'; the FAQ measures 'current' paystubs as 'dated within 120 days of review'. Review date and certification effective date are not the same date, and the manual does not reconcile the two formulations.
'A statement dated within the most current benefit year' is not defined. For Social Security the benefit year is a calendar year, but the phrase is applied to fixed-income sources generally, and the manual does not say what the benefit year is for a private pension or annuity.
The manual's raise example prorates by calendar weeks (6 weeks then 46 weeks) rather than by the 2,080-hour convention it states two pages earlier, and 6 + 46 = 52 weeks only if the part-weeks are rounded. WSHFC does not say whether a reviewer will accept a proration built on months or days instead.
The manual says year-to-date is 'no longer required' but does not say whether a file that uses YTD anyway, and reaches a different figure than the average-of-periods method would, is citable.
'Retirement age' in branch (2) is not defined. Full retirement age, age 62 (the earliest claim age the same FAQ names), and age 65 are all plausible and produce different files.
The age-69 rule asks for a Social Security verification of non-receipt and no pending application. SSA does not routinely issue a negative statement of that kind on request, and the FAQ does not name a form or a service that produces one.
Branch (4) applies 'the full SSI benefit' to an immigrant or refugee household. It does not address SSI's own eligibility conditions for non-citizens, under which many such applicants will receive nothing, and does not say what to do when the assumption is later shown to be wrong.
The FAQ pins the exclusion to properties 'that placed in service after 7/30/2008', but its own history says the 2012 narrowing limited it to projects placed in service between 30 July 2008 and 1 January 2012, and does not say whether the PATH Act's permanence reopened it to properties placed in service after 1 January 2012. The two passages can be read against each other; the rule states the operative sentence and records the tension rather than choosing.
The list of affected properties and the authoritative county list live on the WSHFC website beside the Military Pay Verification form, not in a document with a version. A property near a county line, or a county list that changes, cannot be checked against a hashed source.
The DSHS Diaper Related Payment answer is expressly contingent on HUD not publishing an exclusion. Nothing in the corpus watches for that publication, and the FAQ is a T3 agency document on a monthly cadence, so a HUD exclusion could land months before WSHFC restates its position.
The manual exempts workers' compensation outright while 24 CFR 5.609(b) excludes it as an insurance payment for personal loss. Whether WSHFC would treat a settled lump sum, as opposed to periodic L&I payments, the same way is not addressed.
The HEN answer rests on the funds going directly to the landlord or utility company. It does not say what happens where a HEN recipient receives any portion in cash, which the program's own rules permit in limited circumstances.
The manual prints $50,000 in the hierarchy table, the sub-threshold paragraph, the four-scenario matrix and the personal-property paragraph, and separately says the threshold is HUD-indexed. It never says which figure governs a certification effective after HUD's adjustment, and the printed figure is now two indexations out of date.
The mixed-income re-verification trigger is written as a conjunction of two conditions joined by AND. It is not stated whether a 100-percent-affordable property that voluntarily continues full income and asset recertifications is nonetheless free of asset verification above the threshold.
The worked example annualises withdrawals to $10,000 against $17,000 'available to withdraw' and counts the $10,000. It does not say how to treat the residual balance -- whether the account is simultaneously an asset for its remaining value or whether income treatment displaces asset treatment entirely.
The FAQ's answer is framed as what the Commission 'would be comfortable with' and defers to the limited partner, so it is guidance about a negotiating position rather than a monitoring standard. Whether a reviewer would cite a file that followed the FAQ but not the partner, or vice versa, is unstated.
The exception-documentation note names a document for each of the five exceptions but the manual does not say whether these are the only acceptable documents or examples of acceptable ones. The foster-care entry allows 'similar documentation' for other states and no other entry has an equivalent.
The manual names 'Washington State's Department of Social and Human Services'. The agency is the Department of Social and Health Services; the manual's usage is inconsistent with its own naming elsewhere in Chapter 5. Recorded rather than silently corrected.
The prior-calendar-year carry-forward and the fifth-month out-of-compliance date interact in a way the manual does not work through: a person who is a Student for the entire current year by reason of last year's attendance has no fifth month in the current year to date an out-of-compliance event from.
Chapter 2's inter-building transfer sentence reads 'we do not believe the Owner should allow' -- a stated view, not a requirement. Whether a transfer made contrary to it is citable, and under what 8823 category, is not said. The hedge is preserved in the statement rather than hardened into a prohibition.
The six-month bar is written as 'should' in the manual and as a recommended lease clause in the FAQ. It is not clear whether WSHFC would cite an addition at month four where the lease permits it and the added member was income-certified.
The FAQ says the combined income test at the moment of addition is against 'the income limits for that unit'. It does not say which limit series applies where the applicable limits changed between move-in and the addition.
The manual forbids requiring access to confidential medical records but does not say who may sign the written verification. Chapter 3's disability verification for the Persons with Disabilities commitment is expressly openable to 'a relative, social worker, or caregiver' and expressly closed to property staff; whether the same list governs live-in-aide need is not stated.
The manual says an aide 'qualifies for occupancy only as long as the Resident needing supportive services remains qualified and requires the Aide's services' but does not say how often, if at all, continued need must be re-verified.
The FAQ does not say what happens if the spouse rejoins inside six months: whether the unit is retroactively out of compliance from the certification date, whether an interim recertification cures it, or whether the household simply must be requalified going forward.
The form is described as usable for people 'physically separated' from a spouse who provide no income or support. It does not say whether a legal separation, a dissolution petition, or any court involvement is required, nor how the separation itself is evidenced beyond the certification.
Where the estranged spouse would have been the second household member, the household size used to pick the income limit drops by one. The FAQ does not say this explicitly, and the direction of that effect is unfavourable to the household.
The FAQ permits a uniform citizenship inquiry and separately says no citizenship documentation is required. It does not say what an owner may lawfully do with a negative answer, which is where the fair-housing exposure sits.
Box 2 of the Identification Certification form is named but the form itself is a WSHFC website form with no version or date, so what box 2 says cannot be checked against a hashed source.
The 'more restrictive rules' note makes an investor or syndicator policy operative over state guidance. Nothing in the corpus models that layer, and the property overlay is the only place such a policy could be recorded.
The farmworker definition tests income 'at the time of initial occupancy at the property'. Where a household transfers between units, or a property is acquired and rehabilitated with the household in place, which occupancy date governs is not stated.
'Farm Work' is defined in the manual's Glossary and expanded by the Farm Work Reference material on the WSHFC website, neither of which is in the corpus. The $3,000 test cannot be applied without that definition.
The evidence requirement for homelessness uses ev.student_exception_doc because the closed evidence-type list has no homelessness-certification entry. That is a modelling compromise, not a reading of the source.
The corpus's only Washington state agency record (wa.hfa) is the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, which allocates Housing Credits and does not administer HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Washington State Department of Commerce, the state HOME participating jurisdiction, per the Rental Management Handbook's own introduction. The rule is emitted with agency_id wa.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a wa.commerce agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The handbook does not state which requirements are excluded from 'most affordability and operational requirements' during the Extended Commitment Period. The recertification change is stated; whether, for example, the federal unit-mix machinery or the rent-approval cycle continues unchanged is not, and is not inferred.
The corpus's only Washington state agency record (wa.hfa) is the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, which allocates Housing Credits and does not administer HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Washington State Department of Commerce, the state HOME participating jurisdiction, per the Rental Management Handbook's own introduction. The rule is emitted with agency_id wa.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a wa.commerce agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The 2021 handbook predates the 2025 HOME Final Rule's revisions to 92.253 (delayed by HUD to 30 October 2025). Whether Commerce has issued conforming guidance, or applies the 2025 tenant protections to its portfolio, could not be established from any document on commerce.wa.gov on 2026-08-26.
The corpus's only Washington state agency record (wa.hfa) is the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, which allocates Housing Credits and does not administer HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Washington State Department of Commerce, the state HOME participating jurisdiction, per the Rental Management Handbook's own introduction. The rule is emitted with agency_id wa.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a wa.commerce agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The corpus's only Washington state agency record (wa.hfa) is the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, which allocates Housing Credits and does not administer HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Washington State Department of Commerce, the state HOME participating jurisdiction, per the Rental Management Handbook's own introduction. The rule is emitted with agency_id wa.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a wa.commerce agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The 60-day notice sentence appears in the Maintaining Unit Mix section, in the paragraph about rent adjustments for over-income tenants. Whether Commerce applies it to a routine within-limit rent increase at renewal, or only to over-income adjustments, is not stated in terms; encoded as general policy per the sentence's own wording, flagged here for confirmation.
Washington's general landlord-tenant law and local ordinances (e.g. Seattle's rent-increase notice requirements) may require longer notice for some tenancies; those are outside the HOME layer and not encoded here.
The corpus's only Washington state agency record (wa.hfa) is the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, which allocates Housing Credits and does not administer HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Washington State Department of Commerce, the state HOME participating jurisdiction, per the Rental Management Handbook's own introduction. The rule is emitted with agency_id wa.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a wa.commerce agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The handbook predates the 2025 HOME Final Rule's expanded safe harbors. Whether Commerce now accepts the 2025 rule's means-tested/safe-harbor determinations at recertification, as Ohio and Colorado expressly do, was not determinable from commerce.wa.gov on 2026-08-26.
The corpus's only Washington state agency record (wa.hfa) is the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, which allocates Housing Credits and does not administer HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Washington State Department of Commerce, the state HOME participating jurisdiction, per the Rental Management Handbook's own introduction. The rule is emitted with agency_id wa.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a wa.commerce agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The corpus's only Washington state agency record (wa.hfa) is the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, which allocates Housing Credits and does not administer HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Washington State Department of Commerce, the state HOME participating jurisdiction, per the Rental Management Handbook's own introduction. The rule is emitted with agency_id wa.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a wa.commerce agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The corpus's only Washington state agency record (wa.hfa) is the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, which allocates Housing Credits and does not administer HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Washington State Department of Commerce, the state HOME participating jurisdiction, per the Rental Management Handbook's own introduction. The rule is emitted with agency_id wa.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a wa.commerce agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The handbook cites the HUD-935.2A version dated 12/2011 with OMB approval through 1/31/2021 and instructs owners to use the most current HUD version. Which form edition Commerce currently accepts was not verifiable from commerce.wa.gov on 2026-08-26.
The corpus's only Washington state agency record (wa.hfa) is the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, which allocates Housing Credits and does not administer HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Washington State Department of Commerce, the state HOME participating jurisdiction, per the Rental Management Handbook's own introduction. The rule is emitted with agency_id wa.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a wa.commerce agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The handbook elects UPCS and was last revised 23 August 2021, before HUD replaced UPCS with NSPIRE (HOME compliance date no later than 1 October 2025). No NSPIRE transition notice for the Commerce HOME portfolio was found on commerce.wa.gov on 2026-08-26. Encoded as UPCS because that is what Washington publishes; a resolver should treat the standard as likely in transition.
Whether the 24-hour/30-day correction deadlines survive a move to NSPIRE severity categories is unknowable until Commerce reissues the handbook.
The corpus's only Washington state agency record (wa.hfa) is the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, which allocates Housing Credits and does not administer HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Washington State Department of Commerce, the state HOME participating jurisdiction, per the Rental Management Handbook's own introduction. The rule is emitted with agency_id wa.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a wa.commerce agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
HUD delayed the 2025 HOME Final Rule's revisions to 92.253 (which introduce a federal HOME tenancy addendum) to 30 October 2025. Whether Commerce's HOME Lease Addendum has been conformed, or will be replaced by the federal tenancy addendum for post-October-2025 commitments as Colorado's has, was not determinable from commerce.wa.gov on 2026-08-26.
The $1,500 figure is a fixed dollar amount in statute with no indexation. Its practical effect narrows every year that construction costs rise, and the legislature has not attached an escalator.
The exception requires a WRITTEN estimate but does not say who may prepare it, whether the landlord may prepare it, or whether the tenant may contest it.
Condition (iii) turns on whether the landlord has received landlord mitigation program money. The statute does not say whether a landlord who never applied is treated the same as one who applied and was refused.
Massachusetts makes discrimination because of any requirement of a subsidy programme unlawful, which is the reasoning this exception permits. Neither statute acknowledges the other.

mt Montana · 70

How MBOH assigns a property to a reporting cohort (and whether an owner can request a change beyond the CP 'Change Report Period' control) is not published. The assigned period is a property attribute that must be read from CP, not inferred.
The manual's checklist and the QAP's checklist differ slightly in current documents: the manual lists the Annual Financial Report as 'audited financial statements' while the QAP Appendix C.H lists an 'Income/Expense Report' and 'Reserves Form' without the audit qualifier, and the Annual Compliance Reporting web page adds that Montana Housing mails the Property Contact, Income and Expense Summary and Reserves forms directly to owners. Encoded as the union; which financial artifact satisfies the requirement for unaudited owners has not been confirmed with MBOH.
The notarization requirement appears in the manual's Appendix B and the QAP but no notarized-copy requirement is restated for the electronic CP submission itself - both the electronic submission and the scanned notarized upload are required per Appendix B steps 9-11.
The fee schedule is dated September 1, 2023 and the QAP says amounts 'may be adjusted by MBOH from time to time' with the website copy governing; no later schedule was found on 2026-08-25, but the figures should be re-read from the posted schedule at each annual submission.
Whether 'non-market unit' includes common-area and employee units is not defined on the schedule. Not guessed.
The 'Additional Compliance Monitoring - determined based on costs of monitoring' line has no published trigger; when MBOH bills it is discretionary.
INSPECTION STANDARD CONFLICT BETWEEN CURRENT DOCUMENTS, ENCODED NOT RESOLVED: the 2026 manual names NSPIRE outright (sec. I.A and the noncompliance list's 'NSPIRE violations'); the 2027 QAP Appendix C.J still reads 'uniform physical condition standards ... (as effective January 1, 2001) or [NSPIRE] if adopted by the IRS for purposes of the low-income housing tax credit program'. The manual is the later, operational statement and NSPIRE is encoded; the QAP's conditional is carried here.
The inspect-all-vacant-units requirement exceeds the 1.42-5 table and can make Montana samples large at high-vacancy properties; no cap is stated.
Whether the two-week findings-letter timing starts the 30-day correction clock at the letter date or the inspection date is implied (the letter 'outlines the timeline') but not stated as a rule.
The manual grants 'a one-time extension' while the QAP allows extension 'for up to six months for good cause' - reconcilable if the one extension can run to six months, but neither document says so. Both are current; the conflict is carried here, not resolved.
The 90-day vacant-unit rent-ready threshold is listed as a noncompliance category with no stated cure path other than the general 30-day correction; contrast Idaho, where 'not suitable for occupancy' is defined as failure to be rent-ready within 30 days.
Whether the $200/week fee continues to accrue during a pending extension request is not stated.
The 2026 manual states a flat 10% cap; the 2027 QAP states the lesser of the AMI-driven increase or 10%. The QAP's stricter lesser-of formulation is encoded because QAP sec. I.A makes the most recently adopted QAP govern compliance requirements for all projects and Appendix C.B says it 'applies to all existing projects and new projects'; the manual's flat 10% is carried here as the divergent current text.
'Any rent increases permitted as a result of any increase in the AMI' is not given a formula - whether it means the percentage change in the applicable rent limit, or in the AMI itself, is undefined. Not guessed.
The manual's instruction to use rent limits 'published on Novogradac's website' delegates a compliance input to a third-party mirror of HUD data; which publication governs if Novogradac and MBOH's own Income and Rent Limits page diverge is not stated.
The rule's trigger condition ('if the Project rent amount is within the greater of 5% or $50 of the current voucher Payment Standard') is quoted verbatim because its direction is ambiguous - read naturally it obliges a project whose rent slightly exceeds (or approaches) the payment standard to come down to it, but the QAP does not work an example. Encoded with the quote; confirm the intended arithmetic with MBOH before automating.
The rule appears only in the QAP, not in the 2026 manual - the manual carries only the nondiscrimination concept. Effective reach to properties whose LURAs predate the QAP language follows from QAP sec. I.A (most recently adopted QAP governs compliance) but has not been tested.
Federal law (42(h)(6)(B)(iv)) bars refusing voucher holders; a state cap on charging voucher holders above the payment standard when project rent is near it has no federal analogue and interacts with the LIHTC gross-rent rule for voucher tenancies (rent to the PHA may exceed the LIHTC limit under the Section 8 override). How MBOH reconciles the two is unstated.
Which trainers qualify as 'nationally-recognized LIHTC compliance training companies' is not listed by MBOH. Not guessed.
The fee schedule has no line item named for education noncompliance; the manual says 'the owner will pay the fees specified in the fee schedule' - presumably the correction late-fee lines ($200 + $200/week). Which line applies is unconfirmed.
HB 358's licensing requirement is state occupational law enforced by the Montana Board of Realty Regulation, not MBOH; the manual folds it into compliance expectations but the enforcement path for an unlicensed manager at an LIHTC property (8823? finding? referral?) is not stated.
MBOH publishes no standalone utility allowance policy document - the agency stub src.mt.ua_policy resolves to nothing; the UA regime lives in manual sec. II.F and the absence is recorded, not filled.
The manual's exclusion of utility-provider allowances narrows the 1.42-10 menu (which permits a utility company estimate); whether the PHA-schedule and RD/HUD-regulated defaults remain available for Montana properties not electing HUSM/ECM is implied by the regulation but not restated in the manual. Not guessed.
The Rental Assistance Bureau's role in 'determining' the effective date of the utility allowance is not elaborated - whether it publishes a schedule applicable to LIHTC-only properties is unclear.
TIMING CONFLICT IN CURRENT DOCUMENTS, ENCODED NOT RESOLVED: the 2026 manual requires the executed transfer forms 'prior to the sale' and 'prior to closing'; the 2027 QAP Appendix C.E requires them 'within ten business days of the closing'. Both are current; the manual is later-dated but QAP sec. I.A makes the most recently adopted QAP govern compliance requirements. The pre-closing reading is the safe course and the conflict is carried here.
Whether the 120-day pre-listing notice applies to partner-level interest transfers (e.g., an investor exit) or only to dispositions of the project/real property is not stated; the assumption-agreement requirement reaches 'any interest therein', which is broader.
The QAP's Threshold section requires 35 additional years of affordability (50-year total extended use) for new awards; each property's actual term is in its LURA and is a property-overlay fact, not encoded as a state-wide value here.
NOTICE-TIMING CONFLICT IN CURRENT DOCUMENTS: the 2026 manual requires 30 days' PRIOR notice with a 15-day MBOH review; the 2027 QAP accepts notice 'prior to or immediately upon implementation' with a 15-day grace before late fees. The manual's 30-day rule is encoded as the operative compliance standard (it is the later document and the stricter reading); the QAP's grace-period framing is carried here, not resolved.
The Qualified Management Company definition lives in the QAP's definitions appendix and includes the certification/training requirements of mt.lihtc.education_certification_and_licensing; whether MBOH maintains a roster of approved companies (versus assessing qualification per change) is not stated.
Whether the 15-day MBOH review can block a change taking effect, or is advisory, is not stated - contrast Idaho, where approval is an explicit precondition to assuming duties.
Whether an active mthousingsearch.com listing is the EXCLUSIVE safe harbour for the vacant-unit-rule marketing standard, or one sufficient method among others, is not stated - the manual says using the site 'meets the criteria', not that failing to use it fails them. The listing obligation itself is unconditional either way.
No consequence is stated for a lapsed listing other than the general noncompliance process; whether MBOH monitors listings proactively is unknown.
The manual does not restate the post-HERA federal waiver of income recertification at 100% properties in terms - it requires 'Student Status Forms for 100% LIHTC, or full-income recertifications when required', and pairs it with the QAP's no-more-than-12-months-between-certifications line. Whether the annual CP entry for a 100% property is a certification event (student form + data refresh) or a full recert is read from the file list; MBOH has not been asked to confirm the boundary.
MBOH's HOTMA posture is one paragraph in Appendix A ('all guidance as it relates to the administration of the LIHTC Program follow guidance in HOTMA'); no implementation dates, form revisions, or grandfathering rules are published - contrast Idaho's dated memo. The absence is recorded here rather than borrowing Idaho's dates.
The green-star-stamp convention (previously reviewed move-in files need no supporting docs at audit) is stated only for remote file reviews; whether it applies at in-person audits is not stated.
MBOH does not state what verification is acceptable, only that verification must exist. Whether a tenant self-certification would satisfy the 'All income sources must be verified' bullet for a source with no third party is unanswered in both documents.
MBOH's tenant-side forms, including whatever verification instruments it distributes, are published only inside the Certification Portal at certsonline.mt.gov behind an Emphasys login. A form footer or form name could carry an ordering or a threshold that the published documents do not. No login was attempted; the absence recorded here is an absence from MBOH's PUBLISHED documents.
The 2027 QAP's Appendix C.A still directs readers to 'the Montana Housing Compliance Manual (2024)' for compliance requirements and procedures. That edition is superseded; MBOH's own Compliance Manual page links the 2026 edition encoded here. An operator following the QAP's citation would be reading a manual two editions old. MBOH has not corrected the cross-reference.
MBOH lists 'Tenant communications' as a required file item without defining what must be retained. Whether a routine maintenance notice belongs in the file is unstated.
MBOH does not say whether the relief survives a change of ownership or management agent, nor what an owner does if a stamped original is lost or a stamped file is digitised without the stamp being legible in the scan.
MBOH states the relief only in the remote file-review list. Whether it applies equally to an in-person review is implied by the sentence's placement but not stated.
MBOH states no HOTMA effective date. A certification effective before the 2026 manual edition has no published Montana rule telling an operator whether HOTMA methodology was required for it.
MBOH says its guidance 'follow[s] guidance in HOTMA' without identifying which HOTMA guidance. The final rule, the Notice H 2023-10 joint implementation notice, and HUD's subsequent corrections are not distinguished.
The manual's Introduction makes the IRC govern any conflict with the manual. HOTMA's income and asset definitions reach LIHTC through Section 42(g)(4)'s cross-reference to Section 8, so the interaction is not a conflict, but MBOH does not say so.
MBOH publishes no asset self-certification threshold. Whether an operator in Montana may use the HOTMA threshold on the strength of MBOH's general HOTMA sentence, and if so at what indexed figure, is unresolved on the published record.
MBOH distributes its tenant forms only from the Certification Portal's Templates screen, behind an Emphasys login. A threshold could be printed on one of those forms. No login was attempted and none should be inferred from this rule's silence.
MBOH's limits page says income restrictions 'are determined for households of four'. Read literally that is wrong for the programme, which sets a limit for every household size; read as describing the four-person figure from which other sizes are derived it is unremarkable. MBOH does not clarify, and the following sentence ('If limits are needed other than the ones listed below, please contact a compliance specialist') sits oddly on a page that lists no limits at all.
Designating a third-party publication defeats content hashing as a change-detection mechanism for this rule: the state artifact never moves when the limits do. The cited MBOH page is stable and hashes identically across repeated fetches, and the calculator behind it is not a fixed artifact at all.
MBOH prints pairs for the 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% rent tiers only. Units designated at 60%, 70% or 80% have no published qualifying pair, and the QAP does not say whether the qualifying limit for those equals the rent tier or follows the same pattern.
The schedule appears in the QAP's Development Evaluation Criteria, which is an application-evaluation section. Whether MBOH treats it as an ongoing occupancy rule for awarded projects or only as an application-scoring convention is not stated in terms, though QAP sec. I.A makes the most recently adopted QAP govern compliance for all projects.
The 2026 Compliance Manual, which is the document a site manager works from, does not reproduce this schedule anywhere.
MBOH anchors qualification to the move-in TIC's effective date without saying what happens when the TIC's effective date and the lease start date diverge, which is the ordinary case where a certification is completed ahead of occupancy.
MBOH opens the concept by saying the rule 'is applicable only to mixed use properties with market rate units' and closes it by saying a 100% LIHTC property must rent every unit to a qualified household regardless. The two sentences describe different obligations and do not contradict each other, but MBOH does not spell out that a 100% property has no next-available-unit exposure because it has no market unit to lose.
MBOH describes the consequence as the loss of the unit's LIHTC status and a reduced applicable fraction, which is a credit consequence rather than a monitoring finding. It does not state whether it would additionally file a Form 8823, nor which category.
MBOH's Student Status Verification form is distributed only from the Certification Portal's Templates screen behind an Emphasys login, so its contents, its edition and any figure or attestation printed on it could not be examined.
MBOH does not say who must complete the verification. Whether the educational institution must sign it, as several peer agencies require, is unstated even though MBOH elsewhere makes the institution the arbiter of full-time status.
MBOH does not enumerate the Section 42(i)(3)(D) exceptions anywhere in the manual, referring only to 'one of the exceptions'. An operator must take the list from federal law.
MBOH does not state when a change in student status must be acted on. Unlike Missouri, which requires the determination to be made immediately on a resident becoming a full-time student and forbids waiting for the recertification, Montana states only that the concept does not apply and leaves the timing open.
MBOH publishes the 90-day figure only as a description of noncompliance. Whether the clock runs from the vacancy date or from some later date, and whether a unit made rent-ready on day 91 is cured or found, is not stated.
MBOH says the mthousingsearch.com listing 'meets the criteria for reasonable attempts to market'. It does not say whether the listing alone also satisfies the vacant unit rule's broader 'reasonable attempts to occupy' limb, which is the wording used in Appendix A.
MBOH lists 'do not pass management's background check or screening process' as a surviving ground without stating any limit on what those criteria may contain, and states separately that it does not monitor screening criteria. Whether a screening criterion that operates as a proxy for voucher holding would be caught is unaddressed.
MBOH does not define what makes an application 'filled out completely', and the manual gives no incomplete-application example.
MBOH disclaims review of screening criteria while requiring the tenant selection plan to be produced. It does not say what it does if a produced plan contains a criterion that is unlawful on its face.
The QAP states these as commitments an application makes, in a Development Evaluation Criteria section. QAP sec. I.A makes the most recently adopted QAP govern compliance for all projects, but MBOH does not say in terms how a PSH commitment made under an earlier QAP is monitored, nor whether the constraints attach to the 10% of units or to the whole project.
The 2026 Compliance Manual does not mention Permanent Supportive Housing at all, so a Montana site manager working only from the manual would not encounter these constraints.
The section is titled 'Discrimination in housing -- exemptions' and carries exemptions this pass did not read. A Montana owner must read them before relying on the prohibition as stated.
Montana's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in Montana on this section's text.
Age is protected without a floor or ceiling, which sits awkwardly beside senior housing operated under the federal 55-and-older exemption.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

dc District of Columbia · 70

DHCD's February 2012 Owner's Compliance Manual (Part I, Sec. V, p. 18) states the annual owner certification is due March 31; DHCD's current AOC page sets May 11, 2026 for the 2025 certification period with a June 1, 2026 backstop. No document was located that formally supersedes the March 31 date, and no regulation fixing a recurring AOC date was found. Which date governs in a cycle where DHCD does not publish one is unresolved. Not guessed.
Whether the June 1 date is a grace period on the May 11 submission date or an independent second deadline (and whether an AOC filed between the two dates is itself late) is not stated. Confirm with PAMD.
No late-filing fee or per-day penalty for an AOC filed after the published date was located in the manual, the QAP fee table, or the AOC page -- only the Notice of Noncompliance / Form 8823 consequence at June 1.
The AOC page requires 'certifications/training for on-site staff related to affordable housing or fair housing programs' annually and the manual requires a LIHTC training certificate no more than two years old to be kept at each site (Part I, Sec. A, p. 3), but neither states which trainings or certifications qualify, nor whose training (owner representative vs. on-site manager) satisfies which requirement. Not guessed.
Whether Housing Production Trust Fund and HOME properties carry AOC content or attachments beyond the LIHTC set (the page names a separate 'Program Questions excel form for funding other than LIHTC') was not established; the HPTF and HOME compliance regimes are out of scope for this LIHTC pass.
The 2025 QAP fee table sets the fee due 'each year on February 15' while DHCD's AOC page conditions the Notice of Noncompliance / Form 8823 consequence on nonpayment by June 1. Whether February 15 is a due date with a June 1 enforcement backstop, or the two documents simply disagree, is not resolved in either text. Not guessed.
No late-payment interest, penalty or per-day charge on an unpaid compliance monitoring fee was located in the QAP fee table, the manual, or the AOC page.
The QAP fee table states the first-15-year fee 'per unit' and the post-year-15 fee 'per tax credit unit (including employee units)'. Whether the first-15-year fee is likewise assessed on total units or only on tax credit units is not stated; the wording difference was preserved rather than harmonised.
Whether DHCD has ever exercised the withdrawal-from-the-program characterisation of fee nonpayment, and what notice precedes it, is not stated in the manual.
Whether DHCD conditions the issuance of a corrective or amended IRS Form 8823 on payment in full of the re-inspection and correction-review fees (as CHFA does in Connecticut) is not stated in the QAP fee table or the manual. Not guessed.
The QAP fee table does not state whether the re-inspection fee and the correction-document review fee are billed per project, per building, or per unit re-inspected, nor whether travel or report-writing time is billable.
No published schedule was located for the up-front or issuance-stage compliance cost referred to in the QAP's 'Compliance Cost' definition beyond the annual monitoring fee and these hourly charges.
The February 2012 manual gives the owner 'generally... 30 days' to submit follow-up documentation on the Notice to Cure letter; the 2025 QAP says the noncompliance notice 'will provide a cure period of up to 90 days from the notice date.' No document reconciles them -- whether the 30 days is an internal documentation deadline inside a 90-day regulatory correction period, or a superseded figure, is unresolved. Not guessed; both are encoded and the test asserts the outer bound.
What DHCD accepts as 'good cause' for the up-to-six-month cure extension, and whether the extension must be requested in writing before the cure period lapses, is not stated in the QAP.
The manual states DHCD 'reserves the right to request follow-up documentation within 24 hours' for health and safety noncompliance but does not define which deficiency categories trigger it. Under NSPIRE this would most naturally map to life-threatening and severe deficiency classes, but DHCD has not published that mapping and it is not asserted here.
Whether the 45-day Form 8823 filing clock runs from the close of the on-site review or from the close of the correction period is stated ambiguously in the manual ('no later than 45 days after the close of the review and no earlier than the end of the correction period'); the two constraints can conflict where a 90-day cure is granted, and DHCD's practice in that case is not documented.
DHCD's Portfolio and Asset Management page states NSPIRE is followed, while the February 2012 Owner's Compliance Manual -- still incorporated by reference in the 2025 QAP -- specifies UPCS. No DHCD notice stating the effective date of the NSPIRE transition for LIHTC monitoring was located, so inspections during the transition window cannot be assigned a standard from the sources read. Not guessed.
Whether DHCD applies NSPIRE deficiency severity classes (life-threatening / severe / moderate / low) and their associated correction timeframes, or continues the manual's flat 'reported on Form 8823 unless self-corrected prior to the inspection' treatment, is not addressed in any located DHCD document.
The manual states DHCD 'may also comment on and require, under local ordinances, additional repairs not listed under UPCS guidelines' but does not identify which District housing-code provisions (14 DCMR Housing Regulations) are applied on a monitoring visit. Not guessed.
Whether DHCD's inspection sample is drawn per building or across the project, and whether the same units are used for file review and physical inspection (as several peer agencies specify), is not stated beyond 'at least 20 percent of the project's low income units'.
Whether DCHFA separately inspects the developments it financed, and how a DCHFA regulatory-agreement inspection interacts with DHCD's Section 42 inspection on the same 4% bond property, was not established; no DCHFA compliance manual was located this pass.
The January 2021 policy contradicts itself on which options need DHCD approval: General Information says 'If you choose option 1 through 3, you would not normally need to send DHCD a request for approval. When choosing option 4, all requested information must be sent to...', but the Option 2 and Option 3 sections each state 'you must submit to DHCD' a $150 check and a full package, and the Timeline Requirements section is headed 'FOR OPTION 4'. Whether the 150-day cycle and the satisfactory-review-letter gate apply to options 2 and 3 or only to option 4 is unresolved in the text. Not guessed.
The 2025 QAP (p. 36) refers to 'PAMD's Utility Allowance Guidelines, available here: https://dhcd.dc.gov/service/project-monitoring', but that page does not currently link any utility allowance document. Whether a newer edition supersedes the January 2021 policy could not be established.
The January 2021 policy names an individual DHCD compliance specialist and a physical mailing address as the submission channel and does not state an electronic alternative. Whether utility allowance packages are now filed through the Emphasys portal alongside the AOC is not documented.
How the annual utility allowance cycle interacts with the AOC: DHCD's Request for Change in Ownership and/or Management Agent form asks for the 'Effective Date of Last Utility Allowance Schedule', and PAMD lists 'Utility Allowance Reviews' among its functions, but no located document requires utility allowance documentation to be filed with the AOC (contrast several peer states). Not asserted either way.
The 2025 QAP contemplates water sub-metering as a scored green feature 'as described further in PAMD's Utility Allowance Guidelines' while the 2012 manual states submetering and RUBS cannot support a utility allowance at all. Whether DHCD has since created a sub-metering pathway is unresolved.
The manual's mandated-forms list names a 'Request for Recertification Waiver - LIHTC' while the recertification section directs owners to 'complete the Request for Recertification Exemption'. Whether these are the same form under two names, and where the current version is published, was not established -- the compliance forms page linked from the 2012 manual no longer resolves to a forms index containing it.
Once DHCD grants the recertification exemption, whether any annual event is still required (a self-certification of household composition and student status, as CHFA requires in Connecticut, or nothing at all) is not stated. The Student Affidavit requirement is stated unconditionally 'with each re-certification', which is ambiguous where recertification has been exempted. Not guessed.
Whether DHCD's recertification exemption, once granted, can be revoked for properties with eligibility or documentation failures (an express power in several peer states) is not addressed in the manual.
How HOTMA's income-review and asset self-certification allowances interact with the District's exemption gate is not addressed in DHCD's April 2026 HOTMA memo.
The manual states an acquisition/rehab in-place tenant 'should be certified within ninety (90) days of the time of acquisition or loan closing'. Whether DHCD treats 'should' as mandatory for 8823 purposes is not stated; the parameter is recorded but the obligation verb in the source is permissive.
The memo says 'Some areas of HOTMA may be optional or amended by DHCD and applied in properties without covered HUD programs' but does not enumerate which areas are optional or how they are amended. Nothing was encoded about asset caps, the de minimis asset self-certification threshold, income-review triggers, hardship exemptions, or the over-income provisions, because DHCD has not said what it is adopting. Not guessed.
The memo states 'DHCD will provide more HOTMA guidance and training in 2026' and refers to 'the release of guidance in the compliance manual'; no updated DHCD compliance manual or supplemental HOTMA guidance was located as of 2026-08-24. The August 1, 2026 date is therefore recorded from an executive summary memorandum that describes itself as requesting approval to release guidance, not from the guidance itself.
Whether certifications with an effective date before August 1, 2026 but completed after it are governed by the new criteria (the memo says 'certifications completed on and after August 1, 2026', keying to completion rather than effective date) is not clarified, and the two dates routinely differ.
How DHCD reconciles the 'most restrictive requirements' instruction for layered properties with HOTMA's own supersession of HUD Handbook 4350.3 Chapter 5 is not addressed.
The manual says a unit not ready within 30 days 'may be considered' a down unit -- discretionary language. Whether DHCD applies the 30 days as a bright line or case by case, and whether documented supply-chain or permitting delay is an accepted defence, is not stated. Not guessed.
The channel and form for the 24-hour casualty notice are not specified (no email address, form, or after-hours contact is given in the manual), and no located DHCD document updates it for the Emphasys portal era.
Whether the 30-day make-ready clock is suspended during a casualty restoration period, and how it interacts with the federal casualty-loss restoration rules under Rev. Proc. 2014-49 or a declared disaster extension, is not addressed.
Whether the 48-hour occupied-unit trigger is keyed to any particular deficiency severity (life-threatening or severe under NSPIRE) is not stated.
The 2025 QAP names a 'Notification of Project Changes Form' at dhcd.dc.gov/assetmanagement; the form published at that address is titled 'Request for Change in Ownership and/or Management Agent' (rev. 1/23). Whether these are the same instrument or whether a separate Notification of Project Changes form exists was not established.
Whether DHCD's response to a submitted change form is an approval, a non-objection, or merely an acknowledgement -- and what happens if the change proceeds without a response after 30 days -- is not stated in the QAP, the form, or the manual. The 2012 manual says 'If a transfer is approved...' without stating who approves or on what standard. Not guessed.
No fee for an ownership or management change was located in the QAP fee table (contrast the $1,000 Allocation Modification Fee for Form 8609 changes).
The manual's 'Property Information Form' required of the previous owner before disposition was not located on DHCD's current site; whether it survives in the Emphasys era is unknown.
Whether DHCD applies a transfer-approval standard to the acquiring entity (financial capacity, prior noncompliance, debarment) beyond the past-performance scoring applied to future credit applications is not documented.
The QAP states the minimum as 'at least 40 years' and the manual, written when the District required only the federal 30, states a 30-year total. Which term binds a given property depends on its allocation year and its recorded Land Use Restrictive Covenants; no DHCD document was located stating when the 40-year minimum was first imposed, so the effective date for pre-2025 allocations cannot be fixed from these sources. Not guessed.
Whether DHCD operates a post-year-15 monitoring regime distinct from the first 15 years -- reduced review frequency, elimination of the next available unit rule, self-certifications, 8823s issued to the owner but not filed with the IRS, as several peer agencies publish -- could not be established. The only located post-year-15 signal is the reduced compliance monitoring fee tier in the QAP fee table, which implies continued monitoring at some lower intensity but does not describe it.
The QAP's exclusion of applicants whose principals previously requested a qualified contract is stated as discretionary ('will not be considered... at DHCD's discretion') and without a lookback period. Its scope (District projects only, or any project anywhere) is not stated.
Whether a project that 'presents a plan to transfer ownership to tenants at year 15' and therefore does not waive the qualified-contract right carries a shorter affordability term, and what happens if the tenant transfer does not occur, is not addressed.
The manual notes some projects elected to waive the opt-out right through scoring and directs owners to review their applications and recorded agreements; the corpus cannot know which properties did so, and that fact belongs to the property overlay.
TOPA's operative timelines -- the contents of a valid offer of sale, tenant-association registration deadlines, and the statutory negotiation and contract periods, which differ by building size -- were not fetched or encoded this pass. Only Sec. 42-3404.02(a) was read. A District disposition analysis needs the full subchapter, including the exemptions added by later amendments (notably for single-family accommodations), before this rule can be relied on operationally.
The District Opportunity to Purchase Amendment Act of 2008, D.C. Official Code Sec. 42-3404.31 et seq., is cited by the QAP alongside TOPA but was not separately fetched; the District's own purchase right and its interaction with the tenant right and the nonprofit ROFR is therefore unencoded.
How TOPA's timelines interact with the QAP's 24-month ROFR exercise window and 12-month closing period -- specifically whether a TOPA offer of sale must issue before, during, or after the nonprofit's exercise -- is not addressed by any located document. Not guessed.
Whether DHCD requires evidence of TOPA compliance as a condition of approving an ownership change (see dc.lihtc.ownership_or_management_change_30day_prior_notice) is not stated; the change form does not ask for it.
This rule's applicability predicate is the standard state-layer LIHTC predicate and therefore under-covers TOPA, which reaches District rental housing generally. A future local-layer or program-agnostic encoding of TOPA would be the correct home for the statute itself.
The federal vacant unit rule asks whether reasonable attempts were made to rent a vacated low-income unit; DHCD converts that into a fixed 30-day make-ready deadline. The manual does not say whether missing the 30 days is itself a finding, or only evidence that reasonable attempts were not made -- it says such units 'may be considered down units' and reported on Form 8823, which is permissive.
No exception is stated for a unit that cannot be made ready in 30 days for reasons outside the owner's control -- a casualty, a permit delay, a supply problem. The casualty notice provision sits in the same section and is a notification duty, not a tolling provision.
The Owner's Compliance Manual is dated February 2012 and its running footer says 'Effective February 2011'. DHCD has not published a superseding Part I that was located this pass, and the manual predates HOTMA, the 2016 average income test, the 2019 income averaging guidance and the current 8823 Guide. Where it restates federal law, the federal law has moved; where it states DHCD's own practice -- which is what this rule encodes -- it is the only published statement of that practice. Confirm current DHCD practice before relying on any deadline here for an audited event.
The manual says the waiver is subject to 'OPM approval'. OPM is not defined in the manual, and DHCD's current compliance division is PAMD (Portfolio and Asset Management Division). Whether the approving office has been renamed or the function moved is not stated in any document located this pass -- the requirement that approval precede the waiver is clear, the office to apply to is not.
Nothing states how long an approval lasts, whether it survives a change of ownership, or whether it must be renewed. An owner relying on an approval obtained years ago under a prior owner has no published basis for doing so.
The manual requires a Student Affidavit 'with each re-certification'. Where a property has an approved HERA recertification waiver and performs no annual recertification, whether the affidavit is still due annually is not addressed -- student status is a continuing eligibility condition under Section 42 that the recertification waiver does not remove.
DHCD's position on initial certification is expressed as a RECOMMENDATION -- that management verify all income and assets by third party and use the Housing Authority verification only at recertification. It is encoded here as stated, not hardened into a requirement, but the manual does not say what happens on review where an owner used the Housing Authority verification at initial certification instead.
The manual states the 140% rule in its pre-2008 form -- 'the next unit of comparable or smaller size'. It does not address income averaging properties, where the available unit rule operates against the unit's designated band rather than a single project limit, and it predates the average income test entirely. For an income averaging property in the District, the federal rule governs and this manual is silent.
'A mistake made by management in the qualification process' is not good cause, which means an owner who wrongly qualifies an ineligible household cannot evict to fix its own error. The manual does not say what the owner must do instead, nor how the unit's status is treated in the interim.
The list is expressly not exhaustive, so it establishes what good cause is NOT and never what it is. DHCD publishes no affirmative standard, and the District's own landlord-tenant law supplies grounds that this manual does not reconcile with the federal requirement.
The services a given property pledged are in its application and the recorded regulatory agreement, which the corpus does not hold per property. The rule states the standard -- free, for the longer period, unchangeable without written consent -- and cannot say for any particular property what was pledged.
'The compliance period or period of affordability, whichever is longer' is a 15-year federal compliance period against an extended use period that in the District commonly runs 30 to 40 years. The manual does not say whether a service pledged in a competitive application scored on it must genuinely be sustained for the full extended use period.
The reliance window runs from HUD's release, and the District's operative table is DHCD's, published after DHCD 'completes the necessary calculations'. The manual does not say what an owner applies in the gap where the 45 days have run but DHCD has not yet posted the District's table, which is precisely the window in which a new certification has to use some number.
Sealed eviction record is protected in subsection (a) but is absent from the subterfuge list in subsection (b). Whether that omission is deliberate is not stated, and it means a pretextual use of a sealed eviction record is not obviously covered by (b).
'Place of residence or business' is protected without definition. Screening criteria that turn on a current address -- a prior-landlord reference, a residency preference -- are not distinguished from the discrimination the clause targets.
The District does not say how a protected 'sealed eviction record' interacts with a tenant screening report an owner buys from a third party that may still carry the record.

co Colorado · 68

The manual sets the mandatory date 'no later than January 1, 2027' -- language that contemplates an earlier date being set for some developments. It does not say by whom, on what notice, or whether the LURA or a policy memorandum would carry such a date.
'HOTMA-related tenant file errors' is not defined, and many of CHFA's HOTMA-aligned rules restate positions that were already required pre-HOTMA. Which errors fall inside the observation-only window is left to the Program Compliance Officer.
The manual does not say how an owner is to know whether an income source 'uses a UIV service as their verification system' before querying one, nor what documentation suffices to show a source does not.
The consistency rule bars verifying two applicants differently 'unless there is a valid reason' for the pay-stub count, but states the UIV consistency duty without any equivalent qualifier. Whether a fee declined for one applicant and paid for another is a consistency violation is not addressed.
The two consistency passages appear twice in near-identical wording, once in s5.10 and once in s5.11, and the s5.11 version adds the pay-stub-count rule. Whether the count rule reaches non-employment verifications is unclear.
The prohibition is written as 'may not be kept in file ... unless they are removed ahead of a CHFA program compliance review', which is self-cancelling as drafted -- a report removed before review was not kept in the file. The practical reading is that presence at review is the defect; that reading is stated in the rule and the drafting is recorded here.
The manual does not say whether an electronic file system that stores EIV reports in a separate folder, or a file index that omits them, satisfies the removal duty at an electronic file review under s7.15.
The permission is expressed for 'mixed-income developments conducting full annual recertifications'. Under s7.4 only mixed-income LIHTC years 1-15 and CHFA Loan developments conduct full annual recertifications, so the two conditions largely coincide -- but the manual does not say whether a 100-percent-affordable property that voluntarily runs full recertifications may use a return.
Nothing is said about a household with no employment income at all whose only documentary income record is a filed return -- a retired self-employed applicant, for instance. The move-in bar appears absolute.
The 120 days runs 'from the date of the document or the date the document was signed by the verifier' for income, and 'from the date the document was signed' for assets. Where an unsigned bank statement is the asset verification, the manual does not say which date starts the clock.
The 365-day window is offered for information 'that changes no more than once per year'. Social Security is the clear case; whether an employer-set annual salary, or a fixed child-support order, falls inside it is not addressed.
The manual requires a written policy whether or not the owner uses safe harbour, but does not say where it lives, whether it must be filed with CHFA, or whether its absence is itself citable at a property that never uses the device.
The 'except for household members' parenthetical distinguishes family members from household members in a way the manual's own s5.1 table supports but which reads as a typographical inversion in this sentence. The rule follows s5.1: live-in aides, foster children, foster adults, guests and guarantors are household members who are not family members and so need not appear on the safe-harbor verification.
Whether the PHA Statement of Income and Assistance is itself a safe-harbor determination subject to the no-mixing rule, or a separate third-party verification that may be combined with others, is not stated.
The manual requires the certification from 'each adult member' and separately permits one combined form for multiple adults. It does not say whether the combined form must carry every adult's signature or only the head of household's.
s6.2 requires the form at move-in and full annual recertifications. It is silent on unit transfers and on interim certifications when a new adult joins, where s7.7 requires the new member to be 'fully certified, including all the standard move-in forms and verifications' -- which would import the Asset Certification for that member but is not said in s6.2's own terms.
The manual never prints the threshold. A file reviewed against the wrong year's figure -- $51,600 rather than $52,787, a $1,187 band -- produces the wrong verification scope and the wrong TIC part, and nothing in the manual would alert the reader.
'Multiply the interest rate by the full value (not the cash value)' is stated for accounts with interest rates. Whether 'full value' means the account balance before any early-withdrawal penalty, or market value before any secured loan, is clear for a bank account and unclear for a certificate of deposit or a life policy.
The three separately named HUD thresholds -- for imputation, for including non-necessary personal property, and for accepting self-certification of assets -- are the same figure on CHFA's own adjustment sheet for both 2025 and 2026. The manual treats them as three parameters, so a future divergence would break any code that collapsed them.
s6.9 applies the 10 percent to 'the market value'; s6.5 applies it to 'the full value of the asset'. The two sections give the same result for real estate but would diverge for an asset whose market value and full value differ, and s6.5 lists the item under real estate closing costs while sitting in a general cash-value list.
Online database estimates from Zillow or Redfin are accepted as third-party verification of market value without any currency requirement, while an appraisal must be current within six months. The manual does not say how recent a database estimate must be.
Negative equity gives a $0 cash value but the property stays in assets. The manual does not say what actual or imputed income, if any, a zero-cash-value property carries where it produces no rent -- imputation on a $0 cash value yields $0, but the property is still 'included in net family assets' for the purposes of the s6.6 imputation test.
CoinDesk.com is named as an example converter. The manual does not say whether any converter is acceptable, whether the same converter must be used across applicants under the consistency-of-treatment duty in s5.10, or what to do where two converters disagree materially.
The date-and-time documentation duty implies a point-in-time valuation but the manual does not say which point -- the certification effective date, the date the file is assembled, or the date of the resident's own statement.
Virtual currency held on an exchange that pays staking rewards is not addressed. The actual-income table gives 'interest rate or dividends' for virtual currency, neither of which describes a staking reward.
The band is stated as 'up to 100 square feet larger or smaller'. Whether a unit exactly 100 square feet larger is inside or outside is not stated, and the manual gives no example.
The federal definition CHFA restates is 'comparably sized or smaller'. CHFA's band admits units up to 100 square feet larger, which is more permissive than the federal formulation in that direction, and excludes units more than 100 square feet smaller, which is more restrictive in the other. The manual does not address whether an owner may fall back on the federal definition where the two disagree, and CHFA's own s7.5 presents the band as a definition rather than as a safe harbour.
The Rule is stated to apply at 100-percent affordable properties while formal tracking is required only at mixed-income ones. What a reviewer expects to see at a 100-percent property that let an over-income unit sit while renting a comparable unit to a non-qualified household -- which cannot happen at a genuinely 100-percent property -- is not addressed.
CHFA stops monitoring the Student Rule post-Year 15 on the reasoning that student status is not a defined LURA requirement, but the Rule is a Section 42 requirement that survives Year 15 in the extended use period. The manual states a monitoring decision, not a statement that the underlying rule lapses; an owner relying on it is unmonitored, not exempt. The distinction is not drawn in the manual.
Certification is required from members 'age 18 years and older', but the IRS Student Rule counts full-time students of any age, including minors enrolled full time in elementary or secondary school -- which the manual's own definition of an educational institution expressly includes. How an owner establishes whether a household of one adult student and two school-age children is an all-student household without certifying the children is not addressed.
Third-party verification of part-time status is required for an all-student household, but the manual does not say what document establishes part-time status where the institution reports only credit hours.
The manual requires the new member to be 'fully certified, including all the standard move-in forms and verifications' but computes the household total from the existing members' income at their most recent certification, which may be up to a year old and verified against a different limit series. Whether a stale existing figure and a current new figure may be added is not addressed.
The six-month restriction on new adult members is recommended as owner policy, 'except under specific circumstances' -- which are not named. An owner drafting the policy has no list to work from.
Where all original members vacate, the owner 'must determine whether the remaining members are a qualified tax credit household' and is referred to the IRS 8823 Guide pp. 4-4 to 4-6. The manual does not say which income limits or which effective date that determination uses.
The policy is dated 'Effective October 1, 2025' and applies itself retroactively to AIT projects with taxable years beginning before 30 September 2025, from calendar year 2025. It does not say what happens to a project whose 2025 designations were recorded under the prior temporary regulations and would not satisfy the final ones.
CHFA states its MTSP-derived 20, 70 and 80 percent limits may not align with IRS or HUD methodology and that this 'could impact household qualification'. Whether a household qualified against a CHFA figure that later proves higher than the federal one is protected is not addressed, and no safe harbour is offered.
The 100-percent-low-income eligibility condition is stated for '9 percent federal, 4 percent federal, and 4 percent federal/state Housing Tax Credit applications'. Whether it reaches a project that elected AIT before this policy's effective date, or one financed with bonds outside those application routes, is not stated.
The eligible-projects paragraph and the unit-parity paragraph both defer to CHFA's QAP for further guidance. The QAP is not in the corpus, so the equitable-distribution requirement behind unit parity cannot be stated from a hashed source.
The corpus's only Colorado state agency record (co.hfa) is the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, the Housing Credit allocator, which does not administer state HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Division of Housing (Office of Housing Finance and Sustainability) in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The rule is emitted with agency_id co.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a co.doh agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
Whether DOH's discretionary reduction of the term 'to align with the project's permanent funding or tax credit LURA' can shorten it below 30 years, contradicting the stated minimum, is not resolved within the document; the covenant governs in any conflict and is not inferred here.
The corpus's only Colorado state agency record (co.hfa) is the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, the Housing Credit allocator, which does not administer state HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Division of Housing (Office of Housing Finance and Sustainability) in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The rule is emitted with agency_id co.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a co.doh agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The memo says DOH 'intends to issue a letter of clarification' to pre-April-2025 projects. Whether those letters have issued, and whether any project declined the new covenant terms, was not determinable from public documents on 2026-08-26.
The memo is Version 1, dated 4/25/2025, and describes the 92.253 delay to 30 October 2025 as pending. No Version 2 was found on the DOLA forms-and-guidance page on 2026-08-26.
The corpus's only Colorado state agency record (co.hfa) is the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, the Housing Credit allocator, which does not administer state HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Division of Housing (Office of Housing Finance and Sustainability) in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The rule is emitted with agency_id co.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a co.doh agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The policy's Re: line reads 'Risk-Based Monitoring Policy Version 3 - effective April 1, 2026' while its page header reads 'Version 2 Updated 4/25/2025'. The served Google Doc appears to be the current text (linked from DOLA's live forms-and-guidance page on 2026-08-26), but which version number it actually is, and whether a separate Version 2 text differed, is unresolved.
The corpus's only Colorado state agency record (co.hfa) is the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, the Housing Credit allocator, which does not administer state HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Division of Housing (Office of Housing Finance and Sustainability) in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The rule is emitted with agency_id co.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a co.doh agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The corpus's only Colorado state agency record (co.hfa) is the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, the Housing Credit allocator, which does not administer state HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Division of Housing (Office of Housing Finance and Sustainability) in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The rule is emitted with agency_id co.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a co.doh agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The UPCS-vs-NSPIRE transition: the LTM policy (effective 1 April 2026 on its face) still says UPCS even though the 2025 memo records the NSPIRE compliance date as no later than 1 October 2025 and DOH accepts other funders' NSPIRE reports. Which standard DOH's own inspectors applied after October 2025 is not stated in any fetched document.
The corpus's only Colorado state agency record (co.hfa) is the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, the Housing Credit allocator, which does not administer state HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Division of Housing (Office of Housing Finance and Sustainability) in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The rule is emitted with agency_id co.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a co.doh agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
DOH publishes no rent-increase tenant-notice period of its own. Colorado general law (CRS 38-12-701) imposes notice requirements outside the HOME layer; those are not encoded here and the federal 30-day HOME floor is not displaced.
The corpus's only Colorado state agency record (co.hfa) is the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, the Housing Credit allocator, which does not administer state HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Division of Housing (Office of Housing Finance and Sustainability) in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The rule is emitted with agency_id co.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a co.doh agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
HOTMA income rules were delayed to no later than 1 January 2026 and the memo says DOH is waiting for the CPD Income Eligibility calculator. Whether DOH has since switched its income calculations to HOTMA, and with what guidance, postdates every fetched document.
The corpus's only Colorado state agency record (co.hfa) is the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, the Housing Credit allocator, which does not administer state HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Division of Housing (Office of Housing Finance and Sustainability) in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The rule is emitted with agency_id co.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a co.doh agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The corpus's only Colorado state agency record (co.hfa) is the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, the Housing Credit allocator, which does not administer state HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Division of Housing (Office of Housing Finance and Sustainability) in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The rule is emitted with agency_id co.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a co.doh agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The corpus's only Colorado state agency record (co.hfa) is the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, the Housing Credit allocator, which does not administer state HOME. The promulgator and monitor of this rule is the Division of Housing (Office of Housing Finance and Sustainability) in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The rule is emitted with agency_id co.hfa only because referential integrity requires an existing agency id and agencies.json is a shared file this batch did not modify; a co.doh agency record should be added centrally and these rules repointed, as was done for ca.hcd.
The P&P says quarterly reports without stating due dates or the report contents; the Neighborly Completion and Monitoring Report (HOME Rental) form was located but its fields were not extracted. Exact due dates are unpublished as far as fetched documents show.
This rule carried a page-range locator and no quote, which is exactly the failure mode described in CLAUDE.md's 'Cite with quotes, not page numbers': when the edition turned over there was no way to check whether the substance survived, only that a heading had moved. The substance did survive, confirmed by direct read. The quotes now on this record are what make the next edition change checkable.
The May 2026 edition adds a constraint this rule does not carry and which could not be checked against the 2024 edition, because that edition is no longer served anywhere found: a callout at s7.4 p.133 states that 'For units with Section 8, HOME, or USDA-RD assistance, the owner must continue to follow annual recertification verification requirements specific to those programs and may not be able to use basic annual recertifications.' Whether that is new text or was always present is not established, so it is recorded here rather than folded into the statement.
s7.3 p.129 lists TWO grounds for choosing a different effective date, and this rule states only one. Besides aligning to a HAP voucher administrator's date, the manual permits a different date 'For all properties: when the owner elects to conduct mass recertifications of all households during the same time period every year'. Whether the mass-recertification option was in the 2024 edition could not be checked, because that edition is no longer served anywhere found. It is recorded here rather than added to the statement, which would be encoding a new obligation under cover of a citation fix.
The page-range locator this rule previously carried named 'Section 7.2, Effective Dates' and pages 130-131 and 134. In the served edition the effective-date material sits in s7.3 at p.129 and in s7.4 at p.131, and p.134 is s7.5, the Next Available Unit Rule, which this rule does not state. The old locator was pointing partly at the wrong material.
Still deliberately incomplete, and the gap survived the edition change. The between-buildings matrix at s7.6 p.137 is a five-cell table keyed by property type (LIHTC only / LIHTC + PAB / CHFA Loan combinations / Post Year 15 variants / CHFA Loan + PAB - No LIHTC) and by whether current household income exceeds 140 percent of the current income limit. It is not encoded by this rule. Treat any between-building transfer at a multiple-building project that has NOT elected separate-project treatment as unresolved here and read the source.
The manual writes the swap as covering 'rent, utility allowance, and set-aside' in the same-building paragraph and as 'the new rent and utility allowance amounts and any change in the AMI designation' in the steps list on the same page. This rule's statement uses the AMI designation wording. The two are the manual's own, on one page, and nothing turns on the difference.
The manual states no CHFA due date for the Portfolio Manager reporting - only that it is annual and follows construction. The 1 June date printed on the same page belongs to the state benchmarking statute (C.R.S. 25-7-142), which reaches buildings of 50,000 square feet or larger, a different population from 'all buildings awarded Housing Tax Credits in or after 2020'. The two must not be conflated into a single 1 June CHFA deadline, and no due-date parameter is recorded because CHFA publishes no figure.
The rule's previous locator gave p.19; in the served edition the section is on p.20. The section heading and text are otherwise identical in substance.
The inquiry-and-record limb is truncated at the point the source page breaks ('concerning the disabi'). Its full scope should be read in the statute before relying on it.
The text retrieved is the publisher's 2023 printing. Colorado amended its civil rights statutes in 2024 and 2025; this corpus has not verified the current text against the state's own publication.
Colorado's list does not include source of income in the quoted subsection. Colorado enacted source-of-income protection at § 24-34-502(1)(a) by later amendment on some accounts; this corpus records only what the retrieved text says and does not assume the amendment.
An affordable housing programme requires income records to be made, and a bar on causing any record concerning a protected characteristic is not reconciled with that in the text.

al Alabama · 66

AHFA does not publish the length of the 'written cure period' it provides after an inspection for tenant-event mismatches; the 2027 QAP Addendum B refers to 'the latest (latest due date) cure period provided in writing by AHFA' without stating a range. Whether this is a standard interval or set case by case is unknown.
The manual (Chapter 8) and Addendum B both refer to entering tenant data 'monthly (see QAP or HOME Action Plan for specific requirements)'. The HOME Action Plan's compliance addendum was not fetched this pass, so whether HOME-funded Alabama projects carry a different DMS cadence than the day-15 Housing Credit rule is unresolved.
Whether AHFA treats the day-15 monthly deadline as independently enforceable (a point deduction on its own) or only as the precondition that makes an inspection-time mismatch a finding is not stated; the Addendum B text ties the 1-point deduction to the inspection mismatch, not to the missed monthly date.
The length of the written cure period AHFA provides for a missing or defective AOC is not published; only the 45-calendar-day Form 8823 clock that starts at its end is stated.
Whether AHFA files a second 'back in compliance' Form 8823 once a late AOC is received is not addressed in either the manual or Addendum B, although the federal violation taxonomy assumes that practice.
Whether 'annual financial statement' means audited, reviewed, compiled, or owner-prepared statements is not specified in Addendum B or the compliance manual, and no AHFA form or template for it was located.
AHFA's Form 8609 Part II delivery requirement and its own $500 fee (Addendum B Sec. I.F, 60 calendar days after written notice of non-receipt) was read but not encoded as a rule this pass.
Whether the $500 late fee is charged per Project or per submission, and whether it recurs if the statement remains outstanding, is not stated.
AHFA's standard or typical correction-period length is not published in the compliance manual, in QAP Addendum B, or on the compliance web page. Whether AHFA observes the Treas. Reg. 1.42-5(e)(4) 90-day cap and 6-month outer bound in practice is unverified and was not assumed.
No maximum extension length is published for the 'extenuating circumstance' extension, nor any statement of what AHFA accepts as extenuating.
Whether AHFA's post-inspection verbal summary starts any clock, or whether only the subsequent formal written notice does, is not stated; Addendum B Sec. II.B describes both but ties the cure timeframe only to the written notice.
AHFA's manual says reviews 'may be performed with little or no prior notice' but does not state a minimum notice period to the Ownership Entity. Separately, the manual requires the owner to comply with Alabama state law when notifying households of an inspection date; the specific Alabama landlord-tenant notice statute is not cited by AHFA and was not independently verified this pass.
Whether the first-year-after-placed-in-service site visit is separate from, or the same event as, the first triennial visit is not made explicit.
Whether the 20% file sample and the 20% unit sample must cover the same units is not stated.
AHFA does not state whether the Post Year-15 five-year inspection interval restarts from the last 15-Year-period inspection or from the start of the Post Year-15 period.
The Post Year-15 Student Certification form referenced by the manual was not fetched or read this pass; its content and whether it differs substantively from the standard student certification is unknown.
AHFA's Qualified Contract process (the Year 14 election under IRC 42(h)(6)(E)-(F)) is not addressed anywhere in the compliance manual read this pass, and no separate AHFA qualified-contract policy document was located. Whether AHFA publishes one is unresolved.
The economic-infeasibility Declaration-amendment path states no decision standard, timeline, or appeal; only the two documents the owner must submit.
The per-item point-deduction list itself (QAP Addendum B Section II.I, the enumerated Health and Safety, Unit, Site, Exterior and Common Area deficiencies) was read but not encoded as rules this pass. Each item is a discrete deficiency category with its own point weight.
The 2027 QAP Addendum B compresses the Management-Company-side suspension criteria that the 2026 edition states in full; whether AHFA intended to narrow the regime to Ownership Entities for the 2027 cycle or simply abbreviated the drafting is unresolved, and the 2026 text is cited alongside for that reason.
Whether point deductions accrued against a Responsible Owner follow that person into a new Ownership Entity is addressed only obliquely by the QAP's Responsible Owner scoring test and is not resolved.
No published appeal or reconsideration procedure for an assessed point deduction or a suspension was located.
DIRECT CONFLICT between two AHFA documents on the same deadline: the Compliance Manual (Ch. 1 Sec. 1.4) says the Housing Credit compliance fee is due within 90 days after the Placed in Service Date, while the 2027 QAP (Sec. II.I.4) lists the Compliance Fee among items due within 180 calendar days after the Placed-In-Service Date. Not resolved; the 90-day figure is carried as the parameter value because it is the more conservative, and both documents are cited.
The $750-per-unit figure comes from AHFA's compliance web page, not from the manual or the QAP. The manual's controlling reference -- 'Approved and Active AHFA Project Fee Requirements are located on the AHFA website' -- points to a fee schedule document that was not located this pass. Whether $750 is current, whether it varies by program or project size, and whether there is a project minimum or cap are all unverified.
Whether the compliance fee is a one-time charge covering the whole compliance period or is billed periodically is not stated in any of the three sources read.
The 'standard mileage rate in effect at the time of the re-inspection' is not identified as the IRS rate or an AHFA-published rate.
AHFA does not state a deferral of the FIRST utility allowance review for a newly placed-in-service building (Kentucky, by contrast, defers until 90% occupancy for 90 consecutive days or the end of the first credit-period year). Whether AHFA expects a utility allowance from the first day of the credit period is unresolved.
For the energy consumption model AHFA requires a year-two comparison of actual consumption against the model, submitted with the next year's estimate, but does not state what happens if the comparison shows a material divergence.
AHFA's instructions PDF for entering utility allowances into AHFA DMS (ahfa-online-utility-allowance-instructions.pdf) was identified on the compliance page but not fetched or read this pass; it may carry submission-timing detail not present in the manual.
The manual states 'There is no provision for a utility allowance floor as there is for rent' but does not address how AHFA treats a decrease in the allowance mid-lease.
AHFA's treatment of the Average Income (income averaging) minimum set-aside is not addressed anywhere in the compliance manual read this pass; the manual's Chapter 2 set-aside section lists only the 20-50 and 40-60 tests. Whether AHFA has a separate average-income compliance policy is unresolved.
Whether a 100 percent Housing Credit project that also received HOME or HTF funds may use the self-certification recertification, or must follow the HOME chapter's years-6/12/18 full-verification schedule, is stated only indirectly (Ch. 3 Sec. 3.13 warns that the transfer exception 'may NOT apply' to projects that also received HOME Funds) and is not resolved for recertification.
AHFA's HOME chapter uses a 180-day recertification window against the Housing Credit chapter's 120 days; for a layered HOME/Housing Credit property the manual does not state which governs, beyond the Introduction's general 'more restrictive regulations will apply'.
AHFA does not state what evidence it accepts as showing a unit was 'marketable' within 30 days, nor whether the 30 days runs from move-out, from the unit being made ready, or from the start of marketing.
AHFA's Property Damage Notification form and the Notice of Intent to Transfer Ownership forms were identified on the compliance page but not fetched or read this pass.
Whether an approved damage-related extension suspends the vacant-unit clock or restarts it is not stated.
The AHFA casualty provision ('must be replaced or suitable for occupancy by the last day of the year in which the casualty loss occurred') is stated in the manual as a note referencing IRS Chief Counsel Advice Memo 200134006; whether AHFA applies the later federal disaster-relief extensions under Rev. Proc. 2014-49 is not addressed.
AHFA publishes no advance-notice interval for a Management Company change, only that its approval is required; whether AHFA applies the ownership branch's 30 days by analogy is unknown.
No published standard, timeline or appeal route for AHFA's approval decision on an ownership or management transfer was located; the transfer forms and guidelines referenced by the manual were not fetched this pass.
Whether AHFA charges a fee for a transfer-of-ownership or transfer-of-management review is not stated in the manual or the QAP; the separate AHFA fee schedule was not located.
The manual requires written notice of a foreclosure but does not state a deadline for it, nor what AHFA does with the Declaration of Land Use Restrictive Covenants on foreclosure (the federal three-year decontrol rule under IRC 42(h)(6)(E)(ii) is not addressed).
AHFA publishes 20 years flat for all HOME-funded Projects, while 24 CFR 92.252(e) scales the period (5/10/15/20) by average per-unit HOME investment and activity type. The manual does not say whether AHFA elects the longest tier for every award, or whether its awards simply always land in the 20-year tier. Not inferred either way. Resolve against a specific project's Declaration of Land Use Restrictive Covenants and its HOME written agreement.
Whether awards that predate the 2025 HOME Final Rule carry a shorter contractual Period of Affordability in their recorded Declaration than the 20 years the current manual states was not determined this pass. The manual is written in the present tense and does not address grandfathering.
The manual conditions the years-two-and-three rent-roll substitution on 'excessive deficiencies in multiple household files' not having been found at the required file inspection, but does not define 'excessive' or 'multiple', and does not state what the review cadence becomes when that threshold IS crossed. Not inferred.
Failure to correct a violation of the NSPIRE standards 'will be considered noncompliance and will be reported to HUD' (Sec. 6.1.B, p. 62), but the manual gives no correction window for physical deficiencies and does not adopt the NSPIRE per-deficiency correction timeframes by reference. See also the separate 12-month follow-up window for hazardous deficiencies in al.home.physical_inspection.hazardous_deficiency_followup.
The per-item Health and Safety Deficiency list, the point value of each item, and the cumulative point threshold that triggers the one-year suspension all live in the Compliance Addendum of AHFA's HOME Action Plan, which is a separate document that was NOT located or read this pass. The manual references it without reproducing it. Parameters for the threshold are therefore absent, not zero.
The manual does not state whether the 12-month follow-up window runs from the date of the inspection or from the date of the written notification of the deficiency; it says 'after the notification', which is encoded literally.
Section 6.14 frames the cycle for a Project that 'is a 100 percent low-income project'. The manual does not separately state the recertification regime for a HOME-funded Project with market-rate units, and does not say whether the 6/12/18 cycle or an annual full verification applies there. Not inferred. Resolve with AHFA for mixed HOME projects.
AHFA does not state what happens when the 180-day window is missed -- whether a late-dated recertification is curable, is a point-deducting finding, or invalidates the certification. The general correction-period provision (Sec. 6.25.B) says only that the correction period is 'set by AHFA'.
The effective date encoded is July 1, 2025, the date the manual itself gives for the verification-hierarchy requirement, even though the citation is to the manual's 11-17-25 revision. AHFA permitted earlier voluntary adoption, so a file certified between the hierarchy's announcement and July 1, 2025 may have been prepared either way; the manual does not say what governs review of those files.
AHFA writes that verifications 'must be received by the Management Company within six months of the completion of the Tenant Income Certification form and move in by the household', which reads as a receipt deadline running FORWARD from the TIC. That is the opposite direction from the usual verification-currency rule (verification must not be older than N days at the effective date). The sentence is encoded literally rather than normalized, and the direction should be confirmed with AHFA.
The manual does not state AHFA's turnaround commitment on a rent increase request, nor what happens if AHFA has not acted by the proposed effective date -- whether the increase may be implemented, must be deferred, or is deemed denied. The 60-day submission lead time implies a review period but no service standard is published.
Whether the 60-day tenant notice may run concurrently with the 60-day AHFA review, or must follow approval, is not stated. Serving the notice before approval risks noticing a rent AHFA does not approve; serving it after approval makes the effective date at least 120 days out. AHFA does not resolve this and it is not inferred here.
The manual does not publish a due date for the annual rent schedule submission -- it says AHFA must approve rent schedules 'annually' without naming a month or tying the submission to the release of HUD's HOME limits, which is how Iowa anchors the same obligation (45 days from limit release). Whether AHFA works to a calendar date or to a per-project anniversary was not determined.
Chapter 6 Sec. 6.24 permits an Ownership Entity to implement a required rent DECREASE either by decreasing all affected rents at the same time the following month or as each lease expires and a new lease is signed, and says owners are not required to decrease rents below the initial rents approved by AHFA at HOME commitment. That floor -- initial approved rents -- is not encoded as a parameter because the manual does not say whether it survives a decrease in the published HUD HOME limits below that floor.
The method is chosen by the Ownership Entity during the Application Cycle. The manual does not say whether switching methods mid-Period-of-Affordability requires AHFA approval, or whether one method must be used consistently across a whole property. Iowa's manual answers both questions expressly for its own program; Alabama's does not, and it is not inferred from Iowa.
AHFA does not state the consequence of a utility allowance change that is implemented later than 90 days after its effective date -- specifically whether rent collected in the interval is treated as an overcharge requiring refund, as Iowa expressly provides for its HOME rent decreases.
The AHFA HOME Lease Addendum form itself was not retrieved this pass -- only Chapter 6's description of its required contents. The form version in force for a given move-in date is therefore not pinned by this rule. Resolve against the Compliance section of ahfa.com for the period under review.
The manual does not state whether an addendum missing at move-in can be cured by executing it later, or whether the defect is fixed as of the move-in date. Given that AHFA treats the missing signature as noncompliance in itself, this matters and is not inferred.
The manual sets a 30-day notice period but no service standard for AHFA's decision, and does not say what happens if a transfer closes before AHFA approves -- whether the transfer is void, the Project is out of compliance, or point deductions follow.
The transfer-of-ownership guidelines and forms referenced as being on AHFA's website were not retrieved this pass, so the substantive approval criteria (what AHFA evaluates in a proposed transferee or management company) are not encoded.
Whether the omission of handicap from subsections (1) and (2) is deliberate or a drafting artefact is not addressed in the statute, and this corpus does not resolve it.
Other sections of the Alabama Fair Housing Law may address disability separately; this pass read only § 24-8-4.
Alabama's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in Alabama on this section's text.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

ny.nyc New York City · 63

The QAP requires the annual certification 'for the 30-year period during which the project is subject to regulation under Section 42' (p. 29). Whether HPD applies the same March 1 deadline, the same eRent Roll and new-move-in-file contents, and the same $25/unit fee during the post-Year-15 extended use period, or a reduced package, is not stated in any source read this pass.
No late fee, penalty schedule, or stated consequence for missing the March 1 deadline was located. The QAP routes a 'failure to submit the owner certification' to IRS Form 8823 under Section 42(m)(1)(B)(iii) with a discretionary correction period of up to 90 days (extendable to 180), but HPD publishes no monetary late charge.
The CY2025 Part B is a scanned image with no text layer; its LIHTC questions were read by rendering pages and corroborated against the text-layer CY2021 printing. If HPD changed a question between CY2021 and CY2025 in a way not visible in the rendered pages, this rule would not reflect it.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'ny.nyc.hpd'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'ny.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for an HPD-monitored New York City property. Whether a property is monitored by HPD or by HCR/HFA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded regulatory agreement; it is not derivable from the address. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the NYC layer.
The fee form and the certification instructions give different mailroom addresses for the same compliance year (Room 7-U2 versus Room 7-V1, different named recipients). Confirm the current delivery address with the Tax Credit and HOME Compliance Unit before mailing; the discrepancy is not resolvable from the published documents.
No published consequence for late or short payment was located -- no interest, no late fee, and no statement of whether an unpaid fee alone makes the annual certification incomplete for correction-period purposes.
Whether the $25/unit fee continues during the post-Year-15 extended use period, and whether HPD has changed the figure since the CY2025 forms were issued, is not established; the QAP expressly warns the schedule is subject to change and puts the duty to confirm on the owner.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'ny.nyc.hpd'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'ny.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for an HPD-monitored New York City property. Whether a property is monitored by HPD or by HCR/HFA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded regulatory agreement; it is not derivable from the address. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the NYC layer.
HPD/HDC's Income Averaging Policy (nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdfs/services/hpd-hdc-income-averaging-policy.pdf, 'As of June 25, 2019') conditions use of income averaging on HPD/HDC discretion, requires unit-by-unit AMI designation by unit type at application, and requires supporting letters from lenders, the investor/syndicator and the relevant HPD/HDC program. It predates the 2022 final Section 42 income-averaging regulations (T.D. 9967) and states on its face that it 'is subject to change if the IRS issues future guidance.' Whether HPD has reissued it post-regulation is unresolved, so its allocation-stage conditions are not encoded here as an ongoing compliance rule.
Whether the 25-60 income-averaging election combines with deep rent skewing at a single New York City project, and how the 170% deep-skew threshold interacts with the income-averaging next-available-unit rule at IRC 42(g)(2)(D)(iii), is not addressed in any HPD source read this pass. HPD's own income-averaging policy tells owners to 'consult with compliance experts on how it will work with market rate units and with the next available unit rule under IRC Section 142(d) for 4% projects' -- an express punt, not guidance.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'ny.nyc.hpd'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'ny.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for an HPD-monitored New York City property. Whether a property is monitored by HPD or by HCR/HFA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded regulatory agreement; it is not derivable from the address. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the NYC layer.
The QAP (p. 29) and the withdrawn September 2020 HPD compliance manual (2-5.C) state DIFFERENT retention rules: the QAP says six years beyond the end of the 30-year extended use period for all records, while the manual says 21 years for first-credit-year records, 6 years for compliance-period years 2-15, and 6 years for each extended-use year. The QAP is the governing, currently published, mayorally approved document and is what this rule encodes; the manual's formulation is recorded here rather than reconciled. Confirm with HPD's Tax Credit and HOME Compliance Unit which governs for a specific building.
The QAP's record set includes 'HCR rent registration' (item j) but does not state whether HPD requires the DHCR annual registration filings themselves, the DHCR-issued registration summaries, or both, nor what HPD expects for a building that is not rent stabilized and therefore has no registration to keep.
Item (k) requires 'original' local code violation reports. Whether HPD accepts the electronic record from its own HPD Online / Housing Maintenance Code violation system in lieu of an original paper notice is not addressed in any source read this pass.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'ny.nyc.hpd'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'ny.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for an HPD-monitored New York City property. Whether a property is monitored by HPD or by HCR/HFA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded regulatory agreement; it is not derivable from the address. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the NYC layer.
The 2026 QAP names HQS. HUD has been transitioning its programs to NSPIRE. No HPD notice was located adopting NSPIRE for LIHTC physical inspections, and no HPD statement was located confirming HQS remains in force post-transition. Not guessed either way. Confirm with the Tax Credit and HOME Compliance Unit before scheduling an inspection response.
The withdrawn September 2020 HPD manual refers to an 'LIHTC Minimum Unit Sample Size Reference Chart' at its Exhibit 2-F and to desk audits for properties with 15 or fewer files. No currently published HPD document states the sample chart or the desk-audit threshold, so neither is encoded; the QAP's flat 'at least 20% of apartments' is what this rule carries.
How an open HPD Housing Maintenance Code violation (Class A non-hazardous, Class B hazardous, Class C immediately hazardous) bears on the LIHTC 'suitable for occupancy' certification -- specifically whether HPD treats an uncured Class C violation as an automatic Form 8823 line 11(f) finding, and whether an Alternative Enforcement Program designation changes that -- was not established from any source read this pass. Part B question 9 requires disclosure and a statement of whether the violation was cleared, but the consequence is not published.
No advance-notice period in days is published; the QAP says only 'reasonable advance notice.' No re-inspection fee or owner-billed access-failure charge was located.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'ny.nyc.hpd'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'ny.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for an HPD-monitored New York City property. Whether a property is monitored by HPD or by HCR/HFA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded regulatory agreement; it is not derivable from the address. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the NYC layer.
The QAP requires the rider to be 'on forms provided by HPD' but no rider form was located on HPD's public LIHTC or compliance pages this pass; the Marketing Handbook's Section 6.A.2 requires the form of lease and all riders to be submitted for Agency review, and Attachments O and P are HDC (not HPD) rent-stabilization riders. Which HPD form is current, and whether HPD issues a single standard rider or a project-specific one drafted from the regulatory agreement, is unresolved.
The QAP does not state the minimum initial lease term HPD requires. The federal non-transient rule (six months) governs by default; whether HPD or the regulatory agreement imposes a longer term, and how that interacts with the Rent Stabilization Law's one-or-two-year tenant election at a rent-stabilized tax credit property, is not addressed in the sources read.
The QAP's 30-year term is stated as a threshold criterion for new allocations under the 2026 plan. It is not established whether older HPD regulatory agreements (particularly pre-2000 allocations) carry shorter terms or lack the qualified-contract waiver; the recorded agreement, not this rule, is authoritative for a specific property.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'ny.nyc.hpd'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'ny.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for an HPD-monitored New York City property. Whether a property is monitored by HPD or by HCR/HFA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded regulatory agreement; it is not derivable from the address. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the NYC layer.
The sole full-text source for this rule is HPD's September 2020 LIHTC Compliance Manual, which has been WITHDRAWN from HPD's live website (404 as of 2026-08-24) and is no longer linked from any HPD page. It is cited from an Internet Archive capture. No replacement HPD manual was located. Everything in this rule must be re-verified with HPD's Tax Credit and HOME Compliance Unit before it is relied on, and the rule should be re-authored at higher confidence if HPD republishes.
The manual predates the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019's changes to rent-stabilization increases and preferential rents and the subsequent Rent Guidelines Board orders. Whether HPD's stated mechanics for setting and increasing legal rents at a tax credit property survived those changes unaltered was not established.
The relationship between an HPD regulatory agreement's 'initial lower legal rent' / 'initial higher legal rent' and DHCR's initial registration for a 421-a(16), 485-x or 467-m building (where HPD approves a workbook that is attached to the DHCR initial registration) is not described in any HPD source read this pass. For such buildings the two registrations may be the same filing; confirm per property.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'ny.nyc.hpd'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'ny.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for an HPD-monitored New York City property. Whether a property is monitored by HPD or by HCR/HFA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded regulatory agreement; it is not derivable from the address. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the NYC layer.
The utility allowance hierarchy is stated only in HPD's WITHDRAWN September 2020 compliance manual (404 on the live site as of 2026-08-24). No currently published HPD document states which utility allowance schedule an HPD LIHTC property must use. This is the single most important item in this file to re-verify with HPD.
HPD publishes no LIHTC utility allowance filing deadline, no agency-approval step, and no tenant-notice period for a utility allowance change. By contrast the HCR-HFA notification sets a 15 January filing date and 30 days' tenant notice for its New York City projects. Whether HPD has an unpublished internal practice was not established, so no NYC-specific deadline is encoded and the federal Treas. Reg. 1.42-10(c)(1) 90-day implementation window is left to govern.
Whether HPD's own Housing Choice Voucher utility allowance schedule is published at a stable URL, and how it differs numerically from NYCHA's, was not resolved this pass. The rule states the method; it does not bind a table.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'ny.nyc.hpd'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'ny.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for an HPD-monitored New York City property. Whether a property is monitored by HPD or by HCR/HFA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded regulatory agreement; it is not derivable from the address. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the NYC layer.
COMMUNITY PREFERENCE PERCENTAGE NOT ESTABLISHED. Marketing Handbook Section 5-1.B says only that the marketing agent 'may be required to give an occupancy preference for a percentage of the units' to Community District residents 'as instructed by the Agency prior to the marketing effort' -- it names no figure. Secondary press reporting describes a federal court settlement reducing community preference from 50% to 20% of units through 2029 and to 15% thereafter, but no primary source (court order, HPD rule, or HPD notice) confirming those figures was located. NOT ENCODED. Confirm against the settlement order or an HPD issuance before any percentage is relied on. By contrast the five-percent municipal employee preference IS stated in the Handbook (Section 5-1.C, p. 37) and a Municipal Employee/Military Veteran Preference addendum effective 11/15/2025 is posted on HPD's Marketing page but was not fetched this pass.
The Marketing Handbook states that preferences 'are only applicable to initial lotteries unless otherwise stipulated in a Project's regulatory agreement' (Section 5-1.F), while disability set-asides must remain set aside at re-rental. Whether a specific HPD regulatory agreement carries preferences forward to turnover is property-overlay material and must be read from the recorded agreement.
Marketing Handbook Section 4-4.A conditions the mini-lottery requirement on units 'subject to Section 51-04(c)' or 'Section 41-02(c)(1)' of Title 28 RCNY. The text of those two sections was not retrieved this pass (codelibrary.amlegal.com returns HTTP 403 to automated fetch), so which 421-a and inclusionary vintages they capture is not confirmed here.
The Section 4-4(A) waiver has an 'anticipated' end date of April 30, 2027 and runs 'until the Agencies announce otherwise.' It has already been extended once. Re-check before relying on either the waived or the unwaived process.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'ny.nyc.hpd'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'ny.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for an HPD-monitored New York City property. Whether a property is monitored by HPD or by HCR/HFA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded regulatory agreement; it is not derivable from the address. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the NYC layer.
HPD's still-posted January 2020 Common Noncompliance Issues guide states flatly that 'A "Self-Employment Affidavit" and/or any other self-certification of income generally is not acceptable' and that 'All income sources must be supported by third-party documentation.' HPD's April 2025/April 2026 Marketing Handbook adopts HOTMA's self-certification allowances for assets and, per HPD's own change log, eliminated notarised affidavits for most forms and removed tax-return and bank-statement requirements below the asset threshold. Which position governs an income (as opposed to asset) source at file review is NOT resolved by any source read this pass and is not guessed at here.
No HPD LIHTC-specific HOTMA implementation memo, transition date, or 'in-place household' policy was located -- only the admissions-side adoption inside the Marketing Handbook. Whether HPD has set a HOTMA compliance date for LIHTC certifications and recertifications, and how it treats the HOTMA income-review thresholds and the hold-harmless/phase-in provisions at LIHTC properties, is unresolved. HUD moved the general HOTMA compliance date to January 1, 2027; whether HPD follows that date for LIHTC is not stated.
The published asset-limit dollar table at HPD's 'Asset and Property Limits' URL was still the April 1, 2025 table when checked on 2026-08-24. Whether a 2026 table exists at a different path, or whether HPD simply did not republish, was not resolved. The rule encodes the derivation (four-person HUD income limit at the unit's AMI band), not the table, for this reason.
Whether HPD's asset limit, 100-mile ownership bar and 270-day primary-residence covenant are enforced at annual recertification and at re-rental as well as at initial admission -- and if so what evidence HPD requires -- is not stated. Marketing Handbook Section 5-5.E.2 permits HPD/HDC to modify the Continuing Need policies where a development has difficulty leasing, which implies they apply to re-rentals, but the enforcement point is not specified.
How these restrictions square with the federal general public use rule at Treas. Reg. 1.42-9, which permits only specified occupancy restrictions, was not addressed in any HPD source read this pass. HPD-imposed asset and property-ownership screens are common in city programs but the interaction is not documented.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'ny.nyc.hpd'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'ny.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for an HPD-monitored New York City property. Whether a property is monitored by HPD or by HCR/HFA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded regulatory agreement; it is not derivable from the address. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the NYC layer.
HPD publishes the resulting minimum income dollar levels project by project rather than a general table; the Handbook says only that 'The Agency will provide minimum income eligibility levels.' Whether HPD computes 35% of the gross rent before or after the utility allowance, and whether it uses the restricted rent or the actual charged rent, is not stated and is not guessed at here.
The Handbook names 'tenant-based Section 8 and other qualifying rental subsidies' but does not enumerate which other subsidies qualify, saying instead that HPD 'will advise the Developer on the use of minimum income limits for forms of rental subsidy other than Section 8.' CityFHEPS, FHEPS and similar New York City and State rental assistance programs are the obvious candidates but are not named in the source.
The Handbook's 'Income Inclusions for Meeting Minimum Income Requirements' list is referenced in Section 5-4.B but the list itself was not separately extracted this pass, so the specific add-back items are not enumerated in this rule.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'ny.nyc.hpd'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'ny.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for an HPD-monitored New York City property. Whether a property is monitored by HPD or by HCR/HFA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded regulatory agreement; it is not derivable from the address. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the NYC layer.
485-x / ANNY is NOT modelled as a program in this corpus (it appears on the unmodelled-program watchlist in CLAUDE.md). This rule is therefore authored at the LIHTC layer, keyed on a property.tax_exemptions predicate carrying the value 'ny.nyc.485x', so that it surfaces for a layered property. The corpus has no such fact today and no ny.nyc.485x program record, so the predicate will evaluate to unknown and the rule will return insufficient_evidence rather than false until the program is modelled. That is the intended behaviour, but it means the rule will not fire on its own: modelling 485-x (and 421-a(16) under 28 RCNY ch. 51, and 467-m) as tax_exemption programs with their own restriction periods is the follow-on work.
The Restriction Period length, the affordability percentages, the benefit tiers (Ten Year, Twenty Year, Thirty-Five Year, Forty Year) and the unit-share requirements vary by project category under RPTL 485-x subdivisions and are not encoded here; only the ongoing operating obligations common to the Restriction Period are. The applicable category and period for a specific building must be read from its HPD-approved Workbook and its 485-x application.
The penalty percentage ceiling at 28 RCNY 63-06 was truncated in the extracted text at 'not to exceed one thousand'. The full computation method is not encoded and must be read from the rule text before any exposure is quantified.
421-a(16) (28 RCNY ch. 51) and 467-m impose broadly parallel HPD-administered restriction-period duties on many more existing New York City LIHTC buildings than 485-x currently does, and Marketing Handbook Section 4-4.A cross-references 28 RCNY 51-04(c). Those chapters were not retrieved this pass (codelibrary.amlegal.com 403s automated fetch) and are NOT encoded. Do not infer their content from this 485-x rule.
Applicability keys on property.state_agency_id == 'ny.nyc.hpd'. The corpus has no separate local-allocating-agency fact, and a resolver that derives the agency from the property's state will set 'ny.hfa' and silently drop this whole overlay for an HPD-monitored New York City property. Whether a property is monitored by HPD or by HCR/HFA is read off the IRS Form 8609 and the recorded regulatory agreement; it is not derivable from the address. Confirm the resolver's population rule for this fact before relying on the NYC layer.
The comparable-market-unit limb caps an affordable rent at the rent of a Market Unit of comparable bedroom size in the same Eligible Site, which makes the ceiling a function of the building's own market rents at each lease and renewal. The corpus holds no facts about market unit rents, and the rules do not say how 'comparable' is determined where several market units of that bedroom count rent at different prices -- the lowest, the average, or any of them.
'Legal Rent' and the applicable percentage of Area Median Income for a given unit both come from the recorded Workbook, which is per-property and not held here.
Every obligation in this chapter runs 'during the Restriction Period', and 28 RCNY 63-01 does NOT define that term -- it comes from RPTL 485-x itself, which the corpus does not hold as a source. The rules also distinguish a Ten Year, Twenty Year, Thirty-Five Year and Forty-Year Benefit without stating which Restriction Period attaches to which. So the corpus can state what is required and cannot state for how long. Read the Act and the recorded regulatory agreement for the term.
The chapter states an initial-occupancy income test and contains NO over-income rule, no recertification requirement and no next-available-unit provision. Whether an in-place 485-x household whose income rises has any consequence at all is not addressed by these rules. That silence is recorded rather than filled: an owner who assumes the LIHTC treatment applies would be importing a requirement the City has not made, and one who assumes nothing applies may be missing something in the Act or the regulatory agreement.
The 'maximum percentage of the Area Median Income specified for such Affordable Housing Unit pursuant to the Act' is per-unit and recorded in the Workbook. The corpus holds no per-unit AMI designation for 485-x properties, so the threshold has to come from the property record.
The rules set no time limit for the Agency's verification and no shelf life for it. Where an approval is issued and the lease is signed months later, whether the verification is still good is not stated -- compare Chicago, which expressly makes its equivalent confirmation valid for one year.
The Marketing Band governs 'initial rents'. Whether it applies again at a subsequent vacancy -- when 63-04(d) requires the unit be leased under the Agency's marketing guidelines a second time -- is not stated. The two subdivisions sit adjacent and are not reconciled.
The rule requires common areas to be open and accessible and says nothing about charges. Whether an amenity fee that applies to every resident equally, but which an affordable household cannot afford, satisfies 'open and accessible' is not addressed. Compare the federal LIHTC treatment, which requires tenant facilities in eligible basis to be provided without a separate charge.
'Longer than reasonably necessary' is not defined and no period is published. The chapter gives no safe harbour, so an owner cannot tell from the rules how long a vacancy may run before it becomes a violation carrying the 63-06 penalty.
The penalty schedule the rule directs the Agency to establish was not located as a published document this pass, so the actual percentage for any given violation is not encoded -- only the 1,000% ceiling and the base it is computed on.
The penalty is imposed 'on or after the expiration date' of the benefit. Read literally that defers all monetary enforcement to the end of a benefit term that can run forty years, which would be a remarkable design. Whether the Agency has other, earlier remedies for a violation during the term is not addressed in this chapter.

nv Nevada · 61

The 2023 Compliance Manual restates NRS 118A.300 with the superseded 45-day/15-day notice periods (pre-2021 text); the statute has required 60/30 days since the 2021 amendment (ch. 401). Confirm with NHD that monitoring is applied against the current statutory 60/30-day periods and whether a manual correction is forthcoming.
Neither the manual nor the QAP defines 'family property' vs 'senior property' for purposes of the 10%/5% cap; presumed to follow the project type designated in the application/Declaration. SME confirmation needed.
No document read this pass publishes a late-fee schedule for late annual certifications or late monitoring fees (the manual states only that late/missing submissions are noncompliance and 8823-reportable). Confirm whether NHD assesses monetary late fees.
The manual references an 'Annual LIHTC Report' alongside the Annual Certification in its 8823 triggers; COL automates 'annual and quarterly reporting requirements' except Exhibit C.1. Whether any quarterly COL data submission deadline is separately enforced (and on what dates) is not stated in the manual and needs SME confirmation.
The HOTMA memo's verification-hierarchy table ranks tenant-provided paystubs at Level 4 ('High') while the 2023 manual treats paystubs as a last-resort alternate to the NV-2 written VOE. The memo supersedes contradictions, but no NHD document read this pass states whether the NV-2-first sequencing survives HOTMA. SME confirmation needed on the operative verification order after 1/1/2025.
Whether NHD has adopted (or scheduled adoption of) HUD's NSPIRE standard in place of UPCS since the 2023 manual revision. HUD's own programs moved to NSPIRE and Treasury/IRS permit NSPIRE for 1.42-5 inspections, and several peer states (e.g., KY effective 10/1/2024) have switched; no NSPIRE adoption notice was found on housing.nv.gov this pass, so this rule encodes the manual's UPCS standard as written.
The manual gives a 24-72-hour window for 'all major physical inspection violations' and 24 hours for 'life-threatening' ones, but does not define the boundary between 'major' and other (non-major) findings, nor state the correction window for non-major physical findings other than the general cure-letter track. SME confirmation needed.
Which application year first carried the mandatory Qualified Contract waiver: confirmed in the 2025 and 2026 QAPs; earlier QAPs were not read this pass. For a pre-2025 Nevada project, whether the QC process remains available must be determined from that project's own QAP year and Declaration.
The Post Year 15 monitoring procedures (Exhibit F, 'Post Year 15 LIHTC Compliance & Monitoring Procedures', last revised 7-17-19 per the exhibits page) were not fetched this pass; the extent to which monitoring lightens during the extended use period is not encoded.
The HOTMA memo is undated on its face (blank 'Date:' line) and states NHD is updating NV-1, NV-1a, NV-1c and the LIHTC Manual; whether a post-HOTMA manual edition has been issued since (superseding both the 2023 manual and this memo) was not found on housing.nv.gov this pass.
The memo publishes only the 2024 passbook rate (0.4%) and the initial $50,000 threshold; NHD republication of the annually inflation-adjusted figures was not located.
Internal inconsistency in the 2023 manual: Chapter 7.K requires student-status re-verification 'on a quarterly basis' while Chapter 3.C(2) says 're-verify resident student status at each semester'. Quarterly is encoded as the stricter reading; NHD confirmation of the enforced cadence is needed.
NHD states the hierarchy and never states a documentation duty for descending it. HUD requires the owner to document why third-party verification was unavailable before relying on self-certification; the memo neither imposes nor waives that, so a Nevada file that reaches Level 1 with no explanation is not clearly non-compliant on any NHD text.
Whether NHD treats the Level 4 / Level 3 inversion as displacing the manual's mandatory use of Exhibit NV-2 for employment income, or merely as reordering the sequence in which the two are sought, is not stated. The memo supersedes 'contradictions', and reasonable readers could differ on whether a mandatory form and a ranking are in contradiction at all.
The memo's table labels both Level 6 and Level 5 'Highest'. Whether that is a transcription slip in NHD's reproduction of Table J2 or a deliberate statement that non-EIV upfront verification is the top of the Nevada hierarchy is not resolvable from the document.
NHD does not say what happens to a certification already completed under a manual provision the memo displaces. The memo's own transition sentence -- errors notated in 2024 would not be reported -- covers 2024 only and says nothing about a 2025 or later file worked to the manual.
The four conflicts identified here are the ones this review found by reading both documents end to end. NHD publishes no list of them, so the set is not authoritative and a fifth may exist.
Whether Exhibits NV-1, NV-1a and NV-1c have since been updated was not established: the memo says they were in progress and gives no version, and the exhibits are distributed separately from the manual .docx examined here.
The memo does not cite the NRS provision it relies on, so the operative definition of 'foster child' and 'foster adult' must be located in Nevada law by the reader. Whether NHD means the child-welfare definition or a broader one is not stated.
The memo says foster members are 'treated like live-in aides' but does not carry the live-in aide consequences across explicitly -- whether a foster adult may be a party to the lease, and whether a foster member must vacate when the qualifying household member leaves, are unaddressed.
Whether NHD requires a specific verification form for foster status is not stated. The manual's exhibit list has no foster-status form.
NHD does not say whether the highest-result rule applies across methods for the SAME income source only, or across sources. Read literally it is per calculation, which would mean a household with three jobs must take the highest method for each independently.
Whether NHD accepts a spreadsheet or worksheet in place of an 'adding machine tape' is not stated anywhere in the manual, and the phrase predates the current edition.
The suspension of the five percent imputation was announced in 2010 and has not been repeated in the 2023 edition beyond this sentence. Whether it remains suspended today was not independently confirmed against any later NHD notice.
NHD states a range of four to six stubs without saying what selects a point within it. Oregon, by contrast, requires exactly four and adds that the same number must be collected from every applicant.
Whether NHD accepts an employer's written statement that the position receives no tips as closing the enquiry is not stated. Read literally the manual requires anticipated tip income to be verified whenever the profession makes tips likely, with no negative-confirmation route.
NHD bars the applicant's self-affidavit 'at move in' and says nothing about recertification. Whether the bar continues into later certifications, or whether NHD accepts a resident affidavit for a gift stream already verified once at move-in, is not stated.
The manual's six documentary alternatives for support payments were written before the HOTMA memo's actual-receipt rule. Which of the six NHD still regards as sufficient on its own -- particularly the divorce decree and the attorney's letter, both of which show entitlement rather than receipt -- is unresolved.
Neither instrument states how to treat a support obligation that is ordered but demonstrably unpaid, beyond the general instruction to count receipts.
NHD supplies Exhibit NV-2c.1 for a NEW business but does not say what stands in for the preceding calendar year's Schedule C when the business did not exist in that year. Read literally the three-document requirement cannot be satisfied by a genuinely new business.
Whether 'not qualified' means the applicant may not be admitted, or that the file cannot be certified until the documentation arrives, is not stated. The distinction decides whether the situation is a screening outcome or a curable defect.
NHD does not state a look-back period for the profit-and-loss statement or say how current 'current' is.
NHD states no exception for a claimant with a confirmed return-to-work or new-hire date, which Oregon and HUD both allow. Whether the omission is deliberate or an artefact of an older drafting is not established.
The bar on bank statements is stated for benefit income. Whether it extends to asset verification -- where a statement is the ordinary evidence of a balance -- is not addressed, and the manual's own asset chapter contemplates savings-account verification without saying by what.
'So long as it is current' is not defined for the yearly benefit letter, and the 120-day verification currency rule elsewhere in the manual is stated for third-party income verifications generally rather than for benefit letters specifically.
The manual's blanket exclusion is still printed in the edition NHD serves. Whether a monitoring officer would cite a file that applied it is not stated anywhere.
The memo requires assistance paid directly to a student to be 'verified by the responsible entity as student financial assistance' without saying who the responsible entity is -- the institution, the grantor or the owner.
Neither instrument states how student financial assistance interacts with the manual's separate $480 cap on a dependent full-time student's earned income, which the manual still prints and which HOTMA indexes.
The manual's higher-of-two real-estate convention predates the HOTMA memo, which abolished the general greater-of-actual-or-imputed rule for asset income. Whether NHD intends the real-estate convention to survive as a valuation rule (which is how it is encoded here) or to have fallen with the general rule is not stated, and the memo does not mention real estate.
The $5,000 short-sale verification trigger and the $5,000 imputation threshold in the sale calculation both predate the memo's $50,000. NHD has not said whether these particular figures moved with it.
The 120-day account statement window is stated for checking accounts. Whether it extends to savings, certificates of deposit or brokerage statements is not addressed.
NHD states no correction period, no notice procedure and no appeal for a manipulation determination, and does not say whether its general 90-day cure regime reaches one. The consequence as written is retroactive to occupancy with no route back.
'Manipulated the income limitation requirements' is not defined and no standard of proof is stated. The neighbouring sentence makes a failure to disclose an anticipated marriage or roommate the paradigm case, but nothing distinguishes an omission from a manipulation.
Whether the anticipated-change duty reaches a change the applicant merely thinks possible, as against one they know is coming, is not stated. NHD's phrase is 'knows or anticipates'.
NHD does not state what the annual verification must be measured to -- the certification anniversary, the anniversary of the prior verification, or the calendar year. 365 days from the certification effective date is used here as the nearest stated anchor.
Whether NHD accepts the same verification for an aide whose need is permanent and documented as such is not addressed, which is the analogue of the pension copy-forward permission NHD gives elsewhere and does not give here.
The manual does not say whether the aide's income is excluded -- it says only that the aide is not counted for income-limit purposes. The HOTMA memo supplies the income exclusion for live-in aides and foster members together.
'As long as all units in the building remain in compliance' is NHD's qualifier on the 140 percent rule's inapplicability at 100 percent projects, and NHD does not say what happens to over-income households if one unit falls out of compliance -- whether the rule engages retrospectively or only from that point.
The fact path property.all_units_lihtc is used here as the discriminator between the two regimes. Nevada states the distinction as '100 percent Tax Credit Units' at the PROJECT level while the next-available-unit consequence operates at the BUILDING level, and the manual does not reconcile the two.
NHD reserves the right to revoke the recertification exemption 'if excessive noncompliance is found' without defining excessive or stating a procedure.
The QAP's replacement-unit rule contemplates a market-rate comparable unit while item 9 bars properties with market rate units from electing income averaging at all. The two are only reconcilable for a property that elected before the restriction, or for one holding restricted non-LIHTC units. NHD does not reconcile them.
The 40 percent reporting floor is a statement about what NHD will REPORT, expressly subject to contrary IRS guidance. It does not say the minimum set-aside is satisfied, and an owner relying on it is relying on an agency's forbearance rather than on the Code.
Whether these Appendix B provisions bind properties whose income averaging election predates the 2026 QAP is not stated. The QAP is an allocation instrument and the Appendix is written as policy rather than as a covenant.
NHD wrote this provision before HOTMA and has not restated it in the HOTMA memo. Whether the memo's verification hierarchy changes the safe harbour's standing -- HUD's Table J2 does not include another program's determination as a tier at all -- is not addressed by either instrument.
The manual does not state a currency window for the administrator's statement. The general 120-day rule is stated for third-party income verifications; whether a PHA statement is one is not settled by the text.
NHD accepts 'a statement' from the HUD Contract Administrator without prescribing its form or content beyond the gross-income confirmation, so what an acceptable narrative statement must say is not established.
The NRS 118.105 quote is taken from the chapter's own table of contents, which states the section's subject; the operative text of 118.105 was not read in this pass and should be read before relying on its scope.
Nevada's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in Nevada on this section's text. Local ordinances may differ.
The state assistance animal provision is unaffected by HUD's withdrawal of FHEO 2020-01 and FHEO Notice 2013-01, but Nevada supplies no verification framework of its own to replace what those notices provided.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

in Indiana · 60

THE TYPO IS IHCDA'S, NOT THE CORPUS'S, and it is confined to one page. The manual was re-fetched 2026-08-28 and hash-matches its source record (1,804,913 bytes, sha256 b96e68df4e6c4c3989767607415a0e4d0790d8f529962dfd0a631e22f70b785a). It prints 'PIH 2023-7' TWICE, both on printed p. 90 - in the sentence directing owner agents to the hierarchy, and in the footnote to the hierarchy table - and prints the correct 'PIH 2023-27' at printed pp. 7, 13, 34, 86, 102 and 104, including in its own resource list at p. 86. The correct number is HUD Notice H 2023-10 / PIH 2023-27. Oregon's manual carries the identical misprint in the identical place, which points to a common drafting ancestor rather than two independent slips.
IHCDA prints the joint notice number as 'PIH 2023-7' in Part 6.3B and as 'PIH 2023-27' everywhere else in the same manual. The correct HUD number is PIH 2023-27. Whether IHCDA will correct the Part 6.3B references in the next revision is unknown; until it does, a reader following IHCDA's own citation to the hierarchy will not find the notice.
IHCDA says the owner must 'demonstrate efforts to obtain third-party verification prior to accepting self-certification' but never says what a sufficient demonstration is -- how many attempts, over what period, evidenced how. Tennessee, South Carolina and Kentucky all leave the same gap; Kentucky alone names the documents (see ky.lihtc.certification.third_party_unavailable_documentation_packet).
Whether Level 3 and Level 2 may be individually skipped, as Table J2 expressly permits, is not addressed. IHCDA's table conditions Level 3 on the tenant's inability to provide Level 4 but says nothing about descending from Level 3 to Level 1 without attempting Level 2.
The fee-based self-certification allowance names no threshold. A $2 fee and a $200 fee are treated alike on the face of the text, and IHCDA does not say whether it will second-guess an owner who declines to pay a nominal charge.
IHCDA does not define 'HOTMA specific issues'. A file defect that would have been noncompliance under pre-HOTMA rules as well -- a missing verification, a stale document -- is presumably outside the moratorium, but the manual does not draw the line, and where the moratorium ends is exactly where an owner's exposure begins.
The moratorium speaks to what IHCDA will do. It does not and cannot bind the IRS, and IHCDA does not say whether a HOTMA defect uncorrected at the moratorium's end is then reported for the year in which it arose or the year in which it persisted.
IHCDA moved this date from 2026-01-01 to 2027-01-01 without stating a reason or a policy for further extension. Whether it tracks a federal date or is set independently is not stated.
IHCDA prints the unindexed $100,000 and never prints the indexed figure, which is consistent because the limitation does not apply in Indiana -- but it means the corpus has no Indiana-sourced current value for it.
The formula subtracts 'federal tax refunds received in previous 12-month period' from net family assets while the excluded-assets list separately excludes those refunds for 12 months after receipt. The manual states both and does not say whether they are the same operation stated twice or a subtraction on top of an exclusion. The arithmetic differs if a refund was both received and spent within the window.
The manual's prose and its forms list disagree on their face: the prose says '$50,000 (as adjusted by inflation)' and the form for 2026 is named for $52,787. They are reconcilable -- one is the base and one is the current index -- but IHCDA never says so in either place, and a file reviewer working from the prose alone would apply the wrong number.
IHCDA does not say what happens to a file certified in 2026 that used the Form 26-2025 ($51,600) version, where the household's assets fall between the two figures. Whether the operative figure is set by the certification effective date, the form's year, or the date the form was signed is not stated.
IHCDA prints 0.40% for both 2024 and 2026 with 0.45% between them. That is what HUD published and is not an error, but it defeats any assumption that the series moves monotonically and should not be smoothed.
The instruction not to impute on cash on hand does not say whether cash on hand is nonetheless counted at value toward the threshold that triggers imputation on everything else. On the face of the formula it is non-necessary personal property and so counts, but IHCDA does not say.
IHCDA prints the 2.8% Social Security COLA in the Summary of Changes rather than as a rule, and does not say whether an owner who applied the figure SSA actually published for a given household -- which may differ from a manual figure printed months earlier -- is out of compliance.
IHCDA attributes the change to 'the 2026 HUD appropriations bill' without naming the public law, section or the operative HUD implementing instrument. A compliance officer defending a position cannot follow the citation to its source from the manual alone.
3 February 2026 is stated as the boundary for the certification EFFECTIVE date. Whether a certification signed before that date but effective after it takes the new formula follows from the wording but is not stated, and IHCDA elsewhere allows the signature and effective dates to diverge.
IHCDA leaves the superseded Section 8 rule printed in the manual under an all-caps date limitation rather than removing it. That is the right thing for point-in-time defence and a live trap for anyone reading the section without the heading.
IHCDA says a 'substantially similar form' is acceptable but does not say what makes a form substantially similar to Exhibit 17-1, and does not offer the pre-approval route it provides for the TIC and the Questionnaire.
The immediate re-evaluation duty is stated; the consequence of a failed re-evaluation is not. Whether the unit falls out of compliance on the date the household became all-full-time-student, on the date the owner learned of it, or at the next recertification is not addressed, and the three dates can be far apart.
The lease provision is required but no model language is given and no IHCDA form number is cited for it, unlike the several lease addenda IHCDA does publish (Forms 9A-9E, 10, 44, 45).
IHCDA rules VRAP in but does not state the test it applied, so the ruling does not generalise to the successor programs that have replaced VRAP or to state-level retraining schemes.
The mission statement requirement gives no acceptance criterion. IHCDA reproduces the JTPA purpose clause but does not say whether a program's mission must match it, resemble it, or merely exist.
IHCDA permits a self-affidavit only for the foster-care exception and does not say what happens where a household can prove neither enrolment nor a mission statement for a job training program that plainly exists.
IHCDA offers a specific-approval route for substitute forms but publishes no criteria, no submission address and no turnaround time for it in the manual.
The TIC must state the unit's set-aside designation rather than the household's AMI percentage. IHCDA does not say what to do at an Average Income project where the designation is being changed, and its own average-income rule fixes the designation at move-in.
Electronic signatures are accepted but no standard is named -- no reference to ESIGN, UETA, or any audit-trail requirement -- so what makes an electronic signature acceptable to an IHCDA reviewer is unstated.
IHCDA permits retroactive verifications 'to document the income and assets that were in place at the time of certification' but does not say how a third party is expected to attest to a historical figure, nor whether a current paystub is acceptable evidence of a past pay rate.
There is no stated outer limit on how late a retroactive verification may be created. A file repaired a month after the anniversary and one repaired two years later are treated identically on the face of the text.
The manual's worked example has the tenant signing on 2 January for a 20 December effective date, which is outside the 120-day window looking forward but inside it looking back. IHCDA does not reconcile the retroactive allowance with the requirement that verifications be valid on both the signature date and the effective date.
IHCDA requires the 50058 to be signed by the tenant and the PHA representative when used as income verification. HUD's own 50058 is not universally executed with a tenant signature block completed, and IHCDA does not say what to do where the PHA's practice does not produce one.
The 'reasonable person' override has no stated procedure. IHCDA does not say whether the owner must document the conclusion, notify the PHA, or simply obtain independent verification.
Form #16B is required 'from the applicable rental assistance program administrator' for non-voucher programs, but IHCDA does not list which programs qualify as federal or state project-based or tenant-based rental assistance for this purpose.
IHCDA lists LIHTC among the approved means-tested programs, which permits an income determination made for one tax credit property to be relied on at another. It does not say whether the source determination must itself have been made on HOTMA methodology, so a 2024 determination could carry pre-HOTMA arithmetic into a 2026 file.
The list bars nothing expressly. Whether a program not on the list and not HUD-designated -- a state general assistance program, say -- is merely unapproved or affirmatively unacceptable is not stated.
IHCDA does not say whether the HTF move-in bar reaches CDBG, CDBG-D or NSP units, which it elsewhere says it generally treats under the HOME rules. The Summary of Changes entry names HTF alone.
IHCDA states the Average Income trigger by reference to income 'at recertification'. At a 100% tax credit Average Income project there is no annual income recertification, and IHCDA does not say what event, if any, can invoke the rule there.
The extended-use carve-out turns on IHCDA approval of the Extended Use Policy for the development. IHCDA does not state whether the carve-out operates from the date of approval or from the start of the extended use period, which matters for a unit that went over-income between the two.
Satisfaction by a decrease in the applicable income limits is stated as an alternative route out of the rule. Because limits move annually, this makes the rule's status for a given unit a function of a published table, and IHCDA does not say on what date the comparison is struck.
IHCDA requires the plan to 'clearly spell out what findings constitute a rejection' but sets no standard for the findings themselves beyond the three bars. A plan that lists every conviction of any age as a rejection would satisfy the disclosure duty on the face of the text.
The no-fault eviction bar covers 'no fault' evictions, proceedings the tenant won and matters that were dropped. It does not address a sealed or expunged filing, or a filing whose outcome the screening report does not report -- which is the common case.
First-come first-served in chronological waiting-list order sits alongside IHCDA's own special-needs referral-agreement regime under IC 5-20-1-4.5, which requires the owner to notify a service organisation of vacancies in set-aside units and take referrals. IHCDA does not reconcile the two orderings.
The plan must state 'what findings constitute a rejection of an application', which is a commitment to a decision rule the owner writes for itself. IHCDA reviews the plan but does not approve it, so two Indiana properties may lawfully reject on different findings.
The four hard limits are stated as prohibitions while the surrounding guidance -- relevance, recency, the opportunity to dispute a screening report -- is stated with 'should'. An owner reading quickly may take the whole passage as advisory when four of its rules are not.
IHCDA notes there are no regulations governing citizenship requirements for LIHTC tenants and that an owner may require documentation of status, while cautioning about national origin and ancestry discrimination. It does not say where the line falls, and other funding sources on the same property may impose stricter requirements that do govern.
Chronological order and the project preferences the same plan may declare -- special needs set-asides, a Housing for Older Persons age restriction -- are not reconciled. Whether a preference reorders the list or filters who is on it is not stated.
IHCDA requires the plan to explain the waiting list process without prescribing how the list is kept: no required fields, no rule against rewriting a paper list, no retention period. Compare Arkansas, which specifies six required fields and forbids a manual list being rewritten.
The transfer obligation depends on a comparable vacant non-accessible unit being available, and IHCDA does not say who bears the cost of the move, nor what happens if no comparable unit comes free while a disabled applicant waits.
The four-step order is mandatory ('the following order must be followed') while the initial lease-up marketing is 'should'. The distinction matters most at lease-up, when all the accessible units are empty at once.
Bifurcation leaves the remaining tenants needing to establish eligibility in their own right -- a household that qualified on a joint income may not qualify without the removed member. IHCDA gives 'a reasonable time' and does not quantify it, so the protection against being penalised for the abuse ends at an unstated date.
The written-consent exception has no form and no retention rule attached, so an owner relying on consent has no published standard for recording it.
The bar reaches 'any shared database'. Whether a single property's own management software, accessible to a regional manager, is shared for this purpose is not addressed, and that is the ordinary case rather than an edge one.
The denial-of-tenancy trigger means the notice goes to people who never become tenants, and IHCDA does not say how an owner evidences having issued it to a rejected applicant -- there is no tenant file for someone who was never housed.
Only one lease addendum is required per household, and the manual's routing depends on which programmes the project carries. A property that later adds HOME funding is not addressed.
The right to seek emergency assistance from the home bears directly on nuisance and crime-free ordinances that penalise a property for repeated police calls -- a live conflict in several states. IHCDA states the right and does not address the ordinances.
The carve-out names manufacture and distribution convictions. Whether a possession conviction, or an arrest without conviction, falls outside it is not stated, though the text reaches only what it names.
Indiana's LIHTC compliance manual, in this corpus, requires tenant selection plans to describe criminal background screening. It does not name this carve-out or its limits.
Indiana's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in Indiana on this section's text.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

wy Wyoming · 60

The manual contradicts itself on the LIHTC Annual Owner's Certification due date: the On-Line Reporting bullet list (ch. 5, p. 47) says 'due by January 31 each year' while chapter 9 says February 28 three times, including in the 'Annual Reporting for LIHTC Projects' list. February 28 is encoded because the reporting chapter is the specific, controlling treatment; January 31 is the stated due date for the separate HOME/NSP/NHTF owner certification (ch. 6), and the ch. 5 bullet may simply have carried it over. Not confirmed with WCDA.
Whether the $25/day late fee runs per project or per delinquent item when several items are late is not stated.
The manual requires the ORIGINAL owner certification to be mailed to the Compliance Officer even though everything else files through Procorem; whether WCDA now accepts an electronically signed original was not located.
The manual says '$35 per unit' without stating whether market-rate units in a mixed-income project are counted; the chapter 9 phrasing ('$35 per-unit compliance monitoring fees') does not restrict to low-income units and no per-program carve-out was located. Not guessed; billed per invoice.
No published fee is stated for post-year-15 / extended-use-period years as a separate schedule; wy.lihtc.post_year_15_full_monitoring_continues implies the same regime continues, but the manual does not say the fee amount is unchanged after year 15.
Whether the $10 income-averaging surcharge appears in editions of the AHAP before 2027, and therefore binds earlier AIT allocations, was not verified against each prior AHAP edition.
THE CORRECTION PERIOD LENGTH IS NOT PUBLISHED. Both current WCDA documents refer to 'the correction period' as a known quantity - the manual prices running past it and the AHAP references cure generally - but neither states its length in days, and no notice-letter template or policy stating it was located on 2026-08-25. The correction_period_days parameter is therefore encoded with NO value: it is not the federal 1.42-5 default (30-90 days at agency discretion) and it is not zero. The operative period for a given finding must be read from WCDA's notice letter for that finding.
Whether the $25/day fee accrues per finding, per building, or per project when multiple findings are open simultaneously is not stated.
The 'negative points for future allocations' consequence is stated in the manual's post-year-15 section; the AHAP's scoring criteria implement compliance-history penalties, but the exact point values per finding were not encoded here.
The still-served 2023 manual edition (and the UPCS Dictionary of Deficiency Definitions still posted on WCDA's website) inspect to UPCS; the current 2025-2026 edition elects NSPIRE. NSPIRE is encoded. An overlay or owner procedure built from the search-first 2023 edition would prepare for the wrong protocol - the same trap confirmed in Utah, Arkansas and Kansas.
The annual owner self-inspection requirement states no submission duty - records are kept and made available at monitoring - and no form for it was located.
Whether the 'no postponement' rule admits any exception (e.g. disaster) is not stated.
The manual does not state whether the self-certification questionnaire is mandatory in form (the sample 'is available on the WCDA website') or whether a management company's own questionnaire suffices; ch. 9 says noncompliance occurs if forms used 'do not adequately meet the LIHTC and HUD certification or verification requirements'. Not resolved.
Third-party recertification 'for all units upon a change in ownership' is a Wyoming-specific trigger with real diligence weight (a buyer inherits a full re-qualification of the tenant base); whether it applies to a partial ownership change or only a sale of the project is not stated.
The manual is silent on whether HOME-layered units in a 100% LIHTC project may use LIHTC self-certification - ch. 7 separately requires annual recertification of HOME units in Wyoming, and the stricter rule governs, but the interaction is not spelled out for self-certification specifically.
The manual's 90-day notice runs to 'the residents and WCDA' - stricter in form than 1.42-10, which requires making the schedule available to residents. Whether WCDA's copy starts its own review clock or is informational only is not stated (the AHAP separately says WCDA 'reviews and approves' the annual recalculation).
The submetering bar is attributed by the manual to 'the Wyoming Affordable Housing Plan'; the 2027 AHAP text located confirms UA calculation per 1.42-10 and PHA-estimate availability but the express submetering sentence was found in the manual only. Recorded as the manual states it.
WCDA posts PHA utility allowance schedules by city on its website (2026 editions for most cities; Rock Springs still December 2022) - whether the posted schedule or the PHA's own publication is the operative document for the 60-day check is not stated (contrast Alaska, which makes its own posting the effective date).
Whether the $35/unit fee amount itself is unchanged after year 15 is not stated (see the fee rule's open question); 'no change in compliance requirements or monitoring procedures' implies it, but the fee schedule is not restated for the extended use period.
The post-year-15 8b consolidation changes transfer mechanics (a between-buildings move stops being a move-out/move-in); the manual states the consolidation but not its interaction with the Available Unit Rule's building-level arithmetic after consolidation. Not guessed.
No qualified-contract relief valve exists in Wyoming (see wy.lihtc.qualified_contract_waived_at_reservation), so this full-monitoring regime runs the entire recorded term with no statutory exit; the LURA term itself must be read per property.
The manual does not require training certificates to be filed with the annual report (contrast Kansas and Connecticut, which collect them annually); how WCDA verifies mid-cycle currency outside application rounds is not stated.
The AHAP's two-year site-staff training currency at application is stricter than the manual's three-year management cycle; they operate at different moments (application vs operations) and both are stated here, but whether an operating property's site staff must maintain the two-year currency between applications is not stated.
'Nationally-recognized firm ... as approved by WCDA' - no published list of approved trainers was located.
No transfer, assumption or consent fee was located in the manual or the 2027 AHAP (contrast Nebraska's $1,500 and $10,000 failure-to-notify fee); either Wyoming charges none or it is priced in unpublished transaction documents. Recorded as an absence.
No advance-notice period in days is stated - the requirement is prior notice plus prior written consent, with no stated processing time.
Whether a change of limited partner or investor member (as opposed to 'an ownership party ... its interest') requires consent is not stated; the manual's phrase is broad but undefined.
The waiver is stated in the 2027 AHAP and operates through execution of the Reservation Agreement; which AHAP edition first introduced it - and therefore which existing Wyoming properties hold un-waived qualified contract rights from earlier allocation years - was not established. A property's own Reservation Agreement and LURA must be read to date the waiver.
Whether the waiver language is also recorded in the LURA (binding successors) or lives only in the Reservation Agreement is not stated in the AHAP text located; the binding-on-successors question matters for acquired properties.
The AHAP cites 'IRC 42(h)(6)(E)(F) and (I)'; subsection (I) is the three-year tenant-protection decontrol provision, and the intended scope of waiving it (as opposed to (E)'s request right) is not elaborated.
The due-object models the 10 business days as a 10-day offset; the corpus timing DSL has no business-day unit, so the relative_to string carries the qualification. A resolver measuring calendar days will run slightly strict, which is the safe direction.
The manual instructs that WCDA 'must' file the 8823 taking the unit offline for non-declared casualties even where restoration will finish within the year; how this interacts with the IRS position that same-year restoration avoids credit loss is not explained. Recorded as written.
No form for the written casualty report was located; 'in writing' is the whole stated channel.
The two current WCDA documents state different deadlines for the same act: the 2027 AHAP says 30 days, the 2025-2026 compliance manual says 60. The 30 days is encoded because the AHAP is the later document and the stricter reading, and because the AHAP attaches the express noncompliance consequence - but which controls for a project awarded under an earlier AHAP has not been confirmed with WCDA.
Whether 'mailed' excludes Procorem upload for this item is not stated; the AHAP says mailed, and the manual lists it among submission requirements without a channel.
The AHAP obligation is written to the 'Developer'; the manual's version sits in the owner's submission list. Encoded with owner as the subject, consistent with the manual and the corpus convention that post-award obligations run to the owner.
The manual says the clause is required in 'all LIHTC and HOME leases' but does not give required wording or name a form, so whether a differently worded clause satisfies WCDA is not established.
'Immediately' is not defined against a number of days, and the manual sets no outside date for completing the re-evaluation.
The manual requires the exception to be 'verified to apply on an annual basis' but does not say whether third-party verification is required each year or whether a self-certification suffices; ch. 4's self-certification allowance is written for income at 100% projects and does not address the student exception explicitly.
Whether the annual re-verification is due on the certification anniversary or at any point in the calendar year is not stated. The timing trigger recorded here is the certification anniversary because that is when the rest of Wyoming's annual obligations fall, and that inference is flagged rather than asserted.
WCDA does not say how long it takes to approve a re-submitted plan, or whether the owner markets under the old plan or the new one while approval is pending.
The five-year review is required but no record of the review is named, so an owner who reviewed a plan and changed nothing has no stated way to evidence it.
Whether a plan approved for a HOME, NSP or NHTF layer also serves the LIHTC units in the same project is not addressed.
'All leases and policies' is not enumerated. Whether it reaches internal operating procedures never shown to a tenant, or only documents given to applicants and residents, is not stated.
No size, placement or version of the logo is specified, and WCDA does not say whether a HUD Equal Housing Opportunity logo satisfies it.
'In order of receipt' governs how applications are filed. WCDA does not say that units must be offered in that order, so the filing requirement makes the sequence visible without stating what sequence is required.
How long a rejected application file must be kept is not stated separately from the general retention rule, and a rejected applicant never becomes a tenant whose file starts a retention clock.
The VAWA notice is required with 'all denied application letters', including denials having nothing to do with domestic violence. WCDA does not say which HUD form satisfies it.
WCDA states this in a chapter of regulations shared across LIHTC, HOME, NSP and NHTF. Whether the three-category definition of good cause binds a LIHTC-only project, or is carried over from the HOME rule that supplies its wording, is not stated.
The definition is closed on its face -- three categories -- which would exclude grounds other agencies accept, such as an actual and imminent threat to other residents. WCDA does not say whether the list is exhaustive.
Kansas states that non-renewal is not a termination under Revenue Ruling 2004-82 and so needs no good cause. Wyoming states the opposite without addressing the Kansas reading. The IRS has not resolved the conflict, and this corpus does not resolve it either.
WCDA does not say what an owner may recover when a tenant does break the lease early, so the prohibition on the fee leaves the owner's remedy unstated.
The clause is framed as 'should not contain' while the fee prohibition is 'does not allow'. Whether a lease containing an early-termination clause but charging no fee is noncompliant is not resolved.
Whether a fee charged under Wyoming landlord-tenant law for actual damages on an early departure is a 'lease break fee' is not addressed.
'Should issues arise' is the trigger for requiring wet signatures and is not defined, so an owner cannot tell in advance what would cause WCDA to withdraw the permission.
The policy must be re-developed 'upon any change of the owner/agent' but WCDA does not say whether the new owner may rely on the predecessor's electronically signed files in the meantime.
Investor and syndicator acceptance is made the owner's responsibility without a stated consequence if acceptance is withheld after the files are already signed electronically.
The hold is triggered by an action that 'began before the expiration of the required retention period' without saying who must tell the owner that one began -- a WCDA monitoring action is known to the owner, an IRS audit of the investor may not be.
'Resolved' is not defined, and no tail period runs after resolution before destruction becomes permissible.
The named disposal methods are examples rather than a standard, so whether a given shredding practice suffices is left to the owner.

ut Utah · 58

The 2027 QAP (Compliance Monitoring Plan, pp. 84-85) states that 'County Assessors must receive certain information by April 30 of each year' -- operating statement, rent rolls, and federal and commercial financing terms, with a 3-year history if not previously provided -- and attributes the requirement to Utah Admin. Code R884-24P-67 and Utah Code 59-2-102/59-2-301.3. The currently published text of R884-24P-67 ('Information Required for Valuation of Low-Income Housing') imposes only a UHC-to-Tax Commission reporting duty by January 31 of the year following placement in service and contains no owner-to-assessor April 30 duty. The obligation is therefore stated by UHC but its cited legal hook could not be verified; it was NOT encoded as a rule this pass. Confirm the operative authority (possibly a different subsection of 59-2-301.3, or a superseded version of R884-24P-67) before authoring it.
The manual does not state whether the 30-day desk-audit correction period is measured from the date of UHC's notice or from the April 30 due date, nor whether an extension granted for 'extenuating circumstances' has a ceiling. Not guessed.
The manual gives the quarterly due dates as 4/30, 7/30, 10/30 and 1/30 while also describing them as 'no later than 30 days following the end of each quarter'. Those two formulations disagree by a day or two for Q2, Q3 and Q4 (30 days after June 30 is July 30, but 30 days after September 30 is October 30 and 30 days after December 31 is January 30, whereas 30 days after March 31 is April 30). The stated calendar dates were treated as controlling; whether UHC enforces the stated dates or a rolling 30-day count is not resolved in the text.
No late fee or specific penalty for a missed quarterly submission is published; the manual's general remedy for reporting failure ('Not in Good Standing' status and possible Form 8823) is what is encoded. Confirm with UHC whether quarterly lateness is treated as an 8823 event or only as a Good Standing matter.
The manual does not define what constitutes 'a trend of non-compliance' sufficient for UHC to discontinue the automatic recertification waiver, nor whether UHC notifies the owner in writing before reverting a property to full recertifications and from which certification date the reversion takes effect. Not guessed.
The QAP directs owners to 'Contact UHC for a list of Compliance Training and Service Companies' eligible to perform the Sec. 42(g)(8)(B) independent audit but does not publish the list, and does not state whether UHC pre-approves a specific firm for a specific project. Confirm with UHC.
How UHC's HOTMA implementation interacts with the self-certification years is not addressed in either the manual or the HOTMA memo beyond the asset-certification point (see ut.lihtc.hotma_implementation_january_2026); in particular whether the Self-Certification TIC must be the post-HOTMA form for anniversaries on or after 1/1/2026 is not stated.
The 3% annual per-unit escalator has no stated base year or compounding convention in the manual, so the current dollar amount for any given project cannot be computed from the published tables alone. Confirm with UHC whether 3% compounds from the allocation year or from a fixed schedule year, and obtain the current per-unit amount.
The 2027 QAP (p. 18) states a flat $500 late fee while the September 2025 manual (p. 165) states $250 for projects of 25 units or less and $500 for projects of 26 or more. Encoded per the manual as the more specific and more recent text, but the discrepancy is unresolved on its face.
No dollar figure is published for the 'non-compliance fees as determined appropriate by UHC' that the manual authorises for post-year-15 properties (p. 165), nor for the re-scheduling and re-inspection fees the manual says a failed audit appointment 'could generate' (p. 148, 'dependent on various factors such as distance, time, size of audit'). Not guessed.
The manual does not define which physical findings count as 'Severe and or Life Threatening' for the 24-hour correction window; the NSPIRE memo's 'Severe Life-Threatening (LT) Emergency Repairs - 24-hour repair time' category is the evident referent, but the manual does not cross-reference it explicitly. Confirm that UHC applies the NSPIRE LT classification for this purpose.
The manual is silent on whether UHC will grant a second extension, or an extension beyond six months, and on whether the 24-hour life-safety window is extendable at all. Not guessed.
Not encoded this pass and confirmed as a real obligation: the manual (p. 159) provides that 'Any project receiving an IRS Form 8823 reportable violation may be required to provide its manager with professional independent compliance training at its own cost within 90 days from the date the non-compliance was discovered', and separately (p. 48) requires continuing education 'each year or at a minimum every other year', mandatory training for staff with no prior Housing Credit experience, and mandatory training where UHC determines certifications or documentation are untimely, inaccurate or incomplete. These training obligations are stated permissively in part ('may be required') and were left for a follow-up rule rather than encoded at a confidence the text does not support.
The manual does not state how the 'Percentage of Non-compliance For Files and Physical Combined' is computed -- whether the denominator is the sampled units and files or the whole project, and whether each finding counts once or a unit with several findings counts once. Without that the band a property lands in cannot be reproduced from the file. Not guessed.
The re-inspection frequency table and the Minimum Unit Sample Size NSPIRE Reference Chart are embedded images in the September 2025 PDF; both were read by rendering pages 157 and 152 to PNG. The chart's row values were confirmed against the equivalent text-extractable chart in the October 2022 edition (pp. 76-77), which contains an apparent typo in one row ('41-17' where '41-47' is meant). Confirm the 2025 chart rows with UHC before relying on a specific row.
Whether the risk-based acceleration to a one- or two-year cycle also moves the property off the corresponding fee discount in the same year, or only prospectively, is not stated in either the fee section or the audit section.
The NSPIRE memo gives repair times for the four deficiency categories but does not say whether those windows run from the inspection date, from UHC's written notice of non-compliance, or from HUD's NSPIRE convention; the manual's separate 30-day correction period runs 'from the date of the notice'. Whether a Moderate NSPIRE deficiency therefore has 30 days from inspection or 30 days from notice is not resolved in either document.
The memo predates the September 2025 manual by 18 months and is served at a fixed filename UHC can overwrite. Whether HUD's subsequent NSPIRE standards and scoring revisions have changed the categories or windows UHC enforces was not verified against a more recent UHC statement.
UHC says it 'does not typically allow' alteration of the utility allowance calculation method and to 'contact UHC for prior approval' where a change is needed, but publishes no request form, no criteria for approval and no decision timeline. Whether an unapproved method change is itself a reportable non-compliance event, or only exposes the resulting rents to a gross-rent finding, is not stated.
The Energy Consumption Model paragraph requires a 'qualified mechanical engineer properly licensed or other qualified professional' without saying licensed by which jurisdiction; the superseded October 2022 edition said 'properly licensed in the State of Utah that has jurisdiction over the building'. Whether the 2025 wording was a deliberate relaxation to out-of-state licensure or an editing artefact is not resolved.
The manual reproduces the pre-2019 'Energy Acquired Directly From a Renewable Source (Temporary until March of 2019)' paragraph without updating it for the final Treas. Reg. 1.42-10 sub-metering rules. Nothing was encoded from that paragraph.
The manual does not state whether the >10% prior-approval request has a form, a lead time, or a UHC decision deadline, nor what 'documented evidence of financial hardship affecting the project' must consist of. Not guessed.
The 2025 text says notice of at least 60 days is required 'if the proposed rent increase exceeds 5% of the current gross rent' but does not state the notice period for increases of 5% or less; the superseded 2022 text required 60 days for any increase and 90 days above 5%. Whether Utah landlord-tenant law supplies a floor for the sub-5% case was not researched this pass.
Whether 'one rent increase per household per year' is measured on the lease anniversary, the certification anniversary or the calendar year is not stated.
The manual does not state what UHC's written consent to a transfer requires as a submission, how long UHC takes to decide, or what would make withholding consent 'reasonable'. It also does not say whether a change in the ownership entity that is not a sale -- an investor exit, a general partner substitution, a change of control -- triggers the same consent requirement or only the notification. Not guessed.
The 'Not in Good Standing' designation is defined in the QAP but no published process for curing it, appealing it, or learning of it other than by contacting UHC was located. Its duration ('may be disqualified from future participation in the Housing Credit Program for a determined period of time') is at UHC's discretion and unpublished.
The memo states UHC 'will make any necessary changes in the event formal guidance is released from the IRS'. Whether the IRS has since issued Section 42-specific HOTMA guidance, and whether UHC has amended its position, was not verified beyond the 06/10/2025 memo and the September 2025 compliance manual read this pass.
The memo says UHC 'is working on updating forms and the compliance manual'. The September 2025 manual postdates the memo and carries HOTMA-consistent asset chapters, but whether the full set of HOTMA forms (TIC, Asset Self-Certification, Asset Self-Certification Worksheet) was finalised, and which version numbers are current, was not confirmed.
The non-enforcement statement covers 'HOTMA-related file errors' without defining the boundary -- whether, for example, an income error that would be an error under both the pre- and post-HOTMA rules is inside or outside the window is not stated.
For a property that early-adopted, the memo requires a memo to the auditor stating the implementation date but does not say whether UHC will apply the pre- or post-HOTMA rules to files certified before that self-declared date.
The 35-year post-compliance extended use commitment is the 2027 QAP's threshold requirement and binds allocations under that plan. Earlier Utah QAPs may have required a different term, and the compliance manual states only that the extended use period is 'at minimum, fifteen years, or may extend to eighty four years after the close of the compliance period'. The term applicable to any pre-2027 allocation must be read from that property's recorded LURA; no earlier-QAP term was verified this pass.
The QAP describes the qualified contract waiver as part of the LURA form (Exhibit 5E) but the LURA exhibit itself was not fetched or hash-verified this pass, so the waiver language is encoded as quoted in the QAP body rather than from the executed instrument. Whether the waiver appears in LURAs from earlier allocation years is unknown.
The manual authorises 'non-compliance fees as determined appropriate by UHC' for post-year-15 properties but publishes no schedule or amount for them. Not guessed.
The extended use correction period is 90 days per the manual (p. 164) while the compliance-period correction period was cut to 30 days in the same edition (p. 159). Whether that divergence is deliberate or an un-updated remnant of the October 2022 edition, which used 90 days for both, is not resolved on the face of the document.
The manual recommends but does not require that owners give tenants notice 12 months before LURA expiration that the project will no longer participate in the LIHTC program (p. 162). Encoded nowhere because it is stated as a recommendation; confirm whether UHC treats it as binding.
UHC's September 2025 compliance manual describes the extended use period differently from the 2027 QAP (a fifteen-year minimum, extendable, against the QAP's flat 35). The two UHC publications are not reconciled and the recorded LURA governs. Extract the term from the property document.
UHC states that the plan 'will be evaluated' at audit but does not publish the standard the evaluation applies, so an owner cannot tell in advance what makes a plan pass.
No form or template is named for the annual fair housing certification, and the manual does not say to whom it is submitted or when in the year it is due.
Whether an AFHMP prepared for a co-located HUD or HOME program satisfies UHC's requirement, or whether a separate LIHTC plan is expected, is not addressed.
'Must retain the same information and language' is not elaborated. Whether reformatting, translating, or adding project-specific detail breaks the condition is not stated, and UHC names no approval step before a modified form is used.
The manual does not say whether UHC reviews modified forms at audit or accepts the owner's judgment.
The manual introduces the requirement as 'three different times a Notice of Occupancy Rights ... must be included' and then lists denial, move-in and eviction, while the preceding sentence names application, denial and eviction. Application and move-in are different moments, and UHC does not reconcile the two lists.
HUD Form 91067 is the VAWA lease addendum used in HUD multifamily programs. UHC does not state what an owner uses where a form 91067 is unavailable or inapplicable to a LIHTC-only property.
Whether a lease that 'includes VAWA protections' must contain particular language, and who decides that it does, is not stated.
UHC does not say whether the protection reaches non-renewal of a lease at the end of its term. Kansas states that it does not; Oregon, Arkansas, Indiana and Chicago state that it does. Utah refers the question to state and local law without naming the Utah answer, so an owner in Utah cannot resolve it from this manual.
Which Utah statutes or local ordinances supply the content of good cause is not cited, and UHC's recommendation to consult counsel is not a source an owner can be held to.
The three-year tail is tied to expiration of the Declaration in a foreclosure. Whether the same tail runs on a deed in lieu of foreclosure or a qualified contract exit is not addressed.
UHC does not say how long the move-out file must be kept after the household leaves, or whether it follows the general LIHTC record retention period.
'Reason for move' is not defined. Whether an owner may record a tenant's own stated reason, or must record its own, is not stated -- which matters because the same field is the evidence of good cause if the departure is later questioned.
QHWRA Section 577 governs federally assisted housing. UHC applies it in a LIHTC compliance manual without stating whether it reaches a LIHTC-only property with no federal assistance, which is the case where the answer matters most.
The interaction with a medical cannabis card issued under Utah law is not addressed, nor is the interaction with a reasonable accommodation request premised on medical use.
The manual requires that a policy permit termination but does not say whether declining to terminate a known user is itself noncompliance.
HUD withdrew 'Implementation of OGC Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records' (10 June 2022) effective 17 September 2025, and has published no replacement. This agency still directs owners to that framework by name. The state requirement stands as the agency's own -- see xp.fair_housing.eight_fheo_guidance_documents_withdrawn_effective_september_2025 -- but an owner following it is following a document HUD says is not authoritative, and the agency has issued no correction.
Utah's LIHTC compliance manual, also in this corpus, tells owners that good cause depends on state and local law and to consult counsel. It does not mention the Fair Housing Act's source-of-income class, which is state law an owner would need for exactly that analysis.
'Source of income' is defined at Utah Code § 57-21-2; that definition was not read in this pass, and several states' definitions exclude a subsidy paid to the landlord.
The association clause reaches 'another individual' without limit. Whether it reaches an association the owner only assumed is not addressed.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

ia Iowa · 56

The manual does not publish a late fee or other monetary penalty for a missed or defective annual Certification -- the stated consequence is the 8823/State Notice itself. Whether IFA assesses a separate late charge was not located in the manual or either QAP.
The manual says the required Certificate form is 'updated and posted in December each year to the IFA website'; the specific form version in force for a given reporting year is therefore a moving target that this rule does not pin. Resolve against the IFA compliance page for the year under review.
The manual does not state whether the quarterly occupancy report is due for a project that has been awarded credits but has not yet placed a building in service, nor when the obligation ends relative to the extended use period. Not guessed.
Whether the $42 per-unit rate is still current. Both the 9% and 4% 2026-2027 QAPs say 'Annual rate increases may apply' and 'Other fees as provided in the IFA compliance manual', but the 2026 compliance manual publishes no fee schedule at all, so no later or superseding figure could be verified. Confirm the current rate with IFA before relying on $42.
The Second Amended 2026-2027 9% QAP carries no effective-date or Board-adoption line; effective_from is set to 2026-01-01 on the basis of the QAP's own statement that it 'governs the 2026 and 2027 ... allocation years'. The actual Board adoption date was not located.
Neither QAP states the consequence of nonpayment of the annual monitoring fee (whether it is treated as a LURA default, a State Notice item, or purely a receivable). Not guessed.
The manual says IFA 'will acknowledge receipt of your documentation and review it for compliance with IRS regulations' and that the allowance may be implemented at the end of 90 days if the owner is 'not informed of any issues'. Whether IFA ever issues an affirmative approval, and what an owner should do if IFA raises an issue on day 89, is not stated. Encoded as a negative-consent process on the manual's wording.
The requirement to switch methods only 'with IFA's approval' has no stated request procedure, form or turnaround. Not guessed.
The manual does not state whether the 90-day pre-implementation submission must be repeated every year for a project that keeps the same method and merely refreshes the figures, or only when a method or figure changes. The annual March 1 documentation filing is separate from, and does not obviously substitute for, the 90-day submission.
The manual does not define 'comparable' for State AUR purposes (the federal rule uses comparable-or-smaller within the building; the Iowa examples say 'comparable or larger size' in one place and 'next comparable unit in the project' in another). The exact comparability test IFA applies was not resolved from the text read.
Whether a State AUR violation has a cure path other than restoring the mix (for example whether a temporarily unrestored mix is treated as continuing noncompliance for each month it persists) is not stated.
The manual permits an owner to 'move effective dates to meet other program requirements or for other reasons' but does not state a limit on how far an effective date may be moved, or whether IFA approval is needed. Not guessed.
Chapter 6 describes a discretionary extension of 'up to an additional 90 days ... (for physical deficiencies only)', while Chapter 8 (IFA Responsibilities, p. 171) says 'IFA may extend the correction period for up to six months, but only if IFA determines there is good cause'. Whether these are the same power described twice at different granularity, or two distinct extension routes (the six-month figure being the Treas. Reg. 1.42-5(e)(4) ceiling), is not resolved in the manual. Both figures are recorded here; the 90-day figure is the one encoded as a parameter because it is the one stated in the owner-facing procedure.
The manual gives no minimum advance notice of a compliance-period monitoring visit -- the date is 'mutually agreed-upon' -- in contrast to the express 30-day advance written notice IFA commits to during the extended use period (Chapter 7). Whether an advance-notice floor applies during the compliance period was not located.
The 2026 manual contradicts itself on NSPIRE adoption: the 2026 Update Summary says 'The old UPCS overview has been adjusted to NSPIRE. NSPIRE applied by IFA in 2026', while the Physical Inspection Protocol section in the same document still reads 'IFA is expected to adopt NSPIRE in 2026 and will provide updates when in place' (unchanged from the 2024 printing except for the year). The parameter is encoded as nspire on the update summary's authority; confirm the operative standard and its start date with IFA before relying on it for an inspection that occurred in 2025 or 2026.
'Critical violation' is not defined in the manual, and its relationship to NSPIRE's 'severe' and 'life-threatening' severity codes is not stated. The 72-hour clock therefore attaches to a category whose boundary is set by the inspector. Not guessed.
No re-inspection fee is published for a failed or inaccessible unit. The QAP publishes a $750 fee for failed and missed CONSTRUCTION inspections (Section 2.2), which is an allocation-phase fee and is not the same thing; no compliance-phase re-inspection fee was located.
IFA's Chapter 7 refers to a 'change application and fee' for a hardship LURA amendment but publishes neither the application nor the fee amount. Not guessed.
The manual does not state whether the $42-per-unit annual monitoring fee continues to be billed on the same December 31 cycle after year 15; the QAPs say the fee covers 'each year of the Compliance Period and the Extended Use Period (if applicable)', which reads as yes, but the manual's Post Year-15 chapter is silent. Encoded on the QAP's wording in ia.lihtc.compliance_monitoring_fee_42_per_unit_december31.
The manual does not state a deadline in days for the written notice ('immediately'), nor a service-level commitment for IFA's approval turnaround, nor whether a fee attaches to an ownership-transfer or management-change review during the compliance period. The QAP's 'additional fee' for material changes applies to post-reservation application changes, which is a different process. Not guessed.
Whether IFA maintains a published transfer-approval policy or form list separate from the packet the manual says IFA sends on request was not located on the IFA compliance page read this pass.
IFA allows market-rate units in Average Income projects 'depending on the year of the QAP', but the manual does not list which allocation years permit them. The 2026-2027 9% QAP states the Average Income Test is not available for Scattered Site Projects, Projects with Market Rate Units, or Projects with a Project Based Rental Assistance Contract (Section 3.5.C.3), which reads as a prohibition for 2026-2027 awards; the year-by-year map for earlier awards was not reconstructed and is not guessed.
The manual does not state what happens if a retroactive correction is made after the 180-day window closes -- whether the units simply fall out of the qualifying group for the year or whether a further remedy exists.
The 'HOTMA Guidance - Iowa Implementation Update' notice dated January 5, 2026 and the 'HOTMA FAQs and Reminders' notice dated July 1, 2026, both listed on IFA's compliance page, were not fetched this pass. Either may narrow or extend the July 1, 2026 date or the Section 8 PBRA carve-out.
IFA states the HOTMA implementation 'does not apply to projects with Section 8 project-based rental assistance' but does not say what income and asset rules those projects follow for LIHTC purposes in the interim, nor whether the carve-out reaches a project where only some units carry PBRA. Not guessed.
The FAQ page carries two questions numbered Q11 and is undated apart from 'Last Updated: June 2026'; the page is HTML with no version history, so the pinpoint citation is to the question text rather than to a stable anchor.
IFA states the consequence of a LATE increase request (automatic denial) and of a MISSING Worksheet (State Notice of Noncompliance) but not the consequence of a late Worksheet that requests no increase. Whether that draws the same State Notice as a missing one is not stated and is not inferred.
The manual does not say whether IFA's automatic denial can be appealed or waived for cause, or whether a denied increase may be re-requested in the same year after the window closes.
The HOME/NHTF Rent Approval Worksheet form itself was not retrieved this pass -- only Chapter 2's description of what it must report. The current form lives on IFA's compliance web page.
IFA's worked example at p. 41 shows a manager sending the resident notice on June 30 and submitting the Worksheet on July 1, which is one day, not fifteen. The manual does not flag the inconsistency. Encoded as the stated 15-day rule; the example is treated as illustrating the 45-day worksheet timing rather than as an exception to the notice period, but the contradiction is real and unresolved in the document.
IFA does not state a consequence for failing to give the 15-day notice, and does not say whether an increase approved after a defective notice is void, curable, or simply a finding.
IFA does not say whether the repayment obligation is capped, or how far back it reaches -- the fee provision at Chapter 2 p. 49 uses 'at any point within a calendar year' for overcharged rent or fees, but the rent-decrease clause here states no period at all.
The clause covers decreases driven by lower limits or higher utility allowances. It does not address a decrease driven by a household's own circumstances (for example an over-income family's adjusted-income rent falling), and the manual does not say whether the same immediate-implementation and repayment rules apply there.
The brief for this batch reported a 180-day HOME recertification window in Iowa (against 120 days for Housing Credit). No such provision exists in the 2026 manual: the only occurrences of '180' are the LIHTC Average Income Test retroactive redesignation window (p. 18) and a 180-day cap on temporary Census employment in the income-exclusion list (pp. 71, 78). IFA's verification-currency rule is 120 days for both programs. Recorded here so the claim is not re-derived from the same summary.
IFA does not state how the project year is fixed when a project's period of affordability begins mid-calendar-year, i.e. whether 'the 6th year' is a rolling 12-month band from the start date (as its own Chapter 4 example implies, running 3/1 to 2/28) or the sixth calendar year. The example implies the former but the text does not say so.
The manual permits moving certification effective dates 'to meet other program requirements or for other reasons' without limit or approval, which sits awkwardly against a cycle anchored to project years. Whether a moved effective date can shift a household out of a full-verification project year is not addressed.
The brief for this batch reported a 180-day HOME recertification window for Iowa. The 2026 manual contains no such window; the currency rule is 120 days for both LIHTC and HOME. See the open questions on ia.home.recertification.sixth_year_full_verification for where the '180' occurrences actually are.
The stub-count worksheet gives 9 stubs for a weekly cycle to cover two months, where 8 or 9 would both be defensible arithmetic. IFA does not explain the choice, and does not say whether 8 weekly stubs spanning a full two calendar months satisfies the requirement.
IFA says UIV/Work Number 'also meets the HOME/NHTF requirement' but does not say whether a UIV report must itself cover two months of earnings, or whether the two-month rule applies only to the pay-stub method.
The IFA HOME/NHTF Lease Addendum form itself was not retrieved this pass -- the 2026 edition of the manual removed the appendix of required forms, and forms now live only on the IFA compliance web page. The form version in force for a given move-in date is therefore not pinned by this rule.
IFA's prescribed correction for a defective lease is to 'execute a correct lease and IFA Addendum', which does not say whether the correction is effective from the original move-in date or only prospectively, nor whether the original defect remains a reportable finding once cured.
IFA does not publish the criteria against which a fee schedule is judged beyond 'reasonable and customary for the area', nor a turnaround time for approval, nor whether approval must be renewed annually alongside the rent approval worksheet or persists until the schedule changes.
The manual distinguishes mandatory from optional fees for LIHTC purposes in the same chapter but does not restate that boundary for HOME. Which charges count as 'mandatory' for the deduction rule -- for example a pet fee, a parking charge at a property where parking is not required, or a mandatory-service package -- is not resolved in the HOME text.
IFA states the April 1 / March 1 calendar in a LIHTC allocation-year frame ('if a project is awarded credits in March 2015, the first Certification is due April 1, 2016'). A HOME-only project has no credit allocation year, so whether the same calendar applies to it verbatim -- and if so what event stands in for the award -- is not resolved in the manual. The dates are encoded because IFA says HOME carries 'similar requirements', but the anchoring for a HOME-only project is an open question and should be confirmed with the IFA Compliance Officer before relying on it.
The manual does not say whether a HOME-only project files the same Certificate form as a LIHTC project or a HOME-specific variant, and the 2026 edition removed the appendix of required forms, so the form set could not be inspected this pass.
No late fee or other monetary penalty is published for a missed or defective Certification; the stated consequence is the 8823 or State Notice itself.
The manual publishes the 90-day window for issuing the State Notice after the correction period ends, but does not state the length of the correction period itself for a HOME-only finding. Chapter 6's 90-day owner-response window and its discretionary extension are described in the LIHTC monitoring-review sequence. Whether the same period governs a HOME-only project is unresolved and is NOT inferred by symmetry.
The manual's Chapter 6 describes a 90-day correction-period extension for physical deficiencies and Chapter 8 describes a six-month good-cause extension; whether these are the same power described twice or two different powers -- and whether either is available on a HOME finding -- was not resolved. This question was also left open by the Iowa LIHTC pass.
IFA does not state whether a State Notice, once issued, is ever formally closed or rescinded on later correction, or how long it weighs against the owner in subsequent allocation rounds.
IFA says the HOME or NHTF requirements govern inspection frequency at a layered project but does not state what those requirements are, and does not adopt the federal 24 CFR 92.251(f) triennial cadence by reference or set a state figure. The governing interval for a specific Iowa HOME project must be read from its HOME contract; it is not inferred here from the 36-month LIHTC ceiling.
The manual contradicts itself on NSPIRE adoption: the 2026 Update Summary states 'NSPIRE applied by IFA in 2026' while the Physical Inspection Protocol section of the same document reads 'IFA is expected to adopt NSPIRE in 2026 and will provide updates when in place.' The parameter carries nspire because that is the standard the protocol section describes at length, but the adoption date is unresolved. This question was also left open by the Iowa LIHTC pass.
IFA does not state whether the minimum-4-unit sample floor applies per project or per building at a multi-building HOME project.
Iowa's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in Iowa on this section's text. Iowa law separately restricts local governments from enacting source-of-income ordinances, which this corpus does not yet hold.
'Creed' and 'religion' are both listed as separate classes without either being defined in this section.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

or Oregon · 55

THE TYPO IS OHCS'S, NOT THE CORPUS'S. The manual was re-fetched 2026-08-28 and hash-matches its source record (1,985,003 bytes, sha256 85d9949f92e2359da731a4a4ce3c38544abb3881e430b9bbbf920b652b7cb613). It prints 'PIH 2023-7' four times - once at printed p. 98, twice at p. 101 (the sentence adopting the hierarchy and the footnote to the table), once at p. 102 - and prints the correct 'PIH 2023-27' at printed pp. 7, 14, 93 and 126, including in its own resource list at p. 93. The correct number is HUD Notice H 2023-10 / PIH 2023-27. Indiana's manual carries the identical misprint in the identical place, which points to a common drafting ancestor rather than two independent slips.
THE MANUAL CONTRADICTS ITSELF ON THE PAY STUB COUNT, and this rule follows the operative passage. Part 9.03 at p. 102 requires 'the four most recent, consecutive paystubs', which is what this rule states. The tenant-file checklist at Part 10.01 p. 127 instead reads 'Paystubs- if used paystubs must submit no less than four, current and consecutive months; if HOME, two months source documents' - four MONTHS, not four stubs, which for a weekly or biweekly payroll is a materially larger package. A third passage in the income-calculation section says 'OHCS requires a minimum of four (4) paystubs.' Two of the three say stubs, so stubs is encoded; the checklist wording is recorded here rather than reconciled.
OHCS states the condition for descending from Level 4 to Level 3 but not for descending from Level 5 to Level 4. Whether the cost of a Work Number report is an acceptable reason to move down is not addressed, although OHCS does say elsewhere that a self-certification may be accepted where there is a fee for third-party verification and that the fee cannot be passed to the tenant.
The chart ranks Level 2 'Medium' while the prose makes it a last resort that must be followed by written verification. The two are not reconcilable on the face of the document, and a file that stopped at an oral verification is defensible on the chart and not on the prose.
OHCS requires EIV documentation to be removed from the file but does not say what happens to a file in which EIV was actually relied on to determine income before removal.
THE MANUAL CONTRADICTS ITSELF. Part 1.06 says certifications effective on or after 1/1/25; Part 2.19 says 1/1/24. Both are printed in the April 2025 edition. The corpus states the later date for the reasons given in the statement and does not resolve the contradiction, because a file reviewer holding the manual could defend either.
The 6 November 2024 Technical Advisory that Part 1.06 relies on was NOT located. It is not on the OHCS compliance-forms page that serves the manual and the mandatory forms, and OHCS's Advisories & Guidance page was not fetched in this pass. Until it is read, the 1/1/25 date rests on the manual's description of an instrument the corpus has not seen.
OHCS does not state a transition or phase-in for certifications already in progress on the applicability date, as Tennessee does for pre-planned actions effective January to April 2025.
OHCS states the paystub requirement two different ways. Part 9.03 says 'the four most recent, consecutive paystubs'; the tenant-file checklist at Part 10.01 says 'no less than four, current and consecutive months'. Four stubs and four months are the same only for monthly pay. Which OHCS applies to a weekly or biweekly payroll is not stated.
The uniformity requirement does not say whether 'all applicants' means all applicants at a property, all applicants processed by an agent, or all adult members of one household.
OHCS says year-to-date income 'must be compared' with the verification-based calculation but does not say which governs when they differ, unlike Nevada, which requires the highest result.
The manual's mandatory-forms table at Part 8.07 lists the Income Certification Questionnaire as an individual form and the TIC and asset certifications as household forms, but does not list the Income Status Certification at all. The form's own instruction is what establishes that it is per adult.
OHCS says the owner must 'prove due diligence' when reporting a zero-income household but does not say what proof satisfies it beyond the form itself.
Whether the form must be refreshed at every recertification or only where the zero-income or unearned-only condition persists is not stated.
OHCS qualifies the 50058/50059 refusal with 'Currently', which suggests the position is under review, and gives no date or review cycle. Whether the November 2024 Technical Advisory or a later one changes it is not established.
The means-tested refusal is stated for initial eligibility and for annual recertifications 'at mixed-income LIHTC properties'. Whether a means-tested determination may be used at a 100 percent LIHTC property, where annual recertification is waived anyway, is not addressed.
OHCS does not say whether a PHA determination may be used as corroboration alongside independent verification, as against as the basis of the determination.
OHCS does not say whether the triennial cycle resets when a household's fixed income source changes -- for example when a pension begins or SSI converts to Social Security retirement.
The 90 percent test is stated against 'gross income'. Whether asset income counts toward the denominator is not addressed.
At a 100 percent LIHTC property annual income recertification is waived, so the triennial cycle has nothing to count. OHCS's examples assume 'the project is subject to recertification of income' and the manual does not say how streamlining applies where it is not.
OHCS says 'within six months prior to the certification date' while its general rule says 'as of the effective date of the move-in or recertification'. Whether 'certification date' means the effective date or the date the certification is signed is not stated, and the two can differ by up to ten days under OHCS's own TIC execution window.
The manual runs SSI and SSDI together in one parenthesis. SSDI is not Supplemental Security Income, and whether the six-month rule reaches ordinary Social Security retirement benefits -- verified by the annual award letter in the preceding sentence -- is genuinely unclear on the text.
The six-month rule and the triennial streamlining permission are stated in consecutive paragraphs and are not reconciled: a source verified at move-in and not reverified until the third recertification cannot also carry a verification dated within six months of each intervening certification.
The manual prints $50,000 in Part 9.09 and $51,600 in Part 9.10 for what HOTMA treats as one threshold. Whether OHCS intends the exclusion test to run on the unindexed figure and the imputation test on the indexed one, or whether Part 9.09 simply states the statutory base, is not stated.
OHCS prints the 2025 passbook rate as 0.45 percent and says HUD recalculates each July. No figure is printed for 2026 or later, so any certification after the 2025 rate lapses must resolve the rate from HUD's publication rather than from the manual.
The three-condition test names the threshold as the value of net family assets, and separately excludes sub-threshold non-necessary personal property from net family assets. Whether a household holding $60,000 of real property and $20,000 in bank accounts imputes on the bank accounts is not resolvable on the printed text.
OHCS's form prints no threshold figure and its manual prints two. An owner using the form alone cannot determine whether a household qualifies to use it.
The manual says third-party verification of disposed assets is not required but that a certification 'completed and signed by the owner' should be obtained. Whether 'owner' means the property owner or the owner of the disposed asset is ambiguous; the Divestiture of Assets Certification OHCS recommends is a tenant declaration, which suggests the latter.
The form asks for a federal tax refund received 'in the last 12 months' while the manual measures the same period to the effective date of certification. The form does not name its anchor.
OHCS states the prohibition absolutely and the exception only inside the lease-language sentence. Whether the birth-or-adoption exception operates as a matter of OHCS policy where a lease omits it is not stated, though the alternative reading -- that a newborn may be excluded from the unit -- is not tenable.
The bar is stated as six months 'of occupancy' in one sentence and as 'the initial six-month term of the lease' in the next. For a lease that is not six months these are different periods, and OHCS's own minimum-lease rules are stated elsewhere.
OHCS does not say what happens where a member is added within the six months notwithstanding the bar -- whether the certification is invalid, the addition is refused, or the file simply carries a finding.
OHCS states the collection window as 'within 120 days before the anniversary of the effective date of the original student verification'. Where a household's student certification has been completed alongside a recertification for several years, whether the anniversary is still the ORIGINAL verification's or has moved to the current cycle is not stated.
The manual says the owner 'should' complete the annual verification while the form says every adult 'must' complete, sign and date it. The obligation strength differs between OHCS's two instruments.
The form's footer identifies it as CM.04. Whether OHCS has since corrected the misprint, and whether a file holding the version examined here would be treated as holding the current form, is not established.
OHCS says the TIC must be executed 'on or just prior to' move-in and then gives the 10-day ceiling in the same sentence. It does not say what happens when a move-in is delayed after a validly executed TIC -- whether the certification must be re-executed or whether the move-in re-confirmation suffices.
The correction convention requires initials 'by both parties' without saying who the two parties are on a form signed only by the tenant, such as a self-certification.
OHCS permits retroactive creation of verifications for a late recertification but does not say how far after the effective date that permission runs, or whether the 120-day verification currency rule is measured to the effective date or the actual completion date in that situation.
OHCS does not say what happens to applications taken or tenancies created under a plan that was never pre-approved -- whether the selections stand, and whether the defect is curable by later approval.
The manual states the required elements as a list introduced by 'The TSP must contain all of the required elements listed below' and then runs into a mixture of 'must', 'should' and 'recommended' items. Which of them OHCS treats as genuinely required for approval is not separable on the text.
OHCS says the plan must be 'made available to all applicants and tenants' without stating the mechanism -- posting, on request, or with the application packet -- which several other states specify.
OHCS does not define 'low-barrier criminal background screening' or point to a standard, so the one screen that remains permitted is the one with no stated content.
The requirements are stated for applications 'funded as permanent supportive housing (PSH) for persons experiencing homelessness'. Which properties carry that designation is determined at award and is not visible on any compliance document the manual names, so the gate on this rule depends on a fact the tenant file does not hold.
The prohibition on a minimum income test sits alongside the general rule's statement that a landlord may set criteria on the level of income. OHCS does not say whether a PSH property may apply any income-based selection criterion at all beyond the LIHTC maximum.
OHCS states expressly that it will not mediate eviction disputes, and in the same breath that the tenant may enforce the prohibition in State court. The practical route for a tenant is therefore litigation rather than a complaint to the allocating agency, which is worth knowing before promising anyone the agency will intervene.
Good cause is defined by reference to how the term is applied in federal public housing, and the manual does not say which public housing authority or which of its materials governs the comparison.
The apparent-eligibility notice 'should' include the approximate wait while the notice itself is 'must'. An estimate given at application and not revisited can be years out by the time the unit comes free, and the manual imposes no duty to update it.
One applicant must be accepted or rejected before the unit is offered to the next, and no time limit is placed on that decision, so a slow determination holds the unit and everyone behind it.
Oregon's manual-list rules are almost word for word Arkansas's, which suggests both derive from a common HUD or industry source the manuals do not name. Where a requirement's provenance is unstated, an owner cannot tell whether a future federal change moves it.
The electronic-list requirement is only that methods exist to track input and changes -- no change log, no user attribution, no retention period. The paper rules are far more specific than the electronic ones, which is backwards from where the risk sits.
The rejection file must be available to the OHCS Compliance Analyst on review, and the manual sets no retention period for it. How long an owner keeps records about people it did not house is unstated.
The manual says most LIHTC properties 'should have an approved (reviewed)' plan before transfer to Portfolio Management, and separately that the plan 'must be reviewed by OHCS staff'. Whether a property operating without a completed OHCS review is out of compliance, or merely out of sequence, is not resolved.
The plan specifies racial and ethnic targets that are expressly 'not quotas'. The manual does not say what follows if the resulting tenancy does not approach the targets, which is the question an owner assembling the next five-year update actually has.
ORS 659A.421 does not itself define source of income; the definition sits in ORS 659A.421(1) and in related sections this pass did not read, so whether it reaches a subsidy paid to the landlord rather than the tenant is not established from this text alone.
The advertising prohibition bites on the listing without proof that anyone was refused. Oregon does not say what remedy follows where a listing was unlawful but no applicant was harmed.

mn Minnesota · 52

The cutover is written as '1 July 2025 or such later date as HUD may require full HOTMA implementation'. If HUD moved the compliance date after May 2025, the guide's own text defers to HUD, but Minnesota Housing does not say how or where it would announce the later date -- there is no memo series named in the guide. A specialist cannot tell from this document alone whether 2025-07-01 is still the operative date.
The guide does not say whether an owner could adopt HOTMA voluntarily before 1 July 2025, as CTCAC and several other agencies expressly permitted. The 'effective before July 1, 2025 ... refer to HUD Handbook 4350.3' sentence reads as mandatory rather than as a floor, but no sentence forbids early adoption either.
Foster members leave the income family size but stay in the unit family size. The guide does not say which count is entered on the Tenant Income Certification form's household-size field, or whether Minnesota Housing expects both to be shown.
The guide says a more conservative methodology 'is not prohibited' but must be applied consistently. It does not say whether the property must document the chosen methodology in writing (in the tenant selection plan or elsewhere), or how a monitor would establish consistency from a sampled file review.
Where an employer verifies both a range of hours AND a year-to-date figure that implies a different average, the guide states Minnesota's preference for the employer's anticipated wage information but does not say what to do when the two are irreconcilable and the employer will not clarify.
Minnesota Housing gives no cite or link target for 'HUD's website' and no named HUD notice for the annually adjusted self-certification amount, so a resolver must decide for itself which HUD series to bind. The corpus should carry that series as a limit_table before this parameter can be resolved automatically.
The NPP/NNPP determination is described as 'highly fact-specific' with an instruction to 'collect enough facts to make this determination', and no Minnesota-specific tie-breakers are given beyond the two example lists. A monitor's view of, say, a second vehicle or a camera kit is not predictable from this document.
The guide is silent on how to value a digital-wallet balance that fluctuates daily, though it does say for stocks that the owner 'may assess the value of these assets at any time after the authorization for the release of information has been received'. Whether that latitude extends to cash apps is not stated.
The guide prints no passbook rate and no self-certification amount, deferring both to HUD's website. Neither figure is resolvable from this document at a point in time, which means an audit of a 2025 certification cannot be reconstructed from the corpus alone until the HUD series are modelled as limit tables.
The $0-actual-return carve-out is written for FINANCIAL assets. The guide says an asset 'for which an actual return cannot be computed' may be non-financial but gives no example, so the treatment of, for instance, non-income-producing real property that the household can sell is left to inference.
The guide does not say what to do when an applicant's ONLY wage source is under two weeks old, so two consecutive stubs cannot exist and Level 3 employer verification is refused or unanswered. Descending to Level 1 self-certification for a wage source at move-in would be unusual, and no Minnesota-specific alternative is described.
'Level 6/5' upfront income verification is described and encouraged but never ranked against Level 4 in a way that says whether a Work Number report alone satisfies the two-paystub minimum. The guide places UIV above written third-party verification in the hierarchy while stating the paystub minimum in the Level 4 discussion; the interaction is unresolved.
The guide does not say whether the 120 days is measured to the TIC's effective date, to the last signature on the TIC, or to the move-in date. Only the START of the window is fixed. For a certification whose signature and effective dates diverge -- which the guide itself contemplates -- the end point is unstated.
Whether a date stamp is required or merely recommended is ambiguous: Sec. 6.16 says verifications 'should be date-stamped', which is not the mandatory register the guide uses elsewhere, yet the consequence of omitting it is a stricter age computation.
The guide does not say what happens in the year AFTER the mandatory third-year third-party verification -- whether the two-year clock resets to zero and streamlining may resume, which is the natural reading, or whether some further condition applies.
'Unadjusted income' is used as the denominator for the 90% test without being defined in the guide, and the HTC program does not otherwise use adjusted income at all. Whether it means annual income before asset income, or simply annual income, is not stated.
The family must certify that fixed sources 'have not changed from the previous year'. No form is named for that certification, unlike elsewhere in the guide where Minnesota Housing names the specific MHFA form.
The Minnesota extension says a completed Section 8 or RD tenant income certification 'will satisfy all third-party verification requirements'. It does not say whether the no-mixing rule and the no-further-asset-inquiry rule from the federal Safe Harbor carry over to the Minnesota-added sources, or whether those two determinations sit outside the Safe Harbor framework and merely satisfy verification.
It also does not state a maximum age for the Section 8 or RD certification being relied on. The 12-month rule is stated for the federal means-tested determinations; whether it binds the Minnesota additions is unresolved.
The guide is silent on which document evidences a tenant-based Section 8 determination in an HTC file where the PHA, not the owner, holds the certification.
The guide does not define 'extenuating circumstances beyond their control' or give examples, and it does not say how long the documented plan may run before the delay stops being excusable.
Where the extenuating-circumstances documentation is present, the guide says a 'true and correct as of' statement is unnecessary -- but it does not say what the TIC's effective date then becomes. The effective date is elsewhere floored at the last signature, which would still place the unit out of compliance for the gap the documentation was meant to excuse.
The guide says the owner 'should deny the change' if the family does not qualify. 'Should' is not the mandatory register used elsewhere in the same paragraph, and the guide does not say what the compliance consequence is if the owner permits the change anyway -- whether the unit is out of compliance from the date of the change, or the household is simply treated under the available unit rule.
The six months is measured from 'occupancy', which for an acquisition/rehabilitation property with in-place residents may be the original move-in, the acquisition date, or the placed-in-service date. The guide does not say which.
VAWA is named as a carve-out without a cross-reference to which VAWA provision, and Sec. 5.14 does not restate the composition-change interaction.
The guide does not say what the Other Cert's effect is on the 140% test in a 100% project where the 'most recent TIC' income figure may be many years stale. Adding a current income to a five-year-old income and comparing the sum to today's 140% limit is arithmetically odd, and the guide neither endorses nor forbids re-verifying the existing members at that point.
'Prior to occupancy' is not defined against lease execution. A new member who signs the lease but has not yet moved a bed in is not obviously 'occupying'.
The screening recommendation ('strongly recommends') is not stated as a requirement, so it is encoded in the statement but carries no obligation of its own.
'Immediately ceases to count' is not tied to a date the guide names. The natural candidates -- the date the last member's full-time enrolment began, the date the owner learned of it, and the date of the certification recording it -- would produce different applicable fractions for the year, and the guide does not choose.
The guide grounds the no-available-unit-rule position in 'current legal interpretations of federal HTC regulations and requirements' without citing an interpretation, a revenue ruling, or the 8823 Guide. It is Minnesota Housing's stated monitoring position, not a citation to authority.
The MFIP identification is a naming convenience, but the guide does not say whether a household receiving Title IV assistance from another state -- for instance a household that moved from Wisconsin mid-year -- satisfies the exception on that state's documentation.
The guide does not say what happens if a market-rate comparable unit is rented at the over-income unit's designation but that designation would push the project average above 60% MTSP -- the two instructions ('rent based on the income designation of the over-income unit' and 'designates the income limit such that the project continues to meet the Average Income Test') can point in different directions on a project already close to its average.
Whether the AIT over-income test uses the designation in force when the household moved in or the unit's designation today is unstated, which matters after a permitted redesignation of an occupied unit.
THREE INCONSISTENT TRIGGERS for the same requirement, all quoted above: 'HTC projects selected after March 31, 2021' (compliance guide), projects selected as a result of 'a funding application submitted to Minnesota Housing after March 31, 2021' (Guidelines), and 'Effective with 2022-2023 QAP' for 9% and 4% HTC (Funding Sources table). For a 2021 application selected in 2022 these produce different answers. Not resolved; Minnesota Housing should be asked which controls for tax credits.
The Guidelines say they apply to 'projects' with an applicable funding source, and the Funding Sources table lists the State Housing Tax Credit as NOT covered while the federal 9%/4% HTC is. A property carrying both is not addressed.
The compliance guide (Sec. 5.08) is the May 2025 edition and refers to 'TSP guidance' generically; the Guidelines in force are the May 2026 revision. Whether the May 2025 guide's description still matches the May 2026 Guidelines in every particular was not verified line by line -- the requirement statements quoted here were compared and agree.
For non-supportive units Minnesota Housing gives a standard rather than a lookback period. It cites Wilder Research findings that felonies older than five years and misdemeanours older than two have no significant effect on housing outcomes, and recommends the study be read -- but stops short of adopting five and two years as limits outside supportive housing. Whether a monitor treats those figures as the effective test is not resolvable from the document.
'Recent egregious activity in housing may be considered as a reason for rejection' in supportive housing is undefined as to recency, and the two examples given are behavioural rather than dated.
The Guidelines are Minnesota Housing funding conditions. The compliance guide notes that 'various funding sources and jurisdictions may impose other tenant selection plan requirements' and advises consulting an attorney; how a conflict between this floor and a local ordinance or a federal program's mandatory denial is resolved is not stated beyond the controlled-substance carve-back.
Whether the fee schedule's dollar and month caps apply to pre-2025-rule projects identically was not distinguished in the guide, which states the schedule for the portfolio generally.
The guide's sixth-year list runs '6, 12, 18, 24, and 30'. Whether the cycle continues past year 30 for projects whose DOH-recorded or Declaration term is longer is not stated.
The ten-unit sentence appears at the end of the five-or-more-units subsection with a typo ('must have at ten or more'), and the guide does not restate it elsewhere. Whether it binds only new designations or also legacy projects whose Declarations already designate High HOME units in sub-ten-unit projects is not stated; the Declaration governs in a conflict.
The Annual Owner Certification due date is set operationally (PORT User Guide / annual notices) and was not found stated in the compliance guide; encoded with the parameter's value field absent rather than borrowing Michigan's March 1.
No standard correction-period length is published anywhere in the guide; whether Minnesota Housing uses an internal default (30/45/60 days) in practice is unknown and deliberately not encoded.
The rule and the statute both say '60 percent of median income as determined by HUD for the metropolitan area' with no greater-Minnesota alternative, and 4900.3705, subp. 11 defines 'metropolitan area' by reference to Minn. Stat. 462A.03, subd. 23 (the seven-county Twin Cities region). Read literally a project in Duluth or Moorhead is held to the TWIN CITIES median. Nothing fetched this session says whether Minnesota Housing applies it that way in practice or substitutes the local HUD area median; the rule text is recorded as it reads and the practice is unverified.
'Exclusions as approved by agency board members and available to applicants in writing' (4900.3705, subp. 8a) is a live incorporation by reference to a document this pass did not locate. The exclusion list is therefore unbound: gross income cannot be computed from the rule alone.
4900.3731, subp. 2 gives no standard for approval, no time limit for the agency to answer, and no maximum rent. A Minnesota Housing Trust Fund capital-funded unit therefore has no rent limit that can be computed from published material -- the operative limit is whatever the agency last approved, which is a property-overlay fact and not a rule.
The statute (462A.201, subd. 2(c)) measures the termination test on '30 percent of a household's monthly income'; the rule (4900.3767, subp. 4A) measures it on '30 percent of the household's monthly GROSS income'. Gross income is a defined term in 4900.3705, subp. 8a and is not the same as 'income'. Both figures are recorded rather than reconciled.
The rule requires termination against 'the market rent for the unit', which is neither defined in 4900.3705 nor tied to any published series. How an administrator establishes market rent is unstated.
'Status with regard to public assistance' is defined elsewhere in chapter 363A and was not read in this pass. Whether a Housing Choice Voucher is public assistance for this purpose is not answerable from § 363A.09 alone.
Subdivision 1(3) reaches any 'record or inquiry' made in connection with a prospective rental. An affordable housing programme requires income records to be made, and the statute does not reconcile the two.
The adults-only carve-out turns on what the advertiser 'reasonably believes' about the familial status provisions -- a subjective test with no stated verification step, in a statute that is otherwise strict liability on its face.

me Maine · 52

DEADLINE CONFLICT, UNRESOLVED. 99-346 C.M.R. ch. 16 section 10.C (May 19, 2026) says March 1. MaineHousing's 'Annual LIHTC Reporting Process' page and item 11 of the Post Year 15 policy (4/6/2020) both say May 1, and both remained linked from https://www.mainehousing.org/partners/partner-type/asset-management on 2026-08-24 with PDF ModDates of 2026-04-10, i.e. they were re-posted during the 2026 site refresh. It is possible MaineHousing intends March 1 for the owner certification and May 1 for the electronic tenant data, since section 10.C lists them as two numbered items under one deadline while the older documents describe a three-part May 1 package; the rule's text does not support splitting them and no such split is inferred here. Confirm with MaineHousing Asset Management before relying on either date.
Chapter 16 section 10.C requires the tenant data 'in the form and manner required by MaineHousing' but does not name the system. The older documents name 'WCMS' and 'Web Tenant Compliance (WTC)' -- apparently the same system under two names -- and MaineHousing separately publishes 'Web Tenant Compliance - Registration Directions' and a 'HDS NextGen Multifamily Portal UserGuide'. Which system is current for LIHTC tenant data submission was not determinable from published material.
Appendix D is footered 'Revised: 2/1/20' inside a rule adopted May 19, 2026, so the form has not been updated for HOTMA, for the 2025 HOME Final Rule, or for the shift from UPCS to NSPIRE. Whether MaineHousing accepts the 2/1/20 form or has issued a newer one outside the rule is unresolved.
No late fee, grace period or stated consequence for a late annual certification was located; section 10.G treats a failure to 'submit any complete certifications or information required by MaineHousing when due' as a noncompliance the owner is given 'a reasonable period of time' to correct, with no figure attached.
The rule anchors the sixth-year third-party verification to 'the date the LIHTC Project is Placed in Service' and the Post Year 15 policy anchors it to 'the date on which the first building is placed in service'. For a project whose buildings placed in service in different years these are different dates and produce different sixth years. Not reconciled.
Neither document says who may witness a self-certification, whether the witness may be an employee of the owner or management agent, or whether a notary is required. 'Witnessed' is stated without qualification.
The rule does not say what happens in the sixth year at a project in the branch where NO annual certifications are required. Read literally the sixth-year third-party requirement sits inside the multi-limit branch only, so a 100%-single-limit project would never re-verify income after initial occupancy; whether MaineHousing intends that is unresolved.
MaineHousing's Post Year 15 modified student rule (Section II item 6: an all-full-time-student household qualifies where the unit is the household's primary residence and the head or co-head is not claimed as a dependent, with annual certification of full-time student status required) and its post-year-15 building-to-building unit transfer policy (Section II item 4) are genuine state-layer departures that are NOT encoded as separate rules in this pass, to stay within the twelve-rule budget for this jurisdiction. They should be authored next.
The additional monitoring fee for income averaging or 'other extraordinary monitoring requirements' is reserved without any published amount, formula, cap or trigger. An owner electing income averaging in Maine cannot price this from published material.
The fee schedule is stated in Section 4.C among the allocation-process fees, so it governs projects allocated Credit under this rule. What projects allocated under a prior Chapter 16 edition paid, and whether any recurring fee applied to them, was not researched; Section 1 preserves 'the allocation provisions' of prior rules for projects awarded under them, and the fee schedule sits within those provisions.
'Credit Unit' is a defined term in Appendix A of the rule. Whether the fee base counts a manager's unit, a common-area unit or a unit that is restricted but generates no credit was not confirmed against the Appendix A definition, which was not fully read this pass.
Nothing published states the consequence of non-payment, though Section 8 makes payment a step in the allocation of Credit, which implies the practical remedy is withholding the allocation rather than a compliance finding.
The Utility Allowance Guide is dated 1/13/2021 and predates both the 2025 HOME Final Rule and the 1/1/2026 re-segmentation of the charts. Whether MaineHousing has revised the method-selection rules since -- in particular whether the 2025 HOME Final Rule's restoration of the PHA allowance for HOME units changes the post-8/23/2013 mandate -- was not determinable; no revised guide was located on mainehousing.org on 2026-08-24 and the 1/13/2021 file remains the one linked from the live Asset Management page.
The guide states the prior-approval requirement without describing how approval is requested, on what standard it is granted, or whether an approval, once given, survives a change of ownership or management agent.
MaineHousing's own charts are published as a 'LIHTC Allocating Agency Utility Estimates' series with a separate list of towns and locations assigning each municipality to a region. That series is described here rather than embedded, consistent with this corpus's treatment of published limit tables; no limit_table_id is bound to this rule because the series has not been registered in data/limit_tables/.
Whether a property may decline to implement a newly published chart within the 90 days where the new allowance would be LOWER than the current one -- raising the permitted tenant rent -- is not addressed, nor is the interaction with the federal 90-day rule at 1.42-10(c).
The Post Year 15 policy states the lock in a document scoped to the period after year 15. Whether MaineHousing enforces the same lock DURING the initial 15-year compliance period is not stated anywhere located; the policy's own framing ('selected by the owner at the onset of the compliance period') implies the election is made early and binds throughout, but the document that says so governs only the later period. Not resolved.
No process, form or standard is published for submitting a methodology change for approval, and no timeline for MaineHousing's decision is stated.
The policy predates the 1/1/2026 re-segmentation of MaineHousing's charts from three regions to seven. Whether a property whose region assignment changed under that re-segmentation is treated as having changed methodology -- it has not, but its allowance figure moved -- is not addressed. Almost certainly not a methodology change, but it is not stated and is not inferred here.
The interaction with the 2025 HOME Final Rule is unaddressed for dual LIHTC/HOME properties: if that rule restores a method for HOME units that Maine's 2021 guide barred, an owner may face a federal permission and a state lock pointing in opposite directions.
Section 10.D contains two notice provisions in consecutive sentences -- 'reasonable prior written notice' generally, and 'no more than 15 calendar days prior notice' for reviews conducted to the extent required by the IRS. Whether every review is subject to the 15-day ceiling or only the IRS-required subset is genuinely ambiguous. Encoded as 15 days because that is the only figure published.
The rule does not state the sample size for the tenant record review; it incorporates 1.42-5(c)(2)(iii)(A) through (D) by reference 'to the extent required by the IRS', which points at the federal minimum unit sample size chart but does not adopt a state figure. Contrast Hawaii, which publishes its own 'lesser of 20 percent' formula.
The Post Year 15 policy's three-year file review cycle predates the May 2026 rule, which states an inspection cycle of 'every one to three years' but no separate post-year-15 file review cycle. Whether the three-year figure survives is not stated.
'The lease form and content must be acceptable to MaineHousing' does not say whether acceptance is obtained in advance, whether MaineHousing publishes an approved model lease for LIHTC (it publishes lease-related forms for other programs), or whether acceptability is assessed only at review. No LIHTC model lease was located.
STANDARD CONFLICT, UNRESOLVED. Section 10.A.2 of the May 19, 2026 rule names UPCS. The April 2020 Post Year 15 policy names 'Minimum Property Standards (MPS) that have been adopted by MaineHousing'. MaineHousing's Asset Management page separately links a July 2016 'UPCS Guidance and Protocol Clarifications' document. No NSPIRE transition guidance was located on mainehousing.org on 2026-08-24. Which standard an inspector actually applies to a Maine LIHTC property today could not be established from published material and is not guessed.
The MaineHousing 'Minimum Property Standards' referred to in the Post Year 15 policy are not defined in that document and no separate MPS document was located. Whether MPS means HUD's Minimum Property Standards at 24 CFR part 200 subpart S, MaineHousing's own design and construction standards (it publishes carpet, exterior door, paving, window, roofing and siding standards), or something else is unresolved.
Section 10.E states a one-to-three-year cycle and the Post Year 15 policy states at least once every three years. Whether the compliance-period cycle can be as short as one year for a property in good standing, or whether one year is reserved for troubled properties, is not stated.
The rule requires compliance with VAWA 2022 and with the Maine Human Rights Act as monitored obligations but neither the rule nor any located MaineHousing document states what LIHTC-specific VAWA documentation or emergency transfer plan a LIHTC-only property must maintain. MaineHousing posts the HUD 5380-5383 forms under its multifamily regulatory requirements without saying whether they are required at LIHTC-only properties.
The correction period has no published length. 'A reasonable period of time' is the entire published standard. Whether MaineHousing states a date on each notice, applies an internal default, or negotiates per finding was not determinable from published material.
Section 10.G does not say whether the owner may request an extension, nor on what standard one would be granted, though 1.42-5(e)(4) permits an agency to extend the correction period up to six months for good cause and most peer states publish that extension. Maine does not.
The Post Year 15 policy warns that PREMATURE implementation of extended use period guidelines is itself Section 42 noncompliance, which is a real trap for a multi-building project whose buildings placed in service in different years, but neither document supplies a method for determining the transition date per building. The policy says only that owners 'must keep careful track'.
The extended-use-period remedies (suit to compel, foreclosure under MaineHousing loan documents, jeopardy to future awards) are stated in a 2020 policy. Whether the May 2026 rule preserves them is not addressed by the rule, which is silent on post-year-15 enforcement.
The 45 years is stated as an application threshold requirement, so it binds projects awarded under this rule. The term for a project awarded under an earlier Chapter 16 edition is whatever its own recorded extended use agreement says, and Section 1 preserves prior rules' allocation provisions for such projects. Property-level terms must be read off the recorded document.
Appendix E ('Requirements for Purchase Options and Rights of First Refusal') sets the minimum terms an investor letter of intent must satisfy. That appendix was not read in full this pass and its substantive terms are not encoded; a Maine project's purchase-option obligations are therefore under-described here.
The rule does not state whether the qualified contract waiver is executed as a separate instrument, recited in the extended use agreement, or both, nor whether it is recorded.
The ineligibility trigger for 'an uncorrected IRS Form 8823 in connection with any LIHTC Project to the extent it is correctable' has no stated lookback period and no stated cure mechanism other than MaineHousing's waiver. How long an uncorrected 8823 bars an applicant is unresolved.
Whether the 60%-at-50%-AMI condition is measured at initial occupancy, continuously, or at each annual certification is not spelled out. The clause ties it to the 45-year period, which reads as continuous, and it is encoded that way; but the rule does not say how a project restores compliance if turnover drops it below 60%, nor whether a next-available-unit style cure applies.
'Occupied by persons with 50% area median income' does not say whether it means households whose income at certification was at or below the 50% limit, or units DESIGNATED at 50%. The two diverge as incomes rise after move-in. Not resolved.
How this threshold interacts with an income averaging election is unaddressed. An averaging project with designations from 20% to 80% could satisfy a 60% average and still fail a 60%-of-units-at-50% test, or satisfy both, depending entirely on its designation mix. The rule does not say which controls.
The rule states this among threshold requirements for eligibility for Credit, so its application to projects awarded under earlier Chapter 16 editions depends on those editions and on the individual extended use agreement. Not researched this pass.
Neither the application fee nor the processing fee amount is published in the rule; both are set by MaineHousing 'from time to time' and no schedule was located on mainehousing.org on 2026-08-24.
Asset Management Notice 2025-09 makes a revised Ownership Transfer application form mandatory as of December 9, 2025 and says applications on the previous version will be returned. The form itself was not fetched this pass, so its content requirements -- including the new language on bringing reserve and escrow accounts in-house when additional financing is provided, ownership or primary obligor changes, or a workout is approved -- are described from the notice rather than from the form.
The rule does not state a review timeline; section 3.D promises only that MaineHousing will notify the owner when the application is complete and give 'an estimated date or date range' for a decision.
Whether the consent requirement survives the repayment or expiry of all MaineHousing funding is not addressed directly. The definition of 'Project' is keyed to having funding or an allocation 'at the time of the request for MaineHousing consent', which suggests a fully repaid, post-extended-use project falls outside the rule, but that is an inference and is not encoded.
Chapter 27 also governs projects funded by MaineHousing under programs other than LIHTC. This rule is scoped to LIHTC only because that is the program modelled here; a Maine property with MaineHousing debt and no tax credits is equally subject to Chapter 27 and is not covered by this record.
The rule does not say what 'monitoring and reporting of all utilities' means concretely -- consumption, cost, both, at what interval, or through what system -- and no MaineHousing form, template, portal or instruction for utility monitoring was located on mainehousing.org on 2026-08-24. The obligation is real and its content is unpublished. Not guessed.
'All projects funded by this QAP' scopes the obligation to projects funded under the May 19, 2026 rule. Whether earlier-funded projects carry an equivalent obligation under their own QAP editions or their loan documents was not researched.
No deadline or frequency is stated, so the requirement's frequency is encoded as continuous and its trigger as continuous. If MaineHousing collects this annually alongside the March 1 package, the frequency should be corrected to annual on the next pass; that was not determinable.
Whether the obligation attaches to the owner or can be discharged by a third-party benchmarking service, and whether tenant consent is needed to obtain unit-level utility data from Maine's utilities, are both unaddressed.
'Primarily' is a causation standard no other statute read in this pass uses. Maine does not say how it is applied where recipient status was one of several reasons, and the difference from a 'because of' standard is left to adjudication.
The clause reaches refusal to rent and different terms of tenancy. It does not on its face reach advertising, steering, or a representation that a unit is unavailable, each of which other states cover expressly.
Housing subsidies are named inside public assistance, but the section does not say whether a subsidy paid directly to the owner is within it.

wi Wisconsin · 51

'Most recent version of HUD Handbook 4350.3' has no edition or change number, so the manual does not date its own income definition. For a point-in-time question -- what income definition governed a Wisconsin certification effective in, say, March 2025 -- this document alone cannot answer, and the corpus's own freshness model cannot detect a change, because the change happens in a HUD document WHEDA does not cite by number.
WHEDA adopts the HOTMA foster-member treatment while deferring generally to Handbook 4350.3, whose pre-HOTMA text counted foster members for income. The manual does not say whether that single adoption implies HOTMA generally, or is a deliberate carve-out from an otherwise pre-HOTMA posture.
Footnote 3 to Sec. 5.4 says of Rev. Proc. 94-65 that 'HOTMA does not appear to retain this provision and the IRS has not yet commented'. That is WHEDA's own uncertainty on the record; it does not tell an owner what to do, and the footnote's advice ('it is prudent to verify') is not an obligation.
The manual does not say when 'no longer required to use the highest calculation' took effect, and the Revisions pages for July 2026 and March 2025 do not list Sec. 5.3. The change predates both, so this rule's effective.from is the manual edition date rather than the date of the policy change, which cannot be established from the document.
'Little to zero income' is not quantified, so the boundary at which the trailing-twelve-month basis becomes available is a judgment.
WHEDA states no minimum number of pay stubs anywhere in the manual, unlike Minnesota's two or CTCAC's three. Sec. 5.2 requires written verification from all sources and otherwise defers to Handbook 4350.3, so the sufficiency floor for a Wisconsin file is whatever the current handbook says.
WHEDA's compressed statement does not distinguish Section 8 recipients from non-recipients, which is the axis the underlying federal rule turns on (24 CFR 5.609(b)(9) for non-Section 8, and the appropriations-act limitation for Section 8). A Wisconsin HTC unit that also carries project-based Section 8 has two rules pointing at it and only one of them is in this manual.
The phrase 'under 24, or 24 or older without dependent children' covers every head, spouse or co-head student except one who is 24 or older WITH dependent children. Whether that reading is intended -- it makes the exception the norm and the exclusion the exception for this group -- is not confirmed anywhere else in the manual.
'Actual covered costs' is not defined in the Wisconsin manual, though the offsetting arithmetic depends on it entirely. The definition would have to come from Handbook 4350.3 or HUD Notice 2023-10, neither of which WHEDA cites in this passage.
INTERNAL CONTRADICTION IN THE MANUAL, unresolved here. Sec. 5.4's body sets the threshold at $50,000 twice; footnote 3 on the same page states the Rev. Proc. 94-65 limit as a 'sworn statement of assets of less than $5,000'. $5,000 is the pre-2018 federal figure. Both are quoted above. Which governs a reasonable-person challenge to a sworn statement between $5,000 and $50,000 cannot be determined from this document.
'$50,000, adjusted annually for inflation' names no index, no HUD notice and no publication WHEDA will issue. An owner cannot determine the current-year figure from the manual, and the manual gives no fallback instruction.
Footnote 3 closes by saying 'HOTMA does not appear to retain this provision and the IRS has not yet commented. However, it is prudent to verify assets less than $50,000, adjusted for inflation, if the above statement applies.' That is advice, not an obligation, and it is not encoded as one.
'Manipulated the income limitation requirements' is not defined and no example is given. Whether it requires intent, and who bears the burden of establishing it, is unstated -- which matters because the consequence is the harshest in the manual.
The rounding recommendation is stated as a recommendation while the rent-rounding rule at Sec. 3.3 B is mandatory and in bold. Whether a property rounding down on income (or not rounding at all) is out of policy is therefore unclear, though on the face of the text it is not.
The hold-harmless rule at 3.3 A 4 is stated for the project generally; the manual does not say how it interacts with a unit redesignation under the Average Income Test, where the applicable designation and therefore the limit can change after placed-in-service.
The primary-school carve-out is written against third-party VERIFICATION at Sec. 5.6. The Form 800 requirement is stated separately at Sec. 3.3 E i as applying to 'all full or part-time students' with no carve-out. Whether a Form 800 is expected for a six-year-old is therefore unresolved on the text.
'Primary school' is not defined and does not map onto the federal definition of an educational organization, which includes elementary schools. A middle-school or junior-high student sits between the two provisions.
The manual requires the application to capture 'past' student status without saying how far back or what is done with it, since the section 42 test looks at the current taxable year.
Sec. 3.3 E v says the consequence follows when 'any tenant' becomes a full-time student; Sec. 5.8 D says 'all tenants'. Taken literally the first would disqualify a household the moment one member enrolled full-time, which is not the section 42 test. Encoded on the 'all tenants' reading, but the manual contains both sentences.
Neither section gives a date from which the unit becomes a market unit -- enrolment, discovery, or the recertification. Minnesota says 'immediately'; WHEDA says nothing.
The Title IV exception is stated federally without naming the Wisconsin programme that administers it, unlike Minnesota which names MFIP. A Wisconsin file's exception document is therefore not predictable from the manual.
Neither the 100% nor the mixed-use instruction says whether the existing members' income should be refreshed at the same time. In a 100% project adding today's income to an original certification that may be a decade old and comparing the sum to today's 140% limit is arithmetically strange, and WHEDA does not address it.
The manual does not name the certification event type for the resulting record. Wisconsin reports composition changes through Procorem as a 'Household Update' (Sec. 5.9), which is a reporting event rather than a certification type.
The example is worked at 140% of the TWO-person limit, confirming the projected-size reading, but the text says only 'the current maximum allowable income' at that step without repeating 'projected'.
The manual writes '100% IHTC buildings' where the rest of the document says HTC. Read as a typographical error for HTC; no programme called IHTC appears anywhere else in the manual, and the parallel sentence for mixed-use projects uses no acronym.
'Independently income qualified at the time they moved into the unit' is not defined for a member who joined mid-tenancy as an added member under Sec. 5.8 B, where the test was the COMBINED household income at the projected size, not that member's income alone. On the worked example WHEDA treats the combined test as sufficient, but the words say 'independently'.
Neither exception says what happens when only SOME of the remaining tenants were independently qualified.
WHEDA does not state the rule Minnesota does at its Sec. 6.02: which imputed income limitation the replacement household must satisfy when the comparable available unit was NOT previously a low-income unit. Since Wisconsin permits the AIT only in 100% low-income projects there should be no market-rate units to fill, but the manual also contemplates market-rate move-ins in its AUR violation discussion, so the gap is not obviously harmless.
The manual says restoration can occur if 'the AMGI increases to an amount, such that 140 percent of the income limit is more than the tenant's income (Note: a recertification of income may be necessary to determine current income)' -- but in a 100% AIT project no annual income recertification is performed, so it does not say what evidence would establish that the household has fallen back under the threshold.
'20%-60% CMI' assumes designations in 10% increments from 20% to 80%, which Sec. 3.1 A iii states. The manual does not address a project whose designations were set before the 2022 final AIT regulations in some other increment.
'Reasonable attempts' is not defined for the special set-aside, and the manual's discussion of reasonable attempts under the Unit Vacancy Rule is expressly about vacant units rather than about locating a qualifying existing household.
The manual does not say how long the replacement duty persists, nor whether it is discharged by a single documented attempt or continues until a qualifying household is housed.
'Locate an existing household that qualifies for the special set-aside' contemplates redesignating a unit occupied by a household already in the property, but the manual does not say whether that household must move, or whether its current unit can simply be redesignated.
The manual applies the UVR 'on a project basis, as defined on IRS Form 8609, Part II, Line 8b and the required attachment IF the Line 8b election equals "Yes"'. It does not say what the scope is when the election is 'No' and each building is its own project -- presumably building-level by definition, but the sentence does not close.
'Actively market' is not defined, and the consequence of failing to do so is routed to the General Public Use Rule, whose own remedy and correction path the manual does not restate in this section.
The relationship between the Category 11c 'unsuitable for occupancy' reporting and the UVR is stated but not resolved: a unit reported as unsuitable is not an available unit, but the manual does not say whether time spent unsuitable counts against reasonable attempts.
WHEDA calls this a 'Safe Harbor test' without citing IRS Revenue Procedure 2003-82, which is the safe harbour it describes. Minnesota cites the revenue procedure by number and adds that it 'is not required to monitor for compliance with Revenue Procedure 2003-82'; WHEDA says nothing about whether it monitors for this test, so whether a missing test is a reportable finding in Wisconsin is unresolved.
The test window is 'within 120 days before the beginning of the first year of the credit period'. For a building whose credit period start is elected in a later year than the placed-in-service year, the manual does not say whether the window moves with the election.
The manual does not say what happens if the test is simply not performed and the household later proves to have been over-income at the start of the credit period.
The permanent set-aside is dated by QAP cycle ('during or following the 2025-2026 QAP') rather than by a calendar date, and the manual prints no date for when that QAP took effect. The effective.from on this rule is therefore the manual edition date, not the date the policy changed, which cannot be established from this document.
For a permanently set-aside unit the manual gives no maximum vacancy period and no relief valve, so a unit for which no eligible tenant can be found could in principle stay vacant indefinitely. Whether the vacant unit continues to count as a low-income unit under the Unit Vacancy Rule in that state is not addressed.
'Requisite income qualifications' for the referral means both the 30% CMI supportive target and the unit's HTC limit, but the manual does not say what happens when a DHS referral meets the target definition and not the income limit.
WHEDA states a permanent set-aside from the 2025-2026 QAP for SUPPORTIVE housing units but says nothing equivalent for veterans units. Whether that silence is deliberate or an omission -- the two regimes are otherwise administered together, share Form 315, and sit in consecutive subsections -- cannot be determined from the manual.
The 'target veteran definition' is not defined in the manual; like the supportive housing target definition it comes from the property's own scoring commitment and MOU, so it is a property-overlay fact.
The manual does not say whether the veterans affidavit is required for every vacancy or only for those filled outside the target population, whereas the parallel Form 315 requirement for supportive housing is explicit on that point.
WHEDA's manual does not state the 26 CFR 1.42-5(d)(2) election for general Housing Tax Credit inspections. NSPIRE is referenced in the HTF-specific section (5.12 C), not yet fully read; whether WHEDA's general HTC inspection standard is formally NSPIRE-based, UPCS-based, or local-code-based was not established and is not assumed.
The quoted list comes from the section's declaration of policy and definitions; the operative prohibitions at § 106.50(2) repeat it. The policy statement is quoted because it carries the list in one contiguous run.
'Lawful source of income' is defined at § 106.50(1m); that definition was not read in this pass, so whether it reaches a subsidy paid to the landlord is not established here.
Victim status is protected without a stated verification mechanism. Federal VAWA supplies a certification form for covered programmes; Wisconsin's class reaches properties with no covered programme and names no equivalent.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

ne Nebraska · 51

The 12/2021 compliance manual says only 'the January due date' and never states January 31; the date comes from Allocation Plan sec. 18.3. Whether NIFA has ever set a different January date for a particular year was not verified.
No extension mechanism for the annual submission was located in either document - the manual's Chapter 7 corrective measure for a missed January date is simply to submit and avoid 8823s and late fees. Whether NIFA grants extensions at all is not published. Not guessed.
Neither document states a HOTMA position. The word does not appear in the 12/2021 manual, and no separate NIFA HOTMA notice was located on nifa.org on 2026-08-24, so whether the income and asset material the certificate rests on has been updated for HOTMA is unknown.
The fee schedule may be revised on 30 days' notice posted to nifa.org, so these amounts are the values in force under the 3/2025 printing and should be re-read rather than assumed. NIFA serves a superseded printing of the same filename from the same directory.
Whether the 5% late payment penalty compounds per 30-day period, as the application-stage late fees expressly do ('an additional .5% will be assessed each subsequent 30-day period'), is not stated for the compliance fee. Not guessed.
Whether an owner who prepaid upfront owes anything further if the credit amount is adjusted between cost certification and Form 8609 issuance is not addressed.
Neither document provides for an extension of the Correction Period. Treas. Reg. 1.42-5(e)(4) permits an agency to extend to six months for good cause; whether NIFA does so, and on what showing, is not published. The absence is not read as a prohibition. Not guessed.
The courtesy-email rule is stated in terms of a response received 'prior to the due date' versus 'on or after' it, which makes a response filed ON the sixtieth day timely for correction purposes but too late for the courtesy email. Whether that asymmetry is intended is not stated.
'Exhibit A' is the manual's name for the notice; the Allocation Plan does not use the term. Whether the Exhibit A form has been reissued since 12/2021 was not verified.
No published procedure for contesting or appealing a Not-In-Good-Standing designation was located in either document. Not guessed.
The manual says uncorrected noncompliance 'may affect the property tax valuation treatment allowed for under state law for LIHTC and bond projects' without citing the Nebraska statute or describing the mechanism. The underlying state property-tax provision was not identified and is not encoded.
The designation is said to attach to the management company as well as the owner in the post-year-15 chapter. Whether it does so during years 1-15, where Chapter 6 speaks only of the project and the owner/developer, is not stated.
Neither document states who at the owner or agent must attend, how attendance is evidenced to NIFA, or what happens to a property whose owner and agent both miss a year. No attendance certificate or reporting form was located among NIFA's compliance forms. Not guessed.
The Allocation Plan states the obligation twice with different force - 'are required to attend on an annual basis' in the sec. 18 preamble, and 'attend compliance seminars as appropriate' in the ownership entity undertakings. Which qualifies which is not stated; the rule encodes the stronger, more specific statement and records the softer one here.
NIFA's Education page ties attendance to LIHTC application points but no QAP scoring line item for compliance training was located in the 2026/2027/2028 9% Allocation Plan sections reviewed. The points linkage is therefore recorded from NIFA's own web description rather than from the plan text.
The manual's move-in documentation list says the Annual Student Certification is not required at move-in where student status for each household member has been identified and certified on the Tenant Income Certification. Whether the same substitution is available at the anniversary, where the TIC is not being redone at a 100% property, is not stated. Not guessed.
The certificate's question 5 says 'annual Student Self Certification' while the manual's form is the 'Annual Student Certification'. Treated as the same document; no separate self-certification form was located among NIFA's published forms.
The manual predates HOTMA and does not address whether the HOTMA student-rule and income treatment changes affect this form or its exceptions.
NIFA's agency estimate is available only 'provided that NIFA agrees to provide the estimate'. No published criterion for that agreement, and no request form, was located. Whether NIFA currently offers agency estimates at all is unknown - contrast Kansas, where the December 2025 checklist states plainly that the agency estimate is not currently offered.
Unlike Kansas, NIFA does not state whether different 1.42-10 methods may be mixed across utilities within one building. The instruction to identify 'which source is being used for which units' where multiple sources are used implies mixing across units is contemplated, but the text does not say so. Not guessed.
No standalone NIFA utility allowance policy document exists; the procedure lives in Chapter 3 of the compliance manual. The agency key_documents entry naming a separate 'NIFA utility allowance policy' source was not borne out.
This chapter is from the 12/2021 manual and does not reflect any post-2021 IRS utility allowance guidance.
The 120-day term is stated as 'valid for 120 days prior to move-in'. Whether the same term applies to verifications supporting an annual recertification at a mixed-income property, where there is no move-in to measure from, is not stated. The rental assistance documentation requirement at the anniversary uses a different formulation ('effective within 120 days of the effective date'), which suggests the anniversary analogue is the certification effective date, but the manual does not say so. Not guessed.
The four-way employment-status requirement applies to 'every adult (18 and older) in a unit'. How a live-in care attendant, whose income is excluded, is treated under it is not addressed.
This chapter predates HOTMA and does not reflect the HOTMA income and asset determination rules or their safe harbours; no NIFA HOTMA guidance was located.
NIFA'S CURRENT DOCUMENTS CONFLICT ON THE INSPECTION STANDARD AND THE CONFLICT IS NOT RESOLVED HERE. The 12/2021 compliance manual - the only edition NIFA publishes - elects UPCS in Chapter 5 and repeats it in its Form 8823 category list. The Owner's Certificate updated 12/2025 makes the owner certify to NSPIRE. HUD retired UPCS for multifamily on October 1, 2023, which makes the certificate the more likely operative standard, but NIFA has published nothing saying so and the manual has not been reissued. The parameter physical_inspection_standard is deliberately left WITHOUT a value. Confirm with NIFA before relying on either.
No NIFA statement of NSPIRE severity levels, correction windows for life-threatening or severe deficiencies, or a defect-severity-to-8823 mapping was located. Contrast Kansas, which publishes a 24-hour cure and a 72-hour proof-of-correction obligation.
The manual gives 24 hours as tenant notice but neither document states the notice NIFA gives the OWNER beyond 'in advance'.
Whether NIFA participates in the HUD physical inspection alignment/harmonization program for HAP-contract and federally insured properties is not addressed in either document.
The five-year post-year-15 record retention rule for move-in certifications sits alongside the manual's Chapter 2 rule that records be kept six years past the filing due date, and twenty-one years for first-year records. Whether the five-year rule replaces the general rule for those documents or runs alongside it is not stated. Not guessed; both are recorded.
The cost of the physical inspection billed to the owner is not quantified anywhere located, and the fee schedule cross-refers to the Post Year-15 Monitoring Procedures rather than pricing it.
The procedures say they 'will be reviewed periodically and may be modified' and that NIFA 'may waive or make adjustments to any items contained within, on a case-by-case basis, for good cause shown'. They sit in the 12/2021 manual and may have been modified since without a reissue.
The waiver is available only to developments with 100% LIHTC units. Whether a mixed-income development with sustained vacancy has any analogous route is not addressed. Not guessed.
The procedures do not state how the waiver interacts with the LURA's recorded low-income usage covenant - whether a LURA amendment is required and recorded, or whether the waiver operates as a forbearance. The closing sentence preserving third-party beneficiary enforcement rights suggests the covenant itself is not amended, but the text does not say so.
No form or fee for a waiver request was located; the fee schedule prices a 'Change to LURA' at $1,000 but does not name this waiver.
Whether the 10% threshold is measured on units or on scheduled rent, and whether it is a simple twelve-month average, is not specified beyond '10% average over a 12-month period'.
No advance-notice period is stated for a transfer - the requirement is prior written consent, not notice by a stated number of days. How far in advance a request must reach NIFA is not published. Contrast Kansas's 30-day rule. Not guessed.
The $10,000 Failure to Notify Fee is priced in the fee schedule but no document located states who owes it where the sale has already closed - the seller, the buyer, or both.
Whether the qualified-contract termination applies to a transfer between affiliates, or to a change of general partner short of a sale of the development, is not addressed. The provision is written to 'any transfer, sale or other disposal', which is broad, but sec. 6.4 treats partner/member changes and transfers as separate categories.
The annual Owner's Certificate is the reporting channel, but it is retrospective. Whether certifying a change on it discharges any separate notification duty is not stated.
Two quotes on this rule were corrected on 2026-09-06: the manual prints the term in curly double quotes and the transcription had used straight single quotes. The substance was accurate; only the quotation marks differed.
The cure turns on NIFA's determination, not on the owner's compliance with the stated formula, and the manual gives no criteria for that determination beyond the wording and signatures. An owner who does everything the note describes still depends on NIFA agreeing.
The manual does not say how much notice NIFA's annual request gives, which is what determines whether the cure window is real or nominal for a defect discovered late in a year.
A 100% qualified development is excused from income recertification but must still file student status, rent, rental assistance and the VAWA addendum every year on the move-in anniversary. An owner who reads the waiver as excusing the annual file altogether misses four items, and the manual states the waiver and the surviving obligations in the same sentence.
The manual requires execution by all adults at move-in and annual submission thereafter, and does not say whether the annual submission is a fresh signature or a copy of the original. For a household whose composition changed mid-year, which adults must have signed is not addressed.
The sequence puts the TIC signature before lease execution, while the Nebraska manual elsewhere treats the lease as part of the move-in package. Where a lease is signed first and the TIC follows before possession, the manual's own initial-move-in rule is satisfied but its prescribed order is not, and it does not say whether the order is mandatory or descriptive.
Verification may be by 'applicant self-affidavit, when applicable' and the manual does not say when that is applicable, so the boundary between third-party verification and self-affidavit is set by the owner.
Nebraska's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in Nebraska on this section's text.
'Military or veteran status' is not defined in the quoted subsection; whether it reaches a dependant of a servicemember is not answered here.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

sc South Carolina · 47

SC states no Level 5 upfront-verification tier and no Level 2 oral tier. Whether an owner who telephoned an employer and documented the call has done anything SC recognises is unanswerable on the manual's face; under Table J2 that is a permitted step before self-certification.
SC says the file 'must be documented... prior to moving to the next method of verification' and refers back to a section called 'Review of Documents' for how. No section of that name exists in the 2/12/2026 edition; the nearest text is item 3.A, Requirements for Verifications. The cross-reference is broken and what the documentation must say is therefore unstated.
SC never states an adoption date, transition trigger or site election for HOTMA. The nearest thing is the passbook sentence at p. 63 ('Effective 01/01/2025 and thereafter, per HUD's Notice H 2023-10'), which dates a rate convention rather than a regime. The verification_hierarchy_map's hotma_adopted cell for SC should stay null.
The PHA statement declares that income does not exceed the limit rather than stating the income. A Tenant Income Certification requires a figure, so what the owner enters on the TIC when relying solely on the PHA statement is not addressed.
SC Housing states no currency window for the PHA statement and no requirement that it be re-obtained annually, though the general annual recertification duty presumably supplies one.
Whether the substitution reaches assets as well as income is not stated. The paragraph sits under 'Third-Party Verification' in the income methods section, which suggests income only, but the manual never says so.
'Income insufficient to cover reasonable basic living expenses' is not defined and no threshold is given. The manual creates a duty whose trigger only a human can judge.
The manual does not say what happens where the household's statement of how expenses are paid discloses support that the donor then refuses to verify by affidavit -- whether the income is estimated, imputed or the household is denied.
SC Housing states elsewhere that all Family Certifications must be notarised but does not repeat it in the Zero Income section. The notarisation requirement is inferred from the tier the affidavit sits in rather than stated for this form; flagged rather than treated as settled.
The manual writes '$50,000 or less than the annual inflation amount', which read literally means 'or less than the inflation amount' and is almost certainly a drafting slip for '$50,000 or the annual inflation amount, whichever applies'. Read as the indexed threshold, consistent with the five other passages, but the sentence does not say so.
SC Housing states no indexed figure at all and does not say where an owner should find it. HUD publishes it; the manual does not point to the publication.
Whether the conflict-triggered duty to verify below the line requires third-party verification or merely clarification with the household is not stated.
THE CENTRAL OPEN QUESTION: item 3.H.3.f (accessible IRA/401(k)/Keogh included, valued at the six-month average) and item 3.H.6 (IRS-recognised retirement plans excluded) are both printed in the 2/12/2026 edition and cannot both be applied. SC Housing's compliance monitoring staff should be asked which governs. Until then a South Carolina file is defensible either way and an operator should document its election.
The exclusion list's formatting is itself unreliable: 'Non-necessary Personal property-' appears as an orphaned sub-heading between item (a) and item (b) with nothing under it, so whether the following items are exclusions in their own right or examples of non-necessary property is not clear from the layout.
The manual excludes 'assets that are part of an active business' but gives no test for when a rental property is the applicant's 'main occupation', which is the line that decides whether a small landlord's rental equity is an asset.
The de minimis floor is aggregate ('all assets disposed of'), which means a household with three small gifts totalling $1,200 crosses it while a household with one $900 gift does not. The manual gives no worked example and the aggregate reading is taken from the words 'all assets disposed of'.
The declaration duty runs to 'each certification and recertification', but a 100% property operating under an approved recertification waiver completes a recertification questionnaire rather than a full certification. Whether the disposal declaration survives onto that questionnaire is not stated.
The 'higher of the two' instruction is not reconciled with the manual's own direction to factor in reasonably anticipated changes. Where a documented pay cut makes the rate-of-pay figure lower and correct, the manual on its face still requires the higher year-to-date figure.
SC Housing states no tolerance for how far the two calculations may diverge before the difference must be explained in the file.
The worked example uses a 2021 date and a $10.00 wage and has evidently been carried forward through several editions unrevised; whether the prorating convention it demonstrates is still SC Housing's intended method is inferred from the example rather than stated in text.
Counting alimony as AWARDED conflicts with HOTMA's 'all amounts received' definition, which the same manual adopts by reference at item 3.E when it quotes 24 CFR 5.609. Whether SC Housing intends the older alimony rule to survive HOTMA is not addressed anywhere in the 2/12/2026 edition.
The manual does not say what documentation demonstrates twelve months of non-payment. A family court payment history is the obvious candidate; the manual names it only as a confirming document for the amount, not as proof of non-receipt.
'or the annual amount' is offered as a third averaging basis without saying when it applies or over what period it is measured.
SC Housing's TANF-only reading of the Title IV exemption is narrower than several other agencies', which accept any Title IV-A assistance. It rests on the manual's own words rather than on IRS guidance, and a household receiving a different Title IV-A benefit would be denied in South Carolina and admitted elsewhere.
The JTPA-comparability test asks the owner to compare a programme's mission statement against the reproduced JTPA purpose. That is a judgement SC Housing has delegated to management with no approval route, and the manual does not say whether SC Housing will accept or review the owner's conclusion.
'Immediately ineligible' is stated without a remedy. Whether the owner must terminate the tenancy, whether the unit ceases to be a low-income unit at once, and how that interacts with the lease provisions the manual requires for ineligible student households, is not set out.
The manual states the Section 8 student rule (all assistance in excess of tuition counted) alongside the HOTMA Type 1 / Type 2 calculation without saying which applies to a LIHTC household that also holds a Housing Choice Voucher. The two produce materially different figures for the same student.
The $480 dependent-student cap is printed with '(as adjusted by inflation)' and no indexed figure, in an edition that elsewhere adopts HOTMA. Whether SC Housing intends the HOTMA figure or the historic $480 is unresolved.
'Verified by the responsible entity as student financial assistance' does not say who the responsible entity is for a LIHTC property with no HUD relationship -- the owner, the institution, or SC Housing.
'More than 50% or more of the time' is self-contradictory as printed. Whether a child present exactly half the time counts is not answerable on the manual's face; the tie-break by dependency claim is stated only 'if disputed'.
The manual excludes foster children and adults from household size but does not say whether they are excluded from the family size used to select the income limit, which its own item 17.B then contradicts by including children temporarily absent due to foster placement.
No document is named for the 'health care provider' determination that a live-in aide is necessary -- whether a letter, a form or a prescription satisfies it is not stated, though the consequence of not having it is severe and retroactive.
The due-diligence standard for additions during the initial certification period is stated as a duty to have 'clearly-defined procedures' without saying what those procedures must contain or whether SC Housing reviews or approves them.
'The initial certification period' is not defined. Whether it means the period up to the first anniversary, the first year of the credit period, or something else, is not stated, and the penalty attached to it is retroactive to move-in.
For deletions the manual adopts the IRS position that no adjustment is needed, but does not say how the file records the departure in the meantime, or whether the departed member's income stays on the certification until the next annual recertification.
SC Housing's low-band trigger is stated as 'exceeds the 60% Income Limits' with no 140% multiplier, which is a stricter test for a 60% unit than section 42(g)(2)(D)(ii) applies to a 60% unit in a 40/60 project. Whether SC Housing intends the bare 60% limit or 140% of it is not stated, and the sentence as printed says the bare limit.
The untriggering paragraph is written in terms of '140% of the applicable income limit' and is not restated for Average Income units, so how an AIT unit that triggered on the 60%-limit test stops being triggered is not addressed.
The manual gives no treatment for a project that elected Average Income and has units designated above 80%, which the statute does not permit but which resyndications occasionally present.
SC Housing does not say what an owner must do where the recertification questionnaire discloses income above 140% but the income was never verified. Whether the disclosure alone triggers the rule -- the text says it does -- or whether verification is required first is not addressed, and the difference decides whether an unverified disclosure can force a market unit to be filled with a qualified household.
The manual does not restate the Average Income variant of the trigger in this section, so whether the 140%-of-current-limit computation or the 60%-limit test at item 20 governs an AIT unit at recertification is not stated in either place.
'Applicable fraction has been restored' is used without saying whether restoration is measured on the unit fraction, the floor space fraction, or the lesser of the two, which for a building with varied unit sizes can differ.
The state definition of “project” recites only the 40-60 and 20-50 tests and omits the average income test section 42(g)(1)(C) added in 2018. The operative eligibility term used elsewhere in the section is “qualified project”, which incorporates section 42 wholesale, so an average-income election is probably accommodated -- SC Housing does allocate state credit to average-income deals. Whether an average-income project satisfies the (A)(4) definition on its own terms is unresolved and matters only if the two definitions are ever read against each other.
A full-text search of section 12-6-3795 as served by the codifier on 2026-08-29 returned no occurrence of transfer, assign, sell, sold or sale. On the text as read the South Carolina credit is NOT a certificated transferable credit, only freely allocable among the owning entity's own partners. Whether the original 2020 enactment contained a transfer provision later removed was not checked.
Other sections of S.C. Code ch. 31-21 address disability; this pass read only § 31-21-40.
South Carolina's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in South Carolina on this section's text.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

ar Arkansas · 47

The 'LIHTC Compliance Monitoring Status Report' is named as a required February 1 submission in the 2026 QAP Section V but is not described anywhere in the 2026 compliance manual, and no form by that name appears in ADFA's document library. Whether it is a distinct form, the MITAS-generated status report, or a legacy name for the Form 400 package was not established. Not guessed.
No late fee or late-filing penalty for a missed February 1 package is published in the manual, the QAP or Form 400. The manual states only that failure to complete the form in its entirety 'will result in noncompliance with program regulations'. Whether the $50-per-unit penalty at ar.lihtc.noncompliance_penalty_50_per_unit reaches a late annual filing (its text ties it to units 'sampled or reviewed' at a monitoring visit) was not established.
Every ADFA printing of this manual since June 2025 is filenamed 'Preliminary Version', and the June 2025 announcement described it as a draft posted for partner review of HOTMA changes -- yet ADFA's document library publishes it as the current 'Affordable Housing Compliance Manual - 2026' with no other current edition. Whether a non-preliminary final has been adopted, and on what date, was not established. This affects the effective_from date on every manual-sourced Arkansas rule in this file.
The manual says a 'separate procedures manual is available' for the Tenant Data Reporting Software but does not name or link it, and it is not in ADFA's public document library. Any additional field-level or timing requirements it imposes are therefore unencoded.
Whether ADFA treats a late portal entry that is nonetheless made before the annual February 1 certification as a reportable 8823 event, or only an entry that is never made, is not stated. The manual's sentence is unqualified ('Failure to enter data will be reported to IRS as noncompliance').
The manual contradicts itself on the correction period. Chapter 11 Section A states 'The standard timeframe for corrections is 30 days', then two paragraphs later states 'ADFA has 45 days from the end of the 45 day correction period to file the 8823 with the IRS'. The 30-day figure is encoded because it is stated as the operative instruction to owners and appears in the correction-period paragraph itself, while the '45 day correction period' phrase reads as uncorrected boilerplate; the conflict is unresolved and must be confirmed with ADFA before the 30-day parameter is used to drive a finding.
The manual permits management to request an extension of the correction period but publishes no maximum extension, no criteria for granting one, and no form. Whether an extension tolls the 45-day Form 8823 filing clock is not stated.
The Low-Income Housing Credit Minimum Unit Sample Size Reference Chart is referred to in Chapter 10 Section G but the chart itself is not reproduced in the copy of the manual read. The unit-count-to-sample-size rows are therefore unencoded; only the 'lesser of 20% or the chart' rule is.
ADFA's own materials conflict on the inspection standard: the 2026 manual (Chapter 10 Section G, printed page 123) states NSPIRE, while ADFA Form 400 rev. 01/2025 item 8 still requires the owner to certify suitability for occupancy against 'Uniform Physical Condition Standards (UPCS) as defined by HUD'. The form appears not to have been conformed. The manual is encoded as controlling because it is the later and more specific document, but this is not resolved.
The manual states no re-inspection fee, no charge for units to which admittance is not possible, and no owner-accompaniment requirement. Whether ADFA bills re-inspections (as e.g. KY and CT do) was not established and is not assumed.
The identity and scope of the 'contractor working on behalf of ADFA' is not fixed in the manual. ADFA's 2026 compliance communications indicate US Housing Consultants performed the 2026 physical inspection season (announced as April 13 to October 21, 2026), and US Housing Consultants is also the manual's author; whether that is a standing delegation under Treas. Reg. 1.42-5(f) or a season-by-season engagement was not established.
The manual refers to owners being 'subject to point deductions, determined by ADFA allocation, based on the Average Non-Compliance percentage as follows:' and to management companies being 'given a GRADE', but neither the point-deduction table nor the letter-grade bands is printed in the copy read -- the tables appear to have been dropped in production. The thresholds are therefore unencoded and must not be inferred.
Whether the $50-per-unit penalty reaches noncompliance that is identified outside a monitoring visit (for example a missed February 1 certification or missed portal data entry) is not stated; the text ties it to 'the units sampled or reviewed ... on the date the site is monitored'.
No mechanism, appeal or waiver process for the penalty is published, nor whether non-payment is itself reportable noncompliance.
The manual and the QAP state different collection points for the Tier 1 fee: the manual says 'The fee is due when credits are allocated', while QAP Section IV.D says it is 'required at the time the owner submits the final development cost certification requesting issuance of IRS Forms 8609(s)'. Those are different events, often more than a year apart. Not reconciled; the QAP text is the more specific and more recent statement but neither was confirmed with ADFA.
Whether the Tier 1 10% fee applies to tax-exempt bond (4%) developments on the same basis as competitive 9% developments is not stated in either document.
No consequence for non-payment of either tier is published -- whether an unpaid extended-use per-unit fee is itself reportable noncompliance, or is simply a debt, was not established.
The manual does not say how an owner establishes that condition 2 is met -- whether ADFA issues written confirmation that the first monitoring review is complete and the exception is now available, or whether the owner is expected to infer it. Nor does it say what happens to certifications performed as Form 501 self-certifications before the first monitoring review occurred.
The manual does not state how HOTMA's self-certification allowances interact with ADFA's Form 501 regime -- in particular whether the HOTMA net-family-asset self-certification threshold (stated as $51,600 in Chapter 8 of this manual) applies within a Form 501 self-certification year, where source documentation of assets is already not required. Not guessed.
'Deeper state set-asides' in condition 5 is stated as 30%, 40% and 50% AMI, but Chapter 1 Section C describes the ADFA application's deeper income restrictions as guaranteed at 30%, 40%, 50% AND 60% of AMI. Whether a 60% deeper-targeting commitment also revokes the recertification exception is not stated.
The manual does not say whether the ADFA exemption must be affirmatively elected or requested in writing, nor whether ADFA records the election anywhere the owner can point to at a monitoring review. Contrast the 100%-project exception, where the manual at least lists explicit preconditions.
Whether the exemption extends to buildings assisted under other RHS programs the manual names in the utility-allowance chapter (Section 516, Section 521 Rental Assistance, Section 538) or only to Section 515 is not stated. Only Section 515 is encoded.
The manual states ADFA 'must review RHS-provided information to ensure compliance with income limits and rent restrictions under IRC 42(g)(1) and (2)' but does not say when or through what submission, and no ADFA form for transmitting RD certifications outside MITAS was located.
Whether the Rental Rate Impact commitment continued for applications after 2022 is not stated -- the manual describes the requirement in the past tense for '2017 - 2022 Applications' and the 2026 QAP's scoring criteria do not carry an RRI item under that name. Whether ADFA discontinued it, renamed it, or simply stopped describing it in the manual was not established.
The manual does not say whether an owner who fails to take an available 2.75% increase in a given year may take a larger catch-up increase later, or whether the ceiling is a compounding schedule fixed at award regardless of rents actually charged. The 'added to the previous year's rent' wording suggests the former, the Net Rent Maximums schedule the latter; not resolved.
No consequence for exceeding the RRI maximum is published in the manual -- neither an 8823 category nor a specified LURA remedy. consequence_model is recorded as contract_remedy on the basis of the covenant's source, not on a stated ADFA enforcement provision.
The manual describes an 'Agency Estimate option' under which 'some HFAs may require that the Utility Allowance be based on actual consumption' but never states whether ADFA itself offers or requires an agency estimate, nor publishes an ADFA utility allowance schedule. Whether Arkansas has an agency-estimate method at all was not established, and the ua_review_deadline_basis parameter does not assume one.
The manual states that owners using a utility company estimate, the HUD Utility Schedule Model or an energy consumption model must 'provide the updated utility allowance estimates to the HFA' 90 days before implementation, but gives no ADFA submission address, form or portal location for that 90-day advance filing, and the portal upload it does describe is the annual February 1 document set. How the 90-day advance notice is actually delivered to ADFA is unresolved.
No ADFA process, form or timeline for approving a non-engineer 'qualified professional' under Treas. Reg. 1.42-10(b)(4) is published.
The manual does not state whether the $300-per-unit-per-year replacement reserve deposit is indexed, nor whether ADFA has updated it since it was set. It also does not state whether 'per unit' means all residential units or only tax credit units.
No consequence is published for an underfunded reserve or for a withdrawal made without ADFA's prior written approval -- the manual states the requirement but names no penalty, no 8823 category and no LURA remedy. Not assumed.
Chapter 10 Section F is written as a development-budget requirement ('The total development budget must include...') and it is not stated whether it binds developments funded before the requirement was adopted, or only those whose applications post-date it. No adoption date for the reserve requirement appears in the manual.
Chapter 12 Section B ends with the heading 'Required Documentation' and no list -- the management-change document requirements appear to have been dropped in production of this printing. What must accompany a management change request beyond the 45-day timing and Housing Review Committee approval is therefore unencoded.
The relationship between the manual's $500 per-project ownership-change fee and the QAP's $500 per-change-item material-change fee is not stated. A transaction that is simultaneously an ownership change and a management change might attract one fee or two; not resolved.
ADFA Form 920 is referenced as 'available on ADFA's website' but was not located in ADFA's public document library during this pass, so its contents and any additional certifications it requires are unencoded.
Whether ADFA's approval is required for a change of management agent during the extended use period on the same terms as during the compliance period is not stated in Chapter 12 Section B, which is silent on period; the ownership-change section states both periods expressly. Not assumed either way.
ADFA requires the criteria to state maximum occupancy standards but publishes no standard of its own, so each owner sets its own number and ADFA reviews it after the fact. Two Arkansas properties may lawfully apply different occupancy limits to the same unit size.
The criteria must be 'provided to all applicants at the time of application', and the manual does not say whether that means handed over, posted, or made available on request -- nor whether the owner must document that it happened.
The source is ADFA's 'Preliminary Version 3-31-2026' of the combined compliance manual. A preliminary edition can move before it is final, and ADFA has published no adoption date on its face. Confirm against the final edition before relying on any figure here for an audited event.
ADFA excludes household size from the waiting list as a discrimination risk, while requiring unit size to be recorded and requiring the tenant selection criteria to state maximum occupancy standards. How an owner matches a household to a unit size without recording how many people are in it is not addressed.
The electronic-list guidance is expressed as examples and 'should' throughout -- backups, monthly printouts, password limits -- while the manual list rules are mandatory. Whether an electronic list that lacks a change log fails the requirement is not stated.
'In general' qualifies the six-month minimum and the manual names no exception, so it is not possible to tell from the text what circumstance would justify a shorter initial term.
The mutual-agreement exception has no documentation requirement attached, so a shorter term rests on an agreement the manual does not require anyone to record.
The bar on deposit-alternative products is absolute and covers instruments used 'in addition to' a deposit, which reaches a programme the tenant chose voluntarily. The manual gives no exception and no transition for a property already offering one.
'Promptly' is the refund standard and is not quantified; Arkansas landlord-tenant law sets its own period, which the manual does not reconcile with.
'Other good cause' is left open and ADFA only recommends -- as good business practice -- that the lease define it. So the operative standard for most terminations is whatever the owner wrote into its own lease, with no published floor.
STATE FAIR HOUSING ACT NOT RETRIEVED. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-311 is the Arkansas fair housing prohibition. Every publisher tried in this pass refused the request or returned a 404: the state legislature's own document server, three commercial mirrors and two public-law mirrors. No rule is recorded for Arkansas rather than one written from memory. The federal Fair Housing Act rules in this corpus apply to Arkansas properties unchanged.

ms Mississippi · 47

The 2023 Compliance Monitoring Plan (p. 108) states an April 30 AOC deadline; the AOC Report Guidelines (Rev. 03/2024) and Program Bulletin #26-1003 state May 31. MHC has not published a revised full CMP reconciling the two. The later documents are encoded as governing; confirm with MHC whether the CMP date is simply stale or whether some class of development is still on April 30.
Program Bulletin #26-1003 fixes the deadline for the 2026 report year only. Whether May 31 is a standing rule or is re-set annually is not stated in any document read this pass -- the bulletin is reissued each year, so the date carries per-year supersession risk.
MHC requires a 'special report' for developments that underwent foreclosure, an instrument in lieu of foreclosure, or the qualified contract process, obtained by contacting compliance.disposition@mshc.com. That report's content and deadline are not published; not guessed.
The 2023 CMP Chapter 11.7 schedule and the 2026 QAP Section 8.8 schedule state different amounts for the same work ($110/hour vs $150/hour; flat $100/day vs escalating $100/$250/$500 per day). MHC has not published a consolidated fee schedule, and the QAP itself cross-refers to 'the fees and penalties schedule of the Compliance Monitoring Plan/Summary of Updates'. Confirm the currently invoiced schedule with MHC's Compliance Monitoring Division before relying on any single figure.
The 'Affordability Transition Administrative Fee' ($10 per low-income unit, CMP Chapter 11.7) is listed in the fee table but nowhere defined in the CMP text read this pass. What transition triggers it, and when it is due, is not stated; not guessed.
Whether the tiered late fee continues to accrue beyond day 30 (the QAP schedule stops at days 16-30) is not stated.
MHC states replacement reserve minimums per unit and a 4% escalation but does not publish the resulting required balance or a schedule of computed contributions by allocation year. The 2023 CMP's Table 4 stops at the 2006-2016 band and no table covering 2017-2026 allocations was located; the development's own QAP year governs and must be read from the property's award documents.
The 2026 AOC Quick Reference Guide excuses developments that entered the extended use period BEFORE 2024 and are not subject to a right-of-first-refusal homeownership conversion obligation from filing Part D. Whether that also relieves them of the underlying reserve funding obligation, or only of the reporting, is not stated; not guessed.
Whether MHC publishes a form or threshold for approving an extended-use replacement reserve withdrawal (2026 QAP 5.4.1) was not located.
The 2026 Summary of Updates retires the QOR and names the ICR effective 06/2025, but MHC has not republished the Compliance Monitoring Plan chapter that governs the cycle. Whether the ICR keeps the QOR's April 15 / July 15 / October 15 / January 31 due dates, or is instead due on a date stated in each development's 'Welcome Package' (as the ICR checklist says), is not reconciled in any published document. Both statements are recorded; the due dates are encoded from the CMP because they are the only published dates.
The ICR checklist requires a 'Certificate of LIHTC Training' in the initial package, which ties to MHC's mandatory training requirement. The training interval is stated inconsistently across MHC documents and is not encoded in this corpus; see the open question on ms.lihtc.monitoring_review_7day_package_30day_correction.
The 2023 CMP is silent on how long an MHC utility allowance approval remains valid. The HUD Utility Schedule Model and Energy Consumption Model must each be renewed within 12 months (CMP 6.4.A.5-6), but whether an MHC approval of a local utility company estimate or the Actual Use Method expires, and whether the $150 fee recurs annually on renewal, is not stated; not guessed.
MHC's utility allowance procedures state they are 'subject to change at any time by the Corporation based on staff experience' (CMP 6.4.D). The Submittal Checklist is at Rev. 08/2026 while the governing narrative text is from the 2023 CMP, so the package requirements are the more current of the two.
Nothing in the documents read this pass states how MHC treats sub-metered or RUBS arrangements at approval time beyond restating IRS Notice 2009-44 and the 1.42-10 final regulations; no Mississippi-specific overlay on sub-metering was found to encode.
The 2023 CMP predates HOTMA implementation for LIHTC. The 2026 Summary of Updates requires files to carry an MHC-provided cover sheet marking documents Pre-HOTMA or Post-HOTMA so audits are scored against the right rules, but MHC has published no substantive HOTMA guidance -- no state implementation date, no asset self-certification threshold, no verification-hierarchy variance. That absence is recorded rather than filled by assuming the federal defaults apply unchanged.
Whether MHC's Student and Rent Declaration form is acceptable in the first year following move-in, or whether the first anniversary always requires a full certification as in Connecticut, is not stated in the CMP text read this pass.
The Mississippi Affirmative Olmstead Initiative (MAOI) deep-target population -- 30% AMI, a required MOU with the Community Mental Health Center serving the area and, per the 2026 Summary of Updates, with Open Doors Homeless Coalition, maintained throughout the compliance period, plus emailed vacancy notification of ALL MAOI unit vacancies to choice.referral@mhc.com and retention of the referral documentation -- was identified but not encoded as a rule this pass, because it applies only where the owner took the QAP point selection criterion and the current predicate vocabulary cannot express that election. It belongs in the next Mississippi pass or in the property overlay.
MHC states an owner 'is not required to fix deeper income targeted units' but also that a list of anticipated fixed units was provided to the Allocation Division at the time of allocation (CMP footnote 33). Whether MHC monitors against that list in practice is not stated.
How the deep-target bands interact with the average income minimum set-aside, which the 2026 Summary of Updates describes as a new QAP election affecting 2026 awards with monitoring guidance 'forthcoming', is unpublished. Nothing was encoded for average income in Mississippi.
MHC's published plan (2023) names UPCS. HUD has since retired UPCS in favour of NSPIRE for its own programmes, and 26 CFR 1.42-5 as amended points state agencies at HUD's physical inspection protocol. Whether MHC now inspects to NSPIRE without having republished the Compliance Monitoring Plan is not answerable from any document read this pass, and was NOT assumed. Confirm with MHC's Compliance Monitoring Division; this is the single highest-value open question in the Mississippi overlay.
The Critical Health & Safety paragraph states a 72-hour correction window but says the $100 per day fine commences 'on the first day after the first 24-hour period expires'. The two sentences are inconsistent on when the fine starts. Not resolved here; both figures are recorded as written.
The 2023 CMP gives no advance-notice period for a physical inspection (only that MHC notifies 'in advance ... through official written correspondence'), unlike the 15-day figure it states for on-site tenant file audits. Whether the 15 days also governs physical inspections is not stated.
MHC states the reporting obligation applies to developments 'operating during their initial 15-year compliance period'. Whether an extended-use development must report casualty damage, and on what timeline, is not stated in the post-year-15 chapter; not guessed.
The consequence of an immediate Form 8823 for a late casualty notice is stated without reference to a Form 8823 line item or category. Which line MHC reports it on -- and therefore how the IRS treats it -- is not published.
No Mississippi-specific guidance was located on restoration timelines or on the interaction with IRS disaster-relief notices (for example the 'reasonable restoration period' extensions granted after a federally declared disaster).
MHC's mandatory tax credit compliance training requirement was identified but NOT encoded as a rule, because the two published documents conflict on both the anchor and the interval: the 2023 CMP (7.5.B) requires training within 45 days of the placed-in-service date of the FIRST building and re-training every FIVE years with a certificate showing a minimum of 6 credit hours, while the 2026 QAP (8.9) requires it within 45 days of the placed-in-service date of the LAST building, ties it to the issuance of the Forms 8609, and requires re-training every TWO years for a management company representative and on-site managers. Both agree that a new on-site manager must be trained within 120 days of the change and that internal trainings and agency housing conferences (including MHC's own Annual Housing Conference) do not count. Confirm the governing interval with MHC before encoding.
Whether MHC's 30-day correction period runs from the date of its notice or from the owner's receipt is stated as 'the date the Corporation provides written notification' (CMP 11.3.B); no receipt or mailing rule is published.
MHC states it 'will notify the owner ... generally within 45 days of the deadline date' when a required certification is not received (2026 QAP 8.5), but the CMP does not state a corresponding deadline for issuing findings from a completed audit other than the 45-day preliminary audit review letter. Whether the correction period runs from the preliminary letter or from a later final letter is not stated.
MHC's fee schedule names a '$5,000 (QCT sale)' building disposition fee. Read in the context of Chapter 9.6.B and the QAP's qualified contract provisions, QCT here almost certainly means a qualified-contract sale rather than a Qualified Census Tract, but the abbreviation is never expanded in the fee table. Not resolved; confirm with MHC before quoting the figure to a client.
The 2023 CMP does not state a deadline for MHC to act on a transfer request, only the owner's 45-day advance notice. How long consent takes in practice, and whether MHC's silence after 45 days permits closing, is not published; it does not.
Whether MHC's approval requirement extends to a change of MANAGEMENT AGENT alone, with no change in ownership interest, is not stated in Chapter 9 the way Connecticut's post-year-15 policy states it. The consent conditions reference the transferee's property management representative, which implies management is reviewed as part of an ownership transfer, but a standalone management change is not addressed; not guessed.
MHC's post-year-15 chapter says the automatic 100%-development recertification waiver 'will continue through the extended use period' and that households must be reassessed 'at least annually, if applicable', without stating whether the annual Student and Rent Declaration required during the compliance period (ms.lihtc.recertification_waiver_annual_declaration_and_deep_target_full_certification) continues. Not guessed.
The extended-use fee is stated as $20.00 per low-income unit in both the 2023 CMP and the 2026 QAP, but MHC's QAP also says monitoring fees may be adjusted if guidance or regulations change. Whether the figure has been adjusted since is not determinable from the documents read this pass.
MHC's qualified contract provisions (2026 QAP 8.12) state that owners awarded points for deeper targeting are not eligible to apply for an Eligibility Determination Request, and that developments terminating their land use restrictions through foreclosure or the qualified contract process must continue annual compliance reports and administrative fees during the three-year decontrol period. Those provisions were read but not encoded as a separate rule this pass; they belong in a qualified-contract rule in the next Mississippi pass.
Whether MHC applies the 30-year minimum affordability period of the 2026 QAP retroactively to older awards, or only to awards under that QAP, is not stated. The governing term for any given development is the one in its recorded LURA.
'Two unrelated areas' is not defined and MHC publishes no taxonomy of service areas, so an owner offering, say, financial literacy and homebuyer education cannot tell from the Plan whether those count as two areas or one.
The ten-year term runs from the LATER of the last building's placed-in-service date or the first class -- so an owner who delays starting services extends its own obligation. The Plan does not say whether a gap in service during the term restarts or tolls the clock.
This obligation binds only where the owner ELECTED it in its final HTC application, and which selection criteria a given development committed to depends on the year of the QAP and that application -- MHC's own Table 2 lists the criteria by QAP year. The corpus holds no per-development election record, so it can state what the election obliges and cannot say whether a particular property made it. Read the final application and the LURA.
The equal-contract-rent condition means the ORA is a subsidy against an unchanged contract rent, not a reduced rent. An owner who instead lowers the contract rent on assisted units has breached this condition while making the household better off by the same amount, and the Plan does not address that case.
The preference order -- elderly, then single-parent, then unassisted households at or below 50% AMGI -- is stated with 'should' rather than 'must', and MHC does not say how it interacts with familial status protections under the Fair Housing Act, which the same Plan devotes Chapter 10 to.
The Plan does not say whether an elected occupancy percentage above the federal minimum can ever be reduced -- by amendment, by hardship, or on a change of ownership -- or what the consequence is of falling below it while remaining above the federal minimum set-aside.
'Occasional use' is the standard and it is not quantified -- no number of referrals, placements or contacts is given. An owner cannot tell from the Plan what volume of use satisfies an election it made to win points.
The documentation must come FROM the PHA, and the Plan does not address what an owner does where the local PHA will not issue such a letter.
The sentence in the Plan stating the 15-year term carries inline footnote markers in the published PDF, so it is paraphrased in the statement above and the quoted evidence is the adjacent sentence defining material participation. The term itself reads: the nonprofit must materially participate 'throughout the initial 15-year compliance period'.
MHC's illustration of material participation -- an Executive Director attending an agency visit and helping correct noncompliance -- is a far lighter touch than the 500-hour and substantially-all tests of Treas. Reg. 469(h) that the same paragraph incorporates by reference. Which standard MHC applies on review is not resolved by the Plan.
The obligation runs for the initial 15-year compliance period and the Plan does not say what happens to it during the extended use period, when the LURA still binds.
NO STATE FAIR HOUSING ACT LOCATED. Mississippi's housing chapter (Miss. Code Ann. tit. 43, ch. 33) carries no fair housing or discrimination section, and no separate state fair housing act was located in this pass. Mississippi appears to be among the states that never enacted one, which means the federal Fair Housing Act is the operative law and there is no state overlay to look for. Recorded as a finding rather than left as silence.

ct Connecticut · 44

The manual requires 'Evidence of LIHTC training within the past three years' with the annual year-end forms (p. 6-2) but does not state which trainings/certifications qualify or whose training (owner vs. site manager) must be evidenced. Not guessed; confirm with CHFA/Spectrum.
No late-fee dollar amount for a late annual package is published in the manual -- late/incomplete submissions 'may be determined noncompliant' (p. 7-1) but no fee schedule was located.
The manual does not state how HOTMA's self-certification allowances (e.g., asset self-certification under the inflation-adjusted threshold) interact with CHFA's Recertification Waiver Approval gate -- the HOTMA material is incorporated as HUD fact sheets (Sections 8-10) without CT-specific reconciliation. Not guessed.
Whether the average-income unit-parity requirement (Guideline Section III) applies retroactively to pre-2026 average-income awards or only to awards under the 2026 Guideline. The 2024-2025 Guideline appears to carry a similar provision but was not fetched/verified this pass.
Whether CHFA/Spectrum grant good-cause extensions of the 30-day Owner's Report response period (and any maximum), and the exact 8823 filing clock CHFA uses after the correction period ends -- the manual states the 30-day response and the Additional Review gate but no extension or filing-clock figures.
No dollar amount is published in the manual for the owner-billed re-inspection of failed/inaccessible units (Section 7.2). Confirm the current re-inspection billing basis with Spectrum/CHFA.
The extended-use annual monitoring fee amount (Post Year-15 policy item 18: 'reasonable monitoring fees in an amount to be determined') and the up-front first-15-year fee percentage ('a percentage of the first year's credit allocation') are not published in the compliance manual or the 2026 LIHTC Guideline. Confirm the current fee schedule with CHFA.
CHFA prohibits EIV but, unlike Missouri, Oregon and South Carolina, states no duty to remove EIV documents from the tenant file before a monitoring visit. Whether an EIV printout sitting in a Connecticut file is itself a defect, or merely unusable as verification, is not stated.
The manual's own text was written against an earlier hierarchy: Section 3.6(B) says only that owners 'must demonstrate efforts to obtain third party verification', which is the pre-HOTMA formulation, while the table it points at ranks tenant-provided documents above the owner's form. CHFA does not reconcile the two registers.
The form says the request 'must be outstanding for at least 2 weeks' without saying whether the two weeks are calendar or business, or whether the clock restarts on a follow-up request. The form separately requires follow-up efforts to be described, which implies it does not.
CHFA lists this form under 'Recommended Forms for Tenant Certification' in Section 6.1(C) rather than under the required forms in Section 6.1(A), while the conditions printed on its face are written in mandatory terms. Whether the two-week wait binds an owner who documents the failure some other way is not stated.
CHFA writes 'should be mailed or faxed' rather than 'must'. Spectrum's file-review practice, recorded on ct.lihtc.move_in_certification_5day_signing_window, treats blanks and unclear entries as noncompliance, which suggests the register is softer than the practice. Encoded as a must and the softer register flagged here.
The manual predates the near-universal replacement of fax with secure email. It permits email requests only by implication -- CHFA's own 'Unable to Obtain Third-Party Verification' form asks for a date-stamped copy of the original request 'to include email requests' -- but Section 6.1 names only mail and fax.
CHFA's Section 3.4 sentence is broken in the July 2024 printing: 'When the value of net family assets exceed the current and the actual returns from a given asset cannot be calculated, imputed returns on the asset based on the current passbook savings rate, as determined by HUD.' The words after 'exceed the current' are missing and the sentence has no main verb. The intended provision is plainly HOTMA's imputation trigger, but CHFA never states it completely.
The $52,787 on TC-100H is labelled FY 2026 and CHFA publishes no schedule of prior or future values, so a point-in-time question about a 2024 or 2025 Connecticut certification cannot be answered from CHFA's own material.
CHFA requires third-party documentation for 'the cash value for all assets and asset income' in Section 3.4 and permits self-certification at or below the limitation in the next sentence. The two are reconciled by the form, not by the manual.
CHFA and Spectrum publish both forms on the same page with no supersession notice, no date on the older form beyond a 2021 copyright year, and no statement of priority. Section 6.1(A) of the manual names only 'Asset Self-Certification (TC-100H)' among the required forms, which is evidence but not a statement.
It is not established whether the 'Under $5,000' form is retained for a purpose the newer form does not serve -- for example for a programme other than LIHTC monitored out of the same library -- or is simply an unwithdrawn legacy file. Nothing on either document says.
CHFA's worksheet forbids annualising by multiplying by one but says nothing about a salaried employee whose employer states an annual salary and no hourly rate, which is the case the prohibition is hardest to apply to.
The prior-year income question is on the Interview Checklist, which is required at application. CHFA does not say whether it must be re-asked at annual recertification, where the Re-certification Update form rather than the Interview Checklist is used.
CHFA's manual reprints the form list but does not bind the forms themselves; they live on the Spectrum website and are revised there independently of the manual. The versions fetched for this pass carry footers ranging from Spectrum Enterprises 1/2024 to 11/2024 and NCSHA edition labels of 2024, 2025 and 2026, all served against a July 2024 manual.
Section 6.1(A) names 'Student Verification (TC-100A)' while the form itself is titled 'STUDENT STATUS AFFIDAVIT - TC 100 A' and a separate, differently titled 'Student Status Verification' form is served in the recommended list. The manual's naming and the library's naming do not line up.
CHFA requires 'separation agreements, estrangement and divorce documents' to 'all be on file'. Read literally that would require three document types for a household that has only one. The intended reading is plainly that the file must hold whatever of these exists; CHFA does not say so.
CHFA counts an unborn child for the income limit but says nothing about the verification -- Missouri, by contrast, states that an unborn child can be verified only by self-certification from the expecting mother and that no further documentation is allowable.
CHFA requires prior written management approval for an added occupant but states no LIHTC consequence for an addition made without it, and no requalification requirement of the Missouri or Oregon kind. The stated sanction ('grounds to cancel your application') operates only before tenancy begins.
No evidence type in data/evidence/ corresponds to an applicant interview record; ev.tenant_selection_plan is used as the nearest available and the notes say so. An ev.interview_checklist type would be a small and useful addition.
CHFA's manual says student status must be re-verified 'at annual certifications' and its TC-100A carries a move-in box and an annual recertification box, but CHFA does not say what happens between certifications when the tenant gives the immediate notice the affidavit requires. Missouri, by contrast, requires the re-determination to be made immediately and forbids waiting for the recertification.
Section 2.7(H) describes full-time status as 'taking 12 credit hours a semester or attending school full-time 5 months per year', which states a credit-hour threshold that the IRS leaves to the institution. CHFA's own affidavit does not repeat the 12-hour figure.
CHFA lists the Financial Aid Affidavit under 'Recommended Forms for Tenant Certification' in Section 6.1(C) rather than among the twelve required forms, even though without it the covered-costs calculation cannot be documented. Whether an owner may collect the same information another way is not stated.
Neither form states what the owner does with the result -- the arithmetic by which assistance in excess of covered costs enters annual income appears only in the HUD material reproduced at Sections 9 and 10 of the manual, not in CHFA's own text.
CHFA accepts a signed HUD 50059 without the qualification Missouri attaches -- that the 50059 is not signed by a PHA representative and so cannot serve as income verification. The two states take opposite positions on the same document and neither acknowledges the other's.
CHFA's own Section 8 Income Verification form offers the PHA two alternative certifications, one confirming income is at or below the stated limit and one stating the actual figure. It does not say which the owner should prefer, and only the second gives a number a resolver can test against a limit.
The Guideline says units 'may revert to being occupied by individuals and families having an annual income not exceeding 60% AMI at such time' without saying whether that reaches rent as well as income, or whether the ELIHC must be amended to reflect it.
The provision is written for the fifteen-year compliance period. What happens on a loss of project-based assistance during the extended use period is not addressed by either CHFA document.
consequence_model is recorded as contract_remedy because the Guideline frames these as events of default under the ELIHC rather than as Form 8823 findings, while Section XI(B) says a failure to comply with the compliance monitoring procedures 'may result in the issuance of a Form 8823'. CHFA uses both registers in adjacent sentences.
CHFA publishes two irreconcilable treatments of IRS-recognised retirement accounts inside one manual -- the October 2020 self-certification form counts them, the reproduced HOTMA guidance excludes them -- and states no rule of priority. NOT RESOLVED HERE. Whichever an owner applies, the other is on CHFA's face.
The same October 2020 form also instructs residents to include 'regular gifts' among possible types of income, which HOTMA's non-recurring income exclusion narrowed. The retirement-account conflict is the clearest instance but it is probably not the only one on this form.
Post Year 15 properties may implement the self-certification form at any time without CHFA approval, so the form reaches beyond the approved-waiver population, and the conflict travels with it.
The security deposit guarantee holding reaches the corpus as a case annotation printed on the statute page, not as statutory text. It is recorded because Connecticut prints it there; the opinion itself was not read in this pass.
Status as a victim of domestic violence is protected without a stated verification mechanism. Federal VAWA supplies a certification form for covered programmes; Connecticut's class reaches properties with no covered programme and names no equivalent.
'Lawful source of income' is defined at § 46a-63; that definition was not read in this pass, so whether it reaches a subsidy paid to the landlord is not established here.
'Erased criminal history record information' is a defined term in Connecticut law that this pass did not read. What has been erased, and how an owner is to know a record was erased when a screening vendor still reports it, are not answered in § 46a-80c.
'Any person associated with such buyer or renter' is not defined and has no stated limit. An owner cannot determine from the text how far association reaches.
Several state LIHTC manuals in this corpus require tenant selection plans to describe criminal background screening. In Connecticut such a plan may not reach erased records, including those of household members and associates, and no manual in the corpus states that limit.

ma Massachusetts · 43

The Guide does not say what documentation of an 'active search' looks like, nor how far back a work history has to run to count as history 'within the same field'.
It does not address the case where a household member has an offer with a start date beyond the twelve-month anticipation window, or an offer that is conditional.
The Guide does not define 'irregular' beyond the amusement-park example, and the three examples together are internally awkward: 'randomly throughout the year' is income, but an extra withdrawal in a year of regular withdrawals is not. Where a household has no established pattern at all, neither example governs.
It does not say how the countable amount is annualised where distributions are regular but variable in size.
The Guide states 0.06% for properties that have not implemented HOTMA. That was HUD's passbook rate in the years before the 2024 increase to 0.4%, so it reads as a live pre-HOTMA instruction, but the Guide does not say so and does not date either rate. Encoded as written rather than reconciled.
It gives the trigger for imputation ('if the actual returns from a given asset cannot be calculated') but never states whether Massachusetts uses actual-or-imputed or the pre-HOTMA greater-of convention where actual returns ARE calculable on an above-threshold household.
The Guide's own deadline language is ambiguous about what 'the extension' refers to and until when a property may remain on the pre-HOTMA regime.
THE GUIDE IS NOW BEHIND ITS OWN PUBLISHER ON THE HOTMA DATE. Spectrum Compliance -- EOHLC's Authorized Agent and the Guide's author -- posted 'HOTMA Requirements Delayed' dated December 23, 2025 on its Massachusetts state-monitoring page, reading in full: 'The implementation date has been pushed back to 1/1/2027 as many expected.' Verified directly on 2026-08-27 by fetching https://spectrumlihtc.com/state-monitoring/massachusetts/ (HTTP 200, 840,880 bytes, sha256 7be218c77063ee3b2fb74e3256854434a2f38075c7ee6bfb52906002874894bd -- a news feed, so expect the hash to move). The Guide's cover is still 2025/1.12 and it was re-uploaded over its own filename on 12 January 2026 without changing the cover, so the pre-HOTMA/HOTMA branch encoded here may key to the wrong date. NOT silently corrected: the rule encodes the cited Guide, and a news post is not an edition. Put the branch date to EOHLC or Spectrum before relying on it.
The $51,600-to-$52,787 step is HUD's inflation adjustment and steps on 1 January 2026 independently of when a property implements HOTMA. If the implementation date did move to 1/1/2027, the two dates come apart and the Guide's single sentence conflates them.
The Guide's below-threshold affidavit and its 'all assets must be third-party verified' sentences sit in the same section and are not reconciled: one permits a household affidavit below the threshold, the other states third-party verification for all assets under both regimes. Which governs a below-threshold household is not stated.
UNVERIFIED LEAD, recorded because it would resolve the contradiction above and because it is first-party where the Guide is not. A research pass reported that Appendix E of EOHLC's 2025-2026 LIHTC Qualified Allocation Plan states, citing Rev. Proc. 94-65 section 4.04, that HLC will require owners to obtain documentation OTHER THAN the sworn statement described in section 4.02 to support a low-income tenant's annual certification of income from assets -- which would mean Massachusetts affirmatively elects out of the asset self-certification for the ANNUAL certification and would explain why the Guide says all assets must be third-party verified. THIS WAS NOT READ FIRST-HAND: mass.gov returns HTTP 403 to curl with a full browser header set and to the Wayback Machine on the archived copy, so the QAP could not be fetched or hashed in this pass and nothing from it is encoded. The QAP is at https://www.mass.gov/doc/2025-2026-lihtc-qap/download and should be pulled through a real browser session and registered as a source before this open question is closed.
'as specified by HUD verification procedures' is not pinned to a handbook chapter here, though Part VI item 6 points generally at HUD Handbook 4350.3 REV-1.
EOHLC excludes foster children and adults from household size but does not say, in this section, whether the income of a foster child or adult is counted in household income. California's manual and its HOTMA memo disagree with each other on exactly that point; the Massachusetts Guide simply does not address it.
The Guide's asterisked election covers 'permanently absent family members', but its counted list includes a person confined to a hospital or nursing home 'per family decision', and the relationship between the two is not spelled out.
It does not state which member's absence makes a spouse 'not expected to become a member' where no separation agreement or divorce filing exists.
The Guide says student status is monitored on a tax-year basis and, separately, that a full-time student is one who attended full-time for five months 'in the year'. Whether 'the year' in the definition means the tax year in every case, including a household certifying early in a calendar year, is not stated.
It does not say whether the five months must fall in the tax year in which the certification is effective, the preceding one, or either.
Nine to twelve credit hours is offered as what a school 'usually' uses. The Guide does not say what a reviewer does where the institution's own threshold differs from that range.
The Guide says the application and checklist 'should be submitted' one per household while the interview 'must' happen. Whether a household that submits separate applications per adult is noncompliant, or merely irregular, is not stated.
It does not say whether the interview may be conducted remotely, or what substitutes where an adult member cannot attend before the certification effective date.
There is no published EOHLC Interview Checklist form named in the Guide; it points generally to sample recommended verification forms on Spectrum's website and allows comparable forms already in use.
The Guide measures information age 'prior to the effective date of the certification' but its examples use the move-in date, which is normally but not always the same day. Which controls where they differ is not stated.
It does not say how a verification reporting a long period -- for example twelve months of year-to-date earnings -- is assessed, since part of that period is necessarily more than 120 days old.
The Guide does not say whether a Housing Choice Voucher household with no HUD form 50059 -- the form belongs to project-based assistance -- can use the Contract Administrator letter route, though the parenthetical 'e.g., local PHA' suggests it can.
It does not state what date on the PHA letter starts the 120-day information-age clock: the date of the PHA's own determination, or the date the letter was written.
The Guide describes five days as 'recommended' in Part II and as an expectation in Part VIII. Whether a gap of six to ten days with no confirmation is a finding, or only a note, is not resolved by the document.
It does not say what form the confirmation of changes should take, whether it must be signed, or whether it becomes part of the certification file.
The Guide does not say what happens where the review concludes the change could have been foreseen and none of the three remedies is available -- for example a 100% LIHTC building with no extra unit and a household that cannot be recertified below the limit.
It refers to 'appropriate legal action ... to preserve the credit status of the unit' without saying what action is contemplated, and elsewhere forbids eviction other than for good cause.
It does not state how far the review must be documented in the file versus merely performed.
The Guide never states the procedure for changing a unit designation -- whether EOHLC approval is needed, whether the Regulatory Agreement must be amended, or how a change is reported in the Unit History Report. The parameter for agency approval is therefore emitted with no value.
Page 50, which the 59% sentence cross-references, extracted as an image with no text layer and was not read. The 59% figure itself is corroborated by the existing rule ma.lihtc.average_income_test_59_percent_cap, but whatever page 50 adds about designations was not available for this pass.
The Guide does not reconcile 'units cannot be fixed in place' with 'continuous compliance with the LIHTC Regulatory Agreement unit designation requirements' where a Regulatory Agreement does fix designations at a particular property.
The Guide does not say which income limits apply to a household certified before the acquisition date versus after it, where the limit table changed in between. New Jersey answers exactly this and Massachusetts does not.
It does not say whether the certification's effective date is the acquisition date or the date of execution, which is what would determine when the reliance period and the 120-day documentation window are measured from.
The safe-harbour paragraph sits in a separate glossary item and is not tied procedurally to the acquisition item; how an owner elects or documents it is not stated.
The Guide does not address a preference -- as opposed to a requirement -- for voucher holders, nor a project-based voucher contract that legitimately restricts particular units, which is a different arrangement from holding units for mobile voucher holders.
It does not say what documentation demonstrates that a unit was not held for a voucher holder, beyond the general waitlist and marketing records EOHLC expects.
The Guide grounds the rule in general public use rather than in M.G.L. c.151B, so it does not state whether a c.151B finding would itself be reported to EOHLC or to the IRS. The Guide elsewhere says fair housing violations are reported on Form 8823 only when a finding is made by the Department of Justice.
760 CMR 54.12(1) is reported to add an independent 'as if' recapture trigger -- recapture where the Department judges that the project WOULD have met the condition for federal recapture had it been allocated a federal credit -- which would matter for a state-only allocation. mass.gov answered HTTP 403 to every fetch attempted for this pass, including with a full browser header set, so the regulation was NOT read and that provision is deliberately not encoded. Read 760 CMR 54.12 before relying on the statute alone at a project with no federal allocation.
'Any requirement of' the programme is not bounded. Whether it reaches a requirement that is genuinely impossible for a particular property to meet -- a physical condition the building cannot satisfy -- is not addressed in the text.
Massachusetts protects a 'tenant receiving' housing subsidies, which on its face describes someone already in tenancy. Whether an applicant holding a voucher is within the clause is settled in practice but is not stated in this subsection.
Washington expressly permits refusal where the subsidy's inspection requirement would cost more than $1,500 to satisfy. Massachusetts makes that same reasoning unlawful. The two statutes answer the same operational question in opposite terms.

ky Kentucky · 42

KHC joins the first two bullets with 'or' and the remainder with 'and', so it is not clear on the face of the text whether all four documents are required or whether the file-note and the date-stamped request are alternatives. The parameter records four; a reviewer should assume all four until KHC clarifies.
KHC publishes no Level 1. Whether that means self-certification is unavailable outside the named exceptions, or merely unnumbered, is not stated. A Kentucky file that self-certified an income source after completing the four-document packet has no stated authority permitting it and no stated authority forbidding it.
EIV is never mentioned in 36 pages. Indiana, Tennessee and South Carolina each say expressly that EIV may not be used for LIHTC; KHC's silence leaves an owner with Section 8 units in the same portfolio no guidance on whether EIV output may enter a tax credit file.
KHC's threshold sentences are inconsistent about the boundary. One says assets 'valued at $52,787 ... or more' must be third-party verified; another says assets 'totaling over $52,787'; the imputation rule says '$52,787 or less' takes actual income and 'exceed $52,787' takes the greater-of. A household holding exactly $52,787 is on the wrong side of one sentence and the right side of another.
KHC publishes no passbook rate and gives no source for one. An owner must find the current HUD figure independently, and KHC does not say which annual figure applies to a certification straddling a January change.
KHC'S RETIREMENT-ACCOUNT TEXT IS PRE-HOTMA AND SITS ON THE SAME PAGES AS THE $52,787 FIGURE: 'Retirement, Pension, Annuities, IRA, 401(k), Keogh Funds -- Any benefits received as periodic payments are considered annual income. After retirement, the amount received as a lump sum is considered an asset. Inaccessible accounts are not counted as assets.' HOTMA excludes the value of any IRS-recognised retirement plan from net family assets outright, without regard to accessibility or to whether retirement has occurred. Both readings are printed in the March 2026 half of the manual and a reviewer with the manual in hand can defend either. Not resolved here.
KHC says it 'considers 6% as a reasonable basis'. It does not say whether 6% is a floor, a ceiling, a default, or the only figure it will accept, and it does not say whether an owner may substitute documented actual costs.
The 6% is applied to a home in the worked example. Whether it applies to every asset class -- stocks, a coin collection, a life insurance surrender -- or only to real property is not stated, and the separate instruction to take the current balance on deposit accounts implies it does not apply universally.
KHC does not say why other funding would bar the affidavit, nor which of HOME, Section 8 and RD actually does. The three programs have different asset rules and the manual treats them as one category.
The form is named for $50,000 and governs at $52,787. KHC does not say whether the form itself is re-issued annually with the indexed figure, as Indiana's 26-YYYY series is, or whether the name is simply stale.
There is no stated mechanism for recording KHC's answer. The test above assumes a documented confirmation in the file because that is the only thing a reviewer could check, but KHC prescribes no form, no addressee beyond 'the Compliance Department', and no retention requirement.
KHC's example uses a symmetric range and the arithmetic midpoint. Whether 'the average number of hours' means the midpoint of the stated range or an average of actual hours evidenced elsewhere is not stated, and the two differ whenever year-to-date figures are available.
The conflict ladder uses 'should' for the first two steps and 'must' for the record of efforts. Whether an owner who resolves the conflict by a fourth route -- a fresh verification from a different payroll contact, say -- has complied is not addressed.
KHC names an 'Income Verification/Clarification by Telephone form' without a form number or a location, though it says elsewhere that sample forms are on its Asset Management page.
KHC does not define full-time employment for this purpose, so the boundary between the 2080 convention and the expectation basis is undrawn. Its student-status section defers to the educational institution's definition of full-time; nothing does the equivalent for employment.
The 2080 multiplier and the verified-hours figure will disagree for any full-time post working other than 40 hours. KHC does not say which governs, and its own overtime rule elsewhere works from verified hours.
KHC prints the 2-month/10-month split as though it were the rule, but the split is a function of the certification's effective date. A certification effective in March has no pre-COLA months at all. The generalisable statement -- months before the increase at the old amount, months after at the new -- is what KHC appears to mean and is not what it says.
The trigger is a COLA released 'at the end of the third quarter'. SSA announces the COLA in October, which is the fourth quarter. Whether KHC intends the announcement date or the period the announcement covers is not clear, and the distinction decides whether the rule ever fires.
KHC uses 'should' throughout the COLA passage while using 'must' elsewhere in the same section. Whether an owner who projected twelve months at the unadjusted amount has a finding is not established by the text.
KHC accepts 'the applicant's notarized statement or affidavit as to net income from the business during the previous year' as documentation. That is a self-certification of an income source, offered without reference to the verification hierarchy, and KHC does not say where in the hierarchy it sits or whether the third-party unavailability packet must be built first.
The zero floor is stated for a business. Whether the same no-offset rule applies to a Schedule E rental loss, which KHC lists among the acceptable schedules, is not addressed.
The exclusion turns on the payment going 'directly to the childcare provider'. KHC does not say how the file evidences that, and the natural document -- a receipt in the payer's name -- is held by a person who is not a household member.
Groceries are excluded and cash for groceries is not. KHC does not address a store gift card, a grocery delivery subscription paid by a relative, or any of the intermediate forms.
KHC's example is a two-adult household. Whether the requirement scales to a third or fourth non-working adult follows from the wording but is not stated, and the manual gives no general formulation.
'Not working' is not defined. Whether an adult with unearned income but no employment -- a Social Security recipient, say -- owes a zero income certification is not addressed, though the first sentence's condition is 'no verifiable income from any source', which would exclude them.
KHC excludes 'adult children on active military duty' without addressing the case where the service member is the head, co-head or spouse, which is precisely where Indiana's rule includes them. Read literally the exclusion is limited to adult CHILDREN and so does not reach a head of household, but KHC does not say so.
Foster children and adults are excluded from household size. KHC does not say, as Indiana does, whether they are nonetheless considered when determining the appropriate unit size for the household.
The permanent-confinement election is the family's. KHC does not say whether the elected treatment carries the income consequence Indiana attaches to it -- that an included member's income must be certified and counted.
KHC states the six-month recommendation without saying what it does with an addition inside six months. Whether it is scrutinised, cited, or merely noted is unstated, and 'recommends' is not an obligation the corpus can test.
KHC says that once all original tenants have moved out the remaining tenants must be certified as a new income-qualified household, full stop. The 8823 Guide provides two exceptions -- the newly created household was income-qualified, or the remaining tenants were independently qualified when they moved in -- and Indiana reproduces both. KHC reproduces neither, so on the face of the Kentucky manual a remaining tenant who independently qualified on arrival must still be re-certified.
The base is 'the income disclosed on the existing Tenant Income Certification'. At a 100% building that TIC is a self-certification of composition and rent rather than a verified income figure, and KHC does not say what to add the new member's income to in that case.
KHC PRINTS THE FOSTER-CARE EXCEPTION DATE AS 30 JULY 2007. The federal instrument is the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, enacted 30 July 2008, and Indiana prints 7/30/08 for the same exception. This is almost certainly a typo for the same date, but it is not corrected here: the corpus records what the agency printed, and a Kentucky reviewer applying KHC's own manual would accept a foster-care exception for a determination made in the intervening year.
KHC uses 'should' for the part-time verification duty ('Part-time student status should be verified with the educational institution') while the consequence of an unverified claim is that the whole unit may be ineligible. Whether an unverified part-time claim is a finding is not stated.
KHC cites the Workforce Investment Act, which was superseded by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act in 2014. Indiana's manual names the successor. A Kentucky award letter naming WIOA is not literally within KHC's printed text.
KHC uses 'should be documented' for the denial reason and 'It is recommended' for the occupancy standards. Neither is stated as an obligation, and whether a file review that finds no documented denial reason produces a finding is not established by the text.
KHC bars denial 'solely because the household receives rental assistance'. It does not address the common indirect route -- a minimum income requirement applied to the household's own earned income -- which Indiana bars expressly for assisted households.
The Tenant Selection Plan is a mandatory review item but KHC nowhere states that the plan itself is mandatory, nor what its contents must be. The requirement is inferred from the review list, which is why this rule is medium rather than high confidence.
KHC states the binding obligation as keeping vacant units 'marketable within a reasonable period' and expressly frames the thirty-day figure as a suggestion, not a requirement ('KHC suggests thirty days'). No KHC document read this pass fixes a day count at which a vacant unit stops being marketable within a reasonable period, nor states what marketing evidence KHC accepts as discharging the duty. The marketability half of this rule is therefore not evaluable and no test asserts a day count against it: encoding the advisory thirty days as a boundary would convert a suggestion into a finding. What would make it evaluable is a KHC statement fixing the reasonable period, or a published enforcement practice showing the day count at which KHC cites the finding.
Kentucky adopted URLTA locally rather than statewide -- it applies in counties and cities that opted in under KRS 383.500. KHC requires adherence for all leases without saying whether a property outside an adopting jurisdiction is bound by KHC's requirement even though the statute does not reach it.
'Contains the requirement of The Violence Against Women Act' does not name a form or lease addendum, so an owner cannot tell whether the HUD VAWA lease addendum, a recital, or particular language satisfies it.
Whether an adult who is not a household member but occupies the unit -- a live-in aide, for instance -- is an 'adult 18 years and over' required to sign is not addressed.
STATE FAIR HOUSING ACT NOT RETRIEVED. KRS 344.360, 'Unlawful housing practices -- Design and construction requirements', exists and is listed in the chapter's own table of contents, but no publisher reached in this pass carries its text: the Kentucky LRC site is script-driven and returns a navigation shell, and the commercial mirrors return an empty section body. No rule is recorded for Kentucky rather than one written from memory. The federal Fair Housing Act rules in this corpus apply to Kentucky properties unchanged.

nh New Hampshire · 42

The tenant data deadline is stated inconsistently across current NH documents: the Compliance Monitoring Requirements (rev. 12/31/2020) say 'the tenant data upload must be completed by February 1 of each year', while the Household Certification Requirements and the December 2025 AIT guidance both say complete calendar-year data is due March 1. March 1 is encoded because the two more recently issued documents and the compliance web page state it; whether February 1 remains operative for any submission has not been confirmed with NH Housing.
The Annual Certification of Service Coordination is required by the monitoring requirements without stating which properties owe it. Service Coordination is a 9% threshold requirement under QAP sec. 109.06.I; whether 4% projects and pre-Service-Coordination-era allocations must file the certification (or file it as N/A) is not published. Not guessed.
No late fee or fixed monetary penalty for a late annual package is published; the stated consequences are noncompliance reporting and negative future scoring.
The 30 days runs 'from the date of the notice', not from receipt; no mailing-time allowance is published.
No standard extension increment is published - the policy states only the good-cause standard and the six-month ceiling. How much runway a first extension typically grants is NH Housing practice, not published rule.
Whether NH Housing applies a shorter cure window for life-threatening physical deficiencies (as NSPIRE-era agencies commonly do) is not stated in the compliance-period documents; the Post Year 15 policy requires confirmation of correction of Life Threatening and Severe deficiencies without a stated deadline. Not guessed.
Whether the designation-holder and the person completing the six annual hours may be different individuals is ambiguous - the policy states the two requirements in one sentence about 'one staff member' but the continuing-education paragraph says 'at least one member of the management agent's staff'. Not resolved.
The policy requires the designation at the management-company level, not per property or per site; whether a company managing properties for multiple owners satisfies all of them with one designation-holder is implied by the one-form-per-company filing but not stated.
No consequence specific to a training lapse is published beyond general noncompliance treatment and future scoring impact.
The annual fee for 2021-2024 allocations has no published dollar amount - it is 'determined based on the owner's election on line 8b'. The parameter is encoded with its value absent rather than estimated; the amount must be taken from the property's own fee notice.
The fees policy says 2025+ fees are posted 'by January 1st of each year'; QAP sec. 109.09 says the NH Housing Fee Schedule is 'published by February 28 of each year'. Which date governs the posting has not been confirmed; neither affects the amounts, which live in the posted schedule either way.
The 1987-1995 annual fee schedule lives in QAPs of that era, which were not retrieved; the January 1 due date is from the current fees policy.
No NH-specific HOTMA guidance could be located as of 2026-08-25: the Household Certification Requirements cite HUD Handbook 4350.3 Rev-1 Chg-4 throughout and predate HOTMA's income and asset rules. Whether NH's bar on asset self-certification at initial certification survives the HOTMA-era federal allowance (self-certification of assets up to the inflation-adjusted threshold) has not been addressed by any located NH document. The stricter published NH rule is encoded; confirm with NH Housing before relying on a HOTMA self-certification at move-in.
The document is undated, so the vintage of this policy cannot be established from its face; it was fetched from the current library on 2026-08-25.
The resume-recertification trigger ('it is determined for any reason that one or more households does not qualify') does not state who makes the determination or how long full recertifications must continue beyond 'until 100% of the units are back in compliance'. Not guessed.
Whether the annual composition/student certification must be on a prescribed NH form is not stated for LIHTC (a sample form is offered but 'not required'), unlike the TIC which is mandatory.
The 120-day window is stated for the TIC signature; whether the underlying verifications inside the window may be dated after the acquisition date (they necessarily are, for in-place households) is implicit but the aging rule for them is stated only for the past-120-day fallback case.
The interaction between the resyndication carry-over of income eligibility and the extended-use-period eligibility of households certified under post-HOTMA rules is unaddressed in this pre-HOTMA document.
The policy predates the HOTMA era and the 2019 submetering amendments are only partially reflected (the administrative fee cap text tracks the federal rule); whether NH has updated practice beyond this 12/23/2020 revision could not be established - no newer edition is linked from the compliance page.
Exceptions to the 80%/10-month sample requirements are available 'on a case-by-case basis' through the assigned Asset Manager; no criteria are published.
The 30-day approval/denial clock runs from 'complete and accurate information'; nothing states how incompleteness disputes are resolved or whether the 90-day period restarts.
The inspection-skip condition still references a 'REAC inspection with a score of 70 or higher' while the inspection itself is conducted under NSPIRE; how an NSPIRE-scored inspection maps to the REAC-70 threshold is not stated.
NH Housing may waive or adjust any item of this policy case-by-case for good cause, and any waiver may be subject to third-party-beneficiary enforcement rights under the LURA - so a property-level waiver cannot be assumed effective without checking the LURA's beneficiary clause.
Whether the 30-day correction period of the compliance-period policy applies unchanged to extended-use findings is not restated in this document; the policy says areas not addressed 'have not changed'.
The waiver requirement is verified for allocations under the 2027-2028 QAP (effective 2026-03-16). Whether the 2025-2026 and earlier QAPs imposed the same Section 9 waiver was not verified from their final texts; for an existing property the controlling fact is its own recorded LURA, which the property layer must extract.
The QAP does not state whether the 60/45/30-year minimums run from placed-in-service, from the start of the compliance period, or from LURA recording. Not guessed.
The scoring penalty amount for item 14.c is set in the scoring table; the retrieved text shows the criterion but the specific point value was not captured and should be read from the scoring matrix before use.
The guidance describes the March 1 date by reference to 'NH Housing's Annually required Certifications, Reports, and Submissions guidance, currently March 1st' - that umbrella guidance document itself was not located as a standalone publication and may set other dates.
Whether an owner's written redesignation policy must be filed with NH Housing (as opposed to merely existing and being followed) is not stated.
The guidance disclaims tax advice and reserves modification on future IRS guidance; its Form 8823 mapping (11a for over-designation income, 11g for over-designation rent) is NH's reading, not an IRS instruction.
The compliance-period inspection standard in this 2020 document is pre-NSPIRE (local codes or UPCS, REAC protocol), while NH Housing's 2024 Post Year 15 policy inspects extended-use properties to NSPIRE. Whether compliance-period inspections are now conducted to NSPIRE has not been published; the standard parameter is encoded with its value absent rather than assumed. HUD's own 1.42-5 alignment to NSPIRE post-dates this document.
The 15-day maximum notice is an upper bound; no minimum notice is published.
The prohibition is on USING EIV data for a non-HUD programme; Louisiana's manual instead requires EIV documents to be kept out of the LIHTC tenant file entirely. The two agencies draw the line in different places for the same underlying HUD restriction, and an operator working in both states cannot apply one policy to both.
New Hampshire does not say what an owner does where the EIV report and the independently obtained verification disagree about the same household's income.
A market unit household is not income-restricted, so what a 'move-in certification' contains for one is not stated. Whether the household's income must be verified, or only its move-in date and unit recorded, makes the difference between a clerical entry and a certification process for unrestricted tenants.
The requirement is unusual enough that an operator running mixed income properties in several states is unlikely to be doing it by default, and the manual states it in a single sentence under a heading easy to pass over.
This is the one place New Hampshire Housing relaxes third-party verification, and it sits beside a policy that refuses the under-$5,000 asset certification at initial certification even though IRS guidance permits it. The agency is stricter than the IRS in one place and lighter in another, and the manual does not explain the asymmetry.
The safe harbour form is obtained by contacting Asset Management rather than downloaded, so the process depends on a request the manual does not put a timeline on.
New Hampshire's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in New Hampshire on this section's text.
Age is protected without a floor or ceiling, which sits awkwardly beside senior housing operated under the federal 55-and-older exemption. RSA 354-A carries its own housing-for-older-persons provisions that this pass did not read.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

pr Puerto Rico · 42

Whether both channels (COL electronic filing and the notarized paper original) remain required in current practice was not confirmable beyond the July 2016 plan text, which the 2025 QAP incorporates unchanged; no later circular letter modifying the procedure is published on afv.pr.gov.
Neither the CMP nor the 2025 QAP mentions HOTMA; no PRHFA HOTMA implementation guidance could be located on 2026-08-25. The certification content list in CMP II.F predates HOTMA.
The CMP does not state whether a grace period or late-acceptance practice exists before the automatic 8823 is filed for a certification received shortly after January 31.
The CMP does not define the semester end dates. June 30 and December 31 are the natural reading of 'semester' but are nowhere stated; not guessed.
The corpus frequency enum has no semiannual value, so the cadence is carried in timing.due and the reporting_cadence parameter rather than requirement.frequency.
No separate penalty for late COL submission is published; the only stated consequence path is the general notice-of-noncompliance process (CMP III.D) and, for data-identified unit noncompliance, the 90-day window in II.C itself.
The fee amount is stated twice at different values: CMP II.G (July 2016) says $25 per LIHTC unit and CMP VI.C.4 says $20 per unit in the extended use period, while 2025 QAP sec. 11.3 says $90 and $35. The QAP figures are encoded as the later, governing document (the QAP incorporates the CMP, and both documents reserve PRHFA's right to adjust fees), but PRHFA has not republished the CMP to match, and the crossover date at which the higher fee first applied was not located.
Whether the CMP's late-fee machinery (5%, $50 minimum, 30 days) attaches to the QAP's higher fee amounts is not stated anywhere; the CMP wrote it against its own $25 fee.
Whether the $90 fee is invoiced per LIHTC unit in each building as of a snapshot date or on the qualified-unit count as certified is not stated.
No due date is published for the annual audited financial statements, and 'periodically' is not defined for the trial balances. Not guessed.
The QAP ties asset management oversight to 'the compliance period (first 15 years)'; whether any financial reporting continues into the extended use period is not stated (the extended-use monitoring chapter of the CMP, written in 2016, does not mention financial statements).
Whether the audit requirement applies to all LIHTC allocations or only to projects with PRHFA financing alongside the credits is not stated; the QAP text is written for all allocations.
The extension text reads 'extend the initial ninety (90) days period up to one hundred eighty (180) days', encoded here as a 180-day total maximum (the reading consistent with Treas. Reg. 1.42-5(e)(4)'s 6-month ceiling would be 90+180; the plainer reading of 'up to 180 days' as the extended total is used, and the ambiguity is recorded rather than resolved).
No procedure or form for requesting an extension is published - contrast Kansas's State Form 7.
Unit-level noncompliance identified from COL data receives '90 days to correct the issue' under CMP II.C; whether that window and the III.D notice window run concurrently when both are triggered is not stated.
The CMP (July 2016) inspects to UPCS with the REAC protocol under Rev. Proc. 2016-15, and neither it nor the 2025 QAP mentions NSPIRE. Whether PRHFA has adopted NSPIRE since HUD's 2023 transition could not be established from any published document on 2026-08-25; UPCS is encoded because it is what the operative documents say, and this question should be re-checked whenever PRHFA publishes a circular letter or a revised plan.
The amount of advance notice for an inspection is 'reasonable notice', not quantified - contrast Kansas's 28 days.
No extension mechanism for the 30-day findings response is published; the relationship between this 30-day response and the 90-day correction period of CMP III.D (which governs the formal notice of noncompliance) is not spelled out.
CMP IV.S contradicts itself: the body requires annual recertification at 100% projects with no waiver, and its own asterisked note restates the HERA exemption for 100% buildings. The affirmative requirement is encoded as the agency's operative position (consistent with the COL data expectations), but PRHFA has not published a reconciliation and the point should be confirmed with the Audit & Compliance Department before a finding is contested on it.
Whether the required annual recertification at 100% projects must be fully third-party-verified or may be a self-certification is not stated in IV.S; Appendix B describes the verification procedure without distinguishing 100% projects.
Neither the CMP nor the QAP mentions HOTMA; how PRHFA treats HOTMA's income-determination changes at recertification is unpublished.
Prior PRHFA review-and-approval is stated expressly for the owner's-average method; for the energy-consumption model the CMP requires submission 'at the beginning of the 90-day period' but does not say whether approval (as opposed to receipt) is a precondition of use. Not conflated.
PRHFA states it 'does not collect or maintain the various utility allowances' yet requires PRHFA-12 and supporting documentation to be submitted for the owner-average method and collected in the tenant file for inspections; the exact set of documents PRHFA holds versus reviews on site is not fully specified.
The CMP's sampling minimums are PRHFA's own and predate the current IRS guidance cycle; whether PRHFA accepts the 1.42-10 submetering rules as amended after 2016 is not addressed in any published document.
No deadline for the notification is published - the CMP says owners 'are required to inform PRHFA' without a 'within X days'. Not guessed.
This is a notification duty only: no PRHFA approval right over the choice of management agent is asserted anywhere in the CMP or the 2025 QAP, unlike peer states that require prior approval of management-agent changes. Whether individual regulatory agreements impose an approval covenant is a property-document question outside the published corpus.
No advance-notice period is quantified for the notification, and no transfer or assumption fee is published - contrast Nebraska's $1,500 transfer fee and $10,000 failure-to-notify fee.
During the compliance period the published duty is notification; whether PRHFA consent (as opposed to notice plus the 42(j)(6) bond mechanics) is required is not stated in the CMP or QAP. The extended-use transfer agreement is the only consent-like instrument published, and individual Declarations may impose approval covenants the published corpus does not.
The CMP's 42(j)(6) bond language predates the 2008 HERA replacement of the disposition bond with the 1.42-9 reasonable-expectation standard; the plan has not been updated on this point and owners should not read it as requiring an actual surety bond today. Recorded as drafting staleness, not reinterpreted.
The COL data deadline (January 15) precedes the certification deadline (January 31) by sixteen days, and the CMP does not say whether the January 15 stream replaces the semi-annual cadence in the calendar year the property enters the extended use period or in the following year. The CMP itself warns that premature adoption of extended-use procedures while still in the compliance period is reportable noncompliance.
Extended-use inspections are stated at UPCS (2016); whether NSPIRE has superseded is the same unpublished question as for compliance-period inspections.
The CMP VI.C.4 fee ($20) is superseded by the QAP 2025 figure ($35); see the fee rule's open questions.
The cited trigger clause (42(h)(6)(E)(ii)) is the three-year tenant-protection period following a qualified-contract or foreclosure termination; the CMP applies the reporting duty to expiration 'or' termination without distinguishing the two, so it is encoded for both, but whether PRHFA actually monitors after a natural 30-year expiration (where 42(h)(6)(E)(ii) does not itself apply) has not been confirmed.
No enforcement mechanism for the report is stated - the Declaration has ended, monitoring fees have stopped, and the CMP names no sanction for non-submission during this window.
The guidelines do not state which recorded instrument carries the CDBG-DR affordability restriction (the LIHTC Declaration, the CDBG-DR written agreement, or a separate covenant) - they point only to the Carryover Allocation Agreement for the property-specific terms. The operative period for any given property is a property-document question.
This text is identical in V.6 (June 14, 2022) and V.7 (July 14, 2026) of the guidelines; the rule's effective date uses V.6. Whether earlier versions (V.1-V.5) carried the same floors was not verified.
83 FR 40314's affordability requirement is the Federal Register notice governing Puerto Rico's CDBG-DR allocation, not a CDBG entitlement regulation; projects below the unit thresholds (under 8 rehab / under 5 new construction) have no stated CDBG-DR floor in the guidelines and are not given one here.
'Life of the building' outlasts the affordability period, but PRHFA's stated monitoring window is only 'throughout the affordability period' - who, if anyone, verifies coverage after the affordability period ends is not stated.
The guidelines state one coverage formula (lesser of total project cost or the NFIP maximum); the underlying statute (42 U.S.C. 4012a / 5154a) distinguishes grant and loan assistance in ways the guidelines do not elaborate. Encoded as the guidelines state it.
The duty attaches to 'Developers under contract to PRHFA'; whether it ends when the CDBG-DR written agreement closes out or continues for the full affordability period is not stated.
The guidelines do not scope the duty to assisted units versus all units in a mixed project; the sentence is written at the developer level, and it is encoded at that level without narrowing.
NO TERRITORIAL FAIR HOUSING ACT LOCATED. The federal Fair Housing Act reaches this jurisdiction directly: 42 U.S.C. 3602(d) defines 'State' to include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and any of the territories and possessions of the United States, so every federal fair housing rule in this corpus applies here. See xp.fair_housing.the_act_reaches_puerto_rico_and_every_territory_and_possession. No separate territorial statute was located in this pass; one adding protected classes would sit on top of the federal floor and is not recorded here.

ak Alaska · 42

AHFC publishes no fixed calendar due date for the annual review package anywhere located on 2026-08-25; the operative dates are set per property in each year's IAD 'Notice Letter', which is not published on the website. The annual_report_due_date parameter is therefore encoded with no value - it is not borrowed from a peer state. Confirm the current cycle's date from the property's own notice letter.
The 16-item response list is from the 07/01/2011 reference manual, which states it is 'subject to change without notice'; the June 2026 QAP's 13-item list (G)(i-xiii) is a subset. The union is described here; which list controls in a conflict year has not been confirmed with IAD.
The manual's submission channel ('AHFC's designated system') is implemented today through AHFC's Property Management Portal / Mitas system per the 1/19/2024 training materials on the compliance-audit page; the manual predates it. Portal mechanics were not encoded.
QAP subsec. (F) anchors the 30 days to 'receipt of the request' while subsec. (L) anchors it to 'the date of the notice of non-compliance'. The (L) anchor (date of notice) is encoded as the specific correction-period provision; which anchor AHFC applies in practice has not been confirmed.
No published criteria for 'good cause' extensions were located, and no intermediate extension increments are stated - only the six-month ceiling.
Whether the 24-hour health-and-safety cure aligns to NSPIRE's 'life-threatening' category or sweeps wider ('health and safety issues') is not stated; the QAP words it more broadly than NSPIRE's defined tier.
The QAP states the HOME cutoff twice, differently, in the same subsection: the fee 'will only apply to low-income units in HOME projects funded after the May 14, 2014' and, in the next sentence, 'No compliance monitoring fee will be charged or assessed for HOME units funded prior to April 14, 2014.' A HOME project funded between April 14 and May 14, 2014 falls in the gap. May 14 is encoded as the operative 'applies after' date; the discrepancy has not been resolved with AHFC.
The fee is 'payable upon request of the annual compliance review documentation' - there is no fixed calendar due date, consistent with the notice-letter-driven annual review. Not converted to a date.
The QAP says the fee schedule is 'established by the Corporation and reviewed on a yearly basis'; the amounts are verified for the June 24, 2026 QAP only.
'Project completion' is not defined in the fee provision; whether it means placed-in-service, cost certification, or final inspection is not stated. The trigger is encoded as placed_in_service as the nearest modeled event, flagged here rather than assumed silently.
No installment or hardship provision was located; the fee appears to be flat regardless of project size, which for a small rural Alaska project can exceed a year of monitoring fees by an order of magnitude.
The 07/01/2011 Compliance Reference Manual still instructs owners on UPCS (Section VI.6.1) and HQS (VI.6.2) and says on-site reviews follow 'the Uniform Physical Conditions Standards (UPCS) inspection protocol' (sec. 1.1). The June 24, 2026 QAP says NSPIRE. NSPIRE is encoded as the operative standard because the QAP is the later and controlling document; the manual has not been updated to match and an operator reading only the manual would prepare for the wrong protocol.
The QAP does not state the advance-notice period for an inspection. The federal 15-day ceiling of Treas. Reg. 1.42-5(d) applies of its own force; no Alaska-specific notice period is published and none is encoded.
Whether AHFC samples units by the 1.42-5 minimum-unit table (the lesser-of rule) or a flat 20% is not stated in the QAP, which says only 'at least 20%'. The flat 20% reading is stricter for large projects and is what the text supports.
The memo does not state what replaces the recertification event for lease and rent administration at 100% properties (e.g. whether a self-certification questionnaire is collected, as Wyoming requires); the annual review package still demands a student household report and unit history data. Whether AHFC expects any annual income paperwork at all beyond student status is not stated. Not guessed.
The memo predates HOTMA implementation (September 2024); whether HOTMA's alternate-year full/streamlined certification concepts alter this policy has not been addressed in any located AHFC document.
The 2011 manual still lists the superseded waiver forms (Policy #09/07, TC-0003R, TC-0003R(W)); the memo does not name replacement forms.
The memo does not state which TIC or verification form editions are HOTMA-conformed; it points to the compliance reference manual page generally. Form-level currency should be confirmed against the page at use time.
Whether AHFC applies HOTMA's $50,000 (indexed) asset limitation as an eligibility bar for LIHTC households - which IRC 42 does not itself impose - or only as a calculation change is not stated in the memo. Not guessed.
The memo predates HUD's subsequent HOTMA implementation extensions; whether AHFC moved its enforcement date in any later notice was not located on 2026-08-25.
The memo does not address the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend by name in the Native Dividends carve-out; AHFC's separate 2022 notice treats the PFD and Energy Relief payment distinctly. Whether 'Native Dividends' means ANCSA corporation dividends only, or reaches the PFD, is not stated and materially changes the verification burden for nearly every Alaska household. Not guessed.
The memo says two months of source documentation 'is allowed under all programs monitored by the IAD' - whether AHFC requires the documents to be the two most recent consecutive months is not stated.
How the averaging method interacts with HOTMA's de minimis error and safe-harbor provisions (implemented five months later) is not addressed in either 4/12/2024 memo.
The 2022 memo's method table lists 'Actual per unit costs using the Multifamily Housing Utility Analysis process' for LIHTC, which corresponds to the 1.42-10 agency-estimate/actual-usage family; AHFC's delegation of the estimate's preparation to the owner while retaining written approval is unusual and its Treasury-regulation footing is not cited in the memo. Recorded as published.
The memo and the QAP name overlapping but not identical LIHTC method lists (the QAP adds the ECM restriction; the memo does not mention ECMs at all). Both are current; the QAP is later and its ECM restriction is encoded. Whether AHFC treats 'Energy Consumption Model' and the memo's MHUA/actual-usage process as the same method is not stated.
AHFC 'does not calculate or provide UAs' is the Wyoming position; Alaska instead publishes PHA UAs on its own site and makes that posting the effective date. Which AHFC web page is the operative posting location is identified in the memo only as 'located here' (a link) and should be confirmed at use time.
The scope of 'programmatic rules that may not be waived by AHFC from the funding sources themselves' is the load-bearing exception and is not enumerated; on its face it excludes most Section 42 requirements from the safe harbor, leaving AHFC-imposed requirements as the protected class. Not resolved here.
Whether 'reviewed' requires that the specific facts were actually examined (versus merely present in a file that was sampled) is not stated; the provision's evidentiary reach is untested in any published AHFC determination located.
No peer state in this corpus publishes an equivalent estoppel; whether it survives QAP revision cycles (it appears in the June 2026 edition) should be re-checked at each QAP.
No published AHFC requirement of PRIOR APPROVAL for a change of ownership or sale of a LIHTC development was located in the QAP or the reference manual - only the contact-change notification. Transfer-consent obligations in Alaska appear to live at the property level in the extended-use agreement/LURA rather than in published agency policy (contrast Wyoming's blanket prior-written-consent rule). This is an absence, recorded as such, not evidence that transfers are unrestricted: the LURA must be read at onboarding.
The Change of Development Contact form is undated and unnumbered; it was posted to the compliance-audit page beside the January 2024 portal training materials, which is the basis for the effective date used here. Whether it supersedes an earlier form was not determinable.
The third citation attaches the form itself via URL because the form carries no citable section numbering; the locator is the form's own instruction line.
Whether the forfeiture is implemented as a waiver clause in the recorded extended use agreement, or operates only as a QAP-level commitment, is not stated; the enforceability route matters for a subsequent purchaser and must be confirmed from the recorded LURA at onboarding.
The QAP does not state whether the 30-year commitment runs from placed-in-service or from the start of the compliance period; the federal extended-use structure (15 + 15) suggests the latter but this is not confirmed. Not guessed.
Whether a sponsor can elect the point on a tax-exempt-bond (4%) project, where rating criteria also apply, was not separately confirmed.
AHFC's guidance here is expressed as recommendation -- 'we recommend that you re-qualify', 'many properties have language in their leases' -- while the totem pole consequence is stated flatly. So the CONSEQUENCE of an over-limit addition is a rule and the step that avoids it is advice, which is an awkward pairing for an owner deciding whether to allow a move-in.
The source is AHFC's Program Compliance Reference Manual with a 07/11 page footer -- a 2011 revision -- and the sections it cites are the October 2009 revision of the 8823 Guide. Both predate HOTMA and the average income test. AHFC's own interpretation is what this rule encodes, and it is fifteen years old; confirm current AHFC practice before relying on it for an audited event.
The manual's own Section V pages carry the header 'Section Currently Under Construction' elsewhere in the document, so parts of this manual were unfinished at publication. That does not affect the passages quoted here, which are complete, but it bears on how settled the document as a whole is.
CURRENCY: the text quoted is the publisher's 1993 printing of the Alaska Statutes. The section may have been amended since, and this corpus has NOT verified it against the state's own current publication. Treat the class list as a floor to be confirmed, not as settled current law.
The 'singles' and 'married couples' carve-out permits exactly what the marital status protection in the same paragraph forbids, for a class of property the statute does not define. Which properties fall inside the carve-out is unresolved on the text.
Alaska's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in Alaska on this section's text. Anchorage has its own ordinance this corpus does not yet hold.
'Changes in marital status' has no counterpart in any other statute read in this pass, and the section does not say how it differs in operation from marital status.

il Illinois · 41

IHDA carves Social Security award letters out of the 120-day window (§4.6.9) because SSA benefits are fixed for 12 months; the manual does not state whether other annually-fixed sources (e.g. pensions with annual COLAs) get the same treatment.
IHDA does not state a maximum stub count or whether an owner may adopt a stricter house-policy minimum without IHDA approval.
The manual does not say whether a redacted file (EIV pages removed for the audit) satisfies the requirement or whether fully separate file sets are expected; IHDA notes only that some projects 'may choose to maintain a separate set of files'.
The manual lists 'LIHTC' itself among the qualifying means-tested programs (mirroring 24 CFR 5.609(c)(3)); whether IHDA accepts another LIHTC property's certification as a safe harbor determination in practice is not elaborated.
IHDA describes a FAST Act three-year asset verification cycle for LIHTC projects with project-based Section 8 ('assets must be 3rd party verified at least once every three years'); whether IHDA expects a triennial re-verification at LIHTC-only properties using self-certification is not stated (PHFA expressly does not require it).
The manual does not state how long an SSA award letter remains usable (a year, per the benefit cycle, is implied but not stated); OHFA states 'an entire year' explicitly.
IHDA grounds this in the FAST Act as applied to Section 8 and 'will recognize' it for LIHTC; whether HOTMA's own streamlined provisions (24 CFR 5.657(d)) supersede or coexist with the FAST Act cycle at IHDA properties is not addressed.
'Should not change' with 'exceptions may be made' leaves the first-six-months rule's enforceability ambiguous -- IHDA does not say who approves an exception or how it is documented.
The anti-manipulation carve-out ('intentionally staggering the move-in of high earning individuals') has no stated evidentiary standard.
MB-627 (May 2026) removed the Section 8 vs non-Section 8 distinction for student-rule determinations per the February 2026 appropriations bill -- that change is on the HUD/HOME side of the manual (pp. 50-51); its knock-on effect for layered LIHTC+HOME units in Illinois (which must satisfy both rules) has not been restated by IHDA beyond the bulletin's summary line.
For average-income projects, 'the income limit elected on Form 8609' is the imputed designation per unit; IHDA's AIT addendum rule (il.lihtc.ait_addendum) governs designations but the manual does not restate how the 140% test anchors to a redesignated unit.
IHDA cites '26 CFR 1.42(c)(ix)' for this proposition -- an inexact citation (the vacant unit rule lives at Treas. Reg. §1.42-5(c)(1)(ix) and Rev. Rul. 2004-82); the manual's wording is followed here but the citation defect is noted.
No definition of 'reasonable attempts' is offered; OHFA quotes the IRS's refusal to define it, IHDA is silent.
MB-627 also removed the distinction between Section 8 and non-Section 8 student-rule determinations 'per the February 2026 appropriations bill'. The bulletin gives no bill number or effective date; how the HOME student rule now reads in Illinois is deferred to the next manual edition rather than inferred from a one-line bulletin summary.
The manual's two-month paystub requirement is stated as a HOME program requirement (it derives from CPD guidance), not as an IHDA election; if HUD's 2025 Final Rule safe harbors displace it for assisted households, the manual does not yet say so beyond the safe-harbor exceptions it lists.
The manual's example uses a '20-year compliance period under the HOME program' for a project completed in 2018; whether IHDA restarts the 6-year cycle for the extended IHDA-specific affordability term where the regulatory agreement runs longer than the federal period is not stated.
The manual does not publish a window (IHDA's LIHTC side uses lease renewal timing) for how far before the anniversary a HOME recertification may be effective. Alabama publishes 180 days, Georgia 120; Illinois publishes nothing. Not imported.
The manual does not state what happens to an increase implemented without approval (North Carolina publishes a five-year rent-increase prohibition; Ohio publishes rent reduction and restitution). IHDA's general noncompliance machinery presumably applies; no specific remedy is published.
The manual requires annual UA updates but does not state a submission deadline for the ANNUAL schedule itself (only the 120-day lead for changes). Whether an unchanged schedule must still be re-submitted each year, and by when, is administered through Compliance Connection notices and is not published in the manual.
The manual does not say whether IHDA's approval of a model-lease change may be retroactive where a manager rolled out a new lease form before approval; the text requires approval 'prior to putting them into effect' and publishes no cure path specific to the lease instrument.
The annual reporting deadline is assigned through Compliance Connection rather than published; the manual gives no date. Whether a consistent date (e.g., a fixed Q1 deadline) is used in practice could not be established from public documents.
The manual states the sample floor as 'no fewer than the lesser of 20% of program units or the minimum sample size of five units', which reads oddly (a lesser-of floor); it likely intends 20 percent capped by a five-unit minimum. Encoded verbatim rather than repaired.
No deficiency-correction deadline for failed inspection items is published for HOME (North Carolina publishes 24 hours for severe items). Corrective timeframes come per Compliance Letter; see the monitoring rule.
IHDA publishes no correction-period length for HOME findings; the parameter above is encoded with no value. Whether IHDA has an internal standard timeframe (its LIHTC side aligns to the IRS correction-period bounds) is unknown from public documents.
The manual states desk reviews occur 'for intermediate years' but does not say whether every intermediate year gets one or only years with triggering reports.
Whether IHDA's through-tenancy retention requirement survives a change of ownership or management agent mid-tenancy (i.e., whether the buyer must obtain the seller's move-in files) is not addressed; the manual's LIHTC re-syndication note suggests the practice but states no HOME obligation.
310 ILCS 65/3(c) defines 'low-income household' as adjusted income 'more than 50%, but less than 80%' of area median, and 47 Ill. Adm. Code 360.103 repeats it. 360.904(b)(1) then states the income LIMIT for a Low-Income unit as 80 percent with no lower bound. Both figures are recorded; nothing located this session says whether a household below 50 percent may occupy a unit reserved for Low-Income Households or must be counted against the Very Low-Income reservation.
The Act speaks of ADJUSTED income (310 ILCS 65/3(c),(d)); 360.904(b) speaks of income limits set at a percentage of median family income and does not name an income definition or a verification standard. Which income methodology IHDA applies to a Trust Fund unit that carries no LIHTC or HOME layer is unstated in both documents.
360.904(c) requires the Authority to approve the utility allowance proposed by the applicant but sets no methodology, no annual update requirement and no revision procedure. Nothing located this session states how an Illinois Trust Fund utility allowance is maintained after the initial approval.
Because the maximum allowable income is adjusted for family size, the maximum housing expense for a unit depends on the household occupying it. Whether IHDA applies the adjustment for the actual household size or imputes a household size from bedroom count is not stated in Part 360.
360.904(b)(3) requires the certification to be submitted 'to the Authority by mail'. Part 360 has not been amended since 20 September 2001 and names no electronic alternative. Whether IHDA now accepts these through its Compliance Connection portal, and whether portal submission satisfies the rule, is unverified.
No income certification form, verification tier or effective-date convention is prescribed anywhere in Part 360. A Trust Fund-only property has no stated standard for what a 'certification of income' must contain.
Neither 310 ILCS 65 nor 47 Ill. Adm. Code 360 states a minimum affordability term for a Trust Fund development. 360.601 makes 'longest affordability restrictions' a scoring priority instead. The operative period is entirely a property-overlay fact taken from the recorded instrument, and the corpus states no default.
47 Ill. Adm. Code 360 was last amended at 25 Ill. Reg. 12621, effective 20 September 2001, and the Illinois Affordable Housing Act has been amended repeatedly since -- most recently by P.A. 103-616, effective 1 July 2024, which repealed sections 5.5 and 8.5. Where the 2001 rule and the current Act diverge, the Act governs; this pass did not systematically compare them.
The listing obligation attaches to 'all properties with IHDA awards' and IHDA does not state a refresh frequency, nor whether a fully occupied property must keep a listing live. Compare Pennsylvania, which requires monthly vacancy updates on its equivalent portal, and Rhode Island, which requires a listing regardless of vacancies.
Because the LIHTC requirement flows from the QAP rather than from federal law, the QAP edition governing a given property determines whether and in what form it applies. The corpus holds the manual, not each year's QAP.
The transfer addendum is what HUD 'strongly encourages' and IHDA supplies a model for, but neither makes it mandatory. Indiana, by contrast, requires the written agreement and requires it to be incorporated into the lease or an addendum. An owner operating in both states cannot apply one practice, and an Illinois owner without the addendum has no mechanism to free an accessible unit short of waiting for a voluntary move.
Illinois states the offer ORDER and, unlike Indiana, does not state the accompanying protection that a non-disabled household in an accessible unit may not be EVICTED to make room. Whether that protection is understood to apply is not addressed.
'Arrest record' is defined at 775 ILCS 5/1-103(B-5), which this pass did not read. The boundary between a protected arrest record and a conviction record an owner may consider is set there, not here.
Immigration status is protected, while several state LIHTC manuals in this corpus permit a citizenship screen applied uniformly. In Illinois that permission does not survive the Human Rights Act, and neither document acknowledges the other.
Source of income is listed alongside the 'unlawful discrimination' classes rather than inside them, which is a drafting choice whose consequence for the burden of proof is not stated in this section.

mo Missouri · 41

MHDC bars EIV for 'LIHTC or HOME income calculations' but its HOTMA Manual also prints the unmodified HUD Level 6 row stating that owners 'must pull the EIV Income Report for each family at every Annual Reexamination'. For a unit that is LIHTC only, MHDC's annotation controls; for a layered LIHTC/Section 8 unit the two duties coexist on different determinations. MHDC does not spell that out.
MHDC does not state what happens if an EIV report is found in a tax credit file at a monitoring visit -- whether it is a curable file defect, a finding, or simply removed. No Form 8823 category is cited.
MHDC says Exhibit C 'may be used ... when UIV or pay stubs are not available'. It does not say whether an owner who uses Exhibit C alongside available pay stubs has a file defect or merely a redundant document. The rule encodes the ordering MHDC states and records that the consequence of inverting it is unstated.
MHDC writes the transmittal sentences in the permissive register ('should be asked', 'should be date stamped') around one absolute ('Under no circumstances'). The absolute is encoded as a must and the surrounding practice as part of the same obligation; MHDC does not grade them separately.
MHDC prints $50,000 and simultaneously says HUD adjusts it annually, but never prints the adjusted figure. An operator applying the literal $50,000 in a year when the indexed limitation is higher would verify assets MHDC's own reference source would let them self-certify. MHDC does not say which to use; its Exhibit D resolves it by naming no figure at all.
The reservation 'subject to change if the IRS or HUD CPD issues different guidance in the future' means this rule can be withdrawn by an instrument that is not an MHDC instrument. No mechanism or notice period is stated.
MHDC's Exhibit D names no figure and MHDC's HOTMA Manual names $50,000. Neither says which controls when HUD's indexed limitation differs from $50,000, which it has since 2024. Recorded rather than resolved.
No limit_table record exists in this corpus for the HUD imputed income limitation series, so the test's value_ref resolves the operand from the fact bundle (limits.imputed_income_limitation) rather than from a bound table. Publishing that series in data/limit_tables/ would let this and the Connecticut analogue become table lookups against a citable row.
MHDC states the carve-out for 'the effective date of the certification' in the applicability chart footnote and for 'the effective date of the recertification' in Chapter 1. The two sentences are otherwise identical and evidently intend the same rule; MHDC never states it once for both.
MHDC does not say what happens on a unit that is both LIHTC and HOME where the HOME determination is being made under a rental-assistance program's income determination, which by MHDC's own chart may follow 5.609(c). The chart implies the two determinations can use different methods on one household; it does not say so.
MHDC's July 2025 manual says the 50058 and 50059 are the only acceptable PHA documents and, on the following page, that the 50059 cannot be used as income verification. The March 2026 HOTMA Manual repeats the first sentence and is silent on the second. MHDC nowhere states which governs. Not resolved here.
MHDC requires the PHA statement to be signed by the resident and the PHA representative 'when used as the income verification' but does not say whether an unsigned 50058 may still be retained as supporting documentation, as it expressly permits for the 50059.
MHDC's Exhibit M prints five exception check boxes but groups them as 'ALL members of this household' (single-parent and married-filing-jointly) and 'ANY member of this household' (TANF, job training, former foster care). The manual's Part 3.5.E(2) narrative lists the same five without that grouping. The grouping on the form is the more precise statement and is the one an operator sees; the manual does not acknowledge it.
MHDC requires Exhibit M annually 'for the household' and Exhibit M is also required of every adult before admission. It does not say whether the annual Exhibit M must likewise be signed by every adult or only by the head; the form provides two signature lines.
MHDC says the unit 'is considered non-compliant' where the exemption is not met but does not state the date of noncompliance -- the date the status changed, the date the owner learned of it, or the date of the determination. For a point-in-time question that distinction decides the exposure period.
MHDC requires the lease clause but publishes no model clause and no required wording, and its Exhibit set contains no student-status lease addendum. Connecticut, by contrast, publishes TC-100B and TC-100B1 as mandatory lease addenda.
MHDC states the six-month rule twice, in Part 4.4.B(1) and again in Part 4.4.B(2), and the two printings differ: the first says 'during the initial 6 months of residency' with no exception, the second adds the born-or-adopted-child exception. The exception is read as applying to both, but MHDC does not say so.
MHDC does not say whether the six months runs from the household's move-in date or from the certification effective date. On an acquisition/rehabilitation property where the initial TIC is effective at the acquisition date and the household moved in years earlier, those are very different dates.
MHDC states both 'MHDC monitors recertification 365 - days from the latter of' the move-in date or the previous anniversary AND, in the same Part, 'The annual recertification must be no more than 365 calendar days from the previous certification.' The two are consistent for a household whose certifications have never slipped and diverge for one whose have. MHDC does not reconcile them.
The alignment permission is written for Section 8 only. MHDC's Rural Development 515 discussion elsewhere in the same Part contemplates using RD forms after the initial LIHTC certification but says nothing about aligning to an RD anniversary.
MHDC states no consequence for a missing or incomplete citizenship form set: no Form 8823 category, no correction period, and no statement of whether the unit ceases to be a low-income unit. RSMo 208.009's own remedy is not recited in the manual.
The manual says the forms are required 'for all applicants' before initial move-in and 'instituted at recertification for existing tenants', which does not say whether a household certified before 7 July 2009 and never since recertified is inside or outside the requirement.
MHDC does not say whether a live-in care attendant, who is not a household member for income limit purposes but is subject to the property's criminal background screening, must complete the set.
MHDC writes the policy-contents list as 'should include' in Part 3.6 and the file copy as 'must be kept' in Part 4.2. Whether a resident file containing a signed plan whose contents omit, say, the appeal route is compliant is not stated.
MHDC calls the document a 'Resident Selection Criteria Policy' in Part 3.6 and a 'Tenant Selection Plan' in Part 4.2 without saying whether they are the same instrument. They are treated here as the same document under two names, which is the reading the file-contents list supports.
MHDC does not define what the '20% deviation' is a percentage OF -- 20 percent of the designation figure (so a 50% unit may be filled at 40% or 60%) or 20 percentage points of AMI. On a 10-percentage-point designation grid the two readings differ by a full band.
The waiting-list requirement is written for 'AMGI designations offered'. MHDC does not say whether a property offering six designations must literally keep six lists or may keep one list with six queues, which is how most software implements it.
MHDC writes 'Vacancies should be filled from the waiting list corresponding with the previous ... designation' in the advisory register and 'Developments must maintain separate waiting lists' in the mandatory register. The obligation to keep the lists is clearer than the obligation to use them in order.
MHDC prints the test three times -- in Part 4.2.B(2b), in the 'To summarize' block on the same page, and again in Part 4.3.A -- and the printings differ on whether new sources are added by self-certification onto the current TIC or by completing a new Exhibit B TIC. Both readings appear in the manual and MHDC does not reconcile them.
Part 4.2.B(2b) contains an unfinished sentence in the July 2025 printing: 'Continued residence at the property subject to applicable safe harbor rules addressed under (under what?)'. The editorial query is printed in the manual itself. Nothing is inferred from it.
MHDC's utility allowance provision states two constraints on the same 90 days that cannot both be read as one-sided: the proposal must go to all residents 'at least 90 days in advance', and 'the full notice-comment-implementation cycle must not exceed 90 days'. Read together they collapse the window to exactly 90 days, which is a materially different obligation from a 90-day floor and is not how the text presents itself. The test asserts only the floor, which is the reading that cannot generate a false finding; whether MHDC treats a 100-day notice period as non-compliant with the second clause is unresolved and would need MHDC confirmation or an enforcement example to pin down.
MHDC's compliance documents, as read for this rule, do not record which alternative under 26 CFR 1.42-5(d)(2) MHDC has elected -- suitability under local health, safety and building codes (or other habitability standards), or the HUD standards at 24 CFR 5.703, now NSPIRE. No MHDC document in this corpus names UPCS, NSPIRE or a local-code standard. The inspection cycle and the 24-hour/$250-per-day critical-deficiency ladder are encoded; the standard the deficiencies are measured against is not, and is not guessed.
The quoted RSMo 135.363.3 sentence continues past the point captured here; the enumerated items were read on the codifier's page but the full clause was not captured verbatim, so the enumeration is stated in the rule's own words rather than quoted. Re-read 135.363.3 in full before relying on the exact list.
Withholding the 8609 is a serious consequence -- without it an owner cannot claim the credit -- and MHDC does not say who at the ownership or management company must have trained, nor how the requirement is evidenced at the point of issuance.
The identity-of-interest bar on external trainers is stated without a definition of identity-of-interest for this purpose, and the term carries a specific meaning elsewhere in HUD and agency practice that may or may not be the one intended.
The annual cadence is 'suggested' while the AFHMP-approval requirement is 'must', and MHDC does not say what interval satisfies 'ongoing training' for approval purposes. An owner seeking approval cannot tell from the manual how recent the certificates must be.
Which staff must hold certificates is not stated for the approval requirement, though the surrounding encouragement reaches 'all staff ... including maintenance staff'.
Missouri's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in Missouri on this section's text.
The section's housing-for-older-persons provisions were not read in this pass. A Missouri senior property must read them alongside the federal 24 CFR 100.304-100.307 requirements this corpus holds.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

tn Tennessee · 41

The deck says pre-planned actions effective 1 January 2025 through 30 April 2025 'will be subject to phased-in considerations' and never says what those considerations are -- whether the certification may be completed on pre-HOTMA methodology, must be redone, or is simply not cited. THDA's compliance division should be asked; the corpus states the band and not a consequence.
The deck is training material and disclaims reliance ('Attendees should not solely rely on this training'). THDA publishes no compliance manual, so no binding instrument states the 1 January 2025 date. Whether a THDA monitoring officer would cite a 2025 certification that used pre-HOTMA methodology is not established by any document.
Whether THDA treats the trigger as the certification EFFECTIVE date, the move-in date or the completion date is not stated. The phase-in sentence uses 'effective date', which is the best available evidence, but the deck never generalises it.
THDA states the hierarchy and never states a documentation duty for descending it. HUD requires the owner to document in the tenant file why third-party verification was unavailable before relying on self-certification; nothing in THDA's material imposes or waives that, so a Tennessee file that jumps to Level 1 with no explanation is not clearly non-compliant on any THDA text.
Whether THDA permits Level 3 and Level 2 to be individually skipped, as Table J2 expressly does, is not addressed. The deck lists both levels without the skip permission HUD prints twice.
The deck says Level 5 may use 'the Work Number or web-based state benefits system' but does not say whether THDA will accept the cost of a Work Number report as a legitimate reason to move down to Level 4, which is how several other agencies handle it.
The 'no blanks, no N/A' instruction appears only on a training slide, not on the form and not in the QAP. Whether THDA cites an HO-0422 that is complete except for one inapplicable line -- an employee with no overtime, for instance -- is not stated anywhere.
The forms deck predates the served revision of the form (the deck was written when several of these forms carried 2000-2018 revision dates; the HO-0422 now served prints Rev. 6/26). Whether the completeness and transmittal-retention instructions survived that revision unchanged is not confirmed by any current document.
THDA writes 'such as', which leaves open whether the five named programs are exhaustive or illustrative. A Medicaid or SSI determination is neither included nor excluded on the face of the deck.
No currency window is stated for a means-tested determination, and none is stated for the HO-0423 either. A voucher certification a year old is neither accepted nor rejected by any THDA text.
The forms deck's 'does not need to verify income or assets' is broader than the form itself, which certifies income, family size and utility allowance and says nothing about assets. Whether THDA means that a completed HO-0423 also excuses the Asset Self-Certification required in every file by tn.lihtc.certification.asset_self_certification_worksheet_in_every_file is a live conflict between two THDA documents.
THDA's non-necessary list includes 'Bank accounts or other financial investments', which under the combined-value rule means a household with $52,000 in a savings account and nothing else crosses the threshold on the account alone. The deck never works that example, and it is the case a manager is most likely to meet.
The deck states the 2025 figures only. THDA has published no 2026 figure the corpus has found, and none is inferred; the current-year parameter is bound to lt.hotma.thresholds rather than frozen.
THDA states the passbook rate for 2025 (0.45%) but not whether the rate applied is the one in force on the certification effective date or the one published in the preceding August. The two differ for a certification effective in the last weeks of a calendar year.
The four-case table uses the unindexed '$50,000' in three of its four cases while the conditions slide uses '$50,000, as adjusted for inflation ($51,600 as of 1/1/25)'. Read as the indexed figure throughout, per the conditions slide, but the drafting inconsistency is noted.
THDA's list omits ABLE accounts, which HOTMA excludes and which several state manuals name expressly. Whether the omission is deliberate or an artefact of a summary slide is not determinable from the deck.
'Real property that the family does not have the legal authority to sell' is stated without saying what documents THDA expects to prove the absence of authority. Other agencies require a copy of the deed or trust instrument; THDA requires nothing on its face.
The worksheet leaves the threshold blank and hyperlinks 'applicable Imputed Income Limitation' to a destination the PDF text layer does not expose. Which published series THDA intends -- the HOTMA net-family-asset threshold, or the Average Income Test imputed income limitation, which is a different concept sharing a similar name -- is genuinely ambiguous on the face of the form. The deck's $51,600 points at the former.
THDA prints no look-back period for property disposed of for less than fair market value, though the worksheet requires the disposed value to be added. Two years is the federal convention and South Carolina states it expressly; Tennessee states nothing, and nothing is inferred.
'Include this worksheet in all files' is a training-deck instruction. Whether a file with no assets at all must still carry a completed worksheet, or whether a zero-asset certification satisfies it another way, is not addressed.
THDA lists 'payments for the care of foster care family members' as nonrecurring and therefore excluded, while its own family-definition material treats foster children and adults as family members. Whether the payment is excluded because it is nonrecurring or because foster care payments are excluded outright is not stated, and the two routes behave differently for a household with a long-term placement.
The nonrecurring test turns on 'information provided by the family', which THDA never says must be documented. What a file must contain to support an exclusion is not stated.
THDA does not say WHEN the Student Status Verification is required as opposed to the Student Self-Certification. Other agencies require third-party verification whenever any member reports student status, or whenever a part-time status is claimed in an otherwise all-student household; THDA states only that the form exists and what it is.
The Affidavit of Student Financial Assistance is described as a self-disclosure and is dated January 2025, but THDA publishes no instruction on how the disclosed amounts feed the HOTMA student-aid calculation. The two documents were issued together and never joined up.
Whether the forms must be signed by every adult member or only by student members is not stated on either deck slide.
THDA's slide says all 479B assistance is excluded 'for students participating in the Public Housing or non-Section 8 programs administered by MFH', language lifted from a HUD source and never mapped onto the Housing Credit program the deck is about. Whether THDA means the exclusion applies to LIHTC students generally is not stated.
The deck reproduces the calculation and provides no worked example, and it does not say what documentation of actual covered costs THDA expects -- a tuition statement, an institutional cost of attendance, or the student's own affidavit.
THDA nowhere addresses the federal 100%-LIHTC recertification waiver by name. Whether the Continuing Residency Certification IS Tennessee's implementation of that waiver, or an additional THDA requirement layered on top of it, is not stated -- and the difference matters, because South Carolina's analogous relief requires prior written agency approval while THDA's appears to be self-executing.
'Beginning in year three (2nd annual recertification)' equates a year number with a recertification number in a way that breaks for a household that moved in mid-year or transferred. Which of the two controls is not stated.
The QAP's certification duty runs 'during the term of the LURC', which is at least thirty years, while the federal certification duty ends with the compliance period. Whether THDA monitors files for the full extended use period at the same depth is not addressed in Section 10.
THDA's forms training deck says the Next Available Unit form is 'Only used at mixed use properties when low-income resident's income increases above applicable limits and becomes market rate'. The form itself carries no mixed-use qualifier and says it must be included for EACH household over 140%. The two THDA documents disagree, and a 100% LIHTC property acting on the deck would omit a record the form requires. Encoded on the form's own text; THDA should be asked which controls.
The form has no field for the date the over-income status ends, and THDA states no rule for when the record may be closed if the household's income falls back below 140% or the limits rise. South Carolina states an untriggering rule expressly; Tennessee does not.
The form asks for 'Status of Unit After Next Unit Leased: ____ Market ____ Program' without saying which answer is expected in which circumstance, and a manager completing it is being asked to state a conclusion the form does not define.
The QAP does not say what happens if an elected preference becomes impossible -- for instance if the local PHA closes its waiting list. Item 17 certifies the requirement was met, with no cure or modification path stated.
'Clearly documented in marketing plans, lease-up plans, and operating policies and procedures' does not say whether the documentation must be filed with THDA after the Final Application or only retained. Section 10.A.1 requires the AFFH Marketing Plan to be revised yearly 'as needed', which is a different cadence.
Whether the special-needs residency preference and the Public Housing/HCV priority may be combined, and which governs where they conflict for a single unit, is not addressed.
effective.from was 2026-01-06, which is the source PDF's ModDate and the /2026/01/ segment of its url. The QAP prints NO publication date; its only self-dating is page 1, 'Approved by THDA Board of Directors: September 23, 2025' and 'Approved by Governor Bill Lee: December 17, 2025'. Corrected to 2025-12-17, the Governor's approval, on 2026-08-28. Whether THDA treats gubernatorial approval or some later publication as the operative date is unresolved.
'Creed' and 'religion' are both listed without either being defined in this section.
Tennessee's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in Tennessee on this section's text.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

ri Rhode Island · 41

The 2026 manual says the certification 'must be submitted as directed by RIHousing's annual notice' rather than fixing January 31 in the manual itself; January 31 (4PM) is verified from Program Bulletin 2024-05 for certification year 2024 and from the manual's training-policy section ('by January 31 of each year'). The date should be re-read from each December's bulletin.
No published grace period or late-submission cure before the 8823 issues was located - contrast Delaware's one-time 30-day warning notice. Not guessed.
Whether the 25-item form rev. 12/2024 will be revised for certification year 2025 (a rev. 8/2024 printing of the same form is attached to the bulletin) was not confirmed; the form is republished with the annual bulletin.
The bulletin threatens late fees but publishes no late-fee amount, rate or trigger date anywhere located on 2026-08-25. The parameter below is encoded with its value absent - not zero - per the corpus convention for unpublished figures.
The fee amounts are verified from the December 2024 bulletin (certification year 2024). No December 2025 bulletin was located on 2026-08-25 - the 2024-05 bulletin is what RIHousing's compliance page currently serves, from a 2026/01 upload path - so the amounts are presumed current but should be re-read when the next bulletin posts.
Whether the $100 AIT rate applies through the extended use period (i.e. whether AIT supersedes the $40 EUP rate after year 15) is not stated; the three rates are listed without an order of precedence.
No particular curriculum, provider list, or certification designation is required - 'training for compliance in managing a tax credit project' is the whole standard, and the form's designation field is optional in form. Whether a webinar or in-house session qualifies is not stated. Not guessed.
The consequence of a missing training certification is not separately stated; it travels with the owner certification package, whose non-submission is reportable on Form 8823. Whether RIHousing would 8823 a timely owner certification unaccompanied by the training form was not confirmed.
What full recertification at an unapproved 100% project must contain is stated by the manual's structure (recertification 'mirroring what was done at move-in') rather than an explicit 100%-specific section; the reading that full verification continues absent AAC approval follows the policy's own framing ('to benefit from the federal exemption') and was not separately confirmed with RIHousing.
The AAC policy is dated 10.18.24 and the manual restates it with one addition (annual unit inspection documentation in the file list). Whether the manual's restatement supersedes the standalone policy or the two run in parallel is not stated; both are cited and they do not conflict.
'Numerous and/or significant program eligibility findings' - the revocation trigger - has no published numeric threshold.
The December 2024 memo said implementation would 'likely be required no later than HUD's required date (currently 7/1/2025)'; the May 2026 Q&A reports HUD's current deadline as January 1, 2027. The later statement is encoded. Whether RIHousing will set an earlier Rhode Island date remains open.
The memo predates the 2026 manual; where the manual's highlighted HOTMA text and the memo's conditions differ in detail (none found on the points encoded), the manual should govern from March 1, 2026. Not exhaustively compared.
How a site DOCUMENTS partial-portfolio adoption (one site adopted, a sister site not) in shared management software is not addressed.
The 24-hour cure is stated for 'Life threatening and Severe' findings together - broader than NSPIRE's own 24-hour class, which HUD applies to life-threatening deficiencies (Severe generally carries 30 days for non-LT). Rhode Island's stricter pairing is encoded as written; whether RIHousing enforces 24 hours on all Severe findings in practice was not confirmed.
The manual's inspection chapter is titled 'Annual Inspections' but the stated LIHTC cycle is the federal three-year minimum; whether RIHousing in fact visits LIHTC-only properties annually is not stated. The chapter title is not treated as a cadence commitment.
The 30-day vacant-unit inspection trigger ('reported as rent-ready or that have been vacant for 30 days or more') does not say to whom vacancy is 'reported' - presumably via Procorem tenant events.
RIHousing publishes NO fixed correction period for file-review findings - the findings letter sets it per review, and the manual says only that the IRS limits total extension time. The correction-period parameter below is encoded with its value absent - not zero, not the federal 90-day outer bound - per the corpus convention for unpublished figures. The 30-day figure applies only to evidence of correction for non-Life-Threatening/Severe NSPIRE items.
'Typically within thirty business days' for the findings report is descriptive, not a commitment; it is recorded in the statement but not as a parameter.
The manual states corrected 8823s are 'only allowable if the noncompliance is corrected within three years after the end of the original correction period' - consistent with the 8823 Guide's three-year practice - but does not say what happens between RIHousing and the owner after the three years lapse.
The manual requires email notification to RIHousing 'of any change in UAs other than the [PHA estimate]' but gives no address or form; presumably the asset manager. Not specified.
Whether the RIHousing agency-estimate schedule may be adopted mid-year at its published effective date, or only on the property's own annual review cycle with the 90-day notice, is not stated.
The 2025 HOME Final Rule alignment (same UA for HOME, LIHTC and NHTF) is stated in the manual; how pre-2025-rule HOME properties transition was not detailed.
No fixed day-of-quarter deadline for the waitlist submission is published ('at the end of each quarter'), and no cadence is fixed for tenant-event entry itself beyond 'regularly reviews' - contrast Delaware's explicit monthly TIC feed. Not guessed.
Which programs are 'covered programs' for mandatory Procorem reporting is defined by instruction to owner/agents rather than a published list; LIHTC, HOME and ancillary-funded developments are named on RIHousing's Property Managers page.
No transfer or assumption fee is published for an ownership or management change - contrast Nebraska's $1,500 and $10,000 failure-to-notify pricing. Whether RIHousing charges administratively was not located. Not guessed.
'For approval prior to closing' states the sequence but not RIHousing's review period or the consequence of closing without approval; the enforcement hook located is the annual certification's question 17 disclosure and general noncompliance machinery.
Whether limited-partner-only transfers (no GP/managing-member change) trigger the immediate-notification duty is not stated; the text reaches 'any anticipated changes in the ownership composition INCLUDING the general partner or managing member', which reads broadly and is encoded broadly.
The policy's 100%-only restriction forecloses mixed-income AIT deals in Rhode Island - a genuine state restriction on a federal election - but whether RIHousing would waive it for a compelling deal is not stated; the policy reads categorical and is encoded categorically.
The interplay between the AIT policy's 'annual income certifications are required per RIHousing policy' and the AAC regime (which the manual extends to AIT-electing 100% projects only via RIHousing discretion - 'Waivers may be authorized at RIHousing's discretion') leaves open whether an AIT project can hold an AAC; the manual's AIT chapter adds third-party reporting requirements that suggest heavier scrutiny.
The 2023 policy predates the 2026 manual; the manual restates and extends it without conflict on the points encoded, but the policy has not been re-issued since v.9.23.
RIHousing reviews the plan before real estate closing and thereafter the five-year review is the owner's own. The manual does not say whether an updated plan goes back to RIHousing, so a plan can drift for decades after the only agency review it ever receives.
The criminal-records guidance is stated with 'owners are encouraged to implement', not as a requirement, even though the underlying FHEO guidance describes conduct that can violate the Fair Housing Act. The manual does not reconcile the two registers.
RIHousing may question a policy that 'appears to underutilize units' and publishes no threshold for underutilisation. The pressure runs toward fuller occupancy while Fair Housing guidance constrains standards that push the other way, and the manual leaves the owner to reconcile them.
The two-per-bedroom-plus-one figure is offered as common practice, not as RIHousing's standard, so it is recorded here as illustration and not encoded as a parameter.
The manual states the listing requirement without a stated frequency for refreshing it, and without saying what a fully occupied property's listing should say. A stale listing and no listing are not distinguished.
House rules changes 'should' be communicated before implementation and the receipt 'should' be documented, while provision and acknowledgement before occupancy are stated flatly. Whether a change implemented without notice is a compliance finding or merely poor practice is not resolved.
No rule may conflict with federal affordable housing regulations or the Fair Housing Act, and RIHousing does not say who checks house rules for such conflicts or when.
The statute bars the inquiry but affordable housing programmes require an owner to verify income to determine eligibility. Rhode Island does not say how the two are reconciled, and a LIHTC owner must ask about income to certify the household at all.
Whether an inquiry made after selection, at the certification stage rather than the screening stage, falls outside the prohibition is not addressed.
California expressly permits the inquiry Rhode Island forbids. Neither state's text acknowledges the other, and an operator in both cannot use one application form.

pa Pennsylvania · 40

The matrix gives no examples of 'unsecured and unverifiable' income (sporadic gifts? undocumented side work?); the boundary against IHDA's 'independent contractor / day laborer income is not excluded' position is undefined for Pennsylvania.
Whether 'average' means the midpoint of the endpoints or a weighted figure when the source supplies a distribution (e.g. hours 'between 20 and 35, usually 32') is not stated.
Unlike OHFA, PHFA does not prescribe a two-calculation/higher-figure procedure for owners who use YTD anyway; what an examiner does with a file where YTD alone decided eligibility is unstated.
The November COLA cut-in ('recertifications effective for November and moving forward') presumes an SSA announcement in October; the matrix does not say what to do in a year the announcement slips.
No look-back period for 'payments received' is stated (IHDA recommends aligning on 120 days); nor whether documented non-payment despite a court order requires pursuit-of-collection evidence, as older 4350.3 practice did.
The matrix does not restate the companions (unearned income of such students counts in full; under-18 students' earned income not at all) -- IHDA states them; Pennsylvania presumably follows HUD but has not said so in the matrix.
The matrix's passbook row still reads 0.45% (2025); HUD's 2026 rate (0.40% per Florida's TIC-1 change log) postdates the matrix revision on file. Whether PHFA has republished the matrix since 08/12/2025 should be checked at the next refresh.
PHFA marks the §5.618(a)(ii) real-estate/$100,000 eligibility restriction N/A for LIHTC -- consistent with LIHTC having no asset ceiling -- but the matrix does not say how layered HOME units at PHFA properties handle HUD's optional asset-limitation policies.
PHFA waives the triennial verification HUD made optional; IHDA appears to retain a three-year cycle at least for LIHTC+PBRA properties. A multistate operator cannot run one asset re-verification calendar across PA and IL.
The matrix addresses self-certification 'at RECERTIFICATION'; whether PHFA also accepts asset self-certification at MOVE-IN for under-threshold households (as HOTMA permits and Illinois allows) is not stated in the rows read.
Neither document defines 'current' for the statement itself (most recent statement? within 120 days?); OHFA says 'the most recent statement' explicitly.
The matrix adopts the hierarchy by page reference without restating the levels; where the 2014 manual's ordering (agency verification form above tenant-provided documents) conflicts with Notice H 2023-10's (tenant-provided documents above verification forms), the matrix position is read as governing but PHFA has not said so expressly.
Whether a legacy file whose releases were signed under the 2014 annual regime needs fresh durable releases, or the most recent annual release simply continues, is not addressed.
The 2014 procedure predates HOTMA and PHFA's 2025 matrix does not restate it; whether the two-TIC mechanic survives unchanged under the HOTMA-era forms is unconfirmed.
The manual's instruction to use '140 percent of the new household size' at recertification compresses the available-unit test into the composition rule; its interaction with a same-size limit row (e.g. member swap) is not illustrated.
The manual notes 4350.3 chapter 5 'is not updated to reflect the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA) changes pending implementation on 07/01/2025' and directs readers to the HOTMA Final Rule for updates. How PHFA reconciles the frozen handbook text with post-HOTMA determinations, beyond its separate HOTMA Policies Matrix (src.pa.hotma_policies_matrix, a LIHTC document), is not consolidated anywhere for HOME.
Whether DCED, as the actual participating jurisdiction, has formally elected the Part 5 definition for the Commonwealth's whole HOME program (covering non-PHFA awards) was not verifiable from DCED's published HOME guidelines; the PHFA statement governs only PHFA-administered rental HOME.
The manual points TBRA/PBRA units to the HOTMA Matrix for their recertification treatment; the HOTMA Policies Matrix on file (src.pa.hotma_policies_matrix) is written for the tax credit program, and no HOME-specific TBRA/PBRA carve-out text was located. Unresolved.
Post-affordability, section 3.10.3 says PennHOMES properties 'must continue to perform full recertifications with source documentation every 6 (six) years of the affordability period'; how long the duty runs where the loan outlasts the affordability period is stated only through the manual's general rule that legal documents govern until the loan balance is paid off.
The manual says HOME limits are 'implemented as soon as the lease permits following the effective date of the limits' but sets the Rent Summary window at July 15; where HUD's HOME limits take effect off-cycle, whether a mid-year decrease (falling limits) must be implemented outside the July window is not addressed.
The manual does not define 'market rent' for this purpose (comparable-unit market study versus the property's own unrestricted rents); the operative figure at a 100 percent restricted property is unstated.
PHFA publishes no default where the Regulatory Agreement is silent on fixed versus floating (Georgia assumes fixed; Florida publishes comparability constraints only). A silent PA agreement is an unknown.
The manual's report-submission channels (Web Entry System versus email to the HMR) key off whether the property has received its 8609 -- a tax credit artifact. Which channel a PennHOMES-only property without any 8609 uses for the Rental Schedule is stated only for the hard-copy fallback; encoded as written.
The manual gives both 'within 5 days' of the email and a late notice 'for failure to enter the occupancy data by the 2nd of the month'; the two only align for emails sent on or before the 28th. Encoded as the 5-day requirement with the 2nd-of-month reminder noted, not reconciled.
Whether the 30-day window is extendable, and what PHFA does between a timely response and full correction where the fix takes longer than 30 days (the letter demands evidence the noncompliance IS corrected), is not published. Temporary Non-Compliance categories (unit mix, over-income) plainly cannot always be cured in 30 days; the manual does not say how the letter clock treats them.
The manual governs PHFA's portfolio. A Pennsylvania rental property whose HOME funds came through a DCED competitive award to a local government follows DCED's HOME Program Guidelines and the local agreement, not this manual; that population is outside every rule in this file and is the main uncovered Pennsylvania HOME surface.
When 24 CFR 92.359 / 5.2005 is added to the federal HOME layer, this rule should gain a modifies edge to it; recorded so the integration pass can wire it.
The PHFA VAWA Emergency Transfer Plan Checklist itself was not fetched (it lives in the VAWA Resource Center behind a page not crawled this pass); the checklist's additional requirements beyond the HUD template are not itemized here.
The annual review is a duty to consider whether updates are needed, and PHFA does not require the review itself to be recorded. A property that never revisits its plan and one that reviews it every January leave the same trace until the five-year report falls due.
Revisions must be approved before implementation, so a property whose marketing procedures have changed must wait on PHFA before marketing under the new approach. No turnaround time is published.
The AFHMP must be available for PUBLIC inspection on site, which is stronger than the 'available to OHCS staff' or 'available to applicants' standard other states set. PHFA does not say what may be redacted, and the plan carries census and demographic targeting detail.
The Marketing Worksheet goes to the Supportive Housing Officer when an accessible unit comes free and nobody needs it -- the moment before an owner may let it to a household that does not require the features. PHFA does not state a waiting period between the submission and letting the unit.
Where a property carries several funding sources with different VAWA regimes, PHFA gives the CHOICE to the tenant rather than resolving it by a most-restrictive rule. That is unusual and consequential: the owner must be able to explain both regimes to a tenant deciding between them, and PHFA does not say when or how that choice is recorded.
The Emergency Transfer Plan requirement is stated for HOME and Housing Trust Fund properties. Whether an LIHTC-only PHFA property needs one is not addressed in this section, though the form schedule above it applies to all.
The quoted clause is truncated at the point the source page breaks; the relationship limb continues beyond 'a relationship o' and should be read in full before relying on its scope.
Age is protected without a floor or ceiling, which sits awkwardly beside senior housing operated under the federal 55-and-older exemption.
Pennsylvania's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in Pennsylvania on this section's text. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have their own ordinances that do reach it; those are local law this corpus does not yet hold.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.
Quote verification note, 2026-09-07: this quote reads across a table of funding types in the PHFA manual, and no linear text extraction reproduces a table read that way. The content is in the document; the quote is a reading of it rather than a contiguous excerpt. Do NOT rewrite the quote to match a pdftotext dump -- verify against the PDF as rendered.

gu Guam · 35

The 2024 QAP does not name the current Authorized Delegate for Guam, and no delegation contract was located; forms are addressed 'to GHURA or its Authorized Delegate at the address shown in Section II'. Not guessed.
No late fee, grace period or extension procedure for the February 1 report is published anywhere in the QAP. The only stated consequences are the noncompliance process (30-day correction) and IRS notification.
Whether the February 1 obligation and this compliance plan reach projects allocated under earlier QAP editions (e.g. 2018) is not stated; the plan says its guidelines 'pertain to projects allocated Low Income-Housing Tax Credits in Guam', which reads portfolio-wide but was not confirmed with GHURA.
The fee text is internally tense: 'up to $50 per unit ... and $25 per unit ... shall be charged annually', while the two per-unit amounts are tied to the first-year inspection and the three-year cycle. Whether an amount is charged in a year with no inspection event is not stated and was not guessed; the encoded values are the two published per-unit amounts.
The 'up to' qualifier gives GHURA discretion below $50; no schedule of actual assessments was located.
No consequence for an unpaid monitoring fee is published (compare Kansas's priced violation-fee schedule; GHURA publishes none).
The QAP does not name a physical inspection standard (no UPCS or NSPIRE election anywhere in the document) - the audit inspects against 'local health, safety and building codes' suitability language only. Which standard GHURA actually applies on-site was not located and is not guessed.
The 30-day advance notice exceeds the 15-day maximum reasonable-notice window of Treas. Reg. 1.42-5(d) as amended in 2019; whether GHURA has conformed its practice to the federal notice limit was not located.
Whether the 20% file-review floor tracks the REAC/8823 minimum-unit sampling table adopted in the 2019 final regulations, or is applied as a flat 20%, is not stated.
Thirty days is the floor of the 30-to-90-day range Treas. Reg. 1.42-5(e)(4) allows an agency to set. Whether GHURA grants six-month extensions as a matter of course or rarely is not published; the standard is 'good cause' with no criteria stated.
No workout-plan, appeal or fee mechanism attaches to the correction process in the QAP (the separate Appeals and Process Procedure is referenced only generally, with copies 'maintained at GHURA's office' and not published online). Not guessed.
The quoted sentence contains a typographical artifact in the published PDF ('a0fter'); the reading 'after January 1, 2014' is unambiguous in context and is what is encoded.
GHURA states no waiver-approval gate for the 100% relief (compare CT's written Recertification Waiver Approval and the CNMI's owner-performance condition) - on Guam the first-anniversary recertification is the only stated condition. Whether GHURA in practice requires notice or approval before an owner relies on the relief was not located.
The QAP is silent on HOTMA (the word does not appear in the document), including HOTMA's self-certification allowances; not reconciled here.
The obligation is written as 'should' with a hard outer deadline ('no later than receipt of IRS Form 8609') - encoded as 'should' exactly as printed, with the deadline in the statement rather than upgraded to 'must'.
Unlike CT, GHURA does not collect training evidence with the annual report, and no qualifying trainings, providers or currency period are named. What documentation satisfies 'document that they have recently attended' is not stated.
Whether GHURA has ever exercised the power to order training after noncompliance events was not located.
The mandate sits in the QAP's threshold requirements for the 2024 cycle; whether projects allocated under earlier QAPs are bound (e.g. via their recorded covenants or a GHURA policy extension) is not stated and not assumed - the effective date encodes the 2024 QAP adoption.
No enforcement or cure mechanism specific to the smoke-free requirement is published; violation presumably routes through the general 30-day correction process, but the QAP does not say so.
The 45-year floor is a threshold of the 2024 QAP and binds projects awarded under it (CY2023/2024 reservations); earlier Guam vintages were awarded under the 2018 and 2021 QAPs, which were not reviewed for this pass, so this rule must not be projected backward. The corpus's applicability predicate cannot distinguish award vintage - flagged here deliberately.
Whether the 45 years is structured as 15 + 30 extended use or as a single recorded term is not stated in the QAP; the recorded Declaration controls per property.
The 4% / tax-exempt-bond pathway is not addressed by the threshold's text, which names only 9% LIHTC. Not extended to bond deals.
The owner's annual self-inspection of every unit and common area has no stated documentation or submission requirement - whether GHURA collects the inspection results, or only expects them produced at audit, is not stated.
The 'Not in Good Standing' designation's consequences are not enumerated (no stated bar on future awards, unlike Kansas's distressed list); only the designation and the clearing condition are published.
This one rule carries the QAP's whole EU Compliance Policy because GHURA publishes it as a single named policy; the student-rule modification is split out separately because it changes household eligibility rather than monitoring machinery.
What proof of independent-student status GHURA accepts beyond 'not claimed as a dependent... (proof required)' is not stated - a tax transcript is the natural evidence but is not named.
How the modified rule interacts with the five federal student-rule exceptions during the EUP (whether they survive alongside it or are replaced) is not addressed.
DEPTH PASS 2026-08-29 CONFIRMS THE 2024 QAP IS THE WHOLE PUBLISHED REGIME. GHURA publishes no LIHTC compliance manual, no forms library, no utility allowance policy and no Guam income or rent limit chart. Section VI's Compliance Monitoring Plan (pp. 22-31) is everything. The QAP itself says the certification forms and the AMI data are 'available from GHURA' - by request, not by publication.
NO UTILITY ALLOWANCE SOURCE IS PUBLISHED. The QAP requires the utility allowance in gross rent and says nothing about where it comes from: no permitted method, no review cadence, no submission, no 90-day implementation rule. The rent limit cannot be applied without it. This is the single most consequential Guam gap and nothing was borrowed from 1.42-10 practice elsewhere.
GHURA HAS NOT SELECTED A PHYSICAL INSPECTION STANDARD. Neither 'UPCS' nor 'NSPIRE' appears anywhere in the 2024 QAP; the RHS section refers to 'the physical inspection standard selected by the allocating agency' and GHURA never selects one. The audit inspects against local health, safety and building code suitability only, and the QAP does not say which local code or which edition.
THE QAP DOES NOT MENTION HOTMA. Whether GHURA has adopted the HOTMA income and asset determinations, and on what date, is unpublished. This is not resolved by the QAP's unqualified reference to HUD Handbook 4350.3, which itself names no edition.
GHURA does not enumerate the five student-rule exceptions, deferring to the Internal Revenue Code, and publishes no student status certification form. At a 100% project relieved of income recertification there is consequently no published mechanism for re-establishing student status each year.
The QAP publishes no general good-cause eviction protection, no VAWA requirements, no tenant selection plan requirement, no affirmative marketing plan requirement and no household-composition rules beyond unborn children. Each absence is recorded on the rule that would carry it; none is filled from mainland practice.
The 2024 QAP's embedded text layer mangles ligatures ('ti' extracts as '6', 'ft' as ']', 'tt' as 'Z'). Every Guam quote in the corpus is taken from the RENDERED page, verified by rasterising it. A parser trusting pdftotext output will not match the quotes and should not conclude they are wrong.
NO TERRITORIAL FAIR HOUSING ACT LOCATED. The federal Fair Housing Act reaches this jurisdiction directly: 42 U.S.C. 3602(d) defines 'State' to include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and any of the territories and possessions of the United States, so every federal fair housing rule in this corpus applies here. See xp.fair_housing.the_act_reaches_puerto_rico_and_every_territory_and_possession. No separate territorial statute was located in this pass; one adding protected classes would sit on top of the federal floor and is not recorded here.

md Maryland · 34

The QAP does not say what CDA does where an owner records no election by the execution date -- whether CDA declines to execute, or a default election applies.
'Execution ... by CDA and the project owner' implies two dates. Which of the two controls where they differ is not stated.
The QAP averages 'the average gross income for the restricted units in the project'. Section 42(g)(1)(C) averages the DESIGNATED IMPUTED INCOME LIMITATIONS of the units in the qualified group, which is a property of the units and not of the households in them. These are different quantities and can give different answers at the same project. The QAP does not acknowledge the difference and CDA publishes no supplementary income-averaging guidance.
The QAP does not recite the 20/30/40/50/60/70/80 designation increments anywhere. An owner reading only the Maryland instrument could believe any restriction level at or below 80% is available. Whether CDA enforces the increments through the 8609 or the LIHTC Covenant rather than the QAP is not stated in any DHCD document located in this pass.
The QAP states the dual requirement but does not say which section 142 threshold Maryland expects (20-50 or 40-60), nor whether CDA monitors the section 142 test itself or leaves it to the bond issuer and trustee.
Maryland's QAP s H.4 Review (5) permits CDA to waive review of annual certifications for buildings 50%+ bond-financed where CDA has an information agreement with the issuer. How that waiver interacts with CDA's monitoring of the dual set-aside is not addressed.
The QAP names three non-automatic sources; the procedures document's Attachment B examples name the same three. Neither says what CDA does with the application, whether approval is discretionary, or how long a decision takes.
The QAP uses 'should contact' rather than 'must'. Whether an owner who implements the exemption at such a project without contacting CDA is in noncompliance, or merely unapproved, is not stated.
Neither document states when in the year the self-declaration is due -- on the move-in anniversary, on a calendar-year cycle, or at the owner's election.
Attachment C is headed 'To be used in place of annual certification process if property is eligible for the IRS Tax Credit recertification exemption, or after Year 15 if required by other funding sources', which implies a second, post-year-15 use case that neither the QAP nor the procedures document develops.
Attachment C asks only whether ALL household members are or intend to be full-time students; it collects no student-exception code and no per-member detail. Where the answer is yes, neither the form nor the procedures document says what the owner must then obtain to establish an exception.
DHCD's Tenant Income Certification Part VII lists a sixth student explanation, '6 Extended-Use Period', which is not one of the five section 42(i)(3)(D) exceptions and is not explained on the form or in any DHCD document located in this pass.
DHCD says an intra-project transfer makes the household a 'new family' for the verification sequence, while its draft extended-use policy allows building-to-building transfers without a Full Recertification where the file shows the household under 140%. Neither document cites the other and the two are hard to reconcile for a transferring household in an exempt building during the Extended Use Period.
The procedure does not say whether the two verifications must be in the SAME building or whether verifications performed in the origin building count toward the sequence in the destination building.
DHCD's QAP and its own Recertification Exemption Procedures disagree on whether the exemption survives the 15-year compliance period. The QAP (effective 8 April 2026) says it ends there; the procedures document (Updated 7/21/26) says it continues through the extended use period unless DHCD issues contrary guidance. The procedures document is later and more generous; the QAP carries higher authority. Not resolved here. An owner relying on the continuation is relying on agency guidance its own QAP does not repeat.
The draft extended-use policy asserts the exemption 'will automatically extend into the Extended Use Period', which aligns with the procedures document rather than the QAP -- but that policy is labelled Draft and has been since November 2024, so it cannot settle the question.
DHCD publishes no HOTMA guidance of any kind. Its only certification form is the 2013 edition, whose $5,000 threshold, 2.00% passbook rate and greater-of-actual-and-imputed convention are all pre-HOTMA. Whether CDA expects Maryland owners to apply HOTMA's net-family-assets definition and actual-or-imputed convention notwithstanding its own published form is unanswered by any DHCD document located in this pass.
The 2013 form's Part V determination block prints only '60% / 50% / 40% / 30% / ____%' and a '140%' recertification line, i.e. it predates the income-averaging election the QAP has offered since August 2018. Whether CDA accepts an amended or third-party form for an income-averaging project is not stated.
Because both parameters are emitted without values, this rule states a method and cannot be used to compute an amount. That is deliberate: the corpus does not carry a number the state does not publish.
The duty is created by the certification form, not by the QAP or by any DHCD policy document, so its force depends on the form having been executed and on the lease incorporating it. DHCD publishes an MF Lease Addendum (2023) that was not examined in this pass; whether it restates the duty is unknown.
'Immediately' is not defined and no cure period is stated. DHCD does not say what an owner must do on receiving such a notice -- whether a new certification is required, or only a file note.
The memo's obligations are phrased partly as 'must' and partly as 'should'. The five-year review, the submission and the posting are 'must'; the guiding principles for non-discriminatory screening are 'should'. DHCD does not say whether the 'should' items are monitored.
The 1 January 2025 deadline was for properties already in the portfolio. The memo does not state when a newly placed-in-service property must first file, and the Program Guide requires only a certification at application that the owner will do so.
The Program Guide's AFHMP list prohibits INCOME requirements for voucher holders; the memo's Tenant Selection Plan list prohibits income AND MINIMUM CREDIT SCORE requirements. The two instruments are not identical in scope and neither reconciles them, so a plan that bars only income requirements conforms to the Guide but not to the memo.
Neither document states whether an owner may apply a minimum income test to the tenant-paid portion of rent, as distinct from contract rent. The Guide's example of a prohibited practice is a multiple of 'monthly contract rents'.
The memo mixes 'must' and 'should' within the same paragraph: the no-check-first sequencing is 'must', while documenting when the initial screening was completed and retaining assessments for five years are 'should'. Whether DHCD monitors the 'should' items as obligations is not stated.
The 'further review period' that governs which felony or violent misdemeanour convictions may be considered is named but never defined or quantified anywhere in the memo, and no DHCD document located in this pass supplies it. An owner cannot determine the look-back window from the published policy.
The sole source for this relaxation is a document labelled Draft on its own title page, unfinalised since November 2024 and still served as a draft in August 2026. A draft is not a policy: an owner who drops the comparable-or-smaller requirement in reliance on it is relying on an unadopted instrument while the in-force Qualified Allocation Plan continues to require it in the annual owner certification.
The draft says 'other than that, there is no change to the next available unit rule', which leaves the section 42(g)(2)(D)(ii) 140% trigger and the same-building scope intact. It does not address what happens where the only available unit is larger and a comparable or smaller unit becomes available later.
Whether DHCD has ever finalised this policy under another title was checked against the Multifamily Housing Development Document Library listing on 2026-08-28 and no final version was found. This should be re-checked on the source's quarterly cadence.
Maryland has two live, conflicting statements of the Extended-Use-Period inspection cycle and no test is written against either. The currently effective 2026 QAP states a three-year Extended-Use baseline at Section H.4 Review item 2; the Post-Year-15 policy this rule is drawn from states five years with a lesser-of 10-percent-or-IRS-chart sample, and that document is explicitly labelled DRAFT (filename 'DRAFT-v4-...', PDF dated 2024-11-12) with no adopted version located, even though DHCD serves it from the live 2026 site alongside the Governor-approved QAP. Asserting 60 months would clear a property at month 50 that the QAP's own baseline would fail, and asserting 36 would apply an interval the policy the rule states does not impose - so the cycle is left unasserted rather than resolved by choosing a side. What would make it evaluable: DHCD confirming whether the Post-Year-15 policy has been adopted and, if so, whether it supersedes the QAP's Section H.4 Extended-Use cycle.
Section 20-705 opens 'Except as provided in §§ 20-703 and 20-704 of this subtitle', and those exemption sections were not read in this pass. What they exempt is not established here.
Maryland does not define source of income within § 20-705 itself, so whether it reaches a subsidy paid to the landlord is not answerable from this section alone.
Several Maryland counties adopted source-of-income protection before the state did and some define it differently. Where a county ordinance is stricter it governs; this corpus holds the state text.

va Virginia · 32

The guidance states the 120-day rule under the heading 'Assets' but its sentence covers 'income and assets'. Whether Virginia Housing applies the same window to an ANNUAL RECERTIFICATION at a property with market units (where recertification is required) is not stated; the sentence names only 'Move-in or initial certifications'.
Virginia Housing publishes no Tenant Income Certification form of its own -- its Compliance Forms and Documents page points to the NCSHA Model Compliance Forms -- so the packet contents against which this window is measured are defined off-site. Whether Virginia Housing treats a non-NCSHA property-management-system TIC as equivalent is stated permissively in the HOTMA Summary ('property management software, a manual form') but nowhere for the supporting verifications.
'Properties with HUD programs' is not defined by enumeration. The HOTMA Summary elsewhere names Section 8, project-based assistance and EIV-bearing programs, but whether a tenant-based Housing Choice Voucher in an otherwise unsubsidised LIHTC property makes it a property 'with a HUD program' for this purpose is not stated.
The guidance permits but does not require the anticipated-income method at non-HUD properties. It does not say whether a non-HUD property that voluntarily adopts the HOTMA calculation must then adopt it portfolio-wide or may mix methods between buildings.
The guidance does not state how current a PHA income certification must be. The 120-day verification window in va.lihtc.income_calculation.verification_dated_within_120_days is written for 'income and assets' generally and would on its face reach a PHA certification, but Virginia Housing does not say so.
Virginia Housing's form is undated on its face except for the footer 'PHA Income Certification revised December 2023'; whether the December 2023 form is mandatory or whether a PHA's own letterhead certification carrying the same three data points is acceptable is not addressed.
Virginia Housing publishes neither the imputation threshold nor the passbook rate itself, and its HOTMA Summary links to HUD's notice by title rather than binding a specific year's figure. The corpus therefore cannot answer 'what is the Virginia threshold' from a Virginia source; the parameters are emitted without values deliberately.
The 0%-return carve-out is stated for 'verified assets with 0% actual interest'. Whether an asset that produced a small but non-zero return which the household cannot document falls in the carve-out or in the imputation branch is not addressed.
Because the threshold figure is not published by Virginia Housing, the boundary between the self-certification branch and the third-party branch cannot be evaluated from Virginia sources alone.
Virginia Housing adopts NCSHA's Asset Self-Certification by reference rather than publishing its own. If NCSHA revises the model form so that it no longer captures expected actual income, a Virginia file using the current model form would silently stop meeting this content requirement. No Virginia document addresses which NCSHA revision is the accepted one.
The guidance places these criteria in a document titled 'Post-Year 15 Compliance Monitoring Guidance'. Whether Virginia Housing applies the same head-of-household test during the initial 15-year Compliance Period, or only in the Extended Use Period, is not stated on the document's face; the surrounding sections are mixed, some explicitly post-year-15 and some general.
'Legal contract age under state law' is not given a number. Virginia's age of majority is 18, but the guidance does not cite a Code of Virginia section and the corpus does not supply one.
The relief is stated in the Post-Year 15 guidance. Whether an annual student certification is still required at a Tax Credit-only property during the initial 15-year Compliance Period is not addressed by any Virginia Housing document located in this pass, and the Student Self-Certification form -- which Virginia Housing continues to publish and which calls itself annual -- does not limit itself to bond properties.
The bond carve-out lists the set-asides as '20/50, 20/80, 40/60, or Average Income (AIT)'. '20/80' is not a Section 42 minimum set-aside test; it appears to describe a bond-side or deep-skew election, and the guidance does not define it.
The guidance describes the consequence of PASSING the re-determination but is silent on the consequence of failing it: it does not say whether the unit ceases to count toward the bond set-aside immediately, at the next available-unit event, or at the end of the taxable year.
It is not stated whether removing a member, or a member turning 18, triggers the same new-applicant determination; only 'new members are added' is addressed.
The property-wide relief is stated for 'Tax Credit-only properties without market units'. Virginia Housing does not state the transfer rule for a Tax Credit-only property that DOES have market units; that case falls between the two branches the guidance describes.
'Treated as a new household' is not elaborated. Whether the transferring household must also re-execute student certification and asset documentation as a new applicant would, or only the income test the guidance names, is not addressed.
The statement is about monitoring, not about the underlying obligation, and Virginia Housing does not say what an owner at a Tax Credit-only property should do when a household crosses 140% in the Extended Use Period. The Extended Use Agreement continues to require the applicable fraction be maintained.
'Properties with Tax-Exempt financing' is not defined as being limited to Virginia Housing-issued bonds. A property financed with a conduit issuer's bonds and monitored by Virginia Housing for the credits alone may or may not be inside the carve-out.
The guidance is Version 3 dated 1/26/2023 and predates later IRS Average Income Test guidance; Virginia Housing reserves the right to amend it 'to conform with the regulations and IRS guidance'. Whether Version 3 remains the operative text in 2026 was confirmed only by its continued publication on the Compliance Monitoring page, not by a dated re-adoption.
The guidance does not state the over-income basis for a unit whose designation is changed AFTER the household crossed the threshold -- for example a 40% unit redesignated to 80% in the same taxable year.
'Comparable or larger size' for the violation consequence and 'comparable or smaller size' for the replacement obligation are both stated without a definition of comparable. The guidance's worked example uses a project of ten units of equal size, which does not test the boundary.
The guidance says Virginia Housing may grant a written waiver extending the time to correct AIT non-compliance, but does not state whether such a waiver reverses the Excluded-Unit treatment for a year already reported.
Virginia Housing's own documents state the 40% floor against two different denominators. The Housing Tax Credit Manual (1/1/2026) s5.1.1 says 'a minimum of 40% of the total units at or below 60% AMI'; the AIT Written Guidance (Version 3) says 'at least 40% of all residential low-income units in the Project'. In a 100% low-income project these coincide; in a mixed-income project the manual is the stricter reading. Neither document acknowledges the other. Not resolved here.
The AIT Written Guidance's Extended Use Agreement section describes the recorded EUA as requiring 'an average of 60% AMI for at least 40% of the total low-income units', which is an AVERAGE test, while the manual and the bond section state a DESIGNATION CEILING ('at or below 60% AMI'). Whether the recorded EUA language for a given Virginia bond deal states a ceiling or an average must be read off that project's own EUA.
The guidance uses 'should' throughout for the Tenant Selection Plan's contents and 'must' only for fair housing compliance, so the four criteria are stated as directive guidance rather than as a covenant. The binding force comes from the Extended Use Agreement's leasing-preference requirement and from Virginia Housing's statement that the Tenant Selection Plan is reviewed in compliance monitoring, not from the memo's own language.
The eligibility letter carries an expiration date but the guidance does not say what an owner must do with a referral whose letter has expired between application and move-in, nor whether the Referring Agent must reissue it.
Section 58.1-439.30(J) directs Virginia Housing to advise the money committees on the structure and cost of a SEPARATELY AUTHORIZED certificated credit that could be sold to unrelated taxpayers, which is the clearest evidence that no such sale is authorised today. Whether that separate authorisation has since been enacted was not checked for this pass.
'Source of funds' is defined at Va. Code § 36-96.1:1, which this pass did not read. Virginia's definition is narrower than several states' -- it turns on funds paid on behalf of a tenant under a government programme -- and the boundary is not established from § 36-96.3 alone.
The prima facie rule reaches words or symbols associated with religion, national origin, sex or race, but not with the other protected classes the same subsection lists. Whether that asymmetry is deliberate is not stated.
A marketing photograph is a symbol for this purpose on the face of the provision, which reaches affirmative marketing imagery that federal law encourages. Virginia does not reconcile the two.

mp Northern Mariana Islands · 31

The effective date is the 2023-2024 QAP's first plan year; no adoption date is printed in the document and none was located. The identical February 1 obligation appears in the 2025-2026 edition, which NMHC serves only as a watermarked DRAFT despite running the 2025 cycle under it - the final/draft status of the current edition is itself an open question.
NMHC's current Authorized Delegate, if any, is not named in either QAP edition and none was located. Not guessed.
No late fee, grace period or extension procedure for the February 1 report is published.
'Up to $200' leaves the actual annual assessment to NMHC; no published schedule of actual assessments was located.
No consequence for an unpaid monitoring fee is published.
Whether the fee is charged on all units (as written) or only low-income units in mixed-income projects follows the text - 'all units within each project' - but no mixed-income CNMI project was located to confirm practice.
Neither QAP edition names a physical inspection standard (no UPCS or NSPIRE election anywhere); the audit inspects against local health, safety and building code suitability only. Not guessed.
The 30-day advance notice exceeds the 15-day maximum reasonable-notice window of Treas. Reg. 1.42-5(d) as amended in 2019; whether NMHC has conformed its practice was not located.
Whether the 20% file-review floor is applied flat or per the federal minimum-unit sampling table is not stated.
Thirty days is the floor of the 30-to-90-day range of Treas. Reg. 1.42-5(e)(4); the good-cause extension standard has no published criteria.
No workout-plan, appeal or violation-fee mechanism attaches to the correction process in either QAP edition.
The 100% relief sentence is grammatically tangled ('as well as undergo an annual recertification, but will not be required for further recertification provided...'). The encoded reading - certification at occupancy plus at least one annual recertification cycle, with ongoing relief conditioned on owner performance and revocable on failure - follows the sentence's own condition-and-sanction structure, but the exact number of required cycles before relief attaches is genuinely ambiguous and was not confirmed with NMHC.
What 'satisfactorily fulfills all recertification requirements' requires, and who determines it, is not stated - relief is an owner-performance judgment with no published criteria.
Neither QAP edition mentions HOTMA. Not reconciled here.
THE RECERTIFICATION SENTENCE IS ENCODED AS PRINTED AND IS PROBABLY A DRAFTING ERROR THAT NMHC HAS CARRIED ACROSS EDITIONS. Guam's parallel EU section reads 'Recertification of tenants will NOT be required during the extended use period. However, if any adults are added...' - and the CNMI's 'However' only parses against a 'not required' antecedent. But the 'will be required' wording appears identically in the 2023-2024 final AND the 2025-2026 draft, so it is not a one-off typo and is not silently corrected here. Read literally, CNMI recertification continues for the whole Additional Use Period. Confirm with NMHC before relying on relief.
The consequences of Not in Good Standing status are not enumerated in either edition.
The owner's annual self-inspection has no stated documentation or submission requirement.
What proof of independent-student status NMHC accepts is not stated beyond '(proof required)'.
The CNMI text, unlike Guam's, states expressly that 'the IRC student rule no longer applies' during the period - the replacement is total, not layered; whether the five federal student-rule exceptions have any residual role is therefore clearer here than on Guam, but still not addressed for households qualifying under an exception at the period's start.
The provision does not define 'transfer or sell of Credits' - whether it reaches a sale of partnership interests in the owner (the normal syndication mechanics), only a transfer of the credit allocation itself, or a post-award assignment, is not stated. The economic difference is enormous and was not guessed; a CNMI deal team should obtain NMHC's reading in writing before structuring.
No NMHC consent-to-transfer procedure, ownership-change approval process, or qualified-contract-era transfer rule beyond this fee was located in either QAP edition.
DEPTH PASS 2026-08-29 CONFIRMS THE QAP IS THE WHOLE PUBLISHED REGIME. NMHC publishes no LIHTC compliance manual, no forms library, no utility allowance policy and no CNMI income or rent limit chart. Section V's Compliance Monitoring Plan and Section VI's Qualified Contracts are everything; the QAP says the forms and AMI data are 'available from NMHC' by request.
THE PRIOR PASS'S OPEN QUESTION THAT NO QUALIFIED-CONTRACT RULE COULD BE LOCATED WAS WRONG. Section VI of the 2023-2024 QAP is a full four-page qualified contract procedure and is now authored as mp.lihtc.qualified_contract_request_and_application_process. The other half of that open question stands: NMHC still publishes no ownership-change or management-change approval process of any kind.
THE RENT MEASURE IS STATED TWO DIFFERENT WAYS AND NMHC HAS NOT RECONCILED THEM. Section 2.C offers 30% of median income adjusted for family size OR 30% of the imputed income limitation; Section 4.A, expressly for post-1990 allocations, states only the imputed measure. The pre-1990 household-size measure was repealed for buildings placed in service after 1989, so 4.A governs the current portfolio, but an owner reading only Section 2 would compute a different rent.
NO UTILITY ALLOWANCE SOURCE IS PUBLISHED. The QAP requires the allowance in gross rent and stops - no method, no review cadence, no submission. The rent limit cannot be applied without it and nothing was borrowed.
NMHC HAS NOT SELECTED A PHYSICAL INSPECTION STANDARD. Neither 'UPCS' nor 'NSPIRE' appears in either QAP edition; the audit inspects against local health, safety and building code suitability only, and the QAP does not say which CNMI code or edition.
NEITHER QAP EDITION MENTIONS HOTMA. Whether NMHC has adopted the HOTMA income and asset determinations, and when, is unpublished, and is not resolved by the unqualified reference to HUD Handbook 4350.3.
NMHC does not enumerate the five student-rule exceptions and publishes no student status certification form, so at a 100% project there is no published mechanism for re-establishing student status annually.
The QAP publishes no general good-cause eviction protection, no VAWA requirements, no tenant selection plan or affirmative marketing requirement, and no household-composition rules beyond unborn children.
Both QAPs say documentation of pregnancy may be required 'if permitted by state laws' in a territory that has no state law. Neither agency has localised the phrase to territorial law, and whether CNMI law permits it was not researched.
NO TERRITORIAL FAIR HOUSING ACT LOCATED. The federal Fair Housing Act reaches this jurisdiction directly: 42 U.S.C. 3602(d) defines 'State' to include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and any of the territories and possessions of the United States, so every federal fair housing rule in this corpus applies here. See xp.fair_housing.the_act_reaches_puerto_rico_and_every_territory_and_possession. No separate territorial statute was located in this pass; one adding protected classes would sit on top of the federal floor and is not recorded here.

la Louisiana · 29

The manual does not state how an owner is notified that the LHC Compliance Department has 'confirmed compliance' so the modified regime may begin, nor whether that confirmation is written. Unverified.
The 2025 QAP Appendix C states $40 per unit while the LHC fee schedule effective 8/08/2025 states $45.00 per unit as a minimum. The newer fee schedule is encoded as operative, but whether existing Compliance Monitoring Agreements executed under earlier QAPs continue to owe their contract rate (e.g., $40) rather than the current published rate is not stated in either source. Unverified.
Failure to pay is listed by the manual (§6.5.A) among noncompliance types reportable on Form 8823; whether LHC applies the $100/month late fee per property or per unit is not stated (the fee schedule reads as per property). Unverified.
The manual states no maximum extension of the 30-day correction period (Treas. Reg. 1.42-5(e)(4) permits up to 6 months where the agency determines good cause; the QAP Appendix C references 'extensions permitted under that paragraph' without a stated ceiling). Whether LHC caps extensions at the federal 6-month maximum is not stated in either source. Unverified.
The January 2026 manual and the 2025 QAP Appendix C both specify UPCS ('or other HUD REAC approved inspection standards'); several peer states (e.g., Kentucky) have adopted NSPIRE for LIHTC monitoring. Whether and when LHC will transition state monitoring inspections to NSPIRE is not stated in any document read this pass. Unverified.
The manual's pet-rent language is internally ambiguous: 'LHC does not support and will not approve the use of pet rent' (categorical) versus 'Collection of pet rent in excess of program rent limits is considered a violation' (conditional). Whether LHC cites pet rent charged within the rent limit as a finding in practice needs SME confirmation.
LHC's HOTMA guidance predates the January 2026 manual, and the manual's Chapter 5/Appendix A income material was not fully reconciled against it this pass; where they conflict (e.g., asset verification detail), which document LHC treats as controlling is unverified.
The guidance states the $50,000 threshold without addressing HUD's annual inflation adjustment of the HOTMA asset limit; whether LHC applies the adjusted figure or a flat $50,000 is unverified.
Whether the Eviction Prevention Plan / low-barrier screening mandate applies to properties awarded under pre-2025 QAPs is not stated; the 2025 QAP frames it as a mandate on applicants. Treat as binding for 2025-QAP awards and check the property's regulatory agreement for earlier awards.
The QAP states budgets due 'at least thirty (30) days in advance of the fiscal year' in item 4 and 'not later than 45 days prior to the end of the prior fiscal year' in item 2 of the same financial-oversight list; both figures are reproduced and the discrepancy is not resolved here. Unverified which controls.
Whether the annual audit requirement extends to LIHTC-only projects with no LHC soft funds or federal funds is ambiguous in the QAP text (item 4 addresses 'Taxpayer/Owners' generally; the surrounding financial-oversight framing is scoped to LHC-soft-fund/federal-fund projects). Unverified.
The manual says LHC officers 'may not be authorized' -- conditional, not a flat statement that they are unauthorized. Whether the requirement is absolute or turns on the individual reviewer's HUD authorization is not resolved, and the manual gives no way to find out which applies to a scheduled review.
For a property layering LIHTC with project-based Section 8, the EIV report is a required element of the HUD certification file. The manual's answer is separate files, and it does not address how a single physical tenant file is meant to satisfy both regimes, nor what happens if an LHC reviewer encounters EIV material that was not removed.
The consequence of a white-out document is that LHC 'will not accept' it, which leaves the file without an accepted verification. Whether that is treated as a missing verification reportable on Form 8823, or as a curable file defect, is not stated.
The manual says a new tenant's TIC 'should be signed at the time the tenant signs the lease' and separately that verification and completion 'should be performed prior to occupancy'. Both are permissive in form while the sentence making the TIC a precondition of qualification is mandatory. Which controls where a lease is signed before occupancy and the TIC falls between them is not addressed.
The six documentation items are stated as things that 'may be required', so an owner cannot tell from the manual which are conditions of avoiding an 8823 and which are discretionary asks. One of them -- evidence of no PATTERN of accepting fraudulent tenants -- is about the owner's whole portfolio history rather than the event.
Nothing states how much notice of an intended review LHC gives, which is what determines how real the self-correction window is in practice.
The 120 days does double duty in the same paragraph -- a ceiling on how early the process may start, and the age at which a certification goes stale. The manual does not say whether an owner who starts early and finishes inside the window has a defective certification, which is the situation the two sentences together create.
Whether a particular facility was included in eligible basis is answered by the project's cost certification and Form 8609, which the corpus does not hold per property. The rule states the standard; the answer for a given garage or pool is in the property's own basis records.
A service pledged to win points in a competitive allocation now binds for the full extended use period, which in Louisiana commonly runs 30 years or more. The manual does not address what happens where the service becomes impossible -- a provider closes, a funding stream ends -- beyond requiring LHC's written consent to any change.
Which services a given property pledged is in its application and special conditions, which the corpus does not hold per property.
This is advisory throughout -- 'advises', 'should' -- and is encoded with obligation 'should' for that reason. It is included because the absence of a tax credit occupancy standard is itself the operative fact: an owner who assumes a federal person-per-bedroom rule exists and rejects an applicant on it has a fair housing exposure the credit program does not shield.
The manual names a long list of bodies whose occupancy standards may apply and does not say which controls where two conflict.
The manual states the set-aside matching requirement without saying what happens where an average income project's unit designations and the limits applied diverge -- the case where matching the limit to the set-aside is hardest and most consequential.
The section is applied by R.S. 51:2604 and carries exemptions at 51:2604(B) and 51:2605 that this pass did not read.
Louisiana's list does not include source of income or disability in the quoted subsections; disability is addressed elsewhere in the chapter, which this pass did not read.
A house rule on appearance or grooming can engage the hairstyle class without any reference to race. The statute does not say how such a rule is tested.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

vi U.S. Virgin Islands · 29

No day within June is stated - the deadline is published only as 'by June of each calendar year'. Encoded at exactly that resolution.
'Per unit' is not qualified as per LIHTC unit versus per residential unit; encoded as written, without narrowing.
No late fee, interest, or nonpayment consequence is published anywhere in the QAP.
Whether the fee continues during the extended use term is not stated; the QAP describes the 30-year EUA term as a 'compliance period' (Part XVI.A) without distinguishing a post-year-15 fee regime.
The 2023 QAP's published PDF is the 'Final Draft' with blank ratification dates (see the source note); the rule's effective date is set at the plan year start, 2023-01-01, because no adoption date is recorded in the published document.
The QAP calls the entire 30 years a 'compliance period' rather than using the federal 15-year compliance / 15-year extended-use structure; whether VI EUAs internally distinguish the two periods (with the different monitoring and eligibility consequences that follow) is set by each recorded EUA, which is not published. Quoted as written and not reinterpreted.
The lien-precedence requirement's interaction with lender-required subordinations (HUD, RD) is not addressed in the QAP.
No qualified-contract policy is stated anywhere in the 2023 QAP - neither a waiver requirement nor a process - so nothing is encoded on that subject for VI.
The QAP does not state the ROFR price or terms - in particular whether the IRC 42(i)(7) minimum purchase price formula applies - nor the instrument's duration or whether it is recorded. All of that is set by the unpublished instrument itself.
Which entities qualify as the ROFR holder where no non-profit participates in the deal (i.e., whether VIHFA itself is the default holder) is not stated.
The requirement is published only as a disqualification ground in QAP Part X, not as a standalone covenant - the framing here (prior written approval is required) is the necessary premise of the disqualification text, but the approval procedure, any form, any fee, and the processing time are all unpublished. Whether the recorded EUA contains a matching approval covenant could not be verified because VI EUAs are not published.
The provision reaches general partners and managing members; whether limited-partner or investor-member transfers require approval or notice is not addressed anywhere in the QAP.
The 2023 QAP still names UPCS although HUD replaced UPCS with NSPIRE for its own programs in 2023 and IRS monitoring practice has followed; no VIHFA NSPIRE adoption notice could be located on 2026-08-25. UPCS is encoded because it is what the current QAP says.
The VIHFA Design and Construction Standards (HFA:111) document itself could not be located on vihfa.gov - the standard is cited here by name only, and its content is uncited.
No inspection cycle, notice period, sample size or correction period is published: the QAP's compliance section defers procedure to the Territory's LIHTC Compliance Manual, which is not published. The federal 1.42-5 defaults are the only citable procedure for VI monitoring mechanics, so no VI-specific rule is authored for them.
The annual-review statement appears on the program web page only; the QAP sets no review cycle and the Territory's LIHTC Compliance Manual it references is not published. The page is of uneven vintage (it still quotes the 2015 credit ceiling), so the annual cadence may be aspirational or stale - it is encoded at confidence low, and whether reviews actually run annually or on the federal three-year cycle should be confirmed with VIHFA's Federal Programs Division before it is relied on.
The identity and tenure of the designated compliance monitoring contractor are unpublished; the last public procurement found is RFP 005-2016-STT/STX (2016).
Whether the annual review continues past year 15 into the EUA term is not stated anywhere.
DEPTH PASS 2026-08-29 CONFIRMS THERE IS NO VIHFA LIHTC COMPLIANCE MANUAL IN PUBLIC. The 2023 QAP defers its monitoring procedure to 'the Territory's LIHTC Compliance Manual'; a web search on 2026-08-29 surfaced only the 2016 monitoring-contractor RFP (005-2016-STT/STX), the 2015 QAP and the 2023 QAP. vihfa.gov's HTML pages sit behind a Cloudflare interstitial for automated fetch (4 KB noindex shell) but its wp-content PDFs and the cdbgdr.vihfa.gov subdomain serve normally, so this is an absence rather than a bot wall. Everything a manual would supply for the LIHTC layer - inspection cycle, notice period, sample size, correction period, Form 8823 practice, tenant file review scope, utility allowance method - remains unpublished and none of it has been borrowed.
A SUBSTANTIAL VIHFA COMPLIANCE REGIME LIVES ON A DIFFERENT HOST AND WAS MISSED BY THE FIRST PASS. cdbgdr.vihfa.gov carries the CDBG-DR Public and Affordable Housing Development Program Policies and Procedures (v3.0, November 15 2021), which imposes a 15/20-year affordability period, a 51 percent LMH occupancy floor, annual tenant income verification, a maximum-rent formula with an elderly imputation cap, annual owner HQS inspections of every unit, and Section 504 unit percentages. Six rules are now authored on the cdbg program from it. Other VIHFA CDBG-DR policy manuals on the same host (HRRP Policy and Procedures, Finance Policies and Procedures, the General Administration Manual which the housing policy cross-references for URA) were NOT reviewed and may carry further rental obligations.
THE LIHTC AND CDBG-DR LAYERS CONFLICT AND NEITHER DOCUMENT ACKNOWLEDGES THE OTHER. VIHFA relieves a 100 percent LIHTC project of annual income certification; its own CDBG-DR division requires tenant income verified at initial lease and annually for every LMH unit for 15 or 20 years. Likewise the QAP names UPCS while the CDBG-DR policy requires owner-performed annual HQS inspections of all units. At a layered Virgin Islands property the stricter obligation governs, and the corpus records the interaction expressly.
THE 100%-PROJECT RECERTIFICATION SENTENCE IS PLACED INSIDE THE INCOME AVERAGING SECTION AND ITS PARENTHESIS IS NEVER CLOSED. Read by position it would relieve only averaging projects; read by its own terms it states the general post-HERA rule, which is how it is encoded. VIHFA has not been asked. No cadence, form or deadline is published for the household composition, student status and rent updates it substitutes.
VIHFA PUBLISHES NO RECORD RETENTION PERIOD. Section XVI.D lists what must be kept and for which compliance years and never says for how long; the federal six-year rule applies of its own force rather than by territorial adoption.
THE VIHFA-FmHA RURAL DEVELOPMENT MONITORING MOU IS NOT PUBLISHED and its date, term and content are unknown. 'FmHA' has not existed under that name since 1994, so the QAP's naming suggests an instrument carried forward across editions; whether it is current was not established. Note the contrast: Guam and the CNMI both state in their own QAPs that NO RHS memorandum has been executed.
THE QAP DOES HAVE A QUALIFIED CONTRACT POLICY, contrary to the first pass's open question - ten scoring points for waiving the right and a discretionary disqualification for having requested one, with no time or geographic limit on its face. What it still has no trace of is a qualified contract PROCESS: no application, price methodology, fee or timeline is published anywhere.
Section XVII.B lets VIHFA staff recommend for the Chief Financial Officer's approval amendments to recorded project regulatory documents on income targeting and service delivery - including scored commitments - on a market-conditions rationale, with only quarterly reporting to the Board. No standard, notice requirement or tenant protection is published for that power.
The CDBG-DR policy does not state which income definition or verification method applies to its annual certification (24 CFR 5.609, the Section 8 method used for LIHTC, or the CDBG LMI method), nor which income limit series its maximum-rent formula runs against. Both are genuinely unresolved.
The CDBG-DR policy is Version 3.0 dated November 15 2021 on its own face; the 2024/12 URL path and the December 2024 PDF modification date are posting facts and were NOT used to date it. The document itself directs readers to vihfa.gov/disaster-recovery for the latest version and that page is behind the Cloudflare interstitial, so a Version 4.0 could exist undetected by hashing this URL.
NO TERRITORIAL FAIR HOUSING ACT LOCATED. The federal Fair Housing Act reaches this jurisdiction directly: 42 U.S.C. 3602(d) defines 'State' to include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and any of the territories and possessions of the United States, so every federal fair housing rule in this corpus applies here. See xp.fair_housing.the_act_reaches_puerto_rico_and_every_territory_and_possession. No separate territorial statute was located in this pass; one adding protected classes would sit on top of the federal floor and is not recorded here.

ca.pasadena City of Pasadena · 29

Applicability keys on unit.programs containing 'local_inclusionary' plus EITHER property.jurisdiction_id == 'ca.pasadena' OR property.state_agency_id == 'ca.pasadena.housing'. If neither fact is supplied the rule reports applicability_unknown, not not_applicable, and never a violation.
THE PROJECT'S OWN RECORDED INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AGREEMENT GOVERNS AND NONE WAS READ. Part II.B.1 of the Regulations says 'The City's standard form of the Inclusionary Housing Agreement may be obtained from the Housing and Career Services Department', and Part II.B.2 says 'The form of the Inclusionary Housing Agreement will vary, depending on the manner in which the provisions of Chapter 17.42 are satisfied for a particular Residential Project.' The City publishes no template and no executed agreement was obtained this pass, so the unit-level obligations that actually run with the land are not in this corpus.
THE REGULATIONS NAME A DEPARTMENT THAT NO LONGER EXISTS UNDER THAT NAME. Part II.B.1 refers to 'the Housing and Career Services Department'; the City's live pages read 'Department of Housing'. Nothing read this pass records the reorganisation, so it is not established when or how the functions moved.
NO PROJECT LIST WAS OBTAINED. Nothing published states which Pasadena properties carry inclusionary units, so this corpus cannot say for any address whether unit.programs should contain 'local_inclusionary'.
Applicability keys on unit.programs containing 'local_inclusionary' plus EITHER property.jurisdiction_id == 'ca.pasadena' OR property.state_agency_id == 'ca.pasadena.housing'. If neither fact is supplied the rule reports applicability_unknown, not not_applicable, and never a violation.
THE CITY PUBLISHES TWO CONFLICTING VALUES FOR THE SAME CELL AND THIS CORPUS DOES NOT RESOLVE THE CONFLICT. Household size 3, Very Low Income, 2026: the PDF says $74,950 and the web table says $94,950, a $20,000 difference on the figure that decides eligibility for a three-person household. Both are City of Pasadena publications, both were fetched on 2026-09-02, and neither states a precedence. $74,950 is the internally consistent figure and $94,950 would place the Very Low Income limit within $25,000 of the Low Income limit while every other row keeps a wide gap, but this record does not declare a winner because the City has not. Ask the Department of Housing which table is operative before relying on either.
THE TWO PUBLICATIONS ALSO CARRY DIFFERENT EFFECTIVE DATES INSIDE THE SAME PDF. The income limits are headed 'effective June 30, 2026' and the rent limits on the very next table of the same document are headed '(effective June 3, 2026)'. Nothing explains the twenty-seven-day gap and it is not established whether one is a typographical error.
THE REGULATIONS' EXHIBIT 'A' WAS NOT OBTAINED AND MAY NOT BE THE SAME DOCUMENT AS THE PUBLISHED LIMIT SHEET. Part VI.A.2.a makes 'Exhibit "A", attached hereto' the operative schedule and requires the City Manager to update it 'biannually'; the PDF fetched from the City's site is titled 'City of Pasadena Inclusionary Rental Housing' and adjusts ANNUALLY. No exhibit is attached to the copy of the Regulations served by the City, so whether the published sheet IS Exhibit A is an inference this record does not make.
'BIANNUALLY' IS AMBIGUOUS ON ITS FACE and the Regulations do not define it. It may mean twice a year or once every two years, and the published sheet's own text says the limits adjust annually, which matches neither reading.
THE REGULATIONS SAY INCLUSIONARY UNITS ARE 'RESERVED FOR EITHER LOW OR MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS' WHILE THE LIMIT SHEET PUBLISHES A VERY LOW INCOME COLUMN AND THE REGULATIONS ELSEWHERE CONTEMPLATE VERY LOW INCOME UNITS THROUGHOUT. Part III.D.1 gives a credit where 'Very Low Income Units are provided in lieu of the required Low Income Units'. The categories a Pasadena project may be required to produce are set by PMC 17.42.040, which is cited below in the set-aside rule.
NO INCOME-CALCULATION METHOD IS PUBLISHED. Nothing read this pass says whether Pasadena uses the HUD Part 5 annual income definition, the IRS/LIHTC method, or California's own, how assets are treated, or how anticipated income is projected. The Regulations describe only the documents to be viewed, not the arithmetic performed on them.
Applicability keys on unit.programs containing 'local_inclusionary' plus EITHER property.jurisdiction_id == 'ca.pasadena' OR property.state_agency_id == 'ca.pasadena.housing'. If neither fact is supplied the rule reports applicability_unknown, not not_applicable, and never a violation.
THE STUDIO LOW INCOME RENT IS PUBLISHED TWO WAYS AND ONE OF THEM IS NOT A NUMBER. The PDF says $1,513; the web page says '$1,492 513'. The most likely reading is that the web figure is a corrupted edit in which a superseded $1,492 and a current $1,513 were left side by side, but that is an inference and nothing published says so. Every other cell in the two rent tables is identical. An owner charging $1,513 for a Low Income studio is within the PDF and cannot be measured against the web string at all.
'HOUSEHOLD SIZE APPROPRIATE TO THE UNIT' IS NOT DEFINED ANYWHERE READ THIS PASS. The standard convention in California affordable housing is one person plus one per bedroom, or 1.5 persons per bedroom, and the two conventions give different rents. Nothing in the Regulations or on the limit sheet states which Pasadena uses, so no rent figure in this corpus can be re-derived independently from AMI.
THE INCOME LIMITS AND THE RENT LIMITS ON THE SAME PAGE OF THE SAME PDF CARRY DIFFERENT EFFECTIVE DATES -- income 'effective June 30, 2026', rents '(effective June 3, 2026)'. Which controls for a lease signed between those dates is unresolved.
NO FOR-SALE PRICE SCHEDULE WAS OBTAINED. The published sheet is titled 'INCLUSIONARY RENTAL HOUSING' and carries rents only, while Part VI.A.2.a of the Regulations makes Exhibit A the source of 'maximum allowable rents and sales prices'. NO PASADENA AFFORDABLE SALES PRICE APPEARS ANYWHERE IN THIS CORPUS.
WHETHER THE PUBLISHED LIMIT APPLIES TO A UNIT WHOSE RECORDED AGREEMENT SETS ITS OWN RENT STANDARD IS NOT ESTABLISHED. Part II.B.2.d says the agreement contains 'Provisions for resale or rental restrictions', so a project-specific standard may displace the schedule and no executed agreement was read.
The regulations name income tax statements and a W-2 for the previous calendar year as 'acceptable documentation'. That is a look-back at last year's income, where most affordable housing programmes project income forward for the coming twelve months. Pasadena does not say whether a forward projection is acceptable, nor how a household with no prior-year W-2 -- a new job, self-employment, a first-time worker -- is certified.
No deadline is given for the annual certification. 'Annually thereafter' is not tied to the move-in anniversary, the calendar year or the City's own cycle.
The City-official bar reaches those with 'policy-making authority or influence over the implementation of the inclusionary housing program', which is a judgement about a person's role that the regulations do not reduce to a list of positions. An owner screening applicants has no published roster to check against.
The regulations state the bar and prescribe no screening step, no declaration and no documentation. How an owner is meant to discover that an applicant is the niece of a commission member is not addressed.
The publication obligation is written for newspapers and the regulations name four by title. They do not address online listing, and one named example may no longer circulate as it did when the regulations were adopted. An owner cannot tell whether a digital-only equivalent satisfies the requirement.
The notice contents are given with 'should' while the publication itself is 'shall', so a notice missing the application window or the telephone number is of uncertain effect.
The second route is the City's Housing Choice Voucher waiting list, which is a list of voucher holders rather than of households income-qualified for this programme. The regulations do not say how the two eligibility standards are reconciled, nor what happens where a referred voucher holder's income does not meet the inclusionary limit.
Nothing states whether an owner may switch between the two routes, or must elect one for the life of the restriction.
The cure period is 30 days 'unless a different period is provided at the City Manager's discretion', with no floor, ceiling or criteria. The published period is therefore a default that any individual notice can displace in either direction.
The regulations do not state what follows an uncured violation -- no penalty, no enforcement step, no consequence for the restriction itself is given in this section.
'Biannually' is ambiguous in ordinary use between twice a year and once every two years, and the regulations do not resolve it. The difference determines how long a superseded Exhibit A may be relied on.
Exhibit A is an attachment to the regulations rather than a separately published schedule, so an owner needs the current version of the attachment. The corpus does not hold Exhibit A's values, so no rent or income ceiling is encoded for Pasadena from this rule.

wv West Virginia · 26

The 2017 manual states February 15 as the annual deadline; the December 22, 2025 annual compliance letter states February 13, 2026. Whether the letter's date reflects a business-day adjustment or a policy change to mid-February float is not stated. The annual letter governs each cycle.
Whether the audited-financial-statement requirement applies to LIHTC properties with no WVHDF financing (the letter is addressed to all WV LIHTC owners and states no exception), and what an owner without an audit obligation may submit instead. WVHDF is lender and allocating agency at once; the letter does not say which role imposes this item. Not guessed.
No late-fee dollar amount for a late annual package is published in the manual, the Allocation Plan, or the annual letters.
The WVHDF annual compliance letter (Dec 22, 2025) states the end-of-year tenant data upload is due February 13, 2026, while Spectrum's owner letter of the same date states EOY collection starts March 1, 2026 with a final submission date of April 30, 2026. Which date governs the Unit History Report -- or whether the February date covers only the Teams package -- should be confirmed with WVHDF/Spectrum. Both published dates are recorded; neither is discarded.
Notice-period conflict: the 2025-2026 Allocation Plan (p. 88) states 'reasonable notice (14 calendar days)'; the 2017 compliance manual (p. 18) states 'reasonable notice; at least thirty days (30)'. The Allocation Plan figure is encoded as governing; confirm with WVHDF whether 14 days is current field practice.
Whether WVHDF currently retains Spectrum (its data-collection Authorized Delegate) or uses Fund staff/third-party inspectors for the on-site file review and physical inspection function is not stated in the current documents; the manual says either Fund staff or a third-party inspector contractor may inspect.
Correction-period conflict: the 2025-2026 Allocation Plan (p. 91) provides a 30-calendar-day correction period from mailing of the notice; the 2017 compliance manual (p. 19) says the Fund 'will allow the project owner ninety (90) days to provide clarification or document that issues of non-compliance have been addressed.' The Allocation Plan is encoded as governing; confirm with WVHDF whether 30 or 90 days is applied in practice.
Extension ambiguity: Allocation Plan says 'an extension of up to six months'; the manual says 'additional time... up to a total of six (6) months.' Whether six months is the extension length or the maximum total correction period is not resolved by the texts.
The 2025-2026 Allocation Plan (p. 90) still specifies UPCS (24 CFR 5.703); no WVHDF NSPIRE adoption notice was located on wvhdf.com or the Spectrum WV page. Whether WVHDF intends to adopt NSPIRE for LIHTC inspections, and on what timetable, is unknown. Not guessed.
The Allocation Plan reserves the HUD Physical Inspection Pilot Program / Rev. Proc. 2016-15 provisions, including decoupling of units selected for physical inspection from those selected for file review (p. 92); whether WVHDF currently applies decoupled samples or the manual's same-20% approach is not stated.
Fee-base conflict: Allocation Plan p. 92 charges $35 'per residential rental unit'; the 2017 manual p. 20 charges $35 'per low income unit.' The Allocation Plan is encoded as governing for 2025-2026 collections; confirm the invoiced base for mixed-income properties with WVHDF.
No fee due date is published (the Fund invoices annually); whether the fee accompanies the February package or follows the invoice date is not stated.
No WVHDF-published HOTMA implementation guidance was located on wvhdf.com or the Spectrum WV page beyond a HOTMA-revised TIC form (rev 9-2024) and an Asset Self-Certification with Worksheet (8-2025). Whether WVHDF has adopted the HOTMA asset self-certification threshold, a revised verification hierarchy, or safe-harbor income determinations for LIHTC, and any effective date, is unknown. Not guessed.
The manual's 120-day verification validity may interact with HOTMA-era practice; whether the 2017 figure still governs after the HOTMA TIC rollout should be confirmed with WVHDF.
Whether the Fund's revocation of a waiver (procedures: 'until revoked by the Fund or other appropriate authority') has published triggers or process is not stated.
The procedures predate HOTMA; how the 2019 self-certification regime interacts with HOTMA's own recertification allowances for 100% projects has no published WVHDF reconciliation.
The Allocation Plan (p. 93) anticipates formal rent increase request procedures and annual utility allowance approvals 'outlined in the... Tax Credit Compliance Manual.' No such procedures appear in the current (2017 Edition) manual. Whether a revised manual with an agency rent-increase approval gate has been adopted should be re-checked each cycle.
Whether WVHDF permits the post-2008 Treas. Reg. 1.42-10 utility allowance options (HUD Utility Schedule Model, energy consumption model, owner-engaged qualified professional) -- the 2017 manual's UA section reprints older guidance that omits them, and no standalone WVHDF UA policy exists. Not guessed.
The Allocation Plan (p. 93) anticipates 'annual utility allowance approvals' procedures in a future compliance manual revision; no agency pre-approval gate is published today.
The Post Year 15 letter (2016) and the manual's extended-use recertification paragraph are the operative statements; no consolidated WVHDF extended-use monitoring policy of later date was located. Whether the 2016 letter's terms have been modified since (beyond the self-certification form's January 2026 revision) is unknown.
The Tax Credit Manual notes the $3,500 fee 'may be adjusted for properties of five units or less' without publishing the adjusted amount.
Whether WVHDF requires notice or consent for ownership/management transfers OUTSIDE the annual certification cycle (e.g., a mid-year transfer notification duty) is not stated in the compliance manual, the Allocation Plan, or the current letters. The Regulatory and Restrictive Covenants for Land Use Agreement (WVHDF LIHTCP-7/LIHTCP-8) may impose transfer conditions; the template was not located for review.
This corpus verified the repeal and did NOT establish what replaced it. W. Va. Code § 5-11-9 (Human Rights Act, unlawful discriminatory practices) is the likely operative provision and was not read in this pass; a West Virginia owner must read it before concluding the state imposes nothing.
The repealing act and its effective date were not established here, so conduct before the repeal is governed by text this corpus does not hold.
Because the substantive sections are repealed, this rule states no protected class for West Virginia. The federal Fair Housing Act and Section 504 rules in this corpus apply to West Virginia properties unchanged.
The article heading and neighbouring sections still appear in the code's table of contents, so a search that stops at the contents page will report a state fair housing act that has no operative prohibition.

mi Michigan · 24

Whether the MSHDA Compliance Period applies to a given project ('if applicable') is determined only by its Regulatory Agreement; the manual gives no default. A resolver must treat absence of the recorded agreement as unknown, not as federal-only.
The manual monitors against the 2013 HOME Final Rule. The 2025 Final Rule's expanded safe harbors (accepted by CO and OH) are not reflected in the July 2026 update's Part 311; whether MSHDA rejects them deliberately or has simply not rewritten the manual is unknown. The manual as served is what Michigan says, and is what is encoded.
The manual states the EH&S response deadline twice with different anchors: Part 723 says 'three (3) business days after the date of the inspection' and Part 726 says '3 business days after the Hazard Notice is issued'. The Hazard Notice is issued at the conclusion of the inspection, so the two normally coincide, but the manual does not require that they do. Both are quoted above; neither is chosen for the parameter's anchor.
Part 726 refers the reader to 'Part 743 (Hazard Notices)' for further EH&S information. No Part 743 exists in this manual -- Chapter 7 ends at Part 736 and the document ends at Part 902. The cross-reference appears to be inherited from the MSHDA LIHTC manual's numbering and could not be followed.
The manual elects UPCS (Part 717: 'When conducting physical inspections for HOME, the UPCS standards will be applied') and acknowledges HUD's replacement standard only in a parenthetical that misspells it -- '(Inspection definitions changed in 2025 to INSPIRE)'. The severity vocabulary this correction ladder is built on (EH&S, H&S, Level 1/2/3) is UPCS vocabulary. Whether MSHDA has remapped the ladder onto NSPIRE's life-threatening/severe/moderate/low categories without reissuing the July 2026 manual is unknown. Encoded as UPCS because that is what Michigan publishes; a resolver should treat the standard as in transition.
The manual elects UPCS (Part 717: 'When conducting physical inspections for HOME, the UPCS standards will be applied') and acknowledges HUD's replacement standard only in a parenthetical that misspells it -- '(Inspection definitions changed in 2025 to INSPIRE)'. The severity vocabulary this correction ladder is built on (EH&S, H&S, Level 1/2/3) is UPCS vocabulary. Whether MSHDA has remapped the ladder onto NSPIRE's life-threatening/severe/moderate/low categories without reissuing the July 2026 manual is unknown. Encoded as UPCS because that is what Michigan publishes; a resolver should treat the standard as in transition.
MSHDA 'M' items are the class carrying the six-month deadline, but the manual nowhere defines what makes a deficiency an 'M' item or lists them; the classification is made by the inspector on the Physical Inspection Report. A resolver cannot predict the applicable deadline from a deficiency description alone -- it must read the severity level off the report.
Part 719 and Part 728 both carry HUD's footnote 'HUD will issue guidance with a new effective date' for the physical inspection standards and follow-up inspection provisions. Whether that guidance has since issued, and whether it moves these deadlines, is not addressed by the July 2026 update.
The manual monitors against the 2013 HOME Final Rule and does not work through the 2025 HOME Final Rule. Whether MSHDA has declined its changes or has simply not rewritten this chapter is unknown. The manual as served is what is encoded.
Part 702 prefaces the whole section 'The forms and procedures discussed in this Section are subject to change. Please refer to the MSHDA website for up to date information', and Part 703 warns that the AOC form and its attachments 'may change from year to year'. The March 1 deadline and the 28 items are what the manual publishes; the current year's actual form lives on a MSHDA web page this corpus does not fetch or hash, so the package's present contents cannot be pinned from this source alone.
Certification item 9 attests suitability for occupancy under 'HUD's Uniform Physical Condition Standards (UPCS)'. That wording survived the July 2026 update; whether owners are now expected to certify against NSPIRE instead is unresolved and is the same open question the inspection rules carry.
The manual monitors against the 2013 HOME Final Rule and does not work through the 2025 HOME Final Rule. Whether MSHDA has declined its changes or has simply not rewritten this chapter is unknown. The manual as served is what is encoded.
The manual's only worked example of the submission deadline is a monthly filer (January data due February 15). Whether a quarterly filer's 'reporting period' is the calendar quarter or the project's own quarter, and therefore whether its deadline is April 15/July 15/October 15/January 15, is not stated.
Whether a project elects monthly or quarterly submission -- and whether MSHDA assigns it or the owner chooses -- is not stated in the manual. The frequency parameter is emitted valueless for that reason.
Part 701 requires social security numbers for every household member to be entered into COL. The manual states no MSHDA-side handling, retention or disclosure limit for that data; whether one exists outside this manual was not established.
Part 707 opens 'depending on the source of funding, projects are audited on an eighteen-month or three-year cycle' and then lists only three-year cycles for the HOME program types it enumerates. Which funding source draws the eighteen-month cycle is never stated in the manual. Encoded as 3 with the ambiguity recorded; a project with multiple funding sources should be resolved through the most-restrictive-program rule the same Part states.
Part 704 publishes no monitoring fee amount, rate or basis, so the fee parameter is emitted valueless. Whether MSHDA publishes the schedule elsewhere (a fee memo or the Regulatory Agreement) was not established from this source.
The manual gives the file-audit response deadline as 'in general' 30 days and says the File Audit Report itself 'will indicate the correction deadline'. The 30 days is therefore MSHDA's default rather than a covenant, and the report governs where the two differ.
The manual monitors against the 2013 HOME Final Rule and does not work through the 2025 HOME Final Rule. Whether MSHDA has declined its changes or has simply not rewritten this chapter is unknown. The manual as served is what is encoded.
The source-of-income provision at subsection (3) was read only in part in this pass; its exceptions, if any, were not established. Washington's parallel provision carries a three-condition inspection exception, and Michigan's should be read in full before relying on the flat prohibition.
Age is protected without a floor or ceiling, which sits awkwardly beside senior housing operated under the federal 55-and-older exemption.
Sexual orientation and gender identity were read into the Act by the Michigan Supreme Court before being written into the text. Conduct before that point is governed by the case law, which this corpus does not hold.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

ok Oklahoma · 24

OHFA has published no HOTMA implementation guidance for the LIHTC program that could be located on ohfa.org this pass. The September 2024 manual's Chapter 5 income text is still the pre-HOTMA 24 CFR 5.609 inclusion/exclusion list and even retains a 2012-vintage editor's note about a then-proposed HERA rule. Whether OHFA expects HOTMA-compliant income determinations on certifications submitted with the February 15 package -- and from what date -- is not stated anywhere located. Not guessed; confirm with the OHFA Tax Credit Compliance Department.
The manual and the QAP both describe the Certification Portal (CP, formerly 'Certification On-Line'/COL) but the only user documentation located is a March 2022 DRAFT Certification Portal Guide. Whether a current guide fixes a different data-format or submission-order requirement was not verified.
The QAP says an OHFA-sponsored compliance training is 'acceptable for two (2) years from the date that it was completed' and the Chapter 36 Rules require training 'conducted by OHFA or approved by OHFA', but no list of approved third-party trainings (e.g. NCHM, Spectrum, Quadel certifications) was located. Whether an industry certification satisfies the requirement, and whether the two-year clock also governs the Chapter 36 first-quarterly-report proof, is not stated.
The fee amounts are 'subject to annual adjustment' by the rule's own terms and the QAP says the fee charged is 'the fees in effect for the year the compliance fee is invoiced', but the operative OAC text located (amended at 37 Ok Reg 1717, eff 2021-01-01) still carries the $315/$350/$450/$525 schedule. No later amendment or published adjusted schedule was located on ohfa.org this pass. Confirm the current-year invoiced amounts before relying on the dollar parameters.
The QAP describes the negative-points mechanism but does not state the point magnitude for any category; the only magnitude located is the '-5 Points' heading on the published Compliance Negative Points roster dated 2025-12-22, and it is unclear whether -5 is a fixed statewide value or an item-specific one that happened to apply to every row on that printing. Not guessed.
No published standard was located for what OHFA accepts as 'good cause' for the 30-day correction-period extension, nor whether a second extension is ever granted. 330:36-6-7(e)(1) leaves it to OHFA's own discretion without criteria.
The manual adopts NSPIRE effective 2024-10-01 and lists OHFA's own recurring findings, but no OHFA-specific NSPIRE deficiency-to-severity mapping, re-inspection protocol, or re-inspection fee was located. Whether a failed or inaccessible unit triggers a billed re-inspection (as in CT and KY) is not addressed in any Oklahoma document read this pass.
The REAC minimum unit sample chart is reproduced as an image/table inside the manual (Chapter 2, p. 2-1) and the QAP; its row values were not extracted this pass, so the encoded sample basis records the rule ('lesser of 20% or the chart') without the chart's numbers.
OHFA's utility chart page (https://www.ohfa.org/utility/) lists schedules by county and heating-degree-day zone effective October 1 of each year but does not state on its face that these are the LIHTC-applicable PHA allowances, and the page's document links did not resolve to fetchable URLs this pass. The relationship between the published October 1 charts, the manual's Appendix B, and the 90-day adoption clock (which runs from the PHA effective date) should be confirmed with OHFA before relying on an October 1 to December 30 implementation window.
No OHFA policy was located on whether an energy consumption model or utility company estimate requires OHFA approval of the preparer before use (contrast CT, where the agency must approve the professional). Chapter 4 requires only that the preparer be a professional engineer or other qualified person with no identity of interest.
The manual does not define what constitutes a reportable 'pattern' of late retroactive recertifications -- how many, over what period, at what share of the file sample. Not guessed.
Because OHFA has published no HOTMA guidance located this pass, it is unknown how HOTMA's asset self-certification threshold and the 5.618 interim-recertification rules interact with the Appendix G Household Information Form for waived 100% properties.
The manual says ownership changes 'require approval of the Board of Trustees' but gives no board calendar, submission cut-off relative to a board meeting, or decision timeline, so the practical lead time may exceed 60 days. No published transfer policy or checklist for ownership changes (as distinct from the Appendix O management change checklist) was located.
Which OREC exemptions under 59 O.S. Section 858-301 Oklahoma LIHTC operators actually rely on (for example the exemption for a salaried employee of a property owner) was not determined; the statute itself was not fetched this pass. A management company operating through W-2 site staff may or may not need a brokerage licence, and OHFA's QAP simply cross-references the statute.
Whether the licensure requirement binds only the management company of record, or also a co-management company or compliance consultant engaged to satisfy the three-year experience floor, is not addressed in the QAP or the manual.
The 2026 QAP makes the Qualified Contract waiver mandatory while Okla. Admin. Code 330:36-8-5(a) still describes QC eligibility for allocations 'between 1990-2018' and an earlier printing said '1990-2018 or subsequent years'. Whether the rule text has been conformed to the QAP, and precisely which award years retain a live QC right, was not resolved and must not be inferred from either document alone.
The QAP awards 10 points for an additional 10-year affordability term but neither the QAP nor the manual states how that additional term is memorialised and enforced -- whether the Regulatory Agreement runs 40 years on its face or a separate instrument is recorded. Property-overlay material, flagged so it is not assumed.
The manual states the 90-day hold and the monthly outreach duty but does not say whether the 90 days run from the date the unit becomes vacant or from the date the required outreach begins, nor what happens if outreach lapses mid-period -- whether the clock restarts or merely fails the due-diligence test. Not guessed.
'Monthly advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation' is stated in print-era terms with no stated digital equivalent. Whether OHFA accepts online listing or social media outreach in place of, or only in addition to, a newspaper advertisement is not addressed in any document read this pass.
Oklahoma's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in Oklahoma on this section's text.
Age is protected without a floor or ceiling, which sits awkwardly beside senior housing operated under the federal 55-and-older exemption.
Oklahoma says 'gender' where federal law says 'sex'. Whether the state term is read to reach the same ground is not addressed in this section.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

as American Samoa · 20

NO DUE DATE IS PUBLISHED. Neither the certificate, the DBAS project-owners page, nor Spectrum's American Samoa page states when the annual certification is due, and no annual-report notice was located. The due-date parameter is encoded with no value - deliberately not borrowed from Guam's or the CNMI's February 1.
PROGRAM-MODELING CAVEAT: this is a Section 1602 (ARRA credit-exchange) obligation, monitored under Section 42 rules per Section 1602(c)(3) of ARRA Division B, and the corpus has no dedicated 1602 program id, so the rule is carried on the lihtc program with the 1602 basis stated. Whether American Samoa has any post-2011 conventional Section 42 allocations outstanding was not established; the only located QAP is a 2008 draft mirrored at novoco.com (403 to automated fetch) and DBAS's own site publishes no QAP.
The effective date is the posting-path date of the current forms library (dbas.as /images/2023/04/); the certification regime itself dates from the 1602 subawards (circa 2010-2011) and earlier operative dates were not established.
The certificate's item I certifies only the 40-60 test; whether any portfolio project elected 20-50 (or whether the form simply assumes the portfolio's uniform election) is not stated.
Whether DBAS/Spectrum would honor the post-HERA annual-recertification waiver for 100% low-income buildings is NOT published; the certificate's item III makes the owner certify annual income certifications from each low-income tenant without exception, and Spectrum maintains an active Re-certification Update form for the portfolio. Encoded as the certificate states it; the waiver question should be put to DBAS/Spectrum before any owner relies on relief. (Note the 1602 statute's own compliance incorporation is of Section 42 as in effect at enactment - February 2009, pre-dating none of HERA - so the waiver's availability is genuinely a program-administration question, not settled text.)
Same program-modeling caveat as the annual-certification rule: a 1602 obligation carried on the lihtc program id.
No recertification timing procedure (notice window, past-due line) is published for this portfolio - nothing like Guam's 60-90-day window exists in the located materials.
THE SCHEDULE IS THIRTEEN YEARS OLD AND IS STILL WHAT DBAS SERVES AS CURRENT. No later utility allowance was located on dbas.as or spectrumlihtc.com on 2026-08-25. Treas. Reg. 1.42-10 contemplates annual review of utility allowances; whether DBAS has adopted updates it does not publish, or the 2013 schedule is genuinely operative, must be confirmed with DBAS/Spectrum before use in a current-year rent calculation. Encoded as published, with this staleness as the controlling caveat.
The portfolio's published income and rent limit tables similarly stop at 2015 (DBAS links 2011-2015 only) - the same staleness pattern on the rent side of the gross-rent equation.
The letter is a utility-company engineering estimate adopted by the agency; which 1.42-10 method category DBAS treats it as (local utility company estimate vs. agency estimate) is not stated.
Same program-modeling caveat as the other AS rules: a 1602 obligation carried on the lihtc program id.
CORRECTION, 2026-08-29: the first pass's controlling open question - 'NO DUE DATE IS PUBLISHED' for DBAS annual reporting - is true of the Owner's Certificate of Continuing Compliance and NOT true of the annual unit history report, whose Project Form prints 'Both sections of this form must be completed and sent to Spectrum (via DBAS) by no later than March 15th of the following calendar year.' The two are separate filings; only one has a deadline, and it is now encoded.
AN EXTENDED-USE STUDENT RULE EXISTS FOR THIS PORTFOLIO AND ITS CONTENT IS UNKNOWN. The annual unit history report's student explanation code list runs 1 TANF, 2 job training, 3 single parent, 4 married/joint return, 5 formerly in foster care, and 6 EXTENDED-USE PERIOD. Code 6 is only meaningful if a modified extended-use student rule applies, of the kind Guam and the CNMI publish. No such policy appears anywhere on dbas.as or spectrumlihtc.com. Its existence is inferred from the code; its content is deliberately not guessed. This is the sharpest identified gap in the American Samoa record and should be put to DBAS or Spectrum.
BOTH SIDES OF THE GROSS-RENT EQUATION ARE FROZEN IN THE MID-2010s. The published income and rent limit series runs 2011-2015 and stops at a schedule effective 3/6/2015; the published utility allowance is the ASPA letter of 1 October 2013. Neither has been updated in over a decade, and HUD has published Pacific Islands limits every year in that period. The figures are now encoded as parameters so that 'what does the agency publish' has an answer, but they must not be used in a current-year calculation without confirming with DBAS or Spectrum.
THE ASSET FORM IS PRE-HOTMA AND NO DBAS OR SPECTRUM DOCUMENT MENTIONS HOTMA. The published Under $5,000 Asset Certification carries the $5,000 self-certification threshold and a two-year below-market disposal lookback. Whether HOTMA reaches this Section 1602 portfolio at all, and if so on what date, is unknown. No over-threshold asset form and no passbook rate are published, so what a household with assets above the threshold files is not established either.
THE PUBLISHED STANDARD LEASE STATES NO MINIMUM TERM and directs immediate termination where the lessee 'is not qualified as a Tenant under Section 1602 requirements' - which, read literally, would terminate an over-income household, against the Rev. Rul. 2004-82 no-cause-eviction protection the portfolio's own Owner's Certificate makes the owner certify. The tension is recorded, not resolved. The lease is a 2013 template (its rent clause hard-codes the year) served unrevised.
The lease's utility allowance categories (water, electrical, sewer, gas) do not match the 2013 ASPA schedule's (electricity, water, groundwater protection, solid waste). Two published DBAS documents describing the same allowance do not line up and the agency has not reconciled them.
The Household Eligibility Questionnaire carries a HOME checkbox beside the LIHTC one. Either the American Samoa portfolio includes HOME-assisted units or this is Spectrum's multi-programme template; which was not established. Separately, DBAS publishes a HOME-ARP Allocation Plan (Home-ARP-Narrative-Publication-final-edits-9.5.24.pdf, fetched this pass), so DBAS is a HOME-ARP grantee. An allocation plan states funding priorities rather than ongoing rental compliance obligations, so nothing was authored from it - but the corpus holds NO HOME-family rules for American Samoa and that is a real gap.
No verification currency window, verification hierarchy, signature-timing rule, correction period, inspection standard, inspection cadence or Form 8823 practice is published anywhere for this portfolio. The eligibility forms are detailed; the monitoring procedure is entirely unpublished. The federal 1.42-5 defaults are the only citable procedure and none has been borrowed into a territorial rule.
NO TERRITORIAL FAIR HOUSING ACT LOCATED. The federal Fair Housing Act reaches this jurisdiction directly: 42 U.S.C. 3602(d) defines 'State' to include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and any of the territories and possessions of the United States, so every federal fair housing rule in this corpus applies here. See xp.fair_housing.the_act_reaches_puerto_rico_and_every_territory_and_possession. No separate territorial statute was located in this pass; one adding protected classes would sit on top of the federal floor and is not recorded here.

nm New Mexico · 18

Audited financials deadline unreconciled: MFA web page says March 31, Compliance Plan says 120 days of fiscal year end.
Relationship between the 45-day cure clock (Plan section 5.9) and the 30-day monitoring-report response window (section 7) is unclear.
Amount of the increased monitoring fee for average-income projects is asserted in both the Plan and QAP but published in neither.
Whether the 8823 issuance fee applies to corrected filings; whether the notarization requirement is enforced as a filing defect.
Status of the K-12 full-time-student counting policy under post-HOTMA guidance.
Extended-use inspections still specify UPCS while compliance-period inspections use NSPIRE; migration timing unclear.
Ownership/management-change approval regime (deemed-transfer rule, $500/$1,500 fees, discretionary $10,000 fine) not yet encoded — future pass.
MFA accepts 'a form acceptable to Housing New Mexico | MFA' as an alternative to its own TIC and publishes no criteria for acceptability and no approval process. An owner using a vendor form cannot tell in advance whether MFA will accept it.
The plan says MFA 'suggests' owner/agents use the enclosed procedures and acknowledges that procedures used before its issuance may differ. Which of the TIC requirements are mandatory and which are suggested is therefore not sharp on the face of the document.
The plan says the household 'continues to be income-qualified' on an addition -- so adding a member does not re-run the initial eligibility test -- while the combined income does count for the Available Unit Rule. What is not stated is the treatment where the addition pushes the household over 140% and the property is 100% tax credit, where the Available Unit Rule has nothing to bite on.
Whether a given pre-1990 project made the election to switch to unit-size rent limits is in its own records and is not derivable from anything the corpus holds. A project this rule reaches computes its maximum rent from a different column of the same limit table than every other project in the state.
The number of such projects still in their extended use period in New Mexico is not published, so the practical reach of this rule is unknown -- it is encoded because getting it wrong produces a rent overcharge on the properties it does reach.
Whether a facility sat in eligible basis is answered by the project's cost certification and Form 8609, which the corpus does not hold. A mandatory fee for a facility that WAS in basis is both prohibited outright and, if charged, part of restricted rent -- the plan does not say which characterisation governs on a review.
The disability proviso -- 'provided that the physical or mental disability is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property' -- has no counterpart in the federal statute, and New Mexico does not say who bears the burden of establishing the relationship or how it interacts with the federal duty to make reasonable accommodations.
'Spousal affiliation' is not defined in the quoted subsection.
New Mexico's list does not include source of income, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in New Mexico on this section's text.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.

az Arizona · 14

ADOH's compliance manual is behind a Cloudflare bot challenge as of 2026-09-01. Both a plain fetch and a JavaScript-executing browser session reach the interstitial and neither clears it. That is why Arizona is the thinnest state in this corpus at 7 rules -- not because the gaps are unknown. The unread sections are named in the questions above.
Full utility allowance method detail (Section 3.12: RHS/RD, HUD-regulated, and conventional LIHTC variants) not yet read for testable parameters
Income/asset documentation depth (pay stub count, currency window, zero-income re-verification interval) in Section 4 (HOTMA-heavy, pp. 51-90) not yet read
Average Income Test redesignation/filing procedure (Section 3.1.1) not yet read
Monitoring fee schedule itself is QAP-vintage-specific, not a fixed statewide number, so it was described in rule text but not encoded as a parameter
VAWA procedure detail and required forms (3.17.2-3.17.3) read in passing but not encoded as a rule
Student eligibility exemptions (3.13.2) and Good Cause Eviction / deregulation period detail (3.16) read but not yet encoded as rules
ADOH Qualified Allocation Plan, published income/rent limits, and utility allowance policy documents not yet located/fetched separately from the compliance manual
Whether Section 4.17's self-certification language means the recertification event itself is optional, or only the verification method is optional at a 100%-affordable property -- encoded as the latter (method choice) but flagged for SME confirmation before promotion past confidence:medium
The separate Arizona disability provisions were not read in this pass. This rule records only that they are elsewhere, not what they say.
Arizona's LIHTC compliance material is the one jurisdiction this corpus cannot fetch -- the agency host refuses every automated request and its documents yield no extractable text. This statute is fetched from the Legislature's own site and is unaffected by that block.
Arizona adds no protected class beyond the federal ones, so a voucher refusal is not a state fair housing violation in Arizona on this section's text.
The statute states the protected classes; it does not say what record an owner keeps to show a criterion was applied uniformly. Nothing here tells an operator what evidence answers a complaint.
Local ordinances in this state may protect classes the state statute does not. Where a city is stricter it governs, and this rule holds only the state text.