One round a year for 9%, a ten-month window for 4% — Idaho

Two tracks, three shared stages, one calendar only the 9% track uses

Section 2.1 lays out the fork: to apply for tax credits, a Sponsor must either “submit an application in the annual competitive application round … to receive a Reservation of the State's annual credit ceiling ('9%') LIHTC,” or “submit an application between January 1 and October 31 … to receive a Conditional Commitment of Tax-Exempt Bond-Financing ('4%') LIHTC.” Both tracks then move through the same three-stage structure defined in Section 4.2.

The 9% round happens once a year: “an application submission deadline typically on the first Friday of August in the current calendar year” for credits forward-allocated to the subsequent year (e.g., 2025 credits were applied for in the round with an August 2, 2024 deadline). Complete applications must be submitted electronically through the Association's online system by 5:00 PM Mountain Time, and “any changes to this date will require at least 90 days prior notice.” The 4% track has no such annual gate — Conditional Commitment applications run year-round from January 1 through October 31 — and 4% deals “will not be required to compete in the application rounds mentioned in Section 3.1,” though they are still evaluated under the same QAP threshold and Selection Criteria standards (§11.2). If more than one bond-financed development is proposed in the same market area at the same time, IHFA will award both only if market studies show sufficient demand for all of them, or will award to the higher-scoring development under the Selection Criteria Point System if not.

Seven thresholds before you're even scored — and one with its own internal clock

Section 4.9 requires every application to clear seven separate thresholds — Market Study, Readiness, Economic Feasibility, Green Building, Management Capacity, Selection Criteria Point, and Affordability — before it is ranked at all. Several carry their own procedural traps.

The Readiness Threshold requires evidence of site control and written confirmation from the municipal zoning authority “that the proposed use is within the parameters of existing conforming zoning designations.” The QAP does allow a pending land-use entitlement action (such as a conditional use permit) to be resolved after a Tax Credit Reservation is received, with the Reservation held contingent on that approval — but draws a hard line beyond that: “NOTE: Developments requiring zone changes or annexation do not meet readiness criteria,” full stop, regardless of how far along that process is.

The Management Capacity Threshold requires that the property management agent have “previous experience in §42 tax credit housing” and a satisfactory compliance history, but it is enforced procedurally, not just substantively: “Applicants must request pre-application approval of a Property Management Agent from the Association's Compliance Department for a proposed project prior to applying and submit the written valid pre-application approval with their application.” That approval is processed first-come, first-served, “at a minimum, within ten (10) business days,” but “shall only be valid for the time period identified by the Association in the pre-application approval (45–60 days).” Because the LIHTC deadline itself only comes once a year, that 45– to 60-day validity window has to be timed deliberately — request too early and the approval can lapse before the application is due; too late and there may not be enough runway to get it processed in time.

The Affordability Threshold compares tax-credit rents (less a tenant-paid-utility allowance) against market rents from the required market study; if a market study only gives a range, the comparison uses the low end of that range. An exception exists for acquisition/rehabilitation developments with an existing Project Based Assistance contract, which skip this threshold if the Sponsor documents that the existing subsidy will continue or be extended — but every other threshold in the QAP still applies to them in full.

Proving you can build it: development-team disclosure and the posting-of-assurance bond

Section 4.4 requires Sponsors to “clearly identify all members of the development team, providing resumés as specified in the application,” and states plainly that “the experience of the development team is a major factor in development selection” — IHFA may reject an application outright if the team lacks affordable multifamily development experience, or require the Sponsor to secure assistance from an experienced developer.

Section 4.12's Posting of Assurance requirement goes further for anyone without a completed LIHTC development of their own: “If the Developer of a proposed development has not previously completed a LIHTC development, or if the Developer's experience is limited to developments which have been completed with assistance from consultants or co-Developers,” that Developer must post “the greater of 10% of the annual tax credits reserved or $10,000” as a cash deposit, letter of credit, or performance bond at the time the Reservation is accepted, rising if additional credit is later awarded. The instrument can be cancelled only after all buildings receive Certificates of Occupancy and IHFA approves release in writing — and it is forfeited, with the credit returned, “if construction of the development is not completed (as evidenced by the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy) within the regulatory time frame set forth in tax credit regulation (i.e., no later than the end of the second calendar year following the year the Carryover Allocation is made).” This links an application-stage experience gap directly to the post-award placed-in-service clock covered in Phase 9.

Section 4.12.1 requires a separate “previous experience summary that clearly identifies all previous experience and affiliations with consultants and co-Developers” regardless of whether the bond is ultimately required, and Section 4.12.2 gives IHFA sole discretion to waive or modify the bond “in situations where the requirement does not further the goals of the LIHTC program.”

The fee ladder starts before you're scored, not after you win

Caps that stack: per-project, per-round, per-sponsor

Section 4.1 caps every individual 9% development at $1,200,000 in reserved credit for developments with 40 or fewer tax-credit units, $1,350,000 for 41–50 units, or $1,500,000 for more than 50 units — and separately caps any one Developer or Sponsor at “any percentage of interest in more than two (2) applications in an application round.” Section 13.1.1 layers a broader ceiling on top: the maximum annual competitive tax credit assigned to any one Sponsor or Developer, including related parties, is $3,000,000 across no more than 3 in-process developments, counting every competitive Reservation still outstanding until placed in service. A sponsor juggling several active deals can hit that $3,000,000/3-development ceiling before the 2-applications-per-round limit ever becomes the binding constraint; tax-exempt bond (4%) awards are excluded from this particular limitation.

After the deadline, IHFA issues preliminary award notification “to the extent possible … within 90 days of the application deadline.” A Sponsor may appeal within 10 business days of that notification by submitting a written appeal with the $1,500 fee (Section 7.5); final award notifications and Reservations issue only after that appeal window (and any filed appeal) is resolved, and accepted Sponsors “must accept the Tax Credit Reservations within 10 business days of the date of issuance.” No partial Reservations are made. Once a Reservation is granted, IHFA separately notifies the mayor or county commissioners of the development's locale (Section 4.13).

A cost shortfall discovered after submission cannot simply be patched onto the existing award: Additional Tax Credit Requests (Section 4.8) “must be submitted during the application rounds mentioned in Section 3.1,” must independently clear “all application thresholds mentioned in Section 4.9, including the Market Study Threshold,” are awarded only through the same competitive process, and are capped at the same per-project limit as any new application — with Developer fees held flat at the original application's level.