One deadline, one combined form, two conflicting point minimums — South Dakota

One gate, not several -- and what SD's own eligibility screen actually says

Unlike states that run separate Pre-Application, Competitive Application, Waiver Request, and Threshold Submission deadlines spread across most of a year, South Dakota's QAP names no staged process at all for the competitive 9% round. Eligibility is a single, general standard: "SDHDA will process an application only if it is consistent with the purposes and goals of this Plan and financially feasible and may reject any that are incomplete or contain inaccurate information" (§ I.C). There is no separately named "Threshold Criteria" section, no waiver-request deadline, and no staged completeness review described in the QAP's own text -- everything happens against the one filing deadline.

Submission itself is online-only. SD Housing's own site states applications "cannot submit applications via facsimile" and must go through a specific submission form; separately, applicants must first obtain a username and password from a named SDHDA staff contact before they can upload anything -- there is no self-service account creation. The QAP's own text (§ VI.A) still points applicants to "https://www.sdhda.org/housing-development/application-submission," the agency's pre-rebrand domain, even though the working site is now sdhousing.org; both resolve to the same portal today, but it is a stale internal cross-reference worth noting rather than a functional problem.

400 points or 350 points: the QAP names both, and never reconciles them

Section V of the QAP opens with: "Applications must obtain a minimum of 400 points to be considered for award, other than those for additional tax credits, which will be eligible based on the applicable criteria." Exhibit 7, the Self-Scoring Worksheet every applicant is required to complete and submit as part of the application, states directly under its own header: "Minimum score of 350 required for submission." These are two different numbers, in two different places in the same document, for what reads like the same underlying gate. The QAP does not explain whether 350 is a floor just to file and 400 is a separate, higher bar to actually be considered for an award, or whether one figure is simply an uncorrected drafting error. This research flags the conflict rather than guessing which number controls -- confirm directly with SDHDA which threshold is actually enforced before finalizing a self-score.

The application package: one combined form, a self-computed score, and a 39-item checklist

The application itself is the "HOME/Housing Tax Credit Application," a single form with a Development Team section and Exhibits A through F (per the actual 2026 application form obtained in this research), signed by at least one general partner. Layered on top of that base form are the QAP's own Exhibit 7 (the Self-Scoring Worksheet, which the applicant computes and submits rather than SDHDA computing it independently at this stage) and Exhibit 8 (a 39-item Application Checklist covering everything from the market study and pro forma to acquisition-rehab sub-items and the program-specific supplemental applications for HOME, HTF, CHDO status, and HOF).

The QAP does not describe a formal post-submission scoring-verification or objection process the way some larger states do (no stated preliminary-score response window, no formal reconsideration-and-appeal procedure spelled out in this document). SDHDA reserves broad discretion instead: it "may contact applicants for further clarification of the application or any submission items" and "request additional information and perform additional project evaluation" (§ I.E), without a stated timeline or cure period attached to that discretion.

9% competitive vs. 4%/bonds: the same threshold language, a completely different calendar and cap structure

A 4% Credits/tax-exempt-bond deal is accepted "year-round" rather than against the single August deadline, and "must close prior to November 1st" of the year applied (§ I.B). It requires filing the same combined HOME/Housing Tax Credit Application in parallel with a separate Multifamily Bond Financing Application -- it is not a bond-only submission. SDHDA's own bond-program materials list $80,000,000 in tax-exempt bond volume available for 2026, with a $40,000,000 per-project cap, loan terms to 50 years, and financing up to 100% of cost for a nonprofit sponsor or 90% for a limited-profit sponsor.

The QAP is explicit that bond deals are exempted from the competitive round's rationing mechanics: "Tax-exempt bond projects are not subject to these limitations" (§ I.D, referring to the Set-Asides and Funding Limitations section -- the Non-Profit Set-Aside, the Rural/Tribal Set-Aside, the 20%-per-project and 25%-per-developer caps, and the two-awards-per-cycle limit on related parties). A bond deal is, however, still "subject to the threshold requirements of this Plan unless otherwise noted" (§ I.B) -- an intentionally vaguer standard than the 9% round's explicit point thresholds.

What the QAP does not clarify is whether the 400-point (or 350-point) scoring gate is meant to apply to a bond deal at all. Scoring exists in this QAP to rank competing applications against a fixed, limited pool of 9% credits; a 4%/bond deal is not competing for that pool and is not subject to the set-asides that ration it. The QAP's text does not affirmatively exempt bond deals from Section V's scoring requirements the way it affirmatively exempts them from Section I.D's funding limitations, so this research flags the question rather than assuming an answer -- confirm directly with SDHDA whether a bond-only 4% application needs to clear either point threshold, or whether scoring is understood to apply only to applications competing for the fixed 9% allocation.

The capacity gate is narrow: "Good Standing," not a track-record requirement

South Dakota's threshold capacity standard is narrower than a general experience requirement. "Good Standing" is defined to mean the individual has not been convicted of, entered an immunity agreement for, or pleaded guilty (including nolo contendere) to a list of dishonesty-type crimes -- fraud, bribery, perjury, racketeering, blackmail, extortion, falsification of records, and similar -- and has not been debarred from any South Dakota, other state, or federal program. A demonstrated track record of quality housing development experience is not a threshold requirement at all; it is a scored bonus item worth up to 20 of the 800 total points under Applicant Characteristics (§ V.A.6).

That same Applicant Characteristics category carries real penalties: a 25-point deduction for any applicant or development-team member not in Good Standing, and a 10-point deduction, for the two subsequent annual rounds, against any developer/owner who applies for additional SDHDA funding after receiving an initial reservation. Separately, § I.G requires disclosure of every party -- accountants, architects, attorneys, engineers, consultants, the general contractor, and any subcontractor -- whose aggregate contract fees exceed 10% of the development cost.