“WCDA's plan lists roughly three dozen separate submission items before scoring even starts, and I don't see a separate 'Threshold' stage the way some bigger states run one — so what actually has to be in the file by September 30, and does a pure 4% bond deal really run on a completely different calendar than the 9% competition?”
One deadline, one file: the AHAP's own submission checklist
Section V.B of the AHAP lists 34 numbered submission requirements that apply to every Multi-Family Rental Project application, tax-credit or not, plus a further set of acquisition/rehabilitation-specific items layered on top. WCDA states the consequence of gaps plainly: “Missing or incomplete submission documents and incomplete applications may result in application not being scored or considered.” Waiver requests for any point category or submission requirement are not a separate, later process — they are submitted “as an attachment” with the Application itself, documenting and explaining the need, with approval entirely at WCDA's discretion.
| Category | Requirement | Notable detail |
|---|---|---|
| Intake | Letter of Intent | Due to housingdev@wyomingcda.com by the LOI deadline; specific site must already be identified; changes beyond funding amounts need WCDA approval |
| Intake | Application fee | No electronic payment option; must be mailed, trackable delivery strongly recommended |
| Market | Independent market study | No older than 6 months from submittal; must include Attachment A and B recap items |
| Site | Site control, zoning, floodplain documentation | “WCDA will not accept any project located within a 100-year floodplain” — a hard bar, not a scoring deduction |
| Environmental | Phase I Environmental Assessment | Completed within 12 months of the deadline; new-construction, tax-credit-only projects may instead submit within 90 days of award |
| Historic/regulatory | SHPO determination letter; deed/10-year-rule documentation (acquisition-rehab) | Required regardless of whether any historic credit is claimed |
| Capital stack | Syndicator Letter of Intent | At least one syndicator, including an anticipated firm-commitment date |
| Team | New Management/Development Company documentation | Required if the company has not managed or developed affordable housing in Wyoming in the past 10 years |
| Financial | Two years audited financials, current budget, most recent tax returns | Form varies by entity type (1065, 1120/1120-S, or 990), with proof of filing |
| Scoring | Detailed written self-scoring explanation | Required narrative justifying every scoring claim, with supporting documentation |
Acquisition/rehabilitation projects layer on a further set: three years of financial statements on the property being acquired, a Capital Needs Assessment no older than six months supporting at least $30,000 per unit in required hard-cost work, a timely (under six months) appraisal, a unit-by-unit rehab cost breakdown, a relocation plan, and — for any occupied project — a General Information Notice to every tenant under the Uniform Relocation Act, delivered before the application is even submitted.
Fees, and the one funding source with none
| Project type | Fee |
|---|---|
| 24 units or fewer | $1,000 |
| Over 24 units | $2,000 |
| Income Averaging election | $2,500 |
| 4% Non-Competitive Bond application | $3,000 |
| Tribal Applicants, Non-Profits, and CHDOs (all tax credit projects) | flat $500 |
| HOME and/or NHTF funds only (no tax credit request) | no application fee |
The application fee has no electronic payment option — it must be mailed to WCDA's Housing and Neighborhood Development Department, and WCDA “strongly recommends” a trackable delivery method to ensure it arrives by the deadline.
A supplemental application — requesting additional funds on a project already in the pipeline — requires the most current AHAP's submission and scoring requirements, a narrative on why other funding sources have already been explored, and its own application fee. WCDA warns explicitly: “Requests for supplemental funding may result in negative scoring in Developer Capacity category in subsequent funding rounds.”
The site visit is not optional
In the month or months after all eligible applications are received, WCDA conducts a site visit for every application, and the plan is unusually direct about the consequence of skipping it: “Failure to attend the site visit may result in the application being rejected.” A development-team member with in-depth knowledge of the proposed project must be present, in person or virtually; for acquisition/rehabilitation proposals, a direct development-team representative able to answer scope-of-work questions is required even though management-team presence is only encouraged. Attendance is limited to direct applicants and the management team — and during the scoring period that follows, WCDA reserves the right to contact developers with clarifying questions, but “requests will not be made for missing or incomplete documentation,” meaning the site visit and scoring-period contact cannot be used to backfill a gap in the original submission.
Scoring stands in for Threshold: the 100-point floor and the self-score WCDA verifies
The AHAP does not describe a separate pass/fail Threshold review the way some states do — completeness and eligibility are folded into the same Scoring Allocation Criteria section, and the one hard numeric gate sits inside it: “A minimum score of 100 points must be met in the Housing Needs Characteristics category in order for the application to be scored.” Below that floor in that single category, nothing else about the application gets evaluated at all.
| Category | Maximum points | Possible negative points |
|---|---|---|
| Housing Needs Characteristics | 158 | –30 (100-point floor required to be scored) |
| Quality of Construction | 65 | none |
| Project Location | 77 | –280 |
| Project Characteristics | 85 | none |
| Sponsor/Applicant Characteristics | 40 | none |
| Financials | 70 | –1,200 |
| TOTAL | 495 | –1,510 |
Applicants submit a required “detailed written self-scoring explanation of how and why the applicant feels the scoring criteria has been met,” which WCDA reviews against the file; the AHAP does not describe a separate formal appeal or reconsideration process for a disputed score the way some peer states publish.
A stated tie-breaker order applies if two applications land on the same score: rehabilitation proposals with Project Based Rental Assistance first, rehabilitation proposals without it second, new construction last. Beyond the point system, WCDA also weighs a list of “Non-Point Based Evaluation Criteria” entirely at its own discretion — unmitigable environmental issues, developer experience and financial capacity, financial feasibility under WCDA's own underwriting standards, a history of returned credits or foreclosed properties, consecutive “At-Risk” scoring on the development or property-management team, and reference checks with other states' housing finance agencies.
Capacity and experience: what “new to Wyoming” actually triggers
A management or development company that “has not managed [or developed] affordable housing in the state of Wyoming in the past 10 years” is treated as new and must submit additional qualifications, a company bio and affordable-housing portfolio, and (for a new developer) WCDA's Release of Information and Project Worksheet form. New developers are then scored on “submission of references from at least two other states where affordable housing developments have successfully been completed” — and if references genuinely aren't available, the applicant may instead document its efforts to obtain them and submit portfolio information, professional references, résumés, or proof of affordable-housing development training. Every outcome in this category is explicitly “at the discretion of WCDA.”
Two calendars under one plan: 9% competitive versus 4% non-competitive bonds
WCDA accepts 4% Non-Competitive Bond applications year-round from January 1 through August 30, with a Letter of Intent required at least 30 days before the application itself — and the plan is explicit that “4% only applications are not subject to the competitive process” that governs the 9% round. That changes the moment HOME or NHTF money is added to a 4% request: those combined applications “will only be accepted during the 9% competitive round,” are considered only after WCDA has determined the 9% round's awards, and — if funds remain and the project is viable — are presented for Board approval “at the same board meeting as the competitive 9% round.”
Two allocation caps apply across both tracks. WCDA limits any developer or owner to two applications per funding round, and separately reserves the right to limit funding to no more than 60% of available credits, HOME, or NHTF funds on any single project — with discretion to redirect a project's request between LIHTC, HOME, NHTF, and other resources to best use what is available.
Where this goes wrong
- Looking for a separate Threshold review stage distinct from scoring. The AHAP's structure is submission → scoring → Board allocation, with a 100-point floor in the Housing Needs Characteristics category functioning as the only stated pass/fail gate before the rest of an application is even scored.
- Skipping or under-preparing for the mandatory site visit. WCDA states directly that “failure to attend the site visit may result in the application being rejected,” and clarifying contact during the scoring period is explicitly not available to backfill missing or incomplete documentation.
- Assuming a project wanting HOME or NHTF funds can use the January 1–August 30 non-competitive bond window. That combination is only accepted on the 9% competitive calendar, decided at the same Board meeting as the 9% round after 9% awards are set.
- Treating a 4%-only application as competing against other applications for a limited pool the way the 9% round does. The AHAP states plainly that “4% only applications are not subject to the competitive process.”
- Missing the 100-year floodplain exclusion. “WCDA will not accept any project located within a 100-year floodplain” is a hard bar on the site itself, not a point deduction that can be scored around.
- Assuming every new-construction project can defer its Phase I Environmental Assessment to 90 days post-award. That exception applies only to new-construction projects requesting tax credits alone — a project pairing tax credits with HOME or NHTF still needs the Phase I completed within 12 months of the application deadline.
- Trying to pay the application fee electronically. There is no electronic payment option; the fee must be mailed, and WCDA recommends a trackable delivery method to ensure it arrives on time.
- Treating new-management-company or new-development-company documentation as optional paperwork. It is a numbered submission requirement, and the underlying capacity gap can also cost points directly in the Sponsor/Applicant Characteristics scoring category.
- Assuming a supplemental funding request for an already-awarded project is scored in isolation from the rest of a developer's track record. The AHAP warns that supplemental requests “may result in negative scoring in Developer Capacity category in subsequent funding rounds.”
- Missing the two-applications-per-developer cap and the 60%-of-available-funds ceiling on any single project under Allocation Restrictions & Provisions — both apply regardless of how an application scores.
- Assuming a waiver of a scoring or submission requirement can be requested after the deadline the way some states run a separate waiver-request date. Wyoming's AHAP requires the waiver request as an attachment to the Application itself.
- Assuming the minimum-set-aside election (20% at 50% AMI, 40% at 60% AMI, or income averaging) can be revisited after submission. WCDA does not allow developers to change the election once applications have been submitted, and an income-averaging election carries its own $2,500 application fee, an additional $10-per-unit-per-year monitoring fee, and (absent compelling circumstances) a 25-unit floor.
- HUD
- LIHTC
- State QAPs
- IRS § 42
- Housing Finance Agencies