"MaineHousing's QAP scores Historic Rehabilitation and a National Housing Trust Fund set-aside, and gives up to 3 points for something it calls 'Property Tax Relief' -- but where's the federal HOME program in any of this, and is there really a state credit that can double my 4% deal's equity?"
What the QAP itself scores: Historic Rehabilitation, National Housing Trust Fund, and Property Tax Relief
Scoring Criteria Section 6.B, "Historic Rehabilitation," awards 5 points where "the Project includes the rehabilitation of a certified historic structure using capital contributions generated from federal and state historic rehabilitation tax credits" -- the QAP scores the fact of using both credit programs together, without restating either program's mechanics (those live in the tax code, covered below).
Section 6.G, "National Housing Trust Fund," awards 3 points if the Applicant "agrees to accept and use any funding from MaineHousing's National Housing Trust Fund program for the Project," which requires a minimum number of units affordable to and occupied by Extremely Low Income households, triggers Project-Based Vouchers for that minimum required unit count, and requires both a Part 93 Environmental Review (for the NHTF award) and a Part 58 Environmental Review (for the vouchers). The QAP is explicit that "Awarding points is not a commitment of funding from the National Housing Trust Fund" -- the score and the money are two separate MaineHousing actions.
| Percentage and duration of tax benefit or relief | Points |
|---|---|
| 50% to <75% for at least 15 years from Placed in Service | 1 |
| 50% to <75% for at least 30 years from Placed in Service | 2 |
| ≥ 75% for at least 15 years from Placed in Service | 2 |
| ≥ 75% for at least 30 years from Placed in Service | 3 |
| Jurisdiction does not assess property taxes, or Project is exempt | 1 (flat) |
Eligible mechanisms are limited to "Tax Increment Financing, payment in lieu of taxes, abatement, or other property tax relief arrangement approved by the taxing authority and all other applicable governing entities." If the relief runs through an Affordable Housing TIF specifically, the QAP disqualifies it unless a complete TIF application reached TIFs@mainehousing.org at least 30 calendar days before the Application deadline, and points are denied entirely if the TIF is not ultimately approved by MaineHousing -- even if it was timely submitted.
The state credit the QAP never mentions: Maine's own LIHTC piggyback, 36 MRS Section 5219-WW
This research found no reference anywhere in the 2027-2028 QAP's text to 36 MRS Section 5219-WW ("Credit for affordable housing") or to the credit-certificate process at 30-A MRS Section 4722(1)(GG). That is a real gap, not an oversight in this research: the statute puts MaineHousing (the "authority") entirely in charge of allocating and administering this credit "in accordance with rules adopted under the Maine Administrative Procedure Act" -- a separate rulemaking track from Chapter 16, the QAP itself.
The credit has two, mutually exclusive paths. Under paragraph 2(A), a "qualified Maine project" -- new construction or adaptive reuse of a building not previously used for residential purposes, subject to a covenant restricting at least 60% of credited units to households at or below 50% of area median gross income, and eligible for the 30% present-value federal credit because of tax-exempt bond financing under Code Section 42(h)(4)(B) -- can be allocated a state credit equal to "the total federal low-income housing tax credit computed using the entire federal low-income housing tax credit period ... for all buildings in a qualified Maine project." In plain terms: for a qualifying 4%/bond deal, MaineHousing can match the entire federal 4% credit stream dollar-for-dollar. Under paragraph 2(B), a smaller project that incurs at least $100,000 in eligible basis and does not claim any federal Section 42 credit can instead receive 50% of its qualified basis, capped at $500,000 per project -- this second path is not a LIHTC benefit at all, since it is only available to projects that are not claiming the federal credit.
Because paragraph 2(A)'s top-tier match is structurally tied to the 30%-present-value credit that only arises from Section 42(h)(4)(B) tax-exempt bond financing, this state credit's largest benefit is a 4%/bond-deal mechanism -- this research found no path within Section 5219-WW that pairs with a competitive 9% allocation.
Historic rehabilitation tax credit: what actually stacks, and what changed in 2025
36 MRS Section 5219-BB allows a base credit "equal to 25% of the taxpayer's certified qualified rehabilitation expenditures" for a certified historic structure claiming the federal credit under Code Section 47 (paragraph 2(A)), or the same 25% for a smaller $50,000-$250,000 rehabilitation that does not claim the federal credit (paragraph 2(B)).
Subsection 3 increases that rate to 30% "for a certified affordable housing project" -- a defined term that runs through 30-A MRS Section 4722(1)(DD), not through the LIHTC minimum set-aside test. MaineHousing must certify the project as "affordable housing" (households at or below 60% of area median income) and as an "affordable housing project" (either at least 50% of the completed project's square footage is housing, with at least 50% of that housing newly affordable, or at least 33% of the completed project's aggregate square footage creates new affordable housing) -- both narrower and differently structured than the QAP's own 60%-at-50%-AMI threshold. The statute also builds in a ratchet: if MaineHousing and the Maine Historic Preservation Commission jointly notify the State Tax Assessor (per an annual review, required through August 1, 2030, of whether newly-affordable square footage is meeting a 30% target across all Section 5219-BB projects statewide), the credit rate for the following tax year rises by one percentage point, capped at 35%.
Subsection 10, added for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, creates a separate, higher-starting path: a certified historic structure "located in a rural area of the State" (an unorganized territory, or a municipality with fewer than 12,500 residents by the latest decennial census) where at least 33% of the structure's aggregate square footage is housing gets a 35% credit outright -- and "if the rehabilitation of the certified historic structure is also a certified affordable housing project, then the credit allowed under this section is increased by a further 10 percentage points," reaching 45%. This research could not fully resolve from statutory text alone whether subsection 3's own ratchet-to-35% mechanism interacts with subsection 10's separate 35%/45% rural track when both could apply to the same rural, affordable project -- confirm the applicable rate for a specific project year directly with Maine Revenue Services or MaineHousing before underwriting to it.
| Period | Cap |
|---|---|
| Tax years beginning before January 1, 2025 | Greater of $5,000,000 per certified-rehabilitation portion placed in service, or $5,000,000 per building |
| 2025+, year credit is first claimed | Greater of $10,000,000 per rehabilitation portion, or $10,000,000 per building |
| 2025+, 2nd year claimed | Greater of ($10,000,000 minus year-1 amount) per rehabilitation portion, or the equivalent per building |
| 2025+, 3rd and later years claimed | Greater of $5,000,000 per rehabilitation portion, or $5,000,000 per building |
These are per-project/per-building caps, not a statewide annual aggregate cap -- this research found no statewide annual dollar ceiling on the Section 5219-BB historic credit anywhere in the statute (unlike the $10-15 million statewide cap on the Section 5219-WW state LIHTC-piggyback credit above).
The credit is fully refundable, is claimed 25% per year over the first four eligible tax years, and can be allocated among partners/members pro rata or by written agreement, including to tax-exempt 501(c)(3)/(4)/(6) entities treated as taxpayers for this purpose. If a certified affordable housing project does not remain one for 30 years from placed-in-service, the owner owes MaineHousing the full increased-credit amount plus 7% annual interest, deposited into the Housing Opportunities for Maine Fund, secured by a recorded restrictive covenant and registry-of-deeds lien -- the same repayment-into-the-HOME-Fund mechanism used by the Section 5219-WW state credit's own recapture provision, described above.
Affordable Housing Tax Increment Financing and PILOTs: a municipal tool MaineHousing reviews but does not fund
Maine's Affordable Housing Tax Increment Financing (AHTIF) statute (30-A MRS Sections 5245-5250-A) lets a municipality -- not MaineHousing, not the developer -- designate a district and retain "all or part of the tax increment revenues generated from the increased assessed value" of that district to finance an affordable housing development program. Designation requires at least 25% of the district's area to be suitable for residential use, blighted, or in need of redevelopment; at least 33% of the district's dwelling units must be affordable housing (households at or below 120% of area median income); and the original assessed value of the proposed district, combined with all of a municipality's existing affordable-housing districts, cannot exceed 5% of the municipality's total taxable property value. A 2025 amendment (Section 5248(2)(G)) capped program duration at the earlier of 30 years after the tax year the housing is placed in service, or 35 years after the district's designation is approved.
MaineHousing's role is a compliance check, not a funding decision: "Before final designation of an affordable housing development district, the director shall review the proposal for the district to ensure that the proposal complies with statutory requirements," and "a designation ... is effective upon approval by the director" (Section 5250(2)-(3)). The municipality itself sets the retained percentage of captured value, establishes a project-cost account and a debt-service sinking-fund account, and decides what to spend the increment on from a long statutory list that includes capital costs, financing costs, relocation, child care, case management/support services, and even revolving loan or investment funds (Section 5249). Nothing in this statute obligates MaineHousing to contribute money -- its only lever is approving or withholding the district designation itself.
A separate, general PILOT power exists at 30-A MRS Section 4742, but it is written for "an authority" -- a public housing authority -- not for a private LIHTC ownership entity. The statute declares housing-authority property "public property used for essential public and governmental purposes," exempt from all taxes, with the authority empowered to "make such payments in lieu of taxes as it determines are consistent with the maintenance of the low-rent character of projects." This research found no equivalent statewide statutory PILOT power written directly for a private LIHTC owner; a private developer's property-tax relief in Maine typically has to run through a municipality's own negotiated agreement (a locally approved abatement or PILOT arrangement) or through the AHTIF mechanism above -- confirm the exact legal vehicle with local counsel and the municipality's assessor before scoring Property Tax Relief points on an assumed exemption.
Maine Revenue Services' own published guidance on assessing LIHTC properties (Property Tax Division, affordable-housing/LIHTC report) confirms there is no statutory LIHTC exemption or mandated valuation methodology in Maine: ordinary "just value" assessment under 36 MRS Section 701-A applies, considering "all relevant factors," including "the effect upon value of any enforceable restrictions to which the use of the land may be subjected." Maine Revenue Services reports that most full-time assessors use an income approach with restricted (not market) rents for LIHTC properties as a matter of practice, not statutory mandate, and found only one documented case of an assessor directly factoring in the tax credits themselves. In short: absent a negotiated PILOT, TIF, or abatement, a Maine LIHTC property is fully taxable at its restricted-income value -- the QAP's Property Tax Relief points exist precisely because relief is not the default.
Two different "HOME"s, a federal program the QAP is silent on, and MaineHousing as its own bond issuer
The "Housing Opportunities for Maine (HOME) Fund" (30-A MRS Sections 4852-4853) is a MaineHousing-controlled state fund, seeded by a dedicated share of Maine's real estate transfer tax (Title 36, chapter 711-A), used to reduce mortgage interest/principal, reduce low-income rents, make loans and grants, support mobile-home-park preservation and ownership transitions, and cover MaineHousing's own administrative costs (capped at 3% of non-transfer-tax fund money). This is a distinct program from the federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program -- same acronym, different statute, different funding source, different rules -- and every recapture/repayment provision described above (the historic credit's 30-year clock, the Section 5219-WW state credit's 45-year clock) deposits back into this same state fund, not into any federal HOME account.
This research found no scoring category, threshold requirement, or any other reference to the federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program anywhere in the 2027-2028 QAP's text -- in contrast to the National Housing Trust Fund, which is scored by name in Section 6.G. Secondary sources describe MaineHousing generally as the state's HUD Consolidated Plan grantee and administrator of HOME, NHTF, and Emergency Solutions Grant funds, which would be consistent with MaineHousing's role as Maine's sole state housing finance agency, but this research could not verify that specific administrative assignment against a MaineHousing-published primary source. Treat "MaineHousing's HOME funding" as ambiguous in conversation until it is confirmed which HOME is meant -- the state transfer-tax fund, or federal formula dollars -- since the QAP itself only transacts in the former by name.
On bond financing: Maine's federal private-activity bond volume cap is allocated among the state's designated issuers under 10 MRS Section 363, and "that portion of the state ceiling allocated under this section to the category of bonds for housing or housing-related purposes must be allocated to the Maine State Housing Authority" (Section 363(4)) -- MaineHousing is Maine's own bond issuer for 4% LIHTC deals, not a local housing authority or municipal bond bank as in some other states. The annual allocation (and any mid-year reallocation among issuers) runs through a legislative procedure and a representative group process described in Section 363(1-A)/(2-A), reviewed and adjusted periodically by the Legislature.
Where this goes wrong
- Assuming National Housing Trust Fund scoring points are a funding commitment. The QAP states plainly that "Awarding points is not a commitment of funding from the National Housing Trust Fund" -- the 3-point score and the actual award are separate MaineHousing actions, and NHTF awards require their own Part 93 (and, for paired vouchers, Part 58) environmental review.
- Confusing MaineHousing's Housing Opportunities for Maine (HOME) Fund (30-A MRS Sections 4852-4853, funded by the real estate transfer tax) with the federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program. They share an acronym but nothing else; the QAP's own scoring criteria never mention the federal HOME program by name.
- Assuming the state historic/affordable-housing tax credit rate under 36 MRS Section 5219-BB(3) is automatic once a project meets the LIHTC 60%-at-50%-AMI test. The statute's "certified affordable housing project" definition runs through 30-A MRS Section 4722(1)(DD)'s own square-footage tests (50%/50% or 33% of aggregate completed square footage), which is a different and separate threshold from the LIHTC minimum set-aside, and requires an affirmative MaineHousing certification.
- Underwriting to the 45% combined historic-credit rate (rural + housing component + affordable housing project) as a guaranteed number. This research could not fully resolve how subsection 3's own ratchet-to-35% and subsection 10's separate rural/housing 35%-45% track interact when both could apply to the same project -- confirm the applicable current-year rate with Maine Revenue Services or MaineHousing before relying on it in a proforma.
- Assuming Maine has a LIHTC-specific property tax exemption. Maine Revenue Services' own published guidance confirms none exists; ordinary "just value" assessment under 36 MRS Section 701-A applies, and the QAP's Property Tax Relief points exist specifically to reward negotiated relief, not a default exemption.
- Submitting an Affordable Housing TIF application to MaineHousing on the QAP's Application deadline instead of 30 days earlier. The QAP disqualifies Property Tax Relief points tied to an AHTIF unless the complete application reached TIFs@mainehousing.org by that earlier date (August 15, 2026 for the 2027 round), and denies the points entirely if the TIF is not ultimately approved -- even if timely filed.
- Assuming the general housing-authority PILOT power at 30-A MRS Section 4742 extends to a private LIHTC ownership entity. That statute's tax exemption and PILOT-negotiation authority is written for "an authority" (a public housing authority), not a private developer; most private LIHTC PILOT arrangements in Maine run through a municipally negotiated agreement or the AHTIF statute instead.
- Assuming the Section 5219-WW state LIHTC-piggyback credit is available to a competitive 9% deal. Its top-tier match (paragraph 2(A)) is structurally tied to the 30%-present-value credit that only exists via Section 42(h)(4)(B) tax-exempt bond financing -- a 4%/bond-deal mechanism, not a 9% one -- and this research found no 9%-compatible path in the statute.
- Treating the $10 million (up to $15 million) annual cap on the Section 5219-WW state credit as a simple, resetting number. Unused amounts carry forward, recaptured amounts (other than subsection-7 recapture) are added back, no more than 20% of any year's allocation can go to the smaller non-federal-credit path, and a separate 10% rural-development-preservation set-aside sits inside that same pool with its own carryforward rule through 2028.
- Assuming a bond-financed deal can skip Section 6 scoring items like Historic Rehabilitation or NHTF points entirely on the theory that bond deals are exempt from Section 6. That exemption (QAP Section 9) removes the competitive scoring process itself for bond deals; it does not remove the underlying capital-stack sources (a bond deal can still pursue historic credits, NHTF funding, or an AHTIF/PILOT -- it simply is not scored on them the way a 9% Applicant is).
- Losing track of which multi-decade compliance clock governs which recapture. The LIHTC Extended Use Agreement's own affordability period, the historic credit's 30-year certified-affordable-housing-project clock, and the Section 5219-WW state credit's 45-year/15-year recapture clock can all run concurrently on the same building from the same placed-in-service date, each with an independent repayment trigger and each repaying into the same Housing Opportunities for Maine Fund.
- HUD
- LIHTC
- State QAPs
- IRS § 42
- Housing Finance Agencies