Compliance, Year 15, and Maine's 45-year extended-use commitment — Maine

Maine's real number: verified at 45 years, confirmed unchanged across QAP cycles

The QAP's threshold requirements state it directly: "The Project will comply with Section 42 of the Code and this QAP for a minimum period of 45 years to maintain the Project as residential rental housing, keep at least 60% of the total Credit Units in a Project occupied by persons with 50% area median income and keep the Credit Units in the Project rent-restricted in accordance with Section 42 of the Code" (2027-2028 QAP §5.A.1). Appendix A then defines "Extended Use Period" as "the period of time specified by MaineHousing in the Extended Use Agreement executed in connection with a Project pursuant to Section 42(h)(6)(D) of the Code, which is the period set forth in Section 5.A. for Projects allocated Credit under the State Ceiling" -- language that ties MaineHousing's own "Extended Use Period" to the entire 45-year figure, not to a separate span of years added on top of the Compliance Period. "Compliance Period" is defined independently, one paragraph away, as simply "the period defined in Section 42(i)(1) of the Code" -- the standard federal 15-year period. Nothing in the QAP text spells out a "15 plus 30" breakdown the way the bare federal statute is sometimes summarized; readers should not assume that breakdown is stated anywhere in MaineHousing's own rule, even though it is arithmetically consistent with the 45-year total.

The Qualified Contract right is waived as a threshold condition of every award, not a scored election

Immediately after the 45-year affordability requirement, the same threshold section states: "The Applicant waives the right to request MaineHousing to present a Qualified Contract under Section 42(h)(6) of the Code" (2027-2028 QAP §5.A.2). This is a threshold eligibility condition applied to every Applicant -- not an optional commitment that trades for scoring points the way some other states structure it, and not a Qualified Contract policy limited to certain deal types. The identical waiver requirement appears in the prior 2025-2026 QAP, so this is a settled, multi-cycle MaineHousing position rather than a new or provisional one.

This research reviewed the QAP itself in depth but did not locate a separate, publicly posted MaineHousing LIHTC compliance manual or a Qualified Contract fee schedule of the kind some other states publish (for example, a priced "QC Eligibility Determination" or "QC Request" fee for older, pre-waiver deals still in a state's portfolio). That absence should be treated as unconfirmed rather than as proof no such document exists -- if a specific deal's Extended Use Agreement predates the current mandatory-waiver rule, confirm current Qualified Contract procedure directly with MaineHousing rather than assuming either that a process still exists or that it doesn't.

A Year-15 exit route that isn't the Qualified Contract: Purchase Options and the nonprofit Right of First Refusal

Before any Credit is allocated, an Applicant must obtain an investor letter of intent agreeing to grant the general partner, managing member, developer, or sponsor an irrevocable Purchase Option -- to buy the Project itself and to buy out the limited partner's or non-managing member's ownership interest -- on terms meeting the threshold standards in Appendix E (2027-2028 QAP §5.A.3). Where the Applicant, general partner, managing member, developer, or sponsor is a Qualified Nonprofit Organization, a second letter of intent must grant that nonprofit a Right of First Refusal on the same Appendix E terms (§5.A.4). Critically, both mechanisms are keyed to the 15-year Compliance Period, not the 45-year affordability term: the Purchase Option is "exercisable beginning at the earlier of: (a) the expiration of the Compliance Period; or (b) the exit of or change of controlling interest... in the limited partner or non-managing member occurring after the expiration of the Credit Period," and the nonprofit ROFR is "exercisable beginning at the expiration of the Compliance Period" (Appendix E.I.3, E.II.2). In other words, ownership of a Maine LIHTC deal can transition to the GP/sponsor (or a nonprofit ROFR holder) at Year 15 -- but the rent and income restrictions recorded in the Extended Use Agreement keep running for the full 45 years regardless of who holds title.

Monitoring and reporting: the QAP's own text does not describe an easier post-Year-15 track

Section 10 of the QAP sets out recordkeeping, annual reporting, review, and inspection requirements that all run, in the rule's own words, "throughout the Extended Use Period" -- and because MaineHousing's Appendix A defines that period as the full 45 years rather than the years after Year 15, the QAP's rule text does not carve out a lighter compliance track once the 15-year Compliance Period ends, the way this library has found described in some other states' separate compliance manuals. Each Owner must submit, by March 1 of every year, a certification of compliance with Treasury Regulation §1.42-5(c)(1) plus MaineHousing's own Owner's Certificate of Continuing Program Compliance (Appendix D), along with tenant income, rent, and demographic data (§10.C). MaineHousing inspects properties every one to three years after placed in service, with a new project's Credit Units inspected by the end of the second calendar year after the last building's placed-in-service date, and gives no more than 15 days' notice where IRS rules require it (§10.E). Records must be kept for each year throughout the Extended Use Period and retained at least six years after the (extended) filing deadline for that year's federal return, with third-party income verification required at initial occupancy and then at least every six years afterward (§10.B). On noncompliance, MaineHousing gives the Owner "a reasonable period of time to correct" -- the QAP does not state a fixed number of days for that correction window itself -- and then files IRS Form 8823 "within 45 calendar days of the end of the correction period" (§10.G). Whether MaineHousing's actual field practice loosens this cadence in the years after Year 15 in a way the rule text doesn't spell out is unconfirmed by this research; a deal-specific question should go directly to MaineHousing's Asset Management staff.

Property tax relief during the extended-use period is elective and scored, not automatic

Maine has no statewide LIHTC property-tax exemption. The QAP's Property Tax Relief scoring category (up to 3 points) awards points based on the percentage of the project's annual incremental property tax revenue that is returned to the Applicant or foregone by the taxing authority, and for how long: 1 point for 50%-<75% relief for at least 15 years from the placed-in-service date, 2 points for the same percentage held for at least 30 years or for ≥75% relief held for at least 15 years, and 3 points for ≥75% relief held for at least 30 years (2027-2028 QAP §6.I). Only "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" qualifies; a project in a jurisdiction that doesn't assess property taxes, or that is otherwise exempt, gets 1 point automatically. An Affordable Housing TIF specifically only counts if a complete TIF application was submitted to MaineHousing at least 30 calendar days before the Application deadline. In short, PILOT/TIF-style relief is a deal-specific, locally-negotiated structure an Applicant chooses to pursue for scoring credit -- it is not something MaineHousing grants automatically as part of a Credit award.

Prevailing wage: not addressed by MaineHousing's own LIHTC rules, but Maine's general statute leaves the question open

A full-text search of both the 2027-2028 QAP and the 2026 Quality Standards and Procedures Manual found no mention of prevailing wage or Davis-Bacon requirements anywhere in either document. That silence is not the end of the question, though: Maine's general prevailing-wage statute, 26 M.R.S. ch. 15 ("Preference to Maine Works and Contractors"), sets a "fair minimum rate" of wages and benefits on "public works" construction (§1303), and defines "public works" to include "public schools and all buildings, roads, highways, bridges, streets, alleys, sewers, ditches, sewage disposal plants, demolition, waterworks, airports and all other structures upon which construction is funded in whole or in part by state funds and for which the contract amounts to $50,000 or more" (§1304(8)). Nothing in that statute names housing, MaineHousing, or LIHTC specifically, and nothing in it exempts them either -- whether a LIHTC development that also carries MaineHousing's own gap financing (for example, a Rental Loan Program loan, as opposed to the federal credit alone) is "funded in whole or in part by state funds" for purposes of that $50,000 threshold was not resolved by any source reviewed for this research.

In practical terms: this research did not find a Maine LIHTC-specific prevailing-wage rule, and separately did not find a clear statutory exemption ruling one out for a MaineHousing-financed deal. Federal Davis-Bacon obligations can also apply independently and separately if a project layers in other federal funding with its own labor standards (HOME, the National Housing Trust Fund, USDA Rural Development, or a HUD Rental Assistance Demonstration conversion, for example). Given the dollar exposure a wrong assumption here could create, confirm current prevailing-wage applicability directly with MaineHousing's Construction Services Division or legal counsel for any specific deal, particularly one that includes MaineHousing's own financing alongside the federal credit -- do not rely on the QAP's silence as proof the question doesn't apply.