Construction, the CPA opinion, and Kansas's 120-day clock to Form 8609 — Kansas

The 120-day package: what actually has to be in KHRC's hands

QAP Section IX opens by stating its post-award rules apply "to all properties, including those with 4% LIHTCs and Bonds" — so the 120-day cost-certification clock runs identically for a competitive 9% deal and a rolling 4% bond-financed deal. The trigger is specific: the deadline runs from "the last Certificate of Occupancy or the date of substantial completion on form AIA G704 Certificate of Substantial Completion," whichever the development actually uses, not from full lease-up or a later placed-in-service date an owner might prefer to use.

The CPA sign-off is an "opinion," not a defined audit standard

The QAP's exact language for this item is: "an opinion by a Certified Public Accountant regarding the development's eligibility for LIHTCs." That's the entire specification — no reference to Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, no agreed-upon-procedures engagement letter, no SSARS compilation-versus-review distinction. Some other states this project has researched spell out an "audited cost certification" explicitly; Kansas's own published QAP text does not, and I could not locate a separate KHRC cost-certification instructions packet online that resolves the ambiguity. Treat the exact scope of engagement your CPA needs to sign as a question to confirm directly with KHRC's Housing Development Division before you scope the engagement, not an assumption to carry over from another state's practice.

A second, narrower certification applies only when there's a preexisting relationship on the construction side: "For General Contractors with an Identity of Interest with a Principal, a Contractor's Cost Certification will be required at the time of project cost certification" (QAP §V(A)(4)), where an Identity of Interest is "generally a preexisting connection between the property's buyer and seller(s), such as a family or a business relationship." This is a post-award documentation requirement, not something KHRC evaluates for points.

No Kansas prevailing wage since 1987 — Davis-Bacon only rides in through a HOME layer

Kansas had one of the nation's first state prevailing-wage laws, enacted 1891 and reworked in 1913 as K.S.A. 44-201 — and it was repealed outright by the 1987 Legislature: the statute's own historical note in the Kansas Revisor of Statutes reads "Repealed, L. 1987, ch. 186, § 1; July 1." A construction contract funded purely with Kansas LIHTC and conventional debt carries no state-mandated wage-rate schedule at cost certification or at any other point in the process.

That changes the moment HOME or NHTF funds are layered in. QAP Appendix B lists "possible Davis Bacon wage requirements (HOME only)" among the federal strings that come with HUD Resources, without restating the specific trigger — that trigger is 24 C.F.R. § 92.354, which requires Davis-Bacon wage provisions in any construction contract covering 12 or more HOME-assisted units, applied to the entire project's construction labor, not just the assisted units. Since the QAP's own underwriting default assumes "no more than $1.5M in HUD resources" per development, whether a HOME layer actually crosses the 12-unit Davis-Bacon threshold is a structuring decision the development team controls, not an automatic consequence of taking any HOME money at all.

Preconstruction meeting, monthly draws, and the final inspection that sets the escrow

Appendix C(I) governs the construction period itself. A job/development site sign — KHRC-approved before posting, with KHRC supplying its own logo file — must go up at the start of construction. Before that, a "pre-development conference" (the preconstruction meeting) with KHRC is required, and attendance is specific: "the developer, architect, general contractor, energy rater, and accessibility consultant are required to attend," with accessibility standards reviewed at that meeting. Separately, QAP §IX(A) requires owners to inform KHRC before starting construction (including sitework, once the preconstruction meeting has happened) and before occupying any units.

Once underway, reporting shifts from a monthly Construction Status Update form (pre-construction) to the architect's monthly AIA draw reports plus at least two monthly progress photos. Closeout runs through a final inspection: KHRC must be notified two weeks in advance, and the inspection can piggyback on the Inspecting Architect's Punch List Inspection if timed right. The final "incomplete items" list KHRC generates directly sets "the amount withheld from the final construction draw," held in an incomplete-construction escrow account until resolved — a real cash consequence for an incomplete punch list, not just a paperwork step.

Changes mid-construction need written sign-off, and a >10% swing gets flagged

QAP §IX(A) requires written KHRC approval before an owner changes the anticipated or final funding amount or terms (including equity), increases anticipated uses by more than 2%, alters designs approved at full application, raises rents on new-construction or rehabilitated low-income units, or reduces the deferred developer fee approved at Reservation Agreement or 4% approval — "any other change to the awarded application" is caught by the same requirement. At 90 days prior to closing, KHRC separately re-evaluates the feasibility of the credit allocation award.

That 90-day feasibility check has teeth carried into future rounds: QAP §VII(A)(3) authorizes a 10-point penalty against every Principal on the deal for requesting more than a 10% credit-allocation increase or more than a 10% Private Activity Bond issuance increase between initial award and 8609 issuance, for missing 2020-or-later design, accessibility, or energy standards, or simply for "failed to submit cost certification within the required period as defined in QAP Section IX(B)(4)" — the same 120-day deadline this phase runs on. The penalty follows the Principal into every future Kansas application, not just the one where the deadline was missed.

The Market Study's 45 points are locked in before you break ground

Article 10's Market Study category is worth 45 of the statutory 310 points, and the QAP is explicit about when it's evaluated: "the points for the market study requirement will be assumed at preliminary application. If the applicant fails to submit the market study as a full application document, then the application will no longer be eligible to receive funding" (Appendix A). The underlying threshold requirement (QAP §V(A)(6)) demands a market study meeting the NCHMA Model Content Standards Version 3, prepared by an analyst unaffiliated with the developer or the host city, valid up to 18 months old — with a required update or reconfirmation letter if the study is between 12 and 18 months old, and outright rejection past 18 months.

Nothing in the cost-certification package (§IX(B)(4)) or the Appendix C(I) construction-period requirements asks KHRC to re-check the market study's original demand assumptions against how the property actually leases up. Based on the 2026 QAP's full text, I found no placed-in-service or post-construction market-verification requirement tied to this category — treat it as a preliminary-and-full-application gate only, and confirm directly with KHRC if a specific deal's circumstances suggest otherwise.