"Is there a hard per-unit cost cap we have to design to, is Georgia's green-building requirement something we can score around or something we're stuck meeting no matter what, and does any prevailing-wage rule actually reach our contractor?"
Cost limits: HUD's own table, with a DCA add-on, running a year behind
Georgia ties its Total Development Cost limits directly to HUD's own published figures rather than publishing an independent per-unit or per-square-foot ceiling: "Applications for properties located in the MSAs listed in the applicable HUD Total Development Cost Limits document must use the respective per unit cost limit, adjusted by the percentages in the below table" (Threshold Criteria, Section II). Applications are matched to the applicable MSA by county — the QAP lists all counties for the Albany, Athens, Atlanta, Augusta, Chattanooga (TN), Columbus, Macon, Savannah, and Valdosta MSAs by name.
| Geographic Pool | Efficiency | 1BR | 2BR | 3BR | 4BR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metro Pools (Atlanta Metro + Other Metro) | 60% | 50% | 50% | 25% | 20% |
| Rural Pool | 30% | 25% | 25% | 20% | 15% |
Threshold Criteria, Section II. 2026 Competitive Round Applications must use HUD's 2025 Total Development Cost Limits; 2027 Round Applications must use HUD's 2026 limits — a deliberate one-year lag built into the QAP.
Exceeding the resulting limit isn't automatically fatal, but it requires a real waiver package submitted by the Waiver Request deadline: a certification from the municipality/architect/engineer documenting the specific waiver-triggering condition, a non-Identity-of-Interest third-party cost review specific to the items requiring the waiver, environmental remediation documentation if applicable, and a detailed third-party cost breakdown isolating the extraordinary items from typical construction costs. "DCA reserves the right to deny waivers at its discretion. If DCA denies a cost limit waiver, the Applicant will fail Threshold" (Threshold Criteria, Section II) — a cost overrun that DCA doesn't accept isn't a scoring penalty, it's an outright Threshold failure.
Contingency and contractor fee caps
| Item | Limit | Base |
|---|---|---|
| Construction contingency, new construction | 5% maximum | Total construction hard costs |
| Construction contingency, rehabilitation | 10% maximum | Total construction hard costs |
| Construction contingency, any GHFA-loan-funded property | 3% minimum | Total construction hard costs |
| Builder Profit | 6% maximum | Land Improvements & Structures subtotal (Core Application, Part IV) |
| Builder Overhead | 2% maximum | Land Improvements & Structures subtotal |
| General Requirements | 6% maximum | Land Improvements & Structures subtotal |
| Community service facility (adjusted basis) | $1,250,000 maximum | Included in eligible basis |
Threshold Criteria, Exhibits to Threshold Criteria, A.3, A.5. Builder Profit, Builder Overhead, and General Requirements are three separate caps on the same cost base — together they can reach 14% of Land Improvements & Structures, not a single combined 6% limit.
The construction contingency line is not a general slush fund: "In the absence of unforeseen circumstances, a change order may cover the following costs: (a) Amenities designed to enhance the quality of life of the residents; (b) Amenities that provide security such as lighting, fencing, and life safety monitoring systems; (c) Product upgrades that increase durability and decrease maintenance costs; (d) Product upgrades or scope additions that increase energy efficiency and decrease operational costs" (Threshold Criteria, A.5) — and soft-cost or total-project contingency above the allowed construction contingency figure is disallowed outright (Threshold Criteria, A.17).
Developer fee: 4% Credits/Bonds deals actually get a higher dollar cap than 9%
| Credit type | New construction | Rehabilitation / Adaptive Reuse |
|---|---|---|
| 9% Credits | 13% of TDC (excl. fee/reserves) / $2,700,000 / $38,000 per unit | $2,700,000 / 30% of hard costs |
| 4% Credits/Bonds | 13% of TDC (excl. fee/reserves) / $4,500,000 / $30,000 per unit | $4,500,000 / 30% of hard costs |
Threshold Criteria, Exhibits to Threshold Criteria, A.7. Consulting and guarantor fees count toward the total Developer Fee calculation; green building certification costs do not.
This is a real, counterintuitive structural feature worth flagging on its own: a 9% deal — which receives roughly triple the federal subsidy of a 4% deal — actually has a lower dollar-cap ceiling ($2.7M) and a lower per-unit cap ($38,000) than a 4%/Bonds deal ($4.5M cap, but only $30,000 per unit). A larger 4%/Bonds deal can therefore end up with substantially more total developer fee dollars available than an otherwise-comparable 9% deal, purely because of where the dollar ceiling sits, even though its per-unit cap is lower. No more than 50% of the total Developer Fee shown in the Application may be deferred, it must be payable within 15 years from available cash flow, and the fee cannot increase after Application Submission — for an Application requesting additional credits after placement in service, the fee is frozen at the originally approved amount (Threshold Criteria, Exhibits to Threshold Criteria, A.7, I.9).
Green building and accessibility are mandatory Threshold items, not scoring bonuses
Unlike QAPs that score green building as an optional points category, Georgia's Building Sustainability requirements sit in Threshold Criteria (Section XVI) and apply to every project. Every Application must comply with the current Georgia State Minimum Standard Energy Code (the International Energy Conservation Code with Georgia's own supplements), meet specific fixture-level requirements (WaterSense toilets ≤1.28 gpf, showerheads ≤2.5 gpm, Energy Star-certified bathroom fans and appliances, LED/fluorescent lighting for at least 95% of required fixtures by count, low-VOC interior finishes at or below 50 g/L for walls/ceilings and 100 g/L for floors), and pass duct/envelope air-leakage testing under RESNET protocols — with rehabilitation projects required to establish a documented pre-rehab baseline test on the same units later tested post-rehab, targeting either a 20% improvement over baseline or new-construction leakage standards outright.
On top of that, every Application must obtain an actual third-party sustainable building certification — EarthCraft House Multifamily/Sustainable Preservation, Enterprise Green Communities Criteria, LEED for Homes, NGBS Green Certification at Bronze or higher, or Green Globes for Multifamily New Construction (2024 edition or later) — at whatever version of that program is current when construction drawings are prepared (Threshold Criteria, Section XVI.B). This is a real pass/fail gate, not a scoring differentiator: an Application without a qualifying certification path simply fails Threshold.
Accessibility runs on a similar mandatory-Threshold model: at least 5% of total units (minimum one) must be mobility-accessible, with curbless showers in 40% of those units, plus a separate additional 2% (minimum one) for hearing/sight-impaired residents — the same unit cannot double-count toward both requirements — and senior properties must be 100% accessible/adaptable under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, regardless of the property's year of first residential use (Threshold Criteria, Section XVII). A DCA-qualified accessibility Consultant is required on every award, performing a pre-construction plan review, contractor/subcontractor training (at least two sessions, one on-site), a post-framing inspection, and a final inspection before cost certification — each with its own report DCA must receive.
Labor: no state prevailing wage law, and local governments are statutorily blocked from creating one
Verified directly against the U.S. Department of Labor's own state-by-state list rather than assumed from reputation: Georgia is one of 24 states the DOL identifies as having no state prevailing wage law at all — a materially different history from a state like Kansas, which enacted and later repealed its own prevailing wage act (K.S.A. 44-201, repealed 1987). Georgia's QAP and 2026 Application Manual contain no mention of "prevailing wage" or "Davis-Bacon" anywhere in their text (confirmed by direct search), and this research found no evidence Georgia has ever had a state prevailing wage statute to repeal.
Georgia goes a step further than mere silence: O.C.G.A. § 34-4-3.1 bars local government entities — counties, municipal corporations, consolidated governments, authorities, and local boards among them — from adopting, maintaining, or enforcing a wage or employment-benefit mandate on employers by charter, ordinance, purchase agreement, contract, regulation, rule, or resolution. That reaches a construction contract tied to a local bond issuance: a county development authority or Urban Residential Finance Authority acting as bond issuer for a Georgia 4%/Bonds deal (see Phase 4) cannot layer its own local prevailing-wage requirement onto that contract, even if it wanted to. Separately, Georgia is a right-to-work state under O.C.G.A. § 34-6-21 (enacted 1947), which bars requiring union membership or affiliation as a condition of employment — relevant general labor-law context, though distinct from prevailing wage specifically.
None of that makes a Georgia LIHTC job automatically Davis-Bacon-free if federal HOME funds enter the capital stack. Federal HOME regulations trigger Davis-Bacon independently of any state law: under 24 CFR § 92.354, every construction contract for housing with 12 or more HOME-assisted units must include Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage provisions, reaching the entire project's construction once triggered — not just the HOME-assisted units or HOME-funded cost lines. Georgia's own QAP threshold requirements for HOME-funded deals (Threshold Criteria, Section B, "Additional DCA Policies Related to the Funding of DCA HOME Loans") cover general contractor approval, insurance, bonding, and draw procedures in detail but do not themselves restate the Davis-Bacon trigger — it applies by force of the federal HOME regulation regardless of what the QAP says.
Where this goes wrong
- Assuming Georgia publishes its own flat per-unit or per-square-foot cost cap the way CTCAC does — it ties directly to HUD's own PIH Total Development Cost Limits with a DCA percentage add-on that varies by geographic pool and unit size, and runs a full year behind HUD's own published figures.
- Treating a cost limit waiver request as a routine ask — DCA can and will fail an Application at Threshold outright if it denies the waiver, and the documentation package (non-Identity-of-Interest third-party cost review, municipal/engineer certification, environmental report where applicable) is substantial.
- Assuming Builder Profit, Builder Overhead, and General Requirements are one combined 6% cap — they are three separate caps (6% / 2% / 6%) on the same Land Improvements & Structures cost base, together reaching as much as 14%.
- Assuming the developer fee cap is the same across program types — a 4% Credits/Bonds deal actually carries a higher dollar ceiling ($4,500,000) than a 9% deal ($2,700,000), even though its per-unit cap ($30,000) is lower than 9%'s ($38,000); model each program's schedule separately, not a single blended assumption.
- Treating Georgia's green building requirement as a scoring bonus to opt into for extra points — it is a mandatory Threshold item (Building Sustainability, Section XVI) that every project must clear at a real third-party certification level, with no scoring-based opt-out.
- Skipping the documented pre-rehab duct/envelope leakage baseline test on a rehabilitation project — DCA requires the same units tested pre- and post-rehabilitation to establish the required 20% improvement (or new-construction-standard) showing.
- Assuming Georgia has zero prevailing-wage exposure because there's no state law — federal Davis-Bacon still applies once a deal crosses 12 or more HOME-assisted units (24 CFR §92.354), independent of anything in Georgia statute or the QAP.
- Assuming a local bond issuer (a county development authority or Urban Residential Finance Authority) could impose its own local prevailing-wage requirement on a bond-financed deal — O.C.G.A. §34-4-3.1 preempts local wage or benefit mandates imposed by ordinance, contract, or resolution alike.
- Confusing Georgia's lack of a prevailing wage law with a repeal (as in Kansas, which had and then repealed K.S.A. 44-201 in 1987) — Georgia is on the U.S. DOL's list of 24 states that never enacted one at all; the histories and any associated case law differ.
- Missing the accessibility Consultant's three separate, DCA-reportable inspection checkpoints (pre-construction plan review, post-framing, final) — this is a Threshold requirement with its own documentation chain, not a design guideline left to the architect.
- HUD
- LIHTC
- State QAPs
- IRS § 42
- Housing Finance Agencies