"Is there a hard per-unit cost ceiling we have to design to, and does Davis-Bacon reach this job anywhere in the stack?"
No published cost cap — a comparative review instead
QAP Section VIII(C)(2) has KHRC review vertical construction line items — demolition, site work, off-sites, rehabilitation, new construction, accessory buildings, general requirements, builder's overhead/profit, permit fees, other construction costs, and contingency — against public input, recently submitted cost certifications, and third-party data, rather than against a published dollar ceiling. That's a real structural difference from states that publish hard per-unit total development cost limits by region and unit count; Kansas's QAP contains no equivalent table anywhere in Section VIII. KHRC's authority runs both directions: it may adjust the LIHTC amount awarded if submitted costs are determined excessive or deficient — a below-market bid can shrink an award just as an inflated one can.
The QAP flags four building or site types where KHRC will consider higher costs justified: detached single-family houses, sites within a central business district, public housing redevelopment, and buildings of four or more stories using steel and concrete construction. That's a signal about which project types get more latitude in the comparison, not a published ceiling or floor for any of them.
Non-vertical ("other") costs go through a separate, more open-ended review — comparison against other applications, recent cost certifications, third-party input, and staff judgment (QAP § VIII(C)(2)) — with no published line-item schedule for soft costs the way some states publish.
Contingency, contractor fee, and the developer fee floor
| Item | Limit |
|---|---|
| Construction contingency, new construction | 7.5% of new-construction hard cost line items |
| Construction contingency, rehabilitation | 10% of rehabilitation hard cost line items |
| Contractor general requirements | 6% maximum |
| Contractor overhead | 2% maximum |
| Contractor profit | 6% maximum |
| Minimum developer fee, all applications | $40,000, inclusive of consulting fees (§ VIII(A)(9)) |
The $40,000 minimum developer fee floor applies as the underwriting-wide baseline referenced before either the size-graduated new-construction schedule or the rehab greater-of formula established in Phase 4 kicks in. No more than half of the developer fee shown in the application may be deferred, and small HOME- or HTF-only projects of 8 units or fewer are capped separately at 15% of total HOME/HTF-eligible costs rather than the standard per-unit schedule.
DDA/QCT sites get an automatic 30% eligible-basis boost; any other 9% applicant can request a discretionary KHRC-defined boost under KHRC's authority to increase the boost in basis under IRC Section 42 (QAP § VIII(A)(8)). KHRC reviews and approves or denies each request individually — there's no published criteria for which non-DDA/QCT sites will get one, so treat it as a case-by-case ask, not a formula.
Category J: which construction type buys points
| Option | Points | Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Senior Housing with Services | 5 | Commit to at least 3 of 11 listed amenities/services: garages or covered parking, storm shelters, UFAS units above the minimum required, a community room with kitchen, a fitness room, free Wi-Fi or a computer room, a walking path with outdoor seating, a community garden, adjacency to a senior/community center with regular programming, regular transportation or an on-site bus stop, or structured recreational/educational programs |
| Three or More Bedrooms (Family) | 10 | At least 25% of LIHTC units contain 3 or more bedrooms |
The two subsections are mutually exclusive, and Family is worth double the full Senior amenity commitment — a real signal about which construction type KHRC's scoring rewards more heavily. Neither option is restricted to one credit type; the QAP states no 9%-only or 4%-only limitation here, unlike Category G or parts of Category K. This scoring sits independent of the separate general-occupancy-vs-55-and-older target population election required elsewhere in the application (QAP § V(A)(11)).
Labor: no state prevailing wage since 1987, but federal layers still bite
Verified directly against the Kansas statute books, not assumed from common knowledge: Kansas's state prevailing-wage law, K.S.A. 44-201, was repealed by the Legislature in 1987 (L. 1987, ch. 186, § 1, effective July 1, 1987). No Kansas Department of Labor prevailing-wage schedule has applied to public or private construction in the state since, and the 2026 QAP itself imposes no LIHTC-specific wage standard of its own — Kansas is not a state where the allocating agency layers on its own labor requirement the way some QAPs do.
That doesn't make a Kansas LIHTC job automatically Davis-Bacon-free. HUD's HOME regulations trigger it independently: verified directly against 24 CFR § 92.354, every construction contract for housing with 12 or more HOME-assisted units must include Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage provisions, and once that threshold is crossed the wage standard reaches the entire project's construction — not just the HOME-assisted units or the HOME-funded cost lines. A Kansas deal layering HOME funds under a small unit count can stay under the trigger; one crossing 12 HOME-assisted units cannot avoid it by keeping HOME dollars to a minority share of the budget.
The 2026 QAP's own Appendix B, covering HUD Resources (HOME and NHTF), lists possible Davis-Bacon wage requirements as HOME-only, alongside Section 3 economic-opportunity requirements, MBE/WBE participation goals, and Build America Buy America (BABA) domestic-content requirements that attach once HOME or NHTF money enters the stack (24 CFR Parts 92 and 93). Kansas's National Housing Trust Fund program carries its own HUD labor-standards framework under 24 CFR Part 93; this has not been independently confirmed to use the identical 12-unit trigger HOME uses, so treat that specific threshold as HOME-verified only until checked directly against Part 93.
Net effect: a 9%-only or 4%-only Kansas deal with no HOME or NHTF in the capital stack carries no prevailing-wage requirement at all, state or federal. The wage question in Kansas is really a question of which federal soft funds get layered in — covered in Phase 7 — not a feature of the LIHTC award itself.
Where this goes wrong
- Assuming Kansas has a hard per-unit or per-square-foot cost cap the way California's TCAC does — the QAP contains no such ceiling; it's a comparative review that can adjust the award up or down.
- Treating the four "higher costs considered" building types (detached single-family, central business district, public housing redevelopment, 4+ story steel/concrete) as a blank check — it only means KHRC will entertain a higher figure against comparables, not that the cost is uncapped.
- Confusing the 7.5% new-construction contingency cap with the 10% rehabilitation contingency cap on hard cost line items.
- Assuming the $40,000 minimum developer fee floor is a state statute — it's a QAP underwriting standard (§ VIII(A)(9)) that applies before the size-based new-construction schedule or the rehab greater-of formula.
- Assuming a Kansas state prevailing wage schedule applies to LIHTC construction — K.S.A. 44-201 was repealed in 1987; no state prevailing wage law has reached any Kansas construction, public or private, since.
- Assuming a HOME-funded deal is Davis-Bacon-exempt as long as HOME is a minority share of the budget — the § 92.354 trigger is 12 or more HOME-assisted units, and once triggered the wage standard covers the whole project.
- Choosing both Senior (5 pts) and Family (10 pts) Category J subsections thinking they stack — they're mutually exclusive, and Family is worth double.
- Skipping Section 3, MBE/WBE, or BABA compliance on the theory that "it's just LIHTC" — these requirements attach from Appendix B the moment HOME or NHTF money enters the stack, independent of the LIHTC award.
- HUD
- LIHTC
- State QAPs
- IRS § 42
- Housing Finance Agencies