"There's no published per-unit cost cap in this QAP that I can find, MHC seems to score green building and hurricane-resistant construction as the same 7-point item, and everyone keeps asking whether Mississippi has prevailing wage — what am I actually required to build to, versus what just wins points?"
No published Total Development Cost cap — MHC underwrites hard costs against its own internal MCC standard instead
The QAP describes, but does not print, its per-unit cost limit. Section 5.6 states that "in developing the maximum cost per unit standard, MHC has examined building construction and land costs in the state... MHC has also examined statistical cost data on completed tax credit developments," and that this Maximum Construction Cost (MCC) per-unit figure is what MHC actually measures hard costs against — but the dollar figures themselves live on a separate underwriting form (Form FF-2: Maximum Construction Costs), not in the QAP narrative text. This research did not obtain that form and could not confirm the current-year MCC dollar figures by unit type or region; a developer needs the current Form FF-2 directly from MHC to know the actual per-unit number their county and building type will be measured against.
| Position relative to MCC limit | Scoring effect (Addendum A, item #2) | Approval requirement (Section 5.6) |
|---|---|---|
| Below the MCC limit | +5 points | None |
| At or up to 10% over the MCC limit | 0 points | Justification included in the application; no prior approval required, but MHC underwrites to the MCC limit if justification is inadequate |
| More than 10% over the MCC limit | -5 points | Prior MHC approval required by the waiver deadline, with architect/engineer certification of the specific cost drivers, or the excess is disqualified from consideration |
2026 QAP, Section 5.6 (Per Unit Costs); Addendum A, Selection Criteria item #2 (Maximum Construction Costs Limits Assessment).
The same pattern applies to operating costs: MHC sets a per-unit administrative expense standard (see Phase 5) using the same kind of internally derived historical-cost formula, backed by a separate Form FF-3 rather than a table printed in the QAP itself. In both cases, MHC's actual cost-control tool is a case-by-case, data-driven per-unit ceiling recalculated from Mississippi's own recent tax credit deals — not a single, publicly stated Total Development Cost cap a developer can check against a printed table.
Developer, consultant, and general contractor fee caps
| Fee | Cap | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Developer fee (new construction/rehab) | 15% of construction costs, including builder's profit | Covers developer overhead and consultant fees together; may be adjusted upward for smaller developments, hard-to-develop or socially desirable projects (homeless housing, SRO, scattered sites), or difficult-to-develop locations |
| Developer fee (acquisition credits) | Flat 10% of allowable acquisition cost | — |
| Consultant fees | Limited to within the developer fee cap | No separate allowance; architect/engineer fees otherwise reimbursable through the credit count as consultant fees; syndicator-payable costs (SEC registration, sales commissions) are excluded; MHC makes no for-profit/non-profit distinction here |
| Builder's profit | 6% of construction costs | — |
| Builder's overhead | 2% of construction costs | — |
| General requirements | 6% of construction costs | Also independently capped at 6% of total construction cost under "Other Fees" |
| Combined GC fee if related party and ≤25% subcontracted to a related party | One combined fee only (2% + 6% + 6% = 14%) | Requires a notarized statement of intent at application and a notarized statement of compliance (IRC perjury-statement language) before Form(s) 8609 |
| Construction contingency | 5% of new construction cost / 10% of rehabilitation cost | — |
| "Other Costs" line items (combined) | 2% of total construction cost | — |
| Architect design/planning fee | $1,850/unit | Separate cap for contract-administration fee: $500/unit |
2026 QAP, Section 5.8 (Limits on Fees).
Deferred developer fee is permitted generally — a Developer's Note with terms must accompany the application, and a revised Note plus syndicator sign-off confirming the deferred amount is includible in eligible basis must be provided before Form(s) 8609 are issued. A separate, more specific rule applies only to "Additional Credits Requests" (a developer asking MHC for more credits mid-deal to cover a cost increase after the initial award): "All updated financials must reflect a minimum of a 40% Deferred Developer Fee to be eligible for an additional credit award." That 40% figure is not a general deferral requirement for every Mississippi deal — it applies specifically as a condition of that one request type, and MHC will not consider such requests at all after the year the buildings are placed in service, or if the developer fee itself would need to increase to make the request work.
Green building and hurricane resilience: both scored, neither mandatory
MHC's Selection Criteria bundles environmental certification and storm resilience into a single optional scoring category. Addendum A, item #5 ("Building Standards," worth up to 7 points) lets an applicant choose one of two paths: (1) certification to the ICC 700 National Green Building Standard (Silver Level) or Enterprise Green Communities (EGC), requiring a signed letter of intent, an architect/engineer letter, and a Verifier's written proposal, with final certification due before Form(s) 8609 are issued; or (2) the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety's (IBHS) FORTIFIED Multifamily™ (Gold) standard, which the QAP describes as addressing "specific natural hazard risks" and helping a "multifamily structure's ability to resist wind, water, and hail damage from tropical cyclones or convective storms." Both paths earn the same up-to-7 points; neither is required to receive a tax credit award.
A second, separate scored item touches storm resilience at the unit level: Addendum A item #7 ("Unit Amenities") includes "Storm Doors" and "Storm Shelter" among its three-point amenities — the QAP points applicants toward FEMA's Safe Room Publications and Resources for storm-shelter design guidance. Like the Building Standards item, these are optional, scored amenities the applicant selects (and must then build and maintain, whether or not points are ultimately awarded), not a baseline mandatory requirement.
MHC's own mandatory construction specifications (Addendum B, Minimum Design Quality Standards) do not separately mandate hurricane- or wind-resistant construction; they cover unit sizes, ceiling heights, kitchen/closet dimensions, and life-safety equipment — hard-wired, interconnected smoke detectors on every level, hard-wired carbon monoxide detectors where a combustible appliance or attached garage is present, and an ABC dry-chemical fire extinguisher in every unit kitchen and on every common-area floor. Effective with the 2026 QAP, MHC also moved its smoke-free policy from a scored, 3-point amenity to a flat mandatory Minimum Design Standard — confirmed by MHC's own Executive Summary of 2026 revisions, which notes "the 3-point amenity for Smoke-free developments has been removed from Selection Criteria" and added as item 20 of Addendum B instead.
Mississippi's actual hurricane/wind building-code mandate lives outside the HTC program, in a 2006 statute with a county opt-out
Mississippi has no single mandatory statewide building code. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 17-2-1 through 17-2-11 create a Mississippi Building Codes Council that adopts model codes only as "discretionary statewide minimum codes" — counties and municipalities choose whether to adopt and enforce them. The one place state law overrides that local option is the Gulf Coast: House Bill 1406 (2006 Regular Session), enacted and sent to the Governor April 6, 2006, states directly: "The counties of Jackson, Harrison, Hancock, Stone and Pearl River, including all municipalities therein, shall enforce, on an emergency basis, all the wind and flood mitigation requirements prescribed by the 2003 International Residential Code and the 2003 International Building Code, as supplemented," and separately requires those same jurisdictions to adopt the latest editions of the IBC and IRC (with their referenced wind/flood standards) as their own minimum codes going forward.
That mandate is not absolute, though. The same bill gives each covered county or municipality a narrow opt-out window: "within sixty (60) days after the provisions of this section go into effect, the board of supervisors of a county and/or the governing authorities of any municipality within a county, upon resolution duly adopted and entered upon its minutes, may choose not to be subject to the code requirements imposed under this section." This research confirmed the 2006 enrolled bill's text directly but could not confirm, twenty years on, whether any of the five named counties or their municipalities ever exercised that opt-out, nor independently trace the act's current codified Mississippi Code section number with full confidence. A developer siting a project in Jackson, Harrison, Hancock, Stone, or Pearl River County should confirm current wind/flood code enforcement status directly with the relevant county or municipal building department — not assume the 2006 mandate automatically still binds unmodified, and not assume it extends to any other Mississippi county.
Rehabilitation thresholds
To qualify as a substantial-rehabilitation development under Section 42, a Mississippi acquisition/rehabilitation deal needs rehabilitation expenditures of at least $10,000 per unit in hard costs, or 20% of original basis, whichever is greater — or $6,000 per unit if the property is acquired from a government entity under an IRS waiver of the standard 10-year prior-ownership rule. Separately, the Selection Criteria (Addendum A, item #8) score rehabilitation on a sliding scale by hard-cost intensity: $35,000/unit earns 15 points, $25,000/unit earns 10 points, and $15,000/unit earns 5 points, with a required certification that major building systems (roof, walls, floors, foundation, plumbing, HVAC, electrical, doors/windows, parking lots, elevators, fire/safety systems) won't need further substantial rehabilitation for at least 15 years post-placement.
Labor: no state prevailing wage law, but Davis-Bacon still attaches through HOME and the Housing Trust Fund
Mississippi is not a state prevailing-wage state. Checked directly against the U.S. Department of Labor's own list of state prevailing wage laws (dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/prevailing-wages), Mississippi is one of 24 states with no state-level prevailing wage statute. Consistent with that, a direct text search of the full 2026 QAP finds zero mentions of "prevailing wage" or "Davis-Bacon" anywhere in the document — Mississippi's own Housing Tax Credit program imposes no state-level wage-rate mandate on construction labor.
That does not mean a Mississippi HTC deal is automatically free of federal labor standards. Federal Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage requirements attach independently whenever a project layers in HOME Investment Partnerships or National Housing Trust Fund dollars — and the QAP's own text shows that overlap is a live, common option in Mississippi, not a theoretical one: "The HOME Program will set aside $1,500,000 in funds for developments to apply for up to $750,000 per development," and "for deeper targeting units, the Housing Trust Fund Program will set aside $1,500,000 for developments to apply for up to $750,000 per development." A developer who layers either of those MHC-administered gap-financing pools onto an HTC award should plan for Davis-Bacon compliance on the HOME/HTF-assisted portion of the deal, even though nothing in the HTC program or Mississippi law itself creates that requirement.
Where this goes wrong
- Looking for a printed Total Development Cost or per-unit dollar cap in the QAP text — MHC's Maximum Construction Cost standard is calculated internally from historical application data and lives on a separate Form FF-2, not in the QAP narrative; the current dollar figures must be obtained directly from MHC.
- Assuming the developer fee cap and consultant fee allowance are separate pools — Mississippi's 15% developer fee cap explicitly "includes developer's overhead and consultant fees," and consultant fees are independently stated to be "permitted only within the limits of the developer fee," not as an add-on.
- Treating the 40% deferred-developer-fee requirement as a general Mississippi rule — it applies specifically and only to Additional Credits Requests (a mid-deal ask for more credits after cost increases), not to every Mississippi HTC application.
- Assuming green building certification or hurricane-resistant construction is mandatory in Mississippi — both the National Green Building Standard/Enterprise Green Communities path and the FORTIFIED Multifamily™ path sit inside the same optional, 7-point "Building Standards" Selection Criteria item; neither is a baseline requirement to receive an award.
- Assuming Mississippi's hurricane/wind building-code mandate is a statewide requirement — it applies only to Jackson, Harrison, Hancock, Stone, and Pearl River counties under a 2006 statute (HB 1406), and that same statute lets any covered county or municipality opt out by local resolution within 60 days of the requirement taking effect.
- Assuming Mississippi has a state prevailing wage law because many surrounding Gulf South states are discussed alongside it in federal contexts — confirmed directly against the U.S. DOL's own list, Mississippi has no state prevailing wage statute, and the QAP itself never mentions prevailing wage or Davis-Bacon.
- Assuming a Davis-Bacon-free HTC deal stays that way once HOME or Housing Trust Fund gap financing is added — both are set-aside inside the same QAP as companion funding sources, and both independently trigger federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements on the assisted portion of the deal.
- Missing that smoke-free policy moved from a scored amenity to a flat mandatory Minimum Design Standard for the 2026 QAP — a development can no longer earn the old 3-point Selection Criteria credit for it, but must still implement and document the policy to comply with Addendum B.
- HUD
- LIHTC
- State QAPs
- IRS § 42
- Housing Finance Agencies