"There's no per-unit cost cap in NIFA's plan the way I've seen elsewhere — so what actually controls my total development cost and developer fee, which design and energy standards are mandatory versus just worth points, and does any prevailing-wage law reach this construction contract?"
No flat per-unit cost cap — cost control runs through a comparative scoring category instead
This research found no published dollar-per-unit or dollar-per-square-foot Total Development Cost ceiling anywhere in either Allocation Plan. Instead, Nebraska prices cost discipline two ways: a scored, relative comparison against the current applicant pool, and a standard-deviation-based reduction trigger.
"Efficient Housing Production" is worth up to 6 points and compares "total development cost (excluding land, reserves, and NIFA fees) per unit" (up to 2 points), the same total "per residential finished square foot" (up to 2 points), and "LIHTC per occupant" (up to 2 points) against other applications in the same cycle — separated by development type (new construction/adaptive reuse vs. rehabilitation) within each set-aside. If fewer than four rehabilitation applications are submitted in a cycle, "the measurements from the previous year(s) shall be used with an increase applied... based on the average new construction/adaptive reuse change in costs from the previous year." Separately, NIFA "will reduce the 9% LIHTC/AHTC amount if any of the Efficient Cost Measures exceed one standard deviation above the mean as outlined in the LIHTC Application" (Section 9.1(e)) — a relative check, not a fixed number a developer can budget against in isolation.
Fee caps: one bundled percentage-of-basis ceiling, identical for 9% and 4%
Rather than assigning builder overhead, general requirements, builder profit, and developer fee each their own separate percentage cap, Nebraska bundles them all into a single combined ceiling, measured against eligible basis, worded identically in the 9% Plan (Section 9.2) and the 4% Plan (Section 3.4).
| Step |
|---|
| Total Eligible Basis |
| – Builder/Contractor Overhead |
| – Builder/Contractor Profit |
| – General Requirements |
| – Developer Overhead |
| – Developer Fee |
| – Tax Credit Consultant Fee |
| – Real Estate Consultant Fee |
| = Adjusted Eligible Basis |
| x 24% = Maximum allowable amount for all of the items subtracted above, combined |
2026/2027/2028 9% Allocation Plan, Section 9.2(a); 2026/2027/2028 4% Allocation Plan, Section 3.4(b). NIFA states plainly that it "may reduce the LIHTC and AHTC allocations to achieve the range of 24% limit for these fees" rather than rejecting the application outright.
| Item | Cap | Base |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture/engineering/survey fees | 7% | Hard new-construction/rehabilitation construction costs (excludes contractor overhead/profit/general requirements) |
| Acquisition-only developer fee (existing building being rehabbed) | 5% | Building acquisition cost, excluding land and land-purchase/lease fees; requires a current unrelated third-party appraisal |
9% Allocation Plan, Sections 9.2(b)-(c); 4% Allocation Plan, Sections 3.4(c), 3.5.
Mandatory design, energy and accessibility standards — separate from the scored bonus points
Nebraska draws a hard line between what an architect must certify as a threshold matter and what only earns competitive points. The mandatory floor (Exhibit 100, required of every applicant) is narrow and specific:
| Requirement | Standard |
|---|---|
| Roofing and siding | Exceed relevant ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards |
| Windows | Minimum R-value of 2.86, or maximum U-value of .35 (exception available for federal historic tax credit projects, with SHPO documentation) |
| Appliances | Energy Star® rated or better, all installed appliances |
| Energy code | Applicable local energy conservation code, or the 2018 International Energy Conservation Code (or the most recent code adopted by the State of Nebraska) |
| Building code | Local code, Uniform Building Code, International Residential Building Code, National Building Code, Council of American Officials one/two-family code, or HUD minimum property standards (24 CFR 200.925/200.926) |
2026/2027/2028 9% NIFA/NDED Application, Exhibit 100, "Architect Certification, Required Design and Required Green Standards, and Architectural Plans" (identical requirement in the 4%/Bond Application).
Beyond that mandatory floor, a separate and much larger menu of scored Design Standards (up to 8 points) and Green Standards (up to 6 points) sits on the scoresheet: brick/stone exterior in excess of 25% of the front elevation, 100% fiber-cement or engineered-wood siding, polymer-modified or metal shingle roofing, street-visible landscaping, 20%+ of units meeting "visitability" standards (2 points), 10%+ of units built to Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) or stricter (3 points), geothermal/active solar, smart connected thermostats, Energy Star-rated mechanical equipment, higher-R windows, recycled-content carpet, and low-VOC finishes, among others. These are optional and competitive, not thresholds — a development can meet every mandatory Exhibit 100 requirement and still score zero Design/Green Standards points.
Accessibility: Fair Housing Act certification always; Section 504's 5%/2% floor only with HOME/HTF money
Every applicant's architect must certify Fair Housing Act Amendments Act compliance (Exhibit 101(i)) regardless of funding source, backed by the Fair Housing Act Accessibility Certification in Appendix B. But the specific, numeric Section 504 unit-accessibility floor is tied in NIFA's own text to HOME/HTF funding: "If applying for HOME/HTF funds, Section 504 accessibility requirements are applicable to the development... New construction projects with five (5) or more total units and substantial rehabilitation projects with 15 or more total units must provide 5% of the project's units (but not less than one) for physically disabled occupants and another 2% of units (but not less than one) designed to be accessible to those with visual or hearing impairments" (24 CFR Part 8). For a LIHTC/AHTC-only development with no HOME or HTF funds layered in, this mandatory 5%/2% floor is not stated as applying — accessibility there runs off the Fair Housing Act's general design/construction requirements and the scored UFAS/visitability bonus points described above instead. This tracks the general federal legal principle that Section 504 attaches to recipients of federal financial assistance, and LIHTC awards alone are not typically treated as such — but a developer should confirm this reading with counsel for any specific deal rather than assume it.
Nebraska has no state prevailing-wage law — Davis-Bacon shows up only through HOME/HTF money
Neither Allocation Plan document mentions "prevailing wage" or "Davis-Bacon" anywhere in connection with the LIHTC or AHTC award itself. Independent research into Nebraska statute confirms why: Nebraska has no state prevailing-wage rate law — no "Little Davis-Bacon" act comparable to what many other states maintain.
| Statute | What it requires |
|---|---|
| Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 73-101 | Sets bid-opening procedures (fixed date/hour, simultaneous public opening) for public works and supply contracts advertised by the State, counties, municipalities, school districts, and other governmental subdivisions |
| Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 73-102 | Requires every contractor bidding on such a public works contract to file a statement with the awarding authority that it "is complying with, and will continue to comply with, fair labor standards" |
| Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 73-104 | Defines "fair labor standards" as "such a scale of wages and conditions of employment as are paid and maintained by at least fifty percent of the contractors in the same business or field of endeavor as the contractor filing such statement" — a market-comparability self-certification, not a government-set wage schedule |
This is a materially weaker mechanism than a true prevailing-wage law: no state agency publishes a wage determination, and compliance is a contractor's own certification against what half the local market already pays, not an enforced minimum rate.
Chapter 73 governs bids let by a governmental awarding authority for its own public works contract. This research could not confirm whether it reaches a privately owned entity's (an LP's or LLC's) construction contract on a NIFA-financed LIHTC development at all — NIFA itself is not the party awarding the construction contract in a typical deal, the private ownership entity is. Confirm this scope question with counsel before assuming either way, especially where a public housing authority is the developer/owner or the deal otherwise runs through a governmental awarding authority's own bid process.
Federal Davis-Bacon does appear in Nebraska's program documents — but only inside the federal cross-cutting requirements checklist tied to NDED's HOME and Housing Trust Fund programs ("Davis-Bacon Act, As Amended (40 U.S.C. 276-a - 276a-5)... popularly known as The Copeland Act"), which HUD's own rules trigger for HOME-assisted construction over a unit-count threshold. A Nebraska LIHTC-only deal with no HOME, HTF, or other federal construction subsidy layered in most likely faces no wage-rate mandate at all under either federal or state law on this record — but that conclusion follows from the absence of any contrary provision in the documents reviewed, not from an explicit NIFA statement that LIHTC-only deals are exempt, so it should be confirmed for any specific deal.
Where this goes wrong
- Assuming Nebraska publishes a flat per-unit or per-square-foot cost cap. It doesn't; cost discipline runs through the comparative "Efficient Housing Production" scoring category plus a one-standard-deviation-above-mean reduction rule, both measured against the current applicant pool, not a fixed number.
- Assuming builder overhead, builder profit, general requirements, and developer fee each carry their own separate percentage cap. NIFA bundles all of them — plus tax credit and real estate consultant fees — into one combined 24%-of-adjusted-eligible-basis ceiling.
- Missing the separate 7% cap on architecture/engineering/survey fees against hard construction costs — a distinct limit from the 24% bundled fee cap, not a sub-component of it.
- Treating the acquisition developer fee the same as the general development fee. It's a separate 5%-of-building-acquisition-cost cap (excluding land), and requires a current, unrelated third-party appraisal.
- Assuming the mandatory Exhibit 100 design/energy standards (ASTM roofing, R-2.86 windows, Energy Star appliances, 2018 IECC) are the same list as the scored "Design Standards"/"Green Standards" bonus-point categories. They are two separate, non-overlapping lists — one is a threshold every applicant must certify, the other is competitive.
- Assuming Section 504's 5%-mobility/2%-sensory accessible-unit floor applies to every Nebraska LIHTC award. NIFA's own Exhibit 101 text ties that mandatory floor to developments applying for HOME/HTF funds; a LIHTC/AHTC-only deal's accessibility floor runs off the Fair Housing Act's requirements and the scored UFAS/visitability points instead.
- Assuming Nebraska has a Davis-Bacon-style prevailing wage law reaching LIHTC construction generally. It doesn't — Neb. Rev. Stat. Sections 73-102/73-104 require only a contractor's self-certification of "fair labor standards" (wages matching at least half of comparable local contractors) on public-works bids by governmental awarding authorities, a materially weaker mechanism than a wage-rate mandate, and one this research could not confirm even reaches a privately owned LIHTC ownership entity's construction contract.
- Assuming federal Davis-Bacon reaches every Nebraska LIHTC deal. In the documents reviewed, it appears only inside the federal cross-cutting compliance checklist tied to HOME/HTF funds — not as a condition of the 9% or 4% credit, or of NIFA's own tax-exempt bonds.
- Assuming the "Efficient Housing Production" cost comparison pools new construction and rehabilitation together. NIFA separates them by development type within each set-aside, and falls back to prior-year, inflation-adjusted measurements if fewer than four rehabilitation applications are received in a cycle.
- Treating Exhibit 100's window/appliance/energy-code standards as optional value-engineering choices. They are mandatory, architect-certified thresholds required of every applicant, not scored amenities.
- HUD
- LIHTC
- State QAPs
- IRS § 42
- Housing Finance Agencies