Program election: 9% vs. 4% vs. hybrid — Nebraska

Two Allocation Plans, one agency — and the 4% track is competitive too

NIFA is Nebraska's sole state housing credit agency for both the 9% and 4% federal credit and administers the state's own Nebraska Affordable Housing Tax Credit (AHTC) alongside both. But it does not run one combined document the way some states do: "The allocation of the federal low income housing tax credit issued in connection with the issuance of qualifying tax-exempt bonds (the 4% LIHTC) is governed by a separate 2026/2027/2028 Housing Credit Allocation Plan for 4% LIHTC." Each Plan — the 9% plan (Final 3/2025) and the 4% plan (Final 12/2024) — was independently approved by the NIFA Board and forwarded to the Governor for approval under Section 42 of the Code, and each has its own Application, fee schedule, and scoresheet.

The competitive 9% cycle: set-asides, a 40-point floor, and a calendar that has already moved past this year

All 9% allocations run through "special set-aside priorities, federal law and the NIFA scoring system" (Section 3): a 10% Non-Profit Set-Aside (the federal statutory floor under Code Section 42(h)(5)); a 50%-Metro/50%-Non-Metro split, with Metro and Non-Metro developments "scored separately"; and the CRANE set-aside (up to 33% of the annual ceiling — see below). Every LIHTC Application, Competitive or CRANE, must clear a minimum score of 40 in the "Other Selection Criteria" category — up from 30 points in the prior QAP cycle, per NIFA's own Policy Objectives and QAP Change Matrix.

No mathematical tiebreaker — ties resolve on a seven-factor discretionary list

Nebraska does not compute a percentage tiebreaker the way some states' competitive rounds do. Its "Final Ranking" provision ranks applications by total points first, then — only "if there is a tie between applications that is not otherwise addressed through a prioritization" — works through an ordered list of qualitative factors, not a formula.

Two mechanics narrow the field before a tie is ever reached: NIFA prioritizes and funds "Housing and Healthcare" developments first, up to the available H3C multifamily lending funding, ahead of the general ranking; and NIFA will affirmatively "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, pool-dependent cost check, not a fixed dollar ceiling (see Phase 6).

CRANE: a rolling, mission-targeted 9% set-aside — not a fourth credit type

CRANE (Collaborative Resources Allocation for Nebraska) is a set-aside inside the 9% program, not a separate credit or a hybrid structure. NIFA sets aside "up to 33% of Nebraska's annual LIHTC authority" for CRANE, with a single development capped at 20% of the annual authority — the same 20% ceiling that applies to Competitive LIHTC, shared across both. CRANE applications are accepted year-round and reviewed monthly through a three-tier process (an eligibility email, then a CRANE Application, then the LIHTC Application), and are sorted into four readiness categories from "Conceptual" to "Ready, in all aspects, to proceed."

CROWN is a different thing entirely, and easy to confuse with CRANE by name alone. It is not a set-aside or a hybrid credit structure — it is a 3-point "Eventual Tenant Homeownership" scoring election on the ordinary 9% scoresheet, requiring its own CROWN LURA, a fixed 15-year compliance/15-year extended-use affordability term, and (like CRANE) a mandatory Qualified Contract waiver. CROWN developments are also excluded from Mixed Income Development points. A developer chasing Nebraska's "hybrid" options should not treat CROWN as a 9%/4% blend — it is a homeownership-conversion election within the standard 9% program.

The 4% bond track: two sub-tracks with the same calendar but very different caps

NIFA splits the 4% program into two sub-tracks, both running on the same annual calendar, sized very differently:

On the state credit: AHTC "will be awarded only in connection with qualifying developments for which the owners have also received an allocation of 9% LIHTC except as otherwise may be provided in the 2026/2027/2028 Housing Credit Allocation Plan for 4% LIHTC." The 4% Plan's own carve-out is narrow: AHTC "will only be available to owners of developments to whom specific Private Activity Bond Cap is allocated in connection with AHTCs" — in practice, this reads as the AHTC-bundled sub-track described above. This research could not confirm any additional path to AHTC on a 4% deal beyond that sub-track; confirm directly with NIFA if structuring a 4%-only deal that later wants AHTC.

Who issues the bonds, and the aggregate-basis test NIFA's own text hasn't caught up on

NIFA is not necessarily the bond issuer. The 4% Plan names two paths side by side: Section 3.7, "NIFA as Issuer of Tax-Exempt Bonds" (requiring a limited-purpose intent resolution from the NIFA Board), and Section 3.8, "Non-NIFA Issuer of Tax-Exempt Bonds" (requiring an intent resolution from "the proposed issuer (e.g. governmental entity)" instead). Either way, a separate Unified Volume Cap Allocation Application must be submitted to NIFA, which administers the state's entire private-activity-bond volume cap under Governor's Executive Order #98-3 — not a dedicated Nebraska statute — regardless of who ultimately issues the bonds. NIFA's own instructions for that application (last revised 11/2015) list a $18,000,000 maximum request for the "Multifamily Rental Housing" category, which lines up with the 4% Plan's own current $18 million AHTC-bundled cap; the other listed categories (Single Family Housing, Student Loans, First Time Farmer Projects, Industrial/Manufacturing, Solid Waste) draw on the same statewide volume-cap pool.

On the federal "financed by" test: the 4% Plan states plainly that "unless otherwise provided by Section 42 of the Code, at least 50% of the aggregate basis of the development (including the land) must be financed with the proceeds of the tax-exempt Bonds" (Section 3.6). A full-text search of both the 9% and 4% Allocation Plan documents found zero mentions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21), Section 70422, or a 25% alternative test anywhere. That 25% alternative is real, current federal law — P.L. 119-21 § 70422(b) amended IRC Section 42(h)(4)(B) to add it, effective for bonds issued in 2026 and later — but NIFA has published no guidance addressing it. The Plan's own "unless otherwise provided by Section 42 of the Code" phrasing may mean the 25% path flows through automatically without a plan amendment, but this research found no NIFA-published confirmation of that reading. Get independent bond counsel confirmation before sizing a Nebraska deal to the 25% path.

On hybrids: neither Allocation Plan document contains any defined "twinned" or combined-structure concept for pairing a 9% portion with a 4% portion of the same or an adjacent development. That silence is a real gap in the published record, not tacit permission — a developer considering a hybrid structure in Nebraska is working from bond counsel and syndicator judgment alone, with no QAP-level framework to lean on.