Site sourcing and screening — Idaho

Confirming which document governs, and for which credit

IHFA's Board of Commissioners approved the 2026 Qualified Allocation Plan on April 30, 2026, following a public hearing in Boise on March 19, 2026; Governor Brad Little approved it on May 18, 2026. Both dates are stated on the document's own title page. The QAP itself states it "is intended to be in effect for two calendar years unless revisions are required," and IHFA reserves the right to revise it at its sole discretion. One filename-level trap is worth flagging directly: as posted on idahohousing.com, the live PDF's own file name is "2026-final-qap-pending-governor-approval-redline.pdf" -- a leftover from an earlier stage of IHFA's publishing workflow -- while the page's own link text and the document's own title page both read "2026 FINAL QAP (Governor Approval) 05-18-2026." The document's internal text, not its URL slug, is what confirms this is the finalized, Governor-approved plan; a screen should verify the same way rather than assume the file name reflects the document's current status. Separately, and per this build-out's own standing instruction: novoco.com's copies of state QAPs should not be treated as a reliable current source for Idaho -- the only source treated as authoritative here is idahohousing.com's own document library.

A second branch belongs at the very start of any Idaho screen, before geography or amenities: which credit type is being pursued. Competitive 9% credits are awarded once a year, in a single statewide round with a point-threshold cutoff (70 points minimum). 4% credits paired with tax-exempt bond financing are evaluated against the same QAP thresholds and Selection Criteria definitions, but are not required to compete in the annual round at all -- Sponsors may apply for a Conditional Commitment any time between January 1 and October 31, subject to a 50-point threshold and to a market-saturation check: if two proposed developments are pending in the same market area at the same time, IHFA will award both only if the submitted market studies show sufficient demand for all of them; otherwise, the higher-scoring development under the Selection Criteria Point Threshold prevails. A site screen for a 4% deal therefore has to check who else may be filing in the same market area concurrently -- something a 9% screen, with its single fixed annual deadline, does not need to worry about in the same way.

No geographic pools for 9% credits -- four set-asides instead, plus a bond-only county rule

Idaho's QAP does not divide the state into competing geographic pools (Metro/Rural, Urban/Balance-of-State, etc.) the way some other states' QAPs do for their 9% competitive credits. This was checked directly against the QAP's Section 5 (Special Needs Set-Asides) and Section 6 (Selection Criteria Point System): there is no percentage-of-credits target tied to a defined urban or rural pool anywhere in either section. What Idaho has instead is four set-asides that compete for shares of the same statewide per-capita ceiling, each defined by a program or population characteristic rather than a geographic boundary.

The one real county-level distinction this research confirmed is not in the QAP at all -- it lives in IHFA's separate Statement of Policy and Rules Concerning Issuance of Bonds for Multifamily Housing Projects (adopted September 19, 2025), specifically in that policy's Exhibit A, the Multifamily Private Activity Bond Volume Cap Allocation Plan. That Volume Cap Waitlist -- which ranks 4% tax-exempt bond deals for the private activity bond volume cap they need to close -- awards a 20-point "County Preference" to any project located outside the boundaries of Ada County and Canyon County (the two counties containing Boise, Meridian, Nampa, and Caldwell, i.e., the Boise metro area), out of a maximum of roughly 100 points across all Volume Cap Waitlist categories. This is the closest thing Idaho has to an urban-growth-area versus rural distinction, and it is easy to misapply: it affects only the Volume Cap Waitlist ranking used for 4%/bond deals, not the QAP's own 9% Selection Criteria Point System, which contains no equivalent Ada/Canyon exclusion or bonus anywhere in its text.

Selection Criteria that turn on location -- distance bands, poverty rate, and market saturation by city

Idaho's Selection Criteria Point System (QAP §6.4) scores proximity to services using distance bands that differ by whether the community qualifies as "urban" or "rural" -- but the QAP defines those two terms functionally, by USDA Rural Development eligibility, not by any state-drawn boundary: a "Rural Community" is one that qualifies as an eligible community for USDA RD Multifamily Housing programs, and an "Urban Community" is everything that does not. Item 1 of the Selection Criteria awards up to 5 points (half a point per category) for developments within set distances of any of sixteen listed goods/services/employer categories -- grocery stores, retail, police/fire, pharmacy, post office, bank, park, schools, library, health club, hospital/clinic, social services or licensed childcare, transit stop, greenbelt path access, and a major employer.

Two other Selection Criteria items matter directly at the screening stage. Item 10, "Areas of Opportunity," awards 2 points if the site's census tract has a poverty rate at or below the State of Idaho's overall average poverty rate -- IHFA publishes that benchmark annually; for the 2026 cycle it is 10.5%, sourced to Census.gov QuickFacts and published in IHFA's own Combined Annual LIHTC Application Information document. Item 13 awards up to 5 points (1 point per year lapsed, capped at 5) if the city where the site sits has not received a competitive 9% award in the preceding five years -- a market-saturation and geographic-spread mechanism built entirely around city-level history rather than a fixed pool. IHFA publishes the list of cities that received competitive awards each year; recent cycles show Boise and Twin Falls recurring most often, with Caldwell, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Meridian, Eagle, Nampa, Kuna, Mountain Home, Payette, and Rexburg also appearing across 2021-2025.

A community revitalization preference item (QAP §6.5, item 5) awards 1 additional point specifically when a development is inside a qualified census tract AND contributes to a certified urban renewal district or other city-designated geographic area that specifically addresses affordable housing as a goal -- documentation from the urban renewal district or city confirming both the QCT location and the boundary/goal match is required; a citywide (non-boundary-specific) revitalization designation does not qualify.

Federal QCT/DDA and state basis boosts are both discretionary under this QAP -- neither is automatic

This is a genuinely Idaho-specific nuance worth flagging explicitly, because it differs from how some other states' QAPs treat the same federal mechanism. IHFA's QAP addresses the federal Qualified Census Tract / Difficult Development Area basis increase in Section 7.3.6, "Increased Eligible Basis," and its own language makes the increase conditional rather than automatic: "Up to a 30% increase in eligible basis will be considered for developments located in HUD designated 'Difficult to Develop Areas' or 'Qualified Census Tracts,' if deemed necessary by the Association for the financial feasibility and viability of the proposed development." A site sitting in a QCT or DDA does not receive the boost by simple virtue of location under this QAP's own text -- IHFA still has to determine the increase is necessary for feasibility, on a case-by-case basis.

Idaho's QAP also runs a second, entirely separate 30% eligible-basis boost under Section 5.6, "Eligible Basis Increase (up to 30%) for Certain State Designations" -- this one is not tied to QCT/DDA status at all. It is available only to developments applying under the Special Housing Need Set-Aside (§5.2), or to developments with unusually high costs tied to being in "a high-cost resort community or urban center" (defined in the QAP as an area ineligible for USDA Rural classification and in close proximity, at IHFA's sole discretion, to areas with high development costs from dense population). To qualify, a project generally must show per-unit or per-square-foot costs at least 30% above the average of comparable projects in the latest competitive round, and Sponsors must notify IHFA in writing at least 10 days before applying, with a detailed narrative justification. The QAP's own note under Section 5.6 states plainly that "this category is not intended to override or supersede federally designated basis boosts for being in DDAs or QCTs" -- confirming these are two independent, non-substitutable mechanisms, both requiring IHFA's affirmative determination rather than triggering automatically.

Site Selection guidance and Market Study Threshold -- what a screen has to clear before scoring even starts

Section 7.3.2 ("Site Selection") is IHFA's own statement of which site characteristics it discourages, and it is short and direct: sites near facilities that process or store hazardous or explosive materials, sites in wetlands or floodplains, sites near airport runways, sites in high-noise-impacted areas, or sites in proximity to unprotected waterways. IHFA "strongly encourages" Sponsors to schedule a meeting before the application round deadline to address any health, safety, or environmental issues involved with a proposed site -- this is framed as underwriting judgment applied during Development Evaluation, not a numeric scoring category, so a site with one of these characteristics is not automatically disqualified, but should be expected to draw underwriting scrutiny.

Separately, every application must clear the Market Study Threshold (QAP §4.9.1, Exhibit H-1): a market study no more than 6 months old (extendable to 12 months with an update), prepared by a provider on IHFA's own approved market study provider list -- a acquisition/rehabilitation deal may substitute an MAI appraisal addressing 93%-or-greater sustainable occupancy instead. IHFA reserves sole discretion to fail the Market Study Threshold outright if marketability is "deemed questionable," regardless of what the submitted study concludes.