I have prepared a table HERE that shows by state
- The number and percentage of areas where the HUD FY 2012 FMR is less than the LIHTC maximum rent for 50% MFI restricted LIHTC units.
- The number and percentage of areas where the HUD FY 2012 FMR is less than 95% of the LIHTC 50% MFI rent maximum. This "street rent" adjustment allows for comparisons in situations where market conditions prevent a LIHTC project from achieving the maximum allowable rent.
- If FMR/voucher rents are below LIHTC rents, those LIHTC units may not be available to voucher holders unless they are granted an exception rent or unless they pay 100% of the difference between the FMR and the LIHTC rent.
- 38% of all areas have 2 BR FMR's that are below the 50% LIHTC rent limit; that percentage drops to 25% when using 95% of the LIHTC 50% rent maximum. (If 60% MFI LIHTC rents were used for comparison 84% of all areas would have LIHTC rents higher than HUD FMR's, that percentage drops to 75% if 95% of the 60% MFI LIHTC rent limit is used).
- Iowa (100%) has the highest percentage of areas where the voucher rent is below the LIHTC 50% MFI rent maximum; that percentage stays the same even when using 95% of the LIHTC 50% MFI rent.
- Minnesota (97%) is another state where there are a large number of areas where the voucher rent is below the LIHTC 50% MFI rent maximum; that 97% drops to 75% when using 95% of the LIHTC 50% MFI rent
- California and NY have FEW areas where FMR's exceed LIHTC rents, and when using 95% of the LIHTC 50% MFI rent their percentage of areas where FMR are below LIHTC rents drops to ZERO for California and 2% in New York.
- Several other rural states appear to have high percentages of areas where FMR's are below LIHTC rents.
Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog