Laserfiche WebLink
> The three programs have varying degrees of locational requirements. In the Met Council <br /> case, the lack of geographic focus can mean that funding ends up going to projects in <br /> areas that are not the highest: priority for TOD and infill from a regional perspective. The <br /> Met Council program also limits the amount that can go to projects within the core cities <br /> of Minneapolis and St. Paul in any cycle. Portland Metro and NCTCOG do not place the <br /> same kinds of conditions, but do target funds to transit corridors or infill areas within the <br /> region. <br /> > MPO -led programs tend to be guided by regional goals, rather than some of the fiscal <br /> constraints that drive transit agencies in their Joint Development decision - making. <br /> > Federal funding can severely constrain the flexibility of funds. Most MPO programs, <br /> including all three of the case studies, either use local funds or swap federal funds for <br /> local funds. The Met Council uses entirely state funding sources for the LCDA. <br /> > Programs can be successful operating either by funding projects through cities or <br /> providing funds directly to developers, but programs are most effective when the timing <br /> and uses of funds match with the needs of the development process. <br /> > The NCTCOG program requires the repayment of principal, but both the Met Council <br /> and METRO programs operate as grants. Many community development funds operate <br /> as revolving loan funds or offer capital at a reduced cost for development that meets <br /> neighborhood objectives in order to provide a self- sustaining fund and even grow the <br /> pool of money available by making smart investments. <br /> Case Studies of TOD Financing Programs 21 <br />