Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> 1. Metro Transit Oriented 2. Met Council Livable Communities 3. NCTCOG Sustainable <br /> Program Development and Centers Demonstration Account (Twin Cities, Development Landbanking Program <br /> (Portland, OR) MN) (Dallas-Fort Worth, TX) <br /> Approx. $300K. per grant. Grant No cap on funds to individual projects, Projects awarded up to $1 million each. <br /> Typical funds do not require funding but max. grant has been $2.5 million. Awards require repayment of principal. <br /> Project recovery. Grant funds do not require funding Cities keep profit (or pay loss, in that <br /> Funding Level recovery. event). <br /> Projects can ask for funding in multiple <br /> years. <br /> A cap of 40% of the funds can go to <br /> grants in Minneapolis and St. Paul. <br /> Metro staff reviews applications and Cities apply on behalf of developers. Cities apply for funding and staff <br /> Funding meets with applicants. make recommendations for funding <br /> A volunteer Livable Communities <br /> Allocation allocations. Landbanking applications <br /> Process Input provided by Transportation Advisory Committee composed of a require an interview process with a <br /> Policy Alternatives Committee (15 broad cross- section of stakeholders, standardized set of questions. <br /> members are staff from governments including community members, <br /> around the region and 6 citizen local agency staff, architects, and <br /> representatives appointed for two- policymakers evaluates proposals and <br /> year terms). recommends funding awards. <br /> Projects evaluated on potential Projects are rated on several criteria, <br /> increase in ridership, value of land including land use and planning <br /> and the difference between low process, innovation or demonstration, <br /> and high density development via a funding as a catalyst, and criteria for <br /> mechanism they have coined Cost project readiness. <br /> Premiums <br /> > Simple process ma<es funding > Funding is flexible and has been > Provides funding for land <br /> Program attractive to developer >. popular and competitive. acquisition while allowing cities to <br /> Strengths > Wide political support for > Funding is an incentive to reach benefit from profitable ventures. <br /> program and Metro is looking to other regional goals (allocation of > Requires 20% minimum local <br /> expand scale of program. affordable housing). match. <br /> > Advisory Committee structure <br /> useful. <br /> > Not enough funding; would be > LCDA does not target specific > Funding requests vastly outstrip <br /> Program more effective to be able to fund at geographic areas, so impact of program resources <br /> Weaknesses higher levels. funding is diffuse. <br /> > City /NCTCOG /Developer <br /> > Individual projects have had relationship difficult for staff to <br /> limited impact on surrounding manage. <br /> areas and have not leveraged <br /> substantial additional )0- Does not place conditions on use <br /> development. of profits from fund use (i.e. proceeds <br /> must be use for mixed - income <br /> housing) <br /> > Staff feels program has not been <br /> successful, and will not recommend a <br /> next round of funding. <br /> Appendices 131 <br />