2017_0508_REDA Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REDA Meeting Minutes — Tuesday, May 8, 2017 Page 4 Also in response to Member Willmus at the last meeting regarding their typical ownership term, Mr. Thelen advised that the proposed affordable development portion proposed at fifteen years for funding purposes would be sought. Mr. Metz reviewed his expertise with WNC and former roles with MHFA and tax credit affiliations and experience. Mr. Metz spoke directly to the inherent risks of mixed -income financing and the local/national perspective on mixed income financing, indicating separated projects for tax equity purposes. Mr. Metz provided examples of projects using economic integration of affordable and market rate projects. Member Willmus asked if staff was aware of a park dedication history on the former Reiling property as part of their background research; with Ms. Kelsey responding that staff was unable to determine if the parcel had ever been subdivided in the past to trigger a park dedication process. President Roe offered an opportunity for public comment with no one appearing to speak to this issue. Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of REDA Resolution No. 8 (Attachment C) entitled, "Resolution in Support of Sand development, LLC's Application for Ramsey County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)/HOME Investment Partnership Funds for Development of Edison Apartments (f/k/a Arbor Rose Apartments)." Member Etten spoke in support of the project, noting its importance to the city and its residents. Member Laliberte spoke in support of the project as presented. However as the project plays out, Member Laliberte stated that her overall support would depend on how financing changes during the project; but at this point could support moving forward seeking the support of Ramsey County. Member McGehee spoke in opposition to the project, opining that she wasn't convinced it was the best project possible; and her continued opposition to separating market rate and affordable units in two separate buildings just because it was convenient. Member McGehee stated that this was not acceptable to her; and while many criteria of the project met the city's policy, opined that they could come to pass without additional public funding from the city. Member McGehee stated that she continued to have many reservations at this point, and felt it was inappropriate to ask for a lot of effort from many agencies and people for additional funding when in its current configuration she could not support the project. Member Willmus spoke in opposition to the motion, stating that he continued to have concerns with the project. As far as the application, Member Willmus