Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Finance Terraf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Development Authority briefs commissioners on Terraces refinancing; TEFRA hearing held, board vote set for next meeting
Summary
The Development Authority of Rockdale County presented information April 8 on a proposed refinancing of the Terraces, a 316‑unit multifamily complex, noting a recent TEFRA public hearing and that 20% of units would serve households at roughly 50% of area median income. Authority and county staff said the deal is a financing conduit only and does
The Development Authority of Rockdale County briefed the Board of Commissioners on April 8 about a planned refinancing of the Terraces, a 316‑unit multifamily apartment complex off Ellington Road, and confirmed a federally required TEFRA public hearing was held before the authority. The county board did not vote on the refinancing at the April 8 meeting; commissioners were told the governing-body approval for the tax‑exempt bond conduit will be taken up at the next meeting.
What the Development Authority presented John Nicks of the Development Authority summarized the TEFRA process: the federal tax code requires a public hearing when tax-exempt bonds are issued for nonprofit borrowers; the authority conducted a 15‑minute public hearing at which no one spoke. He said the refinancing is intended to permit tax‑exempt financing to the borrower (a nonprofit) so it can secure lower‑cost debt; the authority described the transaction as a conduit financing with no financial obligation by the county or the authority.
Affordability and taxes The authority stated that 20% of the Terraces’ units will be designated for households at about 50% of the area median income, characterizing those units as workforce/affordable housing for lower‑income households. Staff clarified the financing is not a property tax abatement: the property will continue to appear on the tax roll and pay property taxes.
Why it matters: this financing would allow the owner/borrower to obtain tax‑exempt borrowing rates for rehabilitation or refinancing while preserving a share of units at lower income thresholds. Because the agreement is structured as conduit financing, the county was told it would not incur financial liability if the project defaults.
Next steps The Development Authority requested that the county board consider a resolution or other requisite approval at the board’s next meeting; commissioners said the April 8 presentation provided the public an additional opportunity to hear the authority’s explanation before the formal vote.
Ending: Commissioners did not act on the financing at the April 8 meeting and will consider the authority’s resolution at a future meeting date; staff and the authority will provide the board any additional materials needed for that consideration.
