Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff outline financing sources for Sandy Ridge affordable housing projects; council asked to approve bond resolutions
Summary
Durham staff briefed the council on financing plans for two multifamily projects — Sandy Ridge Station and Sandy Ridge Villas — including tax‑exempt bonds, low‑income housing tax credit equity, ARPA, deferred developer fees and other sources. Staff said bond approvals are requested under state law but that projects are DHA obligations.
City staff and representatives from the Durham Housing Authority and private partners briefed the Durham City Council on March 20 about financing for two multifamily affordable housing projects — Sandy Ridge Station and Sandy Ridge Villas — and described a mix of public and private funding sources that will support the developments.
The agenda included resolutions authorizing multifamily housing revenue bonds in aggregate amounts not to exceed $22,000,000 for Sandy Ridge Station and $11,000,000 for Sandy Ridge Villas. The council’s consent agenda listed both items; staff pulled them for additional questions and a summary by Community Development staff and partners.
Tanya Coleman, assistant director of Community Development, said the projects use several funding types. Eric Swan, participating virtually for the housing authority’s financing advisers, described the capital structure in more detail: hard commercial debt of roughly $17,000,000; soft debt around $7,000,000 composed of local/state funds and deferred developer fees; tax credit equity of about $19,338,706; and a tax‑credit investor (Redstone) contribution of about $16,800,000. Swan also cited Fannie Mae bridge financing of roughly $2,500,000 and an ARPA contribution of $1,800,000 for one of the projects.
Coleman summarized public sources highlighted in the staff memo: new tax‑exempt bond funding exceeding $5,000,000 for the project and ARPA funds of approximately $1.8 million. Swan said the total project costs were approximately $42 million for one of the developments and that the financing packages combined federal, state, local and private capital.
Councilmembers sought clarification on the projects’ affordability terms and the nature of the bond approvals. Council member Maris (name in transcript as Maris) clarified that the bonds are tax‑exempt multifamily housing revenue bonds issued by the housing authority and that federal law requires a municipal approval step but that the housing authority, not the city, is responsible for repayment.
Durham Housing Authority representatives also said they recently received a continuing resolution nationally that increased voucher funding and that some program‑level assistance can be transferred between sites rather than representing new assistance. Council asked staff to supply memos with more detail on funding breakdowns for similar future projects.
No formal council vote on the bond resolutions was recorded in the March 20 work session text beyond the items being on the consent list and pulled for explanation; the council moved the items as discharged to return to the consent calendar for formal action at the next regular meeting.
