1. TOD Working Group Meeting December 6, 2011

2. Agenda I.Welcome and Introductions II.Living Cities and Member Updates III.Discussion of Regional Grants – Review of Selection Criteria for Grants – Discussion of Individual Applications – Selection of Portfolio of Grants – Maximizing Impact of Grants After Selection 2

3. Program Committee Guidance on Working Group Activities All working group activities should: –Support nationally significant innovation Address limited number of specifically identified critical impasses; or Develop or advance new frameworks for local integration and systems change –Include, to the greatest extent possible, a clear capital strategy –Build on existing Living Cities Integration Initiative commitments or define a singular opportunity that cannot easily be pursued elsewhere –Where possible/ appropriate, seek to align member resources to break impasses, advance frameworks Committee also seeks to ensure differentiation between working groups and others in the field – “Differential Impact”

4. Framing TOD to the Program Committee: Working Group Challenge Key Impasse: Equity Developers, practitioners and policy makers are increasingly embracing TOD. BUT, absent concerted interventions around finance, regional practice, and policy, TOD will not produce the equitable outcomes we seek.

5. Framing TOD to the Committee: Working Group Approach Goal: Advance Innovation to Integrate Equity into TOD Strategies: Promote integration of equity into practice and policy ( Sustainable Communities Boot Camp and follow-up) Deepen understanding of what tools can advance financing of equitable TOD at scale (TOD Finance Research) Advance regional innovation that integrates equity, regional practice, and finance ( Grants to select regions to advance this leading-edge work)

6. Goals of Regional Grants Remove spatial barriers to regional economic opportunity Advance innovation at the intersection of equity, regional economic strategy, land use and transportation planning, and finance 6

7. Program Details $580,000 budgeted for grants Grants of $150,000 - $250,000 to support integrated planning and implementation Working Group decided to hold back $80,000 or more for wraparound activities (e.g. TA, convening) Grants could be paired with Catalyst loans 7

8. Finalists Seattle Bay Area Denver Atlanta 8

9. Major Reflections from Selection Process Very few places thinking actively and strategically about harnessing markets for equity at scale Regional economic strategy: Proposals reveal some promising next generation work linking between jobs, transit, housing, and workforce (Denver, Bay Area) Finance work remains largely focused on specific tools, particularly acquisition funds, rather than systems – reaffirms urgency of LC leadership in this space 9

10. Program Structure: Assumptions Living Cities’ role w/grantees: strategic partner, steward of accountability for results, driver of focus on strategy over tactics/ projects Sites may require more TA than currently called for in proposals Nationally significant innovation requires focused attention on knowledge capture, leadership and influence Limited grant size and staff resources make “vision lock” critical – Living Cities has limited leverage to influence strategy and approach 10

11. Selection Guidelines from RFP Attacks nationally significant, systemic impasse Harnesses markets for equity Results by end of 2012/early 2013 Meaningful role for Living Cities’ participation Commitment to inclusion Capacity to implement proposed work Match – “skin in the game” Lending opportunity a plus 11

12. Strawman Ranking of Proposals Against Selection Criteria AtlantaBay AreaDenverSeattle Nationally significant Impasse LowHigh Medium Harnesses markets for equity LowHigh Low-Medium Impact by end of 2012/early 2013 Medium HighMedium Meaningful role for LC participation LowMediumHighMedium Commitment to inclusion MediumHighMedium-HighMedium Capacity to implement LowMediumHighMedium MatchMediumHigh Lending OpportunityLowLow-MediumHighMedium

13. Atlanta (Lead Applicant: Atlanta Regional Commission) Goal: Multi-faceted approach to advancing equitable TOD in early-stage geography Proposed activities: Develop business plan for a TOD fund Develop community economic development strategy for two TOD stations Educate local leaders on TOD to make the case for additional investments Document Atlanta TOD best practices 13

14. Atlanta: Analysis Against Selection Criteria Proposed work to develop TOD fund, education stakeholders, and develop community economic strategy is not nationally significant Capacity to implement work in available time frame is not proven, given need to build the collaborative While Living Cities involvement could help advance the work locally, it does not constitute a good fit for LC involvement given LC focus on pushing forward nationally innovative work No clear lending opportunity for LC Catalyst Fund Staff recommendation: Do not fund 14

15. Bay Area (Lead Applicant: Urban Habitat/Great Communities Collaborative) Goal: Move TOD work in the region beyond developing affordable housing near transit to a focus on regional connectivity of workforce and economic development Proposed activities: Conduct analysis for bringing jobs and workers to transit- served areas Identify policies and tools to steer investments to high- access locations Expand use of TOAH Fund to support efforts to connect workforce and regional economic development 15

16. Bay Area: Analysis Against Selection Criteria Proposed work to increase availability of jobs accessible through transit in a regional economy is important and nationally significant Great Communities Collaborative has strong track record, though personnel transitions could slow implementation LC dollars could help jump start work and provide complement to SCP grant, though LC has existing relationships to Bay Area work through previous GCC grant and TOAH fund investment Not clear how soon plans for creation of “sidecar” to TOAH fund would move forward or when such an expansion would be ready to receive LC Catalyst Fund dollars Staff recommendation: Consider funding in tandem with Denver proposal, though perhaps in smaller amount 16

17. Denver (Lead Applicants: Denver Regional COG and Mile-High Transit Opportunities Collaborative) Goal: Connect low-income residents to job opportunities through integrated approach centered around regional transit build-out Proposed activities: Conduct analysis to link housing, transportation and economic development investments to increase access to middle-skill job training centers, employment centers, and small business opportunities along regional transit build-out Align economic development investments for TOD to help create shared regional TOD lending strategy among key public and private sector stakeholders Expand existing TOD fund for greater reach, flexibility and develop multi-year pipeline of affordable housing near jobs and transit 17

18. Denver: Analysis Against Selection Criteria Focus on leveraging land use, economic strategy, and land use to grow mid-skill jobs accessible by transit is nationally significant Strong, collective leadership in place increases confidence in consortium ability to deliver results. LC dollars clearly differentiated from HUD dollars; Denver team has expressed strong interest in strategic partnership with LC Expanded applicability of structured fund model is significant and provides opportunities for Catalyst Fund investment MPO decision not to provide first-loss dollars a setback, but not insurmountable, but requires further discussion. Staff recommendation: Fund the proposal; push on fund development strategy 18

19. Seattle (Lead applicant: Puget Sound Regional Council) Goal: Create new, region-wide land acquisition financing program to address affordable housing and commercial space needs Proposed activities: Conduct market analysis to guide site acquisition for affordable housing and affordable commercial space along light rail corridor Advance case making and due diligence for establishing a TOD Fund Engage private sector to help assess market prospects of proposed sites 19

20. Seattle: Analysis Against Selection Criteria Proposal identifies area for potentially innovative work – affordability for small business in TOD – but does not focus the proposal on this aspect of the work Main focus on establishing a TOD fund for affordable housing is not nationally significant Living Cities involvement could help move work forward locally, but overall work does not seem to be a good fit for LC involvement given interest in funding nationally significant innovation Not clear that a structured fund is the right financing tool here, and so at this point no clear opportunity for Catalyst Fund investment Staff recommendation: Do not fund. 20

21. Proposed Options for Grants Option 1: Focus on places working to increase access to employment opportunity in a regional economic context Fund Denver proposal; fund Bay Area proposal, perhaps in smaller amount Facilitate knowledge sharing between these sites and TII sites, particularly Baltimore and Twin Cities Option 2: Dual focus on employment access and TOD finance Still fund Denver and Bay Area on employment/transit connection, but in smaller aggregate amount; wraparound strategy would likely be less robust Direct remaining money to advance more strategic approaches to TOD finance Given relative lack of innovation in finance work among applicants (outside of Denver), this would need to happen outside of RFP process – One possibility: Support new LIIF /Enterprise partnership to work in specific markets 21