Consultants present feasibility study for Alder Creek workforce housing; board and partners discuss financing options

Consultants from Education Housing Partners (EHP) presented the results of a months‑long feasibility analysis for developing workforce housing on the district‑owned Alder Creek site.

Bruce Dorfman and Joanna Julian of Education Housing Partners summarized the firm’s experience and described two buildable footprints for the site: a larger option that could accommodate up to 72 units (site A) and a smaller pie‑shaped site (site B) with roughly 20–26 units. The proposed product types were 1‑, 2‑ and 3‑bedroom flats and townhomes in two‑ and three‑story wood‑framed buildings; design concepts included private garage parking, in‑unit washer/dryers, a clubhouse, play area and a possible childcare facility.

Consultants identified two entitlement options with major economic differences. Under SB 35 (a state ministerial streamlining law), a project meeting SB 35 conditions must typically set a higher share of units as affordable (roughly 50% low‑income in the presentation), which reduces bond proceeds and increases the financing gap. If the town of Truckee is the lead agency, the presentation said 15% inclusionary housing at low‑income levels would apply under local rules.

EHP presented targeted rents for regulated units (example figures around $1,700–$2,100 depending on unit type) and noted a likely construction cost estimate on the order of $850,000 per unit in their preliminary budget, yielding a total development cost near $60 million for the larger scenario. Based on those numbers and conventional bonding assumptions, the team estimated a funding “gap” of roughly $30–$40 million depending on entitlement and subsidy approaches.

Dorfman described common financing approaches used by districts and related entities: general obligation (GO) bonds, certificates of participation (COPs), low‑income housing tax credits (LIHTC), and joint‑power authority (JPA) ownership that aggregates financing and soft sources. He said many projects EHP advises aim to set rents at levels that “cover all debt service, cover operating costs, cover reserve” without a profit motive, and that a JPA structure can bring additional low‑interest or deferred loans to close gaps.

Speakers from the Truckee‑Tahoe workforce housing JPA and the town joined the presentation and answered procedural questions about the entitlement process, unit sizes, parking, potential childcare and modular versus stick‑built construction. Jacqueline McCoy (Town/JPA representative) and Michelle (development consultant for the JPA) provided local rent comparators and income‑burden context: they cited averages from Placemate showing two‑ to three‑bedroom rents around $2,900 in the region and noted district employee median incomes, reporting that many district classified staff could be rent‑burdened on market rates.

Board members asked detailed questions about unit sizes, timing and next steps. Consultants recommended initiating pre‑application meetings with town planning, refining unit design and pursuing a capital‑stack strategy (COPs, potential GO components, grants and JPA bonding) to close the soft‑cost gap. The presenters said construction could begin as soon as two years if the SB 35 pathway were used and the project moved quickly, and that first units might be delivered in about three and a half years after a decision to proceed.

Ending: The presentation was informational. The board and presenters agreed to make the feasibility report publicly available on the district agenda page and to pursue next steps with planning and JPA partners; no board vote or commitment to a development pathway was recorded at the meeting.