Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workforce Housing Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board pauses changes to Workforce Housing Preservation Program amid business‑ownership and buyout concerns
Summary
Staff proposed expanding the Workforce Housing Preservation Program to allow businesses and larger multifamily properties, replace a $150,000 cap with $75,000 per unit, and revise voluntary termination fees; supervisors asked for more economic analysis and directed staff to return with a cleaned, consolidated package.
County housing staff presented proposed amendments to the Workforce Housing Preservation Program and the board discussed whether the changes could produce unintended consequences, particularly if businesses or investors buy deed‑restricted units and later use a voluntary termination process that returns insufficient funds to the county.
Tim Cousin, Tahoe housing specialist, summarized the program: it provides 16% of a qualified purchase price to local buyers in exchange for a 55‑year deed restriction (renewed at each transfer). To date 17 properties have participated, totaling 43 bedrooms and roughly 32 local workers/family members housed; the average disbursement is about $108,965.
Staff proposed several guideline changes including expanding eligible participants to local businesses, allowing multifamily properties larger than four units to participate, removing a $150,000 cap for multifamily and replacing it with a $75,000 per‑unit cap, increasing disclosures about deed restriction impacts, and revising the voluntary termination (buyout) fee to decline over time to reflect public benefit received.
Supervisor Gustafson pressed staff on the voluntary buyout design and the risk that business‑owned or investor‑owned properties could accelerate buyouts that return little net funding for new acquisitions. "I do think that the intent from the beginning was the county would be able to get the money back out of these homes to reinvest," Gustafson said, urging further analysis and consultation with economists or financial experts before broadening eligibility to businesses.
County staff responded that current guidelines would remain in force if the board took no action today and that, if directed, staff could retain the existing termination fee while moving forward with other changes; several supervisors recommended bringing a cleaned, consolidated package back to the board rather than acting on piecemeal edits.
Outcome: No vote was taken. The board directed staff to return with a revised package after additional analysis and stakeholder review.
