A new nonprofit is developing plans to take another bite out of the valley’s affordable-housing crisis.
At the regular Hailey City Council meeting on Monday, the Wood River Community Housing Trust outlined a plan that aims to help house locals by developing rental units for those who are actively working and living in the area, through donations, investment and other funding sources.
“We believe that solving the housing challenge will require a flexible and adaptive model,” said developer Tim Wolff, who serves as co-founder and treasurer of the organization. “The housing will need to go where the local conditions are receptive. We can’t rely on one ‘big fix,’ and there is no cookie cutter solution.”
According to Wolff, rents in the organization’s projects will be 30% to 40% below market value. The nonprofit plans to charge 30% of household income in rent, Wolff said, which is in line with a long-standing federal guideline for determining what renters can afford.
The organization’s first project, which has yet to be announced, will offer units at 30% below market value, Wolff said.
Wolff stated that the organization does not seek federal housing funds; rather, the group hopes to bring local partners together to raise funds to acquire and build rental properties.
Some of the partners identified in the slideshow included community donors, local nonprofits, banks and lenders willing to invest in projects, the Idaho Housing and Finance Association and other investors who are interested in buying tax exempt bonds.
The group looks to secure a bond structure that would be materially below market cost and hopes that such bonds could cut capital costs by about 50%. The group also looks to use its nonprofit designation as a way to garner property-tax exemptions to cut operating costs and pass the reduction in cost to the occupants through lower rents.
Tax-exempt municipal bonds are projected to produce roughly 70% of project costs, and the remaining capital can be purchased by local donors, nonprofits and for-profit businesses in the community, the group reported.
The group also looks to “sponsor” employers who can purchase subordinated bonds for these project. These bonds will present priority access to the employer’s workforce. The priority would grant the employer with a single two-bedroom apartment with the purchase of a $120,000 bond, for example, and purchasers can sell these bonds if they no longer want or need priority housing. 
Post a comment as
Report
Watch this discussion.
(27) comments
Could a state and federal Renters Insurance Program, similar to Unemployment Insurance be helpful? Renters report wages and cost of rent. Renters, employers and involved parties kick into the fund. Stipends are delivered based on true needs of the applicant, true value of the rental unit...............
More government, blah. If subsidized housing is the only solution give a down payment to renters, turn them into owners, and take the money changers and .gov bureaucracy out of the equation entirely. Of course employers must be willing to pay wages commensurate with the cost of living. For far too long they've taken advantage of labor to line their pockets so now they find themselves SOL when the music stopped.
It seems younger people would rather rent than own.
There's not much of a future here unless your a trustfunder.
This seems like another scheme similar to Northwoods, except the employer bond holders instead of the low income lease holder is the biggest beneficiary. They can control employees because they now own the housing and they have the ability to subvert the housing to non-employees(family, friends, or others through a no-show job) and then sell the bond at a profit in the end. All the while taking advantage of muni, non-taxable bond rates and tax-exempt status, and below market property tax rates. If this comes to fruition I'm might have to hire an employee for my company.
It’s nothing like Northwoods. No tax credits so can require tenants to work. While I like your skepticism, what makes you think an employer can put anyone they want in a unit? Intersting point on being able to sell the bond at a profit. But the rent is always controlled so that would be governed by how desperate the employer is for the unit. A competitive employer market in those bonds is a good thing as it will encourage more funds for more workforce housing. As for some taxpayer subsidy, how else can you finance below market rentals? I guess someone could just donate ot for free, but that’s always been true and hasn’t generated any housing. Maybe your point is that this should all be left to the market, with no subsidy? That’s certainly a valid approach, but not for housing that is affordable to teachers, first responders and health care workers.
Lose your job, lose your home?
Yeah man, just as the employee gains some power in the job market, the employer regains that power by offering subsidized housing.
It like Northwoods in the sense that it was built for one purpose w "controls" in place, but reportedly in the end abused by both the tenants and the owners.
IMO, it's a complete failure of employers , both public and private, that for decades depended on mostly unskilled labor and willingly kept swapping in new employees instead of paying the best ones enough where they could actually build a "middle" class life. Of course AirBnB, Covid combined w WFH were factors that pushed RE prices up the last 30-40% and made anything north of Bellevue completely unobtainable.
The idea that teachers, first responders, and health care workers (an ungodly profitable business) are paid so little that subsidized housing is necessary for them to survive is repugnant to me. Employers are going to have to pay people enough so they can either buy/rent in the WRV and make it worth the effort of driving from places E, W, and S of the blinking light (as many already do.) The idea that .gov or other group will come in and fix this mess is unrealistic. Like you say the demand for housing is infinite and as more and more crowd in here there will be a corresponding need for even more labor to service that so the demand for "affordable" housing will never be fully met.
@PB.. ."What could be better for Hailey than for Ketchum to spend its money on expanding Haileys tax base? " and that's a problem, local government are in the business of growth for their own profit and disregard quality of life in favor of personal salaries. I new sooner or later you would expose your self as the heartless hedge funder you are.
" What could be better for Hailey than for Ketchum to spend its money on expanding Hailey`s tax base?" PB
....anyone?
Hailey must have unlimited water to house all of Ketchum’s unwashed masses…smh
This seems like a much better way to address workforce housing than what has been proposed by the Ketchum administration. This approach focuses on employers, who have been largely excluded from Ketchum’s housing plan. Ketchum’s plan was predicated on increasing the LOT, which voters rejected. Ketchum’s approach also prioritizes large low income housing projects in the center of the commercial district with no work requirements for tenants. Bravo to Mr Wolff for offering a less political and more economic solution.
This plan seems to let Ketchum off the hook and transfer the problem to Hailey.
How so? Just because Hailey is more receptive to non-government driven housing? This doesn’t seem to impact Ketchum’s plan in any way shape or form.
Would you buy a housing bond in Ketchum (or Hailey)?
History shows that Ketchum has little land, will. cash or patience for workforce housing. A chance for Ketchum`s employers to monopolize subsidized housing in Hailey must sound golden.
@badger on housing bond. Maybe. It depends. Is it for workforce housing at a sensible cost and location? Than probably yes. Is it for merely low-income housing with no work requirement built in a money is no object construct that negatively impacts the retail core of Ketchum or Hailey (as currently proposed by Ketchum)—then definitely not.
@badger your comment on Ketchum monopolizing workforce housing in Hailey makes no sense. Where do most people in Hailey work? Even the Mayor of Ketchum spends a lot of nights with his family in Hailey and has bought land there. What could be better for Hailey than for Ketchum to spend its money on expanding Haileys tax base? So far though your fears have not come to fruition. Also, Ketchum has plenty of land for its current workforce housing needs, but you are correct on will. As for patience, Ketchum seems to have down an excellent job at deferring solutions until after the people who need the help have given up and left. Ketch has been an embarrassment, while Bluebird has been in the works for almost 6 years, and looks like it may no longer be economic for it’s for profit developer without even more Ketchum taxpayer funding. And the current housing “plan” is riddled with problems.
As for transferring the problem out of Ketchum, maybe that is a good thing? Depends on where. For example, Bellevue seems to want more population and has changed its zoning to permit buildings of up to 36,000 sf to encourage exactly this kind of development. Bellevue needs a bigger tax base to upgrade its sewer system. It has plenty of low density land available at a far more reasonable cost than Ketchum. So maybe Ketchum’s pain is Bellevue’s gain? One wrench in all of this is Mt Rides. It’s utilization seems to be very low (hard to tell as they publish almost no statistics), but having an effective commuting alternative to cars up and down the Valley seems like it should be a high priority for County/City officials.
It’s a water issue for both Hailey and Ketchum, Perry
Perry, did you catch the objective to use property tax exemptions to fund this? That means shifting the cost to other property owners. In other words, raising the tax on others. Hardly a nonprofit organization privately funding affordable housing. Right?
Yes, but I think that is a more cost efficient form of financing to achieve a community objective than federal tax credit which limit your tenant options and don’t address the workforce crisis. If the land is currently undeveloped, its property taxes are probably quite low, so its really the opportunity cost of what the property taxes would be if developed into something else. That arbitrage is very high if you build it in the center of Ketchum’s retail district. That arbitrage is probably quite low if you build on a less valuable piece of property. And it is more practical than raising taxes on locals via the LOT structure (as proposed by Ketchum administration—they are coming back with the same proposal for next year) and doesn’t require a referendum. These guys are a lot more savvy on financing than the team Ketchum has looking at this. Tim Wolff isn’t doing this for his own profit like Greg Dunfield is doing. Tim is already well set and has an expertise in this area (unlike the Ketchum team) and is doing it to contribute to the community rather than take money out of the community (like Dumfield.)
When Ketchum`s song turns to "community"..... Hailey beware. Hailey would do well to chart her own course without the direction of The Wood River Valley Community Trust, The Chamber and Sun Valley Economic Development.
@badger you should be quite pleased, as this is exactly the path Hailey has been taking — go it alone. Hailey contributes almost nothing to BCHA and seems to be resisting Ketchum’s push for a regional approach (same is true for Sun Valley). Almost all of BCHA-controlled units are in Ketchum. Up until ARCH built Blaine Manor, almost all deed restricted housing in Blaine County was in Ketchum. Hailey is rapidly catching up and should soon surpass Ketchum on affordable housing.
The feds subsidize a bit of Hailey`s "affordable" housing.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In