Consultant tells West Contra Costa 7‑11 Committee that statutory rules and financing complicate school‑land housing options

At the July 6 meeting of the West Contra Costa Unified School District’s 7‑11 Committee, property attorney Mr. Henderson walked members through the statutory framework and financing realities that shape how the district can repurpose surplus school land.

“Your charge is to review projected enrollment and other data related to school sites that are before you,” Henderson said, reading from slide materials summarizing the committee’s statutory duties. He emphasized the panel’s advisory role: the committee identifies surplus property and recommends uses to the full board rather than making final dispositions itself.

Henderson explained key distinctions: sale proceeds are restricted by statute and must typically be used for capital outlay or specific maintenance that the governing board determines the district will not incur within a five‑year period, whereas proceeds from leasing can often be placed in less restricted accounts. “If you lease a piece of property, you can almost do whatever you want with the money,” he said, noting that leasing arrangements often allow the district to direct proceeds into the general fund or maintenance budgets.

On workforce housing, Henderson summarized recent state actions cited in the meeting: certain statutes and bills (as referenced during the presentation) offer entitlement streamlining but create affordability requirements that may constrain who can live in workforce units and how a project is financed. He noted that AB 2295 and SB 35 (as discussed in the presentation) can provide faster entitlement paths but also require a share of lower‑income units; another state change discussed in the presentation was said to reduce the need to declare land surplus for some workforce projects.

Financing remains a core challenge, Henderson said. He reviewed typical funding sources — low‑income housing tax credits (LIHTC), general obligation bonds, and certificates of participation (COPS) — and presented illustrative project math showing how high capital and long‑term financing costs can push rents up or put pressure on employee compensation if workforce housing is used to target district staff. “We estimate now it’s easily $1,000,000 a door,” he said as a market illustration; he called that figure an industry estimate that makes many workforce‑housing models hard to sustain without mixed uses or public subsidies.

Committee members asked practical follow‑ups: whether joint occupancy agreements (99‑year arrangements) are used for housing (Henderson said they are often used because developers prefer long terms), typical legal fee ranges (Henderson said legal and transactional costs vary and are small relative to overall project economics), and whether cities can impose deeper below‑market requirements (he said cities can negotiate and may impose additional below‑market requirements that affect project feasibility).

Henderson closed by advising the committee to gather staff survey data on employee interest and to keep the committee’s charge narrow: determine whether a property is surplus and recommend uses to the board; the board will absorb the broader policy, financing and entitlement work.

The committee followed the presentation with questions from members and residents and then moved into discussion about the Adams site; no binding decisions about development models were made at the July 6 meeting.