Housing shortages and the perennial problem of underpaid school employees sometimes converge with a third issue: underutilized buildings or land owned by a school district. The good news: these combined concerns can result in creative partnerships that increase the supply of affordable housing for school staff while eliminating surplus property.
Most school districts own their buildings and land — so while this is publicly owned property, it is managed by the district rather than the local, state or federal government. School districts have their own boards and budgets, and their primary mission is education, but in California, Texas and Florida, some are exploring building housing on property they own to retain and recruit teachers. California legislators passed several bills to encourage school districts to create housing options for school employees.
“In places like California where housing costs are high, a lot of teachers, especially those early in their careers when their salaries are low, find it hard to afford a place to live,” said Lev Weisbach, a senior vice president and development manager at Brookwood Group, who has partnered with schools to build housing. “In the Bay Area, for example, the Jefferson Union High School District had a 25% annual teacher turnover rate because they were losing teachers to districts with lower housing costs.”
Depending on the site and financing options, multiple stakeholders can creatively work together to develop housing. “To begin, you need consistent champions within the school district such as board members and staff because it can be a long trajectory to get housing built,” Weisbach said. “Second, you need community engagement and support.”
Staff Recruitment and Retention
A school board member suggested the idea of building housing to retain teachers in the Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD), according to Denise Shreve, director of communication and housing for JUHSD in Daly City, Calif. An employee survey quickly identified enthusiasm for staff housing, and community members also recognized the value of reducing teacher turnover.
“We were able to finance the $75 million project with a $33 million voter-approved bond and $42 million in loans,” Shreve said. “Because we didn’t use any low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC), we don’t have income limits and the apartments rent for the same amount according to size.”
Only teachers and non-teaching employees such as maintenance, food and clerical workers are eligible for apartments, with priority on the wait list based on total household income and full- or part-time employment. The ratio of residents will be maintained at 60% teachers and 40% non-teachers, which Shreve said mirrors the school employee population. Employees must move after seven years, but they receive support from the school district to find new housing.
“Residents are very appreciative of staff housing and say it has a positive impact on the culture of the school district since they get to know people from other schools,” Shreve said. “Every floor has a small community room and a laundry room, plus there’s a gym and a larger community room for parties and events.”
The 122-unit rental complex, built on surplus land owned by JUHSD, is governed by the Educational Housing Corporation board, which is made up of community members, school board members and non-resident employees. A property management company handles daily operations.
“We were able to navigate the residential permitting process with the help of a third-party organization, since they have the expertise that we don’t,” Shreve said. “We couldn’t be prouder of how well this project worked out and all our schools are now fully staffed.”
Replacing a School While Preserving a Community
Attracting and retaining teachers is an essential component of school improvement, so the Pacifica School District (PSD), also in the Bay Area, identified the former Oddstad Elementary School campus as an option for staff apartments.
“The school had been closed since 2005 because of declining enrollment, and the district didn’t need it for future capacity,” said Weisbach, who is developing the housing with Brookwood. “Sometimes when schools want to build housing, community members or teachers question why the funds aren’t being used for salaries. However, school district funds for capital needs, such as buildings, are separate from funds for operational costs, such as salaries.”
The Pacifica project is funded through taxpayer-approved bonds and anticipated rental income. At the district-owned Oddstad site, community members played soccer, walked dogs and tended a communal garden, Weisbach said.
The complex, expected to open in 2027, will include 70 residences, most priced below market rate for teachers and other PSD staff. Two existing soccer fields will be preserved, along with a community building. Building heights are limited to two stories to blend in with the neighborhood.
“Community input is important, but you also need the school superintendent, school board members and other school district leaders to understand the value housing can provide to retain staff,” Weisbach said. “Then you need to work through the local planning process with the local building department with the help of a real estate consultant or developer who understands the regulatory environment, particularly in California.”
From Parking Lot to Housing Partnership
Also in the Bay Area, the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) worked with BeHOME (Berkeley Housing Opportunities for Municipal Employees) to assess the need for educator housing. Feasibility studies identified an underutilized parking lot at the Berkeley Adult School campus as a site for housing developed with the help of Abode Communities, a nonprofit community development organization, and Satellite Affordable Housing Associates.
“We helped launch the idea of using school district assets such as surplus property to address the affordability crisis for teachers in high-cost housing markets such as Los Angeles,” said Lara Regus, chief real estate officer for Abode Communities.
Typically, school districts survey their teachers when they’re concerned about retention and recruitment, said Maegan Pearson, associate vice president of development for Abode Communities. Often, teachers leave because long commutes from affordable neighborhoods are incompatible with teachers’ schedules. School districts benefit when teachers live in the community, too.
“In Berkeley, 75% of staff said they were interested in employee housing,” Pearson said. “The goal is to serve both early-stage teachers and non-teaching staff, many of whom have families, so we have a mix of unit sizes.”
BUSD, which owns the land, has a long-term ground lease and a third-party operator. Financing included a mix of loans, City of Berkeley bond funding, LIHTCs, tax-exempt bonds and funding from the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), according to Jenny Wyant, senior community development project coordinator with the City of Berkeley Department of Health, Housing and Community Services.
“Income limits with LIHTCs usually cut off at 60% to 80% AMI [area median income], but Berkeley has some units available at 80% to 120% AMI since it’s a mixed-income development,” Pearson said. “They were able to establish a 100% preference for BUSD employees, but it’s open to others to apply if there’s availability.”
Partnerships were key to this development, Regus said, including committees formed by BUSD to educate stakeholders and reach agreements about the housing design, governance and operations.
Combining Resources for Community Good
The site of an obsolete school that had been used as a storage facility for the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) for 30 years was redeveloped as Shirley Chisholm Village, a 135-unit affordable apartment complex for school staff, through a collaboration between the school district, the City and County of San Francisco and MidPen Housing Corp., a nonprofit affordable housing developer.
“Priority is given to SFUSD employees, but the general public can also apply,” said Michelle Kim, senior project manager of MidPen Housing Corp. “The community wanted a publicly available play area, so we designed an outdoor space in front of the building.”
The apartments, funded by federal tax credits, investments from the City and County of San Francisco and voter-approved bonds, are reserved for households earning 40% to 120% of AMI.
“The financing is bifurcated, with 35 units financed with tax credits and separate financing for the other 100 units, which allows those units to be available at the higher household income level,” Kim said. “If all the units used LIHTC funding, then we wouldn’t be able to serve as many teachers.”
Currently, Kim said, 90% of residents are SFUSD employees and 10% are from the second priority group, which includes people with disabilities and mobility issues. Building amenities include a co-working space, a community room, an exercise room, laundry facilities and an array of on-site services such as academic support programs for youth, adult education and homeownership education.
“We designed a mix of studios, one-, two- and three-bedroom units after we surveyed household incomes and sizes in the SFUSD community,” Kim said. “The key to these projects is to gather information and understand the goals of the school district, city and county. Local and state legislation in California also had to be approved to allow schools to convert property to housing.”
Creative thinking beyond textbook cases can turn an obsolete building or a parking lot into a magnet for teachers and other school staffers — and keep them close and committed to their communities.
