|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Despite struggling to fill the units since its inception, the Mountain View Whisman School District’s staff housing project is expected to run a profit in the next fiscal year.
The proposed 2026-27 operating budget for the venture estimates netting roughly $950,000 after covering all expenses, according to Peter Ingram, executive director of the MVW Residences Corporation, which is a nonprofit organization established by the school district to oversee the development. Ingram presented the corporation’s first-ever annual budget at a May 14 school board meeting.
Mountain View Whisman used bond proceeds to build subsidized apartments for its teachers and other staff near the corner of Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road. In total, the building has 144 units, 73 of which are set aside for Mountain View Whisman staff, another 50 are allocated to the Foothill-De Anza Community College District and 20 are available for city of Mountain View employees. One unit is also reserved for a property manager.
Currently, just 64% of the units are leased, with another 8% scheduled for move-ins. The corporation’s budget assumes that by June 2027, 87% of units will be occupied, according to Ingram’s presentation. Additionally, it factors in a 2% rent increase, effective Jan. 1, 2027.
Ingram attributes the positive financial outlook to the district’s decision to purchase the land beneath the apartment complex last summer, effectively eliminating the need to pay at least $1.9 million in annual ground lease payments. This move provided a “significant budget buffer” that allowed the project to lower rents and “run a positive cash flow,” Ingram wrote in an email to the Voice.
After its land purchase, the district sold off a portion of its units to the Foothill-De Anza Community College District, providing money to offset the large expense. As a result, the MVW Residences Corporation was able to lower rents by up to 24% in January.
A one-bedroom apartment is now $1,550 per month for tenants earning up to 80% of the area median income and $2,200 for those earning up to 150% AMI.
The apartments in the complex are split into those two income categories, with roughly a quarter set aside for the 80% AMI tier and the rest available to those making up to 150% AMI.
Despite the lowered rent, as of May 18, 58 out of Mountain View Whisman’s 73 units are occupied, with another three scheduled for move-ins. For Foothill-De Anza, 22 of its 50 units are occupied and six are scheduled for move-ins, and for the city, 11 of its 20 units are occupied, with two scheduled for move-ins.
Last December, Stephanie Shipe, the president of the corporation, told the Voice that the goal was for the development to be fully leased up by June of this year. Since then, the organization has been thinking about possibly keeping some units vacant intentionally for the districts and city to utilize when recruiting new employees, Ingram said, adding that this is a complex discussion since each entity has different needs.
“We’re learning that no matter the very low rental rates in effect, lease-up is going slower than hoped,” Ingram wrote to the Voice. “Anecdotally, it sounds like people in general are just being more cautious about big changes in their lives.”
Despite the development’s difficulty reaching high occupancy levels up until now, Ingram said that he remains “cautiously optimistic” that 85-90% of units will be leased by next July.
The budget projects total income of about $2.78 million and expenses of about $1.82 million. This would leave them with approximately $950,000 at the end of the 2026-27 fiscal year, according to the presentation.
After an audit process, the MVW Residences Corporation board of directors would then decide what to do with the residual money, with options including putting it into reserves or distributing it to the school districts and city, Ingram told the Voice. The corporation’s board has yet to discuss the criteria they will use to make these decisions, he added.
As an affordable housing development for teachers, Mountain View Whisman school board member Bill Lambert said at the May 14 meeting that he doesn’t believe the district is looking to make “excessive profits” from the project.
“We should be paying ourselves back to some extent for the money we invested in it out of our general fund, but there’s a public perception that I think needs to be managed,” Lambert said.
Superintendent Jeff Baier chimed in to say that he believed it was the expectation of both Mountain View Whisman and Foothill-De Anza that some money would circle back to them.
“It’s very logical that that money could spin back and be used for capital projects within the district that will then alleviate the need or frequency, perhaps, of a bond to be issued and paid for by our public again,” Baier said.
School board members during the meeting asked to wait to see the corporation’s full budget before having to approve it. The board’s vote on the financial plans is now expected on May 28.
The MVW Residences Corporation’s board signed off on the budget on May 4. It also needs to be approved by Foothill-De Anza’s governing board, which will review it at a June 8 meeting.
I believe the city wants to borrow money in Nov ($450 million?) to build affordable housing ….they can’t even fill their allocation here. They have a higher vacancy rate than the school district does!
All the more reason I will vote no on their bond request.
The rents are amazingly low and it’s still taking a long time to fill up.
A question that’s not answered is why is it 65% full? Is it because teachers already have leases or the criteria is to difficult, or the price is still too high compared to San Jose or south county?
Wouldn’t read to much into vacancy rates being less than 100% one year in. Not every teacher is going to want to move immediately to take advantage of a more affordable lease–uprooting yourself is hard and may not make sense if you’re already settled.
That said, if these rates persist in a few years the district should look at opening up excess leases to broader groups of people.
The district is having a hard time filling units because of limited liquidity in the housing market. Teachers won’t necessarily pick up stakes and move just to save $500 on rent. Affordable housing for the general population, on the other hand, is systematically oversubscribed, with long waiting lists.
Saving $6000 a year is a nothing-burger to a teacher plus the cost of gas and time commuting? Interesting response.
By comparison, Daly City housing for teachers filled up nearly instantly, so this theory can’t be true. They have a waiting list.
https://oaklandside.org/2025/08/07/what-will-it-take-to-get-teacher-housing-built-in-oakland/
You have a point, but the Jefferson Union teacher housing opened in 2022.
What I’m wondering is why there’s a cap for how long a teacher can stay there. If they want teachers to stay within the district, why not provide housing for as long as they work there? It makes no sense to provide housing then arbitrarily give them the boot. It’s not like they’ll all of a sudden be able to buy a house. MV is ridiculous, so at least make it so the people who teach in the district can actually afford to live there.
Mountain View Whisman School District (K-8): Starting salaries for new teachers begin at roughly $81,000, with the highest tier of the salary scale reaching up to $146,000. Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District (9-12): Starting pay is typically around $106,000, with top-end salaries easily exceeding $205,000for highly experienced educators. Per Mountain View Voice.