ISSUE #31: The Council Postpones Tax Increase--Until May

But only because they know it won't pass in November--they all still plan to do it

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a rent-controlled apartment at Northwood Place in Ketchum with a garage for your Porsche?¹ More on this at the end of this post.

August 19 City Council Meeting Result

The meeting was packed with the public. Two tax increases were on the Council’s agenda. One was postponed, and one was passed.

LOT Increase Tabled until May

The ordinance to for a November ballot referendum to increase the LOT on Lodging by another 2% for Workforce Housing was tabled. All of the Council members spoke in favor of this measure. They chose not to proceed— solely because they think you won’t vote for it.

They now plan to do it in May. That will give them time to mount a door-to-door “education” campaign when the local population is at its lowest. This is the same tactic they used to get the LOT for Housing passed last May with only 20% approval from Ketchum’s registered voters.

I spoke against this LOT increase.²

In Lieu Fee Increase to $600/sf Passed

To build something in the commercial district, you are limited to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0. That essentially means a two-story building. That ordinance is meant to maintain Ketchum as a small western town, in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan's number one goal.

But you can go to a FAR of 2.25 (four-story building) if you dedicate about 7% of your square footage to “community housing.” Guess what developers do? You know that answer! But they don’t need to provide ANY community housing. They can buy their way out of it by paying an “in lieu” fee to the City of Ketchum so that the City can build Bluebirds.

This is the fee that the Council voted to raise from $550 to $600 per square foot. Why $600? No reason in particular. It is a made-up number that “feels” right. Amassing in-lieu fees is how the City can hand over $4mm to a for-profit developer to build Bluebirds and why it can take six years for the City to get a single project built.

I spoke out against the in-lieu fee.³ Mr. Cordovano said that eliminating this fee is one of the more“ludicrous” things he has heard. But then, he is for all taxes that go to the City for preserving workforce housing.⁴

My rationale? Without the fee we will get more housing, faster (don’t have to wait to accumulate it), will get housing more distributed throughout the commercial zone instead of in 4-story massive low-income housing projects. I also think it will be better quality, as what developer wants to depress the value of their building?

Does that sound “ludicrous?” Or anti-housing? Mr. Cordovano said those units won’t have parking. True. Unless he works to repeal the ordinance that takes the parking burden away from small apartment developers. This is the same guy who supported parking-deficient Bluebird and parking-deficient Washington Lot housing project.

Revealed: “Big Lie” That Guides Ketchum Housing Policy

Ketchum’s Housing Director, Carissa Connelly (or is she the BCHA Executive Director? Wait—she is both!)⁵ told a whopper of a lie. She said that the City could not build housing that was just for its essential workers, that City housing projects have to conform to her program, where they can’t require full-time work (or work at all!) and can’t be limited to Ketchum workers.

While Ms. Connelly has been proceeding with her program of building 200+ more units of Bluebird-like housing (one in a 108-unit complex—2x the size of Bluebird), we actually can allocate our scarce resources of land, money, and community character to housing essential workers.

How do I know that? Because that is what the City of Sun Valley has done at East Fork to house fire department employees.⁶ Because that is what Blaine County School District is doing with ARCH to house teachers.⁷ It seems that only the City of Ketchum wants to house anyone who wants to live in Ketchum—or Blaine County. Why does the Council put up with this from their staff?

Another Lie

She told another lie: that the City of Ketchum has not defined what a “worker” is for the purpose of “workforce housing.” That was her response when Ms. Breen asked her what the difference is between community and workforce housing. Without an official definition of the workforce, she said she uses “community housing” and “workforce housing” interchangeably. Hmm.

Ms. Breen seems to have forgotten her vote to adopt Ms. Connelly’s Ketchum Housing Action Plan and its definition of “workforce” (or maybe she didn’t read it?). Here it is:

Workforce

All adults in the household must meet one of the following criteria:

• An employee or contractor of a local entity in Blaine County, Idaho (at least 1,000 hours per year

or an average of 20 hours per week) during their occupancy

• Pursuing work in Blaine County by:

• applying for work with local businesses for up to four months

• have a job offer from a local business

• preparing for work by participating in job training, educational programs, or programs that assist people to obtain employment and become economically self-sufficient

• Meet one of the following exemptions:

• retired person who, immediately preceding retirement, was a full-time employee of an entity located within Blaine County for at least five continuous years and continued living as a fulltime resident within Blaine County following their retirement

• person unable to work or who does not have a work history due to qualifying for disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

• full-time, informal caregiver if either caregiver or care-recipient lived in Blaine County for at least the five previous continuous years

• be a working spouse or partner of a person qualified under one of the first two sections of this⁸

Read that carefully. It does not prioritize Ketchum’s essential workers. It does not require full-time work. It does not require work in Ketchum. It does not even require work at all. If you read the plan in its entirety, it basically says that anyone who wants to live in Ketchum should be able to live in Ketchum, regardless of their work situation, and if they can’t afford to live in Ketchum, Ketchum taxpayers will pick up part of their housing costs.

Meanwhile, none of our cops live in Ketchum. We are short teachers, first responders, and healthcare workers (e.g., “essential workers”). Our scarce resources are not prioritized.

What is Going on At Taxpayer-Subsidized Northwood Place?

Look at the picture at the top of this post. Nobody is saying anything about Northwood Place. Why not? They say it is a privacy issue.⁹

Northwood Place is 32 units of taxpayer-subsidized housing on Ketchum taxpayer-owned land next to the firehouse. The Mayor put this deal together over ten years ago when he was president of the Ketchum Community Development Corp (KCDC). KCDC is the owner of Northwood Place. Who is KCDC? Good question. They seem to be the shell non-profit “owner” of Northwood Place, so the for-profit developer can qualify for tax benefits. According to their website, Troika member Hamilton sits on their board of directors. Half of the board doesn’t live in Ketchum. GMD developed this project. GMD is a for-profit, Seattle-based developer of taxpayer-subsidized housing.

Sound familiar? This is the same team that brought you Bluebird: The Mayor, KCDC, GMD, and…you, the Ketchum taxpayer, with your contributions of “free” land,¹⁰ cash, and diminished property taxes.

Northwood Place is supposed to provide workforce housing. There has been zero reporting to the community, who paid for a good part of it, on whether it has achieved the community goals that justified the subsidies. I am pretty sure that providing garaging for a Porsche was not one of those goals.

I did a FOIA-type request on Northwood Place and got a bunch of redacted papers that provided no insight as to whether Northwood Place is housing Ketchum workers. Oh, there was some indication that at least several units are occupied by people who do not work.¹¹

Do you know what kind of reporting we will get on how well Bluebird meets Ketchum’s workforce housing needs? If you are thinking zero, you are right! We give away tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer resources, with no accountability for whether it “worked.” That the Council perpetuates this model is an abnegation of their fiduciary duty.

This is terrible governance. It is a terrible housing policy. It invites abuse.

We need housing for essential workers. We have scarce resources regarding money, land, and town character. Let’s focus our scarce resources on essential workers before we spread our money around to solve the entire County’s need to find garaging for Porsches.

What Can We Do?

I have been racking my brain to find an answer to that question, and I have come to the conclusion that the only way to change the course of Ketchum is a recall election for the entire City Council.

There was a well-organized effort to recall the Mayor in his first term, and some rumblings about doing it a year ago. Given that he was returned into office with 35% of the vote, he hardly has a mandate. But recalling only him leaves Breen and Hamilton on the Council, and their voting record and rhetoric has been almost universally in favor of the Bradshaw program (that’s why I call the three of them “the Troika”). While Cordovano and Hutchinson have more community support, I am arguing for a clean slate.

The campaign will need a leader, a committee and funding.

Who is “in?”

1. This is a picture that someone sent to me on August 19th of Northwood Place.

2. My comments: “We have scarce resources.  Scarce money, land, and community character.  We are short teachers, healthcare workers, and first responders.  No full-time worker in that occupation qualifies for Bluebird.  We should house essential workers.  Not corporate welfare for companies like SVC that encourages them to depress wages.  

This body is not doing that, and this tax will not do that. So, I oppose it and urge you to focus on it.  

Ms Connelly dissembled on the definition of workforce.  You did adopt one.   

Ketchum’s definition of workforce in its HAP is unique. It does not require people to work in Ketchum, does not require full-time work, and doesn’t even require a worker to work at all. It’s on page 7.  

This means we will be raising a tax that will not address our essential workforce housing crisis at all.  

Yet we can house them and be FHA compliant. You choose not to.  

Mr Cordovano might not be fully informed. We are not losing owner-occupied units in Ketchum. According to SVED, the number of owner-occupied housing units in Ketchum has been increasing. They presented this at the KURA meeting. 

That being said, the council let 200+ units of long-term rental houses go Airbnb without a peep. That pushed lower-income workers out of Ketchum. None of our cops live here, and few of our teachers. We have a mental health crisis in our community because health professionals can’t afford housing.  

Mr Cordovano was also unspecific in how much of the LOT is paid for by locals.  The city’s last estimate was 27%.  But it shouldn’t be even a single dollar.  Raising the LOT on lodging and not reducing the LOT on locals is inconsistent with a tourist tax.”

3. My comments: “We just heard you all talk about how badly you want more housing faster.  Bob and I disagree about a lot of things.  But I’m going to echo Bob’s comment about the importance of trust in government.  Can we trust you?   

If your goal is more housing faster, logic dictates that you get rid the in lieu option.  Maintaining this fee means your agenda cannot be about housing, but about something else. 

I oppose any in lieu fee.  I would rather have the housing.  If you eliminate the fee, every project will provide housing for a FAR exceedence.  We will get units faster. They will be distributed throughout the community rather than in these massive low-income housing boxes that the Housing Director has planned for us, and you can save a lot of taxpayer dollars by getting rid of the bureaucracy you have been building to spend the in lieu fee creating low-income housing projects.”

4. I’m not sure if he ascribes to the City definition of workforce—he did was not in office when it was adopted.

5. This conflict of interest helps explain why she is funneling Ketchum taxpayer funds outside of Ketchum. I am saddened that she has co-opted Keith Perry into this (he chairs BCHA).

6. There are myriad examples of how much smarter the City of Sun Valley is in running its city than the City of Ketchum. Maybe I will write a post about that at some point.

7. https://archbc.org/portfolio/bullion-street-parcel/

8. p7 of this: https://www.projectketchum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Ketchum-Housing-Matters_2022.2023_Action-Plan.pdf

The definition of workforce is immediately followed by my second favorite definition:

Unhoused: Not housed, not having an address or residence. Examples: • Persons who live in their cars or campers • Persons who live on others’ couches • Persons who have extremely long commutes (over 45 minutes one way).

Apparently someone who worked decades commuting 90 minutes each way to be able to buy a home in Ketchum (without taxpayer assistance) was “unhoused” for all those years. According to SVED, the average commute to Ketchum is 18 minutes.

9. I once asked the City for info. They referred me to Syringa, who manages the building (they also manage Bluebird). Syringa referred me to KCDC.. KCDC referred me to IHFA. They ghosted me. So I did a records request and got 20 pages of mostly blacked out information. I appealed and was denied more information. They really, really don’t want us to know if the people in public housing are from our community or work in our community.

10. This free land narrative annoys me. While we provide it free to the developer, City-owned land is some of the most valuable land in Ketchum. In the State of Idaho for that matter. We shouldn’t be just giving it away.

11. They could have quit, been laid off, fired, retired, or disabled.