HomeMy WebLinkAboutChamonix Market Update_022811
M EMORANDUM
To: Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator, Town of Vail
From: Andy Knudtsen and David Schwartz, Economic & Planning
Systems
Subject: Chamonix Market Update
Date: February 28, 2011
Background
The Town of Vail considers the Chamonix site in West Vail a component
of a larger strategy to address affordable housing needs in the
community. The site has the potential to hold approximately 58
dwelling units and would expand the inventory of affordable housing
within the Town. The elected officials believe that additional housing will
enhance the sense of community by providing homeownership
opportunities to local residents and improving economic vitality by
expanding the pool of employees available to local businesses.
In 2008, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) provided a market
analysis of the conceptual development plans for the site. The report
included an evaluation of the market trends, an assessment of the
position the site holds within Eagle County market, and a review of the
site’s competitive advantages and disadvantages. The market, however,
has changed since that time. This memorandum provides an overview of
updated market findings relevant to supply and demand conditions of
the Eagle County market.
Methodology
EPS conducted its analysis by focusing on the broader market trends
and focusing in on specific relevant market segments. The following
methodology was used and outlines the content of this memorandum:
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 2
20908-DM-030111
• 3 Geographies: EPS identified areas within the County as having the following sales
locations:
o Upper Valley: Booth Creek, Cascade Village, East Vail, Highlands Meadows,
Lionshead, Potato Patch, Sandstone Lionsridge, Spraddle Creek, Valley Ridge at
Vail, Vail Golf Course, Vail Village, and West Vail.
o Mid Valley: includes Arrowhead, Avon, Bachelor Gulch, Beaver Creek, Berry
Creek Ranch, Cordillera, Eagle Vail, Edwards, Homestead, Lake Creek Valley,
Minturn, Mountain Star, and Wildridge and Wildwood.
o Lower Valley: includes Cotton Ranch, Eagle, and Gypsum.
• 3 Time Periods: EPS identified periods of time over the past six years that represent
distinct periods:
o 2004-2008: During this period in Eagle County, the market continued its
upswing in average sales prices and maintained its volume:
o 2009: Generally, 2009 saw a major decrease in average sales prices and a
contraction in volume of activity;
o 2010: During this year, the market began to recover and stabilize. Average
prices in parts of Eagle County climbed again, and volume increased over 2009,
but did not return to the volume before 2008.
• 3 Price Bands: Within the geographies and periods of time, three price bands are relevant
to understanding where the market is today:
o Under $438,000: was identified as the conforming loan limit of approximately
$418,000 plus an estimated five percent that a buyer would have available for a
down payment;
o Between $438,000 and $600,000: was identified as the next band of price
points, which identifies an upper threshold for other local buyer products; and
o Sales above $600,000: was identified as a separate price band to isolate
products purchased by second-homeowners or out-of-state buyers.
Demand Conditions
Employment and wage information comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BLS data identify trends and conditions of wage and
salary positions through the second quarter of 2010. Data from the BEA identify counts of both
wage and salary jobs and sole proprietors through 2008. Due to the comprehensive nature of
BEA data, the lag time is greater. EPS has used the most comprehensive data available from
these sources for this report.
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 3
20908-DM-030111
Employment & Wages
Major losses in employment have been sustained nationally, regionally, and locally. In resort
economies, such as Vail’s, significant losses have occurred in the construction industry.
• Total wage and salary employment in Eagle County as of 2nd Quarter 2010 is 28,000
jobs. This is a 13 percent contraction from its peak in 2008. In 2008, as illustrated by
Figure 1, wage and salary positions totaled more than 32,000 jobs.
• While construction has lost 2,500 jobs since 2007, approximately 2,500 jobs were
gained since 2000 netting out the losses. Although employment levels have returned to
their 2000 level, the losses of the construction industry have been netted out by the gains in
other industries. Industries with the largest gains since 2000 were:
o Health Care and Social Assistance industry added 600 jobs;
o Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation added 700 jobs; and
o Accommodation and Food Services, though it sustained losses off its 2008 peak,
added nearly 700 positions.
• From 2000 to 2008, while wage and salary employment increased at an annual rate
of 1.7 percent, the number of sole proprietors increased at a rate of 4.4 percent. In
Eagle County, sole proprietors account for approximately 23 percent of the total workforce,
as illustrated in Figure 2. In 2000, there were approximately 8,700 proprietors, and by
2008, the total had increased to more than 12,200, an increase of more than 40 percent.
o Though data will not be available for nearly two years, it is likely that the number
of proprietors also contracted from 2008 to 2010. Assuming a uniform 13 percent
contraction, the estimated 2010 total of proprietors would still be 23 percent
higher than it was in 2000.
• Adjusted for inflation, average county wages have fallen 12 percent since 2008 and
are 1.7 percent lower than real wages were in 2000.Similar to the wage and salary job
trends; overall wages for the County have contracted since 2008 as illustrated by Figure 1.
• Future economic trends must be tracked closely. While some data show that the
economic recovery has been established in some markets across the country, the trends are
not evident in Eagle County at this time. EPS research conducted for higher-priced inventory
shows that a correction occurred in mid-2010. This correction may signify the return of
higher income buyers and part-time residents, and may signify a return to a normalized
Eagle County economy.
The Town of Vail should track a range of metrics and measure the rate of recovery and the
degree to which the market indicators move into historic ranges, when performance was
strong. If the market does not continue to solidify, the Town is advised to proceed with this
development slowly and with clearly identified exit strategies.
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 4
20908-DM-030111
Market Conditions
Housing market conditions and trend data come from the regional Multiple Listings Service
(MLS). Data have been analyzed from the first quarter 2004 through the fourth quarter 2010.
Sales Volume
As described previously, the construction industry contracted approximately 50 percent from its
peak in 2007. Similarly, the volume of housing sales contracted 48 percent after 2007, as
illustrated in Figure 3 and in Table 1.
• Sales volume in 2010 was 757, or 54 percent of average annual volume from 2004
to 2008. From 2004 to 2008, average annual activity was 1,412 units. In 2009, volume
decreased more than 64 percent to 504 units sold, or 36 percent of previous levels. In 2010,
sales volumes have increased most in the Upper Valley, followed by the Mid Valley and Lower
Valley respectively.
o In 2010, there were 243 sales in the Upper Valley. A majority of the
increase in activity was due to increased activity at prices above $600,000. The
volume for units priced below $438,000 was 37 units.
o In 2010, there were 354 sales in the Mid Valley. A large increase in volume
came from the sale of units priced below $438,000. Sales volume at this price
point was 93 units.
o In 2010, there were 160 sales in the Lower Valley. Most of the activity is
due to units priced below $438,000. Volume at this price point was 107 units.
Price Trends
Sales price trends in Eagle County have fluctuated widely in the past few years. On a per-
square-foot basis, average prices peaked in late 2008 in each of the geographies, as illustrated
by Figure 4.
• Average prices in the Upper Valley are currently $900/sqft. This is a contraction of 34
percent from their 1stquarter 2009 peak to the 1stquarter 2010. Average prices (of attached
and detached product) in the 1stquarter 2009 had increased to $1,100/sqft, or 155 percent
over their 1st quarter 2004 average of $430/sqft. In 2010, Upper Valley sales have increased
by 23 percent above the 1st quarter 2010.
• Average prices in the Mid Valley are currently $430/sqft. This is a contraction of 25
percent from their 3rd quarter 2008 peak. In the 3rd quarter 2008, prices had escalated to
$574/sqft or nearly 60 percent above the 1st quarter 2004 average of $365/sqft.
• Average prices in the Lower Valley are currently $190/sqft. This is a contraction of 26
percent from their 2nd quarter 2008 peak. In the 2nd quarter 2008, average prices had
increased 46 percent to $255/sqft over the average of $175/sqft in 2004.
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 5
20908-DM-030111
Units Priced Under $438,000
Using the conforming loan limit of $417,500 and assuming a five-percent downpayment, EPS
assessed the market for units priced at $438,000 or lower, as shown in Figure 5.
• Sales volume in 2010 was 237, or 31 percent of the total market. Today’s volume is
54 percent of the average annual volume at this price point for the period 2004 to 2008.
During the contraction in 2009, volume dropped to 154 units.
o In the Upper Valley, there were 37 sales in 2010 at this price point. This
is a decrease from the average 70 units sold per year from 2004 to 2008, but an
increase over the 27 units sold during 2009.
o In the Mid Valley, there were 93 sales in 2010 at this price point. This is a
decrease from the average 199 units sold per year from 2004 to 2008, but an
increase over the 51 units sold during 2009.
o In the Lower Valley, there were 107 sales in 2010 at this price point. This
is a decrease from the average 203 units sold per year from 2004 to 2008, but an
increase in the 76 units sold during 2009.
• Sales prices per square-foot in 2010 averaged $237 for all geographies at this price
point. From 2004 to 2008, average prices per square foot were approximately $262 at this
price point.
o In the Upper Valley, prices average $385 per square-foot in 2010.This is a
decrease from the average prices in previous years. From 2004 to 2008, prices
averaged $393, and in 2009, prices averaged $478 on thin volume.
o In the Mid Valley, prices average $266 per square-foot in 2010. This is a
decrease from the average of $281 from 2004 to 2008 and a decrease from 2009,
which was $292 per square-foot.
o In the Lower Valley, prices average $186 per square-foot in 2010.This is a
decrease from average prices from 2004 to 2008, which were $198 and $203 in
2009.
Conclusions
• Absorption. EPS believes the most comparable set of sales reflect those in the lowest price
point, located in the mid valley. If the Town can capture 10 percent of this sales volume (93
sales per year), it can sell approximately 9 units annually, based on the performance of this
submarket in 2010. If the Town can capture 5 percent of all Eagle County sales at this price
point and below (237 sales), annual sales rates translate to approximately 12 units. These
capture rates will drop when the Town performs a more refined segmentation analysis and
narrows the proposed price banding. As the Town refines its development program and
proposed pricing, it should further segment these sales records to understand pricing
tolerances of the market and the segment which will receive the greatest demand.
• Price Points. Recent sales at this price point indicate that most occur in the Mid Valley
between $200/sqft and $350/sqft. This accounts for all ranges of products and all ages of
structures. The data indicate that these units are relatively old (built in the early 1990’s) and
with an average size of approximately 1,200 square feet. It is recognized that the Town
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 6
20908-DM-030111
could likely build larger product and the corresponding price per square foot will drop. EPS
has established a price and size ratio, as depicted in Figure 7, which provides the
parameters for pricing relative to square footage.
• Competitive Position. Locations up valley will command a premium toward the higher end
of this range, as will new product. Both will make the project compelling. Although a deed
restriction will negatively impact the potential price point, it will not outweigh the premiums
for location and new structures.
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
Wa
g
e
&
S
a
l
a
r
y
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Va
i
l
C
h
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
To
t
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Me
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
February 28, 2011
Ch
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Page 8 20908-DM-030111
Va
i
l
C
h
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Me
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
February 28, 2011
Ch
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Page 9 20908-DM-030111
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
To
t
a
l
S
a
l
e
s
V
o
l
u
m
e
b
y
P
r
i
c
e
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
Va
i
l
C
h
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Me
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
February 28, 2011
Ch
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Page 10 20908-DM-030111
Ta
b
l
e
1
Sa
l
e
s
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
b
y
T
i
m
e
P
e
r
i
o
d
Va
i
l
C
h
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Up
s
w
i
n
g
:
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
:
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
:
U
p
s
w
i
n
g
:
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
i
on
:
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
:
U
p
s
w
i
n
g
:
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
:
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
:
20
0
4
t
o
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
4
t
o
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
4
t
o
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
Up
p
e
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
$
4
3
8
,
0
0
0
$
3
9
3
$
4
7
8
$
3
8
5
7
0
2
7
3
7
8
5
6
8
3
2
9
5
3
$4
3
8
,
0
0
0
t
o
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
8
0
$
4
5
8
$
4
2
3
5
1
1
3
2
3
1
,
2
0
8
1
,
2
3
8
1
,
3
56
Gr
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
9
3
3
$8
2
6
$1
,
0
6
7
18
7
86
18
3
2,
4
6
5
2,5412,610
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
$
7
3
5
$
7
1
4
$
9
0
2
3
0
8
1
2
6
2
4
3
1
,
8
8
9
2
,
0
4
0
2
,
2
3
9
--
-
97
%
1
2
3
%
--
-
41
%
7
9
%
--
-
108%119%
Mi
d
V
a
l
l
e
y
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
$
4
3
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
8
1
$
2
9
2
$
2
6
6
1
9
9
5
1
9
3
1
,
1
8
3
1
,
2
2
9
1
,
2
0
8
$4
3
8
,
0
0
0
t
o
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
6
1
$
3
0
4
$
2
9
7
1
1
6
2
7
4
2
1
,
6
6
8
1
,
8
1
4
2
,
005
Gr
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
6
6
$5
0
4
$5
1
6
44
7
18
1
21
9
3,
4
3
6
3,8173,837
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
$
4
6
1
$
4
4
1
$
4
2
4
7
6
2
2
5
9
3
5
4
2
,
5
7
9
3
,
0
9
8
2
,
9
2
9
--
-
96
%
9
2
%
--
-
34
%
4
6
%
--
-
120%114%
Lo
w
e
r
V
a
l
l
e
y
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
$
4
3
8
,
0
0
0
$
1
9
8
$
2
0
3
$
1
6
0
2
0
3
7
6
1
0
7
1
,
6
0
8
1
,
6
9
7
1
,
9
47
$4
3
8
,
0
0
0
t
o
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
5
$
1
8
0
$
1
7
8
7
7
1
9
2
0
2
,
4
0
2
3
,
0
3
4
2
,
9
47
Gr
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
6
2
$2
4
9
$2
7
6
62
24
33
3,
4
1
4
4,0954,644
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
$
2
1
6
$
2
0
9
$
1
8
6
3
4
2
1
1
9
1
6
0
2
,
1
1
2
2
,
3
9
4
2
,
6
2
8
as
%
o
f
2
0
0
4
-
2
0
0
8
-
-
-
97
%
8
6
%
--
-
35
%
4
7
%
--
-
113%124%
So
u
r
c
e
:
E
a
g
l
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
L
S
;
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
ms
H:
\
2
0
9
0
8
-
V
a
i
l
C
h
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
D
a
t
a
\
[
2
0
9
0
8
-
M
L
S-
2
0
1
1
.
x
l
s
x
]
T
a
b
l
e
2
Av
e
r
a
g
e
P
r
i
c
e
s
/
S
q
F
t
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
A
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n
A
v
e
r
a
ge Unit Sizes
Me
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
February 28, 2011
Ch
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Page 11 20908-DM-030111
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
P
r
i
c
e
s
p
e
r
S
q
u
a
r
e
-
F
o
o
t
b
y
G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
Va
i
l
C
h
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Me
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
February 28, 2011
Ch
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Page 12 20908-DM-030111
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
Pr
i
c
e
s
p
e
r
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
b
y
G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
u
n
d
e
r
$
4
3
8
,
0
0
0
Va
i
l
C
h
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Me
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
February 28, 2011
Ch
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Page 13 20908-DM-030111
Fi
g
u
r
e
6
Vo
l
u
m
e
b
y
U
n
i
t
T
y
p
e
b
y
G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
u
n
d
e
r
$
4
3
8
,
0
0
0
Va
i
l
C
h
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Me
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
February 28, 2011
Ch
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Page 14 20908-DM-030111
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
Un
i
t
s
S
o
l
d
u
n
d
e
r
$
4
3
8
,
0
0
0
b
y
P
r
i
c
e
/
S
q
F
t
a
n
d
S
i
z
e
Va
i
l
C
h
a
m
o
n
i
x
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
u
d
y
U
p
d
a
t
e