HomeMy WebLinkAbout19. 2018 Eagle Valley Housing Needs and Solutions FINALEAGLE RIVER VALLEY
HOUSING NEEDS AND SOLUTIONS 2018
http://www.eaglecounty.us/housing/
II Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC
PREPARED BY
IN TEAM WITH
Willa Williford
303-818-0096
willa@willifordhousing.com
IIIRees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The Eagle River Valley Defined
What is Affordable?
What is the Difference Between Housing Need
and Market Size?
Key Findings & Policy Considerations
PART I - CURRENT CONDITIONS, TRENDS, AND HOUSING
NEEDS UPDATE
Current Conditions
Who We Are and Where We Live
Trends in Housing and Job Markets
Housing Demand Update
What is Behind the Numbers?
PART II - HOUSING SOLUTIONS
Ownership Housing - Design & Development
Rental Housing Development & Design
Housing Tools
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Acknowledgements & Contributions
Appendix B - Area Median Family Income & Purchase
Prices
Appendix C - Home Sales by Zip Code
Appendix D - Methodology & Sources
Appendix E - Survey Definitions of Tools
1
2
3
4
5
10
13
17
25
28
33
46
54
62
63
64
66
72
1Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The goal of this report is three-fold:
1) Provide current context on people, jobs, and housing markets in the Eagle River Valley;
2) Update the housing demand calculations and projections that have been used consistently over the
past 11 years; and
3) Inform housing policy and implementation by providing up to date information on what local house -
holds and employers need: their housing goals and intentions, the tradeoffs they are willing to make,
and solutions that are likely to be the most well received.
PART I
PART ONE is the Housing Needs Update,
which begins with current data on the valley’s
population, jobs, and the housing market. It
measures the problem of workforce housing
in terms of perceptions and impacts on
households and provides the metrics that
are the foundation for the need update.
Part I concludes with the demand update
calculations.
PART II
PART TWO provides guidance on moving
forward with housing solutions: key
considerations policy makers need to know,
where to build housing, how to design it,
appropriate price ranges, and what tools
should be prioritized.
This report is organized in two parts:
INTRODUCTION
2 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC INTRODUCTION
Eagle River Valley Defined
The study area is the Eagle River Valley, from Vail to Dotsero. While the entire valley is socially, economically,
and geographically connected, there are three distinct market areas, which are defined as:
• Up Valley, which includes the towns of Vail, Minturn, and Red Cliff.
• Mid Valley, which includes Eagle Vail, Avon, and Edwards.
• Down Valley, which includes Wolcott, Eagle, Gypsum, and Dotsero.
Burns, Bond, and McCoy are not included. Basalt and El Jebel are covered by a separate study for the
Roaring Fork Valley.
INTRODUCTION
3Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC INTRODUCTION
Incomes are typically expressed as a percentage of the median, which is abbreviated in this report
as AMI (Area Median Income). The following table provides the incomes for each AMI category with the
corresponding affordable price for housing, each representing the maximums for each range.
Interest rates have a profound impact on housing affordability. These price points assume an interest
rate of 5%. Interest rates are likely to rise going forward and a one point increase in the rate lowers the
affordable purchase price for a 100% AMI household by $30,000 to $35,000.
WHAT IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE
EAGLE RIVER VALLEY?
This report centers on an understanding of “what is affordable?” Housing affordability is a
function both of the cost of housing and household income. Housing is generally considered to
be affordable when the monthly payment (rent or mortgage) is equal to no more than 30% of a
household’s gross income. Although there is some variation, this standard is commonly applied
by federal and state housing programs, local housing initiatives, mortgage lenders and rental
leasing agents.
AMI %60%100%140%200%
Household Income – 3 persons $48,360 $80,600 $112,840 $161,200
Max Affordable Purchase price $190,000 $316,000 $443,000 $632,000
Max Affordable Rent $1,210 $2,420 $2,820 $4,030
MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE RENTS AND PURCHASE PRICES BY AMI
EAGLE VALLEY - 2017
Source: CHFA, consultant team. Full calculations are provided in Appendix C.
4 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
HOUSING NEED AND MARKET SIZE?
Housing Need
Part I of this report calculates the need for additional housing based on a method pioneered by Rees
Consulting, Inc and RRC Associates in the 1990’s to address the question:
“How many additional housing units are needed to address housing problems
and provide a sufficient labor force to sustain the economy?”
This measurement is a key component of Housing Needs Assessments. It quantifies needs in two categories:
“CATCH-UP”
Additional housing units
needed now to address
existing problems
“KEEP-UP”
Additional units needed in
the future to fill jobs
Need is used for many purposes including setting of goals and objectives for housing, strategic and land use
planning, allocation of resources, establishing funding sources and developing tools to comprehensively
address needs.
Market Size
Part II provides a traditional method for analyzing housing markets used primarily by developers (private,
non-profit and public), lenders and investors for specific ownership and rental housing developments. This
measurement is a standard part of project-specific market studies. It represents the market from which a
proposed housing development will draw its owners or renters. It is used to determine if projects are feasible
and to gauge risk. Market size addresses the question:
“Is there a sufficient market for the proposed units to be sold or rented?”
After quantifying the total number of households that comprise the market, Part II of this report segment
that market by income, household type and size, and housing and location preferences to inform decisions
about location, unit type, bedroom mix, pricing and amenities.
While some lenders may allow market analysts to consider in migration and population growth in estimates,
a more straightforward and conservative method, like used by CHFA, considers only existing households. It
is assumed that, with growth, demographics and preferences will remain much the same. In market analysis
it is not necessary to consider households that might move in unless major events, like a large tech company
moving into a resort community, are planned.
5Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC INTRODUCTION
KEY FINDINGS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Responding to the demand demonstrated in this re-
port is a matter of local public policy, which should
be driven by local goals and objectives. Creating new
housing happens through a complex set of drivers
and constraints including available land, land use
policy, developer interest and capacity, financial fea-
sibility, and local subsidies and requirements. The
high cost of taking no action on workforce housing
has consequences for individuals and families, the
economy, civic engagement, and overall community
character and sense of genuine place.
When setting policy goals and direction for housing
locals, communities rarely target achieving 100% of
the catch-up and keep-up demand estimates, nor are
resources likely available to achieve 100% of the gap.
Rather, it is incumbent upon policymakers to use the
data in this report to set goals that are an appropri-
ate blend of aspirational, attainable, and respon-
sive to community values and vision. Making any
progress, or just staying even, in producing housing
affordable for the local workforce in a market with
gaps as large as those found in the Eagle River Valley
requires a consistent, incremental, multi-pronged
approach. The communities of the Eagle River Valley
have many significant accomplishments in the realm
of workforce housing, and renewed commitment
and continued work are essential moving forward.
The communities that make up the Eagle River Val-
ley are well-positioned to work on housing goals and
strategies that are tailored specifically to individual
communities, as well as to collaborate on region-
al solutions. Both local and regional approaches
are warranted and necessary to create diverse and
long-lasting housing solutions for the local work-
force.
Since the end of the recession, around 2011, jobs and population have been growing much more rapidly than
housing inventory, and with that has created many challenges:
• frustration for employees seeking housing,
• employers facing unfilled positions, high turnover, higher training costs, and
lost productivity,
• precipitously increase in home prices, well beyond the means of most local
residents, and
• extremely low vacancy rates, resulting in limited choices and rising costs for
renters.
If forecasts prove accurate, these tensions are poised to increase, with about 7,150
new jobs coming to the Eagle River Valley by 2025. Mid valley is anticipated to have the
most new jobs, but up valley is not far behind. If the economy remains strong and and
no new housing is created, these growth pressures will translate into higher numbers
of unfilled jobs and continued rapid escalation of housing prices. Another approach is
to create new housing for the additional employees and their families who fill these
jobs.
According to Office of State Demography projections, these new households are
anticipated to live more often in mid valley and down valley markets, adding to the
eastbound morning commute pattern. These assumptions align with recent growth patterns and future
opportunities, and policymakers are poised to make decisions that can influence the course of future housing
growth.
Housing Need
KEY FINDINGS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
6 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC INTRODUCTION
Ownership Housing
Based on the conclusions drawn from the resident
survey, policy makers should keep the following pri-
orities and considerations in mind when shaping pol-
icy strategies around home ownership housing:
• Ownership housing in proximity to work has
many tangible and intangible benefits associat-
ed with creating a sense of place and community,
stability for school children and employers, year-
round contributions to the economy, decreased
commute times and increased volunteerism.
• Local households, both owners and renters, have
an overwhelming desire to remain or become
homeowners, regardless of income.
• A diversity of attached and detached housing
product is needed, with a range of price points,
upgrade options and amenities.
• Affordability is the key obstacle for locals seeking
to buy in the Eagle River Valley. Numerous tools
will be needed to overcome the affordability gap
for most locations and product types.
• Affordability and location are the highest priori-
ties for buyers. If homes are located in desirable
communities and priced affordably, buyers will
make tradeoffs on unit type and size. Regardless
of where in the valley buyers are seeking to live,
community character is the most important lo-
cation attribute local households consider – un-
derscoring the need to integrate housing efforts
in comprehensive community planning and that
preserves and enhances sense of place, locals
or family-orientation, social opportunities, and
proximity to services and entertainment.
• Given the significant gap between the market
and what locals can afford, deed restrictions are
a necessity for most unit types and price points.
Fortunately, deed restrictions are widely accept-
ed by consumers.
• One third of current homeowners would like to
move within the valley in the next five years. If
an owner buys a new/different residence and
their current free market home is purchased by
second home owner or inventor for short term
rentals, there is no net improvement in the rela-
tionship between supply and demand for local
residents.
• Moving owners into new homes could be a
component of a housing strategy that would
support mixed income developments and fo-
cus on building neighborhoods.
• Preserving the homes that will be sold as pri-
mary residences when providing new home op-
portunities could be considered, including buy
downs or other incentives to place deed restric-
tions on homes being sold.
• Also, owners of deed restricted units could be
given priority for new ownership opportunities,
which would create movement in the deed-re -
stricted inventory.
• Availability of funds for down payment is key to
making sure that renters with the desire to pur-
chase a home and stay in the Eagle River Valley
are able to do so when a home affordable to
them becomes available. For this reason, local
communities should continue to support the Ea-
gle County down payment assistance program,
which has a strong track record in assisting local
households.
KEY FINDINGS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
“A key to addressing the housing challenge is political will.”
-2018 Survey Respondent
7Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC INTRODUCTION
Rental Housing
While most renters in the Eagle Valley would prefer to
own, rental housing is an important component of a
healthy housing ecosystem. Most renters will not be
able to afford ownership in the near term, and rental
housing is needed for new employees recruited into
the community. Building additional rental housing
should continue to be part of local housing policy
goals, especially in consideration of the current ex-
treme low vacancy, escalating rental rates, and high
levels of cost burden among renters.
• Up valley and mid valley should be the priori-
tized for new rental development, as 82% of cur-
rent renters prefer those locations.
• Renters, especially those with low wages are
price sensitive, and proximity to work is their
most important locational attribute. Jobs within
the market area and what rental price points are
appropriate for households making those wag-
es should be considered when siting new rental
housing.
Housing Tools
Both local and regional approaches are warranted and necessary to create
diverse and long-lasting housing solutions for the local workforce. The
communities that make up the Eagle River Valley are well positioned to work
on housing goals and strategies that are tailored specifically to individual
communities, as well as to collaborate on regional solutions.
Part I reported on the nearly unanimous agreement among employers and
residents that workforce housing is a problem in the Eagle Valley, and those
sentiments carry forward in employers and resident’s overall enthusiasm for
tools that contribute to workforce housing solutions in Part II. When considering
local and regional tools and how they could be formulated into housing
strategies, policymakers would be well-advised to begin with the tools that
received the most support from employers and residents:
KEY FINDINGS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
“We need the County
- Commissioners
and Staff - to take
a leadership role
in addressing this
'perfect storm',
with innovative
approaches, and
with commitment to
seeking partnerships
and solutions
that will, year-by-
year, bridge the
gap in attainable,
sustainable housing.
This 'housing' must
meet the needs of
year-round employees
and entrepreneurs in
our valley - not just
seasonal workers.”
-2018 Survey
Respondent
1. Providing town/county land for workforce and local residents’
housing.
2. Providing public financing through the towns, County, or housing
authority.
3. Fast track processing of land use proposals that include workforce
housing.
4. Towns or County taking the lead in building housing, which could be
as developer or as lead on public/private partnerships.
5. Inclusionary housing, which requires new residential development
to contribute to the workforce housing inventory.
6. Commercial linkage, which requires new commercial development to
contribute towards workforce housing based on the need for housing
for the employees of the new jobs generated.
8 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC INTRODUCTION
These tools represent a balanced mix of funding,
partnerships, incentives, and regulations. They are
some of the more aggressive tools in the affordable
housing toolkit, which reflects the urgency of the is-
sue and a good level of knowledge and acceptance of
these tools by residents and employers. Of particu-
lar note is the desire for local municipalities and the
County to lead housing efforts. Local government is a
key player in all six of the most frequently supported
strategies.
Perhaps because they experience the day to day
challenges of hiring and retaining employees in the
current jobs/housing environment, employers rated
more strategies highly, including:
• Fee waivers for water, sewer, and other impact
fees.
• Excise tax on short term rentals.
• Density bonuses for inclusion of workforce hous-
ing.
While considered slightly lower priority by residents,
these tools may be appropriate components of the
housing strategies for some communities.
It is clear that local communities would be wise to
create some momentum and build upon success-
es before seeking any dedicated funding streams
through a new tax (with the possible exception of
short term rental excise tax). Property tax exemp-
tion, sales tax, and property tax make up three of the
five least supported strategies.
The tools chapter also provides data on where
among the three market areas the tools received
more and less support, which should be helpful as
communities consider local and valley wide housing
strategies. Several themes point toward the relevan-
cy of a valley-wide housing strategy:
• Several tools including providing town/Coun-
ty land and inclusionary zoning received strong
support valley-wide.
• Support for housing tools was strong across
households of all incomes ranges.
• Learning best practices from each other, devel-
oping regional approaches, and strengthening
cooperation were consistently expressed in the
open-ended questions.
• Partnerships with employers offer promising op-
portunities. Both small and large employers ex-
press interest in investing in workforce housing
and expanding the housing opportunities they
currently offer.
Communities within the valley have a long history of
successful workforce housing initiatives and many
have used different housing tools at different times,
including public private partnerships, land trades,
annexation agreements, inclusionary housing, com-
mercial linkage fees, and leverage of local funds to
match outside investments in housing. There is op-
portunity to build upon these successes (as well as
incorporate lessons learned) to create a more consis-
tent, unified approach going forward.
KEY FINDINGS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
9Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
Current Conditions, Trends,
and Housing Needs Update
PART I
10 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
What Housing Problem?
CURRENT CONDITIONS
“Do you feel that the availability of housing that is affordable for the workforce in
the Eagle River Valley is…”
We asked survey respondents about their perceptions of housing as a problem, by asking:
Their response was emphatic: it’s a big problem.
• A remarkable 91% of household survey respondents felt that the lack of availability of housing that is
affordable to the workforce in the Eagle River Valley is one of the most serious problems or the most
critical problem in the region.
• And, 85% of employers felt that the lack of availability of housing that is affordable to the workforce in
the Eagle River Valley is one of the most serious problems or the most critical problem in the region.
• No employers responded that it is “not a problem” or “a lesser problem.”
Source: 2018 employer survey, 2018 household survey.
There is strong consensus valley-wide that housing affordability is a serious or critical problem.
A full 99% of renters feel that this is one of the more serious or the most critical problem in the region, and
84% of owners feel the same way.
11Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
Source: 2018 household survey
Mid valley respondents where slightly more likely to perceive the problem as “more serious” or “most critical”
than their up valley and down valley neighbors; 94% compared to 89% for up valley and 88% for down valley.
Source: 2018 household survey.
CURRENT CONDITIONS
"The most common
concern you hear
from regular
blue collar hard
working adults like
myself is, how bad
the housing is here.
It’s time to make a
change."
-2018 Survey
Respondent
12 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
Perceptions of severity have some variation by income: combined responses for “serious” and “most critical”
range from between 82% and 97%, with lower income households tending to have higher severity ratings.
Interestingly, 92% of households over 200% AMI also felt it was “serious” and “most critical.”
Source: 2018 household survey
CURRENT CONDITIONS
"Frustration with housing continues to grow and moved in a negative direction from
2015-16. Negative opinions about housing are higher than ever found in the history
of conducting the survey. Almost three out of four businesses feel that the housing
situation negatively impacts their ability to hire and retain employees and this issue
was mentioned frequently when asked about additional resources that are needed."
-Vail Valley Partnership: 2017 Workforce Survey Report
13Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
WHO WE ARE AND WHERE WE LIVE
Household Characteristics
Source: 2018 household survey Source: 2018 household survey
WHO WE ARE AND WHERE WE LIVE
of the Valley's
Year-Round
Households are
Located Here
Homes Occupied
Year-Round
DOWN VALLEY
34%
90%
of the Valley's
Year-Round
Households are
Located Here
Homes Occupied
Year-Round
MID VALLEY
45%
61%
of the Valley's
Year-Round
Households are
Located Here
Homes Occupied
Year-Round
UP VALLEY
21%
41%
14 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
Looking at the demographics of the Eagle River Valley, some of the distinctions and similarities
between the three market areas begin to emerge, as well as the reasons the workforce housing
shortage is being felt so acutely at this time.
Across the valley, the average household size is 2.9 people. Each household has an average of
1.8 employed persons, and each employed person has an average of 1.24 jobs. These metrics are
used throughout the demand calculations.
Mid valley is home to the most year-round residents, however, down valley has been adding year-
round households more rapidly since 2010. The demand for second homes and the percentage
of homes occupied by full time residents is one of the defining distinctions between the three
markets.
The three market areas have a number of distinctions with regard to household composition and
age of residents.
• Mid and down valley are home to a higher percentage of households with children and
adults in the prime working years of 30-64.
• Looking at the presence of children in the household provides a striking contrast: only 17% of
households up valley have children present, while almost half (48%) of down valley households include
children.
• Down valley has larger households, especially those with four or more individuals.
• Up valley is home to proportionally more adults living alone, roommates, millennials, individuals over 65 and
extended/multigenerational households.
• All three market areas have similar 22-26% of couples without children.
WHO WE ARE AND WHERE WE LIVE
Source: 2018 household survey
I dislike the terms
"employee housing"
and "workforce
housing;" we are the
people who choose
to live here year-
round and make the
valley have viable
communities. We are
more than employees
-- we are parents,
teachers, business
owners, service
providers; we are
raising families.
-2018 Survey
Respondent
“And it doesn't matter if you are up or down valley anymore -- we would
be paying the same mortgage in Eagle or Gypsum that we are currently
paying in Eagle-Vail but would also be commuting our children and
ourselves daily, adding to I-70 traffic and our monthly expenses.”
-2018 Survey
15Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
Incomes and Tenure
Mid and down valley have similar distribution of incomes, while up valley is home to a higher proportion of
households with incomes below 60% AMI and above 200% AMI.
Source: 2018 household survey.
The majority of renters (58%) have incomes below the median income. As incomes increase, households
become more likely to own. About 23% of renters have incomes at or above 140% AMI. These households
may have formerly been considered “renters by choice,” but may be priced out of homeownership in the
current market.
WHO WE ARE AND WHERE WE LIVE
Source: 2018 household survey.
16 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
Hispanic households make up about a third of year-round residents in mid and down valley, while the
percentage of Hispanic households in up valley is much smaller at only 13%.
Ethnicity
Source: 2018 household survey.
Source: 2018 household survey.
WHO WE ARE AND WHERE WE LIVE
Rent
Own
Down Valley
34%
66%
Rent
Own
Mid Valley
46%
54%
Rent
Own
Up Valley
62%
38%
Rent
Own
OVERALL
45%
55%
Hispanic
Non-
Hispanic
Down Valley
30%
70%
Hispanic
Non-
Hispanic
34%
66%
Hispanic
Non-
Hispanic
Mid Valley
13%
87%
Up Valley
17Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS
Housing Shortage and the Economy
Source: QCEW 2016
The housing shortage negatively impacts employers in terms of employee
retention, business development and growth. In 2017, unemployment in
Eagle County was 2.2%, the lowest level since 2000. This situation leaves
very few employees living in the valley to fill positions. High housing costs
and a predominance of low wage, tourism industry jobs exacerbate the
challenge because employers have difficulty attracting and retaining
employees from beyond the Valley.
• An estimated 1,600 jobs remained unfilled, heading into the peak
winter season of 2017/2018.
• Jobs are remaining unfilled for longer periods of time. Last year 43%
of jobs remained open for more than a month, compared to 18% of
jobs five years ago, according to the Vail Valley Partnership - 2017
Workforce Survey Report.
• As is common in resort areas, the largest employment sectors are
accommodations, food, and retail.
• Eagle River Valley employees have a weekly wage $220 lower than
employees in Colorado overall.
• The fastest growing occupations will continue to be in the
accommodations, food service, and retail sectors, including
waiters and waitresses, retail sales clerks, food preparation, and
housekeeping. These jobs typically pay wages below $31,000/year,
or about 50% AMI for a single person.
“Those of us keeping this
valley operating working
in retail, hospitality, and
ski resort operations do
not make a huge income.
Yet, without us, the valley
wouldn’t survive. Keep us
here.”
-2018 Survey Respondent
“I came here for adven-
ture, opportunity, and
in hopes of making Vail
Valley my home. In four
years, I’ve been hit with
the harsh reality that a
single adult has no chance
to truly make a home
here. I have no children
and work tireless hours to
simply pay rent.”
-2018 Survey Respondent
18 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
An estimated 1,200 employees in the Eagle River Valley intend to retire in the next five years, and most of
these retirees will stay in the valley. New employees needed to fill those jobs will struggle to find housing
they can afford. Additional homes will be needed to house new employees recruited to fill these jobs as they
become available.
For Sale Housing Market
The last full Housing Needs Assessment was completed in 2007. Since that time, median household income
has increased 6%, while home prices increased 20%.
Source: 2007 Housing Needs Assessment, MLS
Second homeowners and short-term rental investment buyers currently compete with year-round residents
for homes at all price points affordable to locals. With continued scarcity of housing throughout the valley,
all three markets are likely to see continued price increases and decline in homes occupied year-round.
It is very difficult to buy a home in Eagle County with an income derived in the Eagle River Valley. Based on
survey data, about 5,000 local households with income below 140% AMI ($113,000 or less for a three-person
household) would like to purchase a home within the Eagle River Valley. But only 64 homes were listed for
sale at prices they can afford in January of this year. The majority of these listings were condos, likely to
be purchased by second home or investor buyers. There is an inventory surplus in of homes for sale over
$600,000, which serves households over 200% AMI. Buyers of these homes will predominately be from out of
the area.
TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS
19Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
CURRENT MLS LISTINGS AND LOCAL HOUSEHOLDS WHO WANT TO PURCHASE
# of Current MLS Listings
AMI Range Max
Affordable
Purchase
Price
Up
Valley
Mid
Valley
Down
Valley
Total
Listings
House-
holds
Want to
Buy
60% or less $190,000 0 0 1 1 1,440
60-100% AMI $316,000 1 4 7 12 2,110
100-140% AMI $443,000 7 13 31 51 2,120
140-200% AMI $632,000 12 22 43 77 1,550
Greater than 200%
AMI
-199 218 68 485 1,070
Total 219 257 150 626 8,290
Source: MLS, household survey, consultant team
A local household would need an income of about $152,000 (or 236% of Area Median Income) to afford the
median priced home that sold in 2017.
Source: MLS, CHFA, consultant team
Last year, median sales prices exceeded what is affordable to a household with median income for all
areas and home types except condos in the down valley.
TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS
20 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
Source: MLS, consultant team
Scarcity is a significant factor in the high cost of housing. Of the 1,300 homes sold last year, only 10% sold at
prices that would be affordable to a household with income of $80,600 or lower (100% AMI). Up valley, only
nine condos in Vail and four single family homes in Red Cliff were affordable for incomes of 100% AMI. Mid
valley, all homes sold that would be affordable to 100% AMI or lower were condos, and single-family homes
were distinctly unaffordable with a median price approaching $2 million. Down valley there was a more
balanced mix of condos, duplexes, townhomes, and single-family-homes, however, only 21% of all homes
sold down valley were affordable to 100% AMI households.
Number of Homes Sold - 2017
Source: MLS
TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS
21Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
It is similarly difficult to rent a home. Over the past five years, vacancy
rates have been dropping, and rent levels rising. With vacancy levels
now approaching zero, the rental market is no longer functioning
effectively. Employees who are new to the area, or people needing to
move based on changes in their housing needs have great difficulty
finding a home to rent. Landlords experience low turnover and have
little incentive to make repairs and improvements. Such scarcity has
driven prices more rapidly than wage increases.
In 2007, average rent for all unit types was $1,150. Currently, average
rent is $1,700, an increase of 48%. (Both figures exclude utilities, which also impact affordability.) Incomes
have only increased 6% over that time period. This dynamic is driving up cost burden, especially among the
lowest income renters.
Most the rental housing reported on this trend graph has deed restrictions that place a cap on rents. As the
economy has improved, vacancy rates have plunged, but rents have only increased modestly, due to the
deed restrictions. In free market rentals, low vacancy rates are pushing rapid price increases.
For Rent Housing Market
With rental inventory limited, renters of all incomes are competing for the same units, and the lowest
income renters are only paying about 19% less than the highest income renters. Employees in a household
need to work about 120 hours a week, or three full time jobs, at minimum wage for the average rent and
utility payment to be considered “affordable.”
Mid valley has the highest average free market rent, likely due to a higher number of households renting
larger single-family homes. Overall, the gap between free market and deed restricted in the region is about
20% or approximately $330/month.
Source: Polar Star Market Reports 2010 to 2017
TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS
22 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
Source: 2018 household survey, December 2017 Polar Star Market Report
The gap between market and deed restricted is about $350/month for two- and three-bedroom homes.
TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS
Source: 2018 household survey, December 2017 Polar Star Market Report
TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS
“The cost of
rent is absurd.
People are
paying $1000+
a month in
some units
to rent an air
mattress on
a floor in a
closet with
no windows,
no parking,
utilities not
included,
you get the
picture.”
-2018 Survey
Respondent
23Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
Commuting
The mismatch between where local workers live and where jobs are located requires much of the workforce
to commute.
• About 9% of the workforce commutes from outside of the valley;
• Vail has a jobs/housing balance of approximately 6,000 jobs, requiring at least that number of employ-
ees to commute into Vail from other parts of the valley;
• Mid valley has a more balanced housing/jobs mix, with only about 600 more employees than jobs;
• Down valley plays a significant “bedroom community” role, housing more workers than there are jobs.
TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS
24 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
Housing Shortage and Cost Burden
The tension between high housing costs and low wages is hurting individuals and families in the community.
As households stretch to find and retain housing in a tight market, the proportion of their income spent on
housing increases, leaving less for food, healthcare, childcare, transportation, and retirement savings.
When a household spends more than 30% of income on housing, they are considered “cost burdened.” The
term “severely cost burdened” is used when more than 50% of household income is devoted to housing costs.
• Approximately 3,800 households (22% of all households) in the Eagle Valley currently live under the
duress of cost burden.
• The percentage of households experiencing cost burden has decreased since 2007.
• When asked about their housing plans, 13% of survey respondents reported that they intend to leave
the Eagle River Valley in the next five years, which may be an indicator of the trend observed by realtors
and property managers that residents who are ready to own a home, start a family, or “step up” in
their career may choose to leave the community.
Source: 2007 Housing Needs Assessment, 2018 Household Survey
Not surprisingly, cost burden
disproportionately impacts renters
and lower income households. About
64% of all households under 60%
AMI are cost burdened; a third are
severely cost burdened. As incomes
increase, the likelihood of cost burden
decreases.
Of renters, 38% are cost burdened,
compared to 10% of owners. Renters
are also more frequently severely cost
burdened; 10% compared to 3% of
owner households.
The problem of cost burden exists
valley wide. It is most prevalent in mid
valley where about 2,000 households
(about a quarter) are cost burdened.
About 21% of down valley households
are cost burdened and 19% of up
valley households.
Source: 2018 Household Survey
TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS
25Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
Eagle County has been consistently using the “catch up/keep up” method of calculating housing demand
over the past decade. In this report, the approach is refined to provide demand calculations and market gaps
for the three market areas within the Eagle River Valley, as well as the valley in total.
Estimates are provided for the number of housing units that are needed to support job growth, sustain
employers and employees, and stabilize housing prices.
“CATCH-UP” NEEDS
the number of housing
units needed to address
current deficiencies in
housing calculated by
considering overcrowding,
unfilled jobs and in-
commuting employees
who want to live in Eagle
County
“KEEP-UP” NEEDS
the number of units needed to keep up with
future demand for housing based on projected
employment and population growth and the
requirement to replace retiring employees. Keep
up demands are projected for 2020, 2025, and
2030. The further out these projections look, the
more prone they are to change due to unforeseen
conditions.
This demand update provides data by region, AMI, tenure, and for the valley as a whole. This summary table
below includes homes that the free market will provide, and homes for which subsidies, incentives, and/or
regulations will be required.
2018 2020 2025 2030
Catch-up (Existing Needs)
Unfilled Jobs 1,100
Rental Market 310
In-Commuters 560
Overcrowding 800
Total Catch-up 2,780 2,780 2,780 2,780
Keep Up (Existing Needs)
New jobs 1,030 2,350 3,870
Retiring employees 200 770 1,320
Total Keep-up 1,250 3,120 5.190
Total Housing Units Needed 2,780 4,030 5,900 7,970
ESTIMATED HOUSING DEMAND - EAGLE RIVER VALLEY - 2018 THROUGH 2030
HOUSING DEMAND UPDATEHOUSING DEMAND UPDATE
26 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
Own/Rent Mix
Both ownership and rental housing that is affordable for the local workforce and other residents is needed.
The gap estimates below use a mix of 55% ownership and 45% rental, generally reflecting the current own/rent
composition in the community. For homes that will be built to address local needs, the ownership/rental mix is
not exact, but in practice largely a function of the community’s desired direction, housing goals, opportunities
and private market performance. While the rental market rebounded more quickly post-recession than the
ownership market, both have now sufficiently recovered to warrant additional development.
Location
The total number of housing units needed are allocated by area based on owners and renters first choice for
where they want to live in the Valley. This approach:
• Is most responsive to market demand and the preferences of residents;
• Recognizes the extensive cross commuting that exists – although jobs location is closely aligned with
where residents most want to live (see the Housing Solutions section); and
• Improves the housing/jobs balance among new jobs and workers coming into the Valley.
While the location of jobs is one factor that influences where employees want to live, others like schools,
shopping, and community and neighborhood character are key determinants of location preferences.
One weakness to this approach is that it doesn’t incorporate land constraints, development opportunities, or
the level of subsidies required in different market areas. Policy makers working regionally could decide to re-
allocate workforce housing production goals with these considerations in mind.
Gap
The market will address a portion of both ownership and rental housing. The income levels that the market
now serves vary within the Eagle River Valley as shown on the following table. By 2020, the total housing
projected is 4,030 homes. We anticipate a portion of those homes will be supplied by the free market. The gap
not served by the market will total around 2,450 units– about 1,220 for sale and 1,230 rental units, very close
to a 50/50 split of for sale and for rent. Monitoring market conditions and making changes, if needed, to the
forecasting model in the income levels served by the market would generate changes in the owner/renter mix
and overall workforce housing gap moving forward.
HOUSING DEMAND UPDATEHOUSING DEMAND UPDATE
"Housing for year round working families is so expensive, that when we retire within the next 5
years, we cannot afford to stay in the area where we have lived for the past 28 years and raised our
family, who have grown and moved away due to cost of living."
--2018 Survey Respondent
27Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
HOUSING DEMAND UPDATE
For Sale Housing Gap by Region and Income – 2020
Owner Units by AMI Max Affordable
Price Up Valley Mid Valley Down
Valley Total
Where Owners Want to Live 26%39%35%100%
<60%$253,000 48 72 66 186
60.1% to 100%$316,000 122 180 164 466
100.1 to 140%$443,000 173 256 234 663
140.1 to 200%$632,000 135 200 183 518
Over 200%>$632,000 90 134 122 346
Gap - # for sale units 480 510 230 1,220
Rental Gap by Region and Income - 2020
Rental Units by AMI Max Affordable
Rent Up Valley Mid Valley Down
Valley Total
Where Renters want to live 42%40%18%100%
<60%$1,200 212 202 91 505
60.1% to 100%$2,020 228 217 98 543
100.1 to 140%$2,820 143 136 62 341
140.1 to 200%$4,030 95 91 41 227
Over 200%>$4030 73 69 31 174
Gap - # of rental units 580 560 90 1,230
Total Gap 1,060 1,070 320 2,450
*Totals are rounded to the nearest 10.
Key
Gap - Market does not provide 100
Blend - Market partially provides 100
Market provides 100
28 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
The estimates for housing demand are composed of a variety of assumptions, some quite conservative,
others more aggressive. When considered in aggregate, they represent a balanced picture. However,
the reality of these projections can change rapidly, as market conditions fluctuate. For that reason, the
consultant team has provided Eagle County Housing and Development Authority with a spreadsheet to do
annual updates that reflect actual job growth.
Variations in the economy will most certainly occur between now and 2030, and the projections for that
timeframe should be refreshed frequently. The full census in 2020 will also provide a good opportunity to
update these assumptions and projections. This section provides a brief explanation of each assumption
used in the demand update. The full description of sources and methods can be found in Attachment D.
WHAT IS BEHIND THE NUMBERS?
Unfilled Jobs
About 1,050 homes are needed to fill the estimated 2,470 jobs that remained unfilled during the peak winter hiring
season this year.
Unfilled Jobs Assumptions &
Units Needed
Unfilled jobs (Dec/Jan 2018) 2,470
Jobs per worker 1.24
Employees per household 1.8
Housing Units Needed 1,100
Functional Rental Market
Availability of rental housing is so low that the market does not function properly:
• renters have difficulty moving from one unit to another as their circumstances change,
• rents have been increasing at rates much faster than incomes, and
• vacancy rates are less than 1%.
The lack of a functional rental market makes it very difficult for new employees to find housing when hired to support
an expanding economy.
A vacancy rate of 5% is generally considered a balanced market in mountain communities. At this vacancy level, it
tends to be financially feasible to own and operate rental units, and unit availability is typically adequate to provide
choice for renters and stabilize rental rates. To increase the vacancy rate to 5%, approximately 310 additional rental
units are needed.
Rental Market Assumptions &
Units Needed
Number of existing rental units - 2017 7,660
Number with 5% vacancy rate 7,970
Housing Units Needed 310
29Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
Overcrowding
An estimated 2,670 households in the Eagle River Valley are living in overcrowded conditions. Typically, an increase
in the supply of workforce housing equal to about 30 percent of the number of overcrowded units will largely address
overcrowding to the extent practical, given consumer choices and cultural preferences.
Overcrowded Assumptions &
Units Needed
Overcrowded units 2,670
% need to reduce overcrowding 30%
Housing Units Needed 800
New Jobs
The single largest driver of local workforce housing demand is new homes to keep up with estimated job growth. The
following table includes numerous assumptions and estimates to identify the number of housing units needed over
the next two, seven, and twelve years. As stated above, these can be kept up to date by the Eagle County Housing and
Development Authority using the consultant team spreadsheet.
New Jobs Assumptions & Units Needed
2020 2025 2030
Increase in Jobs over 2017 2,304 5,250 8,643
Jobs per Employee 1.24 1.24 1.24
New Employees 1,858 4,234 6,970
Employees/household 1.8 1.8 1.8
Housing Units Needed 1,030 2,350 3,870
In-Commuters
About 9% (2,600) of all employees are now commuting into the Eagle Valley for work. Based on employer estimates,
about 39% (1,010) of employees would move to the valley if affordable housing options were available. This generates
demand for an additional 560 units to accommodate employees who already work in the region.
In-commuters Assumptions &
Units Needed
Number of in-commuters 2,600
Employees who would move 1,010
Employees/household 1.8
Housing Units Needed 560
WHAT IS BEHIND THE NUMBERS?
30 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I
Retiring Employees
About 110 homes are needed each year to provide housing for employees who will fill the jobs vacated by approxi-
mately 240 employees anticipated to retire each year in the Eagle River Valley. Most retiring employees intend to stay
in the community post retirement. For those who intend to move, it is unlikely their homes will be affordable to the
employees needed to replace them.
Retiring Employees Assumptions & Units
Needed
# of employees to retiring annually 240
Jobs/employee 1.24
Employees/household 1.8
Housing Units Needed Annually 110
WHAT IS BEHIND THE NUMBERS?
31Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
PART II
Housing Solutions
32 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
Part II provides information for use in the planning, design and development of housing in the Eagle Valley. It exam-
ines the type, size and price of home residents prefer as well as location preferences and neighborhood considerations
to support the selection and planning of sites for housing development. It consists of three sections:
• Ownership Housing Design and Development
• Rental Housing Design and Development
• Housing Tools
These sections answer the questions:
1. Where should housing for locals be built?
2. How should it be designed?
3. What pricing is appropriate?
4. What tools are most likely to be successful?
33Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
Market Size
The current potential market for homeownership in the Eagle Valley consists of approximately 8,290 households.
These estimates are based on residents who indicated they want to move within the Eagle River Valley within the next
five years. They represent the market from which ownership projects must draw buyers, and are distinct from the esti-
mates of housing need presented in Part I.
• About two-thirds are renters who want to move into ownership; and
• Roughly one-third are owners who want to buy a different home.
Potential Homeownership Market by Own/Rent
Own Rent Overall
Total # of Households, 2017 9,350 7,650 17,000
% want to move into a different home
within the Eagle River Valley in 5 years 34%75%53%
# want to move into a different home
within the Eagle River Valley in 5 years 3,180 5,810 9,010
% want to own 99%89%92%
# want to own 3,150 5,170 8,290
Source: 2018 household survey
Three-fourths of renters want to move within the valley in the next five years and, of these, nearly 90% want to own.
The percentage who want to move into ownership is high compared to the 65% of households that owned homes in
2007, and much higher than is realistic given affordability and down payment availability, which are examined later in
this section. The extremely limited availability of rental housing and escalating rents in recent years likely contributed
to the increased desire for ownership.
Most owners (66%) want to stay in their current residence although about one-third want to buy a different home. If
more homeownership opportunities are provided, more choices and movement within the ownership market would
be an overall positive. However, there is a challenge for the year-round resident housing supply, because homes cur-
rently occupied by local residents are likely to be sold to second homeowners, see Policy Considerations.
Decisions about the provision of homeownership opportunities – number of units, location, unit type, amenities and
pricing, will depend on policy and developer decisions as to which segments of the potential market for homeowner-
ship should be the focus.
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
"My partner and I are
both year-round public
service employees. […]
Eagle County is not a
place that facilitates
young couples looking
to build a future with its
current housing issues.
Unless this changes,
we might have to
search for employment
elsewhere."
-2018 Survey
Respondent
34 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
Tradeoffs in Location/Price/Size/Type
Potential homebuyers were asked to rank the importance of four considerations when purchasing a home – price, lo-
cation, type and size, in light of the need for trade-offs due to expensive land, limited sites and high construction costs.
• Location - a home in the community where you most want to live
• Price - a home that is the most affordable option for the minimum size you need; the best value
• Size - space is key; you would choose a larger home that might require you to share walls, like a town
home, rather than a smaller single-family home.
• Type - Type is an important consideration if you would choose to live other than where you prefer to
buy a single-family house rather than a condominium or townhome
A key finding is that type of home and size of home is relatively unimportant for potential buyers compared to location
and price. This suggests that there is flexibility in terms of the type of units to be developed in response to demand.
If priced appropriately and located where desired, condominiums and townhomes may be acceptable to many who
prefer to buy a single-family house. If housing cannot be developed where potential buyers want to live or prices are
not considered to be a good value, it will be more important to provide the type of units that buyers most want.
Importance by Own/Rent
1=most important; 4=least important
Own Rent
Location 1.84 1.94
Price 2.04 1.63
Size 2.95 3.08
Type 3.17 3.35
Source: 2018 household survey
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
35Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
Location – Where Owners Now Live and Want to Live
Source: 2018 Household Survey
Most owners live in the area of the valley that is their first choice. This is especially true up valley where over
90% of owners are living where they most want to live. Nearly 10%, however, would prefer mid valley. Of
mid valley residents who would rather live elsewhere, most prefer up valley. In contrast, more down valley
owners would like to live in mid valley than up valley.
Where Owners Want to Live by Where They Now Live
Shading denote residents who live where they most want to live.
Live Now
Want to live (first choice)Up Valley Mid Valley Down Valley
Up Valley 91%24%7%
Mid Valley 9%70%16%
Down Valley 0.0 6%77%
Total 100%100%100%
Source: 2018 household survey
Individual communities show:
• Proportionately more owners want to live in Vail and Minturn;
• Slightly fewer want to live in Edwards;
• In Eagle, preferences are in line with the current condition with about one-fourth of owners wanting
to and now living there.
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
of the Valley's
Owners Live
Here
of the Valley's
Owners Want to
Live Here
DOWN VALLEY
41%
35%
of the Valley's
Owners Live
Here
of the Valley's
Owners Want to
Live Here
MID VALLEY
45%
39%
of the Valley's
Owners Live
Here
of the Valley's
Owners Want to
Live Here
UP VALLEY
14%
26%
36 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
Location Characteristics
Up valley appeals most to households without children – about 60% are singles living alone, couples
without kids and roommate households.
Mid valley appeals to a broad mix of households.
Down valley is home to relatively more families – over 60% of owner households living there include at least
one child.
Location – Where Owners Now Live and Want to Live (cont’d)
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
• In neighboring Gypsum, however, proportionately more owners reside there than desire.
These findings suggest location preferences are based largely on community rather than area, at least with
regards to down valley.
Where Live and Want to Live by Town
Where do you now live in or near Now Live 1st Choice Difference
Vail 9%19%
Minturn 3%6%
Eagle Vail 8%8%
Avon 9%7%
Edwards 27%23%
Eagle 23%24%
Gypsum 13%8%
Source: 2018 household survey. Note: Redcliff, Wolcott, and Dotsero excluded due to
small sample size.
37Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
Location Attributes
Homeowners in the Eagle Valley rate community character, defined as “locals or family-oriented, social
opportunities, entertainment, restaurants, etc.” as their top consideration when choosing where to live,
higher than proximity to work, which is at the top of the list among renters.
• Proximity to work is the second highest consideration for homeowners;
• Community amenities - schools, parks, libraries, etc., amenities rate high in importance among
homeowners.
• The ability to have pets is also a top consideration with two-thirds of owners rating pets as very or extremely
important.
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
Source: 2018 household survey
38 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
In addition:
• Owners who live alone generally place less importance on character and proximity attributes but rank
availability of bus service and proximity to skiing/recreation higher than other types of households.
• Couples with children generally rank location attributes higher than other households, especially
availability of day care and quality of schools. They place lower than average importance on bus service
and proximity to skiing/recreation.
• The importance ratings by other types of households tend to fall in between the preferences of people
living alone and couples with children.
• Mid valley resident rate most location attributes slightly higher than other owners while down valley
owners generally place lower importance on location attributes. A few specific distinctions
• Mid valley residents place greater importance on proximity to work and community character.
• Quality of schools and availability of day care is higher for mid and down valley owners.
• Up valley owners place greater importance on availability of bus service.
Amenities
Households ranked amenities as follows:
• In-unit washers and dryers top the list of amenities, rated either very or extremely important by 85% owners.
• Decks or patios rate equally with energy efficient heat - 70% of owners rank both very/extremely important.
• Playgrounds or parks on site are also important to owners, especially households with children, and
considerably more important to owners than renters.
• Fitness centers on site are generally not important, as is typically the case in mountain communities where
recreation opportunities are abundant. Fewer than 9% of owners consider on-site fitness centers important.
As with location attributes,
mid valley owners generally
rate the importance of
amenities higher than
elsewhere in the valley. There
are few differences in the rank
order of amenities by area
of the valley though down
valley owners rate energy
efficient appliances and heat,
and exterior storage lockers
noticeably lower than other
owners, presumably due to its
milder climate and because
many down valley homes
have garages.
Source: 2018 household survey
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
39Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
Unit Type
Residents who want to buy within the next five years were asked to rate four housing options on a scale
where 1 = not at all interested and 5 = very interested. The hypothetical home types were created to test
demand and tradeoffs. The prices are based on price points affordable to local employees and recent history
of deed restricted home sales.
Condominium
1 Bed/1 Bath
800 Sq Ft
$200,000
Townhome
2 Bed/1.5 Bath
1000 Sq Ft
$320,000
Duplex/Triplex
2 Bed/2 Bath
1250 Sq Ft
$375,00
SIngle Family Home
3 Bed/2 Bath
1500 Sq Ft
$475,00
Renters who want to buy are flexible with regards to unit type, with single family homes, duplex/triplex units
and townhomes receiving similar ratings despite large price differences. Owners who want to buy a different
home have strong preferences for a single-family home.
Income levels and type of units that residents are interested in buying are correlated.
• Lower income households are more interested in attached units, with townhomes rating higher than
condominiums or duplexes/triplexes.
• Higher income residents have little interest in condominiums and a strong preference for single family
homes, with duplexes and triplexes preferred over townhomes.
Source: 2018 household survey
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
40 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
Upgrades
Survey respondents had the opportunity to rate upgrades they would seek to and believe they can afford
regards to a hypothetical home. When given an array of add on features or upgrades to choose from, fewer
than 10% indicated they would prefer the base models. A private yard for $10,000 was the top choice for
both renters and owners who want to buy.
There are notable differences, however, between owners who want to move into a different residence and
renters who want to move into ownership.
• Owners more often selected multiple upgrades with a two car-garage, additional full bathroom, two
additional bedrooms and extra storage measuring 8’ by 8’.
• Renters desire fewer upgrades but rated one additional bedroom, a one-car garage, an extra half bath,
and a storage locker higher than owners.
Examination by unit type reveals most potential buyers:
• Would like an additional bedroom except for those who are very interested in a 3-bedroom single family
home.
• Want and think they could afford a garage.
• Want and think they could afford a garage.
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
Type of Home Desired by AMI
This distribution is based on very interested (ratings of 5) responses.
60% or less AMI 56%30%15%6%
60.1 to 100 AMI 24%24%28%29%
100.1 to 140 AMI 17%29%30%26%
140.1 to 200 AMI 3%8%16%24%
Over 200 AMI 0%8%11%14%
Source: 2018 household survey
Unit Type
41Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
Examination by unit type reveals most potential buyers:
• Would like an additional bedroom except for those who are very interested in a 3-bedroom single
family home.
• Want and think they could afford a garage.
• Also want/could afford a private yard unless they are very interested in buying a condominium.
Upgrades (continued)
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
Source: 2018 household survey
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
42 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
Upgrades by Unit Type
Shading denotes features desired by
more than 50% per unit type.
Bedroom: 1 additional: $25,000 57%71%61%45%
Bedrooms: 2 additional: $50,000 22%21%35%32%
½ Bathroom: $15,000 23%51%31%29%
Full Bathroom: $30,000 36%44%47%45%
Storage Locker: $2,000 32%22%25%17%
Exterior storage ~ 8’x8’: $5,000 29%20%22%26%
1-car Garage: $20,000 57%57%52%42%
2-car Garage: $30,000 9%34%43%64%
Private Yard: $10,000 38%50%54%76%
Other (fill in feature & price)9%12%9%11%
None of the them 0%1%3%3%
Source: 2018 household survey
Potential buyers who are very interested in purchasing the single-family home option also want to purchase the most
upgrades, including a two-car garage. On the other end of the spectrum, residents interested in purchasing a condo-
minium want fewer upgrades.
Upgrades (continued)
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
43Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
Financial Considerations
PRICING
The average prices that owners and renters who want to buy feel they can afford - given base prices and de-
sired upgrades - range from $263,500 for a condominium to $553, 250 for a single-family home.
Home Prices by Unit Type
Price of Homes with
Options
Base Price $200,000 $325,000 $375,000 $475,000
$200,000 4.0%
$200,001 to $250,000 37.8%
$250,001 to $300,000 37.1%
$300,001 to $350,000 14.8%15.4%
$350,001 to $400,000 6.3%46.2%14.0%
$400,001 to $450,000 26.5%46.6%
$450,001 to $500,000 7.6%25.0%12.8%
$500,001 to $550,000 4.3%10.9%40.4%
$550,001 to $600,000 3.5%33.5%
$600,001 to $650,000 9.8%
$650,001 or more 3.5%
Total 100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%
Mean $263,149 $397,692 $449,159 $553,255
Median $255,000 $395,000 $445,000 $547,000
Source: 2018 Housing Survey
Affordability is a constraint impacting the ability of renters to move into ownership and, to a lesser degree, owners
who want to buy a different home. Overall, 18% of residents who want to buy a home within the next five years have
incomes of 60% or less. These households are candidates for Habitat for Humanity and similar homeownership efforts
that serve very low income households. Over half, however, have incomes above 100% AMI, which indicates that
homeownership pricing could vary widely.
AMI Distribution of Households that Want to Buy
Now Own Now Rent Overall
60% or less AMI 1%27%18%
60.1 to 100 AMI 27%30%28%
100.1 to 140 AMI 30%20%24%
140.1 to 200 AMI 29%14%19%
Over 200 AMI 13%9%10%
Source: 2018 Housing Survey
44 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
DOWN PAYMENT AVAILABILITY
The availability of funds for down payments will be a factor in pricing and determine how many residents
who want to own will qualify. Although there are some mortgage programs with little or no down pay-
ment required, it is appropriate to assume that down payments of 5% will be needed. With a base price of
$200,000 the minimum down payment would be $10,000.
• Most owners who want to buy a different home would have ample down payments given home equi-
ty - about $121,500 on average. Roughly 6%, however, indicated they would have less than $10,000
to put down.
• Renters generally have far less available for down payments; they have approximately $30,000 on
average available. About 15% of renters have no funds available for a down payment, 12% have
some funds but less than $10,000 and another 20% have between $10,000 and $15,000. This leaves
just over half who should have sufficient funds for down payments if homes are affordably priced
given their incomes.
Residents who want to buy a home in the next five years were asked about their knowledge of mortgage
requirements to determine if qualifying is likely to be an impediment to ownership. Results indicate home -
ownership counseling is needed, especially for renters who want to buy.
Source: 2018 Household Survey
45Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
OWNERSHIP HOUSING – DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT
DEED RESTRICTIONS
Deed restrictions have become the norm for workforce housing in Eagle Valley. The survey confirmed what realtors
indicated – most residents will accept a deed restriction that limits price appreciation and occupancy in order to own
a home. Overall, deed restrictions would be acceptable to 70% of residents who are interested in buying a home in the
Eagle Valley within the next 5 years.
“How would a deed restriction that limits resale price appreciation to 3% per year and requires
that homes be sold to households with at least one person who works in Eagle County impact
your purchase decision?”
Own Rent Overall
The deed restriction would be
acceptable to me at below-market
prices,
61%76%70%
OR
I would pay more for a market unit
that is not deed restricted -- how
much more?
39%24%30%
Source: 2018 household survey
Some residents who want to buy would pay more for a market home, free of price/occupancy restrictions. The most
often cited figure was $50,000 more.
46 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
The information presented in this section can help inform policy direction and development decisions
about new rental housing.
Market Size
The potential market for rental housing in the Eagle Valley consists of approximately 7,650 households, the
total number residing in the Eagle River Valley. They represent the market from which rental projects must
draw residents. Market size is distinct from the estimates of rental need by AMI presented in Part I. Decisions
on the number of new units to build should consider need. Design/location/rent decisions should be based
upon the characteristics and preferences of renters currently living in the valley who will likely lease most of
the new units. Employees moving into the valley will also be a component of renter demand, but they will
constitute a small proportion of the target market of new rental product, and they are likely to have similar
characteristics to existing renters.
A subset are the 5,780 renter households that want to move within the Eagle River Valley within the next 5
years. As described in the Ownership section, the large majority of renters want to move into ownership; just
under 11% want to continue to rent. The number who will be able to buy, however, depends upon the devel-
opment and pricing of ownership opportunities. Many will likely remain renters.
Very few owners want to move into rental housing and are not a quantifiable rental market segment.
Potential Rental Market
Renters
Total # of Renter Households, 2017 7,650
% want to move into a different home in the Eagle River Valley in 5 years 76%
# want to move into a different home in the Eagle River Valley in 5 years 5,780
% want to rent 11%
# want to rent 635
Source: 2018 household survey
RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN
47Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
Location
Far more renters now live mid or down valley than they desire. Of renters who want to remain in the Eagle
River Valley, over 40% want to live up valley but less than 30% now do.
Source: 2018 household survey
While many renters would prefer to live up valley, most renters now live in the area of the valley that is their
first choice. The desire to live elsewhere is highest among down-valley renters who would rather live up val-
ley – nearly 60% would prefer to live mid or up valley.
Where Now Live Compared to Where Want to Live
Shading indicates residents living where they most want to live.
Want to live (first choice)Where Live Now
Up Valley Mid Valley Down Valley
Up Valley 94 28 9
Mid Valley 5 66 30
Down Valley 1 5 61
100%100%100%
Source: 2018 household survey
RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN
of the Valley's
Renters Live
Here
of the Valley's
Renters Want to
Live Here
DOWN VALLEY
24%
18%
of the Valley's
Renters Live
Here
of the Valley's
Renters Want to
Live Here
MID VALLEY
48%
40%
of the Valley's
Renters Live
Here
of the Valley's
Renters Want to
Live Here
UP VALLEY
28%
42%
48 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN
Location Preference Characteristics
Up valley appeals more to renters who live alone, couples without children and roommate households. Few-
er than 20% have children in the household.
Mid valley is the first choice for a diverse
mix of renter households – singles liv-
ing alone, roommates, couples with and
without children, and particularly single
parents with children.
Down valley is more attractive to families
with children although about half of the
renters who indicated it is their first choice
are households without children.
There are variations in 1st choice location
by income. Desire to live up valley is high-
est among the lowest and highest income
renters. Renters in the moderate and mid-
dle-income ranges are more likely to prefer
mid valley.
Source: 2018 household survey
Location Preferences by Town
Examination by individual community shows proportionately more renters want to live in Vail, Minturn and Edwards
than now live there. Although the sample is very small, it appears that renters who commute in from other counties
want to continue to live in their current communities.
Renter Location Preferences
Where do you now live in or near Now Live 1st Choice Difference
Vail 18%26%
Minturn 8%13%
Eagle Vail 8%5%
Avon 22%16%
Edwards 16%18%
Eagle 15%12%
Gypsum 9%5%
Source: 2018 household survey.
Note: Redcliff, Wolcott, and Dotsero excluded due to small sample size.
49Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN
Location/Neighborhood Attributes
In general:
• Renters feel proximity to work is their most important consideration when searching for housing.
• Community character, defined as “locals or family-oriented, social opportunities, entertainment,
restaurants, etc.” is very or extremely important for over 60% of renters in the valley.
• Pets allowed is third in importance; for many renters in the Eagle Valley and other mountain towns,
having dogs is a priority.
• The availability of day care ranked lowest on the list overall, yet daycare and the quality of schools is
very or extremely important to most families with children.
Source: 2018 household survey
Differences within the valley:
• Availability of bus service is more important to renters who live up valley than mid- or down-valley
renters, which suggests that getting around Vail may be more valued than using transit to travel up
and down the valley.
• Proximity to skiing is more important to up-valley renters of slight importance to mid valley renters
but only moderately important to down valley renters.
50 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN
Amenities
Renters in the Eagle Valley generally place high importance on amenities:
• In-unit washers and dryers are extremely important to most renters (57%) and have become standard in new
apartment properties.
• Most renters feel energy efficient heat is very or extremely important. While many renters indicate their util-
ities are included in their rent payment, utilities average $223 per month year- round. Several large apartmen
complexes bill flat fees for utilities rather than requiring residents to place accounts in their names and
pay deposits.
• Exterior storage lockers are of mid-range importance to renters; however, property managers report storage is
of upmost importance.
• Fitness centers on site are typically of little importance to renters in mountain communities where recreation
opportunities are abundant and easily accessed, and this holds true in the Eagle Valley.
There is little variation in importance ratings by household type. Exceptions are on-site playgrounds/parks, which are
more important to families with children, and WI-FI included, which is more important to adult-only households. Also,
while mid-valley renters rated most amenities slightly higher than renters on average through the valley, there are no
significant variations in the importance of specific amenities by where they now live or most want to live.
Source: 2018 Household Survey
RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGNRENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGNRENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN
51Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN
Unit Type
Most renters live in housing units
that were designed/developed for
ownership – primarily single-family
homes, duplexes, townhomes and
condominiums. Fewer than 40% of
renters now reside in apartments.
Source: 2018 Household Survey
There are relatively too few small rental units and too
many large units. Renters living in three-bedroom units
outnumber renter households with one bedroom, which
is not typical. While the two-bedrooms are in relative
balance with need, more one-bedroom units and fewer
three-bedroom rentals are needed.
Nearly 60% of renters live alone or with one other
person, which is why most want one- or two-bedroom
units. The percentage living alone is slightly lower than
the portion of one-bedrooms needed, likely due to the
ability/desire of couples to rent one-bedroom units.
Renter Household Size
People in Household % Renter Households
1 27%
2 30%
3 18%
4 16%
5+9%
Source: 2018 household survey
Bedroom Mix
Source: 2018 Household Survey
52 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
Rents
The average market rent in the Eagle Valley is $1,700 per month. Utilities average an additional $223 per month. Rents
are lowest up valley, which may seem counter intuitive, but appears to be due to variation in the type of units occu-
pied by area. Relatively more renters live in older, smaller, multi-family units up valley as compared to larger, newer,
and more single-family homes mid and down valley.
Average Market Rents by Area
Free Market - Average Rent
Up Valley $ 1,560
Mid Valley $ 1,840
Down Valley $ 1,550
Overall $ 1,700
Source: 2018 household survey, CHFA
Nearly one-third of renters pay between $1,500 and $2,000 per month, the largest category.
Average rents are generally affordable for households with incomes over 60% AMI. This does not mean that, however,
that all renters within each AMI category have affordable housing. There is a mismatch between incomes and rents
paid, which is common when rental availability is tight and there is little opportunity for moving from one unit to
another, as documented in the Cost Burden section. Rents paid in the 100% to 140% AMI range are not proportionately
higher than in the 60% to 100% category. Higher income renters out compete others.
Source: 2018 household survey
Rent Paid Compared to Affordable Rent by AMI
AMI % Renter House-
holds Average Rent Paid Affordable Rent
60% or less AMI 28%$ 1,200 $ 1,210
60.1 to 100 AMI 31%$ 1,510 $ 2,420
100.1 to 140 AMI 19%$ 1,650 $ 2,820
140.1 to 200 AMI 13%$ 1,970 $ 4,030
Source: 2018 household survey, CHFA
Note: Over 200% AMI excluded due to small sample; includes deed restricted and employer-provided units.
RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGNRENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGNRENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGNRENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN
53Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
Tradeoffs
Since there are insufficient opportunities to provide housing up valley where half of all renters want to live (about
3,900 renter households) their second choice for where to live should be considered. Second choice responses show
far higher preferences for mid valley and, to a lesser extent, down valley communities. Generally, renters who most
want to live in Vail would rather live nearby in Eagle Vail than further away. The big drop in Vail between 1st and 2nd
choice indicates that most renters who want to live mid or down valley would choose other nearby communities rath-
er than seek housing up valley in Vail.
Residents who want to rent were asked:
“How much more would you be willing and able to pay for rent where you most
want to live (1st choice) compared to your second choice?”
About one-fourth are not willing to pay any additional rent to live where they most want to live, and an almost equal
percentage are only willing to pay $100 per month. Results above that amount are widespread with some renters indi-
cating large amounts (>$1,000/month) that they could not likely afford.
Impact of Restrictions
Residents who want to rent were asked:
“How might employment and income restrictions impact your willing to lease an
apartment, if at all?”
Results show:
• A very large majority (over 90%) would provide employment verifications.
• Roughly half would like some form of pricing restriction for rents with low yearly rent increases.
• Over three-fourths would sign one-year leases.
RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGNRENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGNRENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGNRENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN
Source: Resident survey
54 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
Overview
HOUSING TOOLS
Conceptually, how do you feel about the following
strategies for increasing workforce housing in the
Eagle River Valley and its communities?““The surveys tested 15 tools in these four categories:
INCENTIVES PARTNERSHIPS
& PUBLIC
INITIATIVES
DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS FUNDING
Providing Town/County
Land
Town or County Builds
Housing
Town/County/Housing
Authority Financing
Property Tax Exemption
Density Bonuses
Fee Waivers
Reduced Parking
Fast-Track
Processing
Commercial Linkage
Residential Linkage
Inclusionary Housing
Excise Tax on
Short-Term Rentals
Property Tax
Sales Tax
General Fund
Revenues
Many approaches have been used to address housing needs in the Eagle Valley for more than three
decades. Towns, Eagle County, private and non-profit developers, and employers have combined a variety
of tools to produce over 3,000 affordable homes for residents to date. Despite these widespread efforts
and their achievements, developing affordable housing has become more challenging over time, with few
opportunities and rising gaps between affordable prices and market realities.
To address the housing needs quantified in Part I of this report, new tools will be required to supplement
and expand the strategies used in the past. Residents and employers were surveyed to determine which
tools would have the greatest support in the Eagle Valley. The following question was posed in both surveys:
55Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
PROVIDING TOWN/COUNTY
LAND
Providing County or Town land that is vacant or
under-utilized
EMPLOYERS
RESIDENTS
TOWN/COUNTY/HOUSING
AUTHORITY FINANCING
Town, County, or Housing Authority provides
financing.
EMPLOYERS
RESIDENTS
FAST-TRACK PROCESSING
Workforce housing projects go to the front of the
line for review.
EMPLOYERS
RESIDENTS
TOWN OR COUNTY BUILDS
HOUSING
Town or County builds housing (like Miller Ranch
or Chamonix)
EMPLOYERS
RESIDENTS
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
A percentage of new units in subdivsions are
restricted for workforce housing
EMPLOYERS
RESIDENTS
COMMERCIAL LINKAGE
Requiring new commercial development to
provide housing
EMPLOYERS
RESIDENTS
FEE WAIVERS
Water/sewer tap fees, permit fees waived for
workforce housing
EMPLOYERS
RESIDENTS
EXCISE TAX ON SHORT-TERM
RENTALS
Tax on short-term rentals, for example 3-5% -(vote
required)
EMPLOYERS
RESIDENTS
DENSITY BONUSES
Density bonuses when workforce housing is built
EMPLOYERS
RESIDENTS
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Revenues from general fund (appropriation by
elected officials required)
EMPLOYERS
RESIDENTS
PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
Exempt from property tax paid by property owners
(vote required)
EMPLOYERS
RESIDENTS
RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE
A type of impact fee on new construction
EMPLOYERS
RESIDENTS
SALES TAX
Sales tax paid by consumers (vote required)
EMPLOYERS
RESIDENTS
REDUCED PARKING
Reduced parking requirements for workforce
housing
EMPLOYERS
RESIDENTS
PROPERTY TAX
Property tax paid by property owners (vote
required)
EMPLOYERS
RESIDENTS
HOUSING TOOLS
TOP RATED TOOLS
OTHER TOOLS
Source: 2018 household survey, 2018 employer survey
56 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
There is more support than opposition for all tools, ex-
cept property tax and, among residents, reduced park-
ing both of which received ratings of less than three.
The top six tools include at least one from incentives,
partnerships/public initiatives, and development regu-
lations. This indicates residents and employers recog-
nize a combination of efforts will be needed and no one
“silver bullet” is going to address workforce/affordable
housing needs in the Eagle River Valley.
Overall, employers more strongly support housing tools
than residents, although there are many similarities in
the rank order. Property tax is a notable exception with
lower support among employers than residents, proba-
bly due to the much higher tax rate paid on commercial
property than residential property. Employers ranked
"I think transportation needs to be a major
topic of discussion. Better bus service to help get
workers up-valley to help with efficiency, less
cars on the roads and a lower carbon footprint."
-2018 Survey Respondent
"We need a county wide, holistic housing
solution with a dedicated funding source."
-2018 Survey Respondent
commercial linkage 7th among the 15 options, just slightly lower than the average rating given by residents,
which is notable since the tool may be viewed as unfavorable to businesses.
In-depth examination of the survey ratings by category reveal variation in opposition/support that should
be helpful when designing and obtaining approvals for individual strategies. Results are presented for resi-
dents; employer responses generally mirror those of residents.
HOUSING TOOLS
57Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
Source: 2008 Household Survey
HOUSING TOOLS
Incentives
• Support for fast track processing is strong with very little opposi-
tion.
• Opposition is also low for fee waivers and density bonuses with
a relatively high percentage who are neutral about these
incentives.
• Residents are very divided about reductions in parking require
ments with the highest “strongly oppose”
percentage among the 15 tools tested.
• More residents are uncertain about density bonuses than any
of the other tools tested; 17% responded “don’t know.”
Generally, there is strong support and relatively little opposition to incentives yet it is not consistent across
the board for the four tools in this category:
"Make development
requirements/parking and tap
fees more attainable for builders
to make sense of building
affordable housing. Parking
requirements are too much Town
of Eagle. Need downtown infill
mixed use development."
-2018 Survey Respondent
Source: 2018 household survey
58 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
HOUSING TOOLS
Partnerships and Public Initiatives
• Providing Town or County-owned land rated high
est overall with minimal opposition; only about
10% opposed.
• Construction and financing of housing by the
towns, Eagle County or the housing authority also
received strong support with little opposition.
• Residents are divided about property tax exemp-
tions. While support is higher than opposition,
over 15% of residents strongly oppose.
Source: 2018 household survey
"[There should be] low interest loan
opportunities for commercial properties or
operations to build, add, create, employee
housing units."
-2018 Survey Respondent
Support is generally strong for partnerships/initiatives though residents are divided:
59Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
HOUSING TOOLS
Development Regulations
• Support for both inclusionary housing and commercial
linkage is strong – about 65% support or
strongly support these development regulations while
only about 10% oppose.
• Residential linkage received far lower support, a rela-
tively high level of neutral responses, and
opposition from over 20% of residents. Residential
linkage also had relatively high uncertainty (11% of
responses).
• Residents are divided about property tax exemptions.
While support is higher than opposition, over 15% of
residents strongly oppose.
"Zoning changes to increase density.
Plus, a better transportation plan to
eliminate parking regulations/problems.
We need more people, not cars."
-2018 Survey Respondent
Three tools were tested that impose requirements on new
development for the provision of workforce housing. Support
outweighs opposition for all three.
Source: 2018 household survey
"We can only afford to live here now
because of deed-restricted employer
provided housing."
-2018 Survey Respondent
60 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
HOUSING TOOLS
Funding
• Providing Town or County-owned land rated high
est overall with minimal opposition; only about
10% opposed.
• Construction and financing of housing by the
towns, Eagle County or the housing authority also
received strong support with little opposition.
• Residents are divided about property tax exemp-
tions. While support is higher than opposition,
over 15% of residents strongly oppose.
Funding alternatives garnered relatively more neutral responses than did strategies in the other three cate-
gories, but with great variation among the four funding tools in terms of support and opposition.
"Additional fees and/or taxes on houses
exceeding a certain size (to be determined/
voted on).
Change the fundamentals of the market,
restrict short term rentals. If short term rental
was not an option to offset the cost of owning
a vacation home, there would be more housing
stock available for primary homeowners at
lower cost."
-2018 Survey Respondent
Source: 2018 household survey
61Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
Support/opposition are similar throughout the Eagle River Valley, which indicates the potential for a valley-wide stra-
tegic housing plan with shared implementation of housing programs. A few notable differences:
• Mid-valley residences expressed slightly higher support overall for the majority of the tools.
• Mid-valley residents were more likely to support the Towns, County or Housing Authority building housing,
perhaps due to the success of Miller Ranch in Edwards, and to support the provision of financing by the Towns,
County or Housing Authority.
• Support is essentially equal among up-valley and mid-valley residents for four tools – commercial linkage,
excise tax on short-term rentals, desity bonuses and general fund revenues.
• The only tool for which support was higher down-valley than in the other two areas was reduced parking,
probably since parking shortages are primarily an up- and mid-valley problem.
Differences within the valley
HOUSING TOOLS
Source: 2018 household survey
62 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
HOUSING TOOLS
Characterizing Support
These trends are observed related to support for the housing tools:
• The more strongly that residents believe the availability of affordable housing for the workforce in
Eagle Valley is a problem, the more likely they are to support housing tools.
• Renters expressed higher support than homeowners for all housing tools tested.
• There is, however, support for housing tools across all income categories. The average rating among
lower income residents (≤60% AMI) was 3.7 compared to 3.6 among upper-income residents (>200%
AMI). Although the overall rating was lowest among households in the 160% to 200% AMI category,
support for housing tools still outweighed opposition.
• Residents who currently occupy housing that is deed restricted or provided by employers are more
likely to support these housing tools than occupants of free market housing.
• Residents who want to move into a different home in the Eagle Valley, or want to leave the Eagle Val
ley, showed higher support for tools than residents who want to stay in their homes for at least the
next five years.
• Support varied somewhat by type of household. Persons living with roommates and “other” house
holds (extended families, roommates and family members, etc.) indicated the highest support for
housing tools, while couples with no children were the least supportive. In order from highest sup-
port to lowest:
• Workforce households showed greater support than households with no employees.
• Support is similar among all age groups other than senior households (at least one member age
65+). Support is lower among seniors than the overall population for most tools, especially parking
and property tax reductions. Support among seniors, however, is slightly stronger for the three devel
opment regulations – inclusionary zoning, commercial linkage and residential linkage.
• There appeared to be very little correlation between support for housing tools and ethnicity/race.
• Workforce households showed greater support than households with no employees
• Support is similar among all age groups other than senior households (at least one member age
65+). Support is lower among seniors than the overall population for most tools, especially parking
and property tax reductions. Support among seniors, however, is slightly stronger for the three devel-
opment regulations – inclusionary zoning, commercial linkage and residential linkage.
• There appeared to be very little correlation between support for housing tools and ethnicity/race.
HOUSING TOOLS
63Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
HOUSING TOOLS
Other Solutions
Nearly 200 residents offered additional suggestions about what could be done to provide affordable work-
force housing in the Eagle River valley. Many took the time to offer multiple suggestions and specific exam-
ples. One brief comment about what should be done summed it up:
“Anything and everything”
• Comments generally fell into the following categories:
• Impose higher taxes/fees on second homes, large homes and short-term rentals.
• Allow/build smaller units – accessory dwellings, tiny homes, lock offs, basic apartments, dorms and
yurts.
• Build and restrict housing for specific types of employees, like teachers.
• Get employers more involved in providing employee housing.
• Look to other communities - Vancouver, Martha’s Vineyard, Steamboat Springs.
• Improve transit, a point emphasized by realtors and property managers. Housing more employees
down valley, especially renters, is generating the need for significant improvements in the transit
system.
• Reduce land development and building regulations and decrease development fees to make it more
affordable for the private sector to produce housing.
• Develop regional approaches and cooperation.
64 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II
Employers have long contributed to housing in the Eagle
River Valley. Many residents suggested employers should
take greater responsibility for workforce housing in the
future and employers seem to agree. When asked about
the types of assistance they now provide or would consid-
er providing in the future, results showed there is sig-
nificant potential for increasing employer-owned rental
units, housing search assistance, rent deposits, master
leasing and, to a lesser degree, providing land for housing
and purchase price buy downs.
Employer Assisted Housing
HOUSING TOOLS
"Strong emphasis needs to be placed on
business and employers to provide workforce
housing or pay for these initiatives."
-2018 Survey Respondent
Housing Assistance Provided by Employers
Provide
Now
Would
Consider
Purchase price buy downs 6%18%
Land on which housing could be built 9%20%
Master leasing units to rent to your employees 24%45%
Rent or first month/deposit subsidy for your em-
ployees 29%49%
Employer-owned rental units 41%63%
Down payment/mortgage assistance 41%33%
Assistance with housing search 47%61%
Temporary/relocation housing 53%43%
Hiring bonus / salary stipend / higher wages 59%57%
Source: 2018 Employer Survey. Note: Multi-Response question; totals exceed 100%.
65Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgements
Thank you to the many agencies and individuals who made this study possible:
• Eagle County and Eagle County Housing and Development Authority who made the resources available and as-
sisted with survey outreach.
• Subject matter experts who contributed their time and expertise – Tori Franks, Kim Bell Williams, George Ruther,
Virginia Egger, Morgan Landers, Michelle Metteer, Jeremy Rietmann, Colton Berke, Jill Klosterman, Janet Hawkin-
son, Chris Romer, Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry, Commissioner Jeanne McQueeney, Commissioner, Jill
Ryan, Brenda Camunez, Priscilla Coffin, Kyle Denton, Brooke Franke Gagon, Betsy Laughlin, Corey Lamothe.
• All the local residents and employers who took a few minutes to complete the survey in December 2017 and Janu-
ary 2018.
66 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES
APPENDIX B – AREA MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME AND
PURCHASE PRICES
Area Median Income for Eagle County, 2017
Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6
AMI Classifications
Extremely Low (30% AMI)$18,810 $21,480 $24,180 26,850 $29,010 $31,170
Very Low (50% AMI)$31,350 $35,800 $40,300 $44,750 $48,350 $51,950
60% AMI (LIHTC max)$37,620 $42,960 $48,360 $53,700 $58,020 $62,340
Low (80% AMI)$50,160 $57,280 $64,480 $71,600 $77,360 $83,120
Median (100% AMI)$62,700 $71,600 $80,600 $89,500 $96,700 $103,900
Moderate/Middle (140% AMI)$87,780 $100,240 $112,840 $125,300 $135,380 $145,460
Upper (200% AMI)$125,400 $143,200 $161,200 $179,000 $193,400 $207,800
Source: CHFA
Affordable Home Price Calculation by AMI, 2017
AMI %30%60%100%140%200%
Household Income – 3 persons $24,180 $48,360 $80,600 $112,840 $161,200
Affordable Purchase price
Affordable monthly payment
(30%)
$605 $1,209 $2,418 $2,821 $4,030
Principal & interest (80% of
pmt)
$484 $967 $1,934 $2,257 $3,224
HOA, taxes, insurance (20% of
pmt)
$121 $242 $403 $564 $806
Mortgage Interest rate 5.00%5.00%5.00%5.00%5.00%
Max mortgage $90,086 $180,172 $300,343 $420,400 $600,572
Max Affordable Price -5% down $95,000 $190,000 $316,000 $443,000 $632,000
Affordable Rent + utilities $605 $1,209 $2,418 $2,821 $4,030
Affordable purchase prices were calculated assuming that a household would have 5% for a down pay-
ment, and would qualify for a loan that 30% of their monthly income. HOA, property taxes and insurance
of 20% where included. The max mortgage assumes an interest rate of 5.0%, which is about half point
higher than prevailing rates for 30-year fixed rate mortgages. Interest rates are rising, however, and will
have a profound impact on housing affordability. A one point increase in the rate, as occurred in 2013,
would drop the affordable purchase price for a median income household by $30,000 to $35,000.
67Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES
APPENDIX C – HOME SALES BY ZIP CODE, 2017
Vail - 81657 Zip Code
# of
Sales Median Average
Affordable
Price - 100%
AMI
Affordability
Gap
Single Family 25 $ 2,200,000 $ 3,333,000 $ 316,000 $ 1,884,000
Townhouse/Du-
plex 75 $ 1,425,000 $ 2,178,000 $ 316,000 $ 1,109,000
Condo 160 $ 743,750 $ 1,629,000 $ 316,000 $ 427,750
Red Cliff - 81649 Zip Code
# of
Sales Median Average
Affordable
Price - 100%
AMI
Affordability
Gap
Single Family 6 $ 242,000 $ 340,000 $ 316,000 $ (74,000)
Townhouse/Du-
plex 1 $ 342,000 $ 342,000 $ 316,000 $ 26,000
Condo - $ - $ - $ 316,000 $ -
Minturn - 81645 Zip Code
# of
Sales Median Average
Affordable
Price - 100%
AMI
Affordability
Gap
Single Family 9 $ 521,000 $ 719,000 $ 316,000 $ 205,000
Townhouse/Du-
plex 4 $ 713,250 $ 741,000 $ 316,000 $ 397,250
Condo 1 $ 570,000 $ 570,000 $ 316,000 $ 254,000
Avon/Beaver Creek/Eagle Vail - 81620 Zip Code
# of
Sales Median Average
Affordable
Price - 100%
AMI
Affordability
Gap
Single Family 41 $ 3,325,000 $ 4,386,299 $ 316,000 $ 3,009,000
Townhouse/Du-
plex 99 $ 770,000 $ 1,138,007 $ 316,000 $ 454,000
Condo 225 $ 490,000 $ 877,865 $ 316,000 $ 174,000
APPENDIX C – HOME SALES BY ZIP CODE, 2017
68 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES
Edwards - 81632 Zip Code
# of
Sales Median Average
Affordable
Price - 100%
AMI
Affordability
Gap
Single Family 106 $ 1,700,000 $ 1,843,958 $ 316,000 $ 1,384,000
Townhouse/Du-
plex 49 $ 1,060,000 $ 1,285,429 $ 316,000 $ 744,000
Condo 12 $ 818,125 $ 894,771 $ 316,000 $ 502,125
Wolcott - 81655 Zip Code
# of
Sales Median Average
Affordable
Price - 100%
AMI
Affordability
Gap
Single Family 9 $ 950,000 $ 1,332,056 $ 316,000 $ 634,000
Townhouse/Du-
plex - $ - $ - $ 316,000 $ -
Condo - $ - $ - $ 316,000 $ -
Eagle - 81631 Zip Code
# of
Sales Median Average
Affordable
Price - 100%
AMI
Affordability
Gap
Single Family 92 $ 615,500 $ 670,334 $ 316,000 $ 299,500
Townhouse/Du-
plex 49 $ 423,500 $ 424,038 $ 316,000 $ 107,500
Condo 10 $ 312,500 $ 320,000 $ 316,000 $ (3,500)
Dotsero/Gypsum - 81637 Zip Code
# of
Sales Median Average
Affordable
Price - 100%
AMI
Affordability
Gap
Single Family 155 $ 400,000 $ 460,768 $ 316,000 $ 84,000
Townhouse/Du-
plex 38 $ 376,500 $ 368,561 $ 316,000 $ 60,500
Condo 12 $ 194,800 $ 201,967 $ 316,000 $ (121,200)
APPENDIX C – HOME SALES BY ZIP CODE, 2017
69Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES
Primary research was conducted to generate information beyond that available from existing public sources. This
appendix provides the methods and sources used, such that the research contained in this report could be replicated
or updated as needed.
Study Area Definitions
The three market areas were defined by Census Tract and Zip code, as follows:
Census Tracts Zip codes
Up Valley 6, 7.01, 7.02, 7.03 81645, 81649, 81657,
81658,
Mid Valley 4.01, 4.02, 5.01, 5.02,
5.03
81620, 81632
Down Valley 2, 4.03 81631, 81637, 81655,
Household Survey
An online survey was conducted from late November 2017 through mid-January 2018 to collect information on the
current housing situation of local residents and employees. The survey explored household characteristics, housing
perceptions and preferences, tradeoffs, and preferred housing solutions. The link to the survey was widely distributed
through various media, employers and multiple other outreach efforts (see below). In total, responses were received
from 705 residents in the Eagle River Valley: 147 from up valley, 347 mid valley, and 211 down valley.
The margin of error for survey tabulations is within about 2.5% at the 95% confidence interval, meaning that for any
tabulation the percent reported is within plus or minus 2.5% from what is actually the case. For data representing less
than the full population of responses (e.g., home owners only), the margin of error is higher.
Employer Survey
Concurrent with the household survey, a short online survey was also conducted to reach employers in the Eagle River
Valley. The employer survey inquired about the number of year- round and seasonal workers (summer and winter)
employed, where workers live (commute patterns), employee retention and recruitment issues, to what extent em-
ployee housing is perceived to be a problem, and employers preferred housing solutions. The link to the survey was
distributed by the Vail Valley Partnership, through in-person visits to many restaurants and retailers, direct phone and/
or email invitations to the valley’s 50 largest employers with follow-up phone calls. Responses were received from 84
employers representing 9,700 jobs, approximately 27% of all jobs in the Eagle River Valley.
Survey Outreach
• Outreach for the online employer and household surveys was conducted as follows:
• Two press releases to all local news outlets.
• Editorial coverage from the Vail Daily News on (11/30/2017).
• Public service announcements on local radio stations: La Nueva Mix, KSKE, The Lift FM.
• Radio interviews on Mid Day Mile and on the Zephr.
• Email distribution to Eagle County Government E-News Subscription.
APPENDIX D – METHODOLOGY & SOURCESAPPENDIX D – METHODOLOGY & SOURCES
70 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES
• Newsletter outreach to members of the Vail Valley Partnership, Vail Chamber and Business Association, Gyp-
sum Chamber, and Eagle Chamber.
• Direct phone calls and/or email invitations to the 50 largest employers.
• Email outreach to all current participants and applicants for Valley Home Store and ECHDA properties and
programs.
• Spanish language outreach at ECHDA owned and managed properties, and on La Nueva Mix.
• Email links on the websites of Eagle County Government, Eagle County Housing, and The Valley Home Store.
• Social media messages on Eagle County Government Facebook page, Eagle County Housing Facebook page,
Eagle County Classifieds Facebook page, Vail Moms Facebook page, Vail Moms classifieds Facebook page.
Property Manager and Realtor Focus Group
A focus group of property managers and realtors was conducted on October 12, 2017 to obtain information, insights,
and assist with survey design. This focus group provided qualitative information on trends, challenges, housing prefer-
ences and shifts in demand.
Secondary Data
A variety of sources of published information were used in the preparation of this report, including:
• 2010 Census data from the U.S. Census Bureau and population and household projections from the State Demog-
raphy Office in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA);
• Employment information from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), Colorado Department of
Labor and Employment; ESRI;
• 2016 Area Median Income from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development;
• 2017 and 2018 Multiple Listing Service (MLS) listings;
• Existing reports, and of particular note the Housing Needs Assessments from 2007, 2012, and 2016, Vail Valley
Partnership Workforce Survey Report 2017, Land Title, and Polar Star Market Reports.
Demand Calculations
• The following components make up the Catch-up/Keep-up demand estimates. The following baseline data points
are used throughout the demand calculations:
• Total jobs in the Eagle River Valley of 35,810, per ESRI December 2017.
• Total occupied housing units in the Eagle River Valley of 17,030, per 2010 Census, brought up to date with DOLA
State Demographer data.
• Jobs/household per the 2018 household survey is 1.9. However, given that this change is not large compared with
the 1.8 jobs/household previously measured and used for other calculations for housing policies in the valley. To
remain consistent, 1.8 jobs/household is used in this report. If a larger change is measured in future years, these
calculations should be revisited.
• Jobs/employee of 1.24, per the 2018 household survey.
Unique assumptions are described below. Final demand numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.
APPENDIX D – METHODOLOGY & SOURCES
71Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES
Unfilled Jobs
In the 2018 Employer Survey, employers reported that 7% of jobs remained unfilled in the peak winter hiring season.
This percentage was applied to the total jobs in the Eagle Valley. Unfilled jobs were then translated to units needed by
calculating the jobs held/person (1.24) and the employees per household (1.8). Unemployment is currently so low that
very few jobs can be filled by employees who already live in the Eagle River Valley, so no discount was given for local
hiring.
Assumptions & Units Needed
Total Jobs 35,810
% unfilled Jobs (Dec/Jan 2018)7%
# unfilled jobs 2,470
Jobs per employee 1.24
Employees needed 1,992
Employees/Household 1.8
Housing Need 1,110
Functional Rental Market
The number of existing rental units was derived using DOLA and Census figures, which estimate a total 17,030 oc-
cupied homes in the Eagle River Valley. Since tenure estimates have shifted considerably towards renters since the
2010 Census, a combination of DOLA and survey response data was used to estimate that 45% of all homes are renter
occupied. The research team estimated that 1% or fewer of these units are vacant, based on Polar Star reports and the
property manager/realtor focus group. An additional 4% is a conservative estimate of what is needed to achieve a 5%
vacancy rate.
Functional Rental Market Assumptions & Units Needed
2017 Total Units per Census + DOLA 17,030
% rentals, per survey + DOLA 45%
Rental Units 7,660
Goal of 5% vacancy - assume 1% already 4%
Housing Units Needed 310
APPENDIX D – METHODOLOGY & SOURCES
72 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES
In-commuters
The percentage of in-commuters and the extent to which they desire to move to the Eagle River Valley were estab-
lished through the 2018 employer survey.
In- commuters Assumptions & Units Needed
Total Jobs 35,810
Jobs per employee 1.24
Total employees 28,879
% Commuting from outside 9%
Number of in-commuters 2,599
Desire to move 39%
# Who would move 1,014
Employees/household 1.8
Housing Need 560
Overcrowding
The 2018 household survey established that 16% of all households are currently overcrowded. Consistent with previ-
ous studies in Eagle County, the definition of 1.5 persons per bedroom was used to define “overcrowded.” The metric
of 30% reduction has also been used consistently over time as a practical measure to relieve, but not eliminate, the
problem.
Overcrowded Assumptions & Units
Needed
Total survey respondents over crowded:16%
Total Housing Units 17,030
Overcrowded units 2,670
% needed to reduce overcrowding 30%
Housing Units Needed 800
New Jobs
New jobs for 2020, 2025, and 2030 were projected using the baseline of ESRI jobs in the valley, and applying the antici-
pated growth rates as published by the State Demography Office on the DOLA website December 2017.
New Jobs Assumptions & Units Needed
2020 2025 2030
Increase in Jobs over 2017 2,304 5,250 8,643
Jobs per Employee 1.24 1.24 1.24
New Employees 1,858 4,234 6,970
Employees/household 1.8 1.8 1.8
Housing Units Needed 1,030 2,350 3,870
APPENDIX D – METHODOLOGY & SOURCES
73Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES
Retiring Employees
Employers responding to the 2018 employer survey provided the data that 4% of the workforce intends to retire in
the next five years. This data was annualized and applied to total jobs in the valley, using the consistent assumptions
about jobs/employee and employees/household.
Retiring in 5
years
Retiring annu-
ally
% total jobs with employee planning
to retire 4.2%0.8%
Total Jobs 28,879 28,879
# Jobs held by retiring employees 1,202 240
Jobs/employee 1.24 1.24
Employees/household 1.8 1.8
Housing Units needed 540 110
Gap, Location, and Tenure
The gap calculation begins with the total housing need estimated for 2020: 3,870 units. This number is then discount-
ed with the assumption that 9% of jobs will continue to be filled by in-commuters, to establish a demand for 3,800
units within the Valley.
The color-coded chart identifying where gaps exist by region and tenure is estimated using the market and AMI data
compiled in Chapter 1. Quantification of these gaps is highly sensitive to changes in the market and should be re-
viewed regularly.
The location for new housing was established by household survey respondent’s stated preferences regarding where
they want to live. Percentages used are as follows:
Up Valley Mid Valley Down Valley
Own 26%39%35%
Remt 42%40%18%
The tenure mix of 55% owners and 45% renters matches that of the survey weighting, which was derived by finding a
middle ground between the 2010 Census tenure mix and that of the 2018 household survey, which seemed to indicate
that the mix of owners and renters has shifted in favor of renters since the recession.
Comparison of 2007 and Current Demand
While the general method used to estimate demand has remained the same, most of the assumptions have changed
significantly over the past 10 years. While both the rental and for sale housing markets are now greatly exceeding 2007
price points, many other elements of the current economy are more fragile, and overall demand projections and hous-
ing gaps are lower than in 2007.
Catch-up
In 2007, the construction industry was extremely strong, and unfilled jobs were at a record high. This year, unfilled jobs
present a significant challenge to employers, but do not match 2007 levels. With very low snowfall, this winter looks to
APPENDIX D – METHODOLOGY & SOURCES
74 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES
fall short of the past few years’ economic activity as measured by sales tax receipts. This could mark the beginning of
an economic slow-down for the Eagle River Valley, or the economy may rebound quickly with a strong summer visitor
season and plentiful snow in 2018/2019.
• Functional rental market is a new metric added in 2018 to address the extremely low vacancy rates, rapidly
rising rents, and lack of consumer choice in the rental market.
• In-commuters are always a challenging demographic to measure. However, 2018 employer survey responses
align closely with State Demographer estimates, both of which show a significant decrease in in-commuters
since 2007. This may be related to housing scarcity and competition for employees in neighboring communi
ties.
• Given relatively flat wages and significantly higher home prices and rental rates, the increase in the overcrowd
ing in 2018 comes as no surprise.
• When all of these factors are combined, there is an estimated 1,670 fewer units needed to meet current de
mand than in 2007.
Keep-up
• In 2007, keep-up demand and the housing gap were projected out 12 years, through 2015. This year, twelve-
year projections are also provided, but greater emphasis is placed on the nearer term forecasts of 2020 and
2025. This approach, combined with State Demographer estimates, has resulted in significantly lower
job growth projections.
• The rate at which employees are retiring has slowed quite a bit. In 2007, an estimated 275 new units were
needed each year to fill housing gaps left by retiring employees, compared to only 110 units per year given cur
rent conditions. Post-recession, many employees have pushed back their retirement dates, or made plans to
scale back their work commitments without retiring.
• While the overall estimates for housing units needed were much higher in 2007, so were the assumptions
about what the market would provide. In 2018, the gap represents 61% of the total housing need, compared to
only 27% in 2007.
Comparison of Housing Demand Summary – 2007 and 2018
2007 2018 Change
Catch-up
Demand for unfilled jobs 1,420 1,110 (310)
Rental Market -310 310
In-commuters 2,469 560 (1,909)
Overcrowding 557 800 243
Total Catch-up 4,446 2,780 (1,666)
Keep-up - Projected to Year 2015 2020 12 yrs/2 yrs
Job Growth 4,776 1,030 (3,746)
Retirees 3,284 220 (3,064)
Total Keep-up 8,060 1,250 (6,810)
Total need 12,506 4,030 (8,476)
Gap 3,398 2,450 (948)
75Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES
Definitions of housing tools by category presented in the survey.
Incentives
Density bonuses when workforce housing is built
Fee waivers -- water/sewer tap fees or permits for workforce housing
Reduced parking requirements for workforce housing
Fast track processing -- workforce housing projects go to the front of the line
for review
Property tax exemption
Development Requirements
Commercial linkage: requiring new commercial development to provide
housing
Residential linkage: a type of impact fee on new residential construction
Inclusionary Housing: a percentage of units in new subdivisions restricted for
workforce housing
Taxes
Excise tax on short-term rentals, for example 3% - 5% - vote required
Property tax (paid for by property owners) - vote required
Sales tax (paid for by consumers) - vote required
Public Initiatives
Providing County or Town land that is vacant or under-utilized
Town or County builds housing (like Miller Ranch and Chamonix)
Town, County, or Housing Authority provide financing
General fund revenues - appropriation by elected officials required
Other Solutions - Employer assistance for housing -- rent or mortgage subsi-
dies, etc.
APPENDIX E – SURVEY DEFINITIONS OF TOOLS