HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-23 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Special SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
4:00 P.M., OCTOBER 23, 2012
NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied
upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item.
Public comments on work session item may be solicited by the Town
Council
1.
ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 31, Series of 2012, a resolution repealing and
reenacting the Town of Vail Employee Housing Strategic Plan. (30 Minutes)
PRESENTER(S): Nina Timm, Community Development Department
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Community Development Department
requests the Vail Town Council listen to the Staff presentation, ask
questions and provide feedback. The Community Development Department also
requests the Vail Town Council grant a continuance of Resolution No. 31, Series of
2012, to its November 6, 2012, public hearing for further deliberation.
BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail adopted its Employee Housing Strategic Plan
on September 2, 2008. Since that time market conditions have changed,
additional information is available and there has been completion of action items
from the current plan. Proposed amendments to the Employee Housing Strategic
Plan make it a more current and relevant guide for decision making.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department
recommends the Vail Town Council grant a continuance of Resolution No. 31,
Series of 2012, to its November 6, 2012 public hearing for further deliberation.
2.
ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(b)(e) -
to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests;
to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions,
develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, regarding: Ever Vail Redevelopment
Agreement; 2) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(f) - to discuss personnel matters, regarding:
Updateon Town Managers direct reports. (90 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire
3. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (6:00 p.m.)
10/23/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: October 23, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 31, Series of 2012, a resolution repealing and reenacting the
Town of Vail Employee Housing Strategic Plan.
PRESENTER(S): Nina Timm, Community Development Department
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Community Development Department requests
the Vail Town Council listen to the Staff presentation, ask questions and provide feedback.
The Community Development Department also requests the Vail Town Council grant a
continuance of Resolution No. 31, Series of 2012, to its November 6, 2012, public hearing for
further deliberation.
BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail adopted its Employee Housing Strategic Plan on
September 2, 2008. Since that time market conditions have changed, additional information is
available and there has been completion of action items from the current plan. Proposed
amendments to the Employee Housing Strategic Plan make it a more current and relevant
guide for decision making.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends the
Vail Town Council grant a continuance of Resolution No. 31, Series of 2012, to its November
6, 2012 public hearing for further deliberation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Memorandum
Resolution No. 31, Series of 2012
Attachment A
Economic Indicators
EV of Vail Investment in Employee Housing Final
Chamonix Market Update
Draft Housing Needs Assessment
10/23/2012
To: Vail Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Date: October 16, 2012
Subject: Resolution No. 31, Series of 2012, a resolution amending the Town of Vail
Employee Housing Strategic Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
I. SUMMARY
The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a work session to discuss proposed
amendments to the Town of Vail Employee Housing Strategic Plan (EHSP). The
proposed amendments located in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 31, Series of 2012 have
been attached for review (Attachment A).
On September 25, 2012, the Vail Local Housing Authority forwarded a recommendation
of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed amendments.
As this is a work session, the Community Development Department recommends the
Vail Town Council listen to the Staff presentation, asks questions, and provide direction
by answering the following:
• Does the Current Conditions section that has been added to the EHSP contain
all of the information the Town Council would like included? If not, what
additional information should be added?
• Are there additional objectives the Town Council would like added to the EHSP?
• Does the Implementation Matrix for the next three to five year period include the
actions the Town Council would like to complete?
• Are there items the Town Council would like to add to or remove from the
Implementation Matrix?
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
WHY UPDATE THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN?
The applicant is proposing amendments to the Employee Housing Strategic Plan at this
time due to the following:
• Real estate market changes
• Economic and housing analysis/data updates
1 - 1 - 1
10/23/2012
Town of Vail Page 2
• Policy shifts toward for-sale employee housing development
• Completion of action items from the current plan
WHICH SECTIONS OF THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN ARE
PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED?
The applicant is proposing amendments to update the following sections of the
Employee Housing Strategic Plan:
• Background
• Current Conditions
• Threats and Weaknesses, Strengths & Opportunities
• Objectives
• Action Steps
• Implementation Matrix
• Glossary
• Attachments
WHICH SECTIONS OF THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN ARE NOT
PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED?
• Purpose
• Planning Time Frame
• Policy Statements
• Roles and Responsibilities
WHAT ARE THE CURRENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICY STATEMENTS OF THE
EMPLOYEE HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN AND WHAT AMENDMENTS ARE
PROPOSED?
The following is a list of the current objectives of the Employee Housing Strategic Plan.
OBJECTIVES (in part)
A. Provide housing to address needs generated by new development or
redevelopment.
B. Respond to the existing affordable housing shortfall by pursuing a number of
identified programs and development opportunities.
C. Call for any deed-restricted housing that is required as a condition of
development to be constructed at the time new development occurs.
D. Creation and maintenance of housing in Vail for emergency and key service
workers.
1 - 1 - 2
10/23/2012
Town of Vail Page 3
E. Actively address affordable housing for Vail workers to ensure that the
community remains competitive in economic terms.
F. Increase and maintain deed-restricted housing within the Town to encourage
the efficient use of resources by placing employees closer to their place of
work.
G. Planning for new employee housing will take jobs and wages into account.
H. Provide and plan for housing along with local and regional public
transportation.
The following is a list of the current policy statements of the Employee Housing
Strategic Plan. The applicant is proposing no changes to the current policy statements.
POLICY STATEMENTS (in part)
The Town of Vail will pursue three broadly described methods to achieve the
Town’s housing goal.
The Town will Impose Regulatory Requirements
• Development will be required to address a portion of its housing demand
within the Town of Vail; and
• New development and redevelopment will be required to address a portion
of its housing demand at the development site.
Development and Acquisition Initiated by the Town
• To address employee housing needs beyond the regulatory requirements
for new development; and
• To respond to the desire to promote a more diverse and vibrant local
community.
Form Regional Partnerships
• These efforts will address employee housing needs beyond the regulatory
requirements by actively seeking partnerships, including:
o Public / Private, and
o Multi Jurisdictional.
ARE THERE ACTION ITEMS THE TOWN COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO ADD OR
REMOVE FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX?
A. Action items for 2013 to 2016 – For Sale Development Focus
a. Chamonix Commons
b. New financing for Timber Ridge Village Apartments
c. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District partnership
1 - 1 - 3
10/23/2012
Town of Vail Page 4
i. Snowberry – up to 4 new for-sale units
ii. East Vail – up to 4 new for-sale units
d. Partner with Eagle County
e. 2507 Arosa Drive redevelopment
f. Develop new zoning incentives to incent private sector EHU development
i. Amend the EHU Exchange Program to allow for administrative
approval of proposed exchanges
ii. Allow certain retirees to live in EHUs
iii. Work with private sector to develop additional incentives
B. Action Items for 2017 to 2022 – to be updated as needed
a. Gore Range Condo redevelopment
b. Timber Ridge Redevelopment
c. Evaluate Town owned properties for development opportunity (i.e., parking
structures, etc.)
d. Buy Downs
e. Partner with Vail Resorts to develop EHUs
f. Partner with Cascade Resort to develop EHUs
C. Action Items for 2023 and Beyond – to be updated as needed
a. Partner with Sonnenalp Resort to develop additional EHUs
b. When Red Sandstone Elementary redevelops add EHUs
c. Building second building at Buzzard Park – Town Shops
d. Acquire underdeveloped properties for redevelopment
e. Partner with Vail Valley Medical Center to develop EHUs
III. BACKGROUND
The Town of Vail Employee Housing Strategic Plan was established on September 2,
2008 through the Town Council’s adoption of Resolution No. 20, Series of 2008.
On August 21, 2012, the Vail Town Council held a work session to discuss the
proposed amendments to the Employee Housing Strategic Plan.
The Vail Local Housing Authority had discussed these proposed amendments to the
Employee Housing Strategic Plan at its August 23, August 28, September 6, and
September 25, 2012, public meetings. On September 25, 2012, the Vail Local Housing
Authority forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the
proposed amendments.
Since the Town adopted the Plan in 2008 market conditions have changed throughout
Eagle County. The proposed Implementation Matrix does not ask the business
community or new development to take any new or additional actions to provide
employee housing. Proposed action items for the next five-year period focus on
developing new for-sale housing units rather than rental units. Today, 90% of current
EHUs are renter-occupied and focusing on for-sale units will provide a greater diversity
in housing opportunities and residents.
1 - 1 - 4
10/23/2012
Town of Vail Page 5
The Plan indicates a planning time frame of five to ten years and acknowledges the
Implementation Matrix should be updated more frequently. The proposed
Implementation Matrix provides action steps for the Town of Vail to take to help achieve
the goal of ensuring 3 out of 10 employees a housing unit in Vail.
Today, commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning are designed to conjunctively
ensure there is deed restricted employee housing for at least 30% of new employees
generated by new development and redevelopment. The regulatory requirements
provide multiple methods of mitigation and do not require employee housing be
provided for a specific type of wage earners. The goal is for development to provide the
type(s) of employee housing most suited to the needs of that development’s future
employees.
Catch Up is a portion of the Town’s goal that is exclusively within the purview and
control of the Town of Vail. Based on the Town’s goal and existing deed restricted
properties in Vail, the deed restricted employee housing unit gap is currently 677 beds.
With an average occupancy of 2.04 people per unit, the 677 bed gap equates to 332
new deed restricted employee housing units (EHU). Today there are 725 deed
restricted EHUs in Vail.
EHUs are an effective means to continue to increase the total number of full-time
households living in the Town of Vail. Full-time households are the cornerstone to Vail
remaining a vibrant resort community. There are successful resorts that do not have
communities and Vail has chosen to be the premier international resort community!
BBC Research & Consulting completed a study in Vail quantifying the Economic Value
of the Town of Vail’s Investment in Employee Housing, dated March 29, 2012. The
study enumerated the economic benefits as well as benefits that go beyond direct
economics of having EHUs in Vail. Including:
• Improved guest experience – the most basic product sold by Vail;
• Better positioning against other resorts competing for a quality workforce;
• Reduction in the seasonality of local businesses;
• Increased vitality, diversity and “real town” authenticity for the town;
• Increased community participation (volunteers, board members, etc.); and
• Enhanced ability for younger workers to stay in Vail and grow into higher-level
employment and community leadership positions.
• Opportunities for families to remain in Vail and raise a generation of new Vail
residents, support local schools and create a critical mass of residents, which
would all be jeopardized without the Town’s support of deed-restricted for-sale
housing in addition to rental units.
Today, 64% of Vail’s dwelling units are partially occupied or vacant. Based on existing
trends, over time the percentage of partially occupied or vacant dwelling units is likely to
increase. Having a critical mass of homeowners live in a community:
1 - 1 - 5
10/23/2012
Town of Vail Page 6
• gives residents a greater stake in the community,
• increases the number and diversity of businesses in neighborhoods, and
• stimulates economic investment.
This furthers the Town Council’s Key Goals to:
1) Improve economic vitality,
2) Grow a balanced community,
3) Improve the quality of the experience, and
4) Develop future leadership.
IV. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COUNCIL
As this is a work session, the Community Development Department recommends the
Vail Town Council listen to the Staff presentation, asks questions, and provides
direction on how to proceed with amendments to the Employee Housing Strategic Plan
by answering the following:
1. Does the Current Conditions section that has been added to the EHSP
contain all of the information the Town Council would like included? If not,
what additional information should be added?
2. Are there additional Objectives the Town Council would like added to the
EHSP?
3. Does the Implementation Matrix for the next three to five year period
include the actions the Town Council would like to complete?
4. Are there items the Town Council would like to add to or remove from the
Implementation Matrix?
V. RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends the Vail Town Council grants a
continuance of Resolution 31, Series of 2012, to its November 6, 2012, public hearing
for further deliberation.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution No. 31, Series of 2012, a resolution amending the Town of Vail
Employee Housing Strategic Plan with Attachment A (Employee Housing Strategic
Plan)
1 - 1 - 6
10/23/2012
1
Resolution No. 31, Series of 2012
RESOLUTION NO. 31
Series of 2012
A RESOLUTION REPEALING AND REENACTING THE TOWN OF VAIL EMPLOYEE
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD
THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the "Town"), in the County of Eagle and State of
Colorado is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter"); and
WHEREAS, the Town has determined that no less than thirty percent
(30%) of Vail's workforce should be provided deed restricted employee housing within
the Town limits; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that in order to achieve the established
goal it is critical to create an employee housing strategic plan establishing and
clarifying the objectives and action steps essential to achieve the stated goal; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Local Housing Authority and Council developed the
Employee Housing Strategic Plan over a period of six months that outlines the goal,
objectives and action steps; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Economic Advisory Committee provided input and direction
on the Employee Housing Strategic Plan at their May 13, 2008, and June 10, 2008,
meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission provided input and
direction on the Employee Housing Strategic Plan at their August 25, 2008, Public
Hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Council supports the implementation of the Vail Employee
Housing Strategic Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Employee Housing Strategic Plan will direct policy and budget
decisions in order to achieve the community's stated goal; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Council and the Housing Authority to
implement the Employee Housing Strategic Plan over the next three years; and
WHEREAS, market conditions have changed since the Employee Housing
Strategic Plan was adopted, additional information now exists about housing in Vail and
Eagle County, and certain action items from the current plan have been completed; and
1 - 2 - 1
10/23/2012
2
Resolution No. 31, Series of 2012
WHEREAS, the Vail Local Housing Authority discussed proposed amendments
to the Employee Housing Strategic Plan at their August 23, August 28, September 6
and forwarded a recommendation of approval at their September 25, 2012, public
meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the amendments
are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies
outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development
objectives of the town; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the amendment to
the Town of Vail Employee Housing Strategic Plan furthers the general and specific
purposes of the plan; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the amendments
promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promote the
coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and
enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of the highest quality.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
The Town Council repeals and reenacts the Town of Vail Employee Housing
Strategic Plan, dated November 6, 2012, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council
of the Town of Vail held this 6th day of November, 2012.
__________________
Andrew P. Daly, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
1 - 2 - 2
10/23/2012
To
w
n
o
f
V
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
20
1
2
U
p
d
a
t
e
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
P
l
a
n
To ensure there is deed restricted housing
for at least 30% of Vail’s workforce within
the Town of Vail
1 - 3 - 1
10/23/2012
1 - 3 - 2
10/23/2012
In recognition of the commitment to ensure deed-restricted housing
options for at least 30% of Vail’s workforce within the Town of Vail
Vail Town Council Vail Local Housing Authority
Andy Daly, Mayor Steve Lindstrom, Chair
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Pro-Tem Scott Ashburn
Kerry Donovan Mary McDougall
Kevin Foley Kim Newbury
Greg Moffet John Rediker
Margaret Rogers
Susie Tjossem
Town of Vail Community Development Department
George Ruther, Director
Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator
1 - 3 - 3
10/23/2012
Table of Contents
Background 1
Purpose
Current Conditions
Time Frame
Threats, Weaknesses, Strengths & Opportunities
Objectives
Policy Statements
Action Steps
Implementation Matrix
Roles and Responsibilities
Appendix
New text in bold italics.
Text to be deleted has a strikethrough.
1 - 3 - 4
10/23/2012
1 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
TOWN OF VAIL
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
STRATEGIC PLAN
BACKGROUND
In 2006, through the Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future process the community established
a housing goal. It is as follows:
“The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as
infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs
and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide
enough deed-restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the
workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated
development.”
Based upon the community’s work, the Vail Town Council has confirmed the Town of
Vail recognizes deed restricted employee housing as basic infrastructure. This type of
housing allows employees to live within the town, promoting community, and improving
the quality of our local workforce, thereby supporting the local economy, and reducing
regional transit needs. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan seeks to meet the
expectations established by the community and confirmed by the Town Council and
provide enough deed-restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the community’s
workforce to live in the Town of Vail through a variety of policies, regulations and
publicly initiated development projects.
The Town of Vail adopted its Employee Housing Strategic Plan in September,
2008, at the height of the global real estate market boom. As market conditions
have changed throughout Eagle County and numerous action items from the
Employee Housing Strategic Plan (EHSP) have been completed the Town of Vail
is amending the Implementation Matrix and is adding new information to the
EHSP to ensure the EHSP continues to achieve the Town’s employee housing
goal that was established in 2006 and adopted in 2008 as part of the Employee
Housing Strategic Plan.
In Vail today, approximately 90% of existing deed restricted employee housing
units (EHU) in Vail are renter occupied. Based on the Vail Town Council’s
adopted goals of:
improve economic vitality,
grow a balanced community,
improve the quality of the experience, and
1 - 3 - 5
10/23/2012
2 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
develop future leadership
and that having a critical mass of homeowners live in a community:
gives residents a greater stake in the community,
increases the number and diversity of businesses in neighborhoods, and
stimulates economic investment
amendments to the EHSP and specifically the Implementation Matrix will focus, at
least in the next five-years, on developing new for-sale EHUs with the goal of
achieving the community’s stated goal of providing enough deed-restricted
housing for at least 30% of the workforce through policies, regulations and
publicly initiated development. Achieving the goal is critical for Vail’s long-term
success as a resort community. It is also recognized that housing needs follow
economic growth and recession cycles. Successful implementation of the EHSP
will provide 3 out of every 10 employees an EHU in Vail and the remaining 7 out of
10 employees will rely on the private sector for their housing.
PURPOSE
The EHSP is a decision-making guide for the implementation of employee occupied
housing programs.
The EHSP documents the Town’s current approaches to ensuring employee housing. It
identifies the goal, outlines methods and defines action steps the Town will pursue. In
addition, the Appendices provide background information on Town housing definitions,
policies, and initiatives. The appendices also include relevant reports to support EHU
development and policy decisions in Vail. This information is provided as an additional
resource. The EHSP also recognizes and affirms the importance of Vail constantly
serving as a regional partner in the provision of employee housing.
The EHSP is meant to lead the actions of Staff, the Vail Local Housing Authority and the
Vail Town Council in future decisions regarding funding and development of employee
housing in Vail.
CURRENT CONDITIONS
Dwelling Units
As of 2010 there are approximately 7,230 dwelling units in the Town of Vail, this is
an almost seventy percent (70%) increase in the number of dwelling units than
existed in 1980. From 1980 to 2010, Vail’s population increased nearly forty three
percent (43%). Vail has always been and continues to be a highly desirable
1 - 3 - 6
10/23/2012
3 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
location to own a vacation home and this is clearly evident based on the increase
in the number of dwelling units at nearly twice the pace the number of full-time
residents has increased. According to the 2010 US Census sixty four percent
(64%) of Vail’s dwelling units are partially occupied or vacant.
Town of Vail 1980 1990 2000 2010
Dwelling Units 5029 6167 5389* 7230
Number of EHUs 198 205 389 725
% EHUs 3.9% 3.3% 7.2% 10%
Number of Households 1680 2165 2604
Vail’s Population 2261 3659 4531 5305
% Population Increased 62% 24% 17%
(Source: 1980, 1990, 2000 & 2010 US Census and Town of Vail Community Development Dept)
*As reported in the 2000 US Census
Since the Town adopted its EHSP there is been highest median price per square
foot for Vail real estate in its history. Following 2008, there was a significant
decrease in the median price per square foot for real estate and since then it
appears to be more level. The spike in 2010 is likely related to unit sales at
Solaris that went under contract in 2007/2008.
(Source: Eagle County Assessor’s Office)
The major redevelopment that Vail experienced from 2004 to 2012 also more than
doubled (229% increase)from 376 existing dwelling units to 1,238 dwelling units
today in Vail Village and Lionshead associated with 33 major projects. During
this same period of time, the number of EHUs associated with 33 of the major
redevelopment projects increased from 95 EHUs to 164 EHUs (72% increase).
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
20072008200920102011
$596
$897
$503
$596
$460
Vail's Median Price Per Square Foot
1 - 3 - 7
10/23/2012
4 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
(Source: Town of Vail Community Development Department)
There are 2,604 full-time occupied dwelling units in the Town of Vail. 725 of the
2,604 full-time occupied dwelling units in Vail are EHUs. As evidenced by the
data, EHUs are an effective means to continue to increase the total number of full-
time households living in Vail. Full-time households are the cornerstone to Vail
remaining a vibrant resort community.
(Source: Town of Vail Community Development Department)
Existing EHUs breakdown as follows:
Timber Ridge Village Apartments 198 Units Rental, Seasonal
Middle Creek Apartments 142 Units Rental, Affordable
376
95 46
546
862
69 105
100
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Dwelling UnitsEmployee
Housing Units
Fractional Fee
Units
Accommodation
Units
Development Statistics for 33 Major
Redevelopment Projects
Net New 2004-2012
Prior to Redevelopment
in 2004
0
198 205
389
725
0
200
400
600
800
19701980199020002010
Deed Restricted EHUs
1 - 3 - 8
10/23/2012
5 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
Required Mitigation 132 Units Rental, Seasonal
Privately Owned Units 127 Units Rental
Owner-Occupied, Price Capped Units 81 Units For-Sale, Affordable
Town of Vail Owned Units 45 Units Rental, Seasonal
The affordability of existing EHUs generally breakdown as follows:
Timber Ridge Village Apartments 60% of Area Median Income
Middle Creek Apartments 60% of Area Median Income
Owner-Occupied, Price Capped Units
• 53 units at Vail Commons 80% 2-Person Area Median Income
• 18 units at Red Sandstone Creek 100% 2-Person Area Median Income
• 6 units at North Trail Townhomes 110% 2-Person Area Median Income
• 2 units at Arosa Duplex 140% 2-Person Area Median Income
• 2 Buy Down Units 100% 2-Person Area Median Income
Town of Vail Owned Units 60% of Area Median Income (average)
(Source: Town of Vail Community Development Department)
Jobs and Wages
• According to the 2000 and 2010 US Census, Vail had a 43% or a 506
household decrease in the number of households earning $50,000 to
$200,000 annually (likely local wage earners) from 2000 to 2010.
• During the same time period Eagle County had a 25% or 2,206 household
increase in the number of households earning between $50,000 and
$200,000 annually.
$0$200,000$400,000
Vail Commons 3-Bedroom
Red Sandstone 3- Bedroom
North Trail 3-Bedroom
Arosa Duplex 3-Bedroom
$245,000
$285,000
$295,000
$425,000
2012 Average 3-Bedroom Max
Sale Price -Appreciation Capped
1 - 3 - 9
10/23/2012
6 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
2000 HH Income Ranges in 2010 $ 2000 2010 2010 HH Income Ranges in 2010 $
$12,500 to $31,249 238 212 $10,000 to $24,999
$31,250 to $62,499 545 68 $25,000 to $49,999
$62,500 to $93,749 541 122 $50,000 to $74,999
$93,750 to $124,999 253 162 $75,000 to $99,999
$125,000 to $187,499 283 274 $100,000 to $149,999
$188,000 to $250,000 98 111 $150,000 to $200,000
Over $250,000 133 165 Over $200,000
(Source: US Census 2010 and 2000)
The following chart shows the percent of Vail households by income.
As part of the major redevelopment projects that took place in Vail Village and
Lionshead from 2004 to 2012 the amount of commercial square footage has more
than doubled (131% increase). This outcome was intentional and is based on the
adopted goals of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as well as the Vail
Village Master Plan. While an increase in commercial square footage generally
Up to
$24,900
19%
$25,000 to
$49,999
6%
$50,000 to
$74,999
11%
$75,000 to
$99,999
14%
$100,000
to
$149,999
25%
$150,000
to
$200,000
10%
Over
$200,000
15%
Vail Household Income as Reported
in the 2010 US Census
For Reference:
Annual
Household
Income
Maximum
Purchase Price
$62,500 $187,500
$87,500 $375,000
$125,000 $625,000
$175,000 >$625,000
* Assumes 4.125% interest, 20% down
payment, limited household debt or
installment loan payments
(Source: Town of Vail Community Development)
1 - 3 - 10
10/23/2012
7 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
equates to higher sales tax collections it also increases the number of service
sector jobs that exist in the Town of Vail, many of which are seasonal.
(Source: Town of Vail Community Development)
Consistent with commercial development and job creation in Vail, throughout
Eagle County the largest employment industry is Accommodations and Food
Services, employing 26% of all employees.
206,836272,191 479,027
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
Prior to Redevelopment
in 2004
Net New 2004-2012Post Redevelopment
2012
Commercial Square Footage for 33
Major Redevelopment Projects
1 - 3 - 11
10/23/2012
8 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
PLANNING TIMEFRAME
The EHSP is based on a five-to-ten year planning horizon; it looks well into the future
anticipating the needs for employee housing over time. The EHSP also contains
identified “action steps” targeted for a one to three year period. These action steps will
need to be evaluated annually and it is anticipated that they will be updated at least
every three years as market conditions change.
THREATS, WEAKNESSES, STRENGTHS & OPPORTUNITIES
It is important to recognize and plan for the threats, weaknesses, strengths and
opportunities that exist in the Town of Vail as well acknowledge the broader trends that
impact Vail.
Threats
• Increasing Competition For Employees
o Within the next ten-years estimates predict 2,000 new jobs will be created
by development and redevelopment within the Town of Vail
The majority of these jobs will be service sector
o Eagle County job growth is predicted at 1.5% annually through 2013
and 2.5% annually from 2013 to 2015 (DOLA)
o From 2015 to 2020 annual average job growth is likely to be higher,
in the range of 3% - 4% or more (DOLA)
o It is estimated that at least 7,500 new jobs will be created between Eagle Vail
and Gypsum in the next ten years
o The majority of the these jobs will be service sector
o It is estimated the Ginn Development will add 1,000 new jobs
o Lake County and Garfield County are both experiencing job growth
o The oil and gas industry and mining generally pay substantially more than the
service jobs being created in Eagle County
o State of Colorado predicts overall job growth of 23% (DOLA)
• State Demography Office shows a modest decline (0.5%)in population from
2010 data for Eagle County
• Employee housing demand will increase due to demand from replacement
workers of retirees (Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update,
2012)
1 - 3 - 12
10/23/2012
9 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
• Data indicates 46.5% of all renters in Eagle County are cost burdened
(paying more than 30% of their income for housing) (Eagle County Housing
Needs Assessment Update, 2012)
• 64% of Vail’s dwelling units are either partially occupied or vacant (2010 US
Census)
• Real Estate Trends
o Real estate in the Town of Vail is expensive as compared to the rest of the
region as well as compared to the national market
o The conversion of locally occupied housing to second homes
o The free market focuses on the housing desires of second homeowner
o Increasing cost of construction
o Vail real estate values continue to trend upward
o Regional real estate values continue to be more affordable
o The gap between what locally earned wages can afford and free market
housing prices continues to increase, particularly in Vail
• Unique Geographic Constraints
o Vail Pass on the East
o Dowd Junction on the West
o Limited undeveloped land within the Town of Vail
o Surrounded on the north and south by National Forest and Bureau of Land
Management lands
o Farthest employment center from the Eagle County population base
• Cost of Commuting
o The cost of gas continues to increase
o Public transportation does not provide a viable alternative to all communities
o The availability and cost of parking is prohibitive
Weaknesses
• Politics
o Historical lack of political will for developing new employee housing
o Previously, no clear policy direction for the provision of employee housing
o Lack of Town owned land zoned for employee housing
o There is not dedicated funding for employee housing
o At the beginning, failure to plan for the housing needs of Vail employees
1 - 3 - 13
10/23/2012
10 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
• Real Estate Market
o Lack of free market homes affordable to local employees
o Potential home buyers get less “bang for the buck” in Vail as compared to the
region
o Deed restricted housing developed does not provide a full spectrum of
housing types (i.e., single family homes and seasonal rental units)
• Lack of permanent employees hired by local businesses
o The jobs being generated by redevelopment are predominately lower paying
seasonal service jobs
o Added challenge to establishing a diverse community
Strengths
• Vail has produced or caused to be produced 725 EHUs without requiring
any ongoing general fund support and very little general fund expenditures
• Community support for creating new employee housing
• Clarity around the Town’s adopted housing goal
• Regulatory requirements
o Commercial Linkage
o Inclusionary Zoning
• Vacant land owned by the Town
• Strong local financial conditions
o Bonding capacity
o Strong local tax base
o Potential to invest in employee housing
• Regular private reinvestment in development
• Expanding partnership opportunities with local businesses and governments
• Current deed restricted housing stock
• The “Vail” brand
1 - 3 - 14
10/23/2012
11 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
Opportunities
• Town Initiated
o Employee Housing Strategic Plan
o Town owns significant vacant land
o Rezoning of Town owned vacant land
o Land Use Plan amendments
o Annexation of land adjacent to the Town
o Ability to reallocate existing revenue
o Bonding capacity
o Ability to go to the voters for a dedicated funding source
o Partnerships with local employers
o Public-Private partnerships for development
o Potential United States Forest Service Land Swaps
• Regional Opportunities
o Other local governments are addressing the housing need as well
o Significant vacant land
o Partnerships with local employers
o Public-Private partnerships for development
o “The Valley Home Store”
• Current stagnation in real estate values
OBJECTIVES
A. Provide housing to address needs generated by new development or
redevelopment.
It is documented and understood that new development will require additional
employees and a goal of the EHSP is to provide for that housing. This goal is also
referred to as “ Keep Up” in the EHSP; going forward the Town will attempt to
address the increase in demand from new employees by requiring deed-restricted
housing as a condition of new development or redevelopment. The Town will
encourage developers to provide a range of housing choices for the entire
spectrum of jobs that are being created by the new development.
B. Respond to the existing affordable housing shortfall by pursuing a number
of identified programs and development opportunities.
1 - 3 - 15
10/23/2012
12 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
This goal is also referred to as “Catch Up” in the EHSP; it describes efforts to
address deficiencies in the available housing inventory that have arisen over a
period of years.
C. Call for any deed-restricted housing that is required as a condition of
development to be constructed at the time new development occurs.
By dispersing year-round housing multiple objectives are met: neighborhoods are
occupied throughout the year enhancing security and encouraging activity.
Economies are achieved by having developers integrate deed-restricted housing at
the time they are constructing other uses, and construction of new residences
occurs at the time the demand is first triggered.
D. Creation and maintenance of housing in Vail for emergency and key service
workers.
In Vail, where weather and the regional road system create periodic strains, this is
especially important. The Town will also work with other businesses that provide
services essential to municipal operations to encourage they have critical
employees living within the Town of Vail. The Town will offer partnership
opportunities to these types of employers.
E. Actively address affordable housing for Vail workers to ensure that the
community remains competitive in economic terms.
With the number of Down-Valley jobs continuing to increase, there will be
competition for workers; Vail will work to provide appropriate housing to ensure
that the Town remains attractive in the regional job market.
F. Increase and maintain deed-restricted housing within the Town to
encourage the efficient use of resources by placing employees closer to
their place of work.
It is understood there is a reduced need for personal automobiles and reduced
transit costs when home and work are in close proximity to one another. Also,
there may be changes in workforce demographics that result in opportunities to
reduce parking associated with affordable housing in selected locations. To the
extent these opportunities can be realized, without negative impacts on the overall
community, they will be explored.
G. Planning for new employee housing will take jobs and wages into account.
It is recognized that wages associated with a particular job influence housing
demand. In both catch-up and keep-up programs the Town will work toward
1 - 3 - 16
10/23/2012
13 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
providing a range of housing types at price points appropriate to the varying
incomes of workers in Vail. It is recognized the free market provides limited
opportunity for even the highest wage earners to live and work in Town and it is
necessary to have a full range of employees in the community. Diverse housing
opportunities for the broadest range of employees will enhance the community.
H. Provide and plan for housing along with local and regional public
transportation.
The EHSP recognizes that these functions are intertwined and where deed-
restricted housing exists, there will be a demand for transportation services. It is
the goal of the Town to minimize overall transportation costs by housing
employees in proximity to their jobs, and to also anticipate the projected costs of
transportation (due to fuel and other scarce resources) in the provision of deed-
restricted housing elsewhere in the region.
POLICY STATEMENTS
The Town of Vail will pursue three broadly described methods to achieve the Town’s
housing goal.
The Town will Impose Regulatory Requirements
• Development will be required to address a portion of its housing demand within
the Town of Vail; and
• New development and redevelopment will be required to address a portion of its
housing demand at the development site.
Development and Acquisition Initiated by the Town
• To address employee housing needs beyond the regulatory requirements for
new development; and
• To respond to the desire to promote a more diverse and vibrant local community.
Form Regional Partnerships
• These efforts will address employee housing needs beyond the regulatory
requirements by actively seeking partnerships, including:
o Public / Private, and
o Multi Jurisdictional.
These broad methods are further addressed in the Action Steps that are described in
the following section.
ACTION STEPS
1 - 3 - 17
10/23/2012
14 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
The Town will continue to use tools already in place including:
Regulatory Requirements:
The “Linkage” or Commercial Jobs Generation Program Commercial
Linkage
The Town will review the current linkage program to evaluate whether it has been
meeting the objectives of ensuring that new housing is being created to house a
portion of the employee demand that is being generated by new commercial
uses in the Town. At this time, no immediate changes in the overall
requirements of the program are anticipated. However, the current requirement
for new commercial development to provide employee housing for at least twenty
percent (20%) of the employees generated may be reevaluated and the required
percentage may be changed as a result of the review, the areas of impact may
be modified, and the formulas for calculating job generation rates may be further
refined. Additionally, an updated Rational Nexus will need to be completed on a
periodic schedule. The Linkage Program provides housing to “keep up” with new
demand as it is generated.
Recognizing developable land in Vail as a limit on the community’s ability
to provide EHUs, the Town amended its Commercial Linkage requirements
to require all new construction and demo/rebuilds to provide at least one-
half of their required mitigation on-site.
Achieves Objectives A, C, E, F, and G.
The “Inclusionary” Program Inclusionary Zoning
The Town does not anticipate major changes to the Inclusionary Housing
program at this time. However, the current requirement to restrict 10 percent
(10%) of new residential square footage in high density areas to be employee
housing with deed restrictions, may be reevaluated and the required percentage
may be changed as a result of the evaluation, and/or the areas (zone districts) of
impact may be modified. The Inclusionary Program provides housing to “keep
up” with new demand as it is generated.
Recognizing developable land in Vail as a limit on the community’s ability
to provide EHUs, the Town amended its Inclusionary Zoning requirements
to require all new construction and demo/rebuilds to provide at least one-
half of their required mitigation on-site.
1 - 3 - 18
10/23/2012
15 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
Achieves Objectives A, C, E, F, and G.
Housing District Zoning Designation
The Town currently has a “Housing District” zoning designation. As an action
step to implement the Housing Plan, the Town will review the requirements of
this district to ensure that it is fully meeting its intended purposes. That review
will address the procedural requirements for the Housing District, land use
provisions including density, parking and design standards, and provisions for
density bonuses. The evaluation of the Housing District will ensure the Housing
District provides optimal employee housing development.
Achieves Objectives B, D, E, F, and G.
Town Initiatives:
Buy-Downs to Generate Deed-restricted Units
The Town will actively pursue purchase of attractively priced units for imposition
of an appreciation capped deed restriction, and subsequent resale. This
technique for increasing the supply of permanently affordable housing is known
as a “buy down.” It is recognized that this program will be highly market
dependent, with limited applicability when the local residential market is surging,
and becoming more attractive at times when there is a plateauing of prices. The
Town will need to increase the allocation of funds to underwrite the costs
associated with purchasing, deed restricting and reselling for-sale units. This is
an opportunity to provide diverse housing, to serve the full spectrum of
employees. It is important to update the parameters by which buy down units are
considered so each buy down unit meets the established goals. Further, it is
expected that there will be active involvement by the Housing Authority in
overseeing this program. The Buy-Downs program provides housing to “catch
up” with existing deficiencies and reduce market leakage.
Achieves Objectives B, D, E, F, and G.
Employee Housing Units Exchange Program
The Town will conduct a review of the “dispersed housing units” that have been
created under the density bonus provisions allowed by Town Code since 1982. It
is estimated that 123 units were created under the existing program, typically
ranging in size from 300 to 500 square feet. It is believed that many of these
units are not being used to house employees as anticipated by the program.
Although these units are covered by various types of deed restrictions, the
1 - 3 - 19
10/23/2012
16 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
requirements are not uniform and in many cases are not meeting the objective of
providing long-term dispersed employee housing. The Town will evaluate the
current program and will consider a “deed restriction exchange program” as a
part of this overall effort. The program would likely permit, at the initiation of the
landowner, the exchange of small rental units for a larger for-sale, price
appreciation capped employee housing unit. Guidelines for the program will be
developed. It is expected that these standards will address recommended size
of units, location, homeowner’s fees and other aspects of the program. Such a
program has been recently tried in Vail. It is believed that other dispersed
employee units, not currently in use, could be leveraged into permanently
restricted units by using this technique; it could represent an important element of
this overall plan. The Units Exchange Program is to increase the quality and the
total quantity of employee housing within the Town of Vail.
The Town adopted an Employee Housing Unit Exchange Program in order
to eliminate EHUs that are under-occupied or unoccupied. The Employee
Housing Unit Exchange Program requires the square footage of existing
EHUs be increased either two or three times depending on the location of
the existing EHU. This can improve the livability of EHUs as well as
increase the number of EHUs in Vail. It is recognized that allowing EHU
exchanges means certain neighborhoods in Vail may no longer have EHUs.
While there are a limited number of EHUs eligible to participate in the
Employee Housing Unit Exchange Program, the Program should be
evaluated from time-to-time to ensure it is achieving its goal.
Achieves Objectives B, E, F, and G.
Incentive Zoning and Density Bonuses
The Town will consider workforce housing objectives in all review processes that
permit discretion. This means that the Town will work actively with developers as
a part of the Housing District, Special Development District review processes and
requested changes in zoning to not only meet the requirements of existing code,
but to look for opportunities to go beyond code requirements to encourage
additional workforce housing to be created. As a part of these review processes
the Town will work actively with developers to create incentives to develop
housing that exceeds the minimal requirements contained in the code. Additional
density may be granted in selected locations through the appropriate review
processes, and fee waivers and subsidies may be considered. The Incentives
Zoning and Density Bonuses help Vail to “catch up” with existing deficiencies and
add to the overall percent of employees living within the Town of Vail.
Achieves Objectives B, D, E, F, and G.
1 - 3 - 20
10/23/2012
17 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
Review Rezoning and Vacant Land Opportunities
The Town will regularly review existing codes and the vacant land inventory to
identify opportunities to modify current programs that further support the goals of
this Plan. The Review of Rezonings and Vacant Land provides “catch up”
opportunities to address existing deficiencies and add to the overall percent of
employees living within the Town of Vail.
Achieves Objectives B, D, E, F, and G.
Town Participation in Developments Providing Deed-Restricted Housing
The Town is prepared to actively participate in, and will seek partners to further
the development of deed-restricted housing. Vail Commons, Middle Creek,
Buzzard Park and Miller Ranch (located near Edwards in Eagle County) are four
relatively large developments that have been completed through active Town
participation. The existing developments serve households at different income
levels. This has been, and will continue to be an objective of the Town, to serve
the broad spectrum of need within the community rather than focusing on just a
narrow category of income or household type. The Town participation provides
“catch up” opportunities to address existing deficiencies and add to the overall
percent of employees living within the Town of Vail.
Achieves Objectives B, D, E, F, G, and H.
Explore Options for a Dedicated Funding Source for Employee Housing
Initiatives
The Town will explore options for a dedicated funding source to ensure adequate
and ongoing resources for employee housing initiatives. It is recognized the
Town will play an integral role in the creation of employee housing and dedicated
dollars will aid in these efforts. The Town may pursue any of the following
funding alternatives: a dedicated sales tax increase, a dedicated mill levy
increase, dedication of the Real Estate Transfer Tax or any other funding source
that may be identified. A dedicated funding source would provide “catch up”
housing opportunities for Vail workers.
Achieves Objectives B, D, E, F, G, and H.
Create a Residential Conditions Base Line in the Town of Vail
Conduct a comprehensive study of current units. Identify the type of units that
exist (i.e. studio, one-bedroom, etc.), each unit’s current use (i.e. employee
occupied, short-term rental, etc.), and the ownership of the unit (i.e. owner-
1 - 3 - 21
10/23/2012
18 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
occupied, tenant occupied, etc.). Additionally, collect household
demographic data to better understand the composition of the community.
This information will allow Vail to better target programs to meet the needs
of the community. This data will establish the baseline against which future
employee housing success will be measured. The baseline conditions will
support both “catch up” and “keep up” efforts.
Achieves Objectives A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H.
Monitor the Rate of Free Market Employee Occupied Homes
The Town will monitor the rate of free market homes occupied by local workers,
and deed-restricted homes, on a regular basis. Conversions of free market
residential units to second home owner units will be considered in Vail’s
evaluation of progress toward the goals identified in this Plan. This monitoring
will support both “catch up” and “keep up” efforts.
Achieves Objectives B, E, F, and G.
Conduct a Demographics Survey of Current Vail Residents
In order to better understand the current demographics of the local population it
is necessary to conduct a local survey. This will provide the Town with back
ground information to consider in future housing policy and development
decisions to ensure the Town is maintaining a character that is as diverse as it is
today. This may occur in conjunction the Annual Community Survey. This
information will support “catch up” efforts.
Achieves Objectives A, B, D, E, F, and H.
Establish a List of Essential Service Providers in the Town of Vail
Establish a list of essential service providers in the Town of Vail to potentially
partner with to ensure critical service workers live within the Town of Vail. This
information will support “catch up” efforts.
Achieves Objective D.
Host Personal Finance and/or Home Buyer Education
To encourage home ownership and create successful home owners it is
important to provide information and educational opportunities to potential
residents. This may also provide the encouragement current renters or existing
home owners may need to take the next step in the housing market, freeing up
1 - 3 - 22
10/23/2012
19 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
their existing unit to house other employees. This education may provide
additional “catch up” opportunity.
Achieves Objectives B, D, E, and F.
Annual Review
In order to ensure the EHSP is always current and is responsive to changing
conditions, the Housing Authority shall review the EHSP annually and changes
shall be periodically recommended to the Town Council. The purpose of these
reviews shall be to ensure that progress on topics related to employee housing is
being maintained and that adjustments in Objectives, Policies and Action Steps
are made in a timely and specific manner.
Achieves Objectives A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H.
Regional Efforts:
In order to house employees associated with existing and anticipated jobs,
workforce housing will be required throughout the County as well as in the Town.
Vail will work actively with Eagle County officials and other municipalities to look
for regional solutions to providing housing. Further, the need to provide transit
services along with housing is also identified. When developing housing for Vail
employees in Down-Valley locations, the cost of transit services will be
considered in evaluations.
While furthering regional housing is an objective of the Town, it will occur in
concert with efforts in Vail, and in-Town deed-restricted housing will be a priority.
The Town believes that there are a finite number of opportunities within Vail and
these will be explored and pursued; Down-Valley development will not be
undertaken if it results in not being able to participate in an opportunity within the
Town’s boundary.
Partnering opportunities for Down-Valley development will occur through
partnerships that may include not only the County, but also the Town of Avon,
Town of Minturn, Eagle County School District, the U.S. Forest Service, and
potentially private developers. The Dowd Junction area and the Village at Avon
are identified as particular areas of interest where development opportunities are
to be explored.
IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
1 - 3 - 23
10/23/2012
20 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
ACTION STEP
WHO
IMPLEMENTS 2013 to 2016
ESTIMATED
COST
Vail Market Study
Update
Community
Development
Department
2013 – Then every
other year or as the
market warrants $10,000
Develop New For-
Sale Housing at
Chamonix
Town Council
and VLHA 2013
Development loan of
approximately $1.3
Million
Refinance Timber
Ridge Village
Apartments TRAHC 2012/2013 $25,000 for consultant
Develop New For-
Sale Housing with
ERW&SD -
Snowberry & East
Vail
Town Council
and VLHA 2012/2013
Potential partnership
with Open Space &
ERW&SD for land –
Estimated $10,000 for
land planning
Partner with Eagle
County to develop
new EHUs
Town Council
and VLHA
As opportunities are
developed
Varied based on
partnership agreement
Redevelop 2507
Arosa Drive
Town Council
and VLHA 2014
Cost to replace Town's
Manager Residence
(Estimated at
$750,000)
Update Fee-in-
Lieu for
Commercial
Linkage &
Inclusionary
Zoning
Community
Development
Department
2nd quarter of each
year In House
Annual EHU
Compliance
Verification
Community
Development
Department 1st quarter of each year In House
Annual Master
Resale Lottery
Community
Development
Department 2nd quarter of each year
$1,000 for postage and
advertising
Establish Existing
Conditions for All
Units – Including
household
demographics
Community
Development
Department and
VLHA
2013 – then 1st quarter
of every other year
$5,000 for survey and
mailing – allows the
Town to monitor its
progress toward
adopted goals
Monitor Rental
and Vacancy
Rates
Community
Development Quarterly In House
1 - 3 - 24
10/23/2012
21 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
Establish
Incentive Zoning
to Ensure No Net
Loss of Rental
Housing
Community
Development
Department,
VLHA, PEC and
Town Council 4th quarter 2013 In House
Review Housing
Zone District
Community
Development
Department,
VLHA, PEC and
Town Council 1st quarter 2013 In House
Review
Commercial
Linkage to ensure
it is achieving the
goal
Community
Development
Department,
VLHA and Town
Council 1st quarter of every year In House
Review
Inclusionary
Zoning to ensure
it is achieving the
goal
Community
Development
Department,
VLHA and Town
Council 1st quarter of every year In House
Updated Rational
Nexus Study Town of Vail As needed $15,000
Monitor Total
Number of Jobs in
Town of Vail Town of Vail
1st quarter of every
year
$2,000 to purchase
data
Review zoning
incentives/remove
barriers for private
development of
EHUs
Community
Development
Department,
VLHA, PEC and
Town Council
1st quarter of every
year In House
Review EHU
Exchange
Program
Community
Development
Department,
VLHA, PEC and
Town Council 1st quarter of every year In House
Implement the
EHU Exchange
Program
Community
Development
Department and
VLHA
On-going - as
proposed exchanges
are submitted In House
Identify Land/
Development
Opportunities
Community
Development
Department,
VLHA and Town
Council 2nd quarter 2013 In House
1 - 3 - 25
10/23/2012
22 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
Prioritize
Land/Development
Opportunities
Community
Development
Department,
VLHA and Town
Council 4th quarter 2013
Acquisition of
Property
ACTION STEP
WHO
IMPLEMENTS 2017 to 2022
ESTIMATED
COST
Redevelop Timber
Ridge Village
Apartments
Town Council
and TRAHC As market warrants To be determined
Propose
Development
and/or Rezoning
Town Council
and VLHA Continuous Development
Redevelop Gore
Range Condos
Town Council
and VLHA As market warrants Cost of acquisition
Pursue a
Dedicated
Funding Source
VLHA
Recommendation
and Town
Council Marketing Dollars
Develop EHUs at
Parking Structures
Town Council
and VLHA As market warrants To be determined
Partner with Vail
Resorts to build
new EHUs
Town Council
and VLHA As market warrants To be determined
Partner with
Cascade Resort to
build new EHUs
Town Council
and VLHA As market warrants To be determined
Buy Down Units
Town Council
and VLHA Continuous $1,000,000 / year
ACTION STEP 2023 and beyond
Work with
Sonnenalp to
develop additional
EHUs
When Red
Sandstone
Elementary
rebuilds their
school - add EHUs
1 - 3 - 26
10/23/2012
23 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
Build a second
building of EHUs
at Buzzard Park
Acquire
underdeveloped
parcels for
redevelopment
Partner with Vail
Valley Medical
Center
ACTION STEP
WHO
IMPLEMENTS WHEN
ESTIMATED
COST
PROPOSED
PRIORITY
Establish and Fund
VLHA Operating
Budget
Town Council and
VLHA
4th Quarter
2008
To Be
Determined A
Establish Baseline
"Existing
Conditions" for All
Units
Town Council and
VLHA 2009 $20,000 A
Monitor Existing
Conditions for All
Units
Town Council and
VLHA
1st Quarter of
Each Year
(2010) $5,000 A
Monitor Rental and
Vacancy Rates Eagle County Continuous None A
Conduct Housing
Needs Assessment
In conjunction with
Eagle County 2010 $10,000 A
Update Fee-in-Lieu
for Commercial
Linkage &
Inclusionary Zoning
Community
Development Dept
and Consultant
1st Quarter of
Each Year $2,000 A
Updated Rational
Nexus Study Town of Vail
Every Five
Years (2011) $15,000 A
Monitor Total
Number of Jobs in
Town of Vail Town of Vail
1st Quarter of
Each Year $2,000 A
1 - 3 - 27
10/23/2012
24 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
Host Finance/
Home Buyer
Education Classes VLHA Two Per Year $500 A
Buy Down Units
Town Council and
VLHA Continuous $1,000,000 / year A
Establish Buy Down
Unit Criteria
Town Council and
VLHA
4th Quarter
2008 None A
Develop New For-
Sale Housing at
Chamonix
Town Council and
VLHA 2010
Potentially more
than the value of
the land A
ACTION STEP
WHO
IMPLEMENTS WHEN
ESTIMATED
COST
PROPOSED
PRIORITY
Develop Additional
Rental Housing at
Timber Ridge
Town Council and
VLHA 2011
Potentially the
value of the land A
Establish an EHU
Exchange Program
Town Council -
Com Dev Dept -
VLHA
Recommendation
4th Quarter
2008
$10,000 for legal
review A
Implement the EHU
Exchange Program
Com Development
Dept. and VLHA Continuous None A
Review &
Potentially Modify
Commercial Linkage
Town Council -
Com Dev Dept -
VLHA
Recommendation
1st Quarter of
Each Year None A
Review &
Potentially Modify
Inclusionary Zoning
Town Council -
Com Dev Dept -
VLHA
Recommendation
1st Quarter of
Each Year None A
Identify
Land/Development
Opportunities
Town Council -
Com Dev Dept -
VLHA
Recommendation
2nd Quarter of
Each Year None A
Prioritize
Land/Development
Opportunities
Town Council -
Com Dev Dept -
VLHA
Recommendation
2nd Quarter of
Each Year
Acquisition of
Property A
1 - 3 - 28
10/23/2012
25 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
Propose
Development
and/or Rezoning
Town Council and
VLHA
2nd Quarter
of Each Year Development B
Review Housing
Zone District
Town Council -
Com Dev Dept -
VLHA
Recommendation
2nd Quarter
of Each Year None B
Establish Incentive
Zoning to Ensure
No Net Loss of
Rental Housing
Town Council -
Com Dev Dept -
VLHA
Recommendation
2nd Quarter
of Each Year None B
ACTION STEP
WHO
IMPLEMENTS WHEN
ESTIMATED
COST
PROPOSED
PRIORITY
Pursue a Dedicated
Funding Source
Town Council and
VLHA
Begin 1st
Quarter 2009
None in 2009
Marketing in
2010 B
Monitor Free Market
Real Estate
Transactions
VLHA and
Consultant
1st Quarter of
Each Year $5,000 B
Establish List of
Essential Service
Providers
Town Council and
Town Staff
4th Quarter
2008 None C
Create Partnerships
with Essential
Service Providers
Town Council and
VLHA Continuous None C
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Roles and Responsibilities – The provision of deed-restricted housing is viewed as a
partnership between various boards within the Town, each having important roles and
responsibilities. As such, it is imperative that communications be established and
maintained between boards to achieve the goal and objectives that are stated in this
Plan. Efforts will be made to define, and periodically refine, the roles and associated
communications between the bodies identified below.
The Town Council shall act in accordance with Town codes and shall fulfill their
decision-making functions as identified by local ordinances. Land Use Regulations
1 - 3 - 29
10/23/2012
26 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
typically stipulate the review procedures to be followed in reviewing a proposed
development. Ultimately, most reviews require an affirmative decision by the Town
Council. Therefore, the Council will be the ultimate decision-making body for
developments that require Council review.
The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board
also play an important development review role. These two boards will review
development proposals, consistent with the requirements of codes and ordinances, to
ensure that development is in compliance.
The Vail Housing Authority (V.L.H.A.) plays a critical role in ensuring that housing
for long-term residents and seasonal employees is available in the Town. This in turn,
enhances the quality of life for local residents, and improves the economic viability of
the area. The V.L.H. A. mission:
The V.L.H. A. will play an advisory role to the Town Council and the Planning and
Environmental Commission on matters related to housing policy and development. The
Authority will use this Housing Plan as a working document to guide future efforts. As
identified in the EHSP, the Authority will work to carry out the Action Steps over the
next three years. The Authority’s priorities will be those contained in the EHSP as it is
adopted, and as it may be modified following subsequent annual reviews.
GLOSSARY
The following definitions are applicable for the terms used in this Plan.
Area Median Income (AMI) Limits – most communities establish income limits for the
programs they administer based on the area median income (AMI) for the area
according to household size, which are adjusted annually by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). Four different income categories are defined for
various programs and policies:
1. Extremely low-income, which is less than 30 percent of the median family income;
2. Very low-income, which is between 30 and 50 percent of the median family income;
3. Low-income, which is between 50 and 80 percent of the median family income;
4. Middle income, which is between 80 and 120 percent of the median family income;
and
5. Above middle income, which is over 120 percent of the median family income.
Eagle County Area Median Income
% of Median Income for Area
No. of
Persons 200% 140% 120% 100% 80% 50% 30%
1 - 3 - 30
10/23/2012
27 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
1 $118,800 $83,160 $71,280 $59,400 $47,520 $29,700 $17,820
2 $135,700 $94,990 $81,420 $67,850 $54,280 $33,925 $20,355
3 $152,700 $106,890 $91,620 $76,350 $61,080 $38,175 $22,905
4 $169,600 $118,720 $101,760 $84,800 $67,840 $42,400 $25,440
5 $183,200 $128,240 $109,920 $91,600 $73,280 $45,800 $27,480
6 $196,800 $137,760 $118,080 $98,400 $78,720 $49,200 $29,520
1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person
30% $17,050 $19,500 $21,900 $24,350 $26,300 $28,250 $30,200 $32,150
50% $28,400 $32,450 $36,500 $40,550 $43,800 $47,050 $50,300 $53,550
60% $34,080 $38,940 $43,800 $48,660 $52,560 $56,460 $60,360 $64,260
80% $41,900 $47,900 $53,850 $59,850 $64,650 $69,450 $74,200 $79,000
100% $56,800 $64,900 $73,000 $81,100 $87,600 $94,100 $100,600 $107,100
120% $68,160 $77,880 $87,600 $97,320 $105,120 $112,920 $120,720 $128,520
140% $79,520 $90,860 $102,200 $113,540 $122,640 $131,740 $140,840 $149,940
160% $90,880 $103,840 $116,800 $129,760 $140,160 $150,560 $160,960 $171,360
Catch-Up Housing – Housing needed to “catch-up” to current deficient housing
conditions. In this Plan, catch-up housing needs are defined by current resident
households reporting housing problems (overcrowded, cost-burdened and/or living in
substandard housing conditions), current renters and owners looking to purchase a
home and in-commuters that would like to move to Vail. Catch-up housing is generally
addressed through local city development initiatives, non-profits and housing groups
and public/private partnerships.
Housing Continuum, The – As illustrated below, it is possible to estimate the number
of resident households in the Town of Vail at various income levels. Vail’s planning is
based on addressing the needs of households of different incomes, recognizing that
there is a need to ensure housing for a diversity of households.
1 - 3 - 31
10/23/2012
28 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
EXISTING DEED RESTRICTED
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
Inclusionary Zoning – requires a minimum percentage of residential development be
provided to serve local employees as part of new residential developments (10 percent
in Vail). Inclusionary zoning is a housing production obligation based on the
community’s need for employee housing as related to many factors, including a
decreasing developable supply of land, rising home values, insufficient provision of
housing affordable to residents by the market, etc., in addition to any direct employee
generation impacts of development.
Keep-Up Housing – Housing units needed to keep-up with future demand for housing.
In this Plan, keep-up housing needs focuses on new housing units needed as a result of
job growth in Vail and new employees filling those jobs. Keep-up housing is often
Over 140% AMI
31.8%
<=50% AMI
401 HH/16.4%
50-80% AMI
345 HH/14.1%
80-100% AMI
425 HH/17.4%
100-140% AMI
496 HH/20.3%
<=50% AMI
Max Rent $913
Max Price $124,796
50-80% AMI
Max Rent $1,346
Max Price $180,238
80-100% AMI
Max Rent $1,825
Max Price $241,432
120-140% AMI
Max Rent $2,738
Max Price $334,741
2007 Vail Households
50% AMI
$36,500
80% AMI
$53,850
100% AMI
$73,300
140% AMI
$109,500
Over 140% AMI
Rent Over $2,738
Price Over $334,741
<=50% AMI
Max Rent $913
Max Price $124,796
50-80% AMI
Max Rent $1,346
Max Price $180,238
80-100% AMI
Max Rent $1,825
Max Price $241,432
100-140% AMI
Max Income $109,500
Max Rent $2,738
Max Price $334,741
2007 Vail Households
Over 140% AMI
Income Over $109,500
Rent Over $2,738
Price Over $334,741
Middle Creek
Rent 142 Units
Less than 60% AMI
Buzzard Park
Rent 24 Units
Town Employee
Typically less than 120% AMI
Vail Commons, Red Sandstone, North Trail
For Sale 77 Units
100% AMI or less
Miller Ranch
For Sale 282 Units
60-120% AMI
50% AMI
$36,500
80% AMI
$53,850
100% AMI
$73,300
140% AMI
$109,500
1 - 3 - 32
10/23/2012
29 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
addressed by the existing free-market, as well as regulatory requirements or incentives
to produce housing that is needed and priced below the current market.
Levels of Homeownership – When discussing affordability of properties by Area
Median Income (AMI) level (defined above) and the types of homes households among
different AMI groups are seeking; reference is made to a couple different stages of
homeownership. This includes:
1. Entry-level ownership/first-time homebuyers: These are households typically
earning in the lower to middle income range. In Vail, these are households
earning 50 to 100 percent of the AMI. These include households that currently
rent (or otherwise do not own a home) and are looking to purchase their first
home.
2. Move-up buyers: These are households earning in the middle to upper income
range (about 100 to 120 percent AMI or higher) that may currently own a home
and are looking to purchase a new or different home for a variety of reasons
(relocating, growing family (e.g., having children), shrinking family (e.g., empty-
nesters), etc.).
Mean – the average of a group of numbers, which is the sum of all the data values
divided by the number of items.
Median – the middle point in a data set.
ATTACHMENTS
A. The Economic Value of the Town of Vail’s Investment in Employee Housing,
dated March 29, 2012. Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting.
B. Economic Indicators: 2012 dated August 2012. Prepared by Economic
Council of Eagle County.
C. Chamonix Market Update, dated February 28, 2011. Prepared by Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc.
D. Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update, draft dated 2012. Prepared
by Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc. and Economic Council of Eagle
County. (The final version will be added as an attachment to the EHSP.)
1 - 3 - 33
10/23/2012
30 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 20
Series 2008
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE TOWN OF VAIL EMPLOYEE HOUSING STRATEGIC
PLAN; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the “Town”), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado
is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Colorado and the Town Charter (the “Charter”); and
WHEREAS, the Town has determined that no less than thirty percent (30%) of Vail’s
workforce should be provided deed restricted employee housing within the Town limits; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that in order to achieve the established goal it is
critical to create an employee housing strategic plan establishing and clarifying the objectives
and action steps essential to achieve the stated goal; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Local Housing Authority and Council developed the Employee
Housing Strategic Plan over a period of six months that outlines the goal, objectives and action
steps; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Economic Advisory Committee provided input and direction on the
Employee Housing Strategic Plan at their May 13, 2008, and June 10, 2008, meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission provided input and direction
on the Employee Housing Strategic Plan at their August 25, 2008, Public Hearing; and
1 - 3 - 34
10/23/2012
31 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
WHEREAS, the Council supports the implementation of the Vail Employee Housing
Strategic Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Employee Housing Strategic Plan will direct policy and budget decisions
in order to achieve the community’s stated goal; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Council and the Housing Authority to implement the
Employee Housing Strategic Plan over the next three years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO:
1. The Council hereby approves the Town of Vail Employee Housing Strategic Plan,
dated September 2, 2008, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2. The Council hereby finds:
A. That the Employee Housing Strategic Plan is consistent with the applicable
elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of
the Town; and,
B. That the Employee Housing Strategic Plan furthers the general and specific
purposes of Zoning Regulations; and,
C. That the Employee Housing Strategic Plan promotes the health, safety,
morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and
harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and
enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort
and residential community of the highest quality
3. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of September, 2008.
______________________________
Richard D. Cleveland, Town Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
1 - 3 - 35
10/23/2012
32 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
PROCESS TIMELINE
Vail Town Council
May 6, 2008 Work Session
Affirm housing goal and purpose of the EHSP
Review proposed actions and timeline
July 1, 2008 Work Session
July 15, 2008 Special Work Session
Identify and affirm objectives and action steps
Confirm overall direction of the EHSP
August 19, 2008 Work Session
Identify and affirm the SWOT analysis
Affirm overall direction of the EHSP
September 2, 2008
Adopt the Town of Vail Employee Housing Strategic Plan
August 21, 2012 Work Session
Review proposed actions and proposed direction
Planning and Environmental Commission
1 - 3 - 36
10/23/2012
33 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
August 25, 2008 Work Session
Provide feedback on the EHSP
Vail Local Housing Authority
March 24, 2008 VLHA Work Session
Met with consultant (Chris Cares)
Dusted off previous work towards a TOV Strategic Plan
April 10, 2008 VLHA Work Session
Review and update proposed actions and timeline
April 24, 2008 VLHA Work Session
Further refine actions and timeline for Council meeting
May 13, 2008 Vail Economic Advisory Council
Discussion of Housing Objectives
May 15, 2008 VLHA Work Session
June 10, 2008 Vail Economic Advisory Council
Further discussion of Housing Objectives
June 10, 2008 VLHA Work Session
June 24, 2008 VLHA Work Session
July 8, 2008 VLHA Work Session
July 22, 2008 VLHA Work Session
SWOT Analysis
August 12, 2008 VLHA Work Session
SWOT Analysis
August, 2008 Meet with Local Employers
August 26, 2008 VLHA Work Session
Review Planning Commission feedback
Implementation Matrix Review
August 23, 2012 VLHA Work Session
August 28, 2012 VLHA Work Session
Implementation Matrix Update
September 6, 2012 VLHA Work Session
Implementation Matrix Update
1 - 3 - 37
10/23/2012
34 Employee Housing
Strategic Plan
September 25, 2012 VLHA Work Session
1 - 3 - 38
10/23/2012
1 - 4 - 1
10/23/2012
Economic Council of Eagle County 2012 Economic Indicators 2
Eagle County Population
Growth 1980-1990: 65%
Growth 1990-2000: 90%
Growth 2000-2010: 25%
Data Source: Colorado State Demographer September
2011
Projected Growth 2010-2020: 37%
1 - 4 - 2
10/23/2012
Economic Council of Eagle County 2012 Economic Indicators 3
Population by Town
Data Source: Colorado State
Demographer
1 - 4 - 3
10/23/2012
Economic Council of Eagle County 2012 Economic Indicators 4
An Aging Population
Eagle County is aging. While
the younger population (under
24) remains at about a third of
WKHSRSXODWLRQWKH³IDPLO\
DJH´JURXSRI-59 is
projected to drop from 60% to
RIWKH&RXQW\¶VUHVLGHQWV
from 2000 to 2020.
While all age groups gain
population by 2020, the real
growth comes in the older adult
segment. Adults 60 and older
were about 5% of the
population in 2000, and that
segment is expected to make up
17% of the total in 2020.
Aging in place and by in-
migration contribute to growth
in the older age groups.
Data Source: Colorado State Demographer September 2011
estimates
1 - 4 - 4
10/23/2012
Economic Council of Eagle County 2012 Economic Indicators 5
Eagle County Households
Data Source: Colorado State Demography Office
2012
Households
Total Households 2010 19,209
Household Population 2010 52,071
Average Household Size 2.71
Housing Units
Total Housing Units 2010 31,333
Vacant Household Units 12,124
Household Vacancy rate 0
1 - 4 - 5
10/23/2012
Economic Council of Eagle County 2012 Economic Indicators 6
Demographics/Race & Ethnicity
The Hispanic population
continues to grow in
Eagle County. Two-
thirds of the County
(67%) is white, non-
Hispanic. Other races
make up less than 4% of
the population.
Data Source: Colorado State
Demographer
1 - 4 - 6
10/23/2012
Economic Council of Eagle County 2012 Economic Indicators 7
Demographics/Education
Data Source: 2006-2008 American Community
Survey
1 - 4 - 7
10/23/2012
Economic Council of Eagle County 2012 Economic Indicators 8
Demographics/Income
Data Source: 2010 Census Small Area Income and Poverty
Estimates
7% drop
from 2009
Estimate
1 - 4 - 8
10/23/2012
1 - 4 - 9
10/23/2012
1 - 4 - 10
10/23/2012
1 - 4 - 11
10/23/2012
Economic Council of Eagle County 2012 Economic Indicators 12
Eagle County Retail Sales
(in thousands)
Data Source: Colorado Department of
1 - 4 - 12
10/23/2012
Economic Council of Eagle County 2012 Economic Indicators 13
Eagle County:
State Sales Tax Collections
(in thousands)
Data Source: Colorado Department of
Revenue
1 - 4 - 13
10/23/2012
Economic Council of Eagle County 2012 Economic Indicators 14
Top Employers
EMPLOYER # Employees (Range) INDUSTRY
Vail Resorts > 1500 Recreation, Real Estate,
Accommodations & Food
Services
Eagle County School District 500-1000 Education
Vail Valley Medical Center 500-1000 Medical
Eagle County 400-500 Government
Vail Cascade Hotel 300-400 Accommodations & Food
Services
Ritz Carlton Hotel 300-400 Accommodations & Food
Services
WalMart 300-400 Retail
Sonnenalp Resort 200-300 Accommodations & Food
Services
Town of Vail 200-300 Government
Vail Marriott 200-300 Accommodations & Food
Services
Data Source: Quarterly Census of Employment &
Wages
1 - 4 - 14
10/23/2012
Economic Council of Eagle County 2012 Economic Indicators 15
Real Estate Values - Eagle County
Data Source: Land Title Guarantee
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
through
June
Number Sold 1,606 938 1,250 1,357 692
Total Dollar
Volume ¶V
$2,234,919 $898,444 $1,497,172 $1,158,049 $662,734
Mean Sales Price
Single Family: $1,455,774 $1,159,484 $1,264,591 $1,003,971 $1,220,924
Multi-Family $1,509,830 $831,688 $1,150,597 $859,243 $878,256
Vacant Res. Land $562,779 $393,903 $409,575 $350,346 $308,260
Commercial $1,262,929 $1,168,416 $1,228,594 $851,585 $825,394
1 - 4 - 15
10/23/2012
Economic Council of Eagle County 2012 Economic Indicators 16
Residential Real Estate - Local Markets
Data Source: Land Title Guarantee
Company
Gypsum Eagle Avon Vail Village
Number Sold
January - June 2010 41 72 104 39
January - June 2011 59 67 66 31
January - June 2012 95 89 49 44
Total $ Volume
January - June 2010 $27,395,300 $36,421,900 $56,753,834 $129,239,600
January - June 2011 $13,811,395 $25,011,200 $29,846,900 $115,559,100
January - June 2012 $21,121,088 $29,767,800 $28,105,700 $139,427,400
1 - 4 - 16
10/23/2012
Economic Council of Eagle County 2012 Economic Indicators 17
Residential Real Estate Values - Local Markets
Data Source: Land Title Guarantee
Company
Gypsum Eagle Avon Vail Village
Mean Sales Price
January - June 2010 $668,178 $505,860 $545,710 $3,313,836
January - June 2011 $234,091 $373,301 $452,226 $3,727,713
January - June 2012 $222,327 $334,470 $573,586 $3,168,805
Median Sales Price
January - June 2010 $330,000 $315,750 $397,250 $2,162,000
January - June 2011 $210,000 $305,000 $399,999 $2,500,000
January - June 2012 $200,000 $280,000 $275,000 $1,975,000
1 - 4 - 17
10/23/2012
Economic Council of Eagle County 2012 Economic Indicators 18
Enplanements
Data Source: Eagle County
Airport
218,105
232,250
214,715
182,673
204,889
194,190
134,309
thru
July
1 - 4 - 18
10/23/2012
Economic Council of Eagle County 2012 Economic Indicators 19
Eagle County School Enrollments
Data Source: Colorado Depa rtment of
Education
5,724 5,824
6,185 6,181 6,344
1 - 4 - 19
10/23/2012
Final Report
The Economic Value of the
Town of Vail’s Investment
in Employee Housing
Vail Local Housing Authority
1 - 5 - 1
10/23/2012
Final Report
March 29, 2012
The Economic Value of the
Town of Vail’s Investment in
Employee Housing
Prepared for
Vail Local Housing Authority
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Prepared by
BBC Research & Consulting
1999 Broadway, Suite 2200
Denver, Colorado 80202-9750
303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448
www.bbcresearch.com
bbc@bbcresearch.com
1 - 5 - 2
10/23/2012
Table of Contents
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING i
INTRODUCTION
Background ............................................................................................................................... IN–1
The Employee Housing Issue ..................................................................................................... IN–1
Report Objectives ...................................................................................................................... IN–2
Report Organization .................................................................................................................. IN–2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Economic Value of the Town of Vail’s Investment in Employee Housing
Vail Employee Housing ............................................................................................................. ES–1
Approach ................................................................................................................................. ES–2
Other Perspectives .................................................................................................................... ES–4
The Vail Community ................................................................................................................. ES–5
I. Vail Demographic Data and Employee Housing Inventory
Vail Demographics ...................................................................................................................... I–1
Vail Employee Housing Market Considerations ............................................................................ I–2
Vail Employee Housing Rental Rates ............................................................................................ I–6
II. The Economic Value of Employee Housing
Methodological Options ............................................................................................................. II–1
BBC Approach ............................................................................................................................ II–2
Direct Economic Value of Employee Housing ............................................................................. II–5
Other Perspectives ...................................................................................................................... II–9
Vail—A Resort Economy ............................................................................................................ II–10
1 - 5 - 3
10/23/2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Economic Value of the Town of
Vail’s Investment in Employee Housing
1 - 5 - 4
10/23/2012
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Economic Value of the Town of
Vail’s Investment in Employee Housing
This study documents the current inventory and use of employee housing in Vail and calculates the
cost and benefits of this investment from multiple community perspectives.
Vail Employee Housing
Over the past 25 years, the town of Vail has mandated or incentivized the creation of 727 employee
housing units. These units have enjoyed high levels of occupancy even during periods of slow
economic activity. Vail employee units house an estimated 1600 employees, approximately 75
percent of which (1200 persons) work in the town of Vail. Because individuals often hold multiple
jobs, these 1200 Vail employees fill over 1500 jobs, nearly 20 percent of Vail’s estimated 9100
positions. The majority of Vail’s employee housing attracts entry level, seasonal employees but the
town also supports a number of deed-restricted, for-sale units that house longer term residents and
families.
Remarkably, the Vail community has produced this housing inventory without requiring any
ongoing general fund support and very little general fund expenditures. This experience is in marked
contrast to other mountain resorts that often use ongoing sales, real estate transfer or property taxes
revenues to supporting employee housing. The projects’ mortgage debt is about $18.0 million (net
of cash reserves), but all operating costs and debt service are covered by annual rents and lease
revenue. The majority of the current housing stock was created by opportunistic investment,
development requirements, or partnership by the town over a period of multiple decades.
Deed-restricted housing is not the only component of local employee housing. Many workers,
roughly 43 percent of persons who live and work in Vail, live in private rental housing or own their
own homes. Nevertheless the disparity between Vail housing costs and local salary levels makes
ownership an unrealistic option for the vast majority of residents. Many resident homeowners
purchased their units years ago and it is likely that these units will eventually be sold and transfer into
temporary occupancy use—further exacerbating the town’s housing /jobs imbalance.
From a Vail community perspective the quantifiable economic value of employee housing lies in
three areas: the costs avoided by businesses of having to induce workers from considerable distance;
the additional town retail spending by employee-local residents; and the public costs avoided in not
having to find a local parking solution for additional commuting workers.
1 - 5 - 5
10/23/2012
PAGE 2, E XECUTIVE S UMMARY BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
The employee housing benefits calculated in this report are summarized in Exhibit ES-1 below.
Figure ES-1.
Summary: Valued Vail Employee Housing
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
There are additional, non-economic benefits associated with employees being housed within Vail,
ranging from lessoned seasonality to the invigoration of the community’s public life. These benefits
are also described in this report.
Approach
Placing a value on the provision of employee housing presents the predictable challenges of valuing a
public service where there is an uneven distribution of costs and benefits—the same challenge one
faces in attempting to value public parks, public parking or even general public services.
Assumptions. This study incorporates certain assumptions and understandings regarding Vail
employee housing and its role in the unusual economy of a mountain resort community. These
points are described fully in Section II of this report and are summarized below.
Without employee housing Vail businesses would likely still attract workers, particularly in the
current economic environment, but attraction and retention would be more expensive; employee
turnover would be higher; and employee flexibility to work irregular hours or multiple jobs
would be diminished.
The provision of affordable employee housing requires some form of public investment, which
implies that tax payers—or some subset of tax payers—are in some degree supporting this
amenity. This support can be direct, such as public acquisition of land, or indirect, such as
regulatory requirements.
The provision of employee housing can displace other forms of development, which under many
circumstances may be of higher economic value.
The economic value of employee housing varies depending upon the nature of the individual,
business interest or taxpayer considering the issue. Similarly, the economic value of employee
housing is not consistent from year to year—it varies considerably depending upon background
economic conditions.
Employee housing enhances the Vail community’s ability to provide high levels of guest services.
Deed-restricted, for-sale housing is particularly valuable in allowing Vail residents to stay in Vail
and participate in civic life.
CategoryValue
Business costs avoided$12.6 million per year
New retail spending $6.0 million in annual retail
sales ($240,000 in sales tax
@ 4.0%)
Parking expansion $9.0 million
1 - 5 - 6
10/23/2012
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 3
Business Savings. The existence of a substantive amount of employee housing means that Vail
businesses are relieved of the costs associated with compensating employees for lengthy and costly
commutes. In essence, Vail businesses are competitively advantaged when seeking employees, not
disadvantaged by the difficult and time consuming commute from down valley residences. Vail
businesses also save on employee training and turnover expenses and are more likely to attract a
reliable workforce with the availability of appropriate local housing.
Figure ES-2 summarizes employee housing associated cost savings for each segment of the Vail
economy. Vail government is a significant beneficiary for the same reasons that businesses benefit
from employee housing, but also for the avoided costs of finding parking options for the 1200
additional workers who would be commuting into town.
Figure ES-2.
Direct Impacts of
Vail Employee Housing
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting
BBC estimates that the business community benefits in the amount $10,530 per worker/year for each
of the 1200 Vail housed/ and Vail employed individuals using employee housing. This amounts to
$12.6 million per year in cost-of-business savings. In addition, employees residing in Vail are
expected to add roughly $6.0 million in additional retail sales as a result of increased local spending.
Even with effective bus transit, many workers commute to Vail jobs by automobile. By housing
workers locally, the town of Vail avoids capital spending for parking of approximately $9.0 million
and the accompanying annual management costs associated with parking operations — even
presuming some form of parking solution was a prospect.
Community risks. Although Vail operates its current employee housing stock without annual costs
to the community, it should be noted that the community has potential indirect risk for an $18.0
million debt obligation associated with the largest housing project. It should also be noted that the
provision of employee housing represents a lost opportunity to develop additional private market
units on the same land.
Direct Impacts of Vail Employee Housing
Vail
Businesses
Positive:
Employee cost savings
–Wages and salaries
–Training/turnover
–Skills and quality
of labor force
–Eco bus pass
Additional local
spending by
employee residents
Vail
Employees
Positive:
Reduced cost of living
–Rents
–Commute time
–Commute costs
Ability to hold
multiple jobs
Town
Government
Positive:
Employee cost savings
–Wages and salaries
–Training/turnover
–Skills and quality of
labor force
Reduced parking,
construction and
operational costs
–Capital investment/risk
–Bond risk
–Lost opportunity for
higher valued
development on town-
owned property
Negative:
1 - 5 - 7
10/23/2012
PAGE 4, E XECUTIVE S UMMARY BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Other Perspectives
The provision of employee housing has broad economic consequences, beyond the immediate
economic values described above, for all Vail property owners, guests and residents. These are
summarized in Figure ES-3.
Figure ES-3.
Perspectives on Vail Employee Housing
Residential property owners. As noted above in Figure ES-3, property owners seeking to rent
privately owned residential units currently have to compete with employee housing. Currently,
the presence of over 700 units of lower priced housing likely dampens the potential rental value
of individually owned rental units.
Conversely, all residential property owners also benefit from employer housing because exaction
requirements on new or remodeled housing drive up the cost of new units, effectively pulling up
the price of all units.
Commercial property owners. Commercial property owners are generally benefited by
community investment in employee housing as it increases the costs of potential new
competition, because of the inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage requirements, and
reduces the labor costs of operations for commercial tenants.
Undeveloped or underdeveloped land owners. Land owners, properties with redevelopment
potential, and developers are burdened by inclusionary zoning, commercial linkage and employee
housing requirements which represent an immediate development expense that must be factored
into development feasibility calculations.
Other Perspectives on Vail Employee Housing
Private Rental
Property Owners
Negative:
•Subsidized
Competition
All Residential
Property Owners
Positive:
•Increased cost of
competitive
new developments
All Commercial
Property Owners
Positive:
•Increased cost of
competitive
new development
Land Owners
and Developers
Negative:
•Increased cost of
competitive new
development
Positive for all:Increased functionality of the resort
Improved visitor experience
1 - 5 - 8
10/23/2012
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 5
The Vail Community
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, employee housing presents widespread general benefit to all
property owners, residents, visitors and second home owners who have a stake in the success of Vail.
Generally, an improved quality of life for employee residents, reduced commuting times, year round
presence of residents and housing cost savings, all add to a more stable employee base and a better
functioning community, which results in:
An improved guest experience—the most basic product sold by Vail;
Better positioning against other resorts competing for a quality workforce and the most
discriminating guests;
Reduction in the seasonality of local businesses;
Increased vitality, diversity and “real town” authenticity for the town;
Increased community participation (e.g., volunteer activities, town boards); and
Enhanced ability for younger residents to stay in Vail and grow into higher-level employment
and community leadership positions.
It is not a conceptual leap to assume that a better community with a more stable and participatory
workforce translates into better guest services. Visitors value their interaction with local residents and
workers who enjoy their town and communicate pride in their community help create the experience
that differentiates engaging resort towns from simply undifferentiated commercial resorts. As the Vail
community matures, many long time residents will retire and their homes will likely transfer into
second home status, further eroding the town’s private housing stock. The economic value of
employee housing will grow as the private ownership stock is diminished and the diversity of
employee housing, including additional deed-restricted, family and for-sale units, expands.
In sum, over a two decade period, the town has created an enviable employee housing stock with very
modest costs to the general taxpayers. Operation of the town’s 727 units puts no burden on the
general fund. The Timber Ridge project, the town’s largest investment, has been a time consuming
effort but it is still operated under contract by a private entity and current rents cover all operating
costs and debt service.
The town of Vail has been remarkably successful in creatively stimulating the development of
employee housing without incurring substantive public expense. Vail’s employee units save the
business community about $12.6 million per year in operating expense, generate nearly a quarter
million in sales taxes for the general fund, and allow the town to avoid a burdensome investment in
finding parking solutions for 1200 employees. Employee housing has provided the town a valuable
insurance policy during tumultuous economic times and demonstrated value during both rising and
declining economies.
No other mountain resort can claim this level of benefit with so little direct cost.
1 - 5 - 9
10/23/2012
INTRODUCTION
1 - 5 - 10
10/23/2012
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING INTRODUCTION, PAGE 1
INTRODUCTION
This study quantifies the economic costs and benefits of the town of Vail’s investment in employee
housing.
Background
The majority of Colorado resort communities have some form of employee housing stimulation or
development program. Some resorts marshal very aggressive housing efforts, offering multiple forms
of employee housing with financial support from ongoing general tax revenues as well as exactions
and fees placed on new development. Other communities support more modest programs, including
third-party efforts by not-for-profit organizations and grants or loans from state housing authorities
or federal programs. Employee housing provision comes by many names, including affordable
housing, workforce housing, community housing and deed-restricted housing.
Over a 30 year period, the town of Vail has constructed or caused to be constructed nearly 750 units
of deed-restricted, employee housing. In 1991, the town of Vail established the Vail Local Housing
Authority to better support, manage and promote Vail employee housing efforts. The town
acknowledged the community benefits of maintaining deed restricted housing with its adoption of
the 2008 Employee Housing Strategic Plan and in its ongoing commitment to employee housing
provision. For a number of years, the town has pursued a goal of providing deed restricted housing
for 30 percent of the community’s workforce through both public and private sources.
As of December 2011, the town of Vail managed, or otherwise assisted, 727 employee units,
providing in-town housing for approximately 1,600 employees. In addition, some local businesses
provide their own housing assistance privately, some Vail workers own their own homes and many
private owners rent units long-term to local employees.
Employee Housing Trends
During the mid 2000’s, a period of very strong resort economic expansion, employee housing was
largely viewed as a highly valued asset and a fundamental infrastructure requirement for the
functioning of the Vail resort community. This view is widely shared among Vail’s peer
communities. With the downturn in the economy, the production of employee housing associated
with new development has slowed, employment demands have diminished and private owners have
increased the supply of private rental units. Concurrently, as long time residents exit the workforce,
their personal housing is most often sold into the second home market. And, although housing rental
and ownership costs have declined in recent years, Vail’s private housing values remain unobtainable
for the great majority of local workers. Throughout the mountain resorts, policy makers are revisiting
the question of what constitutes an appropriate level of the community investment and what form of
housing represents the most valued community investment.
1 - 5 - 11
10/23/2012
PAGE 2, INTRODUCTION BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Report Objectives
The objective of this analysis is to characterize and quantify the economic costs and benefits of Vail’s
employee housing for the community’s residents, property owners and businesses.
It is recognized that the benefits and costs of providing public investment in employee housing do
not fall evenly across all parties in the Vail community. As a result, it is difficult to make simple
pronouncements or calculations about the value of this type of housing. This report offers a
conceptual framework for identifying the community costs and benefits of housing, and ultimately
attempts to quantify the economic costs and benefits from multiple community perspectives. The
intention here is to bring objective information to ongoing community discussion about the value of
this investment and the issue as to whether employee housing remains an appropriate town
investment with acceptable community returns.
Report Organization
This analysis has three sections. An Executive Summary follows this introductory section. Section I
provides background data on Vail socioeconomic conditions and describes the current employee
housing situation, including a derivation of the number of local workers generated by Vail’s employee
housing infrastructure. Section II offers a methodological discussion and calculations of employee
housing value from different perspectives within the community.
1 - 5 - 12
10/23/2012
SECTION I.
Vail Demographic Data and
Employee Housing Inventory
1 - 5 - 13
10/23/2012
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 1
SECTION I.
Vail Demographic Data
and Employee Housing Inventory
This section provides basic economic, demographic and employment data for the town of Vail,
which are used for cost and benefit calculations developed in Section II. An inventory, description
and accounting of Vail’s employee housing is also provided.
Vail Demographics
Based on the 2010 U.S. Census, the town of Vail has 7,230 housing units and a population of 5,305
residents. Approximately 2,604 units are occupied by full time residents Tenancy of these units is in
near even division between renters (1341 rental units) and owner occupants (1263 owned units). The
remaining units (4,626) are held for seasonal or occasional use, available for sale or rent, recently sold
or unoccupied.
A significant share of Vail resident households are occupied by retirees or persons employed elsewhere
in the country—skewing traditional worker per household ratios and similar measures. A 2008
presentation entitled “Shaping the Future of Eagle Valley,” prepared by the Eagle County Economic
Development Council calculated that 1,500 households in Vail have at least one locally employed
individual, which is in line with estimates derived from the town’s periodic household surveys.
Housing and population data from the town of Vail, U.S. Census Bureau and American Community
Survey are shown below.
Figure I-1.
Vail Housing and Population
Data
Note:
^ Census 2010.
^^ Town of Vail.
* ACS 2006-2010.
** ACS 2005-2009.
Source:
Vail PowerPoint Presentation, “Shaping the Future
of Eagle Valley”, January 17, 2008; Eagle County
Economic Development Forum ; U.S. Census 2010;
and American Community Survey 5-year estimates.
Category
Population5,305^
Dwelling units in Vail
Full-time occupied units2,604 ^
Owner-occupied (1,263)
Renter-occupied (1,341)
"Vacant" housing units4,626 ^
Seasonal units (3,840)
For rent or sale, sold or unoccupied (786)
Total dwelling units in Vail7,230 ^
Employee households in Vail1,500^^
Median household income$64,859*
Median rent$1,266*
Percent of renters paying >30% of income48.7%**
Data
It is noted that U.S. Census resort data—largely because of the April (off season) counting period and
the difficulties in determining tenancy characteristics of individual units—are often of questionable
accuracy.
1 - 5 - 14
10/23/2012
PAGE 2, SECTION I BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Figure I-2 shows additional economic and demographic data that have been drawn from local surveys
and other town sources.
Figure I-2.
Vail Employment
Source:
Town of Vail PowerPoint Presentation,
“Shaping the Future of Eagle Valley”,
January 17, 2008.
Category Data
Number of jobs in Vail9,100
Average number of jobs per person1.3
Individuals employed in Vail7,000
Employees living in Vail30%
Employees living between Vail and Edwards34%
Employees living outside of Vail to Edwards36%
There is very little statistical data that fully captures socio-demographic changes occurring with the
recent economic downturn and Vail’s apparent economic resiliency in comparison with the rest of
Eagle County. The Eagle County Economic Development Council (ECEDC) reports that county-
wide employee counts declined 20 percent between 2008 and 2010. It is likely that the number of
jobs and the number of individual employees have declined from the levels suggested above, although
the strength of winter and summer tourism markets in 2010 and 2011 has likely helped Vail sustain
its employment base more effectively than the remainder of Eagle County.
The data in the above Figure I-2 suggests that roughly one-third of jobs in Vail are filled by Vail
residents and similar proportions are filled by persons either living between Vail and Edwards (34%)
or living elsewhere down valley (36%). Multiple job holdings are common and a large share of the
jobs in town pay entry level wages.
Vail Employee Housing Market Considerations
Vail employees live in private rental and private employee-owned housing units as well as a variety of
deed-restricted employee units. In addition, a number of businesses own or control rental housing
that they reserve for their own employees. As noted above, approximately 30 percent of Vail jobs, or
roughly 2800 positions, are filled by persons working and living in Vail. The remaining positions are
filled by employees residing elsewhere in Eagle or surrounding counties.
Deed-restricted employee housing. Figure I-3 on the following page documents the individual
projects that comprise Vail’s deed-restricted employee housing inventory.
In total, the community supports about 603 employee units and recent private development has
added an additional 124 dedicated units for a total of 727 deed-restricted employee units created by
town actions or regulations. When full, these units support an estimated 1,600 employees,
approximately 75 percent of which (1200 employees) work in Vail.1 Timber Ridge is the largest
employee project with 198, two bedroom units, often accommodating three or four workers per unit.
Conversely, some smaller projects are family oriented, with two or more bedrooms per unit but
supporting only one or two workers. The town added about 124 employee dedicated units through
development requirements associated with recent growth.
1 In 2007, the town of Vail surveyed a sample of housing residents, indicating that about two-thirds of housing residents
worked in Vail. Anecdotal data indicates that the loss of construction jobs has concentrated the percentage of Vail
employee housing residents who are also employed by Vail. This analysis assumes 75 percent of persons living in Vail
employee housing also work within the town of Vail.
1 - 5 - 15
10/23/2012
BB
C
RES
E
A
R
C
H
& CON
S
U
L
T
I
N
G
SECTION I, PAGE 3
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
-
3
.
Va
i
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Co
s
t
/
R
e
t
u
r
n
Ti
m
b
e
r
R
i
d
g
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
19
8
A
l
l
2
/
1
u
n
i
t
s
;
1
1
5
a
r
e
m
a
s
t
e
r
-
l
e
a
s
e
d
by
V
a
i
l
R
e
s
o
r
t
s
Re
n
t
a
l
1
9
8
1
,
2
0
0
3
(r
e
n
o
v
a
t
e
d
)
Ye
s
T
o
w
n
o
f
V
a
i
l
(
T
O
V
)
p
a
i
d
$
2
0
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
2
0
0
3
;
r
e
n
t
a
l
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
p
a
y
b
o
r
r
o
w
e
d
co
s
t
o
f
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
&
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
;
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
l
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
d
,
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
d
e
e
d
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
;
$
2
2
M
b
o
r
r
o
w
e
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
c
l
o
s
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
s
;
T
O
V
l
e
n
t
$
1
.
9
M
t
o
T
R
A
H
C
$18,000,000
Va
i
l
C
o
m
m
o
n
s
71
Ow
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
U
n
i
t
s
:
24
2
/
1
.
5
c
o
n
d
o
s
;
13
2
/
2
t
o
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
;
6
t
h
r
e
e
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
to
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
;
1
0
3
/
2
w
i
t
h
2
-
c
a
r
g
a
r
a
g
e
s
Re
n
t
a
l
U
n
i
t
s
:
1
8
o
n
e
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
s
Re
n
t
an
d
Ow
n
19
9
7
Y
e
s
T
O
V
b
o
u
g
h
t
l
a
n
d
f
o
r
$
4
.
5
M
o
u
t
o
f
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
,
a
n
d
C
i
t
y
M
a
r
k
e
t
f
u
n
d
e
d
th
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
T
O
V
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
s
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
a
n
d
r
e
n
t
o
f
$
4
9
,
0
0
0
,
a
n
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
l
a
n
d
r
e
n
t
o
f
$
9
9
,
0
0
0
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
($
1
4
8
,
0
0
0
t
o
t
a
l
a
n
n
u
a
l
T
O
V
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
)
.
L
a
n
d
r
e
n
t
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
c
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
$4
.
5
M
l
a
n
d
c
o
s
t
b
y
2
0
2
7
.
None
Re
d
S
a
n
d
s
t
o
n
e
C
r
e
e
k
18
2
1
/
1
t
o
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
;
1
0
2
/
1
t
o
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
;
2
2
/
2
c
o
n
d
o
s
;
4
3
/
2
c
o
n
d
o
s
Ow
n
1
9
9
9
N
o
D
o
n
a
t
e
d
s
m
a
l
l
(
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
u
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
b
l
e
)
1
/
3
a
c
r
e
t
o
w
a
t
e
r
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
h
i
c
h
o
w
n
e
d
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
T
O
V
a
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
b
u
i
l
t
u
n
i
t
s
a
n
d
s
o
l
d
f
o
r
th
e
c
o
s
t
o
f
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
C
o
n
v
e
y
e
d
l
a
n
d
t
o
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
.
N
o
lo
s
s
o
r
i
n
c
o
m
e
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
.
None
Mi
d
d
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
14
2
M
i
x
o
f
s
t
u
d
i
o
s
;
1
/
1
;
2
/
1
a
n
d
3
/
2
u
n
i
t
s
R
e
n
t
a
l
2
0
0
5
N
o
$
2
3
M
,
$
8
5
0
K
i
n
s
t
a
t
e
g
r
a
n
t
s
,
$
1
5
M
i
n
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
b
o
n
d
s
=
$
7
.
1
5
M
pr
i
v
a
t
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
c
o
s
t
.
L
a
n
d
l
e
a
s
e
d
t
o
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
f
o
r
$
1
0
/
y
e
a
r
.
TO
V
g
e
t
s
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
n
o
d
e
b
t
o
b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
2
0
5
3
.
None
Bu
z
z
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
24
2
1
s
t
u
d
i
o
s
a
n
d
3
o
n
e
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
u
n
i
t
s
R
e
n
t
a
l
1
9
9
8
Y
e
s
$
2
M
c
o
s
t
,
T
O
V
b
u
i
l
t
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
d
.
N
o
n
e
No
r
t
h
T
r
a
i
l
T
o
w
n
H
o
m
e
s
6
4
2
/
2
t
o
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
;
2
3
/
2
t
o
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
O
w
n
2
0
0
1
N
o
B
o
u
g
h
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
f
o
r
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
y
T
O
V
f
o
r
$
1
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
.
C
o
s
t
s
re
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
u
n
i
t
s
w
e
r
e
s
o
l
d
.
None
Ar
o
s
a
D
u
p
l
e
x
2
2
f
a
m
i
l
y
d
u
p
l
e
x
e
s
O
w
n
2
0
1
0
N
o
T
O
V
b
o
u
g
h
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
f
o
r
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
B
u
i
l
t
d
u
p
l
e
x
s
a
n
d
s
o
l
d
t
h
e
m
f
o
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
c
o
s
t
s
.
None
Cr
e
e
k
s
i
d
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
12
A
l
l
o
n
e
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
u
n
i
t
s
R
e
n
t
2
0
0
0
Y
e
s
T
O
V
b
o
u
g
h
t
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
f
o
r
$
1
.
2
M
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
f
u
n
d
.
T
O
V
g
e
t
s
r
e
n
t
a
l
re
v
e
n
u
e
,
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
a
i
d
o
f
f
i
n
2
0
2
0
.
None
Bu
y
-
D
o
w
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
5
T
w
o
2
/
1
u
n
i
t
s
;
3
1
/
1
u
n
i
t
s
3
f
o
r
s
a
l
e
,
2
r
e
n
t
a
l
-Y
e
s
f
o
r
re
n
t
a
l
s
TO
V
b
u
y
s
u
n
i
t
s
;
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
d
e
e
d
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
s
e
l
l
s
f
o
r
D
e
e
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
Va
l
u
e
.
None
Ca
r
e
t
a
k
e
r
U
n
i
t
s
12
5
V
a
r
y
i
n
t
y
p
e
R
e
n
t
a
l
-
N
o
H
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
f
o
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
i
n
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
fo
r
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
o
o
t
a
g
e
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
s
.
None
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
6
0
3
Fo
u
r
S
e
a
s
o
n
s
R
e
s
o
r
t
2
8
O
n
-
s
i
t
e
u
n
i
t
s
;
5
6
t
o
t
a
l
b
e
d
s
R
e
n
t
a
l
2
0
1
0
N
o
Bu
i
l
t
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
.
-
Fi
r
s
t
C
h
a
i
r
(
A
r
r
a
b
e
l
l
e
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
)
3
2
L
i
o
n
'
s
H
e
a
d
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
;
1
2
4
t
o
t
a
l
b
e
d
s
R
e
n
t
a
l
2
0
1
1
N
o
B
u
i
l
t
a
s
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
A
rr
a
b
e
l
l
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
-
Ri
t
z
-
C
a
r
l
t
o
n
3
2
O
n
-
s
i
t
e
u
n
i
t
s
;
5
3
t
o
t
a
l
b
e
d
s
R
e
n
t
a
l
2
0
1
0
N
o
B
u
i
l
t
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
.
-
So
l
a
r
i
s
1
3
O
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
u
n
i
t
s
;
2
2
t
o
t
a
l
b
e
d
s
R
e
n
t
a
l
2
0
1
0
N
o
B
u
i
l
t
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
.
-
Se
b
a
s
t
i
o
n
1
9
O
n
-
s
i
t
e
u
n
i
t
s
;
2
8
t
o
t
a
l
b
e
d
s
R
e
n
t
a
l
2
0
1
0
N
o
B
u
i
l
t
as
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
.
-
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
1
2
4
To
t
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
7
2
7
u
n
i
t
s
To
t
a
l
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
D
e
b
t
O
b
l
i
gation
Wo
r
k
e
r
s
P
e
r
U
n
i
t
2
.
2
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
To
t
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
H
o
u
s
e
d
i
n
U
n
i
t
s
1
,
6
0
0
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
V
a
i
l
(
7
5
%
)
1
,
2
0
0
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Ye
a
r
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
$18,000,000
Un
i
t
s
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
U
n
i
t
s
Re
n
t
or
O
w
n
Current Debt Obligation
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
fo
r
T
O
V
No
t
e
:
T
o
t
a
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
i
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
u
n
i
t
s
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
1
.
6
5
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
l
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
e
a
c
h
u
n
i
t
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
T
o
w
n
o
f
V
a
i
l
,
R
R
C
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
B
B
C
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
&
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
.
1 - 5 - 16
10/23/2012
PAGE 4, SECTION I BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Vail does not restrict its employee housing to Vail employees, although most residents who choose to
live in Vail employee housing are also employed at Vail businesses.
The key data drawn from the housing inventory, and used to calculate employee housing benefits, are:
The town of Vail owns, supports or maintains 727 employee dedicated units, housing
approximately 1,600 workers—about 1200 of which are employed in Vail.
Vail workers hold 1.3 jobs per worker,2 thus the 1200 Vail workers living in Vail employee units
will fill about 1,600 Vail positions (jobs), roughly 18 percent of the town’s estimated 9000 total
positions.
Approximately 90 percent of Vail deed-restricted employee housing are rental units. The
remaining 10 percent are deed-restricted for-sale units, which are often larger, multi-bedroom
projects designed for families and longer term workers. Both forms of housing are included in
this analysis.
Timber Ridge carries about $18.0 million in net long-term debt3. Rents from Timber Ridge
currently cover all operating costs and debt service.
It is most notable that Vail taxpayers have no ongoing out-of-pocket costs associated with the
development and operation of Vail employee housing. Individual projects are managed by
contractors and costs are covered by project rents. The modest administrative costs of supporting the
Vail Local Housing Authority are paid out of the town general fund.
The current housing associated debt service—approximately $18.0 million dollars, which is
associated only with the Timber Ridge Project—is technically an obligation of the Timber Ridge
Affordable Housing Corporation. The corporation continues to make all required monthly
payments.
Vail’s experience with deed-restricted employee housing is in notable contrast to many resorts that
more often rely on on-going sales or property taxes to support community housing operations or to
cover debt service and operational obligations.
Vail private market housing. As noted previously, about 70 percent of individuals employed in
Vail live outside of the town. About 30 percent of persons employed in Vail live in the town (some
2100 workers). Of these Vail employed and Vail housed workers, approximately 1200 individuals
(57%) live in Vail employee units, while the remaining 900 persons (43%) live in owner occupied or
rented units.
The availability of private residential units, whether for sale or for rent, is subject to many market
forces. The dynamics of the Eagle County and Vail private housing markets is complicated by the
shifting economics of long-term (employee) versus short-term (overnight guests) housing rentals and
the long standing disconnect between local wage and salary levels and Vail housing costs.
2 RRC Associates; Nexus Study, 2006
3 The Timber Ridge project has about $20.2 million in debt and nearly $2.0 million in available cash reserves. The town
manager reports that Timber Ridge revenues are covering all monthly debt service obligations but the project is below
certain debt to cash reserve requirements.
1 - 5 - 17
10/23/2012
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 5
Private housing in Vail for employees is a critical element of the employee housing provision system
but also a very uncertain component of the long term employee housing stock. Some of the forces
narrowing the availability of Vail owner occupied and private rental housing include:
Some Vail workers live in their own privately-owned homes. In many instances these units were
purchased many years ago when prices were lower. As these residents leave Vail and sell the
residence it is likely that these units will convert to second homes and will be lost to the local
employee housing stock.
Despite the economic downturn and the general decline of housing values, Vail homes are still
far outside of the price range of local employees. The median price of a unit solid in Vail in
2011 was over $1.8 million. Even in most affordable Vail neighborhoods, the median sale price
in 2011 was over $400,000 and that would only purchase an older, one-or two bedroom
condominium unit. Even in challenging economic times, the private housing market can not
readily provide affordable housing for Vail employees.
The recent economic decline and the decline in resort home values were expected to produce
many new year-round rental units, effectively expanding the local employee housing stock.
Instead, changes in the cost of offering units to transient guests, the result of VRBO-like
(Vacation Rental by Owner) web access made transient rentals in many cases a more attractive
rental alternative and muted the transfer of units to long term worker rentals.
In sum, the private market is providing about 43 percent of the housing used by Vail residents who
are both working and living in Vail. This housing stock is likely to decline in number overtime as
owner occupied units are sold and transferred to second home use. Despite lowered prices,
acquisition of private homes by Vail workers is still largely infeasible. The recent economic downturn
undoubtedly added to the local housing rental stock, but it did not dramatically increase the market
or significantly change rental prices, as many owners chose to rent to transient guests rather than long
term employee residents. The town of Vail and the Vail Local Housing Authority reports strong
demand for family oriented, for-sale units that would allow workers and their families to stay in Vail
and maintain the community’s family presence, fill volunteer positions and support a diverse, year
round community,
Nearly 60 percent of Vail worker-residents are housed in deed-restricted units and Vail’s deed-
restricted units, both rental and for-sale projects, have maintained high occupancy rates, which is
evidence of their value and desirability.
In essence Vail’s deed-restricted housing has proven an effective insurance policy for worker
availability during both periods of both prosperity and decline. The town policy to expand the supply
of more family and deed-restricted for-sale units is likely the next evolutionary step of this program.
1 - 5 - 18
10/23/2012
PAGE 6, SECTION I BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Vail Employee Housing Rental Rates
The majority of Vail employee units are designed to serve a transient rental workforce and to provide
clean, safe, convenient and functional housing. Employee housing is generally less expensive than
open market housing but formal comparisons are difficult because the wide variation in size, location,
capacity and finish in private market units. Most Vail employee housing does not have limits on
resident income, although the Vail Middle Creek project is a private development using state and
federal mortgage funds that require occupancy by moderate income households. The most recent
Vail employee housing rental rates for Middle Creek and qualification criteria are shown below.
Figure I-4.
Rental Rates and Income
Restrictions, Effective July 15, 2011
Note:
* Combined incomes.
Source: Middle Creek Village, Vail Local Housing Authority
Unit Type
Studio:883$ 1,500$
One bedroom:941$ 1,600$
Two bedroom:1,122$ 1,800$
Three bedroom:1,969$ 3,000$
2,093$ 3,000$
2,160$ 3,000$
1 person, living alone 36,360$
2 persons sharing unit *41,580$
3 persons sharing unit *46,740$
4 persons sharing unit *51,960$
RentDeposit
Income restrictions for studio, one and
two bedroom units (60% of AMI):
Generally, Vail employee units are in high demand and have low vacancy rates, suggesting units are
scarce and highly valued in the market place. In summer, vacancies rise but even over the last few
years, the units have remained at or near capacity during ski season and have continued to meet
financial requirements. All of the for-sale, deed-restricted housing is occupied. Representatives of
Polar Star Properties, which manages a number of Eagle County rental complexes, reports that
average rents on a per square foot declined 16 percent (Eagle County) between 2007 and 2011.4 The
project management company also indicated that summer 2011 vacancy rates, elsewhere in the
Valley, were high. Conversely, the town of Vail representative reports that all available Vail employee
housing are fully occupied for the 2011-12 ski season.
4 Gerry Flynn, Eagle County Economic Development Council, Quarterly Newsletter 2011.
1 - 5 - 19
10/23/2012
SECTION II.
The Economic Value of Employee Housing
1 - 5 - 20
10/23/2012
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 1
SECTION II.
The Economic Value of Employee Housing
This section describes analytical options considered for this analysis. Methodological assumptions
used in the Vail analysis are documented and calculations presented describing the economic value of
Vail’s investment in employee housing.
Methodological Options
There is no generally accepted methodology for calculating the economic value of affordable housing.
BBC’s investigations uncovered only a few studies that attempted to measure the economic impact of
employee housing and most were conducted in traditional urban settings with very different
economic conditions. A few illustrative examples are highlighted below.
Minneapolis & Saint Paul Studies
A 2001 report by Maxfield Research Inc. and GVA Marquette Advisors on the Twin Cities of
Minnesota estimated the economic value and return on investment in workforce housing by
calculating the increased consumer spending, business income and construction activity associated
with the subject households. The analysts considered all workforce households employee housing as
new residents to the community and then multiplied this new household figure by the average
gross income for the workforce household. This figure was then multiplied by the percent of
income each household spent in the local economy and the share spent in the Twin Cities.
The Twin Cities study explains that the lack of workforce housing negatively impacts the
productivity of the local businesses. The study assumes that each additional worker will add a
certain additional business production value to the local economy. To find the increase in
business income added by new workforce households, the report multiplies the number of new
workers by the business income per worker. Finally, the report adds in the projected gains related
to the construction of the workforce housing units. The projected increase in local construction
wages added to the projected increase in government fees and tax assessments contribute to the
positive economic impact due to new construction of the units.
When the figures of consumer spending, business income and construction gains are added together,
the report finds the total economic benefit of adding new workforce housing units to the market. The
model calculates the projected economic return over 15 years and divides this figure by the total
estimated development cost to build the units to determine a return on investment (ROI). The
calculations suggest an ROI ranging from 2.22 to 8.13.
Portland and Oregon state workforce studies
The Workforce Housing Report of Central City, Portland by GVA Marquette Advisors takes a
similar approach towards valuing the economic impact of workforce housing as the Twin Cities
study. However, instead of assessing the value of consumer spending and business income, the
Portland report uses IMPLAN software to measure the direct, indirect and induced impacts of
construction activity and the impact of the addition of new households. The model divides this
economic return by the public cost of constructing the workforce units, with and without
subsidies, to calculate the return on investment in workforce housing.
1 - 5 - 21
10/23/2012
PAGE 2, SECTION II BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
The study finds that the 20-year return on each dollar spent is $2.73 when the city is paying the
full cost of development. When the city provides a subsidy to private developers, the 20-year
return on investment is $12.55 for each dollar invested.
Using a similar IMPLAN methodology, the Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS)
studied three housing developments in Oregon to indentify the economic impacts of project
investment. The study used IMPLAN to calculate the associated impacts of constructing the
housing developments. The figure does not illustrate the potential of private investment coupling
with the public funds, typically $5-$7 per state agency dollar. This private investment boosts the
economic impact of $10 to $15 per OCHS dollar invested.
Although IMPLAN modeling and similar business activity measure analysis are legitimate
approaches, the other housing studies identified failed to acknowledge that absent employee housing
other beneficial development might occur. This potential substitution issue is one characteristic that
sets Vail apart from most traditional economies. Similarly, a Vail study should acknowledge that Vail
workers still have other options for housing even if those options are more expensive or less
convenient. In our view, the practical value of Vail housing is best expressed as the savings incurred
by housing residents and local businesses because Vail businesses did not have to incur the additional
costs of luring new workers from remote housing.
BBC Approach
Vail has invested in employee housing as a means of ensuring the availability of a functional and
reliable workforce in an area where private land and construction costs limit the private market’s
ability to produce affordable worker housing. This study incorporates six key assumptions regarding
employee housing and its impact on the unusual economies of mountain resorts.
(1) The economic value of employee housing in Vail will vary by the perspective of the
individual, business interest or taxpayer considering the issue.
The economic value of employee housing to a worker, who is relieved of a lengthy and costly up-
valley commute, is different than the value received by an adjacent home owner with concerns
about neighborhood congestion. Similarly, the value of employee housing to a tax-paying second
home owner may be perceived very differently than the value of the same units to a local
employer, who might otherwise be unable to secure a necessary work force. All of these varying
perceptions of value are reasonable and valid. Employee housing has costs and benefits that are
not evenly distributed throughout the Vail or Eagle County community. This disparate
distribution of costs and benefits is true for most public investments, including parks, recreation,
public parking and basic services such as police and fire protection.
The objective of this report is to fully represent costs and benefits of the community’s employee
housing investment and the distribution of costs and benefits among various communities of
interest within the broader Vail community.
(2) Without employee housing, Vail businesses would still attract workers but attraction and
retention would be more expensive, employee turnover would be higher, and employee
flexibility and willingness to work irregular hours or multiple jobs diminished.
1 - 5 - 22
10/23/2012
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 3
Many studies calculate the value of employee housing with an assumption that without such
housing, workers would be unavailable. This study assumes that, “but for Vail housing,” workers
could still be found but employees would require higher wages to compensate them for at least
the lost time and new commuting expenses. In addition, businesses would incur higher costs for
retention and training of employees, and to provide full services despite reduced multiple job
holding by local employees.
(3) The provision of affordable employee housing requires some form of public investment,
which implies that tax payers—or some subset of tax payers—are, in some degree, paying
for this amenity.
Employee housing requires some form of public or private subsidy in order to produce housing
below private market costs. Although Vail has done a notable job at stimulating employee
housing with very little general public expense, any public subsidy implies that some community
interests pay and other interests benefit. For instance, if the town were to buy land and donate it
toward the creation of employee housing, the local taxpayers in the community would subsidize
the project in proportion to each taxpayer’s local tax contribution and a separate set of employee
residents and commercial businesses would be the direct beneficiaries.
Sometimes that subsidy is direct and clear—e.g. the town’s acquisition and donation of land.
Sometimes that subsidy is less obvious—when the community attracts state or local financial
support or housing is exacted from new development.
(4) The presence of employee housing alters the local housing market with implications for the
provision of a high level of guest services and Vail’s position in the larger competitive resort
marketplace.
Vail is a successful resort in part because employee housing contributes to the ability of public
and private enterprises to attract and retain a high quality, stable workforce at reasonable wage
levels. Employees value local housing because it reduces travel time and costs and reduces the
uncertainty, cost and difficulties of procuring housing in the Vail Valley and generally improves
the quality of life. The economic value of employee housing is also represented in part by the day
to day enhanced quality of service that distinguishes the Vail guest experience. Additionally,
with the provision of workforce housing, Vail is better able to compete against other resorts,
some of which have very extensive housing programs, for the best workers. The presence of
employee housing has value to Vail businesses and thus indirectly benefits visitors, second
homeowners and residents who use public and private services, ski on Vail Mountain or dine in
area restaurants. These benefits are largely unquantifiable.
Conversely, the provision of housing alters the local private housing market. Arguably, public
investment in housing in part shifts the cost burden of attracting workers away from those
enterprises that require a large workforce and thus makes a private expense a shared community
costs. This is the dilemma of all public services. Economic purists would suggest that inaccurate
pricing inevitably leads to misplaced investment. Arguably, the presence of lower cost employee
housing reduces overall wages and damages those property owners who would otherwise put
private rental units on the market. Similarly, inclusionary zoning, and the requirement of new
development to provide housing, contributes to the higher costs of development, which distorts
land values, raises the cost of new projects and reduces development innovation and
experimentation.
1 - 5 - 23
10/23/2012
PAGE 4, SECTION II BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
(5) The provision of employee housing can displace other forms of development, which under
many circumstances may be of higher economic value.
In recent instances, employee housing in Vail is required of new development and thus the town
foregoes the potential benefits of additional private accommodations and thus the visitor
spending and tax receipts associated with private residential accommodations. Resort towns are
unusual in that high value private housing induces a high level of retail sales and thus any
reduction in private market development, or substitution of high value for lesser valued
residential units, can be a costly “investment”.
A share of existing Vail employee housing was developed by way of zoning requirements placed
on new development. Arguably, if not for town housing requirements, some employee units
would likely have been replaced by private units, which would have produced higher levels of
town tax income, increased the original value of the underlying land, and increased developer
profit and/or reduced the cost of the other private units in each development. On the other
hand, the town requirements that require on-site employee units most often also afford the
developer additional density to accommodate those employee units, thus employee and open
market units are not readily transferable. The economic loss suffered by developers because of
employee requirement varies based on other site constraints and decisions about on-site versus
off-site development.
(6) The economic value of employee housing is not consistent from year to year—it varies
considerably depending upon background economic conditions.
By way of example, in 2007-08, there were more Vail jobs than available workers and the
lack/cost of housing might have been the weakest link in the local resort economy. Although
consumer demand was strong, the local business community was hamstrung by the lack of
available workers and service quality diminished. Private housing was largely unavailable and/or
very expensive. Under these circumstances, dedicated employee housing was extremely valuable.
Two years later, in 2009-10, the situation reversed and jobs were scarce and public and private
housing was relatively plentiful. Additional private units came into the rental market. Yet, in
2011, Vail employment demand rebounded, summer business was strong and there was virtually
no vacancy in Vail employee housing for the 2011-2012 winter season.
In sum, there is no single perspective or single value that can be placed on a public investment in a
shared good, such as employee housing. It is a complicated equation. Nevertheless, faced with
ongoing community investment decisions, exploring the question and attempting to illuminate the
issue, is a necessary exercise.
1 - 5 - 24
10/23/2012
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 5
Direct Economic Value of Employee Housing
Considering all of the varying perspectives on employee housing and the many trade-offs that come
with public intervention into the private market, BBC offers the following cost benefit calculations.
Figure II-I shows the conceptual economic impacts of Vail employee housing as experienced by the
three major components of the Vail economy: Employees, Business, and Government.
Figure II-1.
Direct Impacts of
Vail Employee Housing
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting, 2012
As noted previously, the value of employee housing is best measured by the reduced costs of business
associated with a flexible, available and reasonably priced workforce.
Vail employees and businesses. Resident employees enjoy the most immediate and direct
benefits from the availability of Vail employee housing, by the avoidance of the more costly
alternative of a lengthy down valley commute. Cost of living savings include: reduced costs of
housing, reduced costs of travel and the value of increased time availability. Many resort workers hold
more than one job allowing increased earnings, a practice that is facilitated by convenient, local
housing. Vail businesses benefits in the same manner as employees. If, hypothetically, the 1,200 Vail
housed and Vail employed workers1 were forced to live down valley and commute, Vail businesses
would have to increase compensation to re-attract these workers.
The attached Figure II-2 shows the assumptions and values underling the calculation of Vail’s
employee housing investment as experienced by Vail workers and Vail businesses. These calculations
demonstrate that each Vail housed Vail worker represents an economic benefit of about $10,530 per
year for a total annual economic benefit of about $12.6 million dollars per year ($10,530 x 1,200
workers). This benefit is shared between Vail businesses, which enjoy lower labor costs and Vail
workers who have lower operating costs, increased time and increased flexibility.
1 Figure I-3 Section I
Direct Impacts of Vail Employee Housing
Vail
Businesses
Positive:
Employee cost savings
–Wages and salaries
–Training/turnover
–Skills and quality
of labor force
–Eco bus pass
Additional local
spending by
employee residents
Vail
Employees
Positive:
Reduced cost of living
–Rents
–Commute time
–Commute costs
Ability to hold
multiple jobs
Town
Government
Positive:
Employee cost savings
–Wages and salaries
–Training/turnover
–Skills and quality of
labor force
Reduced parking,
construction and
operational costs
–Capital investment/risk
–Bond risk
–Lost opportunity for
higher valued
development on town-
owned property
Negative:
1 - 5 - 25
10/23/2012
PAGE 6, SECTION II BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Figure II-2.
Employee Cost Assumptions and Calculations
Source: BBC Research & Consulting, 2012
Additional benefits, but of a lesser value, accrue to workers who reside in Vail housing but are
employed elsewhere in the county. Anecdotally, it is reported that many of these workers started with
Vail jobs but eventually took promotions or new positions elsewhere in the county. Others have
summer jobs outside of Vail, often in construction, and retain their Vail housing with the expectation
of returning to a Vail position in the following winter. Because these workers are not immediately
contributing to the Vail economy they are not considered a return on Vail’s housing investment.
Vail businesses. Without employee housing, Vail businesses would have to raise employee
compensation levels to cover the higher costs of remote employee housing and employee
commuting expenses2.
In practice, local businesses experience additional benefits. BBC has identified three categories of
business operational savings associated with local employee housing.
Savings associated with reduced pressure on wage and salary levels. Vail businesses save the
cost of providing higher wages that would otherwise be necessary to attract Vail’s workforce from
more removed communities where housing is available. These savings are already counted as an
employee benefit.
2 This calculation assumes a reasonable equilibrium between supply and demand for employees. In years where job
opportunities are plentiful, such as 2007, employees would have to raise wages more to entice down valley workers to Vail
jobs. In years when jobs were scarce, such as 2010, far less inducement would be necessary.
Additional travel time:45 min. per day @ $12 per hour $9.00 per day X 200 days $1,800 per year, per employee
Additional travel costs:20 miles per day @ 52¢ per mile$10.40 per day X 200 days $2,080 per year, per employee
Additional housing costs $75per month, per employee $900 per year, per employee
$2,000 per year, per employee
$2,000 per worker
$1,750 per worker
Employee Savings
=
=
Eco bus pass =
Additional Employer Costs
At a minimum, Vail employers would have to raise wages and salaries to compensate employees for the additional
costs associated with living down valley.
Total Employee and Employer Savings = $10,530 per employee
New Employee Compensation = $4,780 per employee
New Employer Costs = $5,750 per employee
Employee turnover/ training/quality
Reduces multiple job holding; increases employee hiring requirements
Employers relying on a commuting work force would face additional training and hiring costs and would likely share
in the additional cost of ECO bus passes.
=
=
=
=
=
1 - 5 - 26
10/23/2012
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 7
Savings associated with reduced requirements for public and private investment in
parking and transportation. Commuting workers experience higher travel costs and
must be able to access local parking or functioning mass transit. In addition, most
businesses would pay for an ECO bus pass, or at least subsidize that pass, in order to
enhance worker reliability. Monthly bus pass costs range up to $200 per month
depending on the residence destination. We assumed partial subsidy by employees of
$1750 per year per pass.
Savings associated with enhanced worker availability, quality and reliability. A lengthy
commute to what is often poor housing contributes to absenteeism and worker dissatisfaction,
especially in a challenging environment where traffic conditions and travel times can be
uncertain. Vail businesses save by experiencing reduced worker turnover, reduced business
disruption due to delayed or absent workers, greater business flexibility because of worker ability
to commit to part time positions or irregular hours and reduced employee training costs. We
assume that local employee housing saves $2,000 per resident worker in reduced turnover and
training costs.
As noted above, BBC estimates that each Vail-based worker using Vail employee housing represents a
savings to Vail businesses of about $10,530 per employee or $12.6 million per year.
Increased spending by employee-residents. Employees residing in town also tend to purchase
daily goods and services in town and frequent Vail restaurants, bars and entertainment. The value of
this local spending can be derived by calculating the percent of worker income spent on local goods
and services, and estimating a Vail capture rate. Local employee spending in Vail as a result of Vail
employee housing is documented below.
Figure II-3.
Vail Retail Spending by Employees
Lodged in Vail Employee Housing
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
BBC estimates that in addition to the savings realized by Vail businesses, Vail retailers would garner
approximately $6.0 million in additional retail sales, which represents an additional $240,000 in
annual sales tax receipts (at 4.0%).
Categor
Employees in Vail employee housing1,600
Average annual income 30,000$
Total employee income 48,000,000$
Percent spent on retail 25%
Amount spent on retail12,000,000$
Percent spent in Vail50%
Amount spent in Vail 6,000,000$
Amount of retail spending per employee$3,750
Value
1 - 5 - 27
10/23/2012
PAGE 8, SECTION II BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Vail Government. It should be noted that the town is also a business with the same employee cost
and challenges as a private entity. To the degree that workers housed at Vail employee housing are
also town workers, cost avoidance benefits will be roughly the same for both public and private
sectors. More problematic, if employee housing were unavailable, there would be pressure on the
town to create additional parking to accommodate the 1,200 or so additional workers who would
have to commute into the community each work day or evening.
Assuming 50 percent of these workers would take the ECO bus, or utilize parking provided by
employers, and that then new bus riders could be accommodated without significant cost to the
community, about 600 new workers would drive to town. Further, assuming two workers per car and
.75 parking spaces per vehicle (assuming job time shifts), the town would require 225 new parking
spaces in order to maintain current parking standards. Structured parking in Vail costs about
$40,000 per space. Assuming a physical solution could be devised, accommodating additional
parking demand would cost at least $9.0 million. Operating costs of the structure would be in
addition to capital costs and employees are unlikely to pay the kind of rates currently in effect, thus
suggesting an ongoing operating loss.
Currently some businesses provide employee parking (e.g. town offices, hospital) but on-site parking
options have largely been exhausted and new employees would have to be accommodated in new
public parking facilities or compete for existing parking spaces.
Avoiding pressures on parking is a strong argument in favor of employee housing but in all
practicality, developing new structured parking for employees is an unlikely practical solution. In a
reasonable “no-housing” hypothetical, rather than create parking, the town would be more likely to
press Eagle County to increase bus service and perhaps expand in-town operations. As described
above, employers would be saddled with the additional costs of attracting workers and all the
attendant problems of employee turnover and decreased service levels associated with a lengthy bus
commute.
In sum, we see three measures of employee housing value, as shown in Figure II-4.
Figure II-4.
Summary: Valued
Vail Employee Housing
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
CategorValue
Business costs avoided$12.6 million per year
New retail spending$6.0 million in annual retail
sales($240,000 in sales tax
@ 4.0%)
Parking expansion$9.0 million
1 - 5 - 28
10/23/2012
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 9
Other Perspectives
The provision of employee housing also has broad economic consequences for all Vail property
owners, visitors and residents. These are summarized in Figure II-5.
Figure II-5.
Perspectives on Vail Employee Housing
Residential property owners. As noted in the above Figure II-5, property owners seeking to rent
privately owned residential units currently have to compete with employee housing, although that
public subsidy is arguably small. Currently, the presence of 727 units of lower priced housing
probably dampens the potential rental value of individually owned rental units.
Conversely, all residential property owners benefit because exaction requirements on new or
remodeled housing drives up the cost of new units, effectively pulling up the price of all units.
Further, all property owners benefit from a well functioning resort and positive guest experience.
Commercial property owners. All commercial property owners are generally benefited by
community investment in employee housing as it increases the costs of potential new competition,
because of the inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage requirements, and reduces the labor costs
of operations for commercial tenants.
Land owners. Land owners, properties with redevelopment potential, and developers are burdened
by inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage and employee housing requirements as they bear an
immediate cost for maintaining the town’s housing stock.
Other Perspectives on Vail Employee Housing
Private Rental
Property Owners
Negative:
•Subsidized
Competition
All Residential
Property Owners
Positive:
•Increased cost of
competitive
new developments
All Commercial
Property Owners
Positive:
•Increased cost of
competitive
new development
Land Owners
and Developers
Negative:
•Increased cost of
competitive new
development
Positive for all:Increased functionality of the resort
Improved visitor experience
1 - 5 - 29
10/23/2012
PAGE 10, SECTION II BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Vail—The Resort Economy
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, employee housing presents wide spread general benefits to all
property owners, residents, visitors and second home owners who have a stake in the success of Vail.
Generally, a reasonable quality of life for residents, the possibility of professional advancement and
homeownership, reduced commuting times, year-round presence of residents and cost savings, all add
to a more stable employee base and a better functioning community, which results in:
An improved guest experience—the most basic product sold by Vail;
Better positioning against other resorts competing for a quality workforce;
Reduction in the seasonality of local businesses;
Increased vitality, diversity and authenticity for the town;
Increased community participation (e.g., volunteer activities, town boards); and
Enhanced ability for younger residents to stay in Vail and grow into higher-level
employment and community leadership positions.
Opportunities for families to remain in Vail and raise a generation of new Vail residents,
support local schools and create a critical mass of residents, which would all be jeopardized
without the town’s support of deed-restricted for-sale housing in addition to rental units.
A better community with a more stable and participatory workforce translates into better guest
services. Visitors value their interaction with local residents. Workers who enjoy their town and
communicate pride in their community help create the experience that differentiates engaging resort
communities from branded commercial resorts. As the community matures many long time residents
will retire and their homes will likely transfer into second home status, further eroding the town’s
private housing stock. The economic value of employee housing will grow as private ownership stock
is diminished and the diversity of employee housing, including additional deed-restricted family and
for sale units, expands.
In sum, over a two decade period, the town has created an enviable employee housing stock with very
modest costs to the general taxpayers. Operation of the town’s 727 units puts no burden on the
general fund. The Timber Ridge project, the town’s largest investment has some remaining financial
risk, but it is still operated under contract by a private entity and current rents cover all operating
costs and debt service.
The town of Vail has been remarkably successful in creatively stimulating the development of
employee housing without incurring substantive public expense. Vail’s 727 employee units save the
business community about $12.6 million per year in operating expense, generate nearly a quarter
million dollars in sales taxes for the general fund, and allow the town to avoid a burdensome
investment in finding parking solutions for 1200 employees.
1 - 5 - 30
10/23/2012
M EMORANDUM
To: Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator, Town of Vail
From: Andy Knudtsen and David Schwartz, Economic & Planning
Systems
Subject: Chamonix Market Update
Date: February 28, 2011
Background
The Town of Vail considers the Chamonix site in West Vail a component
of a larger strategy to address affordable housing needs in the
community. The site has the potential to hold approximately 58
dwelling units and would expand the inventory of affordable housing
within the Town. The elected officials believe that additional housing will
enhance the sense of community by providing homeownership
opportunities to local residents and improving economic vitality by
expanding the pool of employees available to local businesses.
In 2008, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) provided a market
analysis of the conceptual development plans for the site. The report
included an evaluation of the market trends, an assessment of the
position the site holds within Eagle County market, and a review of the
site’s competitive advantages and disadvantages. The market, however,
has changed since that time. This memorandum provides an overview of
updated market findings relevant to supply and demand conditions of
the Eagle County market.
Methodology
EPS conducted its analysis by focusing on the broader market trends
and focusing in on specific relevant market segments. The following
methodology was used and outlines the content of this memorandum:
1 - 6 - 1
10/23/2012
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 2
20908-DM-030111
• 3 Geographies: EPS identified areas within the County as having the following sales
locations:
o Upper Valley: Booth Creek, Cascade Village, East Vail, Highlands Meadows,
Lionshead, Potato Patch, Sandstone Lionsridge, Spraddle Creek, Valley Ridge at
Vail, Vail Golf Course, Vail Village, and West Vail.
o Mid Valley: includes Arrowhead, Avon, Bachelor Gulch, Beaver Creek, Berry
Creek Ranch, Cordillera, Eagle Vail, Edwards, Homestead, Lake Creek Valley,
Minturn, Mountain Star, and Wildridge and Wildwood.
o Lower Valley: includes Cotton Ranch, Eagle, and Gypsum.
• 3 Time Periods: EPS identified periods of time over the past six years that represent
distinct periods:
o 2004-2008: During this period in Eagle County, the market continued its
upswing in average sales prices and maintained its volume:
o 2009: Generally, 2009 saw a major decrease in average sales prices and a
contraction in volume of activity;
o 2010: During this year, the market began to recover and stabilize. Average
prices in parts of Eagle County climbed again, and volume increased over 2009,
but did not return to the volume before 2008.
• 3 Price Bands: Within the geographies and periods of time, three price bands are relevant
to understanding where the market is today:
o Under $438,000: was identified as the conforming loan limit of approximately
$418,000 plus an estimated five percent that a buyer would have available for a
down payment;
o Between $438,000 and $600,000: was identified as the next band of price
points, which identifies an upper threshold for other local buyer products; and
o Sales above $600,000: was identified as a separate price band to isolate
products purchased by second-homeowners or out-of-state buyers.
Demand Conditions
Employment and wage information comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BLS data identify trends and conditions of wage and
salary positions through the second quarter of 2010. Data from the BEA identify counts of both
wage and salary jobs and sole proprietors through 2008. Due to the comprehensive nature of
BEA data, the lag time is greater. EPS has used the most comprehensive data available from
these sources for this report.
1 - 6 - 2
10/23/2012
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 3
20908-DM-030111
Employment & Wages
Major losses in employment have been sustained nationally, regionally, and locally. In resort
economies, such as Vail’s, significant losses have occurred in the construction industry.
• Total wage and salary employment in Eagle County as of 2nd Quarter 2010 is 28,000
jobs. This is a 13 percent contraction from its peak in 2008. In 2008, as illustrated by
Figure 1, wage and salary positions totaled more than 32,000 jobs.
• While construction has lost 2,500 jobs since 2007, approximately 2,500 jobs were
gained since 2000 netting out the losses. Although employment levels have returned to
their 2000 level, the losses of the construction industry have been netted out by the gains in
other industries. Industries with the largest gains since 2000 were:
o Health Care and Social Assistance industry added 600 jobs;
o Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation added 700 jobs; and
o Accommodation and Food Services, though it sustained losses off its 2008 peak,
added nearly 700 positions.
• From 2000 to 2008, while wage and salary employment increased at an annual rate
of 1.7 percent, the number of sole proprietors increased at a rate of 4.4 percent. In
Eagle County, sole proprietors account for approximately 23 percent of the total workforce,
as illustrated in Figure 2. In 2000, there were approximately 8,700 proprietors, and by
2008, the total had increased to more than 12,200, an increase of more than 40 percent.
o Though data will not be available for nearly two years, it is likely that the number
of proprietors also contracted from 2008 to 2010. Assuming a uniform 13 percent
contraction, the estimated 2010 total of proprietors would still be 23 percent
higher than it was in 2000.
• Adjusted for inflation, average county wages have fallen 12 percent since 2008 and
are 1.7 percent lower than real wages were in 2000.Similar to the wage and salary job
trends; overall wages for the County have contracted since 2008 as illustrated by Figure 1.
• Future economic trends must be tracked closely. While some data show that the
economic recovery has been established in some markets across the country, the trends are
not evident in Eagle County at this time. EPS research conducted for higher-priced inventory
shows that a correction occurred in mid-2010. This correction may signify the return of
higher income buyers and part-time residents, and may signify a return to a normalized
Eagle County economy.
The Town of Vail should track a range of metrics and measure the rate of recovery and the
degree to which the market indicators move into historic ranges, when performance was
strong. If the market does not continue to solidify, the Town is advised to proceed with this
development slowly and with clearly identified exit strategies.
1 - 6 - 3
10/23/2012
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 4
20908-DM-030111
Market Conditions
Housing market conditions and trend data come from the regional Multiple Listings Service
(MLS). Data have been analyzed from the first quarter 2004 through the fourth quarter 2010.
Sales Volume
As described previously, the construction industry contracted approximately 50 percent from its
peak in 2007. Similarly, the volume of housing sales contracted 48 percent after 2007, as
illustrated in Figure 3 and in Table 1.
• Sales volume in 2010 was 757, or 54 percent of average annual volume from 2004
to 2008. From 2004 to 2008, average annual activity was 1,412 units. In 2009, volume
decreased more than 64 percent to 504 units sold, or 36 percent of previous levels. In 2010,
sales volumes have increased most in the Upper Valley, followed by the Mid Valley and Lower
Valley respectively.
o In 2010, there were 243 sales in the Upper Valley. A majority of the
increase in activity was due to increased activity at prices above $600,000. The
volume for units priced below $438,000 was 37 units.
o In 2010, there were 354 sales in the Mid Valley. A large increase in volume
came from the sale of units priced below $438,000. Sales volume at this price
point was 93 units.
o In 2010, there were 160 sales in the Lower Valley. Most of the activity is
due to units priced below $438,000. Volume at this price point was 107 units.
Price Trends
Sales price trends in Eagle County have fluctuated widely in the past few years. On a per-
square-foot basis, average prices peaked in late 2008 in each of the geographies, as illustrated
by Figure 4.
• Average prices in the Upper Valley are currently $900/sqft. This is a contraction of 34
percent from their 1stquarter 2009 peak to the 1stquarter 2010. Average prices (of attached
and detached product) in the 1stquarter 2009 had increased to $1,100/sqft, or 155 percent
over their 1st quarter 2004 average of $430/sqft. In 2010, Upper Valley sales have increased
by 23 percent above the 1st quarter 2010.
• Average prices in the Mid Valley are currently $430/sqft. This is a contraction of 25
percent from their 3rd quarter 2008 peak. In the 3rd quarter 2008, prices had escalated to
$574/sqft or nearly 60 percent above the 1st quarter 2004 average of $365/sqft.
• Average prices in the Lower Valley are currently $190/sqft. This is a contraction of 26
percent from their 2nd quarter 2008 peak. In the 2nd quarter 2008, average prices had
increased 46 percent to $255/sqft over the average of $175/sqft in 2004.
1 - 6 - 4
10/23/2012
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 5
20908-DM-030111
Units Priced Under $438,000
Using the conforming loan limit of $417,500 and assuming a five-percent downpayment, EPS
assessed the market for units priced at $438,000 or lower, as shown in Figure 5.
• Sales volume in 2010 was 237, or 31 percent of the total market. Today’s volume is
54 percent of the average annual volume at this price point for the period 2004 to 2008.
During the contraction in 2009, volume dropped to 154 units.
o In the Upper Valley, there were 37 sales in 2010 at this price point. This
is a decrease from the average 70 units sold per year from 2004 to 2008, but an
increase over the 27 units sold during 2009.
o In the Mid Valley, there were 93 sales in 2010 at this price point. This is a
decrease from the average 199 units sold per year from 2004 to 2008, but an
increase over the 51 units sold during 2009.
o In the Lower Valley, there were 107 sales in 2010 at this price point. This
is a decrease from the average 203 units sold per year from 2004 to 2008, but an
increase in the 76 units sold during 2009.
• Sales prices per square-foot in 2010 averaged $237 for all geographies at this price
point. From 2004 to 2008, average prices per square foot were approximately $262 at this
price point.
o In the Upper Valley, prices average $385 per square-foot in 2010.This is a
decrease from the average prices in previous years. From 2004 to 2008, prices
averaged $393, and in 2009, prices averaged $478 on thin volume.
o In the Mid Valley, prices average $266 per square-foot in 2010. This is a
decrease from the average of $281 from 2004 to 2008 and a decrease from 2009,
which was $292 per square-foot.
o In the Lower Valley, prices average $186 per square-foot in 2010.This is a
decrease from average prices from 2004 to 2008, which were $198 and $203 in
2009.
Conclusions
• Absorption. EPS believes the most comparable set of sales reflect those in the lowest price
point, located in the mid valley. If the Town can capture 10 percent of this sales volume (93
sales per year), it can sell approximately 9 units annually, based on the performance of this
submarket in 2010. If the Town can capture 5 percent of all Eagle County sales at this price
point and below (237 sales), annual sales rates translate to approximately 12 units. These
capture rates will drop when the Town performs a more refined segmentation analysis and
narrows the proposed price banding. As the Town refines its development program and
proposed pricing, it should further segment these sales records to understand pricing
tolerances of the market and the segment which will receive the greatest demand.
• Price Points. Recent sales at this price point indicate that most occur in the Mid Valley
between $200/sqft and $350/sqft. This accounts for all ranges of products and all ages of
structures. The data indicate that these units are relatively old (built in the early 1990’s) and
with an average size of approximately 1,200 square feet. It is recognized that the Town
1 - 6 - 5
10/23/2012
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 6
20908-DM-030111
could likely build larger product and the corresponding price per square foot will drop. EPS
has established a price and size ratio, as depicted in Figure 7, which provides the
parameters for pricing relative to square footage.
• Competitive Position. Locations up valley will command a premium toward the higher end
of this range, as will new product. Both will make the project compelling. Although a deed
restriction will negatively impact the potential price point, it will not outweigh the premiums
for location and new structures.
1 - 6 - 6
10/23/2012
Figure 1
Wage & Salary Employment
Vail Chamonix Market Study Update
Figure 2
Total Employment
1 - 6 - 7
10/23/2012
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 8
20908-DM-030111
Vail Chamonix Market Study Update
1 - 6 - 8
10/23/2012
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 9
20908-DM-030111
Figure 3
Total Sales Volume by Price Category
Vail Chamonix Market Study Update
1 - 6 - 9
10/23/2012
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 10
20908-DM-030111
Table 1
Sales Statistics by Time Period
Vail Chamonix Market Study Update
Upswing:Contraction:Stabilization:Upswing:Contraction:Stabilization:Upswing:Contraction:Stabilization:
2004 to 2008200920102004 to 2008200920102004 to 200820092010
Upper Valley
Less than $438,000$393$478$385702737856832953
$438,000 to $600,000$480$458$4235113231,2081,2381,356
Greater than $600,000$933 $826 $1,067 187 86 183 2,465 2,541 2,610
Subtotal$735$714$9023081262431,8892,0402,239
---97%123%---41%79%---108%119%
Mid Valley
Less than $438,000$281$292$26619951931,1831,2291,208
$438,000 to $600,000$361$304$29711627421,6681,8142,005
Greater than $600,000$566 $504 $516 447 181 219 3,436 3,817 3,837
Subtotal$461$441$4247622593542,5793,0982,929
---96%92%---34%46%---120%114%
Lower Valley
Less than $438,000$198$203$160203761071,6081,6971,947
$438,000 to $600,000$225$180$1787719202,4023,0342,947
Greater than $600,000$262 $249 $276 62 24 33 3,414 4,095 4,644
Subtotal$216$209$1863421191602,1122,3942,628
as % of 2004-2008---97%86%---35%47%---113%124%
Source: Eagle County MLS; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\20908-Vail Chamonix Market Update\Data\[20908-MLS-2011.xlsx]Table 2
Average Prices / SqFtAverage Annual AbsorptionAvera ge Unit Sizes
1 - 6 - 10
10/23/2012
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 11
20908-DM-030111
Figure 4
Overall Average Prices per Square-Foot by Geography
Vail Chamonix Market Study Update
1 - 6 - 11
10/23/2012
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 12
20908-DM-030111
Figure 5
Prices per Square Foot by Geography under $438,000
Vail Chamonix Market Study Update
1 - 6 - 12
10/23/2012
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 13
20908-DM-030111
Figure 6
Volume by Unit Type by Geography under $438,000
Vail Chamonix Market Study Update
1 - 6 - 13
10/23/2012
Memorandum February 28, 2011
Chamonix Market Study Update Page 14
20908-DM-030111
Figure 7
Units Sold under $438,000 by Price/SqFt and Size
Vail Chamonix Market Study Update
1 - 6 - 14
10/23/2012
Housing
Needs Assessment Update
2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.
Linda Venturoni, President
Jim Westkott, Senior Economist and Demographer
Economic Council of Eagle County
Kathy Chandler-Henry, Director of Research
1 - 7 - 1
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
2
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
Update 2012
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . 5
2007 Housing Needs Assessment: An Overview. . . . . 7
Housing Needs Assessment: 2012 Update . . . . . 8
Housing Needs Summary . . . . . . 9
Explanation of Housing Needs Estimates: Catch-Up Needs . . 10
Explanation of Housing Needs Estimates: Keep-Up Needs . . 12
Nexus and Proportionality: 2012 Update . . . . . 15
Area Median Income . . . . . . . 15
Income Distribution of Eagle County Households . . . 16
Rental Limits and Affordable Housing Prices . . . . 16
Affordability Gap . . . . . . . 17
Level of Service Estimate: the Mitigation Rate . . . 18
Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . 21
Appendices . . . . . . . . . 24
The mission of the Eagle County Housing Department is to provide innovative, affordable
housing solutions to the working people, elderly and disadvantaged members of the
Eagle County community.
1 - 7 - 2
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
3
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
Update 2012
Index of Tables
Table 1. Eagle County Housing Needs, 2007
Table 2. Population, Jobs and Employment 2007 – 2011
Table 3. Cost Burdened Households in Eagle County 2008 – 2010
Table 4. Eagle County Housing Needs, 2011 – 2020
Table 5. Catch-Up Needs Generated by In-Commuting Employees
Table 6. Jobs Forecast in Eagle County, 2010 – 2020
Table 7. Estimate of Housing Needed to Fill New Jobs 2011 – 2020
Table 8. Estimate of Housing Needed to Fill Jobs Vacated by Retirees,
2011-2020
Table 9. Area Median Income by Household Size
Table 10. Income Distribution by Housing Tenure
Table 11. Affordability Gap
Table 12. Level of Service Estimates/Mitigation Rate
1 - 7 - 3
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
4
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
Update 2012
Appendices
Housing Data:
Table H-1: Estimate of Housing Needed to Fill Jobs
Vacated by Retirees, 2011 - 2020 . . . 24
Economic Data:
Table E-1: Total Jobs in Eagle County . . . . 27
Table E-2: Personal Income by Component . . . 29
Population Data:
Table P-1: Population by Municipality . . . . 31
Table P-2: Population by Age . . . . . 32
Table P-3: Population, Households and Housing Units . . 33
Table P-4: Households by Type . . . . . 34
1 - 7 - 4
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
5
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
Update 2012
Introduction
Eagle County completed a Housing Needs Assessment in 2007, and a Nexus
Proportionality study in 2008. The results of those two analyses were used as a basis
for its 2009 Housing Guidelines.
Economic conditions in the United States, Colorado, and Eagle County have changed
drastically since 2007-2008. Eagle County has gone from full employment (under 3%) to
a rate of almost 9% unemployment in 2011. Because 2007 was the height of the pre-
recession growth period, the 2007 Housing Needs Assessment defined a need for
affordable worker housing at its peak in recent years. Calculations in the 2008 Nexus
study targeted ownership housing for workforce families earning 140% of Area Median
Income (AMI).
The 2009 Eagle County Local-Resident Housing Guidelines Section 1-100 begins with
this statement of need:
Eagle County faces a substantial County-wide gap in the availability of
ownership and rental housing that is affordable for local residents. Households
are burdened by high housing payments, and employees are forced to commute
long distances. Overcrowding is common. Jobs remain unfilled, negatively
impacting business operations, and the vast majority of employers believe that
the availability of workforce housing is a critical or major problem in Eagle
County.
Housing problems have long been recognized in Eagle County. Eagle County
commissioned housing needs assessment studies, completed in 1990, 1999
and 2007, that demonstrated these needs.
During 2011, Eagle County Housing and Planning Department staff met with private and
municipal planners to review and discuss the 2009 Housing Guidelines. Participants in
those meetings were in agreement that housing guidelines are still appropriate in Eagle
County, that housing needs follow economic growth and recession cycles, and that 2012
is an appropriate time to review, simplify, and possibly modify the guidelines.
The purpose of this update is to examine the assumptions made in 2007 and 2008,
update the data for current conditions, and make recommendations for possible
modifications to the 2009 Housing Guidelines.
While traditional needs assessments rely extensively on survey data, which is expensive
and time-consuming to collect, this update provides recommendations based on data
1 - 7 - 5
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
6
that is generated or updated annually. Data from public sources including the US
Census, State Demographer, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS),
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Labor Market Information, Economic Council of Eagle
County, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Eagle County Assessor, and the American
Community Survey are used to populate tables. This update was developed to allow
timely modifications to the assessment of housing needs, triggered by changes in metrics
based on these publically-accessible data sources.
The current housing situation in Eagle County is described through demographics,
workforce data, and housing units. Current and projected housing gaps by AMI level are
identified. A major focus of this analysis is “cost-burdened” households (those paying
more than 30% of their income for housing costs). Rental and ownership housing are
both included in the analysis. The analysis is completed at the County level, inclusive of
municipalities and unincorporated County areas.
The report is organized into four sections: an overview of the 2007 Housing Needs
Assessment; the 2012 update to the Needs Assessment; an explanation of and update to
the 2008 Nexus/Proportionality Study; and a final section that includes
recommendations for consideration when revising Housing Guidelines.
Data sources are footnoted throughout the report. Additional data tables are provided
in the Appendices. The update is intended to be an objective analysis of data that can be
used for policy recommendations.
This report was researched and prepared as a joint project between Venturoni Surveys
& Research, Inc., and the Economic Council of Eagle County. It is presented to the
Housing Department of Eagle County for use in development and potential revisions of
housing policies and guidelines.
1 - 7 - 6
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
7
2007 Housing Needs Assessment: An Overview
The 2007 Needs Assessment, by estimating a housing need of over 12,500 units,
established a strong urgency for a wide range of affordable housing initiatives, including
the 2009 Guidelines for new development. In addition, a “Nexus/Proportionality
Analysis for Commercial Development” was used to create a mitigation formula of units
to be built, or fees to be paid in lieu of construction.1
The 2007 report estimated a total number of housing units needed by employees in
Eagle County, both to fill existing gaps in the market at the time (“catch-up” needs) and
to accommodate future needs (“keep-up” needs). These future needs were based on
economic and population growth projections through 2015. “Catch-up” needs included
demand from unfilled jobs in 2007, workers commuting to Eagle County from other
counties, and units needed to address overcrowding. “Keep-up” needs included housing
demand from job growth and from replacement of retirees. The estimates of each of
these components of the total needed units are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Eagle County Housing Needs, 20072
Type of Need
Catch - Up Needs: 2007
Demand from Unfilled Jobs in 2007 1,420
In - Commuters 2,469
Units Needed to Address Overcrowding 557
Total Catch - Up Needs 4,446
Keep - Up Needs: 2015
Housing Demand from Job Growth 4,776
Demand from Replacement of Retirees 3,284
Total Keep - Up Needs 8,060
Total Housing Needs 12,506
1 See “Eagle County Nexus / Proportionality Analysis for Commercial Development / Workforce Housing
Linkage”, prepared by RRC Associates, Inc./Rees Consulting, Inc., January 2008.
2 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, 2007 prepared by RRC Associates, Inc./Rees Consulting, Inc.,
December 2007, pp. 7 – 8, and 80 – 85.
1 - 7 - 7
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
8
Housing Needs Assessment: 2012 Update
Since the peak housing demand generated by the workforce in 2007, the number of jobs
has dropped dramatically (a decline of 12% from 2007 to 2011). Rather counter-
intuitively, the population continued to increase through 2010, albeit quite slowly
compared to recent decades. Demographers3 believe that this divergence in the
number of jobs and people has been accompanied by a considerable drop in labor force
participation rates, as discouraged workers – those not seeking work – have not left the
county. The loss in jobs of 12% is matched with a drop in the civilian labor force of only
6% over the same time period. Total population in the County grew about 5.1% from
2007 to 2011.
Table 2. Population, Jobs and Employment
2007 - 20114
YEAR County
Population
Jobs Civilian
Labor
Force
Employment Unemployment Unemployment
Rate
2007 49,284 41,727 31,161 30,267 894 2.9%
2008 50,301 40,449 31,851 30,721 1,130 3.5%
2009 51,520 37,230 30,666 28,269 2,397 7.8%
2010 52,057 35,750 29,724 26,897 2,827 9.5%
2011 51,777 36,605 29,425 26,884 2,541 8.6%
In spite of the slow population growth in the County, the drop in jobs has caused a
corresponding drop in the need for employee housing. It is reasonable to assume that
the demand for unfilled jobs is much less (there are more people, and fewer jobs). In
addition, because of the dramatic decline in the county economy and persistent
problems in the national and international economies, short- and middle- term
expectations of job growth are significantly lower.
Along with the drop in the number of units needed for employees in the County
(caused by the recession) is a decline in the household income of workers and non-
workers. This drop in income has made it difficult for many families to pay for housing.
Recent data released by the U. S. Census Bureau show that approximately 45% of all
households, (43.8% of owners and 46.5% of renters) in the county pay more than 30%
of their income for housing-related expenses (see Table 3, below).
3 Staff, State Demography Office of Colorado Department of Local Affairs.
4 State Demography Office and Labor Market Information.
1 - 7 - 8
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page 9
Table 3. Cost Burdened Households in
Eagle County 2008 - 20105
The estimate of the need for affordable housing (see Table 4, below) does not include
any estimate of the number of units needed to overcome the problems of households
that are “cost-burdened”. However, this is probably the largest and most evident part
of the affordable housing problem in Eagle County. The number of cost-burdened
households is high, and affects people who are already living in the county.
This objective measure of cost-burdened households is provided through the American
Community Survey on a three-year rolling basis, and is a good marker of success or
distress in the affordable workforce housing market.
Housing Needs Summary
To provide a current estimate of “catch-up” and “keep-up” housing needed in Eagle
County, a number of factors were considered. Table 4, below, shows the updated
estimate of the components included in the 2007 Needs Assessment. The
methodologies for preparing these new estimates are contained in the following
paragraphs explaining Tables 5 – 8. The cumulative housing needs in 2015 are estimated
at 4,572, which is only 37% of the need for 12,506 units predicted in 2007. By 2020,
approximately 2,768additional housing units(for a ten-year total of 7,340)will be
needed according to current projections.
American Community Survey, 2012.
50.7%
19.6%
46.5%
Owners with Mortgage
Owners without mortgage
Renters
1 - 7 - 9
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
10
Table 4. Eagle County Housing Needs, 2011 – 2020
Type of Need 2007 Est. 2011
Est.
2015 Est. 2020 Est.
Catch - Up Needs
Demand from Unfilled Jobs in 2007 1,420 200
In - Commuters 2,469 1,708
Units Needed to Address Overcrowding 557 600
Total Catch - Up Needs 4,446 2,508
Keep - Up Needs
Housing Demand from Job Growth 4,776 994 1,400
Demand from Replacement of Retirees 3,284 1.070 1,368
Total Keep - Up Needs 8,060 2,064 2,768
Total Housing Needs 12,506 4,572
(2011+2015)
7,340
(2015+2020)
Explanation of Housing Needs Estimates: Catch-Up Needs
Demand from Unfilled Jobs
In 2007, researchers estimated that Eagle County needed 1,420 housing units to attract
employees to fill vacant positions. This was based on an employer survey regarding
unfilled jobs, estimated at 4,089, and a combination of assumptions (including that of a
tight labor market) “concerning the number of unfilled jobs and the number of
employees living in Eagle County and available for work”6. These factors have all
changed now, considerably lowering this need: the number of unfilled jobs is much
lower and the labor market is less tight. The annual Workforce Survey conducted by
the Economic Council7 indicates that while workforce housing is still a need for area
employers, it is much less of an issue than in 2007. For this update, it is assumed that
this number of housing units needed for unfilled jobs is quite small (200 units).
In-Commuters
The 2007 Assessment also estimated a catch-up need of housing for in-commuters.
This was based on an estimate by the State Demography Office/Department of Local
Affairs (SDO/DOLA) of the percentage of workers who were in-commuters (18.3%).
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, 2007, p. 80.
Economic Council of Eagle County, 2011-2012 Workforce Survey.
1 - 7 - 10
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
11
An in-commuter survey indicated that 70% of these workers would prefer to live in
Eagle County.
The 2011 SDO/DOLA updated its estimate of the percent of the workforce that are in-
commuters to 12%. However, there is no new estimate of the percent of these who
would move into the county if affordable housing were available to them. Using the
same percentage as the 2007 survey result, the number of employees who would move
into the county is 2,562 and the number of housing units needed for them would be
1,708 (see Table 5).
Table 5. Catch-Up Needs Generated by
In-Commuting Employees
2007 2011
Total Jobs 41,727 36,605
Average Jobs per Employee 1.2 1.2
Total Employees 34,773 30,504
In-Commuters 6,351 3,661
% of Total Employees 18.3% 12.0%
# who would move to Eagle County (70%) 4,446 2,562
Employees per household 1.8 1.5
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS NEEDED 2,469 1,708
Units Needed to Address Overcrowding
The 2007 Household Survey found that 9.8% of Eagle County households lived in
overcrowded conditions (defined as having more than 1.5 residents per bedroom). This
equated to 1,855 households. Assuming that “an increase in the supply of workforce
housing equal to about 30% of the number of overcrowded units will largely address
overcrowding to the extent practical”8, the 2007 report estimated that 557 units were
needed at that time for this purpose.
Applying the same percentage to the total number of occupied housing units
(households) in 2011 yields an estimate of 1,889 overcrowded units. Multiplying this
number by 30% produces an estimate of 567 units needed to address the problem of
overcrowding. However, given the effects of the recession, it is likely that the
percentage of occupied overcrowded housing units is currently somewhat higher. Using
an estimate of just under 32% produces a total of 600 units needed to address
overcrowding in 2011.
Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, 2007, p. 83.
1 - 7 - 11
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
12
Explanation of Housing Needs Estimates: Keep-Up Needs
Housing Demand from Job Growth
The 2007 Needs Assessment used a jobs forecasts developed by SDO/DOLA. This
forecast predicted a net gain of 4,400 jobs from 2007 to 2010 and an additional 10,316
jobs from 2010 to 2015. Because of the recession, the increase of 4,400 jobs never
materialized; the number of jobs actually declined by almost 6,000 (5,977) from 2007
to 2010. Furthermore, the forecasts of increases from 2010 to 2015 and beyond are
significantly reduced.
Current SDO/DOLA forecasts show job growth occurring at average annual growth
rates of 4.0% to 2013, 3.5% to 2015, and 3.0% to 2020. Even these forecasts may be
too high, and revisions later in 2012 will show lower numbers. The forecasts provided
below in Table 6 provide a basis for an initial set of estimates of housing demand from
job growth.
The assumptions of this revised forecast are that job growth in the national economy
will continue to grow at a slow pace (0.8%) through 2013 and then at the rate of 1.5%
to 2015. During this period, Eagle County’s annual average rate of job growth can be
expected to be somewhat higher, 1.5% through 2013 and 2.5% from 2013 to 2015. In
the five years after that, 2015 – 2020, annual average job increases are likely to be
higher, in the range of 3% - 4% or more.
The slow job growth rate in the national economy is the result of both national and
international woes, e.g., the U. S. government debt, and the Eurozone bailouts of
struggling national economies (Greece, Portugal, Spain). The stronger expected growth
in Eagle County jobs is mainly because of strong increases in the number of retirees,
particularly in the Colorado metropolitan Front Range, but also in other parts of
western United States. These retiree households in one way or another – as day or
destination tourists, as second home occupants, or as resident retirees – will make
greater use of the scenic and recreational resources of the county. Their presence, in
turn, will create greater needs for tourism-related services and household and health
care.
1 - 7 - 12
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
13
Table 6. Jobs Forecast in Eagle County, 2011 - 2020
2011 2013 2015 2020
Eagle County
Number of Jobs 36,605 37,711 39,620 42,100
Average Annual % Change 1.5% 2.5% 3.9%
United State
Number of Jobs (x 1,000) 131,360 134,500 140,000 147,000
Average Annual % Change 1.2% 2.0% 1.0%
Applying this revised jobs forecast to the 2007 Needs Assessment template for
estimating housing needs to fill new jobs results in generated housing demands of 610 in
2013, 1,000 in 2015, and 1,400 in 2020 (see Table 7).
Table 7. Estimate of Housing Needed to Fill New Jobs
2011 - 2020
2011 2013 2015 2020
Total Forecasted Jobs 36,605 37,400 39,300 42,100
Increase in Jobs over Prior Period 1,100 1,900 2,800
Jobs per Employed Person 1.2 1.2 1.2
New Employed Persons Needed 920 1,590 2,335
Employed Persons/Housing Unit 1.5 1.6 1.7
Housing Demand Generated (Units) 610 1,000 1,400
Housing Demand from Replacement of Retirees
In this update, the demand for affordable housing from the workers required to replace
retiring members of the workforce is calculated in a different way than in the 2007
Needs Assessment. In that 2007 report, it was estimated that 40%, or 5,911, of the
workers between 57 and 64 in 2007 would retire by 2015. Assuming the number of
employees (employed persons) per household was 1.8, this resulted in a housing
demand of 3,284 units. In this update, the number of retirees by five-year age groups
over 50 is estimated on the basis of declines in their labor force participation (defined as
retirement rates) during the periods 2011 - 2015 and 2016 – 2020. These new
estimates of housing demand from the replacement of retirees – 1,070 and 1,368
1 - 7 - 13
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
14
respectively – are much lower than in the 2007 Needs Assessment report (for a full
explanation of this chart, see Appendix I).
Table 8. Estimate of Housing Needed to Fill Jobs
Vacated by Retirees, 2011 - 20209
2011 - 2015
AGE
GROUP
Pop. LFPR In
Wrkforce
Retire.
Rate
New
Ret’d
5-Yr
Surv.
Rate
Surv.
Retired
Ret’d
/Hhld
Needed
Housing
50 - 54 3,711 0.81 3,021 0.07 216 0.982 213 1.6 133
55 – 59 3,081 0.76 2,328 0.23 540 0.973 525 1.5 350
60 – 64 2,519 0.58 1,458 0.40 576 0.960 553 1.4 395
65 – 69 1,533 0.35 538 0.24 127 0.936 119 1.3 91
70 – 74 738 0.27 199 0.42 84 0.906 76 1.2 63
75 – 79 408 0.15 63 0.52 33 0.854 28 1.1 25
80 – 84 201 0.07 15 1.00 15 0.749 11 1.0 11
TOTAL 12,191 7,621 1,591 1,525 1,070
2016 - 2020
AGE
GROUP
Pop. LFPR In
Wrkforce
Retire.
Rate
New
Ret’d
5-Yr
Surv.
Rate
Surv.
Retired
Ret’d
/Hhld
Needed
Housing
50 - 54 4,071 0.82 3,343 0.06 206 0.983 202 1.6 127
55 – 59 3,800 0.77 2,930 0.20 583 0.974 568 1.5 379
60 – 64 3,107 0.62 1,919 0.36 682 0.960 655 1.4 468
65 – 69 2,513 0.40 996 0.27 265 0.939 249 1.3 192
70 – 74 1,510 0.29 439 0.40 174 0.905 157 1.2 131
75 – 79 710 0.18 125 0.48 60 0.849 51 1.1 46
80 – 84 378 0.09 33 1.00 33 0.755 25 1.0 25
TOTAL 16,089 9,785 2,003 1,908 1,368
(Note: LFPR = Labor Force Participation Rate)
9 Source of data on population and labor force participation rates: State Demography Office, Colorado
Department of Local Government.
1 - 7 - 14
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
15
Nexus and Proportionality: 2012 Update
In addition to the Housing Needs Assessment completed in 2007, the County utilized a
“Nexus and Proportionality” study from 2008 to inform the Housing Guidelines.
Although not technically part of this Housing Needs Assessment update, several tables
in the Nexus report are key to the County’s Housing Guidelines. The following tables
are explained and revised here using current data:
• Area Median Income by Household Size
• Income Distribution of Eagle County Households
• Rental Limits and Affordable Housing Prices
• The Affordability Gap
• Level of Service Estimates/Mitigation Rate
Area Median Income
Federal, state and local housing programs are typically based on an anchor to Area
Median Income, or AMI. AMI is calculated annually by the US Department of Housing
and Urban Development. Eagle County figures for 2012 are shown below, along with a
comparison to 2007 for 100% AMI levels.
Table 9. Area Median Income by Household Size,
201210
Household Size
AMI Level 1-person 2 persons 3 persons 4 persons 5 persons
50% AMI $29,700 $33,925 $38,175 $42,400 $45,800
60% AMI $35,640 $40,710 $45,810 $50,880 $54,960
80% AMI $47,520 $54,280 $61,080 $67,840 $73,280
100% AMI $59,400 $67,850 $76,350 $84,800 $91,600
120% AMI $71,280 $81,420 $91,620 $101,760 $109,920
140% AMI $83,160 $94,990 $106,890 $118,720 $128,240
100% AMI Comparison, 2007 and 2012
AMI Level 1-person 2 persons 3 persons 4 persons 5 persons
100% - 2007 $56,800 $64,900 $73,000 $81,100 $87,600
100% - 2012 $59,400 $67,850 $76,350 $84,800 $91,600
Change 4.6% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6%
10 Housing and Urban Development
1 - 7 - 15
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
16
Income Distribution of Eagle County Households
Household income distribution by tenure (renter or owner) was calculated using 2005 –
2009 data from the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data. This
data is available annually (although there is a lag) and can be used to update housing
strategies. The table below shows that 68% of renters and 36% of owners (a total of
47% of all household types) earn less than 100% AMI.
Table 10. Eagle County Income Distribution by
Housing Tenure, 2005 - 200911
Renters Owners TOTAL
AMI Level # % # % # %
30% AMI 1,395 24.69% 320 2.96% 1,715 10.41%
Between 30% and 50% 745 13.19% 930 8.59% 1,675 10.17%
Between 50% and 80% 920 16.28% 1,300 12.01% 2,220 13.47%
Between 80% and 100% 780 13.81% 1,375 12.70% 2,155 13.08%
100% AMI 1,810 32.04% 6,900 63.74% 8,710 52.87%
TOTAL 5,650 100.00% 10,825 100.00% 16,475 100.00%
Rental Limits and Affordable Housing Prices
The following table can be used to help determine the appropriate AMI levels to target
through housing policies. Affordable housing prices were calculated assuming a 4%
interest rate, a fixed mortgage amortized over 30 years, 10% down payment, and
HOA/property taxes/insurance at 20% of the mortgage payment. Affordable rent is
calculated at 30% of monthly income.
11 CHAS Data, 2005 – 2009 Analysis
1 - 7 - 16
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
17
Table 11. HUD Median Income/Rental Rate
Guidelines12
Median Income
Information
County
Eagle
AMI
$84,800
% of Median Income for Area No. of
Persons Occ. 200% 140% 120% 100% 80% 50% 30% 1
$118,800 $83,160 $71,280 $59,400 $47,520 $29,700 $17,820 2
$135,700 $94,990 $81,420 $67,850 $54,280 $33,925 $20,355 3
$152,700 $106,890 $91,620 $76,350 $61,080 $38,175 $22,905 4
$169,600 $118,720 $101,760 $84,800 $67,840 $42,400 $25,440 5
$183,200 $128,240 $109,920 $91,600 $73,280 $45,800 $27,480 6
$196,800 $137,760 $118,080 $98,400 $78,720 $49,200 $29,520
Rent Limits
Studio 1 $2,970 $2,079 $1,782 $1,485 $1,188 $743 $446 1 bdrm 1.5 $3,181 $2,227 $1,909 $1,591 $1,273 $795 $477
2 $3,393 $2,375 $2,036 $1,696 $1,357 $848 $509 2 bdrm 3 $3,818 $2,672 $2,291 $1,909 $1,527 $954 $573 3 bdrm 4 $4,240 $2,968 $2,544 $2,120 $1,696 $1,060 $636
4.5 $4,410 $3,087 $2,646 $2,205 $1,764 $1,103 $662 4 bdrm 5 $4,580 $3,206 $2,748 $2,290 $1,832 $1,145 $687
6 $4,920 $3,444 $2,952 $2,460 $1,968 $1,230 $738
Ownership Housing
1
Studio 1 $592,000 $415,000 $355,000 $296,000 $237,000 $148,000 $89,000 1BR 2 $632,000 $442,000 $379,000 $316,000 $253,000 $158,000 $95,000 2BR 3 $711,000 $498,000 $426,000 $355,000 $284,000 $178,000 $107,000 3BR 4 $789,000 $553,000 $474,000 $395,000 $316,000 $197,000 $118,000
4.5 $821,000 $575,000 $493,000 $411,000 $328,000 $205,000 $123,000
5 $853,000 $597,000 $512,000 $426,000 $341,000 $213,000 $128,000
6 $916,000 $641,000 $550,000 $458,000 $366,000 $229,000 $137,000
Affordability Gap
The figures in Table 11, above, can be used to calculate the affordability gap for different
AMI levels. According to the 2008 Nexus/Proportionality Analysis, “The difference
between prevailing market prices and what targeted low-income households can afford
to pay for housing is the gap that must be taken into consideration when determining
the amount of fee that could be paid in lieu of producing units under certain
circumstances.” 13
12Analysis and calculations using HUD AMI data
13Nexus/Proportionality Analysis for Commercial Development/Workforce Housing Linkage, January
2008, RRC Associates, Inc., Rees Consulting, Inc.
1 - 7 - 17
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
18
Table 11. Affordability Gap14
2007 100%
AMI
2012 100%
AMI
2012 120%
AMI
2012 140%
AMI
Target Income Point (3
person HH)
$73,000 $76,350 $91,600 $106,890
Affordable Monthly Housing
Pmt.
$1,825 $1,909 $2,290 $2,672
Property Taxes/
Insurance/HOA (20%)
$365 $382 $458 $534
Mortgage Payment $1,460 $1,527 $1,832 $2,138
Max Mortgage Amount $231,000 $319,500 $383,400 $448,200
Affordable Purchase Price $243,150 $355,000 $426,000 $498,000
Average Sq. Ft. of Units 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Median Price/Sq. Ft. $385 $396 $396 $396
Market Cost/Unit $385,000 $396,000 $396,000 $396,000
Affordability Gap $141,850 $41,000 -$30,000 -$102,000
The affordability gap, plus any desired administrative fees, can be used to assess a
payment in lieu of constructing new units.
The table above shows that the affordability gap has lessened considerably since 2007,
due in large part to lower mortgage interest rates. In 2007, a typical mortgage incurred
7% interest; the 2012 update was calculated using a 4% rate. Households earning more
than 100% AMI do not have an affordability gap; it is appropriate in the post-2008
economy to target Eagle County housing guidelines to those households earning 100%
AMI and below.
Level of Service Estimates: the Mitigation Rate
The 2008 Nexus/Proportionality Analysis calculated a 55% mitigation rate, based on the
belief that “55% of all households generated by jobs in Eagle County live in the county
and have incomes equal to or less than 140% AMI.” (page 3) This 55% was a target
service level to address through housing guidelines and policies.
Using the same methodology in 2012 produces a mitigation rate of 41%. The
percentage of commuters was revised to include only those commuters likely to want
to move to Eagle County. Comparison pie charts are shown below:
14Analysis and calculations using HUD AMI data and Eagle County real estate sales data.
1 - 7 - 18
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page 19
Table 12. Level of Service Estimates
Because the methodology for calculating mitigation rates, above, makes several
unverifiable assumptions (about commuters, and about household distribution rates),
and does not take into account potential differences between renters and owners, the
authors of this update recommend using cost-burdened percentages to determine level
of service estimates and proposed mitigation rates.
Households
with Incomes
> 140% AMI
27%
In-Commuters
18%
Households with
Incomes 140%
AMI
55%
Level of Service Estimate 2008
Households
with Incomes
> 100% AMI
47%
In-Commuters
12%
Households
with Incomes
100% AMI
41%
Level of Service Estimate 2012
1 - 7 - 19
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page 20
From Table 3 on page 9 (repeated below), we see that 45% of Eagle County’s
households are cost-burdened (43.8% of all owners and 46.5% of renters). Using the
cost-burdened percentages generated through analysis of CHAS (Colorado Housing
Affordability Strategy) data produces a result consistent with the 2008 study
methodology, but provides a more easily replicable and defensible source of data.
Table 3. Cost Burdened Households in
Eagle County 2008 - 201015
American Community Survey, 2012.
50.7%
19.6%
46.5%
Owners with Mortgage
Owners without mortgage
Renters
1 - 7 - 20
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
21
Conclusions and Recommendations
This update to the Housing Needs Assessment is intended to be factual and supported
by accessible data sources. A few conclusions and recommendations are included in this
final section, for use in informing future housing policies in Eagle County.
Retiree Housing and Its Impact on Workforce Housing
Table 8 of this report (page 14) shows the number of new workers needed to replace
current Eagle County workers who retire. As current workers retire, their housing
units change in status from units that house workers to units that do not house workers
(assuming the retirees stay in their homes). The new employees who fill the jobs
vacated by retired workers create a demand for new housing units.
If retired workers move to retirement housing options, their former housing units can
house future workers and remain in the workforce housing status.
It is important to note that the retiree numbers in the report do not include second
homeowners or amenity-seeking retirement migrants who may retire to Eagle County
in the future. Both of these in-migration trends have been well documented and show
up in the increase in the senior population from 2000-2010, and the projected higher
increases in the future 65+ population.
Given these established trends, we recommend that the County Housing Department
pursue the development of appropriate senior retirement housing options that can
provide for the future housing and health care needs of the elderly population. These
retirement housing options would free up existing housing units that can be used for
workforce housing needs.
Focus on Rental Housing
While the 2007 Housing Needs Assessment, the 2008 Nexus/Proportionality Study, and
the 2009 Housing Guidelines focused most of the attention on ownership housing, it is
clear from a review of the updated data that inclusion on rental housing is appropriate in
2012.
The most recent data shows that 46.5% of all renters are cost burdened (paying more
than 30% of their income for housing). It is harder to qualify for a mortgage than in the
past due to a tighter credit market, and new employees moving to the County may be
reluctant to purchase because they fear the housing market has not yet “hit bottom,”
and/or they may be uncertain about their long-term employment status.
For these reasons, we recommend that the County Housing Department consider
rental housing in revisions to the Housing Guidelines.
1 - 7 - 21
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
22
Three Major Findings
Three major changes to the recommendations of the 2007 and 2008 studies emerged in
this update:
1. Shift from 140% AMI to 100% AMI.
While the 2007 study (and subsequent guidelines) recommended focusing on
households earning 140% of AMI, this update shows that the affordability gap
emerges at 100% AMI (see Table 11, page 18).
Sixty-eight percent of renter households (3,842 households) earn less than 100%
AMI (see Table 10, page 16); 36% of owner households (3,572) fall into this AMI
category.
2. Shift from 55% to 45% Mitigation Rate.
The 2008 Nexus/Proportionality study recommended a mitigation rate of 55%,
based on the belief that “55% of all households generated by jobs in Eagle
County live in the county and have incomes equal to or less than 140% AMI.”
(page 3) Using what we believe is a more solid methodology for targeting
housing policies (cost-burdened households), we recommend a 45% mitigation
rate.
3. Reduction in Number of Housing Units Needed.
The 2007 Housing Needs Assessment calculated a need for 12,506 housing units,
both to catch-up with unmet demand and to meet future needs. Table 4 on page
10 and the subsequent explanatory paragraphs and tables reduce this need to
2,472 by 2015 and 7,340 by 2020 (cumulative). We feel that this is a reliable
estimate based on current demographics, job forecasts, and trends.
Future Updates to the Housing Needs Assessment
The researchers designed this study to be replicated in the future, using current data to
update tables and calculations.
A focus on cost-burdened households through new American Community Survey/CHAS
data allows a way to assess the success of future housing policies (a reduction in the
1 - 7 - 22
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
23
number of cost-burdened households could indicate success). This data can be
monitored annually.
The 2007 Needs Assessment included four different surveys: household, in-commuting
employees, employer, and realtor/property manager. Collecting data through surveys
allows a broader and more qualitative approach to housing planning and policies, and
may allow analysis at smaller geographic levels. However, collecting data through
surveys is time-consuming and expensive, and may not be justified given the rich data
available through public sources. Future housing needs assessments will need to weigh
the costs/benefits of conducting surveys.
The Cyclical Nature of Eagle County’s Economy
While the housing affordability gap is much smaller than in 2009, it may increase again
with cyclical economic swings. Using the analysis techniques provided in this report
provides a way to readily update housing guidelines and policies based on current
conditions.
1 - 7 - 23
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
24
APPENDIX H-1
Estimate of Housing Needed to Fill Jobs Vacated by Retirees,
2011 - 2020
In this update of the 2007 Housing Needs Assessment, the number of housing units
needed for the “workforce required to replace members who retire” is estimated in a
new way, based on the decline in labor force participation rates by five-year age groups.
The following describes how these new calculations are made.
Referring to the very first row on the table, the total population ages 50 to 54 in 2011 is
3,711. With a labor force participation rate (LFPR) of 0.81, then 3,021 of this age group
are in the workforce. Four years later, in 2015, the LFPR of this cohort is 0.76, so the
decline in LFPR is 0.81 – 0.76 or 0.05 which when divided by the beginning rate of 0.81
means that 0.05 / 0.81 or 7% of this cohort have retired or that its “retirement rate” is
0.07. Multiplying 0.07 times 3,021 (those in the workforce in 2011) equals 216,
presumably the number of workers who retired during the five-year period. However,
the five-year survival rate of this group is 0.982, which means that on average, only 213
of the 216 survived (3 died) by 2015. Finally, assuming that the number of workers or
retirees per household for this age group is 1.6, this leads to the result that the number
of housing units needed for the replacement workers is 133.
These calculations are performed for each five-year age group from 50 – 84 and for two
five-year time periods, 2011 – 2015 and 2016 – 2020. The total number of units for
each period is presented in bold in the lower right-hand corner of each panel. The
calculations were actually performed by gender – shown on the two lower panels – with
the total (male and female) calculated as the sum (or the average rate) of the gender-
specific results.
1 - 7 - 24
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
25
Appendix H-1: Estimate of Housing Needed to Fill
Jobs Vacated by Retirees, 2011 - 202016
2011 – 2015: All Retirees
AGE
GROUP
Pop. LFPR In
Wrkforce
Retire.
Rate
New
Ret’d
5-Yr
Surv.
Rate
Surv.
Retired
Ret’d
/Hhld
Needed
Housing
50 - 54 3,711 0.81 3,021 0.07 216 0.982 213 1.6 133
55 – 59 3,081 0.76 2,328 0.23 540 0.973 525 1.5 350
60 – 64 2,519 0.58 1,458 0.40 576 0.960 553 1.4 395
65 – 69 1,533 0.35 538 0.24 127 0.936 119 1.3 91
70 – 74 738 0.27 199 0.42 84 0.906 76 1.2 63
75 – 79 408 0.15 63 0.52 33 0.854 28 1.1 25
80 – 84 201 0.07 15 1.00 15 0.749 11 1.0 11
TOTAL 12,191 7,621 1,591 1,525 1,070
2011 – 2015: Male Retirees
AGE
GROUP
Pop. LFPR In
Wrkforce
Retire.
Rate
New
Ret’d
5-Yr
Surv.
Rate
Surv.
Retired
Ret’d
/Hhld
Needed
Housing
50 - 54 1,977 0.856 1,692 0.10 166 0.981 163 1.6 102
55 – 59 1,651 0.772 1,275 0.19 239 0.968 232 1.5 154
60 – 64 1,301 0.627 816 0.35 289 0.957 276 1.4 197
65 – 69 804 0.405 326 0.28 91 0.929 84 1.3 65
70 – 74 403 0.292 118 0.39 46 0.879 40 1.2 33
75 – 79 207 0.179 37 0.41 15 0.817 12 1.1 11
80 – 84 106 0.106 11 1.00 11 0.730 8 1.0 8
TOTAL 6,449 0.774 4,274 857 816 571
2011 – 2015: Female Retirees
AGE
GROUP
Pop. LFPR In
Wrkforce
Retire.
Rate
New
Ret’d
5-Yr
Surv.
Rate
Surv.
Retired
Ret’d
/Hhld
Needed
Housing
50 - 54 1,734 0.766 1,328 0.04 50 0.987 50 1.6 31
55 – 59 1,430 0.737 1,054 0.28 300 0.977 293 1.5 196
60 – 64 1,218 0.527 642 0.45 287 0.963 277 1.4 198
65 – 69 729 0.291 212 0.17 36 0.956 34 1.3 26
70 – 74 335 0.242 81 0.48 39 0.937 36 1.2 30
75 – 79 201 0.127 26 0.69 17 0.885 15 1.1 14
80 – 84 95 0.040 4 1.00 4 0.805 3 1.0 3
TOTAL 5,742 0.700 3,347 734 709 498
16 Source of data on population and labor force participation rates: State Demography Office, Colorado
Department of Local Government.
1 - 7 - 25
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
26
2016 – 2020: All Retirees
AGE
GROUP
Pop. LFPR In
Wrkforce
Retire.
Rate
New
Ret’d
5-Yr
Surv.
Rate
Surv.
Retired
Ret’d
/Hhld
Needed
Housing
50 - 54 4,071 0.82 3,343 0.06 206 0.983 202 1.6 127
55 – 59 3,800 0.77 2,930 0.20 583 0.974 568 1.5 379
60 – 64 3,107 0.62 1,919 0.36 682 0.960 655 1.4 468
65 – 69 2,513 0.40 996 0.27 265 0.939 249 1.3 192
70 – 74 1,510 0.29 439 0.40 174 0.905 157 1.2 131
75 – 79 710 0.18 125 0.48 60 0.849 51 1.1 46
80 – 84 378 0.09 33 1.00 33 0.755 25 1.0 25
TOTAL 16,089 9,785 2,003 1,908 1,370
2016 – 2020: Male Retirees
AGE
GROUP
Pop. LFPR In
Wrkforce
Retire.
Rate
New
Ret’d
5-Yr
Surv.
Rate
Surv.
Retired
Ret’d
/Hhld
Needed
Housing
50 - 54 2,093 0.86 1,800 0.08 147 0.982 144 1.6 90
55 – 59 2,012 0.79 1,589 0.16 262 0.969 253 1.5 169
60 – 64 1,646 0.66 1,086 0.32 346 0.957 331 1.4 236
65 – 69 1,285 0.45 578 0.29 167 0.928 155 1.3 119
70 – 74 770 0.32 246 0.38 92 0.876 81 1.2 67
75 – 79 367 0.20 73 0.40 29 0.807 24 1.1 22
80 – 84 175 0.12 21 1.00 21 0.717 15 1.0 15
TOTAL 8,348 0.76 5,395 1,064 1,003 720
2016 – 2020: Female Retirees
AGE
GROUP
Pop. LFPR In
Wrkforce
Retire.
Rate
New
Ret’d
5-Yr
Surv.
Rate
Surv.
Retired
Ret’d
/Hhld
Needed
Housing
50 - 54 1,978 0.78 1,543 0.04 59 0.987 59 1.6 37
55 – 59 1,788 0.75 1,341 0.24 322 0.978 315 1.5 210
60 – 64 1,461 0.57 833 0.40 336 0.964 324 1.4 231
65 – 69 1,228 0.34 418 0.24 98 0.956 94 1.3 72
70 – 74 740 0.26 192 0.42 81 0.937 76 1.2 64
75 – 79 343 0.15 51 0.60 31 0.889 27 1.1 25
80 – 84 203 0.06 12 1.00 12 0.820 10 1.0 10
TOTAL 7,741 0.69 4,390 940 905 650
1 - 7 - 26
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
27
APPENDICES E-1 and E-2
Tables E-1 and E-2 provide some basic data on the Eagle County economy from 2002
through 2010. Table E-1 presents total jobs – both wage and salary and self-employed
and proprietors – by industrial sector. Table E-2 provides information on personal
income by component. While personal income has largely consisted of earnings by
place of work (82% in 2002 and 75% in 2010) it also includes monies earned outside the
county (residency adjustment), dividends, interest and rent, and personal transfer
receipts from government (retirement and disability, medical, income maintenance,
unemployment and veteran benefits) and from non-profits.
The data on jobs shows growth from 2002 to 2007, and then declines from 2007 to
2010 as the result of the recession. The biggest growth in the first period and then
decline in the second is in construction and construction-related fields, e.g., professional
services, administrative and waste (includes temporary workers), some retail and,
indirectly, real estate. The second general area of growth and decline is in tourism-
related industries: accommodation and food services, retail trade, and other services
(laundry and personal services).
The data on personal income show strong growth in earnings by place of work during
the periods 2002 – 2005 and 2005 – 2007 (6.5% and 10.0% per year, respectively)
followed by a - 5.4% per year from 2007 – 2010. Dividends, interest and rent also grew
strongly during the first two periods (10.1% and 13.6%) before declining a small amount
(- 1.8%) during the latter period. Personal transfer receipts, which grew at 6.5% and
8.5% per year from 2002 – 2007, jumped up to 21.3% per year from 2007 to 2010.
Proprietor’s income dropped - 4.2% per year from 2005 to 2007 (as earnings remained
strong) but increased with the recession (2007 to 2010) as workers offset their earnings
losses with other sources of income.
1 - 7 - 27
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
28
APPENDIX E-1: Estimated Total Jobs by Industry,
Eagle County, 2002 – 2010
2002 2005 2007 2010 2002 - 2007 2007 - 2010
Total Jobs 33,851 36,529 40,163 35,662 6,312 -4,501
Agriculture 123 191 186 203 63 17
Mining 7 11 14 17 7 3
Utilities 51 54 68 63 17 -5
Construction 5,356 5,316 6,329 3,900 973 -2,429
Construction of buildings 1,300 1,241 1,552 944 252 -608
Heavy construction 328 270 254 112 -74 -142
Special trade contractors 3,728 3,805 4,523 2,843 795 -1,680
Manufacturing 383 450 442 312 59 -130
Wholesale trade 439 482 524 528 85 4
Retail Trade 3,464 3,557 3,815 3,433 351 -382
Transportation and
warehousing 555 581 653 536 98 -117
Information 328 377 512 399 184 -113
Finance activities 541 773 826 775 285 -51
Real estate 2,817 3,032 3,159 2,963 342 -196
Professional & business
services 1,956 2,248 2,472 2,077 516 -395
Management of companies 215 154 153 157 -62 4
Admin and waste 1,600 1,897 2,197 1,941 597 -256
Education 155 287 278 255 123 -23
Health Services 1,547 1,675 2,028 2,023 481 -5
Arts 3,200 3,577 3,632 3,931 432 299
Accommodation and food 6,214 6,974 7,155 6,562 941 -593
Accommodation 2,478 2,898 2,852 2,683 374 -169
Food services, drinking
places 3,736 4,076 4,303 3,878 567 -425
Other services, exc. govt. 2,160 2,208 2,836 2,460 676 -376
Government 2,740 2,686 2,884 3,128 144 244
Federal and state 363 352 353 383 -10 30
Local government 2,377 2,334 2,531 2,746 154 215
Total Jobs 33,851 36,529 40,163 35,662 6,312 -4,501
1 - 7 - 28
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
29
APPENDIX E-2: Personal Income of Residents by
Components, Eagle County, 2002 – 2010, part 1
(In Millions of Dollars)
Component 2002 2005 2007 2010
Total Personal Income Amt.
% of
Tl Amt.
% of
Tl Amt.
% of
Tl Amt.
% of
Tl
Earnings by Place of Work $1,491 82% $1,792 81% $2,033 78% $1,881 75%
Wage & Salary Disbursements $972 54% $1,174 53% $1,421 55% $1,205 48%
Supplements to Wages & Salaries $181 10% $229 10% $255 10% $239 10%
Proprietors Income $338 19% $388 18% $357 14% $437 17%
Earnings by Place of Work $1,491 82% $1,792 81% $2,033 78% $1,881 75%
- Payments for Government Social Ins. $(147) -8% $(182) -8% $(209) -8% $(182) -7%
+ Residency Adj. for Commuting $24 1% $26 1% $25 1% $34 1%
= Net Earnings by Place of Residency $1,368 76% $1,635 74% $1,849 71% $1,733 69%
+ Dividends, Interest, Rent $387 21% $516 23% $666 26% $631 25%
+ Personal Transfer Receipts $56 3% $68 3% $80 3% $142 6%
= Tl. Personal Income (Residents) $1,811 100% $2,219 100% $2,594 100% $2,507 100%
Population (U.S. Census Bureau) 44,227
47,205
49,803
52,064
Per Capita Income (Actual $)
$40,958
$47,004
$52,095
$48,149
1 - 7 - 29
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
30
APPENDIX E-2: Personal Income of Residents by
Components, Eagle County, 2002 – 2010, part 2
Component Annual Average Pct. Change
Total Personal Income '02 - '05 '05 - '07 '07 - '10
Earnings by Place of Work 6.3% 6.5% -2.5%
Wage & Salary Disbursements 6.5% 10.0% -5.4%
Supplements to Wages & Salaries 8.2% 5.4% -2.1%
Proprietors Income 4.8% -4.2% 7.0%
Earnings by Place of Work 6.3% 6.5% -2.5%
- Payments for Govrnmt Social Ins. 7.4% 7.2% -4.5%
+ Residency Adj. for Commuting 1.6% -1.0% 10.9%
= Net Earnings by Place of
Residency 6.1% 6.3% -2.1%
+ Dividends, Interest, Rent 10.1% 13.6% -1.8%
+ Personal Transfer Receipts
= Tl. Personal Income (Residents)
Population (U.S. Census Bureau)
Per Capita Income (Actual $)
1 - 7 - 30
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
31
APPENDIX P-1: Eagle County Population by
Municipality, 2000 - 2011
The population of the county grew at an average annual rate of nearly 2% per year
during the period 2000-2010. Eagle and Gypsum had the highest percentage growth
during the decade. Most notable is the continued growth in the County during the
years 2007 – 2010 when there was an 11% decline in jobs. Draft estimates for 2011
prepared by the State Demography Office show a modest decline (- 0.5%) from 2010
for Eagle County.
Colorado State Demography Estimates Avg. Annual Rate Of Change
Area
July
2000
July
2005
July
2007
July
2010
July
2011* 00-05 05-07 07-10 10-11
EAGLE
COUNTY 43,289 47,278 49,284 52,057 51,777 1.8 2.1 1.8 -0.5
Avon 6,124 6,570 6,524 6,413 6,375 1.4 -0.4 -0.6 -0.6
Basalt (Part) 2,031 2,470 2,630 2,919 2,899 4.0 3.2 3.5 -0.7
Eagle 3,071 4,289 5,371 6,483 6,459 6.9 11.9 6.5 -0.4
Gypsum 4,151 4,956 5,528 6,517 6,496 3.6 5.6 5.6 -0.3
Minturn 1,079 1,084 1,100 1,035 1,034 0.1 0.7 -2.0 -0.1
Red Cliff 298 298 293 269 267 0.0 -0.8 -2.8 -0.7
Vail 4,825 4,613 4,592 5,278 5,242 -0.9 -0.2 4.8 -0.7
Unincorp.
Area 21,710 22,998 23,246 23,143 23,005 1.2 0.5 -0.1 -0.6
* Draft estimate, currently under review.
1 - 7 - 31
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
32
APPENDIX P-2: Eagle County Population by Age,
2007 - 2015
Tables P-2A and P-2B show the population by age for the County. In contrast to the
state, Eagle County has a higher proportion of its population in the age group 25 to 44
and a lower percentage over the age of 65. However, its proportion of population of
the younger adults (25 to 44) has declined over the previous ten years and is expected
to continue to do so through 2015. Concurrently, the percentage of the population
over 65 in Eagle County has increased and is expected to do so more rapidly through
2015.
Table P-2A. Population by Age, Eagle County, 2007 - 2015
2000 2007 2010 2015
Age Group Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total
0 to 17 10,111 23% 11,941 24% 12,777 25% 16,062 26%
18 to 24 4,961 11% 3,720 8% 4,362 8% 4,198 7%
25 to 44 18,198 42% 19,308 39% 18,778 36% 20,542 33%
45 to 64 8,723 20% 11,981 24% 13,205 25% 15,715 25%
65 & Over 1,297 3% 2,334 5% 3,003 6% 5,328 9%
Total 43,290 100% 49,284 100% 52,125 100% 61,845 100%
Table P-2B. Population by Age, Eagle County and Colorado, 2000 - 2010
Eagle County Colorado
2000 2010 2000 2010
(numbers in thousands)
Age Group Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total
0 to 17 10,111 23% 12,777 26% 1,109 26% 1,228 24%
18 to 24 4,961 11% 4,362 9% 433 10% 489 10%
25 to 44 18,198 42% 18,778 38% 1,411 33% 1,432 28%
45 to 64 8,723 20% 13,205 27% 966 22% 1,347 27%
65 & Over 1,297 3% 3,003 6% 419 10% 555 11%
Total 43,290 100% 52,125 106% 4,339 100% 5,051 100%
1 - 7 - 32
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
33
APPENDIX P-3: Population, Households, and Housing
Units in Eagle County, 2000-2010
Table P-3 contains data on households and housing units. Not much has changed during
the last decade in the relationship among these variables. The number of persons per
household has remained constant at a little over 2.7. Occupancy rates (of residents)
have been just above 60%, with owners constituting 64% of the occupied units and
renters 36%. Approximately three-quarters the vacancies, or 30% of the total units, are
for seasonal or recreational use.
2000 2005 2007 2010
Total Population 43,289 47,278 49,284 52,067
Group Quarters Pop. 353 353 353 55
Household Population 42,936 46,925 48,931 52,012
Persons per Household 2.73 2.74 2.75 2.71
Total Housing Units 25,145 28,711 30,271 31,390
Occupied Units (Households) 15,751 17,124 17,818 19,209
Occupancy Rate (Residents) 63% 60% 59% 61%
Owner Occupied 10,033
12,326
Pct. of Occupied Units 63.7%
64.2%
Renter Occupied 5,718
6,883
Pct. of Occupied Units 36.3%
35.8%
Vacant Units 9,394 11,587 12,453 12,181
Vacancy Rate 37% 40% 41% 39%
Seasonal Use Units* 6,739 8,297 9,003 9,731
Pct. of Total 27% 29% 30% 31%
Note: All data are as of July 1 for all
years.
* Estimate prepared for this study.
1 - 7 - 33
10/23/2012
Update to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, June 2012
Venturoni Surveys & Research, Inc.; Economic Council of Eagle County Page
34
APPENDIX P-4: Households by Type, Eagle County
and Colorado, 2000 and 2010
Family households in Eagle County comprised 60% and 62% (note the small increase) of
total households in 2000 and 2010, respectively. Statewide, 65% of households were
family households in 2000, and 64% in 2010. The percentage of non-family households
in Eagle County is slightly higher than the statewide average, but that difference has
decreased over the ten-year period.
Eagle County
2000 2010
Household Type Number Number
Total Households 15,148 100% 19,236 100%
Family Households 9,020 60% 11,991 62%
With own children under 18 4,947 33% 6,357 33%
Husband & wife 4,025 27% 5,090 26%
Female Householder 612 4% 841 4%
Nonfamily Households 6,128 40% 7,245 38%
Householder living alone 3,168 21% 4,269 22%
Householder alone 65+ 287 2% 660 3%
Colorado
2000 2010
(numbers in thousands)
Household Type Number Number
Total Households 1,658 100% 1,973 100%
Family Households 1,084 65% 1,262 64%
With own children under 18 544 33% 590 30%
Husband & wife 405 24% 423 21%
Female Householder 102 6% 118 6%
Nonfamily Households 574 35% 711 36%
Householder living alone 436 26% 551 28%
Householder alone 65+ 116 7% 154 8%
1 - 7 - 34
10/23/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: October 23, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(b)(e) - to discuss
the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; to receive legal advice
on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct
negotiators, regarding: Ever Vail Redevelopment Agreement; 2) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(f) - to
discuss personnel matters, regarding: Updateon Town Managers direct reports.
PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire
10/23/2012
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: October 23, 2012
ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (6:00 p.m.)
10/23/2012