HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-06 Agenda and Supporting Documentation Town Council Afternoon Meeting Agenda
VAIL TO W N C O U N C IL R E G U L AR ME E T IN G
Agenda
Town Council Chambers and Vir tual on Zoom
11:30 AM, July 6, 2021
Meeting to be held in Council Chambers and Virtually on
Zoom (access H igh Five Access Media livestream day of the
meeting)
Notes:
Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and c annot be relied upon to determine what time Council will
consider an item.
Public c omment on any agenda item may be solicited by the Town Council.
1.Trailblaz er Luncheon (11:30am to 1:00pm)
2.E xecutive Session
2.1.Executive Session pursuant to 1) C.R.S. § 24-6-402(4)(a)(e) conc erning
the purc hase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or
other property interest; and to determine positions, develop a negotiating
strategy and instruct negotiators regarding: a) Residences at Main Vail
Development Agreement between the Town of Vail and Triumph
Development and b) a potential real property acquisitions by the Town
90 min.
Presenter(s): Matt Mire, Town Attorney
3.Regular Meeting will Reconvene at 2:30pm
4.P resentation / Discussion
4.1.2021 Semi-Annual Update on Housing 60 min.
Presenter(s): Steve Lindstrom, Housing Chairman, George Ruther,
Housing D irec tor and Lynne C ampbell, Housing Coordinator
Action Requested of Counc il: For information only - no ac tion is requested
Bac kground: The Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan was adopted by the Vail
Town Council in September of 2017. To ensure progress towards the
adopted housing goal a performance measured was put in place obligating
the Vail Loc al Housing A uthority and the Town's Housing D epartment to
provide an update to the Vail Town Council twice annually. The purpose of
this presentation is to honor that obligation and demonstrate progress
towards the goal.
4.2.Update on Voter Opinion Survey Regarding Housing and Year-Round
Marketing I nitiatives
30 min.
Presenter(s): Patty Mc Kenny, Assistant Town Manager and D avid Flaherty,
Magellan Strategies
Action Requested of Counc il: Review and provide direc tion on funding
options to test in upcoming voter opinion survey
Bac kground: The Town of Vail has engaged Magellan Strategies and
Summit I nfo Services to assist in facilitating community outreac h meetings
to gather feedbac k and opinions about the town’s housing and marketing
July 6, 2021 - Page 1 of 210
efforts. The findings, whic h were presented to Town Council on J une 1, are
being used to develop a voter opinion survey to test reaction to various
funding sc enarios to help determine whether to include related taxing
questions as part of the Vail Munic ipal Election in November which will be
coordinated with Eagle County.
4.3.Edwards Northstar Center P UD Amendment 15 min.
Presenter(s): Craig Cohn, C hief Real Estate Development Officer, and
Chris Lindley, Chief Population Health Offic er and Exec utive Director of
Eagle Valley Behavioral Health
Action Requested of Counc il: Town of Vail support of proposed Edwards
Northstar Center P UD Amendment to Eagle County Board of County
Commissioners
Bac kground: Vail Health is proposing a comprehensive community health
campus on the Northstar C enter property it owns in Edwards, Colo. Serving
those needing pediatric, adolescent and adult physical and oral healthcare.
A short-term, inpatient behavioral health facility would be a new building as
a part of the c ampus, serving fellow c ommunity members needing
behavioral health care focused on the most common disorders:
anxiety/depression disorders; mood disorders; family therapy; and
substance use disorders.
4.4.Retail Space Conversions-Polic y Disc ussion 20 min.
Presenter(s): Erik Gates, Planner
Action Requested of Counc il: No action is requested of the Vail Town
Council for this item.
Bac kground: During the J une 15, 2021 Town Council meeting, the C ounc il
expressed c oncern over the loss of retail and other commercial space within
Vail Village due to the conversion of these spac es to residential uses. The
Vail Town Counc il requested that Staff look into the past trends of
commerc ial to residential c onversions in the village in order to help fac ilitate
a polic y disc ussion.
Staff Rec ommendation: Disc ussion only, no ac tion rec ommended.
4.5.Commerc ial Ski Storage P olicy D iscussion 20 min.
Presenter(s): J onathan S penc e, Planning Manager
Action Requested of Counc il: Listen to presentation and ask questions.
Bac kground: The purpose of this work session is to update the Vail Town
Council regarding the Town’s polic y conc erning the regulation of
commerc ial ski storage, ski valet and ski conc ierge servic es.
Staff Rec ommendation: P rovide feedbac k.
4.6.Current C apital Project Update 10 min
Presenter(s): Tom Kassmel Town Engineer Greg Hall Director of Public
W orks and Transportation
Action Requested of Counc il: Provide any feedback or questions for staff.
Bac kground:
The Town of Vail has multiple large-scale c apital projects that are on-going.
Staff is prepared to provide an update on the evolving status of the following
projects:
· South Frontage Road R oundabout Project
· C hildren’s Garden of Learning Relocation Project
· D onovan Pavilion
· Public W orks Shop P roject
Staff Rec ommendation: S taff is available for questions.
July 6, 2021 - Page 2 of 210
5.D R B / PEC Update (5 min.)
5.1.D RB / P E C Update
Presenter(s): J onathan S penc e, Planning Manager
6.Information U pdate
6.1.VLHA J une 8, 2021 Minutes
6.2.J une Revenue Update
7.Matters from Mayor, Council and Committee Reports (10 min.)
8.Recess
8.1.Rec ess 5:20 pm (estimate)
Meeting agendas and materials c an be ac cessed prior to meeting day on the Town of Vail website
www.vailgov.com. All town council meetings will be streamed live by High Five Ac cess Media and available for
public viewing as the meeting is happening. The meeting videos are also posted to High Five Ac cess Media
website the week following meeting day, www.highfivemedia.org.
Please call 970-479-2136 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48
hour notification dial 711.
July 6, 2021 - Page 3 of 210
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C : E xecutive S ession pursuant to 1) C.R.S . § 24-6-402(4)(a)(e) concerning the
purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; and to
determine positions, develop a negotiating strategy and instruct negotiators regarding: a)
Residences at Main Vail D evelopment A greement between the Town of Vail and Triumph
Development and b) a potential real property acquisitions by the Town
P RE S E NT E R(S ): Matt Mire, Town A ttorney
July 6, 2021 - Page 4 of 210
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C : 2021 Semi-A nnual Update on Housing
P RE S E NT E R(S ): Steve L indstrom, Housing C hairman, George Ruther, Housing D irector and
Lynne Campbell, Housing Coordinator
AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC IL : F or inf ormation only - no action is requested
B AC K G RO UND: T he Vail Housing 2027 S trategic Plan was adopted by the Vail Town Council
in September of 2017. To ensure progress towards the adopted housing goal a performance
measured was put in place obligating the Vail L ocal Housing Authority and the Town's Housing
Department to provide an update to the Vail Town C ouncil twice annually. T he purpose of this
presentation is to honor that obligation and demonstrate progress towards the goal.
AT TAC H ME N TS :
Description
Memorandum
Vail Economic Impact - infographic-08-14-19
183136-Report-08-14-19
Housing 2027 Br ochure
Resolution No. 30 S eries of 2018 2018 Housing Policy Statements 07172018
21041-Mtn-Migr ation-R eport_v2-1
Presentation
July 6, 2021 - Page 5 of 210
To: Vail Town Council
From: Vail Local Housing Authority
George Ruther, Housing Director
Lynne Campbell, Housing Coordinator
Date: July 6, 2021
Subject: Joint Meeting/2021 Semi Annual Housing Update
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this agenda item is to present a 2021 YTD Update on Housing from the
Vail Local Housing Authority to the Vail Town Council.
This update furthers the many goals, initiatives and priorities of the Vail Town Council
Action Plan 2018 - 2020 and advances the performance measures prescribed in the
Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan.
II. TOPICS TO BE HIGHLIGHTED:
• 2021 Strategic Initiatives and Actions
• 2021 Mid-Year Vail InDEED Program Numbers & Statistics
• Updated Progress Towards the Housing Goal
III. 2021 HOUSING ACCOMPLISHMENTS
1. Completed Actions Identified in the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan:
Deed Restriction Acquisition
• Evaluate dedicated deed-restriction acquisition revenue sources to ensure adequate
funding exists – ongoing
• Implementing the Vail InDEED program – 19 total applications processed in
2021 of which 15 were approved for purchase (79%)
• Facilitated the acquisition of a total of 10 new deed restrictions in Year 2021
July 6, 2021 - Page 6 of 210
Town of Vail Page 2
Land Use Tools
• Create a Housing Overlay District that allows for increased density – pending
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the EHU Exchange Program and adjust as needed –
Not completed.
• Amend the development impact fee in lieu calculation for inclusionary
zoning/commercial linkage to accurately represent cost to the Town of Vail and
current real market values – underway to be completed third quarter 2021
• Exploring non-financial incentives for residential property owners to convert to, or
otherwise maintain long-term rental opportunities in Vail – Not completed
• Evaluating change in housing policy to accept out of town deed restrictions as
mitigation for commercial linkage requirements – Not completed
• Update the Housing Demands Analysis - Funded for completion in 2021
Performance Measurements
• Update existing deed-restricted property data base – ongoing
• Prepare twice annual reports summarizing progress towards the adopted goal -
ongoing
• Maintain complete and accurate newly acquired deed-restriction data – ongoing
2. Completed Actions Identified in the Vail Town Council 2018 -2020 Action Plan:
Actively pursuing regional collaboration and partnerships toward increasing the supply
of housing within Vail and the region in keeping with the 2018 Housing Policy
Statements (Alternate Housing Sites Initiative, CDoT Parcel, Eagle-Vail Parcel, Maliot
Park, Avon Deed Restriction Purchase Program) – ongoing
Convene the Vail Housing Subcommittee (meets monthly) – ongoing
IV. 2021 INITIATIVES AND ACTIONS
The following actions and initiatives were taken from the Vail Town Council Action Plan
2018 – 2020 and the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan:
• Vail InDEED program implementations and acquisitions - $2.5M funded 2021,
plus rollover from 2020
• Update existing deed-restricted property data base – $10K funded
• Update and amend the fee in lieu calculation to represent cost of construction
and adoption of residential linkage – to be complete in third quarter of 2021
• Create a Housing Overlay District that allows for increased density – in-house
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the EHU Exchange Program and adjust as needed
– in-house
• Evaluate potential housing development sites within the Town of Vail and down
valley – in-house and $30K funded
July 6, 2021 - Page 7 of 210
Town of Vail Page 3
• Leading the seven-step alternative housing sites initiative aimed at achieving
multiple Town adopted housing and environmental stewardship goals – five-year
plan for action – ongoing
• Overseeing the adoption of a final development agreement with Triumph
Development for Lot 3, Middle Creek and Timber Ridge Village Apartments -
ongoing
• Facilitating the entitlement process for residential development on Lot 3, Middle
Creek – completed
• Engaged in preliminary discussions with regional partners on potential future
housing development sites both in town and down valley - ongoing
• Launched an internal Town Employee home purchase program including the sale
of the first home within the program at B212, Homestake at Vail Condominiums.
Since inception four additional homes has been acquired (5137 Black Gore
Drive, Altair Vail Inn, Vail Heights and Brooktree C113) - completed
• Facilitated the sale of two Chamonix Vail Townhomes at 2387 and 2373 Lower
Traverse Way
• Implementation and advancement of the 2018 Housing Policy Statements
– ongoing
• Active participation with the Vail Local Housing Authority in the formulation of the
West Vail Master Plan, Housing Element, – ongoing
V. 2021 YTD VAIL INDEED BY THE NUMBERS
The following numbers summarize the results of the Town of Vail’s investment in the
Vail InDEED Program from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 (YTD).
Total Number of Applications Received: 14
Total Number of Transactions Closed: 8
Total Number of Homes Deed-Restricted: 8
Total Number of Homes by # of Bedrooms:
3– one’s
5 – two’s
0 – three’s
0 – four’s
8 homes
Total Square Feet of GRFA: 6,025 square feet
Average Investment per Deed-Restriction: $75,954
Average Investment per Square Foot: $100.85
Total Dollar Amount Funded for Investment in 2021: $607,635
• ($2,500,000 Appropriated)
• ($1,882,354 remaining balances of 6/30/2021)
• Total Dollar Amount Invested YTD 2021: $607,635
July 6, 2021 - Page 8 of 210
Town of Vail Page 4
• Total Offer Pending: six totaling $635,400 as of 6/30/2021
Estimated Total Number of Vail Residents Provided Housing in 2021: 28 residents
Program Numbers Since Vail InDEED Inception
Total Number of Transactions Closed: 77
Total Number of Homes Deed-Restricted: 163
Total GRFA Deed-Restricted: 134,331 square feet
Total Deed-Restriction Investment: $11,168,369
Average Investment per Square Foot: $83.14 per square foot
Average Investment per Deed- Restriction: $68,518
Lowest/Highest Investment per Square Foot: $61/$133
Total Number of Vail Residents Provided Home: 372 Vail residents
(288 Vail residents at Timber Ridge)
VI. PROGRESS TOWARD THE GOAL
The Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan adopted a goal of acquiring 1,000 new deed-
restrictions by the year 2027. At the time of adoption, 688 deed-restrictions were
recorded on properties within the Town of Vail. Since the adoption of the Vail Housing
2027 Strategic Plan, as of December 22, 2020, the Town of Vail, in collaboration with
the Vail Local Housing Authority, has increased the total number of recorded deed
restrictions by 35.4 % to 932 (+244). At the current rate of acquisition, it is projected the
Town will reach the housing goal by the 2026.
VII. LOOKING AHEAD TO 2021
2021 is again proving to be a very productive for housing in Vail with significant
progress made towards achieving the Town’s housing goal. The stage is set for another
productive year for housing in Vail. In addition to the many ongoing efforts currently
underway, as discussed in greater detail above, a number of key strategic initiatives are
scheduled for completion in 2021.
Key strategic initiatives include:
• Advance the seven-steps of the alternate housing sites initiative
• Participate in a town-wide data collection effort to better analyze housing trends
and track the effectiveness of housing policies, programs, and initiatives
• Explore possible incentives to encourage residential property owners to
participate in long-term rentals
• Review the adopted Employee Housing Guidelines for opportunities to address
Capital Improvements and Reinvestments
July 6, 2021 - Page 9 of 210
Town of Vail Page 5
• Engage investment analysts to determine the feasibility of recognizing deed
restrictions as bondable assets for potential bonding purposes
• Adopt administrative penalties and fees for demonstrated non-compliance with
the terms of the recorded deed restrictions
• Install an informational housing wall display outside the Vail Town Council
Chamber to communicate annual progress towards the town’s adopted housing
goal and track the economic values and community benefits of resident-
occupied, deed-restricted homes in Vail.
• Advance the construction process for deed-restricted development of the
Residences at Main Vail.
• Evaluate the merits of rezoning a portion of the West Middle Creek Parcel for
future housing development while ensuring a no net loss of housing and open
space opportunities
• Engage in the potential acquisition of the CDoT Parcel in East Vail for future
deed-restricted housing development opportunities
• Explore public/private partnerships in the development of deed-restricted housing
on privately owned properties within the Town of Vail
• Complete updates and amendments to the Town’s adopted land use regulations
governing inclusionary zoning, commercial linkage and possibly residential
linkage
July 6, 2021 - Page 10 of 210
July 6, 2021 - Page 11 of 210
July 6, 2021 - Page 12 of 210
Revised Report
Economic Value & Community
Benefits of Resident
Housing Investment
Prepared for:
Vail Local Housing Authority
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
EPS #183136
August 14, 2019
July 6, 2021 - Page 13 of 210
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1 1.
Background ............................................................................................................ 1
Methodology ...................................................................................................... 5 2.
Data Sources .......................................................................................................... 5
Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 7
Economic Context ............................................................................................. 10 3.
Findings .......................................................................................................... 12 4.
Return Metrics ...................................................................................................... 12
Community Benefits ............................................................................................. 14
Economic Value ................................................................................................... 18
Opportunity Costs ................................................................................................ 20
Appendix ......................................................................................................... 22 5.
Terminology ......................................................................................................... 22
July 6, 2021 - Page 14 of 210
List of Tables
Table 1. Vail InDEED Summary ..................................................................................... 7
Table 2. Population Trends, Town of Vail Capture ........................................................... 10
Table 3. Housing Unit Trends, Town of Vail Capture ....................................................... 10
Table 4. Employment Trends, Town of Vail Capture ........................................................ 11
Table 5. Return on Investment .................................................................................... 12
Table 6. Investment Multiplier ..................................................................................... 13
Table 7. Value of Time ............................................................................................... 14
Table 8. Reduction in Carbon Emissions ........................................................................ 15
Table 9. Environmental Impact ................................................................................... 15
Table 10. Value of Volunteerism .................................................................................... 16
Table 11. Schools Impact ............................................................................................. 16
Table 12. Expansion of Total Spending in Vail Economy .................................................... 18
Table 13. Expansion of Total Spending in Vail Economy .................................................... 19
Table 14. Parking Impact ............................................................................................. 20
Table 15. Worker Turnover Costs .................................................................................. 21
Table 16. Daytime Spending ........................................................................................ 23
Table 17. Resident Housing Household Spending ............................................................. 23
Table 18. Commute Detail ............................................................................................ 24
List of Figures
Figure 1. Town of Vail & Eagle Valley Employment Trends ................................................ 11
July 6, 2021 - Page 15 of 210
Economic & Planning Systems
183136-Report-08-14-19 1
Executive Summary 1.
Background
The Town of Vail has made significant financial investments in resident housing
over many decades. Such investments are rooted in an awareness that
affordability and availability of housing for residents and the workforce benefit the
broader Vail economy, business community, the overall community character, and
the quality of the guest experience.
One of Vail’s more innovation and effective investment strategies has been deed-
restriction acquisitions, in which the Town appropriates funds annually to ensure
that homes are available for residents and the workforce. A new deed restriction
purchase program, called Vail InDEED, was recently created to ensure Vail meets
its 2027 Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan goal of acquiring 1,000 additional
resident housing unit deed restrictions by the year 2027.
In times of competing community investment priorities and alternatives, it is
important that the benefits of resident housing investment are quantified and
understood by the community and its leadership. For this purpose, the Vail Local
Housing Authority (VLHA) contracted with Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) to
quantify the economic value and community benefits of resident housing
investment on the local economy and community.
Each investment in one resident housing unit generates an annual
return as well as provides economic benefit.
#1 - The direct return back to the Town of Vail
from an investment of $65,000 in one unit of
housing is $3,239 in the form of local sales
tax and revenue for local students. The
annual return on investment to the Town is
5 percent of the initial investment.
#2 - Nearly $312,500 is provided from one
unit in the form of community benefits,
economic value, and opportunity costs to
the community as a whole. This return to the
community is more than four times the initial
investment by the Town, resulting in an
investment multiplier of 4.81X.
July 6, 2021 - Page 16 of 210
Economic Value & Community Benefits of Resident Housing Investment
2
Metrics
At the root of the Town’s resident housing investment policies, deed restricted
homes ensure that year-round residents can live and work locally, which ripples
through the economy and reinforces the stability of other sectors of the economy.
It impacts the character of the community through greater potential civic/resident
engagement and presence of school-aged children. It also improves the quality of
the guest experience. In this analysis, these and other elements are presented
collectively and stated in terms of the following broader metrics:
The annual economic value of an investment in 100 units of resident housing
($6.5 million) is:
• $18.1 million as a result of an increase in filled positions,
• $2.6 million in increased local household spending, and
• $116,000 in new local sales tax revenue.
The annual community benefits of an investment in 100 units of resident
housing ($6.5 million) include:
• the elimination of over 40,000 commute hours resulting in $825,000 in the
value of time savings,
• a reduction of 845 metric tons of carbon emissions (MTCO2e),
• $207,000 in State of Colorado revenue in the form of back-fill for 26 school-
aged children, and
• $1.2 million in volunteer labor.
July 6, 2021 - Page 17 of 210
Economic & Planning Systems
3
The annual opportunity cost of an investment in 100 units of resident housing
($6.5 million) is:
• $11.3 million in avoided construction cost for 113 parking spaces and
• $841,000 in saved costs to businesses for worker turnover, training, and lost
productivity.
July 6, 2021 - Page 18 of 210
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
July 6, 2021 - Page 19 of 210
Economic & Planning Systems
5
Methodology 2.
As noted in the introduction, this approach encompasses three main components
of economic value and community benefit: the economic value; the community
benefits; and the opportunity costs. This section outlines the data and
assumptions for the analysis.
Data Sources
A variety of primary and secondary data sources were used in the analysis. Research
and interviews also supplemented the quantitative and qualitative elements of the
analysis. The following sources were essential to the construction of the methodology:
• U.S. Census Longitudinal Employee Household Dynamics. Prevalence of
in-commuting workforce to Vail.
• Colorado Department of Labor & Employment, Quarterly Census of
Employment & Wages. Number of jobs by industry for Vail.
• Colorado Statewide Nonprofit Industry Survey, 2018. Nonprofit industry jobs
in Eagle County’s workforce and the rate of per-capita volunteerism.
• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Value of volunteerism per hour.
• Colorado Department of Transportation. Aggregate vehicle miles travelled
(VMT) in Eagle County.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Calculations for estimating carbon
emissions.
• Eagle County Housing Study and Greater Roaring Fork Regional Resident &
Employer Survey, 2018. For assumptions regarding rate of carpooling,
persons per household, multiple job-holdings.
• IMPLAN. Input-output data for Eagle County at the zip code level.
July 6, 2021 - Page 20 of 210
Economic Value & Community Benefits of Resident Housing Investment
6
Types of Economic Impacts
In terms of quantifiable economic contributions, metrics included in this analysis
have been run through IMPLAN input-output modeling software. IMPLAN is
structured to account for trade flows and industry profiles within the defined
economic unit—in this case, the Town of Vail, as represented by the 81657 zip
code. This type of modeling generates a trove of information, which when
consolidated with other information, can be used to estimate the “multiplier
effect” on an initial investment.
Specifically, a multiplier effect is a ratio that characterizes the relationship
between the total of successive rounds of spending resulting from an initial
investment combined with the initial investment itself. For example, the multiplier
in this analysis is calculated as the composite per-unit economic value and
community benefit divided by the Town’s per-unit investment.
There are also three layers of economic impacts. These layers are defined as they
relate to Vail’s investment in resident housing:
Economic Impact Terminology
Direct Impacts are the dollar amounts of net new local resident spending and the net new
economic activity related to greater number of filled positions. These dollar amounts refer to
the first round of spending in an economy.
Indirect Impacts are the dollar amounts associated with the business-to-business
relationships, such as the real estate activity, the purchase of equipment, or the demand for
professional services such as legal, financial and administrative services that may be procured
in the process of meeting demand for a “direct” industry’s good or service. These are referred
to as the second round of spending.
Induced Impacts are activities resulting from the expenditures made by households of the
direct and indirect industry jobs. They are typically retail and service-sector oriented impacts
that are created by what is typically referred to as the third round of spending.
July 6, 2021 - Page 21 of 210
Economic & Planning Systems
7
Assumptions
There are two main layers of assumptions in this analysis: 1) the overarching
investment goal on which the analysis is based; and 2) the underlying assumptions
used to quantify relationships between, for example, the number of persons per
housing unit or the rate of carpooling among all in-commuting workers.
Resident Housing Investment
Housing Targets
As previously noted, the premise of this analysis is rooted
in the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan adopted goal of
acquiring 1,000 additional resident housing unit deed
restrictions by the year 2027. The goal means that the
Town is targeting, on average, the acquisition of 100 deed
restrictions units per year.
Housing Investment
Based on a detailed accounting of the most recent (116)
deed restrictions placed on homes in Vail (between
January 2017 and May 2019), data which were obtained
from the VLHA, the Town invests an average of
approximately $65,000 per unit. It is against this core
assumption that the metrics of return on investment and
the overall investment multiplier are calculated.
Table 1. Vail InDEED Summary
Vail InDEED Program Units Price per Deed
2019 (YTD May)11 $94,618
2018 40 $57,105
2017 65 $65,000
Total 116 $65,327
Source: Town of Vail; Economic & Planning Systems
July 6, 2021 - Page 22 of 210
Economic Value & Community Benefits of Resident Housing Investment
8
Underlying Assumptions
The following are additional assumptions that quantify the relationship
between housing units and persons, local job-holdings, net new jobs,
and carpooling.
Jobs per Unit. Primary data collected locally and regionally indicate
that there is an average of 2.2 jobs per household, meaning that 220
jobs would be represented by 100 households in 100 housing units.
Vail Jobs. As mentioned previously, the Vail InDEED program requires
that a property be occupied as a primary residence by individuals who
work a minimum of 30 hours per week in Eagle County. Based on an
annualized 40-hour work week, this could be approximated as 75
percent of income (and thus, employment) is originated in Eagle County.
For purposes of this analysis, it is an aggregated assumption that 75
percent of job-holders in the resident housing units are working in Vail
(165 jobs).
Net New Jobs to Economy. The analysis also assumes that 75 percent
of these Vail jobs held by occupants of resident housing units are net
new to the economy (i.e. that they are filling unfilled positions or
enabling employers to add new positions). This means that 124 of the
165 jobs are estimated to be new to economy, whereas the remainder
of the 165 would have previously commuted in to their jobs in Vail.
Carpooling. Primary data collected regionally indicates that an average
of 9 percent of the total in-commuting workforce carpool.
July 6, 2021 - Page 23 of 210
Economic & Planning Systems
9
Table 3. Housing Unit Trends, Town of Vail Capture
Housing Unit Trends 2000 2010 2017 Total Δ % Capture
2000-17
Avon 2,557 3,615 4,052 1,495 17%
Eagle 1,116 2,416 2,251 1,135 13%
Eagle-Vail [1]1,482 1,482 1,482 0 0%
Edwards 3,953 5,260 5,386 1,433 16%
Gypsum 1,210 2,205 2,275 1,065 12%
Red Cliff 122 141 123 1 0%
Minturn 448 528 542 94 1%
Vail 5,389 7,230 7,210 1,821 21%
Unincorp. Eagle Valley 3,687 5,394 5,492 1,805 20%
Eagle Valley[2]16,277 22,877 23,321 8,849 100%
[1] Eagle-Vail did not appear on the 2010 decennial census as a CDP.
Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year estimates; Economic & Planning Systems
[2] Eagle Valley is defined as Eagle County less the Roaring Fork Valley (census tract 3.01 block groups 1-3 and tract 3.02
block group 2)
Table 2. Population Trends, Town of Vail Capture
Population Trends 2000 2010 2017 Total Δ % Capture
2000-17
Avon 5,561 6,447 6,503 942 9%
Eagle 3,032 6,508 6,711 3,679 36%
Eagle-Vail [1]2,887 2,887 2,887 0 0%
Edwards 8,257 10,266 9,202 945 9%
Gypsum 3,654 6,477 6,926 3,272 32%
Red Cliff 289 267 297 8 0%
Minturn 1,068 1,027 1,141 73 1%
Vail 4,531 5,305 5,425 894 9%
Unincorp. Eagle Valley 6,211 5,283 6,678 467 5%
Eagle Valley 35,490 44,467 45,770 10,280 100%
[1] Eagle-Vail did not appear on the 2010 decennial census as a CDP.
Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year estimates; Economic & Planning Systems
[2] Eagle Valley is defined as Eagle County less the Roaring Fork Valley (census tract 3.01 block groups 1-3 and tract 3.02
block group 2)
Economic Context 3.
This section of the report provides the economic context including population,
housing unit, and employment trends for the Town of Vail in relation to Eagle
County as a whole.
Population
Between 2000 and 2017, the
Eagle Valley grew by a
population of approximately
10,280, which translates to
605 residents per year. Total
population reached 45,770
in 2017 (Table 2). In 2017,
Vail represented
approximately 12 percent of
the Valley population, but
had captured only 9 percent
of the Valley’s population
growth since 2000.
Housing Units
Growth in housing inventory
in Vail outpaced population
growth considerably
(Table 3). By a factor of
more than two to one, more
than 1,800 housing units
were added to the Town’s
housing unit inventory,
indicating that second
homeownership comprised a
majority of the ownership of
the new inventory.
July 6, 2021 - Page 24 of 210
Economic Value & Community Benefits of Resident Housing Investment
10
Employment
In 2018, Vail had an
estimated 8,400 wage and
salary jobs (Table 4),
accounting for 25 percent
of the Valley’s total
employment. Between
2001 and 2018, the Town
added close to 1,300 jobs,
capturing 30 percent of
the Valley’s growth. The
highest growth area in the
valley took place in
Avon/Beaver Creek, which
captured 44 percent of the
Valley’s new employment,
and (as the definition
indicates) includes two distinct commercial nodes of activity.
As shown in the following graphic (Figure 1), employment levels in the Town of
Vail remained fairly steady over the past two decades. Although employment
contracted during the Great Recession (2007-09) for the Eagle Valley, which
decreased by 14 percent (a loss of 3,800 jobs), Vail remained relatively steady.
Figure 1. Town of Vail & Eagle Valley Employment Trends
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Town of Vail Eagle Valley
Table 4. Employment Trends, Town of Vail Capture
Employment Trends 2001 2010 2018 Total Δ % Capture
2001-18
Avon/Beaver Creek 7,571 7,589 9,457 1,886 44%
Eagle 3,424 3,732 4,602 1,178 27%
Eagle-Vail 50 81 110 60 1%
Edwards 3,255 3,155 3,510 255 6%
Gypsum 1,540 1,488 2,477 936 22%
Minturn 520 406 485 -35 -1%
Red Cliff 50 81 110 60 1%
Vail 7,129 7,256 8,416 1,288 30%
Eagle Valley 23,538 23,790 29,167 4,316 100%
Source: QCEW; Economic & Planning Systems
July 6, 2021 - Page 25 of 210
Economic & Planning Systems
11
Findings 4.
There are two primary measurements of economic value and community benefits
estimated in this analysis: 1) return on investment; and 2) investment multiplier.
Return Metrics
The initial investment of $65,000 per unit of resident housing yields magnitudes
of more economic value and community benefit than alternatives such as
persistent business cost of worker turnover and structured parking.
Return on Investment (ROI)
Although many of the broader metrics of benefit can be
considered “returns on investment,” an ROI measured from
the perspective of the investment of ‘public dollars in’ and
‘public dollars out’ captures the two most salient fiscal impacts.
The annual returns on the initial investment are comprised of
sales tax revenues flowing back to Vail annually and the State
of Colorado’s per-unit student back-fill for the school-aged
children living in resident housing is approximately $2,000 per
year (see the following technical discussion for details on this
calculation).
This means that, calculated as a standard investment divided
by its returns, the Town’s (public) return on investment is 5.0
percent. This aligns on the higher end with typical yields on
governmental investment.
Table 5. Return on Investment
Return on Investment per-Unit
Per-Unit Investment ROI
Returns
Annual Resident Household Spending Sales Taxes $1,165
Annual State per-Pupil Apportionment $2,074
Subtotal Returns $3,239
Investment ROI
Return $3,239
Initial Investment $65,000
ROI 5.0%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
July 6, 2021 - Page 26 of 210
Economic Value & Community Benefits of Resident Housing Investment
12
Investment Multiplier
This metric accounts for the economic activity
captured by direct, indirect, and induced
spending. Examples of components within this
metric include: a) the broader economic metrics
such as the economic value (which includes
taxable spending and the fiscal benefit) to Vail;
b) community benefits; and c) the opportunity
costs such as investing in parking annually to
accommodate a similar level of employment
growth as well as the ongoing costs to the
business community of worker turnover and
lost productivity.
Taking into account each of these components,
the net multiplier of the Town’s investment at
$65,000 per unit is nearly five (5) times at 4.81X.
In benefit-cost analysis (BCA), public entities are
typically trying to achieve a multiplier of three (3)
to five (5) times the initial investment.
Table 6. Investment Multiplier
Return on Investment per-Unit
Per-Unit Investment Multiplier
Economic Metrics
Annual Expansion of Economy $181,122
Annual Net New Resident Household Taxable Spending $21,174
Annual Sales Tax Revenue Generation $1,165
Subtotal Economic Metrics (Net) [1]$181,122
Community Benefits
Annual Household Value of Reduced Commute Time $8,249
Annual Per-Pupil State Backfill $2,074
Subtotal Community Metrics $10,323
Opportunity Cost
Annual Cost of Worker Turnover -$8,410
Cost of Structured Parking -$112,613
Subtotal Opportunity Cost Metrics -$121,022
Investment Multiplier
Composite Return $312,467
Initial Investment $65,000
Multiplier 4.81x
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Y \Sh d\P j \DEN\183136 V il E i I f Aff d bl H i \M d l \[183136 C lid d E i I
[Note 1]: The net new resident household taxable spending and associated sales tax revenue generation are displayed
for informational purposes; they are, however, theoretically incorporated in the total annual expansion of the economy.
July 6, 2021 - Page 27 of 210
Economic & Planning Systems
13
Table 7. Value of Time
Value of Time Saved not Commuting Factor Value
Total Jobs in Resident Housing 2.2 220
Vail Jobs in Resident Housing 75%165
Estimated Local Job-Cars 9%150
Commute Minutes per Year 2,426,101
Commute Hours per Year 40,435
Value of Time for Intercity Travel (2018)$20.40
Value of Time Saved not Commuting $824,874
Per-Unit $8,249
Source: LEHD on the Map; U.S. Department of Transportation; Economic & Planning Systems
Community
Benefits
For each unit of resident housing, an estimated 400 hours of time and 950 gallons of
gasoline are saved from shorter commutes every year—equating to greater business
productivity and an opportunity for residents to give back to their community.
Reduced Commute Times
More than 40,000 annual commuting hours are avoided by an investment in 100
resident housing units. This equates to approximately $825,000 in value of time
($20.40 per hour of intercity travel). It should be noted that this benefit is
capitalized within the expanded economy calculations shown earlier and not
additive to the investment multiplier estimate.
July 6, 2021 - Page 28 of 210
Economic Value & Community Benefits of Resident Housing Investment
14
Table 8. Reduction in Carbon Emissions
Metric Tons of Carbon
Monoxide Equivalency
(MTCO2 e)
All In-
Commuters
Resident
Housing In-
Commuters
Average Distance Travelled 63.3 miles 29.6 miles
# Commuters 3,276 150
Aggregate Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)414,586 8,882
Agg. VMT / Year 103,646,600 2,220,594
Aggregate MTCO2e 39,447 845
as % of All In-Commuters 2.1%
Source: LEHD on the Map; Economic & Planning Systems
Reduced Carbon Emissions
The analysis of environmental
impact assumes that fewer
workers need to commute in to
their jobs, decreasing distance
traveled and reducing carbon
emissions. It further assumes
that a greater number of
workers will utilize Vail’s free
public transit.
An analysis of the in-commuter
distribution shows that the
average one-way distance
traveled to Vail is
approximately 63 miles
(Table 8).
It is generally assumed that
in-commuters living in closer proximity to Vail will account for larger shares of
new occupants of resident housing. As such, it was assumed that the average
distance traveled by new occupants of resident housing would have traveled
30 miles.
Over the course of a year, this reduction in commute time totals more than 2.2
million miles and represents more than 2 percent of all vehicle miles traveled by
in-commuters. As a result, overall carbon emissions are reduced in the Vail Valley
by 845 metric tons (2 percent of total estimated Vail in-commuter carbon
emissions). It means that in-commuters save more than 95,000 gallons of
gasoline per year. This annual savings means that enough energy is saved to
charge more than 107 million iPhones, and is equivalent to the air-scrubbing
benefits of nearly 14,000 tree seedlings grown for more than 10 years.
Table 9. Environmental Impact
The Environment Value
Equivalencies of Carbon Emissions
Emissions Reduction (MTCO2e) from Shorter Commutes 845
Gallons of Gasoline Consumed (equivalent)95,083
Number of Smartphones Charged (equivalent)107,747,909
Tree Seedlings Grown for 10 Years (offset)13,972
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Economic & Planning Systems
Y \Sh d\P j \DEN\183136 V il E i I f Aff d bl H i \M d l \[183136 C lid d E i I N N
July 6, 2021 - Page 29 of 210
Economic & Planning Systems
15
Table 10. Value of Volunteerism
Value of Volunteerism Factor Value
Total Resident Housing Units 100
Jobs per Unit 2.2
Total Jobs in Resident Housing 220
Estimated Volunteer Hours per Year 201 [1]44,118
Value of Volunteer Time (in CO)$28.02
Estimated Value of Volunteerism in Vail $1,236,200
Per-Unit $12,362
Source: Independent Sector; 2018 Colorado Nonprofit Survey; Economic & Planning Systems
[1] Average annual hours of volunteering per year among nonprofits in a group of northwestern Colorado counties.
Table 11. Schools Impact
Student Generation Total
Town of Vail - Students to Housing Units [1]0.26
Resident Housing Investment 100
Students Generated 26
Per Pupil Revenue (Eagle County Schools)$7,945
Eagle County School Revenue $207,449
Per-Unit $2,074
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
[1] U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Volunteerism
In a typical community, a portion of residents volunteer their time to local
nonprofits, including the health care industry, arts and entertainment, or other
community-oriented and civic services.
Using primary data from a statewide study of the nonprofit industry conducted in
2018, it is estimated that volunteerism
among the population in resident housing could be as high as 200 hours per year.
This would contribute more than $1.2 million in labor value to the nonprofit
community in Vail (at $28.02 per hour of volunteer time).
Schools
An estimated 26 school-
aged children are
generated by the
investment in 100 housing
units, for which it is
anticipated that the State
of Colorado back-fills at a
per-pupil rate of $7,945
for Eagle County. This
would contribute more
than $207,000 in revenues
to Eagle County Schools
annually.
July 6, 2021 - Page 30 of 210
Economic Value & Community Benefits of Resident Housing Investment
16
Quality of Guest Experience
There is direct linkage between the quality of the guest
experience and the supply of local employees. As part of this
study, a range of employers were interviewed across a variety of
sectors. Those with a high level of interaction with guests, such
as food and beverage or services establishments, noted that they
are concerned about their ability to maintain a high quality level
of service given limited staffing resources. In the case of one restaurant, it chose
to close down seating sections to concentrate the available servers. From its
perspective, the loss of revenue is a reasonable tradeoff, given the otherwise slow
pace of operations.
Other business owners commented that certain high-demand weeks, where the
community is operating at both peak capacity and peak price point, the service
can be the slowest. As Vail’s customer base evaluates its options, it may consider
other destinations that can provide the service expected with Vail’s price point.
The ability to deliver a high quality guest experience is directly correlated to Vail’s
competitive position, not only among ski town destinations but also warm weather
destinations.
Vail’s future economic vitality depends on the ability of businesses to fill positions.
There is concern among some business owners about a decline in quality service
in the recent past. Unfilled positions and the related service quality decline in Vail
may continue without investment in solutions to attract and retain talent. It was
also noted that guests are likely to feel more connected to Vail if they interact
with employees who live locally, over an extended period of time, who are invested
in the community. This type of employee conveys a commitment that resonates
with guests and reinforces the premium brand Vail has built over the decades.
July 6, 2021 - Page 31 of 210
Economic & Planning Systems
17
Economic
Value
Expansion of the Economy due to Filled Positions
The availability of additional homes for residents and the workforce translates to a
greater jobs market and fewer unfilled positions. It is estimated that
approximately 123 full- and part-time positions would be filled as a result of Vail’s
resident housing investment (100 units), thereby expanding Vail’s economy by an
estimated $18.1 million annually (1.2 percent increase).
Table 12. Expansion of Total Spending in Vail Economy
Return on Investment
Local Business Revenue Direct Indirect Induced Total
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting $76,853 $698 $267 $77,818
21 Mining $0 $7,244 $210 $7,454
22 Utilities $0 $5 $7 $12
23 Construction $2,838,283 $81,277 $14,527 $2,934,087
31-33 Manufacturing $0 $4,607 $1,237 $5,844
42 Wholesale Trade $610,911 $20,786 $7,855 $639,552
44-45 Retail trade $906,678 $248,706 $259,371 $1,414,755
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing $0 $79,051 $28,983 $108,034
51 Information $0 $39,827 $22,752 $62,579
52 Finance & insurance $459,252 $438,401 $204,832 $1,102,485
53 Real estate & rental $741,771 $520,976 $397,111 $1,659,858
54 Professional- scientific & tech svcs $458,698 $283,170 $46,160 $788,028
55 Management of companies $0 $156,752 $17,180 $173,932
56 Administrative & waste services $240,281 $87,143 $19,199 $346,623
61 Educational svcs $237,132 $6,627 $42,498 $286,257
62 Health & social services $365,213 $3,600 $361,779 $730,592
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation $890,357 $63,417 $60,260 $1,014,034
72 Accommodation & food services $2,904,377 $65,913 $172,932 $3,143,222
81 Other services $2,763,965 $87,711 $102,288 $2,953,964
92 Government $625,894 $17,191 $19,979 $663,064
93 Non NAICs $0 $0 $0 $0
Annual Expansion of Economy $14,119,665 $2,213,102 $1,779,427 $18,112,194
Per-Unit $141,197 $22,131 $17,794 $181,122
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Ripple Effects (Total Output Expansion)
July 6, 2021 - Page 32 of 210
Economic Value & Community Benefits of Resident Housing Investment
18
Resident Household Spending
Local resident households spend more of their income on retail goods and services
in Vail than the daily spending patterns of in-commuters. It is estimated that
Vail’s resident housing investment yields a net new local resident household
spending of approximately $2.6 million per year.
Town of Vail Fiscal Benefits
Out of the net new local resident household spending it is estimated that $2.1
million is taxable spending, which generates more than $116,000 of sales tax
revenues for Vail per year.
Table 13. Expansion of Total Spending in Vail Economy
Return on Investment Total Taxable Ann. Tax Rev
Net New Local Spending 5.5%
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting $98
21 Mining $145
22 Utilities $2
23 Construction $12,064
31-33 Manufacturing $610
42 Wholesale Trade $3,296
44-45 Retail trade $1,703,757 $1,703,757 $93,707
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing $29,821
51 Information $10,066
52 Finance & insurance $71,120
53 Real estate & rental $179,977
54 Professional- scientific & tech svcs $56,138
55 Management of companies $39,085
56 Administrative & waste services $14,980
61 Educational svcs $8,384
62 Health & social services $57,040
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation $12,994
72 Accommodation & food services $413,628 $413,628 $22,750
81 Other services $30,088
92 Government $6,318
93 Non NAICs $0
Annual Net New Spending $2,649,611 $2,117,385 $116,456
Per-Unit $26,496 $21,174 $1,165
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
July 6, 2021 - Page 33 of 210
Economic & Planning Systems
19
Opportunity
Costs
In this analysis, two primary metrics are considered opportunity costs: 1) the
Town’s alternative of investing in structured parking for in-commuters; and 2)
business costs associated with worker turnover, training, and lost productivity. It
is acknowledged that another alternative Town investment to structured parking
could be enhanced transit services and the capital and operational costs
associated with it. For the purposes of simplifying the analysis, structured parking
was evaluated as the core alternative.
Every year that Vail does not invest in resident housing and seeks to
accommodate or incent economic growth means that either: a) Vail must build
parking to accommodate the growing number of in-commuters and guests; or b)
Vail’s business community must endure perpetual business costs associated with
worker turnover, training, and lost productivity.
In the overall analysis, opportunity costs are capitalized into estimates of return
(i.e. the investment multiplier calculation) since they represent avoided costs to
the economy.
Parking
The first of the
opportunity costs
relates to the costs of
accommodating an
expanding in-
commuting workforce.
This cost is based on
the recent construction
of structured parking in
Vail at approximately
$100,000 per space,
but does not include
the cost of land.
This opportunity cost is further
augmented by the fact that this
would be an annual cost to Vail if it were to parallel to the goal of investing in 100
units of resident housing per year.
As shown in Table 14 above, the cost of structured parking for an approximately
113 cars per day (accounting for local/non-local jobs, net new jobs to the
economy, and carpooling) would be $11.3 million.
Table 14. Parking Impact
Opportunity Cost Factor Value
Parking Investment
Resident Housing Investment 100
Jobs Represented by Housing Investment 2.2 220
Vail Jobs 75%165
Net New Jobs to Economy 75%124
New Cars Needing Parking 9%113
TOV Parking Cost per Space $100,000
TOV Parking Investment Opportunity Cost $11,261,250
Per-Unit $112,612.50
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
July 6, 2021 - Page 34 of 210
Economic Value & Community Benefits of Resident Housing Investment
20
Table 15. Worker Turnover Costs
Opportunity Cost Factor Value
Resident Housing Investment 100
Jobs Represented by Housing Investment 2.2 220
Vail Jobs 75%165
Net New Jobs to Economy 75%124
Average annual training cost per jobs that would
otherwise "turnover"$6,796
Annual Business Costs of Turnover, Loss of
Productivity, and Training $840,959
Per-Unit $8,409.59
Source: QCEW; Center for American Progress; Economic & Planning Systems
Local Business Revenue (Cost Associated
with Job Turnover, Loss of Productivity, and
Training)
Worker Turnover
If Vail opted to invest in resident housing (not parking), research and analysis
indicates that local businesses could reduce their annual costs associated with
turnover, job training, and lost productivity by an estimated $840,000 per year.
This estimate reflects the weighted average of annual turnover costs for positions
in different industries at different annual wage levels.
July 6, 2021 - Page 35 of 210
Economic & Planning Systems
21
Appendix 5.
Terminology
Area Median Income (AMI) is a metric that identifies the point of a target geography’s
income distribution at which 50 percent of household earn more and 50 percent earn less.
Percentages, such as 60, 80, 100, 120 percent of AMI are typically used to isolate levels of
affordability within the distribution of households by income. The source of these data points
is the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which defines local AMI annually.
Community Benefit broadly refers to the other quantitative and qualitative benefits, such
as: 1) reduction in worker commute time; 2) reduction in carbon emissions resulting from
shorter commutes; 3) presence of school aged children; 4) greater community and civic
involvement; and 5) enhanced quality of guest experience.
Deed Restriction refers to a covenant in which it is stipulated that a property must be
occupied as a primary residence by individuals who work a minimum of 30 hours per week
in Eagle County.
Gross Regional Product (GRP) is a measure of regional economic activity that includes
employee compensation, business/corporate profits, and local tax revenue generation.
Investment Multiplier is a measure, expressed as a ratio of broader economic returns (as
measured by three components in this particular study) to an initial investment. The three
components include: 1) the impact on the broader economy; 2) community benefits such
as reduction in commute times and carbon emissions, increased volunteerism and presence
of school-aged children; and c) the opportunity costs such as Vail alternatively investing in
structured parking or enhanced transit service.
Opportunity Cost is the highest price or rate of return an alternative course of action, i.e.
an investment, would yield. In this analysis, opportunity costs are characterized as: 1) the
cost to provide structured parking, which could also be an alternative to increased transit
service investment; and 2) the annual cost of worker turnover to the business community.
Output is a measure of total economic activity, also called “total spending”, that
characterizes the sum of successive rounds of industry, business-to-business, and
household spending. As an example, output in the residential construction industry would
be equal to the purchase price of a housing unit.
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) is the Colorado Department of
Labor & Employment’s (CDLE) record of employment and wages for all of the state’s
employers. Records are reported at the individual establishment (i.e. address) level.
Individual employer records are protected by confidentiality agreement.
Resident Housing refers to a deed-restricted for-sale or rental housing unit (new
construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, or existing). Data to estimate the average per-unit
investment were obtained through the VLHA.
Return on Investment (ROI) is an amount, typically expressed as a percentage, earned
on an initial investment. The metric is calculated by dividing the initial investment (e.g. in
resident housing) by the earnings before interest, debt, and taxes.
July 6, 2021 - Page 36 of 210
Economic Value & Community Benefits of Resident Housing Investment
22
Table 16. Daytime Spending
Return on Investment Input Value
Resident Housing Investment 100
Jobs Represented by Housing Investment 2.2 220
Vail Jobs 75%165
Net New Jobs to Economy 75%124
Number of Previously In-Commuting Job-Holders (Diff.)41
Total Daily Spending by In-Commuting Job-
Holders (ICSC)$20
Annual Spending by In-Commuting Job-Holders $206,250
Source: ICSC; Economic & Planning Systems
Resident Household Spending (Calculation
Part 1)
Table 17. Resident Housing Household Spending
Return on Investment Value
Resident Household Spending (Calculation Part 2)
Resident Housing Investment 100
Resident Households 100
Household Median Income (approximately 80% AMI)$64,000
Income Spent on Retail (NAICS 44/45)35%
Gross Income Spent on Retail $22,400
Aggregate Income $2,240,000
Food Services $417,325
Retail $1,822,675
Source: ICSC; Economic & Planning Systems
July 6, 2021 - Page 37 of 210
Economic & Planning Systems
23
Table 18. Commute Detail
All Colorado In-Commuters to
the Town of Vail, 2015
Distance (Miles)Commuters
Edwards CDP, CO 14.1 miles 572
Denver city, CO 97.1 miles 295
Avon town, CO 10.0 miles 292
Eagle town, CO 30.3 miles 222
Gypsum town, CO 37.2 miles 198
Minturn town, CO 7.3 miles 125
Leadville city, CO 37.5 miles 97
Leadville North CDP, CO 37.5 miles 84
Aurora city, CO 111.0 miles 74
Colorado Springs city, CO 140.0 miles 68
Boulder city, CO 108.0 miles 67
Lakewood city, CO 92.5 miles 52
Fort Collins city, CO 157.0 miles 45
Glenwood Springs city, CO 60.9 miles 39
Breckenridge town, CO 36.0 miles 37
Highlands Ranch CDP, CO 107.0 miles 37
Centennial city, CO 108.0 miles 32
Red Cliff town, CO 16.0 miles 32
Arvada city, CO 95.0 miles 29
Frisco town, CO 26.5 miles 26
Basalt town, CO 84.0 miles 24
Aspen city, CO 102.0 miles 23
Broomfield city, CO 107.0 miles 23
Carbondale town, CO 73.9 miles 22
Longmont city, CO 130.0 miles 22
Silverthorne town, CO 30.2 miles 21
Westminster city, CO 99.8 miles 21
El Jebel CDP, CO 79.7 miles 20
Grand Junction city, CO 147.0 miles 19
Loveland city, CO 144.0 miles 19
Thornton city, CO 104.0 miles 19
New Castle town, CO 73.1 miles 18
Rifle city, CO 87.5 miles 17
Castle Rock town, CO 123.0 miles 15
Englewood city, CO 101.0 miles 15
Dotsero CDP, CO 42.5 miles 14
Ken Caryl CDP, CO 97.0 miles 14
Parker town, CO 118.0 miles 14
Steamboat Springs city, CO 93.1 miles 14
Craig city, CO 118.0 miles 13
Dakota Ridge CDP, CO 93.8 miles 12
Twin Lakes CDP, CO 57.7 miles 12
Silt town, CO 80.0 miles 11
Columbine CDP, CO 99.4 miles 10
Commerce City city, CO 103.0 miles 10
Dillon town, CO 31.8 miles 10
Littleton city, CO 103.0 miles 10
Other 126.8 miles 411
Average/Total 63.3 miles 3,276
Source: LEHD on the Map; Economic & Planning Systems
July 6, 2021 - Page 38 of 210
VAIL HOUSING 2027Adopted September 6, 2016
Resolution No. 29, Series of 2016
“A Strategic Plan for Maintaining
and Sustaining Community
through the Creation and Support
of Resident Housing in Vail”
75 S. Frontage Rd. | Vail, CO 81657
970.479.2100 | vailgov.com/housing2027
July 6, 2021 - Page 39 of 210
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
• Dave Chapin, Mayor
• Jenn Bruno, Mayor Pro-Tem
• Dick Cleveland
• Kevin Foley
• Kim Langmaid
• Jen Mason
• Greg Moffet
VAIL LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
• Steve Lindstrom, Chair
• Scott Ashburn
• Mary McDougall
• Molly Murphy
• James Wilkens
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
• Stan Zemler, Town Manager
• Kathleen Halloran, Director of Finance
• Matt Mire, Town Attorney
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
• George Ruther,
Director of Community Development
• Kristen Bertuglia, Environmental Manager
• Alan Nazzaro, Housing Manager
VAIL ECONOMIC
ADVISORY COUNCIL
• Jean Alexander
• Christian Avignon
• Bob Boselli
• Nick Brinkman
• Dick Cleveland
• Mark Gordon
• Michael Imhof
• Matt Ivy
• Rayla Kundolf
• Michael Kurz
• Rob LeVine
• Robin Litt
• Greg Moffet
• Matt Morgan
• Laurie Mullen
• Kim Newbury
• Brian Nolan
• Mike Ortiz
• Tara Picklo
• Chris Romer
• Mia Vlaar
• Alison Wadey
CONTRIBUTORS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
01
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
VISION 3
MISSION 3
POLICY STATEMENT 4
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 4
GOAL 5
MEANS 7
METHODS 12
ACTIONS FOR 14
IMPLEMENTATION
July 6, 2021 - Page 40 of 210
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ensuring the availability of homes for Vail residents has
been a long standing challenge in the community. To
date, adopted housing policies, programs and practices
have not yielded desired results. To realize different
results the community must change its approach to
housing policies, programs and practices.
Presently, the Town’s housing policies, programs and
practices lack an attainable goal, are without adequate
financial means, are reactive in implementation and
contain a decision making structure that does not result
in increased housing opportunities. Vail Housing 2027
sets in motion a strategic plan that proactively addresses
the housing needs of the community. It is actionable
in its implementation and changes the decision-making
approach towards maintaining and sustaining homes
for residents within the community.
Vail Housing 2027 takes a three-part approach to
improving the availability of housing in Vail and increasing
the number of deed restricted homes for residents of
the community:
Similar to a three-legged stool, the plan falls flat and
can not be successful without all three parts in place.
When achieved, this goal, along with the more than
698 existing deed restricted homes, ensures homes for
more than 3,736 Vail residents.
A goal can not be accomplished without the means for
doing so. In this instance means is an adequate and
ongoing source of funding. Funding is necessary to
acquire deed restrictions. The Plan recommends the
use of existing Housing Program funds to launch the deed
restriction program in the initial years and recommends
annual appropriations from the Town’s Capital Projects
Funds in future years. Additional funding sources should
be pursued simultaneously.
Finally, the Plan recommends a new method for achieving
the goal. Like the goal, the method is clear and concise…
Implement a new decision-making structure which is
singular in focus, proactive, empowering and results-
oriented, and is nimble enough to be effective at achieving
the goal.
1 2 3GOAL MEANS METHOD
The Town of Vail
will acquire 1,000
additional resident
housing unit deed
restrictions by the
year 2027
The single goal of the Plan is clear
and concise…
vailgov.com/housing2027
02July 6, 2021 - Page 41 of 210
We envision Vail as a diverse, resilient, inclusive,
vibrant and sustainable mountain resort community
where year-round residents are afforded the opportunity
to live and thrive. We take a holistic approach to
maintaining community, with continuous improvement
to our social, environmental, and economic well being.
We create housing solutions by recognizing and
capitalizing on our unique position as North America’s
premier international mountain resort community in
order to provide the highest quality of service to our
guests, attract citizens of excellence and foster their
ability to live, work, and play in Vail throughout their lives.
Our strategic solutions and actions result in the retention
of existing homes, creation of new and diverse housing
infrastructure, and collaboration with community
partners. For Vail, no problem is insurmountable.
With a consistent, community-driven purpose and an
entrepreneurial spirit, Vail will lead the industry in
innovative housing solutions for the 21st century. The
Town is well positioned financially to undertake this
significant challenge.
We create, provide, and retain high quality,
affordable, and diverse housing opportunities
for Vail residents to support a sustainable year
round economy and build a vibrant, inclusive
and resilient community. We do this through
acquiring deed restrictions on homes so that
our residents have a place to live in Vail.
OUR MISSION
Maintaining and
Sustaining Community
OUR HOUSING
VISION
An Eye on the Future
03 July 6, 2021 - Page 42 of 210
We acknowledge that the acquisition of deed restrictions on
homes for Vail residents is critical to maintaining community.
Therefore, we ensure an adequate supply and availability
of homes for residents and recognize housing as infrastructure
in the Town of Vail; a community support system not unlike
roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, fire, police, and
other services of the municipal government.
Vail Housing 2027 is an action-oriented, results-based
strategic planning document that is to be used as a decision-
making guide for taking critical next steps towards addressing
the resident housing needs in Vail. The Plan takes a proactive
approach to addressing the housing need. To that end, the
Plan identifies a vision for housing for year round residents
of the community, a mission for maintaining and sustaining
community and a single policy statement that acknowledges
homes for residents as critical infrastructure, thereby
reinforcing the importance of housing to the long term
success of Vail. Further, the Plan articulates a 10-year goal
to acquire deed restrictions on homes within the community.
The Plan presents a road map for acquiring deed restrictions
for resident housing through the year 2020. Given the
dynamic nature of the factors affecting the Town’s ability to
achieve the ten year goal, such as global markets, interest
rates, changes in regional housing supply, financial lending
practices, etc. the Actions for Implementation focus on the
first three years following the Plan adoption. The Plan
should be revisited at least every three years to evaluate
progress and to make adjustments, as needed.
The Plan is a living document that is to be used proactively,
adjusted as needed and reported upon twice annually to the
Vail Town Council. It recommends a number of actions that
must be implemented to ensure the realization of the Plan goal.
PURPOSE
of the PLAN
A Commitment to
the People who Live
and Work in Vail
POLICY
STATEMENT
Resident Housing
as Infrastructure
vailgov.com/housing2027
04
Business costs avoided $12.6 million per year
New retail spending $6.0 million in annual retail sales
($240,000 in sales tax at 4.0%)
Parking expansion $9.0 million
CATEGORY VALUE
VALUED VAIL EMPLOYEE HOUSING
Source: BBC Research and Consulting
July 6, 2021 - Page 43 of 210
GOAL
The Town of Vail
will acquire 1,000
additional resident
housing unit deed
restrictions by the
year 2027
05
1
These new deed restrictions will be acquired for both existing
homes as well as for homes that are newly constructed by both
the Town of Vail and private sector developers.
By virtue of the occupancy requirements of the deed restrictions,
the Town of Vail does not need to own resident homes to forward
its mission of maintaining and sustaining community.
Title to real estate can change ownership often. Once recorded,
a deed restriction transfers with the title and survives changes in
ownership over time, thus assuring long term resident housing.
July 6, 2021 - Page 44 of 210
vailgov.com/housing2027
06
5,305 People
7,209 Homes
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
4,758 Unoccupied Homes1,753 Occupied Homes
(2 - 3 people per home)
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
698 Deed Restricted Homes
$$$$$$$
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
2000
1000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Since 2010:
- nearly 90% of homes for sale
in Vail were sold to Unoccupied
Home Owners
- approximately 10% were sold to
Occupied Home Owner
Source: Eagle County Assessor’s Office
2016 OCCUPANCY COMPARISON
July 6, 2021 - Page 45 of 210
MEANS
Figure 1: Town of Vail Community Survey 2016
To effectively achieve the goal of acquiring
1,000 additional resident housing unit deed
restrictions by the year 2027, adequate financial
resources are needed. For the purpose of this
plan, the resources required include regular and
ongoing annual appropriations. The funds
appropriated will be used to purchase and
acquire deed restrictions for resident housing.
Deed restrictions will be acquired from a wide
range of sources. Likely sources include existing
homeowners, potential home buyers, business
owner’s, large and small employers, real estate
developers, existing and potential investment
property owners, etc.
In recognizing that resident housing is valued
as critical infrastructure within the community it
is imperative that it must be funded adequately.
Given that the availability of resident housing
is an important issue for the community, then
funding from the Town’s annual budget should
reflect housing as a priority.
07
38%
0 10 20 30 40
Focus on housing for middle income and service
workers households in vital support roles.
Economic vitality
(investing in facilities, services and events to keep
Vail competitive)
Budget and capital management
(keeping Vail fiscally healthy)
Actions to protect and enhance Gore Creek
Environmental sustainability
(waste and energy conservation programs,
environmental education, etc)
Parking opportunities for residents
Guest relations and customer service
Parking opportunities for visitors/guests
Transportation needs (bus service - local and regional)
36%
30%
20%
20%
17%
13%
13%
11%
TOP TWO
COMMUNITY
PRIORITIES
2
July 6, 2021 - Page 46 of 210
vailgov.com/housing2027
Therefore, annual appropriations in the form of both dedicated housing funds and capital projects
funds require allocation. And, as this is a community-wide issue, the community as a whole should
financially support housing solutions.
Figure 2:
Town of Vail
Community Survey
2016
08
47%
21%
63%
36%
25%
26%
48%
26%
59%
58%
25%
41%
19%
27%
33%
23%
18%
15%
14%
25%
22%
18%
19%
18%
8%
20%
14%
19%
18%
8%
13%
13%
19%
9%
17%
13%
13%
13%
14%
8%
11%
14%
6%
5%
17%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Focus on housing for middle income
and service workers households in vital
support roles.
Economic vitality
(investing in facilities, services and events
to keep Vail competitive)
Budget and capital management
(keeping Vail fiscally healthy)
Actions to protect and enhance
Gore Creek
Environmental sustainability
(waste and energy conservation programs,
environmental education, etc)
Parking opportunities for residents
Guest relations and customer service
Parking opportunities for visitors/guests
Transportation needs
(bus service - local and regional)
FT RES
PT RES
EMP TOV
MAIL
NON RES BIZ
FT RES
PT RES
EMP TOV
MAIL ONLY
NON RES BIZ
FT RES
PT RES
EMP TOV
MAIL ONLY
NON RES BIZ
FT RES
PT RES
EMP TOV
MAIL ONLY
NON RES BIZ
FT RES
PT RES
EMP TOV
MAIL ONLY
NON RES BIZ
FT RES
PT RES
EMP TOV
MAIL ONLY
NON RES BIZ
FT RES
PT RES
EMP TOV
MAIL ONLY
NON RES BIZ
FT RES
PT RES
EMP TOV
MAIL ONLY
NON RES BIZ
FT RES
PT RES
EMP TOV
MAIL ONLY
NON RES BIZ
Full-time
resident
Part-time
resident
Employed in TOV -
live elsewhere
Get mail in TOV -
live/work elsewhere
Non-resident
business owner
47%21%63%36%25%26%48%26%59%58%25%41%19%27%33%23%
18%
15%
14%
25%
22%
18%
19%
18%
8%
20%
14%
19%
18%
8%
13%
13%
19%
9%
17%
13%
13%
13%
14%
8%
11%
14%
6%
5%
17%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Focus on housing for middle income and service workers households in vital support roles.Economic vitality (investing in facilities, services and events to keep Vail competitive)Budget and capital management (keeping Vail fiscally healthy)
Actions to protect and enhance
Gore Creek
Environmental sustainability
(waste and energy conservation programs,
environmental education, etc)
Parking opportunities for residents
Guest relations and customer service
Parking opportunities for visitors/guests
Transportation needs
(bus service - local and regional)
FT RES PT RES EMP TOV MAIL NON RES BIZ FT RES PT RES EMP TOV MAIL ONLY NON RES BIZ FT RES PT RES EMP TOV MAIL ONLY NON RES BIZ
FT RES
PT RES
EMP TOV
MAIL ONLY
NON RES BIZ
FT RES
PT RES
EMP TOV
MAIL ONLY
NON RES BIZ
FT RES
PT RES
EMP TOV
MAIL ONLY
NON RES BIZ
FT RES
PT RES
EMP TOV
MAIL ONLY
NON RES BIZ
FT RES
PT RES
EMP TOV
MAIL ONLY
NON RES BIZ
FT RES
PT RES
EMP TOV
MAIL ONLY
NON RES BIZ
Full-time
resident
Part-time
resident
Employed in TOV -
live elsewhere
Get mail in TOV -
live/work elsewhere
Non-resident
business owner
TOP PRIORITIES BY
RESIDENT TYPE
July 6, 2021 - Page 47 of 210
A dedicated funding source is important to the
long term success of meeting the established
housing goal by year 2027. A dedicated funding
source such as sales tax or property tax increase
live on over time as political sentiment changes,
and supports the issuance of long-term bonds
to move the revenue forward.
A tax-based funding source for housing should
be supplemented with the collection of fee in lieu
funds received. However, in order to initiate
immediate action towards the realization of the
goal of the Plan, it is necessary in the near term
that additional funding comes from reallocation
of the Town’s General and Capital Projects Funds.
It is difficult at this time to determine precisely
the annual budgeting requirements of the
Plan, especially as related to potential capital
expenditures for deed restriction acquisition.
The Town’s Housing Program Funds, however,
Figure 3: Town of Vail 2015 Year in Review. Municipal Services
accounted for $39.3 million, or 73% of 2015 expenditures.
currently maintain a fund balance of nearly
$3.2M. In an effort to create, grow and maintain
a healthy fund balance and establish a pattern
of annual appropriation towards housing programs,
the Town should appropriate a minimum of
$500,000 into the 2017 Housing Program Funds
within the Capital Projects Funds and make
regular and ongoing annual appropriations for
the purpose of acquiring new resident housing
deed restrictions. It is recommended that a
minimum of $5M be appropriated in future budget
years 2018, 2019, and 2020. Allocations beyond
2020 should be evaluated based upon results
achieved in each of the first three years of the
Plan implementation. As each year’s results
are reviewed, adjustments in allocation may be
necessary to remain on target of achieving the
Plan goal. Circumstances unknown at this time
may require the Town to accelerate its funding
obligations in future years to remain on target
for realizing the Ten Year Goal.
09
WHERE THE
MONEY WENT
Town Officials &
Administration
10%
Transportation
& Parking
11%
Public Safety
22%
Facilities
& Fleet
Maintenance
8%
Contributions,
Marketing &
Special Events
6%
Parks, AIPP
& Library
4%
Health &
Employee
Housing
1%
Capital
Improvements
27%
Public Works
& Streets
7%Community
Development
4%
July 6, 2021 - Page 48 of 210
vailgov.com/housing2027
10July 6, 2021 - Page 49 of 210
12
METHODS
New Structure
A new decision-making structure
is needed to get better results.
The new structure must include a
new decision-making body that is:
• singular in mission and focus
• empowered and results-oriented
• time sensitive and responsive in
its actions
• adaptable to an ever dynamic
real estate market
• consistent and predictable
• timely within the Town’s
development review process
To efficiently achieve the goal of acquiring 1,000
additional resident housing unit deed restrictions
by the year 2027 a new structure for decision-
making is needed. The current decision making
structure contains multiple layers of bureaucracy,
is costly and time consuming, inefficient,
indecisive, reactive in approach and does not
achieve the Town’s desired results of addressing
the resident housing needs of the community.
The new structure requires built-in mechanisms
of accountability for decision making and twice
annual reporting requirements. It must be built
on a foundation grounded by predetermined
criteria for sound decision making and evaluation
when deciding on the acquisition of deed
restrictions. It requires participation from experts
in the fields of real estate finance and development,
residential property lending, real property
acquisition, affordable housing policy and program
implementation, public finance and administration,
and real property analysis, valuation and appraisal.
Each of these characteristics ensure that the
new structure is organized and aligned in such
a way that the Town achieves its Ten Year Goal
for housing.
Most importantly, the decision-making structure
must ensure that the decision-making body,
acting as a special agent of the Town of Vail,
has the authority to take action towards achieving
the goal and dispense the funds needed to
acquire deed restrictions.
3
July 6, 2021 - Page 50 of 210
The five-member Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA)
should be appointed as the new decision-making
body authorized as a special agent to act on behalf of
the Vail Town Council. There are numerous compelling
reasons to appoint the VLHA as the Town’s special
agent. Those reasons include:
• The VLHA is a statutory authority created under
Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS 29-4-204) and
granted powers of authority (CRS 29-4-209) which
include, in part,
> to grant or lend moneys or otherwise provide
financing to any person, firm, corporation for any
project or any part thereof,
> to pledge or otherwise encumber any of its moneys
in support o of on connection with a project, and
> to purchase, lease, obtain option upon, or acquire
any property, real or personal, or any interest
therein from any person, firm, corporation, the city,
or a government.
vailgov.com/housing2027
13
• The VLHA is uniquely positioned to fill this role due
to its singular purpose and focus.
• The VLHA members are appointed by the Vail
Town Council, and therefore, its membership can
include experts with the appropriate background
and experiences.
• The VLHA was created to focus its efforts on
maintaining and expanding the supply of resident
housing opportunities in the community.
• The VLHA members serve five year staggered terms.
Figure 4: Decision-Making
VAIL LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
(implementation)
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
(policy)
Twice
Annual Reporting
(feedback)
TOWN OF VAIL
SUPPORT STAFF
$Annual
Appropriation
A NEW DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE
July 6, 2021 - Page 51 of 210
Deed Restriction Acquisition
• Establish deed restriction acquisition criteria
• Work with mortgage lenders and title
companies to develop mutually acceptable
deed restriction language
• Collaborate with The Valley Home Store
and the Vail Board of Realtors to market
and communicate the Town’s interest in
acquiring deed restrictions
• Evaluate dedicated deed restriction
acquisition revenue sources to ensure
adequate funding exists
FOR IMPLEMENTATION
14 July 6, 2021 - Page 52 of 210
vailgov.com/housing2027
Land Use Tools
• Establish a No Net Loss of Deed
Restrictions Policy
• Create a Housing Overlay District that
allows for increased density
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the EHU
Exchange Program and make adjustments
as needed
• Update the 2007 Rational Nexus Study to
ensure changes in land use are consistent
with current employee generation rates
• Amend the Fee in Lieu calculation to
represent cost of construction instead of
affordability gap
Performance Measurements
• Update existing deed restricted property
data base to include additional factors
such as cost, location and deed restriction
language type
• Prepare a twice annual report summarizing
progress towards the goal
• Maintain newly acquired deed restriction
data such as unit type, location, cost, etc.
“ The availability of housing for Vail residents is vital
to the continued success of the Vail community. The Vail
Town Council and the Vail Local Housing Authority
are to be commended for taking a bold step towards
addressing the housing needs of the citizens of Vail
today, and those in the future.”
~ George Ruther
Director of Community Development
15July 6, 2021 - Page 53 of 210
75 S. Frontage Rd. | Vail, CO 81657
970.479.2100 | vailgov.com/housing2027
July 6, 2021 - Page 54 of 210
RESOLUTION NO. 30, SERIES 2018
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2018 TOWN OF VAIL HOUSING
POLICY STATEMENTS, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD
THERETO
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council has adopted the vision “To Be The Premier
International Mountain Resort Community”;
WHEREAS, through Resolution No. 29, Series 2016, the Town Council adopted
Vail Housing 2027, "A Strategic Plan for Maintaining and Sustaining Community through
the Creation and Support of Resident Housing in Vail" (the "Plan");
WHEREAS, the single goal of the Plan is for “The Town of Vail to acquire 1,000
additional resident housing deed-restrictions by the year 2027;
WHEREAS, according to the 2018 Town of Vail Community Survey results, the
availability and affordability of housing is the most critical issue facing the Vail
community; and,
WHEREAS, through the adoption of housing policy statements, it is the Vail
Town Council’s intent to articulate the approaches the Town will take to realize its
vision, achieve its housing goal, and address the most critical issue…housing…facing
the Vail community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL:
Section 1. The Vail Town Council hereby adopts the following housing policy
statements, hereafter referred to as the “2018 Town of Vail Housing Policy
Statements”:
#1 Housing IS Infrastructure - Deed-restricted homes are critical
infrastructure in Vail.
#2 Housing Partners – We use public/private partnerships and actively
pursue local and regional solutions to increase the supply of deed-
restricted homes.
#3 Private Sector Importance – We foster a proactive and solutions-
oriented environment that promotes private sector investment to create
deed-restricted homes.
#4 Leverage Financial Strength – We will use our financial strength and
acumen to acquire deed-restrictions.
1
July 6, 2021 - Page 55 of 210
#5 Breakdown Barriers – We align our land use regulations, building and
energy conservation codes to achieve our vision and housing goal, and
development applications are thoroughly, timely and efficiently
reviewed….getting to “yes” is our shared objective.
#6 Funding Creates Deed-Restrictions – We pursue a predictable,
consistent and reliable source of funding to obtain deed-restrictions and
maintain the Town’s housing programs.
#7 People Promote Community – We ensure opportunity and access to the
Town’s housing programs and initiatives through a clear, equitable, and
easy to administer process for housing selection.
#8 No Net Loss - No net loss of resident-occupied, deed-restrictions.
#9 Keep Up With Demand - New development, both residential and
commercial, is obligated to mitigate its incremental impact on the demand
for resident-occupied, deed-restricted homes. Payment in lieu, while
needed, is not the preferred method of mitigation.
#10 Funding is Policy – The Vail Town Council will fund housing
opportunities and solutions.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 2018.
_____________________________
Dave Chapin, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
2
July 6, 2021 - Page 56 of 210
The
Mountain
Migration
Report
Are COVID Impacts on Housing & Services Here to Stay?2021 |
Eagle, Grand, Pitkin, Routt, San Miguel & Summit Counties
July 6, 2021 - Page 57 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 School Enrollment | 2July 6, 2021 - Page 58 of 210
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................4
Study Purpose ......................................................................5
Geographic Area ..................................................................7
Methodology .........................................................................7
2 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ....................9
Have part-time residents changed the amount of time they spend in the region? ..................10
Do part-time residents have plans to permanently relocate? .....................................................11
Are residents working remotely, employed locally or retired? ...........................................11
Will the sharp rise in home prices and high demand for housing continue and what does this mean for residents holding local jobs? .................12
Do community service needs differ among existing and new residents and what are their priorities? .............................................................13
3 UNDERSTANDING CHANGES IN HOUSING OCCUPANCY ........................14
Sales and Lodging Taxes ..................................................15
Vacation Rental Occupancy ............................................16
Water Usage ........................................................................18
Change In Resident Occupancy of Homes ................19
Use of Homes .....................................................................21
4 RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS ........................................................22
Employment Status ..........................................................23
Employment Location ......................................................23
Household Income By Employment Location ...........25
5 HOUSING MARKET IMPACTS ...................26
Ownership Market: ..........................................................29
Rapid Escalation In Sales, Sharp Drop In Availability ....29
Prices at Record Highs ......................................................30
Full-Time Residents Are Losing Ground ......................31
Buyer Preferences and Home Use ................................33
Will the Buyer Frenzy Continue? ....................................33
The Start of a New Reality? .............................................34
Rental Market: ...................................................................35
The Big Picture – From Shut Down to Frenzy .............35
Impacts on Long-Term Rental Inventory – Gains & Losses ...................................................................35
Impacts On Rents – Locals Get Relief But Market Rates Spike ............................................................36
Rental Availability – What Availability? ...........................38
Short-Term & Mid-Term Rentals ....................................39
Renter Profiles – Demographics Changing .................39
6 SERVICES NEEDS & PREFERENCES .......40
Community Services & Amenities ................................41
Business Services ..............................................................42
Home Services ...................................................................44
Other Services ....................................................................45
7 QUALITY OF LIFE ..........................................46
Factors Influencing Community Choice ......................47
Community Impacts In 2020 .........................................48
8 SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS..........................................52
9 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT ............................55
Current School Enrollment .............................................56
Future School Enrollment ................................................58
10 NEXT STEPS ....................................................60
Motivated to Take Action Together...............................61
Collaborate On Larger Policy Changes ........................61
Explore Local & Regional Actions ..................................62
APPENDIX ..............................................................66
Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents ...........67
Acknowledgments ............................................................68
July 6, 2021 - Page 59 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
1INTRODUCTION
July 6, 2021 - Page 60 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Introduction | 5
Study Purpose
Since the COVID-19 pandemic escalated in March of 2020, national media reported an outflow of residents flocking
from cities to high quality-of-life places such as the mountain resort communities covered in this report. Residents of
these communities observed that their communities were busier—and consistently so, breaking the typical patterns
of high and low visitation. But was the in-migration real? And what did we know about the people coming to these
places who appeared more like residents than visitors? Was it only a COVID driven wave that would recede? How
would it impact known community challenges such as workforce retention, affordable housing, rental stock and that
mountain community holy grail that is quality-of-life? A desire for a better understanding of the answers to these and
many other questions being asked led to this Mountain Migration report.
We listened to our membership through 2020, there was a sense among those reflecting already that the COVID
Mountain Migration experiment might prove instructive, providing a glimpse ahead for those who drive policy. That
idea was the origin of this report. To get it done, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) sought
a partnership with Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) to scope and fund this report. That partnership led
to a grant from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), and funding from a recovery grant from the
Economic Development Administration (EDA) to match dues from NWCCOG and CAST membership. NWCCOG is
deeply appreciative of these partners, the many contributors listed in the Acknowledgements page and the amazing
communities that we are honored to serve.
The findings of this report should help local leaders better understand current trends and motivate them to address
evolving community needs. While the data was gathered from six Colorado mountain resort counties, the results
should provide widespread insights for other high amenity places throughout the Mountain West. In Colorado, most
solutions are local, but many of the impacts outlined in this report can only be addressed through regional and state-
level cooperation, and in some cases structural changes to policy, practice and law.
Many public and private sector professionals have spent their careers on these issues, many of the communities
studied have been “doing housing” for decades, and many are innovating in the housing sector right now, though, few
are putting all options on the table. There is always that sticky matter of political courage and public resistance to
change. We think this Mountain Migration trend reveals a tipping point for these communities that cannot be ignored.
We thought such a report without ANY suggestions would be a mistake. To that, NWCCOG and CAST would like to
thank Wendy Sullivan and Melanie Rees, the consultants who we sought out for this work. The Possible Solutions/
Next Steps section at the end derived from their years of experience combined with input during this project.
Although they tolerated edits and input from us as NWCCOG and CAST Executive Directors, the report is their work,
and is intended as a tool for reference. It is not a reflection of the positions of either organization or our membership.
That said, we don’t mind going out on a limb here. May this report be a wakeup call for local leaders, a renewed call
to action for those already involved in tackling community challenges, and a reference point for those seeking to
understand the trends so they can have a positive impact on the places they live. The consequences are real.
Will some communities reach a tipping point of unfillable jobs that are necessary to sustain their reputations and
quality of life? Will some communities be fully commoditized and lose their soul? The report notes that no place yet
has “built their way out” of the issue. Is that possible? Does that mean that a community “couldn’t?” There are many
approaches to the issue. We recommend looking at each of them again.
July 6, 2021 - Page 61 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
We hope this report may provide some cover for bold elected officials partnering with others to propose such
structural changes. Policies that made sense need to be reassessed, could include reviewing deed restriction
language to address remote work, or recalibrating Area Medium Income limits because even locally employed
professionals are being priced out. These are incremental, known things to tweak. Some things that were taboo
may need to be put on the table, those could include inventorying all lands owned by public taxing entities for
viability for affordable housing – school lands, oversized parking lots, and prized civic properties like adjacent federal
lands and, (gasp) open space. There is open talk these days about whether STRs should be taxed as commercial
properties? The conversation these days isn’t all about local or state policies. What about federal lending practices
that favor single family homes over multi-family developments? This is returning as an equity issue. Some states
such as California have streamlined multi-family developments as a by-right development for affordable projects
where density is not a public input point. Others states legislatures in the West are discussing abandoning single
family zoning altogether. And then there is the question, where is that in the budget? Most solutions like public land
banking, purchasing deed restrictions from existing residents cost money and often require additional taxes. For
those who wish to open the barn door, break the glass (insert your metaphor here), there are no shortage of ideas
being discussed somewhere out there today.
The countervailing challenge is this. People really like it up here because it isn’t the city. Periods of intense growth
pressure in mountain communities often result in a not-in-my-backyard backlash which creates resistance to the
very actions necessary to address the challenges outlined in this report. Such reactions often impact attempts
to create affordable housing more than they do higher-end projects. Whether this dynamic can be overcome will
require considerable finesse, vision and community buy-in earned by community leaders. We applaud those who
endeavor to do so.
Introduction | 6
Jon Stavney
Executive Director NWCCOG
Margaret Bowes
Executive Director CAST
Margaret Bowes
ALPINE AREA AGENCY ON AGING
July 6, 2021 - Page 62 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Introduction | 7
Aside from each county or municipality therein being
members of NWCCOG and/or CAST, additional criteria
were used to focus the study area to ensure that this
analysis will have wide applicability to a variety of other
amenity-rich communities throughout the west. First,
high-profile resort communities are located in each
county. These have long attracted investment from
second homeowners and strong interest from visitors.
On average only about 50% of homes are occupied
by full-time residents in the entire study area, with the
rest being owned and occupied by part-time residents,
investment buyers, and visitors. Second, each county
differs in its relative accessibility from population centers,
with some being easily accessible from the more urban
Colorado Front Range cities and others being relatively
isolated. This leads to variability among these counties,
reflected in other unique factors such as each county’s
demographic, economic, and visitor profiles. Communities
not directly included in the study should, therefore, be able
to reference a county or combination of counties that best
resemble their area to get a picture of the most applicable
migration profiles presented in this report.
Methodology
ONLINE RESIDENT SURVEY
The resident survey conducted as part of this study provides the core information presented in this report. The
survey was distributed with significant local assistance to reach full-time residents, part-time residents, and new
residents. Nearly 5,000 responses were received, about one-fourth of which were from part-time residents, as
summarized in the table below.
Geographic Area
This study includes six counties within the
NWCCOG and CAST network:
Eagle County, Pitkin County, Summit County,
Routt County, Grand County, and San Miguel County.
Reaching the desired mix of respondents required a diverse outreach plan. The survey was advertised through
local media and newspapers and distributed with the cooperation of local boards of REALTORS®, school districts,
water and utility billings, chambers of commerce, and local non-profits, among other avenues, as indicated in the
Acknowledgements section.
RESIDENCY
STATUS
COUNTY
Eagle Grand Pitkin Routt San Miguel Summit TOTAL
Full-time 508 769 254 400 496 1,048 3,475
Part-time 91 446 192 64 62 380 1,235
TOTAL 599 1,215 446 464 558 1,428 4,710
July 6, 2021 - Page 63 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Introduction | 8
Results were weighted to coincide with the proportion of total full- and part-time resident households that each
county comprises in the study region. Given that the purpose of the study was to gauge differences in home usage
and service needs in the community based on residency status, other weighting was not applied. The demographic
profile of respondents is provided in the Appendix.
Survey results are primarily reported based on the residency status of respondents, as follows:
• PART-TIME RESIDENT: include respondents that reported that
they do not live in their respective county on a full-time or primary
residence basis. Part-time respondents predominately reside in their
respective mountain county for 6-months or less
each year (90%).
• FULL-TIME RESIDENT: include respondents that reported that they
live in their respective county on a full-time or primary residence
basis. Full-time respondents predominately reside in their respective
mountain county for more than 6-months each year (91%).
• NEWCOMERS: include respondents that started residing in the
area as a full- or part-time resident within the past two years.
Forty-four percent of newcomers did not spend time in their
respective mountain county on a regular basis prior to the COVID
outbreak in 2020.
• LONG-TIMERS: include respondents that have resided in their
respective mountain county for ten years or more either full-time,
part-time, or both.
Significant differences that were observed by county are also noted.
PROPERTY MANAGERS, REAL ESTATE AGENTS & HOUSING MARKET DATA
Interviews were conducted with nine property managers throughout the six counties. A focus group was conducted
with eight real estate agents representing each county within the study area. The purpose was to gather housing
market changes (prices, availability and competition), gain insights into changes in unit use, such as from year-round
rentals into short-term rentals, and understand new resident motivations, preferences and needs. Housing market
analyses from Land Title Guarantee Company, the predominant title company for each county in the study area,
provided the housing sales data presented in this report.
OTHER LOCAL DATA
Discussions with various water and sanitation districts, school districts, chambers of commerce, and tourism boards
and districts were conducted to identify various local indicators that communities in the study area were tracking to
try to understand changes. This research led to compilation of several indicators presented in this report, including
sales and lodging tax collections, vacation rental occupancy through DestiMetrics and Key Data tracking systems,
and water usage and wastewater data. It is important to note that the scope of this report did not attempt to capture
information about traditional tourism or visitors.
Base Survey Data is available only to members for CAST and NWCCOG upon request.
Forty-four percent of
newcomers did not spend
time in their respective
mountain county on a
regular basis prior to the
COVID outbreak in 2020.
44%
July 6, 2021 - Page 64 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
2SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
July 6, 2021 - Page 65 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Summary of Key Findings | 10
Key Findings
The short answer is yes. About one-fifth did spend more time in their part-time residence in 2020. Interestingly,
however, about an equal number spent less time, effectively balancing out their impacts over the year.
This does not mean that the impacts of part-time residents that increased their stay was not felt. Many did so during
periods when they have typically been elsewhere and, therefore, did help to boost sales tax collections and contribute
to the busier-than-usual feeling in most communities during typically slower times of the year (i.e., mid-week and fall
months).
There was much speculation before this study that the increased crowds, parking impacts, and other effects of
having more people than typical in these communities was due primarily to part-time owners occupying their homes.
While part-time residents were a contributor, the greater population surge and the crowds about which so many
residents commented were instead caused by a combination of:
¿Newcomers moving in and either buying or renting;
¿Growth in the demand for and use of homes for a month or season;
¿Visitors who stayed in lodging, short-term, and mid-term rentals, or camped
with many others in the backcountry;
¿Residents and visitors alike staying for consistent and longer stretches, rather
than coming up only on the weekends or during holidays, thereby flattening
out the typical peaks and valleys in visitation during the week and certain
times of the year;
¿Year-round residents traveling out of the area less frequently during COVID;
¿Day trippers and drive-in traffic seeking relief from COVID isolation; and, also,
¿Part-time residents occupying their homes.
This surge illustrated yet another impact of the strong part-time and visitor
occupancy of homes in these counties. With currently only 50% of housing
units in the study area being occupied by full-time residents, the influx of more
owners and visitors staying in part-time homes and short- and mid-term
accommodations can, in theory, allow the population in the area to double
seemingly overnight; and this does not include visitors that may be in commercial
(hotel) lodging units. This, for example, occurred in Telluride last fall when the total
population in town was about twice the resident population of 4,145 people.
When stays are increased and extended over longer periods of time, as occurred during COVID, the stress on the
community and infrastructure is felt by all.
Have part-time residents changed the amount of time they
spend in the region?
With currently only 50%
of housing units in the
study area being occupied
by full-time residents,
the influx of more owners
and visitors staying in
part-time homes and
short- and mid-term
accommodations can,
in theory, allow the
population in the area
to double seemingly
overnight; and this does
not include visitors that
may be in commercial
(hotel) lodging units.
July 6, 2021 - Page 66 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
Part-time residents expect to increase the time they spend in their homes by an
average of 30% (1.2-month increase) in 2022 to 2025 from pre-COVID averages.
A small percentage, however, plan to become full-time residents, which are largely
offset by plans of full-time residents to leave the area or reduce the time they
spend in the county.
Newcomers are also mixed, with some stating that they will move out of the
county and others hoping to buy a home in the county. About 18% are uncertain.
Evaluating the motivations for newcomers and part-time residents to move to
or spend more time in the area sheds light on factors that will influence their
staying power:
¿Changes in employer remote work policies. Home is now the workplace for most newcomers and part-timers.
One-half of newcomers were motivated to spend more time in the area because they could work remotely.
About 20% who work remotely are uncertain about their ability to do so in the future, pending remote worker
policy changes by their employer.
¿Concerns about COVID and, to a lesser extent, civil unrest. Safety/security was one of the most important
considerations among residents when choosing where to live. Newcomers will stay and more people will want to
move in should the pandemic continue and possibly worsen.
¿The availability of housing stock to absorb newcomers. The housing shortage is felt by all. Newcomers earn much
higher incomes and are in a stronger position to compete for homes than are existing residents who make their
living in the community. As raised in more detail below, however, for sale inventory is at historic lows and rental
inventory is largely non-existent, meaning that even newcomers cannot acquire housing if it is not available. The
housing crisis is at a peak.
The location neutral, or remote, worker is a trend that was already occurring, which the pandemic rapidly accelerated.
It is also a trend that will continue to make mountain towns popular places to live for location neutral workers.
Over half of all newcomers, full-time residents, and part-time residents surveyed include at least one person who
works at home. About 60% of newcomers and 70% of part-time residents work for an employer outside of the
county, compared to about one-fourth of full-time residents.
Do part-time residents have plans to permanently relocate?
Are residents working remotely, employed locally or retired?
Part-time residents
expect to increase the
time they spend in their
homes by an average of
30% (1.2-month increase)
in 2022 to 2025 from
pre-COVID averages.
Summary of Key Findings | 11July 6, 2021 - Page 67 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Summary of Key Findings | 12
The ability for people working in these mountain towns to live in the same communities as they work took a big hit
from the pandemic. Housing availability and affordability, which were by no means new problems, became significantly
worse.
¿Home prices reached record highs.
¿Rents increased 20% to 40% in one year.
¿Availability of homes for rent and purchase plummeted to critical levels in many communities.
¿Newcomers with significantly higher incomes than year-round residents more often won the competition for
scarce housing units.
Some correction is possible for home prices and rents; however, the wide perception among area real estate agents
was that the high-demand, short supply housing market is here to stay, at least for a while. Construction activity
picked up, but current activity levels cannot produce anywhere near the rate nor volume to meet the demand. The
shortage in construction labor and building materials, lack of developable land, topography constraints, and limited
infrastructure capacity are just a few of the limiting factors. It is widely recognized that these communities have been
unable to build their way out of this problem.
This accelerated location-neutral worker trend brings potentially positive changes,
but also brings some challenges:
¿Rising interest from location neutral workers to relocate to the mountain
communities has the potential to bring more economic diversification. New
location-neutral worker residents earn more and can spend more at local
businesses. Their incomes are not tied to employment generated in the
mountains. If the ability for location neutral workers to work from home
changes, instead of leaving the community to again commute to their
job, some may instead choose to stay in the community, increasing the
entrepreneurial potential in these communities.
¿In addition, with more residents to support local businesses, shifting economic priorities for some communities
may be on the horizon. For example, tourism marketing and expenditures focused primarily on the visitor
experience may become less of a need, with increased focus on capital projects that support livability and
quality-of-life improvements for new residents. Visitors may always anchor the resort economy, but as these
communities add year-round residents, tourism may become a less dominant economic driver.
¿On the other hand, finding employees to fill resident and visitor service jobs necessary to maintain a community
will likely become even more challenging. Incoming location-neutral workers will not be filling local jobs and
will outcompete local workers for housing. This hurts the ability for local businesses to find, keep, and attract
employees, lowering the level and quality of services they can provide to residents and visitors alike. This has been
a struggle for resort communities for years; and is primed to get worse, at least in the near term. Businesses,
existing residents, and communities may face a tough transition in the years ahead.
Will the sharp rise in home prices and high demand for housing
continue & what does this mean for residents holding local jobs?
About 60% of newcomers
and 70% of part-time
residents work for an
employer outside of the
county, compared to
about one-fourth of
full-time residents.
July 6, 2021 - Page 68 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
Home prices in mountain towns tend to be more volatile than in diversified urban areas, as witnessed during the Great
Recession of 2008, when downward adjustments were significant. Given how far prices have moved beyond levels
affordable for locally employed residents, however, property values would need to plummet further than they did
during the Great Recession to bring affordability back for local workers in these communities. It seems unlikely that
prices will correct to the extent that year-round residents will be able to purchase market homes or compete with
part-time renters and newcomers for rental housing. In most communities in the six-county region this is already the
case, where the only housing that the majority of local employees can afford are homes that are deed restricted for
local workforce occupancy and/or price limited. There are fewer and fewer full-time residents employed locally that
will be able to afford free market construction if trends continue.
The negative impacts on housing affordability and availability were recognized by newcomers, long-time residents,
and part-time residents to almost the same extent as full-time residents. With the increase in the severity of the
problem and the widespread acknowledgment of it, now is the time to mobilize governments, communities, and
regions to strengthen, broaden, and reinvent workforce housing polices, programs, and efforts.
The rising focus of residential units being used as employment centers by location-neutral workers presents new
challenges for the traditional housing programs implemented in many of these communities. Innovative strategies
to increase the supply of deed restricted homes that are limited to occupancy by persons who are employed in local
businesses allow local workers to compete against the strong outside demand for housing in these amenity-rich
communities. Practices protecting those deed restrictions are clearly needed to fill local jobs, support the economy,
and sustain communities. The “Next Steps” section of this report presents several concepts for consideration.
One purpose of this study was to evaluate if significant shifts in current community service priorities would occur as
new migrants came to the area and some part-time residents increased their time in their homes.
Results indicate that there is not much difference in community and business service priorities and needs among
newcomers, full-time, and part-time residents. Full-time residents may use s ervices more frequently, but all residents
report a similar need for each service. Interestingly, part-time residents generally feel that existing services are higher
quality than do full-time residents.
The results indicate that communities do not need to make significant changes to the way they deliver basic services
to their residents, but they will need more of the same if increased home usage continues and newcomers keep
coming. Providing higher levels of services to meet the larger population should be the focus rather than necessarily
providing different or new services.
Do community service needs differ among existing and new
residents and what are their priorities?
Summary of Key Findings | 13July 6, 2021 - Page 69 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
3UNDERSTANDING CHANGES IN HOUSING OCCUPANCY
July 6, 2021 - Page 70 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Understanding Changes in Housing Occupancy | 15
Sales & Lodging Taxes
Despite COVID-19 restrictions that were tough on businesses, the counties and communities in the six-county study
area experienced less negative effect on sales taxes than anticipated, with some areas showing sales tax gains from
the prior year.
Overall, for the region sales1 taxes declined by about 5% in 2020 compared to 2019. As illustrated in the following
chart, sales tax collection changes varied throughout the year:
• The largest negative impact occurred in March, when COVID-19 public health orders closed or decreased
capacity for many businesses, including in particular restaurants, hotels/short-term rentals, and retailers. This
impact was felt throughout the spring.
• Some recovery and positive gains occurred throughout the summer as public health were orders lifted, lodging
occupancy permissions were increased, and businesses reopened.
• Collections again dropped into the late fall when COVID cases started rising and tighter restrictions were again
put into place in many counties.
The number of homes occupied by full-time and part-time residents was higher in all counties
in the study area in June through December 2020 compared to the prior year. The scale of this
increase and whether increased home occupancy by part-time residents in particular are here to
stay are larger questions that this section seeks to address.
This section first summarizes several indicators that communities in the study region have
been tracking to varying degrees to better understand changes experienced during the COVID
pandemic in 2020. The indicators presented herein – sales and lodging tax collections, vacation
rental occupancy, and water usage and wastewater data - all point to increased occupancy of
homes by residents in the summer and fall of 2020, after COVID-19 public health restrictions
were put into place at state, county, and local levels in the region.
This is followed by information from the resident survey to understand more specifically how
much more time residents spent in their homes, future resident plans, and motivations behind
occupancy changes.
1 Sales taxes by month were consolidated for the region and included collections for five of the six counties, plus many of the primary resort communities in each county for
2019 and 2020 tax years. Routt County and Steamboat Springs; Summit County and Breckenridge, Frisco and Silverthorne; Eagle County and Vail; Pitkin County and Aspen and
Snowmass Village; Winter Park in Grand County; and San Miguel County and Telluride.
July 6, 2021 - Page 71 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
Vacation Rental Occupancy
Information was available for five of the six counties in the study area that track lodging occupancy stays for a portion
of the professionally managed commercial and residential vacation properties.2 Overall, the below information
substantiates the perceptions by residents that more part-time residents were occupying their homes in the
summer and fall of 2020 compared to 2019.
The hardest hit tax collection sectors included businesses with a higher reliance on tourism and visitor traffic:
• Lodging tax collections were down about 14% in total for the region and as much as 40% in some areas.
Residential vacation rental collections, where tracked separately from commercial lodging (e.g., hotels, etc.),
and were much less impacted, with some communities reporting increased 2020 collections (e.g., Frisco,
Breckenridge, Vail); and
• Bar/restaurant collections falling 20% or more were not uncommon.
Sectors that tend to be more impacted by resident spending, including essential businesses which stayed open
throughout the pandemic, were more likely to show collection gains. This includes, for example, grocery and home
improvement/construction. If the migration persists these trends are likely to continue.
Online tax collections were able to begin in November 2018 in Colorado, although many communities did not receive
distributions until well into 2019 after 2020 budget revenue projections were established. This unpredictable windfall
from the Wayfair Supreme Court decision was timely during the COVID year. The increases will be predicted and
absorbed in upcoming years. The ability to collect online sales taxes helped make up for declines from local business
collections. As online sales continue to weaken main street businesses it will be interesting how it plays out over time
for Colorado communities which are largely dependent on sales tax to provide many basic services.
Finally, liquor and marijuana sales were generally up in every county and community, attributed to a mix of resident and
visitor spending. This could be simply a COVID isolation bump.
PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN SALES & LODGING TAX COLLECTIONSSix County Region • 2019-2020
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 13
• Some recovery and positive gains occurred throughout the summer as public health were orders lifted, lodging occupancy permissions were increased, and businesses reopened. • Collections again dropped into the late fall when COVID cases started rising and tighter restrictions were again put into place in many counties.
Percentage Change in Sales and Lodging Tax Collections:
Six County Region: 2019 to 2020
# 1 Source: Town and County Finance Departments, Sales Tax Reports
The hardest hit tax collection sectors included businesses with a higher reliance on tourism and visitor traffic:
5%8%
-40%-40%
-16%-13%
-4%
5%
18%23%
7%
-9%-5%
6%13%
-53%
-77%-70%
-42%
-3%
17%
-3%
56%
-2%
-18%-14%
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec TOTAL% Change in Tax Collections: 2019 to 2020Sales tax collections (total)Lodging tax collections
Source: Town and County Finance Departments, Sales Tax Reports
Understanding Changes in Housing Occupancy | 16July 6, 2021 - Page 72 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Understanding Changes in Housing Occupancy | 17
Paid stays by visitors can be differentiated from unpaid stays, which typically means owners and/or friends/family of
owners are occupying the unit.3 In general, increases in unpaid stays decreases the availability of units for visitors and
impacts lodging tax revenue. Longer-term part-time resident use of units also impacts infrastructure, traffic, parking,
services, and many other factors, as discussed later in this report.
Eagle, Routt, Pitkin, and Summit counties collect occupancy data for approximately 67% (10,225 units) of the
professionally managed inventory in the four-county region utilizing DestiMetrics. For purposes of this study, Inntopia
compiled this information and evaluated the percentage of total stays that were due to unpaid (or owner) stays in
2019 compared to 2020. As shown below:
• Unpaid stays as a percentage of total lodging stays showed a dramatic increase beginning in April 2020, with
increased owner stays lasting through December 2020. The large increase in April was due a combined reduction
in total stays (due to lodging occupancy restrictions beginning in March) and a rise in owners occupying their units.
• The percentage of unpaid stays decreased in mid-summer as lodging occupancy restrictions were reduced and
more paying visitors returned, but still remained 20 percent higher through the summer than in 2019.
• Unpaid stays were over 30 percent higher in September through November compared to 2019, contributing to
the more crowded feel of the mountain communities during this period when visitors typically decline.
Each of the four counties follow a similar pattern, just with different degrees of change throughout the year. Generally,
the trend is most pronounced in communities that are more isolated from a combination of urban center or major
interstate access (e.g., Pitkin County) and less pronounced in more readily accessible communities (e.g., Eagle and
Summit Counties).
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL STAYS THAT ARE UNPAID STAYS IN PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED VACATION UNITS*
Eagle, Pitkin, Routt & Summit Counties • 2019-2020
Source: Town and County Finance Departments, Sales Tax Reports
2 Confidentiality concerns limit the level of detail that can be presented from this information, but permitted data and summaries are presented in this section.
3 While unpaid stays typically means that the unit is occupied by the owner and/or friends/family, the unit may also be vacant or occupied by an unreported renter. This measure is an indicator of increased owner usage rather than a definitive count.
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 16
Percentage of Total Stays that are Unpaid Stays in
Professionally Managed Vacation Units,* 2019-2020:
Eagle, Pitkin, Routt and Summit Counties
#2 *excludes commercial properties (e.g. hotels)
Source: Inntopia Business Intelligence
The Telluride area in San Miguel County followed a similar pattern as well. About 63% (over 1,000 units) of professionally managed
lodging in the Telluride area in San Miguel County is monitored through the Key Data system by the Telluride Tourism Board. Unpaid
(i.e., owner) stays of non-commercial units increased from 2019 levels beginning in June through December 2020. The percentage of
units occupied by owners increased by about 40% in September and November and near 50% in October and the typical peaks and
valleys associated with visitor fluctuations throughout the week flattened out. -2%-1%-2%218%186%104%23%21%38%47%37%27%-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
January February March April May June July August September October November December 2019-2020 % Change% of Unpaid StaysUnpaid stays 2019 Unpaid stays 2020 YOY % Variance
The Telluride area in San Miguel County followed a similar pattern as well. About 63% (over 1,000 units) of
professionally managed lodging in the Telluride area in San Miguel County is monitored through the Key Data system
by the Telluride Tourism Board. Unpaid (i.e., owner) stays of non-commercial units increased from 2019 levels
beginning in June through December 2020. The percentage of units occupied by owners increased by about 40%
in September and November and near 50% in October and the typical peaks and valleys associated with visitor
fluctuations throughout the week flattened out.
July 6, 2021 - Page 73 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
Water Usage
Many communities do not track water usage as a data point for community policy and planning; one exception is Telluride.
The Telluride Tourism Board monitors wastewater data and associated daily population estimates that are provided
by the Telluride Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. While estimating population from wastewater information
is not a simple task, with many complicated variables to consider, with diligent wastewater tracking and proper
adjustments, population estimates can be made.
Based on tracking wastewater volumes, the average daily population in the Telluride treatment area in October and
November 2020 was 25% to 31% higher than in 2019. It is estimated that 1,600 units, in addition to full-time resident
homes, were occupied during October. Assuming an average 2.6-people per unit, the population in the area in
October 2020 was about twice the resident population of 4,145 people. Key Data visitation information, presented
above, indicates that a significant proportion of the population rise was due to more owners occupying their homes.
Water usage can also be used as an indicator of residential occupancy and commercial use; however, it has limited
utility to provide a clear narrative during high-irrigation periods. Comparing water usage in 2019 and 2020 for
communities within Pitkin, Summit, Eagle and Routt counties during the low irrigation months of October, November,
and December exhibits a similar trend as that noted for Telluride, above.
Residential water usage was up in most communities during this period and down among commercial users.
November had the largest increase in residential water consumption, which is typically a low visitation month.
December had the greatest drop in commercial water use.
PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN MONTHLY POPULATIONTelluride Wastewater Treatment Area • 2019-2020
PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN WATER USE BY MONTH Residential & Commercial Compared • 2019-2020
Source: Telluride Tourism Board, Telluride Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
Source: City of Aspen, Town of Breckenridge, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, City of Steamboat Springs
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 17
Water Usage
The Telluride Tourism Board monitors wastewater data and associated daily population estimates that are provided by the Telluride
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. While estimating population from wastewater information is not a simple task, with many
complicated variables to consider, with diligent wastewater tracking and proper adjustments, population estimates can be made.
Based on tracking wastewater volumes, the average daily population in the Telluride treatment area in October and November 2020
was 25% to 31% higher than in 2019. It is estimated that 1,600 units, in addition to full-time resident homes, were occupied during
October. Assuming an average 2.6-people per unit, the population in the area in October 2020 was about twice the resident
population of 4,145 people. Key Data visitation information, presented above, indicates that a significant proportion of the
population rise was due to more owners occupying their homes.
Percentage Change in Monthly Population:
Telluride Wastewater Treatment Area, 2019-2020
#3 Source: Telluride Tourism Board, Telluride Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
-3%4%
-40%
-13%
18%
11%
-18%-21%
4%
25%
31%
2%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
January February March April May June July August September October November December
% change: 2019-2020The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 19
Percentage Change in Water Use by Month: 2019 to 2020
Residential and Commercial Compared
#4 Source: City of Aspen, Town of Breckenridge, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, City of Steamboat Springs
Change in Resident Occupancy of Homes
The indicators presented above do not indicate whether increased usage of homes by part-time residents will continue. To
understand future resident plans, survey respondents were asked a series of questions regarding the estimated amount of time that
they spent in their homes in each respective county in 2019 pre-COVID and 2020, expected use this year (2021) and anticipated use
in the next few years (2022-2025). This was followed by questions on home use pattern changes that occurred in 2020 and how they
expect their residency in the county to change in coming years.
All residents on average have increased time spent in their respective county and expect to continue a higher rate of usage of their
homes. Existing and future home usage varied, however, depending upon the residency status of respondents. This includes new
residents who moved to a county in the study area within the past year, existing part-time residents, and existing full-time residents.
As shown below:
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%Oct Nov Dec Oct Nov Dec
Residential Commercial
% change: 2019 -2020Aspen Breckenridge Eagle River Steamboat
Understanding Changes in Housing Occupancy | 18July 6, 2021 - Page 74 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Understanding Changes in Housing Occupancy | 19
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
*New residents are differentiated from “newcomers” in that these are residents that moved within the past year. Newcomers moved within the past two years (see definition on page 3). New residents may have spent time in the area on a regular basis as a visitor, but not a part-time or full-time resident, which is why “pre-COVID” is not 0.
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF STAY NEW RESIDENTS*
(<1 year)
FULL-TIME
RESIDENTS
PART-TIME
RESIDENTS
Pre-COVID 2.5 11.0 3.6
Year 2020 4.9 11.4 3.7
Current year (2021)8.8 11.4 4.1
Future years (2022-2025)8.9 11.2 4.8
Net change: pre-COVID to 2022-25 6.4 0.2 1.2
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF STAY IN COUNTY HOME (MONTHS)
Change in Resident Occupancy of Homes
The indicators presented above do not indicate whether increased usage of homes by part-time residents will
continue. To understand future resident plans, survey respondents were asked a series of questions regarding the
estimated amount of time that they spent in their homes in each respective county in 2019 pre-COVID and 2020,
expected use this year (2021) and anticipated use in the next few years (2022-2025). This was followed by questions
on home use pattern changes that occurred in 2020 and how they expect their residency in the county to change in
coming years.
All residents on average have increased time spent in their respective county and expect to continue a higher rate
of usage of their homes. Existing and future home usage varied, however, depending upon the residency status of
respondents. This includes new residents who moved to a county in the study area within the past year, existing part-
time residents, and existing full-time residents. As shown below:
• New residents expect to reside in their respective county for close to 9-months per year on average this year
and in future years, increasing their time spent in the county pre-COVID by over 6-months. About 44% of new
residents did not spend any time in their respective county on a regular basis pre-COVID.
• Even though 17% of part-time residents increased their time in their county home in 2020 for an average of
about 3-months, about 20% decreased their time in county since 2019. As a result, part-time residents showed
little change in their average length of stay in total last year (0.1 months). Looking ahead, however, part-time
residents expect to increase their time in their county home by about 30% (1.2-months) by 2022-2025.
• Full-time residents showed little change in home occupancy and expect to continue to reside in county for over
11-months per year on average.
Part-time residents in five of the six counties also expect to increase their stay by about 30% by 2022-2025 from
pre-COVID stays, which is consistent with the region overall. Part-time resident respondents in Routt County, however,
indicated potentially doubling their average time in the county to about 6-months on average by 2022-2025.
July 6, 2021 - Page 75 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
The motivation for residents to alter their time in
the study area also varied – COVID was not the
sole reason. Residents were asked whether
certain COVID-related or civil unrest factors
affected resident travel and occupancy in 2020.
As shown below:
• The ability to work remotely was a larger factor
for newcomers (49%) and part-time residents
(36%) to spend more time in the county than
COVID contagion risks and concerns about
civil unrest combined.
• Residents that increased their time in the
study area in 2020 were more likely to cite
each of the below factors as influencing their
decision. The ability to work remotely (50%)
and COVID contagion risks (44%) were most
common. Civil unrest influenced a lower 15%
of respondents.
Finally, respondents were asked whether they
expect to change their residency status (e.g., from
part-time to full-time, full-time to part-time,
leave the area, etc.) within the next three years.
As shown below:
• Newcomers are more likely than other
residents to make changes in the coming
years, but the changes are relatively mixed.
About 8% indicated they will leave the county
and 16% desire to purchase a home in the
county. About 18% are unsure.
• Most part-time residents will remain part-time;
however, about 9% desire to become full-time
residents. Another 12% are unsure.
• Of full-time residents, about 6% plan to leave
the county and 8% desire to buy a home.
Results are fairly consistent across all counties
in the study area, with part-time residents being
more likely to indicate they will become full-time
residents in Grand and Routt counties.
Responses from full-time residents that rent shows
the relative instability and uncertainty of renters
in the study area. Renters are much more likely to
leave, desire to buy a home, or be uncertain of
future changes.
HOW DO YOU EXPECT YOUR RESIDENCY IN THE COUNTY TO CHANGE OVER THE NEXT 3 YEARS?
TRAVEL & RESIDENCY CHANGES RELATED TO COVID
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 20
How do you expect your residency in the county to change over the next 3 years?
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Responses from full-time residents that rent shows the relative instability and uncertainty of
renters in the study area. Renters are much more likely to leave, desire to buy a home, or be
uncertain of future changes.
How do you expect your residency in the county to change over the next 3 years? Full-time
renters
I will move out of the county 17%
Buy a home (or another home) in this county 32%
No change 35%
Unsure/still deciding 28%
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
The primary motivating factors for the changes or indecision noted by residents included:
• Housing reasons (30%). This encompassed both sides, from those looking to cash in,
move in, or purchase homes to those being unable to afford to rent or purchase, having
a lack of housing opportunities or inventory, and housing uncertainty and instability for
those working locally;
12%
2%
9%
0%
2%
1%
4%
70%
14%
1%
0%
1%
3%
6%
8%
73%
18%
2%
4%
1%
1%
8%
16%
56%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Unsure/still deciding
Other
I will become a full-time resident
I will become a part-time resident
Sell my home
I will move out of the county
Buy a home (or another home) in this county
No change
Newcomers Full Time Part Time
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 19
Travel and Residency Changes Related to COVID
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Finally, respondents were asked whether they expect to change their residency status (e.g.,
from part-time to full-time, full-time to part-time, leave the area, etc.) within the next three
years. As shown below:
• Newcomers are more likely than other residents to make changes in the coming years,
but the changes are relatively mixed. About 8% indicated they will leave the county and
16% desire to purchase a home in the county. About 18% are unsure.
• Most part-time residents will remain part-time; however, about 9% desire to become
full-time residents. Another 12% are unsure.
• Of full-time residents, about 6% plan to leave the county and 8% desire to buy a home.
Results are fairly consistent across all counties in the study area, with part-time residents being
more likely to indicate they will become full-time residents in Grand and Routt counties.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Spend less time traveling elsewhere because of COVID
Move away from or spend less time in an urban area due to
civil unrest
Move to or spend more time in the county because of
COVID contagion risks
Move to or spend more time in the county because you
could work remotely
Part Time Full Time Newcomers
No Change
Buy a home (or another home) in this county
I will move out of the county
Sell my home
I will become a part-time resident
I will become a full-time resident
Other
Unsure/still deciding
Move to or spend more time in the county because you could work remotely
Move to or spend more time in the county because pf COVIDd contagion risks
Move away from or spend less time in an urban area due to civil unrest
Spend less time traveling elsewhere because of COVID
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
FULL-TIME RENTERS
I will move out of the county 17%
Buy a home (or another home) in this county 32%
No change 35%
Unsure/still deciding 28%
HOW DO YOU EXPECT YOUR RESIDENCY IN THE COUNTY TO CHANGE OVER THE NEXT 3 YEARS?
Understanding Changes in Housing Occupancy | 20July 6, 2021 - Page 76 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
Use of Homes
The majority of homeowners use the property themselves or for friends and family at least part, if not all, of the time.
When homes are not in use:
• Part-time residents (24%) and newcomers (13%) are much more likely than full-time residents (3%) to lease their
homes short-term (less than one month at a time).
• A small percentage of part-time owners rent their home mid-term for more than 30 days (4%), and a handful
lease homes long-term for 1- to 5-months.
• Usage was similar across all counties in the study area, with the exception that part-time residents are more
likely to lease homes short-term in Pitkin County (32%) and less likely in Eagle County (11%). Mid-term was more
prominent in San Miguel County (11%).
Understanding Changes in Housing Occupancy | 21
HOW WILL THE USE OF YOUR HOME CHANGE OVER THE NEXT 3 YEARS?
PART-TIME FULL-TIME NEWCOMERS
Rent my home out short-term 8%1%4%
Rent my home out long-term 2%1%2%
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
The primary motivating factors for the changes or indecision noted by residents included:
• Housing reasons (30%). This encompassed both sides, from those looking to cash in, move in, or purchase
homes to those being unable to afford to rent or purchase, having a lack of housing opportunities or inventory,
and housing uncertainty and instability for those working locally;
• Job, retirement, age/health or other family changes (30%);
• Undesirable changes or conditions in the county, mostly related to growth over the years (15%); and
• Enjoyment of the area and a desire to stay (15%).
Lesser factors included financial conditions and cost of living, uncertainty about COVID and related concerns, and the
climate/cold winters.
Over the next three years, another 8% of part-time owners and 4% of newcomers anticipate also renting their
homes short term.
WHEN YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS/FAMILY ARE NOT OCCUPYING YOUR HOME, HOW IS IT TYPICALLY USED?
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 25
#7 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Over the next three years, another 8% of part-time owners and 4% of newcomers anticipate also renting their homes short term.
How will the use of your home change over the next 3 years? Part-time Full-time Newcomers
Rent my home out short-term 8% 1% 4%
Rent my home out long-term 2% 1% 2%
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
0%
2%
4%
24%
72%
14%
1%
1%
3%
83%
10%
1%
2%
13%
79%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Always occupied, does not apply
Rent my home long term (more than 6-months at a time)
Rent my home mid-term/seasonal (1- to 6-months at a time)
Rent my home short term (less than 1-month at a time)
Not occupied/vacant
Newcomers Full Time Part Time
July 6, 2021 - Page 77 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
4RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS
July 6, 2021 - Page 78 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Resident Employment Patterns | 23
With the increase in residents occupying homes, it is important to understand whether residents
are working remotely, employed locally or retired. The source of employment can affect the
potential stability of new residents and the extent to which remote work policy changes may
impact their ability or desire to stay. It also impacts the local sustainability of businesses and their
ability to keep and attract employees if, for example, new residents with outside employment or
retired part-time residents are displacing local employees that fill jobs.
Employment Status
The employment status of newcomer households is more similar to full-time resident
households than part-time, with about 90% of households having at least one employed person.
Part-time residents are much more likely to have at least one retired person in their household
than other residents.
Employment Location
Potential changes in remote working policies may affect newcomers more so than other residents. Newcomers are mostly
employed by an out-of-county employer and are less likely to be self-employed than full-time or part-time residents.
Employment location patterns were relatively consistent across all counties in the region, with the exception that
full-time residents in Routt and Grand counties were slightly more likely to have a household member working for an
out-of-county employer.
SOURCE OF EMPLOYMENT FOR RESIDENTS
EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF RESIDENT HOUSEHOLDS
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey • *Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey • *Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 27
*Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
Employment Location
Potential changes in remote working policies may affect newcomers more so than other residents. Newcomers are mostly employed
by an out-of-county employer and are less likely to be self-employed than full-time or part-time residents.
Employment location patterns were relatively consistent across all counties in the region, with the exception that full-time residents
in Routt and Grand counties were slightly more likely to have a household member working for an out-of-county employer.
Source of Employment for Residents
#9 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
*Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
Newcomers are more likely than other residents to have a household member working from a home office; however, over 50% of all
households have someone working from home.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Work for an employer in the county Work for an out-of-county employer Hold a seasonal job in the county Self-employed
Newcomers Full Time Part Time
Commented [JS4]: Highlight for quote
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 26
Section 4 – Resident Employment Patterns
With the increase in residents occupying homes, it is important to understand whether residents are working remotely, employed
locally or retired. The source of employment can affect the potential stability of new residents and the extent to which remote work
policy changes may impact their ability or desire to stay. It also impacts the local sustainability of businesses and their ability to keep
and attract employees if, for example, new residents with outside employment or retired part-time residents are displacing local
employees that fill jobs.
Employment Status
The employment status of newcomer households is more similar to full-time resident households than part-time, with about 90% of
households having at least one employed person. Part-time residents are much more likely to have at least one retired person in
their household than other residents.
Employment Status of Resident Households
#8 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
91%
10%
29%
87%
8%
28%
70%
6%
62%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Employed Unemployed and searching for work Retired
Newcomers Full Time Ninety percent
of newcomer and
full-time resident
households
have at least one
employed person.
90%
July 6, 2021 - Page 79 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
Over 50% of all households have someone working from home. Newcomers are more
likely than other residents to have a household member working from a home office.
The majority of full-time households have at least one person who commutes to a job in
the county. With the high proportion of visitor service, retail, bar/restaurant, and lodging
jobs in the study area, not to mention construction, many full-time residents have jobs
that require at least some, if not all, of their work to occur at their place of employment.
Most respondents expect to be able to continue working from home. About 20% indicated, however, that it depends
upon work policies of their employer. Changes in work policies is a key factor that can impact how many new and
part-time residents can stay in their respective county and for how long.
DO RESIDENTS COMMUTE TO A JOB OR WORK FROM HOME?
WILL RESIDENTS CONTINUE TO WORK FROM HOME IN 2022-2025?
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey • *Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 29
Do Residents Commute to a Job or Work from Home?
#10 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
*Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
Most respondents expect to be able to continue working from home. About 20% indicated, however, that it depends upon work
policies of their employer. Changes in work policies is a key factor that can impact how many new and part-time residents can stay in
their respective county and for how long.
Will Residents Continue to Work from Home in 2022-2025?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Home office in the county Travel to a job/office in the county Commute to an out-of-county job
Newcomers Full Time Part Time
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 30
#11 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Yes, will work exclusively at home Yes, will split time between home and
business/job location
No, will no longer work at home It depends upon the work policies of
employer
Newcomers Full Time Part Time
Resident Employment Patterns | 24
Over fifty percent
of all households
have someone
working from home.
July 6, 2021 - Page 80 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Resident Employment Patterns | 25
Household Income by Employment Location
The household incomes of residents who work in local county jobs compared to residents who work for out-of-
county employers illustrates the extreme difficulty that residents employed locally have when competing for homes
with newcomers and part-time residents. As shown below:
• The majority of households working for county employers within the study area earn under $150,000
per year (70%).
• Households working for out-of-county employers, which predominately include newcomers and part-time
residents, mostly earn over $150,000 per year (75%).
In other words, the majority of full-time residents employed locally cannot successfully compete for housing when
escalated demand and prices are driven by households earning much higher incomes.
GROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY EMPLOYMENT TYPE/LOCATION
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 31
Household Income by Employment Location
The household incomes of residents who work in local county jobs compared to residents who work for out-of-county employers
illustrates the extreme difficulty that residents employed locally have when competing for homes with newcomers and part-time
residents. As shown below:
• The majority of households working for county employers within the study area earn under $150,000 per year (70%).
• Households working for out-of-county employers, which predominately include newcomers and part-time residents, mostly
earn over $150,000 per year (75%).
In other words, the majority of full-time residents employed locally cannot successfully compete for housing when escalated
demand and prices are driven by households earning much higher incomes.
Gross Household Income by Employment Type/Location
#12 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Work for County Employer Work for Out of County Employer County Seasonal Job Self Employed% of respondentsUnder $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 to $299,999 $300,000 or more
July 6, 2021 - Page 81 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
5HOUSING MARKET IMPACTS
July 6, 2021 - Page 82 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Housing Market Impacts | 27
The below chart illustrates the income disparity between full-time residents who
fill local jobs and newcomers and part-time residents, who primarily earn their
living elsewhere:
• Close to 70% of newcomers and 80% of part-time residents have household
incomes over $150,000 per year.
• In contrast, 60% of full-time residents earn under $150,000 in household
income per year.
The majority of full-time residents making their living in the county do not have
the income to compete for housing in the current high competition environment.
The majority of full-time
residents making their
living in the county do
not have the income to
compete for housing
in the current high
competition environment.
The COVID pandemic rapidly accelerated trends that have been going on for years in amenity
rich mountain communities. Prior to COVID-19, the housing markets in the six-county study area
were already in a state of too much demand for too little supply, resulting in fast rising prices. High
part-time resident demand for homes, visitor demand for vacation rentals, and investment buyers
were all competing for the scarce housing inventory with residents who make their living locally.
The increased housing demand fueled by the ability to work from home and, to a lesser extent,
COVID fears and civil unrest, has further added to this competition, causing an explosion in home
prices and plummeting inventory.
GROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY LENGTH OF RESIDENCY
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 34
#13 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Newcomers and full-time residents are the most susceptible to housing problems related to the COVID pandemic and corresponding
high-demand and short-supply of housing. Despite their income advantage over full-time residents, about 16% of newcomers still
had severe difficulty finding a place to live. Job loss and significant rent increases were the next most common issues.
Housing Problems Affecting Respondents in 2020
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Newcomers Full Time Part TimePercent of respondentsUnder $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 to $299,999 $300,000 or more
July 6, 2021 - Page 83 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
Newcomers and full-time residents are the most susceptible to housing problems related to the COVID pandemic
and corresponding high-demand and short-supply of housing. Despite their income advantage over full-time
residents, about 16% of newcomers still had severe difficulty finding a place to live. Job loss and significant rent
increases were the next most common issues.
Renters are commonly in the most unstable housing situations in these communities, as shown below. Nearly
one-third had severe difficulty finding a place to live, one-fourth lost a job, and almost one-in-five faced significant
rent increase in 2020.
HOUSING PROBLEMS AFFECTING RENTERS IN 2020
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
FULL-TIME RESIDENT RENTERS
Miss rent or mortgage payment(s)8%
Lose your job 24%
Move when rental was sold or converted into a short-term rental 8%
Experience significant rent increase 18%
Have severe difficulty finding a place to live in the county 31%
HOUSING PROBLEMS AFFECTING RESPONDENTS IN 2020
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 35
#14 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Renters are commonly in the most unstable housing situations in these communities, as shown below. Nearly one-third had severe
difficulty finding a place to live, one-fourth lost a job, and almost one-in-five faced significant rent increase in 2020.
Housing Problems Affecting Renters in 2020 Full-time resident: Renters
Miss rent or mortgage payment(s) 8%
Lose your job 24%
Move when rental was sold or converted into a short-term rental 8%
Experience significant rent increase 18%
Have severe difficulty finding a place to live in the county 31%
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Miss rent or mortgage
payment(s)
Lose your job Move when rental was
sold or converted into a
short term rental
Experience significant
rent increase
Sell your home in the
county
Have severe difficulty
finding a place to live in
the county
Newcomers Full Time Part Time
Housing Market Impacts | 28July 6, 2021 - Page 84 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Housing Market Impacts | 29
Rapid Escalation in Sales, Sharp Drop in Availability
The buying frenzy has resulted in a record-breaking year for gross sales volume and total transactions. Activity into
2021 has not slowed down. From 2019 to 2020, transactions increased 26% and gross sales volume rose 64% in the
six-county region. A total of $13.4 billion in sales were logged in 2020, compared to $8.2 billion the year before. Gross
sales volume in four of the six counties increased about 50% or more.
OWNERSHIP MARKET
CHANGE IN GROSS SALES VOLUME & NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONSBy County • 2019-2020
2020 GROSS
SALES VOLUME
% CHANGE:
2019-2020
TOTAL
TRANSACTIONS
% CHANGE:
2019-2020
Eagle County $3,493,843,331 53%2,572 27%
Grand County $994,701,568 39%2,016 15%
Pitkin County $4,083,249,373 129%1,028 46%
Routt County $1,345,486,314 49%1,883 36%
San Miguel County $1,151,324,169 94%811 50%
Summit County $2,319,029,219 22%2,800 15%
CHANGE IN GROSS SALES VOLUME AND NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONSSix County Region • 2016-2020
Source: Land Title Guarantee Company
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 36
Ownership Market
Rapid Escalation in Sales, Sharp Drop in Availability
The buying frenzy has resulted in a record-breaking year for gross sales volume and total transactions. Activity into 2021 has not
slowed down. From 2019 to 2020, transactions increased 26% and gross sales volume rose 64% in the six-county region. A total of
$13.4 billion in sales were logged in 2020, compared to $8.2 billion the year before. Gross sales volume in four of the six counties
increased about 50% or more.
Change in Gross Sales Volume and Number of Transactions: Six County Region
#15 Source: Land Title Guarantee Company
Change in Gross Sales Volume and Number of Transactions: By County
2020 Gross Sales
Volume
% change:
2019-2020
Total
Transactions
% change:
2019-2020
Eagle County $3,493,843,331 53% 2,572 27%
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
$0
$2,000,000,000
$4,000,000,000
$6,000,000,000
$8,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
$12,000,000,000
$14,000,000,000
$16,000,000,000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TransactionsGross Sales VolumeGross sales volume Total transactions
July 6, 2021 - Page 85 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
With such a rapid escalation in buyer demand, the supply of homes for sale
are at record lows. Many communities are lucky if they have one month of
inventory. The buying frenzy at the start of the pandemic absorbed available
inventory faster than new units were coming onto the market.
• In Routt County during the first quarter of 2021, homes were selling
at nearly twice the rate that they have been coming available, quickly
depleting already scarce inventory.
• In Telluride, as of March 2021, only seven homes were on the market, placing availability in critical status.
• In addition to an already depleted inventory, Grand County suffered the East Troublesome Fire in October 2020,
losing over 100 homes. While several short-term rental owners stepped up and helped house some of the
displaced residents, finding long-term replacement housing for those who lost homes has been a struggle.
The housing shortage has spurred some development activity in Eagle County in the down valley communities where
land is still available and there are approved projects. Other communities, such as Telluride, do not have that luxury.
Telluride are constrained by public lands and dramatic topography and is mostly built-out; the nearest meaningful land
available to develop is 45 minutes or more away. Pitkin County has a similar dynamic. The consensus among focus
group members from these communities is that the demand is so high, they could not keep up with the growing
housing shortage even if they had the land capacity upon which to build.
Prices at Record Highs
Housing prices in all counties are at record highs. Between 2019 and 2020, the average sale prices of all homes (single
family and multi-family combined) increased from 10% in Summit County up to of 55% in Pitkin County. These prices
continue to de-couple from those earning working wages from employment in these places.
• In Telluride and Pitkin County, where average homes sale prices are multiple millions of dollars, fixer uppers sell for
$1 million or more.
• Even in Grand County, which had the lowest average home sale price last year of about $670,000, only ten homes
are available on the for under $1 million.
• It is not uncommon for properties to receive 20 offers per home; a good portion of them in cash.
“Demand is so high that
construction could not
keep up even if we had
the land capacity. ”
Local Realtor
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 39
#16 Source: Land Title Guarantee Company
Workforce housing: All counties in the study area have workforce housing programs in place, with some communities having
thousands of homes permanently deed restricted for local workforce occupancy and/or price limited. By ensuring that a supply of
homes remain available for residents that make their living in the community, deed restrictions effectively remove homes from the
speculative buying market, meaning that residents to not have to compete with outside buyers and that homes are protected from
the resulting extreme escalation in prices, which can quickly outpace local wages. While homes dedicated for residents working
locally are needed now more than ever, the widespread consensus is that, in this environment, the existing and currently pending
supply is not nearly enough.
• Summit County has 22 new deed restricted homes coming available. They had 66 applicants.
• The employee housing program in Aspen has been in place since the 1970’s; they recently received 75 applications for one 1-
bedroom home. They frequently have ten-times more applications than units available.
Land sales: Where buyers had historically looked to build their own home as a less expensive alternative to purchasing existing
homes, this option is largely gone as well. $1,489,028 $673,435 $4,436,734 $866,527 $2,023,915 $903,385 $-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
$5,000,000
Eagle County Grand County Pitkin County Routt County San Miguel
County
Summit CountyAverage Residential Sale Pricee2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source: Land Title Guarantee Company
AVERAGE SALE PRICE OF HOMES: 2016 TO 2020 “We attempted to buy a
home in Grand County in
Oct of 2020. We offered
their asking price of
$749,000. We were one
of 7 offers, all higher than
ours. They accepted a
cash offer for $250,000
over asking.”
Full-time Resident
Housing Market Impacts | 30July 6, 2021 - Page 86 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Housing Market Impacts | 31
Full-time Residents Are Losing Ground
The demand for homes from part-time owners and other interests has long constrained the housing inventory that is
available to local workers. As shown below, only about 36% of all homes sales in 2020 were to full-time residents in the
study area. This varied from a low of 20% to a high of 50%, depending upon the county.
WORKFORCE HOUSING
All counties in the study area have workforce housing programs in place, with some communities having thousands
of homes permanently deed restricted for local workforce occupancy and/or price limited. By ensuring that a supply
of homes remain available for residents that make their living in the community, deed restrictions effectively remove
homes from the speculative buying market, meaning that residents do not have to compete with outside buyers and
that homes are protected from the resulting extreme escalation in prices, which can quickly outpace local wages.
While homes dedicated for residents working locally are needed now more than ever, the widespread consensus is
that, in this environment, the existing and currently pending supply is not nearly enough.
• Summit County has 22 new deed restricted homes coming available. They had 66 applicants.
• The employee housing program in Aspen has been in place since the 1970’s; they recently received 75
applications for one 1-bedroom home. They frequently have ten-times more applications than units available.
• Many deed restrictions do not adequately address remote work.
LAND SALES
Where buyers had historically looked to build their own home as a less expensive alternative to
purchasing existing homes, this option is largely gone as well.
• Land prices have escalated over 100% in some communities. In Aspen, a lot sells for $20 million.
• Construction materials and labor costs have drastically increased. In Routt County, it is not
uncommon to pay $500 or more per square foot to build a home.
• Labor is scarce. In Grand County and Telluride, contractors are commonly booked three-years
out. It is an ironic cycle – many contractors cannot hire laborers because there is no housing.
RESIDENCE OF BUYERSix-County Region
Source: Land Title Guarantee Company (County Clerk & Recorder’s and Assessor’s Offices)
31%
36%
0%
33%
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 41
#18 Source: Land Title Guarantee Company (County Clerk and Recorder’s and Assessor’s Offices)
The percentage of homes purchased by local buyers dropped six percentage points since 2016 in
region the region – this is a loss of over one point per year. As shown below:
• The largest decline occurred in Pitkin County, dropping nearly three percentage points per
year, followed by Summit County and Eagle County. This loss accelerated in most counties
in 2020.
• Buyers from other areas in Colorado showed the largest rise in all but Pitkin and San Miguel counties, where out of state
buyers are more prominent.
Percentage of Total Sales to County Residents: 2016 - 2020
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Eagle County Grand County Pitkin County Routt County San Miguel
County
Summit CountyPercentage of SalesLocal Other Colorado Out of state International
Local buyers have been
losing ground for several
years, which accelerated in
most counties in 2020.
Source: Land Title Guarantee Company (County Clerk & Recorder’s and Assessor’s Offices)
RESIDENCE OF BUYERS BY COUNTY2020
Many
contractors
cannot hire
laborers
because there
is no housing.
July 6, 2021 - Page 87 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
The percentage of homes purchased by local buyers dropped six
percentage points since 2016 in region the region – this is a loss of over
one point per year. As shown below:
• The largest decline occurred in Pitkin County, dropping nearly three
percentage points per year, followed by Summit County and Eagle
County. This loss accelerated in most counties in 2020.
• Buyers from other areas in Colorado showed the largest rise in all but Pitkin and San Miguel counties, where out of
state buyers are more prominent.
It should be noted that, although the percentage of homes sold to local residents dropped in 2020 compared to
2019, the total number of homes sold to local residents increased in 2020 in every county in the study area, except
Summit County. This is in large part due to the large increase in sales in total in each of these counties in 2020. Prior to
2020, the number of sales to local residents had been dropping in the study area as a whole since 2017.
The counties in the study area have seen an exaggerated trickle-down effect during COVID due to constrained
housing supplies and fast rising prices in all counties. Where local buyers have had to compromise on their home
location for years due to being priced out of their first or second choice communities, all buyers are experiencing the
same problem. The town of Breckenridge has seen more $2 million sales in the past few months than in the prior
twelve, in part because these buyers could not find homes in other higher priced counties. Likewise, Grand County
has had multi-million dollar properties selling within days, rather than taking the typical many months.
The other side of the coin is “who is selling.” Real estate agents indicated that a mix of part-time and full-time
residents have been selling their homes, but at too slow of a pace to keep up with demand.
• Locals cashing out on their homes. The majority of these residents move away either by choice (e.g., to cash
out at a peak, move to warmer climates, to be nearer family, medical reasons, etc.) or because they do not have
a choice (e.g., cannot find another home). In Pitkin County, younger sellers move down valley, but older sellers
typically leave. In Eagle County, the 30% or so that stay in the county will move down valley where homes are
typically less expensive. Some are using the high prices to their advantage and retiring early.
• Part-time owners upgrading. This includes selling ski condominiums to purchase properties in town center or
more rural areas. Or upgrading units, not necessarily location, with the intent to use it more.
Local buyers have been
losing ground for several
years, which accelerated in
most counties in 2020.
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SALES TO COUNTY RESIDENTS2016 - 2020
Source: Land Title Guarantee Company (County Clerk & Recorder’s and Assessor’s Offices)
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 42
#19 Source: Land Title Guarantee Company (County Clerk and Recorder’s and Assessor’s Offices)
It should be noted that, although the percentage of homes sold to local residents dropped in 2020 compared to 2019, the total
number of homes sold to local residents increased in 2020 in every county in the study area, except Summit County. This is in large
part due to the large increase in sales in total in each of these counties in 2020. Prior to 2020, the number of sales to local residents
had been dropping in the study area as a whole since 2017.
The counties in the study area have seen an exaggerated trickle-down effect during COVID due to constrained housing supplies and
fast rising prices in all counties. Where local buyers have had to compromise on their home location for years due to being priced
out of their first or second choice communities, all buyers are experienced the same problem. The town of Breckenridge has seen
more $2 million sales in the past few months than in the prior twelve, in part because these buyers could not find homes in other
higher priced counties. Likewise, Grand County has had multi-million dollar properties selling within days, rather than taking the
typical many months.
The other side of the coin is “who is selling.” Real estate agents indicated that a mix of part-time and full-time residents have been
selling their homes, but at too slow of a pace to keep up with demand.
• Locals cashing out on their homes. The majority of these residents move away either by choice (e.g., to cash out at a peak,
move to warmer climates, to be nearer family, medical reasons, etc.) or because they do not have a choice (e.g., cannot find
48%
24%
43%48%
37%
21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Eagle County Grand County Pitkin County Routt County San Miguel County Summit County% of Sales to Locals2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Housing Market Impacts | 32July 6, 2021 - Page 88 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Housing Market Impacts | 33
Buyer Preferences & Home Use
Real estate agents noted a shift of focus with new buyers compared to prior years.
• More new buyers were motivated by their ability to work remotely than in the past. Many buyers during COVID
were reorienting priorities. Work from home opportunities opened up options to relocate where they wanted.
Most buyers were purchasing with the intent to use their homes, and for more time on average than in the past.
Others were coming to sample a community for a few months and see if it sticks.
• Correspondingly, the speculative buyer, who purchased with the intent to flip or use homes solely for profit, was
not as prevalent during this migration period.
The motivation of the buyer affects the type of home product needed:
• Fixer uppers were not preferred – most wanted turn-key homes or homes that were immediately livable.
• Home office space was a premium.
• Having enough room for families to live, rather than simply visit.
• Rural and in-town locations were equally in demand.
Will the Buyer Frenzy Continue?
While the rapid rise in prices and buying frenzy mirrors the events prior to the
2007/08 recession, this market is driven by a different buyer – one who wants
to move in and use their home rather than investors. The prevalent perception
among area real estate agents was that the high-demand, short-supply
housing market is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future:
• Buyers last year were the first wave of location-neutral movers and others
that see “it can work” are continuing to come. Demand in the early part of
2021 is still accelerating.
• The other side is shrinking supply. Despite demand remaining high, many areas are facing a stagnant market and
large drop in sales simply due to a supply problem. Some communities are already at critical low sale inventory.
In Aspen, brokers are calling homeowners asking if they want to sell to find homes. For the most part, those that
wanted to cash in have; others that might cash in are not because they will not find another home.
“More to come” and
“interesting changes ahead.”
Local Real Estate Agents
July 6, 2021 - Page 89 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
The Start of a New Reality?
Many see the current boom being a start to a new reality for mountain towns, bringing some positive change, but also
increasing many historic challenges.
On the potentially positive side:
• Rising interest from location-neutral workers to relocate to these mountain communities has the potential to
bring more economic diversification for these predominantly tourism-driven economies. New location-neutral
worker residents earn more and can spend more at local businesses. If the ability for location-neutral workers to
work from home continues, instead of leaving the community to again commute to their job, some may choose
to stay and invest locally, or start businesses, increasing the entrepreneurial potential in these communities.
• With more residents in town to support local businesses, shifting economic priorities for some communities may
be on the horizon. Tourism marketing and expenditures focused primarily on the visitor experience may become
less of a priority. Pressure to complete capital projects supporting livability and quality-of-life improvements
will increase.
On the challenging side:
• Finding employees to fill service jobs for residents as well as jobs geared for visitors will be increasingly difficult.
The basic human capital necessary to maintain a community will likely become even less possible. Incoming
location-neutral workers will not be filling these “local jobs” and will outcompete local workers for housing. This
hurts the ability for local businesses to find, keep, and attract employees, lowering the level and quality of services
they can provide to residents and visitors alike. This has been a struggle for resort communities for years; and is
primed to get worse, at least in the near term.
• Barring a recession that surpasses the fall in property values seen in 2008, many do not see what could bring
affordability back for local workers.
Given these factors, businesses and communities are facing a potentially tough transition in the years ahead.
Housing Market Impacts | 34July 6, 2021 - Page 90 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Housing Market Impacts | 35
The Big Picture – From Shut Down to Frenzy
Governor Polis announced the closure of all Colorado ski areas on Saturday, March 14th, near the end of the 2019/20
season. While it caught many employees and visitors by surprise, the fortuitous timing minimally impacted the rental
market since it occurred at a time when many renters are in transition, out of work or without income for a month
or two. Communities had very few vacant long-term rental units prior to COVID. Most year-round renters remained in
their units during COVID, meaning that the availability of long-term rentals did not increase. Many seasonal workers left;
however, including J1 visa holders. As seasonal rentals were vacated, property managers responded by converting shared
bedrooms into single/couple occupancy and increased cleaning of common areas. Employers who provide housing
turned away all but their employees, unlike in typical years when they maintain full-occupancy by renting to the general
population. This contributed to a rental unit shortage.
By June, the market heated up with inquiries from people outside the community, most from urban areas, wanting
to move to the mountains. By July, rents were starting to spike above their already high levels. The frenzy continued
through the fall into winter with property managers in the six counties reporting a constant stream of inquiries. In
Summit County, a property manager who normally takes in $700/year in $30 application fees received about $4,000
from applications between October 1st and December 15th.
A Routt County property manager called the onslaught from people wanting to move to the mountains a trifecta
created by a combination of the ability to work remotely (the single biggest factor) in combination with concerns
about COVID contagion and civil unrest.
Impacts on Long-term Rental Inventory – Gains & Losses
Although most property owners reported managing about the same number of units in 2020 as in 2019, there were
shifts in the rental inventory. Initially, there were some gains in the number of long-term rentals when the March
shutdown and cancellation of all festivals and other events fueled fears that tourism would be way down in the
summer. As such, some owners converted their short-term vacation rentals (STR’s) into long-term rentals. The local
workforce did not benefit from this increase, however, as newcomers working remotely could pay much higher rents.
The inventory of long-term rentals was reduced when some units were sold by their owners, as noted above. Rentals
were primarily purchased by new owners moving in and occupying their homes, although inventors were also active in
the market with high rents and low interest rates making it possible to cash flow units. Six 900 square foot multifamily
units in Aspen built for rentals sold at $1,800 to $1,900 per square foot and only one remained a rental unit.
One positive impact the pandemic had on the rental market was a reduction in the number of long-term rentals being
converted into short-term rentals. While the boom in the popularity of short-term rentals has negatively impacted
long-term workforce rental housing throughout the mountains in recent years, none of the property managers
interviewed reported this occurring in 2020.
RENTAL MARKET
July 6, 2021 - Page 91 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
Impacts on Rents – Locals Get Relief But Market Rates Spike
The timing of the shutdown in the spring, when most leases in the mountain expire, turned out to be a stroke of luck
for many renters. With fears that tenant incomes would plummet, rents were held steady by many property owners.
At least one property owner in Telluride provided one month free. The town of Telluride provided a free month of
rent to residents in 187 town-owned rental housing in both April 2020 and January 2021, funding for which was later
provided by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The Town of Breckenridge forgave one month rent on about
150 Town-owned rentals if impacted by COVID and agreed to reduced payment plans if further assistance was
required. In Eagle County, all residents of Lake Creek Village Apartments received free rent in April and reduced rent in
May and June. Some property managers in Grand County and Summit County reported no increases in rents in 2020.
Rent delinquencies were not a widespread problem. Managers reported some renters had higher incomes than
typical in the spring, from a combination of unemployment, stimulus payments, and Paycheck Protection Program
(PPP) payments. Rent assistance, however, was crucial for some. The Family and Intercultural Resource Center (FIRC)
in Summit County, with funds from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs and significant contributions from
local governments, provided rental assistance countywide. According to one property manager in Grand County,
some renters took advantage of the eviction moratorium imposed in Colorado and chose not to pay rent, but most
remained current with their payments.
Since these early concerns, market rents have skyrocketed beyond the level
that most locally employed renters can afford. In 2020 increases in market rents
ranged from about 20% to 40% on units that turned over, and on some where
leases were renewed. Rent escalations were highest among the larger, family
friendly, more expensive homes. While rents have long been high in Colorado’s ski
towns, this rate of increase was unprecedented. Some examples:
• In Aspen, a three-bedroom townhome was renting for $6,800/month. When it turned over in October 2020, the
rent was raised to $10,000/month.
• In Summit County, a unit at $6,000 was increased to $8,000/month, one at $4,500 went to $6,000, and another
at $3,900/month for one year went to $6,200/month for the ski season.
The overall market rent for listings in February and March in the six counties averaged $3,245 per month for all types
of units combined. This includes rentals for high-end properties as well as those for workers. While rents have long
been curtailed in the mountain towns by the dominance of low wage tourism-based jobs, the influx of renters who
work remotely has clearly increased rates far beyond levels that local wage earners can pay. As shown below:
• Rents are highest in Pitkin County, followed by San Miguel County.
• Rates are similar among Eagle, Routt,
and Summit counties.
• Rents are lowest in Grand County.
Market rents
skyrocketed 20% to
40% higher in 2020.
Housing Market Impacts | 36July 6, 2021 - Page 92 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Housing Market Impacts | 37
Rents now average over $5,000 per month for single family homes. Condominiums average over $3,000 per month in
most of the region.
AVERAGE RENT BY BEDROOMS
AVERAGE RENT BY UNIT TYPE & COUNTY
Consultant search of local and online for rent listings, February and March 2021
Consultant search of local and online for rent listings, February and March 2021
Note: With only 1 apartment listing in San Miguel County, the average rent of $1,000 should not be considered representative of the market and in Grand County, the one single family home advertised for rent at $1,200 per month was not indicative of market rates.
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 48
#20 Consultant search of local and online for rent listings, February and March 2021
Rents now average over $5,000 per month for single family homes. Condominiums average over $3,000 per month in most of the
region.
Average Rent by Unit Type and County
$3,125
$2,111
$4,577
$3,047
$3,903
$3,066
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
Eagle Grand Pitkin Routt San Miguel Summit
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 49
#21 Consultant search of local and online for rent listings, February and March 2021
Note: With only 1 apartment listing in San Miguel County, the average rent of $1,000 should not be considered representative of the market and in Grand
County, the one single family home advertised for rent at $1,200 per month was not indicative of market rates.
Rental Availability – What Availability?
In February and March 2020, tracking of online listings in the six counties identified a total of 260 listings for long-term units. This
equated to an extremely low vacancy rate of approximately 1.5%.
Some property managers stopped accepting inquiries. Others created waitlists for the first time. As of May 2021, there are no signs
that the market is softening.
Rental Listings – Mar/Apr 20202
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
Eagle Grand Pitkin Routt San Miguel Summit
apartment condo single family
July 6, 2021 - Page 93 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
Rental Availability – What Availability?
In February and March 2020, tracking of online listings in the six counties identified a total of 260 listings for long-term
units. This equated to an extremely low vacancy rate of approximately 1.5%.
Some property managers stopped accepting inquiries. Others created waitlists for the first time. As of May 2021,
there were no signs that the market was softening.
Demand remained high for all types of rental units. Some property managers reported than one bedroom and other
small units were the most sought after by established locals because, with concerns about COVID contagion, it was
important to have few or no roommates. Larger units were very popular, however, with newcomers moving in since
many were families.
Consultant search of local and online for rent listings, February and March 2021*Apartment refers to a unit in an apartment building in which all units are owned by one owner and individual units cannot be sold separately. This is differentiated from a condo, which are homes that can be individually owned and sold, meaning that one building may have a different owner for each unit.
COUNTY APARTMENT*CONDO SINGLE FAMILY # OF LISTINGS RENT RANGE
Eagle $2,392 $3,227 $3,963 82 $1,100-$7,000
Grand $2,227 $1,955 $1,200 26 $875-$6,000
Pitkin $2,388 $4,478 $7,000 43 $1,500-$10,000
Routt $1,588 $3,209 $5,583 26 $1,450-$7,500
San Miguel $1,000 $3,753 $8,000 10 $1,000-$8,000
Summit $1,787 $2,698 $5,436 73 $1,392-$10,000
Grand Total $2,119 $3,207 $5,464 260
RENTAL LISTINGS March & April 2020
Housing Market Impacts | 38July 6, 2021 - Page 94 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Housing Market Impacts | 39
Short-Term & Mid-Term Rentals
While some short-term rentals were converted into long-term rentals during the shutdown, other noteworthy
changes include:
• Visitors stayed longer. Units that typically rented for several days to a week were often rented for several weeks.
• Owners moved into their short-term rentals, removing them from the rental pool. A manager of high-end STR’s
in the Vail area reported that owners moved into three of their 14 units for most of 2020.
• The mid-term (i.e, a one- to five-month rental) and seasonal rental market expanded. A Summit County manager
provided an example of a couple from New York who spent the summer on Nantucket, fall in New England, and ski
season in Breckenridge.
• Cost was not an issue for many short- and mid-term renters. A Steamboat manager reported that the highest
increase in rents occurred among the most expensive units.
• Size was important. Demand for large homes with enough bedrooms to accommodate extended families
became exceptionally strong.
Renter Profiles – Demographics Changing
As reported by property managers, newcomers in 2020 differed from long-term residents in several ways, including
their commitment to community. They remained flexible by avoiding long-term commitments while testing living in
the mountains and exploring how long they might be able to work remotely. They often kept their homes elsewhere.
They rented to stay flexible and to avoid maintenance responsibilities.
Many new rental households included children. Historically, renters moving to mountain ski towns have been singles
and younger couples who do not have children until after becoming established in communities. The new renters are
generally older (30’s and 40’s), well established in their careers, and have children.
The characteristic of new renters that stands out most to property managers is their wealth. The income levels of
newcomers are much higher than renters who have moved to the mountains in the past. As one property manager
said, “Even young families with children have tons of money.”
The increase in rents and lack of inventory led some long-time residents to move away. Residents who sold homes
when prices climbed were seldom able to find a rental that would allow them to stay in their communities. As one
property manager in Telluride said, “Our community has moved to Ridgway.”
July 6, 2021 - Page 95 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
6SERVICES NEEDS AND PREFERENCES
July 6, 2021 - Page 96 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Services Needs & Preferences | 41
Planning for the future provision of community, business and home services necessitates
understanding their importance to, usage of, and quality for residents needing and desiring
the services.
This section evaluates whether newcomers, full-time and part-time residents have varying
service needs or priorities. If increased use of properties continues, this information can help
communities plan for future needs.
Community Services & Amenities
The importance that residents place on community services is directly related to how often they use those services,
with a few exceptions.
In the time of COVID, health care/hospital ranked the most important community service of 13 services.
COVID increased the awareness of limitations in health care availability, such as the lack of ICU beds in many
mountain hospitals.
Town and county parks were also very important to residents as were cultural events/entertainment.
Full-time residents generally place greater importance on, and more often use, most community services. The
exceptions are cultural events/entertainment, religious/church services and public transit, which part-time residents
use more frequently than full-time residents.
IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY SERVICESFull- and Part-time Compared
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 53
Importance of Community Services
Full-time and Part-time Compared
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Full-time residents more often use health care, schools, childcare, the library, recreation programs and parks than do part-time
residents.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Private K-12 schools
Religious/church services
Food bank
Emergency housing or utility assistance
Senior services (in home care, meals on wheels, transit…
Child care
Public transit
Recreation programs/leagues
Public K-12 schools
Library
Cultural events/entertainment
Town/county parks
Health care/hospital
Average Importance Rating
1=not important to 5=very important
Part Time Full Time
Healthcare/hospital
Town/county parks
Cultural events/entertainment
Library
Public K-12 schools
Recreation programs/leagues
Public transit
Child care
Senior services (in home care, meals on wheels, transit service, senior center, etc.)
Emergency housing or utility assistance
Food bank
Religious/church services
Private K-12 schools
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
July 6, 2021 - Page 97 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
Full-time residents more often use health care, schools, childcare, the library, recreation programs and parks than
do part-time residents. There were a few differences between newcomers and long-timers in importance placed on
community services. The key difference was the greater importance long-timers placed on senior services (in home
care, meals on wheels, transit service, senior center, etc.), church services, food banks, and emergency housing or
utility assistance.
Also, this use of community services is similar among newcomers and long-timers. An interesting difference is that
newcomers placed slightly more importance on public transit and used it more often than long-timers.
Differences between full-time owners and renters are minimal, although renters place greater importance on three
community services – housing or utility assistance, food bank, and public transit, which they use more often than
owners.
There was only slight variation in the importance placed on community services among the six counties. Some
nuances include:
• San Miguel County residents rated town/county parks, recreation programs, the library, and public schools
the highest.
• Pitkin County residents placed greater importance on public transit and cultural events and entertainment.
QUALITY OF BUSINESS SERVICESNewcomers & Long-timers ComparedIMPORTANCE OF BUSINESS SERVICESNewcomers & Long-timers Compared The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 56
#24 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
There were also few differences between full and part-time residents, except for professional services, which are more important to
and used more often by full-time residents, and airport shuttles, which are more important to part-time residents.
Importance of Business Services
Full and Part-time Compared
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Commercial flights
High speed internet
Airport shuttles
Professional services (printing, book
keeping, computer support, tax support,
etc.)
Shipping/Fed Ex, UPS, USPS)
Average Quality
Scale from 1=poor to 5=excellent
Longtimers
Newcomers
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 55
#23 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Quality of Business Services
Newcomers and Long-timers Compared
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Airport shuttles
Professional services
Commercial flights
Shipping/Fed Ex, UPS, USPS)
High speed internet
Average importance Rating:
Scale from 1=not important to 5=very important
Longtimers
Newcomers
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration SurveySource: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Business Services
As with community services, newcomers and long-timers place a similar level of importance on business services.
The most notable difference was in professional services (printing, book keeping, computer support, tax support,
etc.), these were less important to newcomers who are less likely to be self-employed and more likely to work for out-
of-county employers for which this business support may be provided elsewhere. Quality high speed internet was
rated as the most important service by both long-timers and newcomers.
Professional services (printing, book keeping, tax support, computer support)
Services Needs & Preferences | 42July 6, 2021 - Page 98 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Services Needs & Preferences | 43
IMPORTANCE OF BUSINESS SERVICES Full & Part-time Compared
QUALITY OF BUSINESS SERVICES Full- and Part-time Compared
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 57
#25 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Year-round residents may not realize how good they have it when it comes to the quality of business services. Part-time residents
who have perspective from using these services elsewhere rate all services, except for professional services, higher than full-time
residents.
While there has been much discussion and concern expressed in Colorado’s mountain towns about the availability of high-speed
internet, it seems adequate among residents who have recently moved from other areas and part-time residents who also have
perspective from elsewhere. At least it is adequate in the parts of the counties where newcomers are in-migrating. It was beyond
the scope of this study to determine if as an equity issue it as was adequate in middle to lower-income full-time neighborhoods in
these counties.
Quality of Business Services
Full- and Part-time Compared
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Airport shuttles
Commercial flights
Professional services
Shipping/Fed Ex, UPS, USPS)
High speed internet
Average importance Rating: Scale from 1=not important to 5=very importantPart Time Full Time
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 58
#26 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
There are no notable differences between full-time owners and renters. Nor were there many differences based on the source of
employment – working for in-county versus out-of-county employers made little difference.
Results were also very similar among the six counties except for the quality of commercial flights, which rated lower in in Grand
County (no commercial airport) and San Miguel County (small aircraft in good weather).
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Commercial flights
High speed internet
Airport shuttles
Shipping/Fed Ex, UPS, USPS)
Professional services
Average Quality: Scale from 1=poor to 5=excellentPart Time Full Time
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
There were also few differences between full and part-time residents, except for professional services, which are
more important to and used more often by full-time residents, and airport shuttles, which are more important to
part-time residents.
Year-round residents may not realize how good they have it when it comes to the quality of business services. Part-
time residents who have perspective from using these services elsewhere rate all services, except for professional
services, higher than full-time residents.
While there has been much discussion and concern expressed in Colorado’s mountain towns about the availability of
high-speed internet, it seems adequate among residents who have recently moved from other areas and part-time
residents who also have perspective from elsewhere. It is adequate in the parts of these counties where newcomers
are in-migrating.
There are no notable differences between full-time owners and renters. Nor were there many differences based on
the source of employment – working for in-county versus out-of-county employers made little difference.
Results were also very similar among the six counties except for the quality of commercial flights, which rated lower in
in Grand County (no commercial airport) and San Miguel County (small aircraft in good weather).
July 6, 2021 - Page 99 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
Home Services
The influx of new residents will require more of the same services in about the same relative proportion. The
frequency by which newcomers and long-timers used home services was very similar.
USE OF HOME SERVICES Newcomers & Long-timers Compared
USE OF HOME SERVICES Full & Part-time Compared
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 59
Home Services
The influx of new residents will require more of the same services in about the same relative proportion. The frequency by which
newcomers and long-timers use home services is very similar.
Use of Home Services: Newcomers and Long-timers Compared
Average rating where 1=never, 2=few times per year, 3=few times per month,4=weekly,5=daily
#27 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Part-time residents more frequently use services related to maintenance, upkeep and care of their homes whereas full-time
residents more often use child-related and pet care services. Full-time homeowners use all of the seven home services tested more
than renters.
Use of Home Services: Full and Part-time Compared
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Administrative support
Child care
Pet sitter/dog walking
Caretaker/housesitter
Child education (homeschool, etc)
Home cleaning/maintenance
Landscaping maintenance/snow removal
Longtimers Newcomers
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Average rating where 1=never, 2=few times per year, 3=few times per month, 4=weekly, 5=daily
Average rating where 1=never, 2=few times per year, 3=few times per month, 4=weekly, 5=daily
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 60
Average rating where 1=never, 2=few times per year, 3=few times per month,4=weekly,5=daily
#28 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Use of home services is similar among the six counties. Primary differences include:
• Pitkin County residents more often use services related to home upkeep and are less likely to use home education services.
• Summit County residents more often use landscaping services.
Home Services Used by County
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Caretaker/housesitter
Administrative support
Child care
Pet sitter/dog walking
Child education (homeschool, etc)
Home cleaning/maintenance
Part Time Full Time
Part-time residents more frequently used services related to maintenance, upkeep and care of their homes whereas
full-time residents more often use child-related and pet care services. Full-time homeowners used all of the seven
home services tested more than renters.
Services Needs & Preferences | 44July 6, 2021 - Page 100 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Services Needs & Preferences | 45
Other Services
When asked to write in other services used, most responses fell into the following categories:
• Grocery stores with comments focusing on need for additional and lower cost stores
• Home maintenance and repair
• Snow removal
• Restaurants and food/restaurant delivery
• Cell phones, with remarks about poor/worsening coverage in Summit County
• Home health care
• Wellness and spa services
• Veterinary and pet care services
• Property management
• Auto repair
• Law enforcement with protection of homes and cars in parking lots
HOME SERVICES USED BY COUNTY
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 61
#29 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Other Services
When asked to write in other services used, most responses fell into the following categories:
• Grocery stores with comments focusing on need for additional and lower cost stores
• Home maintenance and repair
• Snow removal
• Restaurants and food/restaurant delivery
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Child care
Child edu
c
ati
o
n (
h
o
m
e
s
c
h
o
ol,
et
c)
Home cle
a
ni
n
g
/
m
ai
nt
e
n
a
n
c
e
Landscapi
n
g
m
ai
nt
e
n
a
n
c
e
/
s
n
o
w r
e
m
o
v
al
Administr
ati
v
e
s
u
p
p
o
rt
Caretake
r
/
h
o
u
s
e
sitt
e
r
Pet sitter
/
d
o
g
w
al
ki
n
g
Other
Eagle Grand Pitkin Routt San Miguel SummitSource: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Use of home services is similar among the six counties. Primary differences include:
• Pitkin County residents more often use services related to home upkeep and are less likely to use home
education services.
• Summit County residents more often use landscaping services.
July 6, 2021 - Page 101 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
7QUALITY OF LIFE
July 6, 2021 - Page 102 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Quality of Life | 47
With currently only 50% of housing units in the study area being occupied by full-time residents,
the influx of more owners and visitors staying in part-time homes and short- and mid-term
accommodations can, in theory, allow the population in the area to double overnight. This does
not include visitors that may be in commercial (hotel) lodging units. When stays were extended
over longer periods of time during COVID, the stress on the community and infrastructure was
felt by all, as indicated in this section.
Factors Influencing Community Choice
Safety and security, sense of community, and skiing quality and/or access topped the list in importance overall
when choosing where to live among nine attributes offered. There was little difference between long-timers and
newcomers; however, the size of community and the quality of/access to the backcountry were more important to
long-time residents.
COMMUNITY ATTRIBUTES BY LENGTH OF RESIDENCY
COMMUNITY ATTRIBUTES FULL VS PART-TIME
There are clear distinctions between full-time and part-time residents which should be considered when preserving
characteristics valued by each group. When choosing where to live, full-time residents placed greater importance
on the sense of community, the size of community, and the cost of housing. Part-timers cared more about skiing,
proximity to the Front Range, proximity to an airport, and arts/entertainment/culture.
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 63
#30 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
There are clear distinctions between full-time and part-time residents which should be considered when preserving characteristics
valued by each group. When choosing where to live, full-time residents placed greater importance on the sense of community, the
size of community, and the cost of housing. Part-timers cared more about skiing, proximity to the Front Range, proximity to an
airport, and arts/entertainment/culture.
Community Attributes, Full vs Part-time
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Proxmity to Denver/the Front Range
Proximity to airport
Arts/music/entertainment/culture
Cost of housing
Backcountry - quality and/or access
Size of community
Skiing - quality and/or access
Sense of community
Safety/security
Longtimers Newcomers
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 64
#31 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Full-time owners and renters were similar in the relative ranking they placed on community attributes when they chose where to
live. In general, owners rated most considerations higher. One exception -- renters scored the cost of housing slightly higher than
owners. Among part-time residents, renters ranked the cost of housing, safety/security, and proximity to an airport higher than
owners.
Ratings were similar among the six counties. Notable exceptions include:
• Proximity to Denver/the Front Range were more important for residents in Grand and Summit counties.
• Proximity to an airport was more important for Pitkin County residents.
• While differences by county in the importance of the cost of housing were slight, it was most important for residents of
Grand County, which has the lowest housing costs of the six counties, and least important in Pitkin County, where housing
costs are the highest.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Proxmity to Denver/the Front Range
Proximity to airport
Arts/music/entertainment/culture
Backcountry - quality and/or access
Cost of housing
Skiing - quality and/or access
Size of community
Safety/security
Sense of community
Part Time Full Time
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
July 6, 2021 - Page 103 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
Full-time owners and renters were similar in the relative ranking they placed on community attributes when they
chose where to live. In general, owners rated most considerations higher. One exception – renters scored the cost of
housing slightly higher than owners. Among part-time residents, renters ranked the cost of housing, safety/security,
and proximity to an airport higher than owners.
Ratings were similar among the six counties. Notable exceptions included:
• Proximity to Denver/the Front Range were more important for residents in Grand and Summit counties.
• Proximity to an airport was more important for Pitkin County residents.
• While differences by county in the importance of the cost of housing were slight, it was most important for
residents of Grand County, which has the lowest housing costs of the six counties, and least important in Pitkin
County, where housing costs are the highest.
Community Impacts in 2020
Since COVID, mountain residents noticed many changes in their communities.
Far more residents perceived the changes to be more negative than positive.
The perceptions about the impacts of this year provide a glimpse into the future
of these communities, whether or not the current influx of new residents and
part-time residents are here to stay. These communities have been discovered,
and will continue to attract new residents. Learning from this experience
and working to address the negative impacts can only better prepare these
communities for what is on the horizon.
As shown below, an overwhelming percentage of respondents felt that housing availability, housing affordability, and
crowds in the backcountry were worse than before the migration began. About 50% of respondents felt that each of
traffic congestion, environmental impacts, quality of life, and parking were worse.
COMMUNITY ATTRIBUTES BY COUNTY
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 66
Community Attributes by County
#32 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Community Impacts in 2020
Since COVID, mountain residents noticed many changes in their communities and far more residents perceived the changes to be
more negative than positive. The perceptions about the impacts of this year provide a glimpse into the future of these communities,
whether or not the current influx of new residents and part-time residents are here to stay. These communities have been
discovered, and will continue to attract new residents. Learning from this experience and working to address the negative impacts
can only better prepare these communities for what is on the horizon.
As shown below, an overwhelming percentage of respondents felt that housing availability, housing affordability, and crowds in the
backcountry were worse than before the migration began. About 50% of respondents felt that each of traffic congestion,
environmental impacts, quality of life, and parking were worse.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Sense of
c
o
m
m
u
nit
y
Size of co
m
m
u
nit
y
Arts/musi
c
/
e
nt
ert
ai
n
m
e
nt
/
c
ult
ur
e
Skiing - q
u
alit
y
a
n
d
/
or
a
c
c
e
s
s
Backcountr
y -
q
u
alit
y
a
n
d
/
or
a
c
c
e
s
s
Cost of h
o
u
si
n
g
Safety/se
c
urit
y
Proxmity t
o
D
e
n
v
er
/t
h
e
Fr
o
nt
R
a
n
g
e
Proximity t
o
air
p
ort
Eagle Grand Pitkin Routt San Miguel Summit
Quality of Life | 48
Far more resident
perceived the changes
to be more negative
than positive.
July 6, 2021 - Page 104 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
Findings suggest that now is the time for mountain communities to grow and improve their housing programs
since community awareness of the problem is high. While 90% of respondents felt housing availability and housing
affordability have gotten worse overall, as shown below, over 60% felt they got “much worse.” Full-time renters gave
housing the highest “much worse” rating although all types of residents – full-time, part-time, new to the area and
long time, felt the change in housing availability and affordability were worse than other changes in their counties.
OBSERVED CHANGES IN 2020
OVERALL RATING OF MUCH WORSE
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 68
Observed Changes in 2020
#33 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Findings suggest that now is the time for mountain communities to grow and improve their housing programs since community
awareness of the problem is high. While 90% of respondents felt housing availability and housing affordability have gotten worse
overall, as shown below, over 60% felt they got “much worse.” Full-time renters gave housing the highest “much worse” rating
although all types of residents – full-time, part-time, new to the area and long time, felt the change in housing availability and
affordability were worse than other changes in their counties.
Overall Rating of Much Worse
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Housing availability Housing affordability Crowds in the back
country
Traffic congestion Environmental
impacts
Quality of life Parking% of respondents selectiing "somewhat sorse" or "much worse"Better No Change Worse
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 69
#34 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Perceptions about crowds in the backcountry were also so negative as to indicate actions to correct the problem (additional
restrictions/limits on access and use) could have support among residents. The impacts of the migration on recreation are worthy
of study, and are largely beyond the scope of this report.
Long-time residents (>10 years) perceived changes to be worse than newcomers, which is not surprising given their greater
knowledge about pre-2020 conditions. Long-time residents were much more likely to feel their quality of life had worsened. They
were in close alignment, however, in their perceptions about housing affordability and availability regardless of when they moved to
their mountain community.
Worse in the Past Year
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Quality of life
Environmental impacts
Parking
Traffic congestion
Crowds in the back country
Housing affordability
Housing availability
% of respondents selecting "Much Worse"
Commented [MB6]: This is an interesting and important
finding!
Quality of Life | 49July 6, 2021 - Page 105 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
Perceptions about crowds in the backcountry were also so negative as to indicate actions to correct the problem
(additional restrictions/limits on access and use) could have support among residents. The impacts of the migration
on recreation are worthy of further study.
Long-time residents (>10 years) perceived changes to be worse than newcomers, which is not surprising given their
greater knowledge about pre-2020 conditions. Long-time residents were much more likely to feel their quality of life
had worsened. They were in close alignment, however, in their perceptions about housing affordability and availability
regardless of when they moved to their mountain community.
Full-time residents were more likely than part-time residents to indicate that conditions had gotten much worse.
Part-time residents more often noticed no change in the past year.
Full-time owners and renters were generally comparable in terms of how they felt about changes in the past year.
Residents among all six counties were similar in the factors they indicated had gotten worse – housing availability,
housing affordability, and crowds in the backcountry were the top three concerns. Residents in Pitkin County, however,
were less likely to indicate worsening among all factors, whereas San Miguel County residents noticed the highest
overall level of negative change.
WORSE IN THE PAST YEAR
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
WORSE BY COUNTY
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 70
#35 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Full-time residents were more likely than part-time residents to indicate that conditions had gotten much worse. Part-time residents
more often noticed no change in the past year.
Full-time owners and renters were generally comparable in terms of how they felt about changes in the past year.
Residents among all six counties were similar in the factors they indicated had gotten worse – housing availability, housing
affordability, and crowds in the backcountry were the top three concerns. Residents in Pitkin County, however, were less likely to
indicate worsening among all factors, whereas San Miguel County residents noticed the highest overall level of negative change.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Environmental
Impacts
Traffic congestion Parking Housing
affordability
Housing availability Quality of life Crowds in the back
country% of respondents selecting"somewhat worse " or "much worse"Newcomers Longtimers
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 71
Worse by County
#36 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
The survey also asked a write-in question, “Are there other changes you feel have occurred that affect your quality of life in the
community? Nearly 1,900 responses were received in the following categories:
• 742 related to crowds -- “too many visitors”, “too many people” and the impacts created by crowds throughout the
community and back country. Numerous respondents commented on the behavior of visitors and newcomers, calling it rude,
insensitive to locals, and disrespectful.
• 542 about COVID that revealed much division on how the pandemic was managed. Some complained about masks mandates
while others expressed concerns about how people, visitors especially, did not wear masks or practice social distancing.
• 236 on housing, the cost of living and short-term rentals focused primarily on escalating housing costs, and the impacts of
short-term rentals on rents and neighborhoods.
• 91 about services, particularly the lack of availability and the high cost of groceries and lack of adequate childcare.
• 60 on the environment with many expressing concerns about wildfire, especially the East Troublesome fire in Grand County,
litter and damage in the backcountry, and an increase in dog waste.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Eagle Grand Pitkin Routt San Miguel Summit% of respondents selecting "somewhat worse" or "much worse"Environmental impacts Traffic congestion Parking Housing affordability Housing availability Quality of life Crowds in the back country
Quality of Life | 50July 6, 2021 - Page 106 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Quality of Life | 51
The survey also asked a write-in question, “Are there other changes you feel have occurred that affect your quality of
life in the community? Nearly 1,900* responses were received in the following categories:
• 742 related to crowds -- “too many visitors”, “too many people” and the impacts created by crowds throughout
the community and back country. Numerous respondents commented on the behavior of visitors and
newcomers, calling it rude, insensitive to locals, and disrespectful.
• 542 about COVID that revealed much division on how the pandemic was managed. Some complained about
masks mandates while others expressed concerns about how people, visitors especially, did not wear masks or
practice social distancing.
• 236 on housing, the cost of living and short-term rentals focused primarily on escalating housing costs, and the
impacts of short-term rentals on rents and neighborhoods.
• 91 about services, particularly the lack of availability and the high cost of groceries and lack of adequate childcare.
• 60 on the environment with many expressing concerns about wildfire, especially the East Troublesome fire in
Grand County, litter and damage in the backcountry, and an increase in dog waste.
• 200+ on government, development, jobs and how difficult it is to find employees, more traffic, increasing crime
and health (lack of services and impacts of the pandemic on mental health).
*Baseline data for this report is available upon request only to CAST and NWCCOG member jurisdictions.
July 6, 2021 - Page 107 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
8SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
July 6, 2021 - Page 108 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Support for Community Organizations | 53
More residents spending time in their mountain towns should improve the financial stability of community
organizations or the type of organizations that get financial support. The demographic shift may have other impacts
on these organizations, especially those who address community-support needs.
• Full-time residents support more community organizations than part-time residents with donations,
volunteering time and attending events. While the dollar value of donations may be similar between full and part-
time residents, spending more time in mountain communities should result in community organizations receiving
more financial support.
• The percentage of full-time residents that volunteer time far surpasses part-time residents, lending needed
hands to help organizations undertake tasks and programs. In communities with a small full-time resident base,
finding volunteer community participants is often a challenge.
• Even though their incomes are lower, renters tend to support almost as many organizations as owners.
Nonprofit and other community organizations need to reach out to newer residents for support. There is a clear
relationship between the amount of support given and the length of residency. Long-term residents (> 10 years)
donate to four times as many community organizations than newcomers, and also volunteer and attend more events.
TYPE OF SUPPORT BY LENGTH OF RESIDENCY
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTED
AVERAGE # SUPPORTED FULL-TIME PART-TIME
Donations 3.4 1.6
Volunteering Time 1.6 0.3
Attendance at Events 3.1 1.7
% PROVIDING NO SUPPORT FULL-TIME PART-TIME
Donations 16%32%
Volunteering Time 33%81%
Attendance at Events 19%36%
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 75
Type of Support by Length of Residency
#37 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
The near-term future looks good for community organizations.
• About half of residents, both full and part-time, will continue to support at the same levels as in the past and roughly one-
third will increase donations and/or volunteer time.
• Newcomers, however, plan to increase both donations and volunteer time, indicating interest in investing more time and
resources in their community.
• Relatively few residents plan to decrease their support in the next two to three years; renters are more likely than owners to
provide lower levels of support in the future.
Support over the Next 2 to 3 Years
Full-time Part-
time
Newcomers Long-timers
Stay the same 50% 52% 26% 53%
Increase donations 35% 43% 60% 34%
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Newcomers 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years More than 10 yearsAverage number of local organizations supportedDonations Volunteering time Attendance at events
July 6, 2021 - Page 109 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
The near-term future looks good for community organizations.
• About half of residents, both full and part-time, will continue to support at the same levels as in the past and
roughly one-third will increase donations and/or volunteer time.
• Newcomers, however, plan to increase both donations and volunteer time, indicating interest in investing more
time and resources in their community.
• Relatively few residents plan to decrease their support in the next two to three years; renters are more likely than
owners to provide lower levels of support in the future.
Support for community organizations varies by county. The number of organizations receiving support through
donations and time are highest in Routt and San Miguel counties; attendance at events is highest in San Miguel
County. Fewer organizations receive support on average in Grand and Summit counties.
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey*Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
SUPPORT OVER THE NEXT 2 TO 3 YEARS
AVERAGE NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTED BY COUNTY
FULL-TIME PART-TIME NEWCOMERS LONG-TIMERS
Stay the same 50%52%26%53%
Increase donations 35%43%60%34%
Increase volunteer time 39%25%57%32%
Decrease donations 4%1%2%4%
Decrease volunteer time 3%1%1%3%
EAGLE GRAND PITKIN ROUTT SAN MIGUEL SUMMIT
Donations 3.1 2.2 3.2 4.1 3.7 2.5
Volunteering Time 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.2
Attendance at Events 2.9 2.1 2.7 2.9 4.1 2.5
Support for Community Organizations | 54July 6, 2021 - Page 110 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
9SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
July 6, 2021 - Page 111 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 School Enrollment | 56
The K-12 education system in all counties in the study area underwent significant challenges and
changes under the COVID pandemic, as did schools throughout the country. Many schools in the
study area experienced a surge of inquiries into new enrollment and programs over the summer
of 2020 from newcomers and from parents of existing students interested in COVID protocols,
but most schools had actual fall enrollments that were lower than in 2019, primarily due to
concerns about COVID transmissions.
Being located in resort areas, most schools are used to a lot of in- and-out-migration of students
at different times of the year, with part-time or new residents arriving and enrolled students
moving or leaving. This year also had increased incidence of parents undertaking homeschooling
or enrolling in online education programs from other schools, rather than enrolling locally, given
the variety of options. Most schools in the study region implemented online learning platforms
and hybrid online and classroom programs. A handful kept schools open for full-time classroom
learning from the start.
This section presents information on school enrollment by residents in the study area and
planned enrollment for the next 2021/2022 school year. The scope of this study did not
differentiate between school systems within the studied communities, or compare these to
schools in the specific communities from which new residents came or in which some part-time
residents enrolled their children. A number of the communities in the study area also have high-
end private school options. The study did not differentiate between these and the public school
system, but rather asked about public and private enrollment generally.
For the most part, residents that are currently enrolled in local schools indicated that they will
again enroll in 2021/2022, with many home-schooled children likely returning to the local school
system. A few respondents remain undecided about future plans.
Current School Enrollment
About one-third of survey respondents had at least one school-aged child in
their household.
• Newcomers and full-time residents are similarly as likely to have
children, but newcomers were more likely to have young children
between 0 and pre-K.
• Part-time residents that have children are likely to have older children.
Newcomers and full-time
residents are similarly as
likely to have children, but
newcomers were more
likely to have young children
between 0 and pre-K.
July 6, 2021 - Page 112 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
The near-term future looks good for school districts.
Full-time residents are likely to enroll their children in local schools. Part-time residents are likely to enroll their children
outside of the county. Newcomers have mixed enrollment.
The vast majority of newcomers that have children enrolled locally are full-time residents. Newcomers with children
enrolled outside of the county (29%) may be less likely to stay in the area.
HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN BY RESIDENCY
LOCATION OF K-12 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY RESIDENCY
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey • *Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey • *Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 79
Households With Children by Residency
#38 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
*Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
Full-time residents are likely to enroll their children in local schools. Part-time residents are likely to enroll their children outside of
the county. Newcomers have mixed enrollment.
The vast majority of newcomers that have children enrolled locally are full-time residents. Newcomers with children enrolled
outside of the county (29%) may be less likely to stay in the area.
Location of K-12 School Enrollment by Residency
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
No Yes, age 0 through pre-K Yes, grade K-12
Newcomers Full Time Part Time
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 80
#39 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
*Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
Future School Enrollment
Residents report little change in expected K-12 enrollment for 2021-2202. The slight decline in full-time resident enrollment is
mostly due to students graduating or households moving out of the county. About 5% of residents are unsure about their plans.
K-12 Enrollment Plans for 2021/2022 School Year by Residency
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Enrolled in a K-12 public school in the
county
Enrolled in a K-12 private or non-profit
school in the county
Home schooled Enrolled in a K-12 school outside of
the county
Newcomers Full Time Part Time
School Enrollment | 57July 6, 2021 - Page 113 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 School Enrollment | 58
Evaluating future enrollment plans by current enrollment status shows that:
• Currently enrolled families will largely stay enrolled;
• The majority of students that are home schooled will enroll locally;
• A handful of out of county enrollees will enroll locally (10%); and
• About 5% of residents are unsure. Residents with home schooled children are the most uncertain.
K-12 ENROLLMENT PLANS FOR 2021/2022 SCHOOL YEAR BY RESIDENCY
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey • *Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
Future School Enrollment
Residents report little change in expected K-12 enrollment for 2021-2202. The slight decline in full-time resident
enrollment is mostly due to students graduating or households moving out of the county. About 5% of residents are
unsure about their plans.
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 81
#40 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
*Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
Evaluating future enrollment plans by current enrollment status shows that:
• Currently enrolled families will largely stay enrolled;
• The majority of students that are home schooled will enroll locally;
• A handful of out of county enrollees will enroll locally (10%); and
• About 5% of residents are unsure. Residents with home schooled children are the most uncertain.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes - public Yes - private or non-profit No Unsure
Newcomers Full Time Part Time
K-12 ENROLLMENT PLANS FOR 2021/2022 SCHOOL YEAR BY CURRENT ENROLLMENT STATUS
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey • *Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 82
K-12 Enrollment Plans for 2021/2022 School Year by Current Enrollment Status
#41 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
*Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
The vast majority of families that are not enrolling their children locally or are unsure reported that they live elsewhere and will
continue to do so, have children that are graduating from the K-12 system, and/or are moving out of the county (80%). Less common
reasons include:
• Concerns over the quality of education, including curriculum diversity and options, instruction methods, and quality of online
programs offered (10%).
• Preference for homeschooling in general (5%).
• Frustration with COVID restrictions, mostly desiring classes to again be full-time, mask-free, and uninterrupted by
quarantines (5%).
Regarding pre-K enrollment plans for residents with younger children:
• About three-fourths of full-time residents stated they will enroll their children in either a public or private/non-profit pre-K
program.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes - public Yes - private or non-profit No Unsure
Enrolled in county (public or private)Home schooled Enrolled outside of county
July 6, 2021 - Page 114 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
The vast majority of families that are not enrolling their children locally or are unsure reported that they live elsewhere
and will continue to do so, have children that are graduating from the K-12 system, and/or are moving out of the
county (80%). Less common reasons include:
• Concerns over the quality of education, including curriculum diversity and options, instruction methods, and
quality of online programs offered (10%).
• Preference for homeschooling in general (5%).
• Frustration with COVID restrictions, mostly desiring classes to again be full-time, mask-free, and uninterrupted
by quarantines (5%).
Regarding pre-K enrollment plans for residents with younger children:
• About three-fourths of full-time residents stated they will enroll their children in either a public or private/non-
profit pre-K program.
• Newcomers were mixed and part-time residents were predominately not interested in local programs.
• Respondents selecting “other” indicated that their children will be enrolled in kindergarten, day care, or home
schooled, that they are still exploring options, or that they cannot find options locally.
PRE-K ENROLLMENT PLANS FOR 2021/2022 SCHOOL YEAR BY RESIDENCY
The Mountain Migration Report – May 2021
WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting 84
Pre-K Enrollment Plans for 2021/2022 School Year by Residency
#42 Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey
*Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
No Yes - a private or non-profit early
childhood education center
Yes - public pre-K education Other, please specify below
Newcomers Full Time Part Time
Source: 2021 Mountain Migration Survey*Multiple select question, meaning that percentages add to over 100%
School Enrollment | 59July 6, 2021 - Page 115 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
10NEXT STEPS
July 6, 2021 - Page 116 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Next Steps | 61
Motivate to Take Action Together
The impacts that amenity-rich mountain communities have felt from the recent COVID-accelerated migration is real.
This report has shown significant impacts on housing availability and prices first and foremost, but also community
services, outdoor recreation, and quality of life. Whether the changes felt now are here to stay, or will scale down
before slowly ramping back up again, this past year has given the mountain communities a glimpse of the future.
What is clear is that the impacts are not isolated to some communities over others. All mountain communities in
this study experienced many of the same impacts at similar scales. With wide recognition of the shared impacts,
now seems ripe for the mountain communities and regions to increase their capacity to work together and address
common solutions. Through collective action on creative and bold initiatives it is hoped that observed and pending
changes can be leveraged into positive opportunities for improvement.
Much expertise exists across the study region in implementing local resident and employee housing programs;
however, many communities recognize that more innovative tools are needed to address the mountain migration
challenge. The below suggestions present a few ideas for strengthening some existing tools and exploring new
options to effect the greater local, regional, and larger changes needed to address the mountain migration challenge.
Collaborate on Larger Policy Changes
Amenity-rich communities throughout the state should collaborate to change limiting federal and state of Colorado
policies and statutes and open up more opportunities for communities to address impacts.
STATE HOUSING FINANCING PROGRAMS
Allow state resources to serve higher income households by increasing Area Median Income (AMI) thresholds.
Current programs are limited primarily to households earning 80% or less of the area median income. Most
households earning 200% AMI or more are now struggling to afford homes.
SHORT-TERM RENTALS
Tax residential units that are used as short-term rentals at the higher commercial property tax rate. Likewise, require
short-term rentals to meet the same public safety standards as commercial hotel and lodge properties.
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAXES
Unlock a known tool for creating revenue from overheated real estate sales to mitigate the impacts. Allow
municipalities and counties to adopt new real estate transfer taxes. This provides a significant and flexible source of
revenue for communities to apply toward housing programs.
This section presents several suggestions from the consultants, WSW Consulting, Inc.
and Rees Consulting, Inc., for possible next steps.
July 6, 2021 - Page 117 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
VACANT HOME IMPACTS
Generate additional revenue options for communities to address the shortage of housing for local residents and
employees. Examples may include allowing a vacancy tax for homes that are underutilized and charging part time
(second) homes a higher residential property tax rate than homes occupied as a primary residence.
CONDOMINIUMS AND MIXED-USE
Lobby to remove construction financing and buyer lending impediments on condominiums and mixed-use
construction. Residential units above commercial in downtown areas help communities with limited land increase
residential densities and provide options for workers to be near jobs. Condominiums provide more affordable home
options, but only if purchasers can acquire loans.
STATE OWNED LANDS
Lobby the state to inventory all state public lands for housing suitability and make excess state land available for local
resident and employee housing. Help connect the communities where suitable state lands are located with affordable
housing developers to produce the housing needed by local residents and employees.
Explore Local & Regional Actions
Many tried and innovative tools exist and are used by various communities. Every community that is already involved
in housing needs to review policies and be sure they are using every available tool as robustly as they can. Some
suggestions to enhance community housing programs include:
REGIONAL AND LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS
• Develop regional partnerships that cooperatively allocate available resources for shared housing problems.
• Optimize the efficient use of resources by reducing situations where multiple agencies provide the same housing
services, particularly when they end up competing with each other.
• Generate an environment where businesses, government, local and regional organizations, and the private
sector can cooperatively work together and creatively address local resident and employee housing needs.
LOCAL EMPLOYEE DEED RESTRICTIONS
Include provisions in deed restrictions that permanently limit the occupancy of homes to persons who are employed
by a local business or in a local position serving the community. This is especially important for deed restrictions that
do not have income limits. The objective is to create a secondary real estate market of deed-restricted homes that
are occupied as a primary residence by local employees, thereby eliminating the competition from higher-income
out-of-area buyers.
PURCHASE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON EXISTING HOMES
Prepare a deed restriction purchase program with readiness to respond if opportunities arise. This means having
funds available to purchase existing homes, then permanently deed restricting the homes for occupancy by local
employees. This program recognizes that preserving existing homes for permanent resident occupancy is a
necessary compliment to new construction in mountain communities to meet housing needs.
Next Steps | 62July 6, 2021 - Page 118 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Next Steps | 63
ADOPT OR INCREASE RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE PROGRAMS
Mitigate workforce housing demand generated by residential construction. This can be done through residential
linkage programs, which require new construction to pay a fee, or build below market housing, to compensate for the
housing needed by workers filling jobs demanded by new residences and their occupants.
MID-TERM RENTALS
Homes rented for one- up to five-months increased significantly during COVID and contributed to the highest
increase in market rents ever experienced in Colorado mountain towns. Mid-term rentals, however, are not subject to
short-term rental limitations that communities may have in place. Eliminate this loophole by addressing the mid-term
leasing trend through permitting/licensing, taxation, and restrictions on the number and location of mid-term rentals
similar to those imposed in some communities on short-term rentals.
REALLOCATE FUNDS TO HOUSING
Reallocate funds from other priorities, for example marketing and tourism promotion, to housing. This includes
paying for employee housing out of enterprise funds for employees of those services.
RENTAL HOUSING STOCK
• Preserve existing and create new rental housing for local employees.
• Take advantage of the recent passage of HB 21-1117 in May 2021 by adopting inclusionary zoning standards
that require a portion of new or redeveloped rentals be priced affordable for local employees.
BALLOT INITIATIVES
Consider ballot initiatives to fund housing building upon the lessons learned in communities where taxes for housing
have been approved in recent years. With the gap between market housing prices and the prices affordable for local
wage earners now much wider than pre-COVID, additional sources of revenue are needed.
CONSTRUCTION LABOR SHORTAGE
Explore options for addressing the shortage in construction labor. Building homes affordable for the local workforce
will be difficult to achieve even if funding for housing is significantly increased. Examples include:
• Promoting vocational/technical education.
• Creating apprenticeship programs.
• Employing residential construction crews for housing construction and maintenance, such as through a housing
authority.
PUBLIC LANDS FOR LOCAL RESIDENT AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING
• Communities and regions should review existing federal, state, and local public lands, including those owned by
school districts, for housing suitability and conduct land swaps as needed to open up more developable land for
housing.
• Communities should purchase land, master plan to drive a vision, then seek partners to develop the property.
July 6, 2021 - Page 119 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
EMBRACE DENSITY FOR LOCAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
The development of housing for local residents and employees should no longer been seen as negotiable in the
mountain communities severely impacted by the COVID migration. This includes negotiations that typically occur
during the discretionary development approval process, too often resulting in fewer homes for local employees than
zoning or land capacity allows, and sometimes halting projects altogether. Communities should evolve zoning and
policies to reflect this necessity by, for example:
• Allowing attached and multi-family homes in all residential zones. Some areas have banned single-family home
zoning altogether (e.g., Oregon).
• Ensuring accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are permitted in all zones, ideally with local employee occupancy
requirements. Work with homeowner’s associations to ensure bylaws also permit ADUs.
• Establishing permitted zoning densities and density bonuses that incentivize housing for local employees as
by-right, rather than discretionary, standards. This means that if the proposed density is within established
guidelines, then the density is approved; it is not a topic to be negotiated in the discretionary approval process.
By-right will ideally be applied to other development design standards to streamline the review process and
expedite approval.
• Revisiting zoning density limits overall, either increasing permitted residential densities where appropriate, or
providing increased density bonus incentives for projects providing local employee housing.
• With any areas that are upzoned to higher densities, pair this with an inclusionary zoning requirement, which will
ensure that a good portion of the new development will be permanently deed restricted for local employees.
When completing comprehensive and land use plans to guide your community’s future:
• Consider the shift toward more people working in homes and that relatively less office space will be necessary.
• Recognize that significant increases in population are possible without additional new development when so
many homes are used for part-time occupancy.
• Commit to “housing as infrastructure” as a necessary component, like clean water and sanitation, for the health
of any community. Defining housing for local employees as necessary infrastructure can help generate support
for governments and others to be involved in and allocate monies toward housing in support of the public health,
safety, and welfare.
Better track the use and occupancy of homes by increasing the utilization of existing information. This information is
invaluable to planning and community development departments to track progress and changes. Some suggested
monitoring methods include:
TRACK THE USE/OCCUPANCY OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS
Systems could be created to continuously track residential use, possibly using a combination of Assessor data, rental
licenses, changes in utility accounts, title company cooperation, visitor tracking services, and property manager
assistance. Waiting for Census data to be released every 10 years and relying upon the American Community Survey
in the interim is not adequate for understanding rapidly changing conditions and adjusting service delivery.
Next Steps | 64July 6, 2021 - Page 120 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Next Steps | 65
UNDERSTAND POPULATION FLUCTUATIONS
• Enhance water use/wastewater flow monitoring systems and data interpretation to continually measure the
number of persons in the area. Communities can track water use and wastewater to monitor changes with little
lag time. This will require most to enhance their tracking/billing systems to:
• Easily distinguish between residential and commercial accounts;
• Track consistently by category and adjust for any changes in tracking systems over time to ensure comparable
results year-to-year;
• Adjust for anomalies when they occur due to events like water line breaks, changing of meters, taking systems off
line for improvements, garbage disposal use (for wastewater), etc.
• Track changes in use by accounts when they change from one owner to another to understand changes in the
use or occupancy of homes.
Regarding the impacts of increased residency and visitation on public lands surrounding mountain communities:
PUBLIC LANDS USAGE IMPACTS
• Work with public lands managers who oversee USFS and BLM property surrounding mountain communities to
mitigate the impacts from overcrowding at trailheads and in the backcountry. Institute permit systems, create
remote parking/shuttle services (e.g., Maroon Bells), mobilize volunteers to supplement the work of employees,
increase sanitation services (dumpsters, porta potties, dump stations), and implement a strong education
campaign.
July 6, 2021 - Page 121 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
APPENDIX
July 6, 2021 - Page 122 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Appendix | 67
ARE YOU CURRENTLY A FULL-TIME OR PART-TIME RESIDENT OF THE COUNTY?
DO YOU OWN OR RENT YOUR HOME IN THE COUNTY?
HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD?
WITHIN WHICH AGE CATEGORIES DO HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS FALL?
WHAT IS YOUR GROSS ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME?
Part-time Resident Full-time Resident New-comers Long-timers TOTAL Respondents
Full-time 0%100%65%79%76%
Part-time 100%0%35%21%24%
TOTAL 1,237 3,478 309 3,058 4,721
Part-time Resident Full-time Resident New-comers Long-timers TOTAL Respondents
Own 97%84%69%92%87%
Rent 2%15%28%7%12%
Other 1%1%3%1%1%
TOTAL 1,237 3,478 309.0 3,054 4,718
Part-time Resident Full-time Resident New-comers Long-timers TOTAL Respondents
1 7%11%7%11%10%
2 62%42%43%47%46%
3 9%19%18%17%17%
4 15%22%23%20%20%
5+7%6%10%5%6%
TOTAL 1,210 3,443 306.0 3,010 4,663
Average 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.6 2.7
Part-time Resident Full-time Resident New-comers Long-timers TOTAL Respondents
Under 18 20%38%39%33%33%
18 to 29 12%14%24%11%13%
30 to 64 66%80%86%73%76%
65 and over 44%24%6%36%29%
TOTAL 1,206 3,444 306.0 3,008 4,662
Part-time Resident Full-time Resident New-comers Long-timers TOTAL Respondents
Under $50,000 2%8%6%7%7%
$50,000 to $99,999 6%24%12%20%20%
$100,000 to $149,999 10%27%14%25%23%
$150,000 to $199,999 13%17%15%17%16%
$200,000 to $299,999 16%12%18%12%13%
Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents
July 6, 2021 - Page 123 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
Acknowledgments
On behalf of NWCCOG, CAST, and the consultants, Wendy Sullivan (WSW Consulting, Inc.) and Melanie Rees (Rees
Consulting, Inc.), we would like to thank all of those individuals who provided time and information, without whom this
research would not have been possible. Information in this report relied on extensive participation from community
members, jurisdictions, and representatives from each county in the study area, regional property managers, boards
of REALTORS® and their members, non-profits, community organizations, school districts, water and utility service
providers, chambers of commerce, tourism districts, and of course the over 4,700 community members that gave
their time to complete the resident survey.
We also extend special thanks to our advisory group which provided valuable input on the structure of each
component of the project. NWCCOG would like to thank their Council for supporting the concept, and each of the key
funding partners to the project: CAST, DOLA and EDA.
COUNTY ADVISORY GROUP REPRESENTATIVES
Kim Bell Williams • Eagle County Housing and Development Authority, Director
Ellen Sassano • Pitkin County, Senior Long Range Planner
Kathi Meyer • Steamboat Springs City Council Member, District II
Amy Priegel • Summit Combined Housing Authority, Executive Director
Tamara Pogue • Summit County Commissioner
Lars Carlson • Telluride Town Council Member, Real estate agent
Keith Riesberg • Winter Park, Town Manager
Introduction | 68July 6, 2021 - Page 124 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021 Introduction | 69
REAL ESTATE AGENTS – FOCUS GROUP
Betsy Laughlin, Eagle County
Kristie DeLay, Grand County
Deb Brynoff, Grand County
Ashley Chod, Pitkin County
John Wade, Routt County
Doug Labor, Routt County
Lars Carlson, San Miguel County
Todd Rankin, Summit County
BOARDS OF REALTORS®
Vail Board of REALTORS®, Eagle County
Grand County Board of REALTORS®, Grand County
Aspen Board of REALTORS®, Pitkin County
Steamboat Springs Board of REALTORS®, Routt County
Telluride Association of REALTORS®, San Miguel County
Summit REALTORS®, Summit County
WATER PROVIDERS
Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Eagle County
Grand County Water & San District #1, Grand County
Winter Park Water & San District, Grand County
Upper Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant, Grand County
City of Aspen Water Department, Pitkin County
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Pitkin County
City of Steamboat, Public Works, Routt County
Mt. Werner Water and Sanitation, Routt County
Town of Breckenridge Water, Summit County
Upper Blue Sanitation District, Summit County
CHAMBERS & TOURISM DISTRICTS
Vail Valley Partnership, Eagle County
Steamboat Springs Chamber, Routt County
Telluride Tourism Board, San Miguel County
Summit Chamber of Commerce, Summit County
Breckenridge Grand Vacations, Summit County
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Eagle Schools, Eagle County
East Grand Schools, Grand County
Aspen School District, Pitkin County
Steamboat Springs School District, Routt County
Telluride Schools, San Miguel County
Summit Schools, Summit County
NON-PROFITS & OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Grand Foundation, Grand County
Summit Foundation, Summit County
St. Anthony Summit Medical Center, Summit County
Family & Intercultural Resource Center, Summit County
Telluride Arts District, San Miguel County
Telluride Foundation, San Miguel County
Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, Pitkin County
Aspen Institute, Pitkin County
Aspen Music Festival and School, Pitkin County
United Way, Routt County
DESTIMETRICS VISITOR DATA COMPILATION
Tom Foley, Inntopia Business Intelligence
INTERVIEWS, SURVEY OUTREACH ASSISTANCE, & LOCAL DATA SUPPORT
July 6, 2021 - Page 125 of 210
The Mountain Migration Report • 2021
NWCCOG .org • 970.468.0295 • P.O. Box 2308 • Silverthorne, CO 80498
COSKITOWNS.COM • P.O. Box 3823 • Dillon, CO 80435
For PDF copies of this report visit nwccog.org or coskitowns.com, to request hard copies contact office@nwccog.org.
ALPINE AREA AGENCY ON AGING
July 6, 2021 - Page 126 of 210
VAIL LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
2021 SEMI-ANNUAL HOUSING UPDATE JULY 6, 2021
July 6, 2021 - Page 127 of 210
VAIL LOCAL
HOUSING
AUTHORITY
Steve Lindstrom, Chairman
Mary McDougall
Greg Moffet
Molly Morales
James Wilkins
July 6, 2021 - Page 128 of 210
MEASURING HOUSING
Completed Actions Identified in the Vail
Housing 2027 Strategic Plan
Deed Restriction Acquisition
Evaluate dedicated deed-restriction
acquisition revenue sources to ensure
adequate funding exists –ongoing
Implementing the Vail InDEED
program –19 total applications
processed in 2021 of which 15 were
approved for purchase (79%)
Facilitated the acquisition of a total of
10 new deed restrictions in Year 2021
Land Use Tools
Performance Measurements
July 6, 2021 - Page 129 of 210
MEASURING HOUSING
Completed Actions Identified in the Vail Town
Council 2018 -2020 Action Plan
Actively pursuing regional collaboration and
partnerships toward increasing the supply of
housing within Vail and the region in keeping with
the 2018 Housing Policy Statements (Alternate
Housing Sites Initiative, CDoT Parcel, Eagle-Vail
Parcel, Maliot Park, Avon Deed Restriction
Purchase Program) –ongoing
Convene the Vail Housing Subcommittee (meets
monthly) –ongoing
July 6, 2021 - Page 130 of 210
2021
INITIATIVES
AND ACTIONS
Vail InDEED program implementations and acquisitions -$2.5M
funded 2021, plus rollover from 2020
Update existing deed-restricted property data base –$10K
funded
Update and amend the fee in lieu calculation to represent cost of
construction and adoption of residential linkage –to be complete
in third quarter of 2021
Create a Housing Overlay District that allows for increased density
–in-house
Evaluate the effectiveness of the EHU Exchange Program and adjust
as needed –in-house
Evaluate potential housing development sites within the Town of Vail
and down valley –in-house and $30K funded
Leading the seven-step alternative housing sites initiative aimed at
achieving multiple Town adopted housing and environmental
stewardship goals –five -year plan for action –ongoing
July 6, 2021 - Page 131 of 210
2021
INITIATIVES
AND ACTIONS
Overseeing the adoption of a final development agreement with
Triumph Development for Lot 3, Middle Creek and Timber Ridge
Village Apartments -ongoing
Facilitating the entitlement process for residential development on
Lot 3, Middle Creek –completed
Engaged in preliminary discussions with regional partners on
potential future housing development sites both in town and down
valley -ongoing
Launched an internal Town Employee home purchase program
including the sale of the first home within the program at B212,
Homestake at Vail Condominiums. Since inception four additional
homes has been acquired (5137 Black Gore Drive, Altair Vail Inn, Vail
Heights and Brooktree C113) -completed
Facilitated the sale of two Chamonix Vail Townhomes at 2387 and
2373 Lower Traverse Way
Implementation and advancement of the 2018 Housing Policy
Statements -ongoing
Active participation with the Vail Local Housing Authority in the
formulation of the West Vail Master Plan, Housing Element –
ongoing
July 6, 2021 - Page 132 of 210
2021 VAIL INDEED YTD
8 Homes
Total Dollar Amount Funded for Investment in 2021: $607,635
($2,500,000 Appropriated)
($1,882,354 remaining balances of 6/30/2021)
Total Dollar Amount Invested YTD 2021: $607,635
Total Offer Pending: six totaling $635,400 as of 6/30/2021
Estimated Total Number of Vail Residents Provided Housing in 2021: 28 residents
July 6, 2021 - Page 133 of 210
MAKING
PROGRESS: VAIL
HOUSING 2027
STRATEGIC PLAN
GOAL TO
ACQUIRE 1,000
NEW DEED
RESTRICTIONS BY
THE YEAR 2027
Since the adoption of the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic
Plan, as of December 22, 2020, the Town of Vail, in
collaboration with the Vail Local Housing Authority,
has increased the total number of recorded deed
restrictions by 35.4 % to 932 (+244).
At the current rate of acquisition, it is projected the
Town will reach the housing goal by the 2026.
The Residences at Main Vail under way.
July 6, 2021 - Page 134 of 210
MAKING PROGRESS…AND PLATEAUING
July 6, 2021 - Page 135 of 210
WHAT’S NOT
UNDER WAY?
WHY DID WE
MISS THESE
OPPORTUNITIES?
The former Roost development site
July 6, 2021 - Page 136 of 210
WHAT’S NOT
UNDER WAY?
WHY DID WE
MISS THESE
OPPORTUNITIES?
Highline, a DoubleTree by Hilton
July 6, 2021 - Page 137 of 210
WHAT’S NOT
UNDER WAY?
WHY DID WE
MISS THESE
OPPORTUNITIES?
Residences at Main Vail
July 6, 2021 - Page 138 of 210
WHAT’S NOT
UNDER WAY?
WHY DID WE
MISS THESE
OPPORTUNITIES?
West Middle Creek site
July 6, 2021 - Page 139 of 210
WHAT’S NOT
UNDER WAY?
WHY DID WE
MISS THESE
OPPORTUNITIES?
Cascade Tennis Courts (housing plus potential Children’s Garden of
Learning replacement site)
July 6, 2021 - Page 140 of 210
WHAT WE’RE
HEARING
Put eggs in the West Vail master
planning basket
Pursue housing west of Dowd
Junction
July 6, 2021 - Page 141 of 210
WHAT YOUR VAIL
LOCAL HOUSING
AUTHORITY WANTS
TO GET DONE
BREAKING DOWN
BARRIERS AND
GETTING TO A
CULTURE OF ‘YES’
July 6, 2021 - Page 142 of 210
HOUSING IS
INFRASTRUCTURE
July 6, 2021 - Page 143 of 210
HOUSING PARTNERS
PRIVATE SECTOR
IMPORTANCE
BREAK DOWN
BARRIERS
PEOPLE PROMOTE
COMMUNITY
July 6, 2021 - Page 144 of 210
WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO LOOK FORWARD?
July 6, 2021 - Page 145 of 210
OUR INSPIRATION
“I knew there was only one way –work at it.”
Pete Seibert, Vail: The Triumph of a Dream
Vail’s New Dawn
July 6, 2021 - Page 146 of 210
WHAT WE ARE
LOOKING FOR FROM
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
Direct Town Manager to bring
forward West Middle Creek
proposal
Direct Town Manager to
initiate discussion/negotiation
with Cascade Tennis Courts
site developer to form public-
private partnership to
develop
July 6, 2021 - Page 147 of 210
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C : Update on Voter Opinion S urvey Regarding Housing and Year-Round Marketing
I nitiatives
P RE S E NT E R(S ): Patty McKenny, Assistant Town Manager and D avid F laherty, Magellan
S trategies
AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC IL : R eview and provide direction on funding options to
test in upcoming voter opinion survey
B AC K G RO UND: T he Town of Vail has engaged Magellan S trategies and Summit I nf o S ervices
to assist in facilitating community outreach meetings to gather feedback and opinions about the
town’s housing and marketing ef f orts. T he f indings, which were presented to Town C ouncil on
J une 1, are being used to develop a voter opinion survey to test reaction to various funding
scenarios to help determine whether to include related taxing questions as part of the Vail
Municipal E lection in November which will be coordinated with E agle County.
AT TAC H ME N TS :
Description
Memo
Presentation
July 6, 2021 - Page 148 of 210
To: Vail Town Council
From: Patty McKenny, Assistant Town Manager
Kathleen Halloran, Finance Director
George Ruther, Housing Director
Mia Vlaar, Economic Development Director
Date: July 6, 2021
Subject: Discussion of Voter Opinion Survey Regarding Housing and Year-Round Marketing
Initiatives
I. BACKGROUND
The Town of Vail has engaged Magellan Strategies and Summit Info Services to assist in
facilitating community outreach meetings to gather feedback and opinions about the town’s
housing and marketing efforts as well as opportunities to address additional funding sources.
Initial findings were presented to Town Council on June 1, 2021 and yielded important insights
and opinions. Overall, support for the town’s direction and general plans for year-round
marketing was strong. Although there are different opinions about funding solutions, mostly
about housing, there is unanimous, widespread support for the town’s effort to address these
critical issues. 6-1-21 Town Council Presentation
Messages that have resonated most strongly during the outreach meetings include the
following:
Housing
• The shortage of long-term rental and homeownership opportunities in the Vail
community is a public crisis. This housing crisis is eroding the quality of life in Vail. It is
limiting and reducing the number of restaurants, shops, bars, and small businesses in
the community. The housing crisis is driving Vail’s highly trained, experienced, and
valued workforce to other mountain resort communities.
• Over the past several years the Vail Town Council and the Vail Local Housing Authority
have had success providing long-term rental and homeownership housing opportunities
for Vail residents. These successes include Chamonix Vail Townhomes, Vail InDeed, 6
West Apartments, Residences at Main Vail, Solar Vail Apartments, and future housing at
the Town Shops. A dedicated funding source will help the town achieve more housing
successes like these.
• For the past several years the Town of Vail has allocated approximately $5 million
annually to fund housing initiatives, developments, and programs. The money for these
housing initiatives has come from the Town’s general fund and development mitigation
fees. Although the financial need to address the housing crisis is astronomical, a
dedicated funding source will help implement solutions.
July 6, 2021 - Page 149 of 210
Town of Vail Page 2
• If the housing crisis is not addressed, Vail’s community, businesses, and quality of life
will suffer. Great people make a great community, and our teachers, firefighters, police
officers, and health care professionals need places to live. So does top talent in the
retail, hospitality, and restaurant industry. A dedicated funding source for housing will
help ensure Vail’s community and quality of life is sustained.
Marketing
• The Town of Vail faces intense competition for tourism dollars from other mountain resort
communities during the winter season, not only during the summer season. Therefore, the
Town’s plan for a year-round marketing effort is justified and needed.
• Vail hotel occupancy rates have been flat for the past ten years and declined
significantly in the two seasons before the coronavirus. An increase in the lodging tax
will help the Town optimize occupancy on a year-round basis and support local
businesses.
• An increase in the lodging tax would allow for more marketing dollars to be available to
increase tourism, especially during lower demand time periods, thereby boosting Vail’s
local businesses and the job market year-round.
II. VOTER OPINION SURVEY
With support from Town Council, the consultant team has been preparing a voter opinion
survey which will be distributed later this month to probe opinions from registered voters about
the topics of housing and year-round marketing. David Flaherty from Magellan Strategies will
lead a discussion with Town Council to review and determine funding options to be tested in
the survey to help determine decisions about possible ballot questions for the Town of Vail
Regular Election in November 2021. To date, no determinations have been made. These
include:
Possible Funding Options for Housing Solutions
Option 1 – Sales Tax Increase
A sales tax increase of 0.5% that is estimated to raise $3.5 million annually.
Option 2 – Property Tax Increase
A property tax increase of 1 mil that is estimated to raise $1.3 million annually. The 1 mil
increase would cost a homeowner $290 a year annually on a home with an assessed value of
$1 million.
Option 3 – Construction Use Tax Increase
A construction use tax increase of 1% from 4% to 5%. The 1% increase would generate
approximately $500,000 annually and is assessed on construction projects with a valuation of
over $10,000. The tax is assessed on 50% of the valuation, intended to be charged on
purchases of materials, not labor costs.
Option 4 – Short-Term Rental Tax
A new tax on short-term rental properties, such as homes rented through Airbnb and VRBO, is
being researched by staff. Alternatively, an annual fee on the short-term rentals could be
assessed. Either source could generate approximately $1.5 million per year. An additional fee
does not require voter approval.
July 6, 2021 - Page 150 of 210
Town of Vail Page 3
Funding for Year-Round Marketing
Option 1 – Lodging Tax Increase
Increase the current lodging tax from 1.4% to 2.8%. The additional 1.4% lodging tax increase is
estimated to raise $3.5 million annually for the purpose of year-round marketing. The current
lodging tax funds marketing from May-October and is managed by the Vail Local Marketing
District.
Option 1+ – Lodging Tax Increase/Special Events
Increase the current lodging tax from 1.4% to 3.6%. The additional lodging tax increase would
include the year-round marketing described above plus provide an estimated $2 million per year
for special events, which are currently allocated from the General Fund.
III. NEXT STEPS
Week of July 5 – Finalize survey
Week of July 12 – Publicize and launch survey with 7-to 10-day data collection and related
follow up
Week of July 26 – Tabulate results
August 3 – Presentation of results to Town Council
IV. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL
Review and provide direction on funding options to test in upcoming voter opinion survey.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Presentation
July 6, 2021 - Page 151 of 210
Town of Vail | Finance | 7/6/2021
Vail Ballot | Survey
Town of Vail is conducting a survey for a possible ballot
issue this November:
•Housing
•Year-round marketing
July 6, 2021 - Page 152 of 210
Town of Vail | Finance | 7/6/2021
Vail Ballot Survey | Housing
Funding to address Vail’s housing crisis:
Option #1: Sales tax increase of 0.5% would raise $3.5 million per year. Cost
to public is 50 cents per $100 purchased.
Option #2: A property tax increase of 1 mil would raise $1.3 million per year.
Cost to homeowner is $290 per year on a home with assessed value of $1.0
million.
Option #3: A 1% increase in the Construction Use Tax from 4% to 5%. The
1% increase would raise approximately $500,000 per year. This tax is
charged on construction projects over $10,000, and is assessed on 50% of
the project valuation.
Option #4: A 5.0% tax or a fee on short term rentals would raise approx.
$1.5 million annually.
July 6, 2021 - Page 153 of 210
Town of Vail | Finance | 7/6/2021
Vail Ballot Survey | Marketing
Funding to address the need for year-round marketing:
Option #1: An increase to the current lodging tax from 1.4% to 2.8% would raise
approximately $3.0 million annually. The additional tax would fund year-round
marketing efforts as the current tax funds marketing efforts May –October.
Option #1+: An increase to the current lodging tax from 1.4% to 3.6% would
include the year-round marketing above, plus provide an estimated $2.0 million
per year for special events funding which are currently allocated from the
General Fund.
July 6, 2021 - Page 154 of 210
Town of Vail | Finance | 7/6/2021
Vail Ballot Survey | Feedback
Questions for Town Council:
•What funding options to test in voter survey?
July 6, 2021 - Page 155 of 210
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C : E dwards Northstar Center P UD Amendment
P RE S E NT E R(S ): C raig Cohn, Chief Real Estate D evelopment Officer, and C hris L indley, Chief
P opulation Health Officer and Executive Director of Eagle Valley B ehavioral Health
AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC IL : Town of Vail support of proposed Edwards Northstar
Center P UD A mendment to Eagle County B oard of C ounty Commissioners
B AC K G RO UND: Vail Health is proposing a comprehensive community health campus on the
Northstar Center property it owns in Edwards, C olo. S erving those needing pediatric, adolescent
and adult physical and oral healthcare. A short-term, inpatient behavioral health f acility would be a
new building as a part of the campus, serving f ellow community members needing behavioral
health care f ocused on the most common disorders: anxiety/depression disorders; mood
disorders; family therapy; and substance use disorders.
AT TAC H ME N TS :
Description
Community Pr esentation
July 6, 2021 - Page 156 of 210
Edwards Northstar Center PUD Amendment
Chris Lindley
Chief Population Health Officer
Executive Director of Eagle Valley Behavioral Health
Craig Cohn
Chief Real Estate Development Officer
July 6, 2021 - Page 157 of 210
Comprehensive Community Health Campus
●Current community health tenants:
○United Way
○Outpatient Behavioral Health (CMM)
○Eagle Valley Behavioral Health offices
○All other existing leases honored in full
●Proposed Inpatient Behavioral Health Facility:
○Approval of 28-beds for short-term stabilization
care
○Build out 14 beds on the second floor, with
space to expand on the 3rd floor if needed
●Potential future tenants:
○Eagle County, Public Health
○Mountain Family Health Center
○Other health services
○Other community non-profits
July 6, 2021 - Page 158 of 210
Inpatient Behavioral Health Facility
1st floor:
●Security desk, administrative offices, kitchen
●Social Detox (~500 sq. ft.):
○Voluntary; Individuals have not broken the law
○Not a drug rehabilitation facility
○Safe place to sober up
○Estimated less than 3 individuals per week
○Avg. length of stay less than 8 hours
○Discharged to family members or transported home
2nd Floor
●14 inpatient beds for those over 12 years old needing
short-term stabilization
○M1 holds; Individuals in crisis
○Not a long-term mental health facility
○Avg. length of say 3-5 days
○Discharged to family members with a treatment plan
in place
3rd Floor
●Available for expansion of patient beds or for future
community health needs
Not a drug rehabilitation facility or long-term mental health institution
July 6, 2021 - Page 159 of 210
Commonly asked questions
Traffic:
●Minimal increase in traffic
●Will use existing entrance/exit to campus
●No adverse effects on Spur Rd./roundabout
Noise:
●Very minimal ongoing day/night noise as the
facility is built to the highest inpatient standards
●No siren noise used during patient transport
Lighting:
●Basic interior lighting and exterior down-lighting
●No ambulance lights used during transport
Landscaping & Fencing:
●Expected evergreen and aspen landscaping
●No finalized plans for fencing
July 6, 2021 - Page 160 of 210
●Expand allowable land uses to emphasize health care
●Allows for development of new behavioral health facility
●Allows for future redevelopment/expansion of two existing buildings
●Set maximum size for future development that also accounts for utility/access support to
match the future size
PUD Amendment Requests
July 6, 2021 - Page 161 of 210
Who will be using this campus?
Children, Adolescents and Adults
●Anxiety / Depression (85%)
●Mood Disorders
●Family Therapy
●Substance Use 95% Community
Members
5% Non-residents
July 6, 2021 - Page 162 of 210
Why this location in Edwards?
●Centrally located in the Valley
●The largest population center in the County
●Easy access right off of I-70
●Vehicle access and utilities are in place
●Currently zoned for commercial usage
●A currently developed site
●Vail Health owns the land
July 6, 2021 - Page 163 of 210
Patient safety & security is our top priority
●24/7 facility lockdown
●24/7 security on-site
●Patients are transported to the facility by paramedics with no lights or sirens
●Every patient is pre-screened before being accepted into the facility (NO ED)
●Patients will not be walking around outside
●All patients will be released/discharged to a family member or caretaker
●All patients will leave with a care plan
●Seriously ill patients are cared for at the Vail Hospital ER and Intensive Care Unit
●Studies show a decrease in crime in areas with access to mental health facilities
July 6, 2021 - Page 164 of 210
Questions, Answers, and Discussion
July 6, 2021 - Page 165 of 210
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C : Retail S pace C onversions-Policy Discussion
P RE S E NT E R(S ): Erik Gates, Planner
AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC IL : No action is requested of the Vail Town C ouncil for this
item.
B AC K G RO UND: D uring the J une 15, 2021 Town Council meeting, the C ouncil expressed
concern over the loss of retail and other commercial space within Vail Village due to the conversion
of these spaces to residential uses. T he Vail Town Council requested that S taff look into the past
trends of commercial to residential conversions in the village in order to help f acilitate a policy
discussion.
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: Discussion only, no action recommended.
AT TAC H ME N TS :
Description
Commercial to R esidential C onversions Staff Memorandum
[Attachment A] Maps of C onversion Locations
July 6, 2021 - Page 166 of 210
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 6, 2021
SUBJECT: Commercial to Residential Conversions Within Vail Village
I. SUMMARY
During the June 15, 2021 Town Council meeting, the Council expressed concern over
the loss of retail and other commercial space within Vail Village due to the conversion
of these spaces to residential uses. The Vail Town Council requested that Staff look
into the past trends of commercial to residential conversions in the village in order to
help facilitate a policy discussion at the next regularly scheduled Town Council
meeting.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Within Vail Village there are four (4) commercial zone districts, these are: Public
Accommodation (PA), Commercial Core 1 (CC1), Commercial Core 2 (CC2), and
Commercial Service Center (CSC). None of these zone districts allow single-family or
two-family residential uses.
The Public Accommodation (PA) zone district does not allow multi-family uses and
instead only allows residential units as part of a lodge. As defined in the Vail Town
Code, lodges require that less than 30% of the total GRFA on site be devoted to
dwelling units, thereby significantly limiting the amount of residential possible for this
use.
The Commercial Core 1 (CC1) and Commercial Core 2 (CC2) zone districts account for
the highest number of lots within Vail Village and have the same residential use
allowances. Both districts allow lodges as a permitted use on all floors. Both districts
also allow multi-family as a permitted use on the second floor and above and as a
conditional use on the basement level, essentially removing residential uses from the
street and pedestrian level.
The Commercial Service Center (CSC) zone district allows lodges and multi-family
residential uses, but only as conditional uses meaning these would require specific
review from the Planning and Environmental Commission.
July 6, 2021 - Page 167 of 210
Town of Vail Page 2
In addition, while a special development district (SDD) can modify the required
development standards on a lot or lots, the permitted, conditional, and accessory uses
of any SDD are limited to those allowed by the underlying zone district.
Finally, the Vail Village Master Plan emphasizes the intention for commercial uses to be
the primary activity on the street level. Policy 2.4.1, states: “Commercial infill
development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be
encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and
streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village.” The
horizontal zoning regulations referenced in this policy are reflected in the Commercial
Core 1 & 2 zone districts which, with the exception of lodge and EHU uses, only allow
retail and restaurant as permitted uses on the street level.
III. BACKGROUND
Staff has conducted a search of past development applications and public board
approvals for properties within the Vail Village area. While the quality of these records
is not always perfect the further back in time one looks, it is apparent that commercial
to residential conversions are rare. Only 4 of these conversions could be identified,
with all 4 of them being found within SDD #6, Vail Village Inn. The approximate
location of these conversions can be found on the map provided in Attachment A.
In 1989, the Vail Village Plaza Condos converted a unit primarily on the second and
third floors from commercial to residential.
In 2003, 700 square feet of restaurant space along with 1,432 square feet of new
GRFA was turned into a residential unit all on the second floor of the Vail Village
Plaza Condos. This appears to have only been a reduction in commercial restaurant
space previously used by the Alpenrose, and not the conversion of an entire
commercial unit.
In 2005, Unit 29 and a portion of Unit 17 in the Vail Village Plaza Condos was
converted from a retail use to a residential unit. The only first floor residential use was
an entryway accessed on the northeast end of the building.
In 2008, a portion of Unit 602 in the Village Inn Plaza, located in the northeast corner
of the front building, was converted into additional residential space. As part of this
approval, Council required a deed restriction and the installation of an accessibility lift
near Osaki’s.
Finally, there are occasions where a commercial use has been replaced by a mix of
commercial and residential uses as part of a redevelopment. An example of this can
be seen with the replacement of a gas station with the Vail Gateway building.
July 6, 2021 - Page 168 of 210
Town of Vail Page 3
However, as these redevelopments ultimately result in an increase of commercial
units, they were ignored for the purposes of this discussion.
III. ACTION REQUESTED
No action is requested or required on the part of the Town Council as part of this
discussion.
IV. ATTACHMENTS
A. Maps of Conversion Locations
July 6, 2021 - Page 169 of 210
Last Modified: June 30, 2021
This map was created by the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.
The Town of Vail Does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained herein.
(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Vail Village Overview
Approximate Conversion Locations
July 6, 2021 - Page 170 of 210
Last Modified: June 30, 2021
This map was created by the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.
The Town of Vail Does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained herein.
(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Vail Village Zoning
July 6, 2021 - Page 171 of 210
Last Modified: June 30, 2021
This map was created by the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.
The Town of Vail Does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained herein.
(where shown, parcel line work is approximate)
Vail Village Inn Approximate
Conversion Locations
July 6, 2021 - Page 172 of 210
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C : Commercial S ki S torage P olicy D iscussion
P RE S E NT E R(S ): J onathan Spence, P lanning Manager
AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC IL : L isten to presentation and ask questions.
B AC K G RO UND: T he purpose of this work session is to update the Vail Town C ouncil regarding
the Town’s policy concerning the regulation of commercial ski storage, ski valet and ski concierge
services.
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: P rovide f eedback.
AT TAC H ME N TS :
Description
Staff Memor andum
July 6, 2021 - Page 173 of 210
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 6, 2021
SUBJECT: Commercial Ski Storage Work Session
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this worksession is to update the Vail Town Council regarding the
Town’s policy concerning the regulation of commercial ski storage, ski valet and ski
concierge services. Staff has encouraged a policy that is focused on the following
elements:
• Guest Service consistent with the Vail brand;
• Considerate to existing and future business models;
• Considerate of the aesthetic expectations of our guests and residents;
• Considerate of pedestrian and vehicular safety; and
• A policy that is fair, consistent, understandable and easily enforceable.
In 2018 staff worked with Jeff Babb of Vail Resorts and Alison Wadey of the Vail
Chamber and Business Association to complete minor amendments to the Vail Town
Code that further facilitated the elements of the policy. The Town have also worked
previously with a group of ski shop owners and managers to obtain input on the issues
relating to ski storage. The purpose of the amendments was to:
• Provide further clarification as to what is, and is not, considered
commercial ski storage; and
• A clarification regarding ski storage that is part of a lodge or dwelling unit.
It is our belief that those changes, although minor, provided the needed clarifications
regarding what does and does not constitute commercial ski storage while allowing the
continuation of services consistent with guest expectations and the Vail brand.
July 6, 2021 - Page 174 of 210
Town of Vail Page 2
II. BACKGROUND
On August 1, 2017, the Community Development Department presented a report to the
Town Council on Commercial Ski Storage to engage the Council in a discussion
regarding the Town’s policy concerning commercial ski storage, ski valet and ski
concierge services. At the end of the discussion, Town Council supported the creation
of a Task Force consisting of business owners and managers in Vail’s ski and lodging
industry, and Town staff. The mission of the Task Force was to study this issue in
greater detail, and provide feedback to the Town Council on amendments that may be
needed to the Town’s current regulations.
Fourteen members of the local ski and lodging industry signed up for the Task Force,
and several others contacted the Community Development Department after the August
1, 2017 meeting, expressing interest in participating. Following are members of the
Task Force that attended at least one of these meetings:
Chris Cremer Intrawest / Ski Haus
Jeff Evans Christy Sports
Jeff Babb Vail Resorts
Marco Valenti Vail Resorts Retail
Scott Gubrud Four Seasons
Brent Martin Four Seasons
Jacob Bangston Sebastian Base Camp
Jay Lucas Ski Base
Tom Neyens Ski Valet
Zack Meyers Arrabelle
Tom Higgins American Ski Exchange
Chris Howe Ski Butlers / Antlers
Alison Wadey Vail Chamber and Business Association
Jenn Bruno Vail Town Council
Kevin Foley Vail Town Council
Task Force meetings were held on August 18, August 23, and August 25, 2017. Based
on input from the Task Force at these meetings, and tours of the some of the
participating businesses, the Community Development Department and the Task Force
developed recommendations for the Town Council to consider.
On September 5, 2017, the Community Development Department and Task Force
presented their recommendations to the Town Council. The Town Council supported
the recommendations, and directed staff to begin to draft text amendments to
implement the changes.
On September 11, 2017, the Community Development Department presented the
Commercial Ski Storage Task Force’s recommendations to the PEC. The PEC
requested more time to review specific code language, and requested that this topic
return for further discussion.
July 6, 2021 - Page 175 of 210
Town of Vail Page 3
On September 25, 2017, the Community Development Department presented the
Commercial Ski Storage Task Force’s recommendations to the PEC. The PEC
requested site visits to several of the ski shops, ski valet services and ski clubs
impacted by these regulations. A tour of these properties was scheduled for October 9,
2017 as part of the PEC meeting.
On October 9, 2017 the Planning and Environmental Commission further reviewed the
proposed recommendations of the Task Force, expressing concerns with the proposed
changes and possible unintended consequences, particularly as related to expanding
allowable commercial ski storage to building levels other than the basement/garden
levels and the placement of ski racks within pedestrian or other established easements.
III. RECENTLY ADOPTED CODE LANGUAGE
Based upon the concerns expressed by the PEC and in further discussions and
coordination with the Vail Resorts and the Vail Chamber and Business Association, a
decision was made not to expand permitted locations for commercial ski storage and to
not codify the relationship between ski racks and pedestrian or other easements. This
decision reflected considerable concerns related to the unintended consequences of
expanding allowable locations for commercial ski storage and the business community’s
long reliance on the existing regulations. It was determined that the use of existing
regulations related to Outdoor Storage and the examination of any conflicting
easements was best done on an individual basis.
In an effort to provide the community, retailers and code enforcement with a better
understanding of what does and does not constitute commercial ski storage, staff, Vail
Resorts and the Vail Chamber and Business Association recommend the following
additional language be added to the definition section (Section 12-2-2) of the Vail Town
Code. This additional language was approved and codified by the Town Council via
Ordinance 14, Series of 2018. New language enacted is shown in bold, below.
COMMERCIAL SKI STORAGE/SKI CLUB: Storage for equipment (skis, snowboards,
boots and poles) and/or clothing used in skiing related sports, which is available to the
public or members, operated by a business, club or government organization, and
where a fee is charged for hourly, daily, monthly, seasonal or annual usage. This use
may have, but does not require, the following components:
A. Personal lockers,
B. Boot dryers,
C. Ski storage racks,
D. Ski tuning,
July 6, 2021 - Page 176 of 210
Town of Vail Page 4
E. Food and beverage service,
F. Areas for congregation and/or socializing,
G. Restrooms and/or shower facilities,
H. Nonwinter activities,
I. Concierge ski services,
J. Retail sales,
K. Business center.
Ski storage that is part of a lodge, or dwelling unit, in which a fee is not charged and is
located within the lodge or dwelling unit, is not considered commercial ski
storage/ski club.
The following activities, when accessory to a retail operation, shall not be
considered ski storage:
A. The outdoor display of skis or skiing related equipment that is available
for sale, available for rent, rented or recently serviced. Outdoor display
is subject to requirements of Section 12-14-21: OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF
GOODS.
B. The indoor storage, on levels of a building other than the basement or
garden level, of skis or skiing related equipment that is available for
sale, available for rent, rented from the same business or recently
serviced.
IV. EXISTING LOCATIONS WHERE ALLOWED
Commercial Ski Storage/Ski Clubs is a regulated use in the Town of Vail that is
permitted only in the basement or garden level and only in the following zone districts:
• Commercial Core 1
• Lionshead Mixed Use 1
• Lionshead Mixed Use 2
• Ski Base /Recreation 2
And shown on the map below:
July 6, 2021 - Page 177 of 210
Town of Vail Page 5
V. NEXT STEPS
Following the worksession with the Town Council, staff will follow up with any requests
for additional information or action concerning Commercial Ski Storage/Ski Clubs.
July 6, 2021 - Page 178 of 210
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C : Current Capital P roject Update
P RE S E NT E R(S ): Tom K assmel Town E ngineer Greg Hall Director of Public Works and
Transportation
AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC IL : P rovide any f eedback or questions f or staff.
B AC K G RO UND:
T he Town of Vail has multiple large-scale capital projects that are on-going. S taff is prepared to
provide an update on the evolving status of the following projects:
· South F rontage Road Roundabout P roject
· C hildren’s G arden of Learning Relocation P roject
· D onovan P avilion
· Public Works S hop Project
S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N: S taff is available f or questions.
AT TAC H ME N TS :
Description
Staff memom 070621
July 6, 2021 - Page 179 of 210
To: Town Council
From: Public Works Department
Date: July 6, 2021
Subject: Capital Projects Update
I. SUMMARY
The Town of Vail has multiple large-scale capital projects that are on-going. Staff is
prepared to provide an update on the evolving status of the following projects:
South Frontage Road Roundabout Project
Children’s Garden of Learning Relocation Project
Donovan Pavilion
Public Works Shop Project
South Frontage Road Roundabout Project
www.vailgov.com/roundaboutproject
The Vail South Frontage Road Roundabout Project includes the construction of a new
two-lane roundabout just west of the Town Municipal Building and Vail Health. The
project also includes extending the existing four lane roadway section with landscape
medians, and sidewalks, from the Town Municipal Building west to the Lionshead
parking Structure. The project will provide increased capacity for traffic flowing from the
Vail Town Center Roundabout to the Lionshead parking structure while accommodating
the increased traffic volumes at the new Vail Health South Frontage Road entrance and
anticipating future growth and redevelopment within the Lionshead area.
Construction began on April 12 and has run into schedule delays due to utility conflicts.
The project is currently in Phase I and will move into an interim Phase 1A by mid-July
prior to moving fully into Phase II in mid-August. Phase 1A will allow the contractor to
work on both sides of the road to accelerate the delayed schedule. Anticipated
substantial completion is by the end of October with final completion of Landscape likely
in the spring of 2022.
July 6, 2021 - Page 180 of 210
Town of Vail Page 2
Phase I (April to Mid-July): Includes the project’s most impactful work to access points
and adjacent properties. Work within this phase includes the eastbound traffic lanes, the
southern sidewalk, southern retaining wall, utilities, and the southern access points
Phase IA (Mid-July to Mid-August): Includes completion of retaining wall work and south
sidewalk (Phase I work) and the start of work on the westbound lanes and utilities
(Phase II work). Traffic will shift to the south lanes from Vail Health to the Evergreen
and then shift back to the north lanes in front of the Vail International.
Phase II (Mid-August to September): Includes the project’s less impactful work and
minimizes impacts to access points and adjacent properties. Work within this phase
includes the construction of the westbound lanes, northern sidewalk, and utilities.
Phase III (October): Includes the project’s final completion with median work, final tie-
ins, and final asphalt surfacing.
Phase IV (Spring 2022): Includes landscaping ad final punch list work.
Work is expected to continue six days a week with the option to work seven days a
week as necessary and as approved. Night work is not expected but may be
accommodated if necessary.
In general, each phase of construction will continue to maintain an open travel lane in
each direction throughout the project. However, there may be short durations of
alternating single lane traffic during critical phases of the work. All access points to
public and private properties will be maintained at all times. While work is being
completed on access points, public access may be detoured to temporary access
drives.
As a reminder please slow down through the construction zone.
Children’s Garden of Learning Relocation Project
The Children’s Garden of Learning Relocation Project includes the construction of a
new ~5000 square foot modular construction facility on the Lionshead Oversize Parking
Lot, in order to relocate the Children’s Garden of Learning from Middle Creek Lot 3 to
allow for the development of employee housing.
MW Golden Constructors began construction on May 31, six weeks later than the
original anticipated construction start. This was directly related to not receiving any
general contractor bids and the required time to negotiate a contract with MW Golden.
The project is generally on schedule with an anticipated completion date of September
23. The anticipated date for the arrival of the modulars is the last week of July into the
first week of August. Following the completion of the site and building, the state of
Colorado will be required to complete a childcare licensing inspection and approval.
Upon successful completion of the licensing process the childcare may open in its new
location. The anticipated first day of childcare in the new location is ~October 4.
July 6, 2021 - Page 181 of 210
Town of Vail Page 3
Donovan Pavilion
The Donovan Pavilion remodel and addition included expansion to the kitchen,
mechanical system, storage room and the addition of a shared office space, pre-
function (bride’s room). In addition, interior finishes are being updated with new carpet,
furnishings, and light fixtures. The Pavilion has hosted all the events which were
scheduled while final work items have been completed around these events. The light
fixture will be changed out in the next couple of weeks again working around the
scheduled events.
Public Works Shop Project
The public works shop project began in April with first the temporary re-location of the
public works staff and equipment and the demolition of the old streets shop building
occurring shortly thereafter. The existing electrical room and electrical service were
relocated and a new service was installed to accommodate the demolition. The project
has completed all the foundation pours, erection of the elevator shaft and steel delivery
for the project has begun, the steel erection is to begin on July 6th.
The work on the shop yard expansion started on June 1st per the requirements of
Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife. This work includes the construction of
rockfall protection berm, the construction of retaining wall up to 22’ high and subsequent
drainage and yard improvements. The yard will be expanded by nearly 1 acre once the
project is completed.
The contractor due to longer lead times on many products has advanced the
procurement of many of the supplies in order to stay on schedule. This included all the
solar panels for the project being purchased in April of this year, due to supply change
issues, increased demand and to avoid the price increases from suppliers.
Both phases of the project are on schedule, the occupation of the shop building is slated
for December 1.
July 6, 2021 - Page 182 of 210
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C : D R B / P E C Update
P RE S E NT E R(S ): J onathan Spence, P lanning Manager
AT TAC H ME N TS :
Description
June 16, 2021 D R B Meeting Results
June 28, 2021 P E C Meeting Cancelled
July 6, 2021 - Page 183 of 210
D E S IG N R E V IE W B O AR D
June 16, 2021, 3:00 P M
Virtual
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
1.C all to Order
1.1.Register in advance for this webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_xA P RvX H9S7qy 9hu8Xr-Zjw
After registering, you will rec eive a confirmation email c ontaining information
about joining the webinar.
1.2.Attendance
Present: J ohn Rediker, Kit Austin, D oug Cahill, Peter C ope
Absent: None
2.Main Agenda
2.1.D R B 21-0131 - Abieur C orporation
Final review of an addition
Address/Legal Desc ription: 360 East Lionshead Circle Unit 2/Lot 6, Bloc k 1,
Vail Lionshead Filing 2
Applicant: Abieur Corporation, represented by K H W ebb Arc hitects
Planner: Erik Gates
1. Future exterior alterations at this property shall be designed in
acc ordance to sheet A.200 dated 6/15/2021. A ny proposed alterations
to this approved design shall require D RB review and approval.
J ohn Rediker moved to approve with conditions. Peter Cope seconded the
motion and it passed (4-0).
2.2.D R B 21-0185 - Four S easons
Final review of an exterior alteration (windows/deck/hot tub)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 1 Vail Road/Lot A-C, Vail Village Filing 2
Applicant: E X Vail LLC E xtell D evelopment, represented by Larry Deckard
Arc hitect
Planner: Erik Gates
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit
plans that show trim around the windows and doors that matc h the
existing thickness and color on the building.
J ohn Rediker moved to approve with conditions. Peter Cope seconded the
motion and it passed (4-0).
July 6, 2021 - Page 184 of 210
2.3.D R B 21-0205 - Fenley Residence
Final review of an exterior alteration (reroof)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 4788 Meadow Lane/Lot 4, B lock 7, Bighorn
Subdivision 5th Addition
Applicant: Kathleen & J ohnny Fenley, represented by Lifetime Roof & Solar
Planner: Erik Gates
J ohn Rediker moved to table to J uly 7, 2021. Peter Cope seconded the
motion and it passed (4-0).
2.4.D R B 21-0214 - Trabold Residence
Final review of an exterior alteration (chimney )
Address/Legal Desc ription: 1345 W esthaven Circle / Lot 50, Glen Lyon
Subdivision
Applicant: Frank & Colleen Trabold, represented by W y att & Associates I nc .
Planner: Erik Gates
J ohn Rediker moved to approve. Peter Cope seconded the motion and it
passed (4-0).
2.5.D R B 21-0136 - J P S S E E agles Nest L L C
Final review of an exterior alteration (patio/hot tub/fire pit)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 1012 Eagles Nest Circle/Lot 2A , Block 6, Vail
Village Filing 7
Applicant: J P S S E Eagles Nest LLC, represented by Fieldsc ape
Planner: J onathan S penc e
J ohn Rediker moved to table to J uly 7, 2021. Peter Cope seconded the
motion and it passed (4-0).
2.6.D R B 21-0143 - Vail Mar riott
Final review of an exterior alteration (fire pits)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 715 W est Lionshead Circ le/W est Day
Subdivision
Applicant: Diamondroc k Vail Owner L LC, represented by Neo Studio
Planner: J onathan S penc e
J ohn Rediker moved to table to J uly 7, 2021. Kit Austin sec onded the motion
and it passed (4-0).
2.7.D R B 21-0199 - Bergey R esidence
Final review of new c onstruc tion
Address/Legal Desc ription: 2417 Chamonix Lane/Lot 20, Bloc k A, Vail Das
Sc hone Filing 1
Applicant: J ohn Bergey, represented by Martin Manley Arc hitects
Planner: J onathan S penc e
1. The applicant shall obtain approval from staff for a revision to the
landsc ape plan to inc lude additional plantings in the landscape strip
July 6, 2021 - Page 185 of 210
between driveways, as discussed at the D RB meeting.
2. I f due to grading operations the two trees in the S W c orner are
removed, the applic ant will apply for a revision to the landsc aping plan
to include adequate tree plantings of 10' or greater, in that loc ation.
J ohn Rediker moved to approve with conditions. Peter Cope seconded the
motion and it passed (4-0).
2.8.D R B 19-0689.001 - Lion's View Development
Final review of a change to approved plans (materials/roof form/GRFA)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 500 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 1 & 3, Blcok 1,
Vail Lionshead Filing 1
Applicant: Lazier Lionshead Parc el L LLC, represented by OZ Arc hitecture
Planner: J onathan S penc e
1. the applicant shall amend the plan set prior to submitting for a building
permit to show the new stucc o areas to be indistinguishable from the
c ast stone in terms of c olor and texture and that the venting to be
c olored to matc h the stucc o siding.
J ohn Rediker moved to approve with conditions. Kit Austin sec onded the
motion and it passed (3-0).
Abstain:(1)C ope
2.9.D R B 21-0115 - E T E L LC
Final review of new c onstruc tion
Address/Legal Desc ription: 4387 Columbine Drive/Lot 1, Bloc k 6, Bighorn
Subdivision 3rd Addition
Applicant: E TE L L C , represented by Epic Design S tudio
Planner: Greg Roy
J ohn Rediker moved to table to J uly 7, 2021. Peter Cope seconded the
motion and it passed (4-0).
2.10.D R B 21-0197 - North Fifth LL C
C onceptual review of an addition
Address/Legal Desc ription: 303 Gore Creek Drive Unit 7/Lot 7, Bloc k 5, Vail
Village Filing 1
Applicant: North Fifth L L C , represented by Berglund A rchitec ts
Planner: Greg Roy
2.11.D R B 20-0328.004 - J C R J S FM LL C
Final review of a change to approved plans (gate/site wall)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 375 Mill Creek Circle / Lot 17, Block 1, Vail
Village Filing 1
Applicant: J C RJ S FM L L C , represented by K H Webb Arc hitects
Planner: Greg Roy
1. The gate change is not approved.
J ohn Rediker moved to approve with conditions. Peter Cope seconded the
July 6, 2021 - Page 186 of 210
motion and it passed (3-1).
Ay es:(3)Rediker, C ahill, Cope
Nay s:(1)Austin
2.12.D R B 20-0462.001 - Lair d R esidence
Final review of a changed to approved plans (scope reduc tion)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 1967 Circ le Drive / Lot 24, B uffehr Creek
Resubdivision
Applicant: Stephen & Rebec ca Laird, represented by Pierce Austin
Arc hitects
Planner: Greg Roy
1. The applicant shall submit a revision for approval with an offset in the
materials between the master bedroom and master bathroom wall.
2. The fascia on the front deck will be brought back to form a bellyband
between the first level and sec ond level.
3. Approval is contingent upon review and approval from the Public
W orks Department.
J ohn Rediker moved to approve with conditions. Peter Cope seconded the
motion and it passed (3-0).
Abstain:(1)Austin
2.13.D R B 21-0233 - Town of Vail
Final review of a new housing development
Address/Legal Desc ription: 129 North Frontage Road W est/Lot 3, Middle
C reek Subdivision Resub Lot 1
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Triumph Development
Planner: Greg Roy
J ohn Rediker moved to table to J uly 7, 2021. Peter Cope seconded the
motion and it passed (3-0).
Absent:(1)Austin
3.Staff A pprovals
3.1.D R B 21-0113 - Thompson R esidence
Final review of an exterior alteration (doors/windows)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 22 W est Meadow Drive Unit 250 / Lot H, Vail
Village Filing 2
Applicant: J ohn W alter Thompson, represented by Rob Hall's Kitc hens Plus
Planner: Greg Roy
3.2.D R B 21-0168 - Gillis & Marianino Residences
Final review of an exterior alteration (siding)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 4030 Fall Line Drive/Lot 1, P itkin Creek
Meadows Subdivision
Applicant: Mark Gillis and Daniel Marianino, represented by 1st Priority
Roofing
July 6, 2021 - Page 187 of 210
Planner: Erik Gates
3.3.D R B 21-0203 - Sandstone 70
Final review of an exterior alteration (reroof)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 903 North Frontage Road W est/Sandstone70
Applicant: Sandstone 70, represented by Mountain Valley Property
Management
Planner: Erik Gates
3.4.D R B 21-0204 - Sandstone 70
Final review of an exterior alteration (repaint)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 905-929 North Frontage Road W est/Sandstone
70
Applicant: Sandstone 70, represented by Mountain Valley Property
Management
Planner: Erik Gates
3.5.D R B 21-0208 - Valls R esidence
Final review of a tree removal
Address/Legal Desc ription: 2930 Booth Creek Drive Unit B/Lot 1, Bloc k 3,
Vail Village Filing 11
Applicant: Bart & Aimee Valls, represented by Old Growth Tree Servic e
Planner: Greg Roy
3.6.D R B 21-0212 - Herbst Residence
Final review of an exterior alteration (deck)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 3094 Booth Falls Road Unit 15/Lot 1, Block 2,
Vail Village Filing 12
Applicant: Timothy Herbst
Planner: Erik Gates
3.7.D R B 21-0213 - Casolar D el Norte
Final review of a tree removal
Address/Legal Desc ription: 1180 C asolar Del Norte/C asolar Vail
Applicant: Casolar Del Norte, represented by Ceres Landc are
Planner: J onathan S penc e
3.8.D R B 21-0218 - Out of Bounds LL C
Final review of an exterior alteration (siding/stucco)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 1139 Sandstone Drive Unit 4 /Lot A1 & A2,
Bloc k A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 1
Applicant: Out of Bounds L L C , represented by J an Karst
Planner: Greg Roy
3.9.D R B 21-0223 - Vail P oint 31 L LC
Final review of an exterior alteration (windows)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 1881 Lions Ridge Loop Unit 31 / Lot 1, Block 3,
Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 3
July 6, 2021 - Page 188 of 210
Applicant: Vail Point 31 L L C , represented by Cairn Construction Group
Planner: Greg Roy
3.10.D R B 21-0226 - Paula Fischer Revocable Trust
Final review of an exterior alteration (windows)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 2695 Davos Trail/Lot 17, B lock B, Vail Ridge
Subdivision
Applicant: Paula Fischer Revoc able Trust, represented by D ivision Six
C onstruc tion
Planner: J onathan S penc e
3.11.D R B 21-0228 - Deep Powder Inc.
Final review of an exterior alteration (windows)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 16 Forest Road/Lot 1, B lock 7, Vail Village Filing
1
Applicant: Deep Powder I nc ., represented by Rob Halls K itchens Plus
Planner: J onathan S penc e
3.12.D R B 21-0229 - Entin Residence
Final review of an exterior alteration (windows)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 5020 Main Gore Place Unit J 1/Vail East
Townhomes
Applicant: Howard Entin, represented by HS T Construc tion, I nc .
Planner: J onathan S penc e
3.13.D R B 21-0230 - Cole Residence
Final review of an exterior alteration (reroof)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 5129 Black Bear Lane/Lot 13, Block 2, Gore
C reek Subdivision
Applicant: Lester & A nn C ole, represented by HighPeak Roofs LLC
Planner: J onathan S penc e
3.14.D R B 21-0237 - Roar k Residence
Final review of an exterior alteration (driveway )
Address/Legal Desc ription: 1873 Lions Ridge Loop Unit A/Lot 2, Bloc k 3,
Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 3
Applicant: Gregory A Roark 2007 Revocable Trust, represented by Burke
Harrington Construction
Planner: J onathan S penc e
3.15.D R B 21-0084.001 - H osea Residence
Final review of a change to approved plans (deck material/railing)
Address/Legal Desc ription: 5047 Main Gore Drive North/Lot 1, Block 1,
Bighorn Subdivision 5th A ddition
Applicant: David Hosea
Planner: J onathan S penc e
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during
July 6, 2021 - Page 189 of 210
regular offic e hours at the Town of Vail C ommunity D evelopment Department, 75 South
Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the projec t orientation and the site visits that
precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Town Council Chambers. Times and order of
items are approximate, subject to change, and c annot be relied upon to determine at what time
the D esign Review Board will consider an item. Please c all 970-479-2138 for additional
information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification, dial
711.
July 6, 2021 - Page 190 of 210
P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL C O M M I S S I O N
J une 28, 2021, 1:00 P M
M eeting Cancelled
75 S. F rontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
1.Call to Order
1.1.Meeting Cancelled
2.Main Agenda
3.Adjournment
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e hours at the
Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project
orientation and the site vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department.
Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the
Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please
call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time.
Community Development Department
Published in the Vail Daily June 25, 2021
July 6, 2021 - Page 191 of 210
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C : V L HA J une 8, 2021 Minutes
AT TAC H ME N TS :
Description
V L H A June 8, 2021 Minutes
July 6, 2021 - Page 192 of 210
Vail Local Housing Authority
Minutes
June 8, 2021
3:00 PM
Virtual Meeting
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado,
81657
PRESENT ABSENT
Steve Lindstrom Mary McDougall
Greg Moffet
Molly Morales
James Wilkins
Staff
George Ruther, Housing Director
Lynne Campbell, Housing Coordinator
1. Call to Order
1.1. Zoom Meeting 1 (call to order pre-executive session)
1.2. Zoom Meeting 2 (post executive session)
1.3. Call to Order
A quorum being present Lindstrom called the meeting to order at 3:01PM.
McDougall is absent. Wilkins left meeting at 3:15PM just prior to the Authority
entering executive session.
1.4. VLHA Vote for Chairman
Moffet made a motion to reappoint Lindstrom as Chairman.
MOTION: MOFFET SECOND: WILKINS VOTE: 3-0 AP
Lindstrom abstained
2. Citizen Participation
2.1. Citizen Participation
Tom Vucich asked if Moffet had been asked to step down until lawsuit
July 6, 2021 - Page 193 of 210
with the Town had been settled. Lindstrom acknowledge Vucich’s comment and
thanked him.
Cynthia Fitch requested an update on the West Vail Master Plan. Lindstrom stated
the process is underway and being led by the Community Development
department. A draft master plan is being prepared and will be shared with the
public, PEC and Council at their August 1st meeting.
3. Approval of Minutes
3.1. VLHA May 11, 2021 Minutes
MOTION: WILKINS SECOND: MOFFET VOTE: 4-0 AP
3.2. VLHA May 25, 2021 Minutes
MOTION: WILKINS SECOND: MOFFET VOTE: 4-0 AP
4. Main Agenda
There are no topics this week.
5. Matters from the Chairman and Authority Members
5.1. Matters from the Chairman and Authority Member
Presenter: Steve Lindstrom, Chairman
EPS is presenting commercial and residential linkage and inclusionary zoning
update at the June 15, 2021 Council meeting per Ruther. Council’s feed back will
determine next steps.
Deed restriction values discussion is pending coordination with Tim Zarlengo.
Lindstrom and Ruther reminded the members Housing’s biannual Council update
is scheduled for July 6, 2021.
Morales stated she is following the Town of Frisco’s housing emergency
declaration.
MOTION: MOFFET SECOND: WILKINS VOTE: AP
Wilkins left meeting at 3:15PM. Moffet made a motion to enter executive session.
6. Executive Session
6.1. Executive Session per C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property interests
July 6, 2021 - Page 194 of 210
and to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations regarding: Vail InDEED applications and deed restrictions.
Presenter: Lynne Campbell, Housing Coordinator
Authority reentered the regular meeting, Lindstrom, Morales and Moffet present.
7. Any Action as a Result of Executive Session
7.1. Action As Results of Executive Session
Moffet recommended staff continue with the Vail InDEED negotiations as
discussed in executive session.
MOTION: MOFFET SECOND: MORALES VOTE: 3-0 AP
8. Adjournment
8.1. Adjournment 3:33PM
Moffet made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION: MOFFET SECOND: MORALES VOTE: 3-0 AP
9. Future Agenda Items
9.1.
• Land Banking (sale of GRFA
• Public Health Housing Incentive, Eagle County Health
• Joint VLHA, Town Council, Planning & Environmental Commission Meeting Regarding Commercial Linkage/Inclusionary Zoning and Adopted Housing Policy Review • Investment Banker Discussion - Long Term Housing Funding
10. Next Meeting Date
10.1. Next Meeting Date June 22, 2021
Meeting agendas and materials can be accessed prior to meeting day on the
Town of Vail website www.vailgov.com. All housing authority meetings are
open to the public. Times and order of agenda are approximate, subject to
change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Vail Local
Housing Authority will discuss an item. Please call (970) 479-2150 for
additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48
hours prior to meeting time.
Housing Department
July 6, 2021 - Page 195 of 210
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C : J une R evenue Update
AT TAC H ME N TS :
Description
June Revenue Update
July 6, 2021 - Page 196 of 210
TOWN OF VAIL
REVENUE UPDATE
July 6, 2021
Sales Tax
Upon receipt of all sales tax returns, May collections are estimated to be $965,557
up 91.6% from last year and up 0.17% compared to amended budget. May
collections were the highest total May collections on record and exceeded 2019
collections by 26.4% and 2018 collections by 16.3%. Year to date collections of
$14,065,726 are up 21.9% from 2020 but down (4.1)% from 2019. Compared to
amended budget, year to date collections are flat. Inflation as measured by the
consumer price index was up 5.0% for May. The annual amended budget totals
$27.5 million.
Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT)
RETT collections through June 29 total $5,261,175 up 117.9% from this time last
year and up 78.9% from this time in 2019. The 2021 annual RETT budget totals
$8,000,000, down 23.4% from 2020 actual collections.
Construction Use Tax
Use Tax collections through June 29 total $2,400,060 compared to $733,781 from
this time last year. The 2021 amended budget totals $3,250,000.
Summary
Across all funds, year-to-date total revenue of $40.5 million is up 2.3% from
amended budget and up 33.7% from prior year. 2021 revenue is up 7.3% from
2019 due to increased Real Estate Transfer Tax collections, daily parking sales
during January through April, and construction activities.
July 6, 2021 - Page 197 of 210
2021 Budget % change % change
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Amended Budget Variance from 2020 from Budget
January 3,738,824$ 3,725,212$ 3,597,610$ 4,079,994$ 4,076,145$ 3,400,000 3,412,300$ 12,300$ -16.29% 0.36%
February 3,746,055 3,692,592 3,818,356 4,137,087 4,285,633 3,680,000 3,682,130 2,130$ -14.08% 0.06%
March 4,225,921 3,642,407 4,167,880 4,237,933 2,243,518 4,370,000 4,352,300 (17,700) 93.99% -0.41%
April 1,089,749 1,386,780 1,233,474 1,445,071 427,518 1,650,000 1,653,439 3,439 286.75% 0.21%
May 654,462 659,475 830,193 763,756 503,828 965,000 965,557 557 91.64% 0.06%
YTD Total 13,455,011$ 13,106,466$ 13,647,513$ 14,663,841$ 11,536,642$ 14,065,000$ 14,065,726$ 726$ 21.92% 0.01%
June 1,318,092 1,389,982 1,648,443 1,606,748 1,023,517 1,000,000
July 2,053,773 2,215,649 2,412,425 2,480,292 2,084,644 2,100,000
August 1,849,815 1,863,949 2,195,175 2,237,050 2,138,838 2,100,000
September 1,349,929 1,385,462 1,540,490 1,600,100 1,767,393 1,770,000
October 906,385 936,954 1,106,596 1,165,176 1,371,727 1,370,000
November 989,320 997,716 1,264,600 1,260,314 1,425,461 1,425,000
December 3,840,919 3,695,305 4,070,870 4,237,178 3,625,189 3,670,000
Total 25,763,244$ 25,591,483$ 27,886,112$ 29,250,698$ 24,973,411$ 27,500,000$ 14,065,726$
Actual Collections
Collected Sales Tax
July 6, 2021
Town of Vail Revenue Update
SALES TAX
2021 Budget Comparison
July 6, 2021 - Page 198 of 210
Through May 31
May Sales Tax Collections by Year
Through May 31
Town of Vail Revenue Update
July 6, 2021
YTD Sales Tax Collections by Year
$13,106,466
$13,647,513
$14,663,841
$11,536,642
$14,065,726
$0 $2,500,000 $5,000,000 $7,500,000 $10,000,000 $12,500,000 $15,000,000
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
• YTD collections of $14,065,726 are up 21.9% from prior year and flat with amended budget.
• Inflation as measured by the consumer price index was up 5.0% in May.
• The 2021 sales tax budget totals $27.5M.
$659,475
$830,193
$763,756
$503,828
$965,557
$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
• May collections of $965,557 are up 91.6% from prior year and up 0.1% from amended budget.
• Collections for the month set the record for the single highest May collections.
July 6, 2021 - Page 199 of 210
Construction Use Tax by Year
YTD Through June
YTD Through June
Town of Vail Revenue Update
July 6, 2021
Real Estate Transfer Tax by Year
$882,464
$1,162,368
$1,706,962
$733,781
$2,400,060
$0
$250,000
$500,000
$750,000
$1,000,000
$1,250,000
$1,500,000
$1,750,000
$2,000,000
$2,250,000
$2,500,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
• This chart shows YTD collections of 1% RETT, segmented by individual home sale value.
• 2021 RETT collections through June 29 total $5,261,175 up 117.9% from the prior year.
-$500,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
$2,500,000
$3,500,000
$4,500,000
$5,500,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Sales Less Than $2.5 Million Sales $2.5 to $5.0 Million Sales $5 to $10 Million Sales Over $10 Million
$3,186,630
$3,675,305
$2,944,293
$2,414,347
$5,261,175
• Use Tax collections through June total $2,400,060 compared to $733,781 from this is an increase of
227.1%
July 6, 2021 - Page 200 of 210
Vail Business Review
April 2021
July 6, 2021
The Vail Business Review breaks down the four percent sales tax collected for the
month of April and the 2020/2021 ski season
Overall, April sales tax increased 286.8% with retail increasing 149.9%, lodging
increased 1,967.3%, food and beverage increased 2,019.5%, and utilities/other
increased by 30.4%. Excluding the out of town category; sales tax for the month of April
was down 593.1%.
The ski season 2020/2021 resulted in an overall 9.6% increase from the prior year.
Retail increased 18.7%, lodging increased 6.8%, food and beverage increased 4.8%
and utilities and other decreased (5.0)%.
Town of Vail sales tax forms, the Vail Business Review and sales tax worksheets are
available on the internet at www.vailgov.com. You can subscribe to have the Vail
Business Review and the sales tax worksheet e-mailed to you automatically from
www.vailgov.com.
Please remember when reading the Vail Business Review that it is produced from sales
tax collections, as opposed to actual gross sales.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at (970) 479-2125 or
Carlie Smith at (970) 479-2119.
Sincerely,
Alex Jakubiec
Town of Vail
Revenue Manager
July 6, 2021 - Page 201 of 210
April 2021
Sales Tax Collections by Business Type
Town of Vail Business Review
April Tax Collections By Year
April 2021 Sales Tax
April 2020
Retail
$647,777
Lodging
$469,880 Food &
Beverage
$368,569
Utilities &
Other
$167,178
$0
$150,000
$300,000
$450,000
$600,000
$750,000
149.9%
2,019.5%30.4%
$1,387,343
$1,233,941
$1,444,250
$427,455
$1,653,403
$0 $250,000 $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,250,000 $1,500,000 $1,750,000
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
1,967.3%
• This report represents collections of Town of Vail 4% sales tax, as opposed to actual gross sales
• Overall, 2021 April sales tax collections were up 286.8% from the prior year.
• April 2021 retail sales increased 149.9%, lodging increased 1,967.3%, food and beverage
increased 2,019.5% and utilities and other increased 30.4%.
Retail
$259,176
Lodging
$22,729
Food &
Beverage
$17,389
Utilities &
Other
$128,161
$0
$150,000
$300,000
$450,000
$600,000
$750,000
July 6, 2021 - Page 202 of 210
Geographic Area Trends by Year
April Sales Tax
Sales Tax by Location
Town of Vail Business Review
April 2021 Sales Tax
April 2020April 2021
Other
Areas
16%
Lionshead
13%
Out of
Town
29%
Vail Village
42%
Other
Areas
28%
Lionshead
4%Out of
Town
60%
Vail Village
8%
• Vail Village sales tax increased 1,964.1%, Lionshead increased 1,332.7%, Other Areas increased
114.9%, and Out of Town increased 85.4%. Excluding Out of Town collections, all areas were up
593.1%.
• Effective October 1st, 2020, the town of Vail enacted new regulations which shifted collections of
some sales tax from local vendors to their marketplace facilitators who file under the out-of-town
category.
$181,939
$211,887
$238,044 $120,376
$258,716
$276,710
$189,196
$241,484
$15,581
$223,234
$240,191
$308,803
$331,867
$257,916
$478,289
$688,504
$524,055
$632,855
$33,582
$693,164
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Other Areas Lionshead Out of Town Vail Village
• This chart shows April sales tax collections, by geographic area over time.
July 6, 2021 - Page 203 of 210
April Sales Tax
Accommodation Services Sales Tax by Year
Retail Business Sales Tax Detail
April 2021 Sales Tax
Town of Vail Business Review
Apparel
$121,700
Grocery
$125,565
Gallery
$4,398
Gifts
$2,928
Jewelry
$20,753Retail Liquor
$38,086
Retail Other
$148,326
Sporting Goods
$143,635
Online Retailers
$42,299
Retail Home
Occupation
$87
• Overall, April 2021 accommodations services were up 1,967.3%, short-term rentals were up 1,768.8% and
hotels and lodges were up 2,082.9%.
$288,861
$57,780
$14,370
$8,359
$313,672
$156,208
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000
Hotels/Lodges
Short-Term Rentals 2021 2020 2019
July 6, 2021 - Page 204 of 210
Retail 143,737.50 104,120.22 38.05%
Lodging 73,337.56 5,388.36 1261.04%
F & B 38,606.82 8,965.40 330.62%
Other 3,033.79 1,901.67 59.53%
Total 258,715.67 120,375.65 114.92%
Retail 74,556.25 3,683.32 1924.16%
Lodging 90,600.53 8,810.13 928.37%
F & B 58,034.49 3,087.74 1779.51%
Other 43.01 - 0.00%
Total 223,234.28 15,581.19 1332.72%
Retail 162,638.34 134,931.49 20.53%
Lodging 157,230.48 411.09 38146.91%
F & B 740.86 69.39 967.68%
Other 157,678.95 122,504.45 28.71%
Total 478,288.63 257,916.43 85.44%
Retail 266,844.71 16,441.24 1523.02%
Lodging 148,711.19 8,118.97 1731.65%
F & B 271,186.52 5,266.91 5048.87%
Other 6,421.80 3,754.96 71.02%
Total 693,164.22 33,582.09 1964.09%
Retail 647,776.80 259,176.28 149.94%
Lodging 469,879.76 22,728.56 1967.35%
F & B 368,568.69 17,389.44 2019.50%
Other 167,177.55 128,161.08 30.44%
Total 1,653,402.80 427,455.35 286.80%
Retail Apparel 121,700.13 5,936.04 1950.19%
Retail Food 125,564.71 81,821.61 53.46%
Retail Gallery 4,397.52 2,292.12 91.85%
Retail Gift 2,927.68 - 0.00%
Retail Home Occupation 87.30 186.90 -53.29%
Retail Jewelry 20,753.19 716.96 2794.62%
Retail Liquor 38,085.90 23,898.58 59.36%
Retail Other 148,326.23 128,869.64 15.10%
Retail Sport 143,635.37 6,395.89 2145.74%
Retail Online Retailer 42,298.77 9,058.54 366.95%
Total 647,776.80 259,176.28 149.94%
Total - All Areas
Lionshead
Out of Town
Vail Village
Retail Summary
Cascade Village / East Vail / Sandstone / West Vail
Town of Vail Business Review
April Sales Tax
2021 Collections 2020 Collections YoY % Change
July 6, 2021 - Page 205 of 210
Town of Vail Business Review
Ski Season Tax Collections By Year
Ski Season 2020-2021 Sales Tax
Ski Season 2019-2020Ski Season 2020-2021
Sales Tax Collections by Business Type
Retail
$6,790,414
Lodging
$6,708,402
Food &
Beverage
$3,508,513
Utilities &
Other
$1,156,727
$0
$1,500,000
$3,000,000
$4,500,000
$6,000,000
$7,500,000
18.7%4.8%(5.0)%
RLFU
-$8,000,000
$12,000,000
$17,293,651
$17,554,243
$19,253,660
$16,568,337
$18,164,056
$0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
6.8%
• This report represents collections of Town of Vail 4% sales tax, as opposed to actual gross
sales
• Ski season tax collections are from November 1st through April 30th.
• Overall, 2020-21 Ski Season sales tax collections were up 9.6% from the prior year.
• Ski Season 2020-21 retail sales increased 18.7%, lodging increased 6.8%, food and beverage
increased 4.8% and utilities and other decreased (5.0)%.
Retail
$5,719,511
Lodging
$6,283,590
Food &
Beverage
$3,348,094
Utilities &
Other
$1,217,141
$0
$1,500,000
$3,000,000
$4,500,000
$6,000,000
$7,500,000
July 6, 2021 - Page 206 of 210
Town of Vail Business Review
Ski Season 2020-2021 Sales Tax
Ski Season 2019-2020Ski Season 2020-2021
Geographic Area Trends by Year
Ski Season 2020-2021
Sales Tax by Location
Other
Areas
15%
Lionshead
17%
Out of
Town
26%
Vail Village
42%
Other
Areas
16%
Lionshead
22%
Out of
Town
14%
Vail Village
48%
• Vail Village sales tax decreased (4.3)%, Lionshead decreased (15.4)%, Other Areas increased
5.3%, and Out of Town increased 103.8%. Excluding Out of Town collections, all areas were
down (5.4)%.
• Effective October 1st, 2020, the town of Vail enacted new regulations which shifted collections of
some sales tax from local vendors to their marketplace facilitators who file under the out-of-town
category.
$2,041,399 $2,466,808
$3,004,018 $2,597,856
$2,736,752
$4,253,454
$4,111,066
$4,498,553
$3,675,242 $3,109,584
$1,798,445 $1,956,682 $2,245,775 $2,280,030
$4,646,984
$9,200,354 $9,019,687
$9,505,315
$8,015,210 $7,670,736
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Other Areas Lionshead Out of Town Vail Village
• This chart shows Ski Season sales tax collections, by geographic area over time.
July 6, 2021 - Page 207 of 210
Retail Business Sales Tax Detail
Ski Season 2020-2021 Sales Tax
Town of Vail Business Review
Ski Season 2020-2021
Accommodation Services Sales Tax by Year
Apparel
$1,196,051
Grocery
$1,127,810
Gallery
$41,988
Gifts
$32,360
Jewelry
$195,987
Retail Liquor
$389,771
Retail Other
$1,438,456
Sporting Goods
$1,994,384
Online Retailers
$372,675
Retail Home
Occupation
$1.306
• Overall, 2020-21 Ski Season accommodations services were up 6.8%, short-term rentals were up 58.2%
and hotels and lodges were down (6.8)%.
$6,070,681
$1,206,033
$4,970,322
$1,313,269
$4,630,513
$2,077,889
$0 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $4,500,000 $6,000,000 $7,500,000
Hotels/Lodges
Short-Term Rentals 2020-21 2019-20
2018-19
July 6, 2021 - Page 208 of 210
Retail 1,379,574.56 1,169,227.85 17.99%
Lodging 1,000,928.91 1,072,707.51 -6.69%
F & B 327,080.51 316,525.02 3.33%
Other 29,168.15 39,395.25 -25.96%
Total 2,736,752.13 2,597,855.63 5.35%
Retail 1,003,793.26 930,091.05 7.92%
Lodging 1,473,816.84 2,144,216.69 -31.27%
F & B 624,611.42 585,415.52 6.70%
Other 7,362.23 15,518.76 -52.56%
Total 3,109,583.75 3,675,242.02 -15.39%
Retail 1,575,522.49 1,232,972.16 27.78%
Lodging 2,044,416.76 21,960.65 9209.45%
F & B 9,975.22 7,238.84 37.80%
Other 1,017,069.66 1,017,857.93 -0.08%
Total 4,646,984.14 2,280,029.59 103.81%
Retail 2,831,523.41 2,387,220.28 18.61%
Lodging 2,189,239.65 3,044,705.57 -28.10%
F & B 2,546,846.15 2,438,915.06 4.43%
Other 103,126.63 144,369.10 -28.57%
Total 7,670,735.84 8,015,210.00 -4.30%
Retail 6,790,413.73 5,719,511.34 18.72%
Lodging 6,708,402.16 6,283,590.42 6.76%
F & B 3,508,513.30 3,348,094.44 4.79%
Other 1,156,726.68 1,217,141.04 -4.96%
Total 18,164,055.86 16,568,337.24 9.63%
Retail Apparel 1,196,050.94 860,125.36 39.06%
Retail Food 1,127,809.51 942,066.14 19.72%
Retail Gallery 41,988.28 27,813.57 50.96%
Retail Gift 32,359.64 25,192.27 28.45%
Retail Home Occupation 1,305.64 579.85 125.17%
Retail Jewelry 195,987.21 139,095.28 40.90%
Retail Liquor 389,770.68 311,053.63 25.31%
Retail Other 1,438,455.79 1,371,792.52 4.86%
Retail Sport 1,994,383.97 1,939,820.50 2.81%
Retail Online Retailer 372,674.85 101,972.23 265.47%
Total 6,790,786.50 5,719,511.34 18.73%
Cascade Village / East Vail / Sandstone / West Vail
Town of Vail Business Review
Ski Season Sales Tax
Ski Season 2020-2021 Ski Season 2019-2020 YoY % Change
Total - All Areas
Lionshead
Out of Town
Vail Village
Retail Summary
July 6, 2021 - Page 209 of 210
VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO
I T E M /T O P I C : Recess 5:20 pm (estimate)
July 6, 2021 - Page 210 of 210