The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.packet.celestial.07 21 20149:00 am — 2 pm PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Plaza 1 Meeting Room MONDAY, JULY 21, 2014 SPECIAL MEETING Celestial Land Company Ltd. Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review, and Special Review and GMQS Exemption for TDR Receiver Site — Modification of Hearing Officer Determination No. 04- 2013 (Continued Public Hearing from May 28, 2014) Lunch and breaks to be determined by the Chair. Entire scheduled time may not be needed. ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE 17 of 14 04:40PM HP Fax page 1 The Appraisal Office — Aspen Ltd 210 South Galena Street Suite 29 Aspen, CO 81611 PHONE .(970) 920-1002 FAx.(970) 925-3603 Email dave@appraisalofficeaspen.com Real Estate Appraisals - Feasibility Studies - Investment Analysis - Consultation Services July 16, 2014 Celestial Land CO Ltd 1801 Broadway # 800 Denver, CO 80202 To Whom It May Concem; It is my understanding that your property located in the Maroon Creek Valley, on Bulkley Drive. Aspen, Colorado is 35.10 acres, and has two potential activity envelopes, the Preferred Activity Envelope, and the Altemetive Activity envelope. The Preferred Activity Envelope primary views are towards Maroon Belts. The Alternative Activity Envelope primary views are of mountain range located on the other side of the Maroon Creek Valley from your property. Mr. Jack Kaufman asked me to review the impact to the market value of your property related to the Preferred Activity Envelope versus the Alternative Activity Envelope. It should be noted that I have personally inspected the property. Findings; In generallocation (sub -economic neighborhood), the quality of views, and allowable floor area are the primary factors which impact the market value of a building site in Pitkin County. To determine the Impact on the market value due to two activity envelopes I completed a paired sales analysis of building sites which were located in the same sub -economic neighborhoods as each other. The only adjustment required to the paired sales was for the differences in their allowable floor area. After adjusting for allowable floor area the 3 paired sales indicate that the contributory value for the amenity of quality of views were; 24%, 27%, and 28%. As a result it Is my conclusion that the impact on the market value on your property between the Preferred Activity Envelope and the Alternative Building Envelope would be in the area of 25%. Respectfully Submitted, Dave Ritter, MAA CG1315907 12/31/2016 Neighbor's Presentation Materials Submitted to Record 7/21/14 List of Figures 1: Celestial Approximate Boundary Location 2. Celestial Activity Envelope & Site Plan 3. Celestial Site Plan — Extent of Mitigation 4. Alternative Activity Envelope and Site Plan 5. Alternative Activity Envelope and Site Plan Extent of Mitigation 6. Site Plan and Alternative Site Plan Disturbance 7. Celestial and Alternative Sections 8. RFLCC Land Use Application Site Plan and Avalanche Hazard Mapping 9. Alternative House Location East Perspective 10. Alternative House Location West Entry Perspective 11: Alternative Site Plan with Landscaping Written Materials 1. Pitkin County Affordable Housing Regulation Support Study, November 2004 2. Rural Area: Maroon Creek Developed Residential Properties 3. Residential Square Footage - Maroon Creek Road & Bulkley Drive Footprints 4. July 21, 2014 Memorandum from Rand Decker of interAlpine USA to the Board of County Commissioners. CELESTIAL APPROX. BDRY LOCATION CELESTIAL APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY Created for Neighbors of Celestial Land Company LTD Data Sources: Pitkin County GIS, SGM, Stan Clauson Associates by RJ, SGM 11/15/13 W Z 0 N z a a W z a W 0. 0 J. W Z W 1 0 4 1 1 U) W J W 0 clam a0mm m ; .; oC °`gzs 0 zirs • m• 00 �� m m O ▪ MEm �N;46 s m t.c tam *6N cr 100 ViUm m C CN IL 4 , 1 z W W 0 CENTRATION NCENTRATION 2 4.5 cc 44 4 o. 2 Z1UR J oPUa p 0- C� L 0 R- oo w gw_ILL J O U ifl O N J D glE isl 1 0 c 61 2 0 .r, z u. W FEN W 1 z W 1 10 (7). JJj rig) Q L Ds J1 WI W Iftiir loft /// ty'44 autly ,anwAsapiti'�• air y�� i . _.... AgralpApCbc 41;1:414:: . '''''.1. \i Activity Envelope z a/ amp Cnc z w 0 1 0' i J z >'/ >i) 1•! a 0 mi 01 W 0 ff W 3oeo tai g.0 NJ c! OaE o1-4 6y0 •- F 0 G °m W za1- • • f ' // 1` ,1l \. Nt- 47 N;) z 4 I :4 I C. 5 C z� I1/ tll' • 0 z \ • \ ''.: \ \ • • ,.., \ .. \ \ \ N ‘ .1/4 • \ \ \ \\ • N \ \ \\\\ ' 0 \ c CC3 • \ Cn , • \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 .1114. co BULKLEY ROAD, PITKIN COUNTY, CO July 16, 2014 110 SCALE 1"=301-0" co Z 0 i 0 w co w a z oc W J aLi Ca z Zw as Jw J W W Jw Ww 0 0 ID a) a) a) w 0) 0 BULKLEY ROAD, PITKIN COUNTY, CO 0 z a a a N a 1 W 1 0 z a a z a z a 1 a W _ 4) z 0 cs a W co RFLCC LAND a) .w._0 u a) -0 0_ n a) cp CT) CD IMC:1 0 c • Cn CK5 CZ CS) • ...Mr a) Cflu CD ° CD co $._ 4-0 C a) c Ca U 0 cp i .4..4k U t41)f� w CZ R';-ItTEu:URE+ L.Aiyrt N. .UI��c�Il Fkziki�3�ai�rt�Ilyrr s ‘ ... I. • , , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1111 W ..... \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ EL TT . 0 `.\.... ...-•\ ‘, \ \ \ \ ..... \ .., •1/4 \ \ N. N \ N \ < Fu ' NN % • \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 „ \ \ \ \ X , \ \ \ " - -.• --- • - '•-•., N.., N.:\ \ % " • . , 1 "..\, . ..... ...:. ,./../,./ , - - • % Ct " X.. t I I \ \ 1 I ----......„...... •',.. "N. -... \ ....06:9 ...,\N. \ \ ., ... • : ' N. ''' Z ._I •,, ‘ \ \ \ \ \ •• < < \ \ s i ..— \ , NMI H . • , ....„. • -.. \ \, C 0 \ \ \ ,•..,... c 3 I ...- , \ ,. -,, I LIJ •••.',N,.. co ,---. .s d' , ...---- _...i LLI \ \ / , . •, .._ \ 0 \ ,43, \ '.., \ ... ..., ., \ ',. d I \ • d \ \ \ . \ \ FCO CD I IN BULKLEY ROAD, PITKIN COUNTY, CO SCALE 1"=20'-0" Pitkin County, .Colorado Affordable Housing. Regulation Support Study Prepared by: Clarion Associates 1700 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 80290 In Association With Dr. James C. Nicholas RRC Associates November, 2004 CONTENTS CONTENTS I . AFFORDABLE HOUSING REGULATION SUPPORT STUDY 2 A. INTRODUCTION 2 B. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 3 C. THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN PITKIN COUNTY 6 D. THE INVENTORY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 9 1) Overview 9 2) The Inventory of Existing Affordable Housing Units 10 3) Affordable Housing Units Expected to be Constructed by Housing Authority 11 4) Addressing 2000 Affordable Housing Needs 11 E. MITIGATING THE DEMAND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREATED BY NEW DEVELOPMENT 14 1) Background: Basic Sector versus Local Sector 14 2) Residential Development 14 3) Non -Residential Development 25 F. AFFECT OF ALTERNATIVE' AFFORDABLE HOUSING TARGETS 28 APPENDIX A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY 30 Pitkin County, Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study Page i November, 2004 DRAFT Clarion Associates —Nicholas— RRC AFFORDABLE HOUSING REGULATION SUPPORT STUDY •A. INTRODUCTION There is little debate.that there is a housing affordability problem in Pitkin County and Aspen: In response•to this problem; both. the county and City. of Aspen developed an affordable housing program that, • in the 1970s when it was originally coriceived, was.one bf Ake most aggressive programs•in•the country. . In 2000, the county began exploring the possible use of an affordable housing mitigation fee that documented needs for affordable housing created by both non-residential and residential development in the county. A draft study was produced by Clarion Associates and Dr. James Nicholas documenting the• demand for affordable . housing • created'. by both types of development. No affordable housing mitigation. fee was adopted.by the beard of County Commissioners at that time: Recently, the county requested that the data used, in.support of the: 2000 study be reviewed and updated in order to provide the foundation for further discussion of a proposed mitigation fee:: This Affordable. Housing Support Study ("the Study) contains that. updated,data. • This Support Study contains five sections. After this introduction, the second section describes the housing affordability problem in Pitkin County (Part B: "Problem Description"). It shows that while employment in Pitkin County has grown over the past decade, wages have tended•to be stagnant while housing offerings at prices that the large majority of the local employment base can afford have declined One of the most dramatic results •is that the county's workforce is relocating to places where housing prices are' more affordable. In 1985, 73 percent of all Pitkin County employees lived in the county:. This percentage declined to 46.percent in 2000: . Employment projections indicate that the local portion of total employment will continue to decline to•38 percent by 2020 unless additional housing•is provided .in the county within the prices ranges thatare affordable to local. employees. This out=migration of the Pitkin County work force has placed increasing stress on.the capacity of:the local community to maintain a viable work force. If these trends continue, an essential component of the county's community character. will be damaged, since most .of the county's work force and their families will nb longer reside: in the community,• •attend schools .in the .county, participate in local civic organizations; worship'in the community; or express' their ideas at the ballot box: • Based. upon the problem .description, the Study next explores both the existing and future affordable housing needs.of Pitkin County (Part C "The Need for Affordable Housing. in Pitkin. County")..:To perform the analysis, an assumption needs:to be made as lb :the percentage of employees that are to be provided housing through the mitigation fee. In,the course of the 2000 study, Clarion • Associates and county staff jointly • determined .that it ..was • unreasonable . to: . calculate fees for 100% of county employees; because not all employees desire to live in Pitkin County, and because the resulting fees would be extremely high. Instead, a baseline assumption was made that the county mightwant to provide housing for 75% of the employees in the county. We also provided:a supplemental memorandum indicating how. the calculated impact fees would change if alternative goals were used instead. Since the year 2000;: all indications are that there have been significant increases inland and housing construction. costs in •Pitkin .County. As • a result, we have: chosen to perform the baseline analysis in 2004 using an assumed affordable housing target of 60 percent -- i.e.; that affordable housing needs to be provided for 60 percent of employees in the county and their Pitkin County, Colorado Clarion Associates -Nicholas — !Vic Affordable Housing Support Study. Page 2 . November 2004 DRAFT families. We again•provide analyses of how the calculated fee would change if different.goals were adopted. We understand that Pitkin County has • not • adopted a 60 percent affordable housing goal,and that an alternative goal may be chosen. The analysis in this section shows that, based on this general goal of providing affordable housing to 60 percent of the work force, the year 2004 affordable housing needs of the county total 6,092 units: At present; 4,481 units • are being provided by the market and the public sector, leaving an existing need of 1;611 units. This general analysis of need•is followed by a review of the existing inventory of affordable units in the county, as well as an. evaluation. of how many. additional affordable units will be provided by public sources and the market by 2010 (Part D: "The Inventory of Affordable Housing"). This analysis demonstrates that, after accounting for. those affordable housing units. currently under `construction; those that the'Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office believes it will build in the next. 10 years, and those that may be supplied by turnover in the private market, the.county will face a' deficit of 913 affordable 'housing units.. The county will need to find alternative sources of funds to provide these units —'which represent accumulated deficit from past (as opposed to future) growth, and will need to ensure that affordable housing mitigation requirements are not used to meet this current deficit. The concluding section (Part E: "The Demand for Affordable Housing Created by Development; Mitigation") outlines that it will be necessary for all new residential, commercial and tourist accommodation developmentto mitigate for the affordable housing needs of its employees if 60 percent of all those employed in the county are to be housed in the county.., It outlines the most appropriate ways to measure the impacts on affordable housing from residential, commercial and tourist accommodation development, 'and outlines four types of mitigation.. The first is payment of a fee/subsidy. for the difference between the cost of housing inthe.county for the' employee(s) serving the development and what the employee(s) can reasonably afford. A second is the construction of affordable housing units for the employee. A third is the dedication of land for affordable housing that is of equal value to thefee/subsidy amount needed. A final and fourth option is the conversion of existing market units to affordable units. Proposed formulas and fee schedules are outlined for the fee/subsidy, and relevant parameters are outlined for implementation ofthe three other forms, of mitigation..' . • B. . PROBLEM DESCRIPTION There is no dispute that the price of housing. is expensive in Pitkin County. 'The high•price of housing presents a distinct set of problems for each community where it occurs. One is that local employees. suffer economic stress as housing prices tend to outstrip wage and salary incomes. • In many instances this phenomena encourages employees: to move out of the community, substituting an alternative location where housing is more affordable: In Pitkin County this has occurred with local employees moving. down valley into Garfield and Eagle counties. The inevitable consequences are increased commuting, diminished real incomes due to increased commuting costs, increased •traffic congestion; higher: road construction and • maintenance costs, and deterioration in the social, economic and political fabric created by the general sense of community that occurs when persons and families that work; in the community also live in the community: • These trends are exacerbated by the growing boom •in second home construction — not only nationally. but. particularly in. Colorado's mountain resort counties. Earlier. this year, the Northwest Colorado Council. of Governments concluded' a study titled "Second Homes and the Amenity Based Economy". Among its findings were the.following: Pitkin County, Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study.. Page 3 Clarion Associates -Nicholas - RRC November 2004 DRAFT • 55% of homes in Pitkin County are second homes (which is higher than the 49% figure for neighboring Eagle County); • 43% of all single family homes in Pitkin County are second homes; • 67°k of all condos and multi -family units in Pitkin County are second homes; • Second homes are the largest economic driver in the .five -county -NWCOG study area; • Second homes cause job growth and the need for more workers; • Second homeowners are in competition with the local workers for both the existing housing market and the limited supply of developable land for future housing; and • . This driver is crowding out all other users in the competition for land use::: Clearly, if second home construction is crowding out market rate first home construction, then it is also crowding out those in need of more affordable housing. . Collectively these phenomena reduce the supply of labor, denyinj. the community a critical component needed to ensure the long-term'sustainability of the local economy... Inaddition, they result in a general loss of community character and identity. For these reasons, communities experiencing housing affordability problems commonly undertake programs to increase the supply of such housing at prices that local employees and their families can afford. Housing affordability, however, is a relative concept - when inquiring about, affordability, it is necessary to ask the . question: "Affordable with respect to what?" Normally;' housing affordability is assessed by comparing the price of housing to prevailing wage and salary incomes. Table 1 summarizes changes in employment and earnings by employment•sector in Pitkin County from 1998 to 2001. . Table 1: Non -Agricultural Employment 1998 Employment Annual Earnings .. (in Thousands) and Earnings, . Employment 2001 _. . Pitkin County, Annual Earnings.. (in . Thousands). . 1998 - 2001 Average Annual . Growth Rate in. Jobs Annual Average Growth Rat! in Earnings Total . 16,543 $401,314 - 16,280 $529,233 , -0.53% 9.65% Aq Services 30 . $589 33 $755 3.22% . 8.64%: Mining 10 $317, 16 $718: 16.94% 31.23% Utilities 22 $1,001 21 . $951 -1.54% -1.68% Const. 1,017 $41,929 1,215 $61,152 6.10% 13.39% Manufacturing 289 $8,861 237 $9;998 -6.39%0 4.10% Wholesale 208 $9,313 .185 $13,028 -3.83% . 11.83% Retail - . . 2;094 =' $48,190 2,069 '. , $56,334 -0:40% :. ' 5.34% T.C.U. 249 :..,. $4,626 225- $5,066 -3.32% 3.07% Information 309 $9,791. 172 $8,628 -17.72% ' -4.12% Finance & ins. .. 283 , $15,171 300 $30,726 .. 1.96% • 26.49% Real estate 711 $23,438. 793 $32,203 3:70%. . 11.16% Services 11,303 $237,459 11,000 $309,290 -0.90% . 9.20% Unclassified 9 $289 14 $382 15.85% 9.82% Source: Bureau of the Census, County. Business Patterns, website www.census.gov. Note: All annual earning are adjusted to constant prices as of July 2004. Pitkin County, Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study Page 4 ' Clarion Associates -Nicholas - RRC November 2004 DRAFT Table 2 summarizes the changes reflected in Table 1 over the same period. in Non -Agricultural Additional. Earnings (000): • Employment Category and Earnings New Jobs Additional Earnings . (000). Table Category 2: Change New Jobs Total -263 $127,919 Retail -25 $8,145. Aq Services 3. $166 T.C.U. -24 $440 Mining, . 6. •' $401 Information .. -137 -$1,163: Utilities -1 -$50 Finance&'ins. - • 17 •:$15,555 Const: 198. .$19,223 Real estate - •- 82. •. $8,765 Manufacturing •, -52 ... $1,137 Services -303 : $71,830 Wholesale: -23 .. , $3,7.15 Unclassified:`' '5 $94 Source: Table 1 ' What is most striking about Tables 1 and 2 isthe very slow job growth inmost categories, and the overall loss of jobs in Pitkin County over the period. .In fact, the only categories to add significant numbers of jobs were construction, real estate, and finance and insurance, which shows the growing dominance of the real estate economyin the county. The wage increases in. these. sectors were. relatively modest. Overall, wages in, Pitkin .County grew by an average annual rate of9.65% overthe time period. In August 2002, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs produced a study titled 'What is Affordable Housing in Your Area". Table 3 below summarizes the portion of that analysis applicable to Pitkin County. County - Table 3-Person Area Median Income 3: Colorado Affordable. Payment .- • DOLA Analysis Average Rent' • 2/02. • . of Affordability Affordable Sales • . Price • in Median . Sales Price • : • Pitkin County Bench- mark Home Value: No: of units • available < 80% AM!. No of • units available < 60% AMI Median • $1,975 • $266,498 $79,000. < 80% $1;224 $165,128 $48,950 $460,000 15 single . 13 single Pitkin $953 single • • $898,727 family; family; < 60% $1,185 Aspen $159,899 family; 9-condo 8 condo $47,400 • $500,000 < 50% $988 $133,249 • condo in $39,500 Aspen. . . < 30% . $593 • . $79,949 • $23,700 .: Source:'Coloredo Department of Local Affairs Definitions: • . AMI - January 2002 Area Median Income for 3 person families, by county, as calculated by HUD. Affordable Payment - equals30% of monthly income, including rent or PITI and utilities. Average rents are for two bedroom/one bath units, not including utilities, from the February 2002 Multi -Family • Housing Vacancy & Rental Survey from the Colorado Division of Housing:and the Metro Apartment Association. Affordable Sales Price - assumes 25% of monthly income pays for principle & interest only on. an FHA mortgage with 3% down, 6.66%interest; and 30 year.term. Assumes 4% of monthly income pays for taxes.& insurance. Interest Rate - 6.57% is the average effective rate for 30 year, fixed rate FHA mortgages, as quoted bythe - Mortgage Bankers Association of America for the week ending 8/2/02. . Pitkin County, Colorado . . Affordab/e.Housing Support Study Page 5 Clarion Associates —Nicholas -. RRC November 2004 DRAFT Median SaleSPrice - is based on J ine2002, Multiple Listing Service (MLS)_information from the Colorado Association of Realtors; Metrolist, & IRES. This data.iscounty specific, unless an MLSarea`is notedin the chart. Benchmark Home Value - is the average valueof,1300 squarefoot single family units asofJanuary '1, 2002. It is based on ananalysis.of assessment data prepared by ValueWest; Inc. # Units Available - is the number of singlefamily and condo units available for sale at or below the "Affordable Sale Price" for 3 person households earning 80%AMI. It is based on listings in Realtor.comrRecolorado.com, Coloproperty.com and MLSToday.com, found during August 2002. In addition, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs publishes statistics on "cost burdened rental households": Data from December 2003 is shown in Table 4 below. Table 4: 2004 Rental Households by 2003 HUD Paid in Rent, Pitkin 2003 HUD. Median Family Income Income Limits and Percent of Income County $100,400 2004 Renter-occupled Households 2,945 % of HUD Median Family Income Four Person Income Limit . HH at or Below Median Range HH paying 30% or more of income in rent 0 to 30% $27,200 816 .. 660 31to50% $45,200 1,424 . •. 1,012 51 to 60% . . ' $54,240 1,679 949 61 to 80% $56,500 1,733 .' 1,002 Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs; County Income and Earnings Data. http://dola.colorado.gov/housing/HUDLim.cfm Finally, the market for land and houses in Pitkin County is "gentrifying" as the population ages. Many current residents (employees) bought their homes 20 or 30 years ago, when prices were more affordable. As a result, they were able to pay for their home and live in. Pitkin County over the intervening decades on moderate incomes. However, asthese residents age and retire, many of their homes will enterthe resale market and will be sold at the market price for such homes — which is basicallynot affordable to most existing residents/employees.. This will lead to homes currently occupied; by middle incomehouseholds being occupied in the future by: higher income households - further reducing the stock of housing available for or occupied by moderate income families/employees. In combination,. these materialsdemonstrate that, while employment. in Pitkin County has remained almost unchanged, wages have risen moderately, while housing offerings availableat lower prices have tended to decline: As; shown later in this 'study, housing prices in -general have risen dramatically over the past several years. This is the housing affordability problem in Pitkin County. C. THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN PITKIN COUNTY Table 5 below contains historic and projected employment for Pitkin County from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, as reported by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The historic data are for the period from 1985 to 2002 and the projected data .are for the years• 2005. to 2020. Total. employment is broken out by those employed within Pitkin County who reside within. Pitkin County and those that are employed in- Pitkin County and reside outside of the county. In 1985, 73 percent of all those employed in the Pitkin County, Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study. Clarion Associates -Nicholas- RRC Page 6 November 2004 DRAFT county lived in the county.. -By 1990, this percentage had dropped to 49 percent, and by 2004 it had declined further to 44 percent: Employment' projections indicate that the local: portion of total employment will continue to decline to under 37 percent by 2025 unlessadditional housing is provided in the county within the price ranges that are affordable to local employees. Table Total Employment 5: Employment Local. .Employment and Wages In -Migrant Employees in Pitkin Percent. Local County 1990-2025 Self. -. Employed Wage & : Salary- . Jobs ES202 1N8<S Jobs; 1990, 16,182.. 7,853 8,329 48.5% . 2,154' : 14,028 _ 12,748 1991 . 14,982 7,205 7,777 . 48.1% . 1,995 12,988 :. 11,822 1992 15,541 7,279 . 8,262 46.8% 2,068 13,473 12,261 1993 17,109 8,073 9,036 . 47.2% . 2,277 14,832 13;514 1994 18,215 8,655 9,560 47:5% 2,425 . 15,790 14,447 1995 18,256 8,696 .. 9,560 47,6%. 2,430 '.: .. 15,826 14,486 1996- 18,712 8,642 . 10,071 46.2% 2,491 16,221 - 14,929 1997 19,352 - 8,898 10,455 : 46.0% . . 2,576 .16,776-. 15,571- 1998 19,577 8,956 10,621 45.7%. 2,606 ` 16,971 15,822 1999 19,21.1. 8,700 10,510 45.3% . 2,558 16,653 15,659 2000 19,527 ' 8;780 10,747 . 45,0%. 2,599:: . 16,928 15;924 2001 .- 19,695 8,842 10,853 44,9% 2,622- 17,073. . 16,985. 2002 19,204 8,756 10,448 45.6% 2,602 16,602 15,614 2003 19,121 8,571 10,550 44.8% . 2,603.. .16,518 . 15,656- 2004: • -18,923 : 8,351 > .:10,572 44.1% 2,587 - .'.,16,336 15,591 2005 18,610 . . 8,096. 12,609• 43.5%': `.2,554 "16,056 • 15,420:. 2010 24,092 9,941 15,551 41.3% :. 3,355 20,737 - 19,865_. 2015 29,644 ..11,700 18,469 39,5% 4,179 . 25;465 . 24,319. 2020. 34,576 13,091 21,643' 37.9% : 4,930. • 29,646... ^ 28,236 2025 38,462. 14,027. ... 24,914 36.5%: ', .5,541 32,921 _ 31,288 Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, September 2004 The data set out in Table5 can also be used to projectthe existing need for affordable housing. As discussed ,in the Introduction, we have'assumed for purposes of these calculations that.60. percent of those employed in the county need to be housed in the county: Table 6 takes the• total and Local`employment data from Table 5'and derives the demand: for employee housing based on this goal. It is derived by. first determining 60 percent of the. county's'employees based on the total number of employees, and:then contrasting .this 60 percent of total:Pitkin• County employment with locally employed Pitkin County residents. The difference represents the number of, employees still needing; affordable housing in the county; if 60 percent of the local workforce is going to live in the.. county. The 2002 Aspen Affordable Housing -Strategy Plan, prepared by EPS, found that the average worker holds more than one job. Based on the EPS data and experience from other resort communities, it appears that the average worker in this market holds 1:065 jobs. Aspen/Pitkin County Housing • Office.. estimates that .there are approximately1,75 employees per household imthe county today: Applying these ratios to the employees in need of housing results (i.e.'dividing'the numbe(of jobs by the. number of jobs per employee; and .then dividing the resulting number of employees by the number of employees in a'housing,unit) shoals -the net need for affordable housing in Pitkin County from 1990`to 2025: This information is summarized in Table 6: Pitkin County, .Colorado - Clarion Associates -Nicholas -.RRC Affordable Housing Support Study Page 7 - November 2004 DRAFT Table 6: Need Total Employ- ment. for Affordable Total Individuals Employed. Employee 60% of : Employees Housing; Local. Employ- ment ... Pitkin County Local Individuals Employed • 1990-2025 Employees in Need of Affordable Housing Needed Housing Units" 1990 16,182 15,194.: 9,117 7,853 7,374- 1,743.: 996 1991 14,982 14,068 8,441 ' 7,205': 6,766 '1,675 957 1992 15,541 14,592 . 8,755 7,279 6,834 1;921 1,098 1993 17;109 16,065 9,639 8,073 7,580 2;059 1,177.. 1994 18,215. . 17,103 10,262 8,655 8,127 '. 2,135 1,220 1995 18,256 17,142 ' •. 10,285 . 8,696 8;165: 2,120 1,212 1996 18,712 . 17,570. .10,542 . 8,642 .:• 8,114 • 2,428 1;387 1997 19,352 18,171< 10,903 8,898 8,354 2,548 1,456 1998 19,577 18,382.. 11,029 8,956 8,409:. . ' 2,620.. 1,497 1999 . .19,211 18,038 10,823 . 8,700 . 8,169. 2,653 1,516 2000 19,527 18,335 11,001 8,780 - 8,244 2,757 1,575 2001 19,695 18,493 . 11,096 8,842 8,302 2,793 1;596 2002 . 19,204 18,032 . 10,819 8,756 8,222 . 2,598 1,484 2003 19,121 17,954 10,772. 8,57.1 8,048 2;724 1,557 2004 18,923 17,768 10,661 8,351 7,842 2,819 1,611' 2005 ' 18,610 ' 17,474 . 10,485 8,096 7,602 .. 2,882.. 1,647 2010 24,092 22,622 13,573 9,941 9,334 4,239 2,422 2015 29,644. 27,835:. 16,701 11,700 10,986 5,715. 3,266 2020 . 34;576 32,466 . . 19,479 ` 13,091 . 12,292 7,187 4,107 2025 .'38,462 . 36,115 21,669 14,027 . . 13,171 .' 18,498 : .4,856 ,. Source`. Table 5 Table 6 shows that Pitkin County has had a net housing need for affordable housing since at least 1990. Since then there has : been an increasing need in Pitkin County for affordable' housing. This sharp increase in the net need for housing is closely associated with the equally sharp decline of housing units being offered in the price ranges that the local work force can afford. The data support the historical trend that the affordable housing problem in the county will continue to growas housing becomes more expensive and employment continues to grow. Table 6 reveals that if the county were to provide housing for 60 percent of all, employees in 2004, then a •total of 10,661 .employees would have needed. housing; A total of 7,842 employees are currently living in the county, which leaves a gap' of 2,819 employees for whom additional housing would . have been needed. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office estimates that each affordable housing unit houses 1.75 employees; which means that the gap of 2,820 employees in need of housing would have required an additional 1;611 housing units. Since Table 5 shows that '44.1 percent of employees currently live in the county, this gap of 1,611 housing units represents the difference between the current 44.1 % local housing rate and. the assumed county target of 60% local housing.' • 1 The2002 Aspen Affordable Housing Strategy Plan (prepared by EPS) found a shortfall of 995 units as of 2000. Some of the differences between these two findings can be -explained by the fact that this study uses 2004 data, and some may be caused by differential assumptions about employees per unit (1.75 vs: 1.80). Clarion Associates =Nicholas - RRC Affordable Housing Support Study Page 8 November 2004 DRAFT Pitkin County, Colorado This need is expected to grow significantly between 2005. and 2025. Table 7 shows this increase in demand that the growth of employment will have over the next 21. years. Table 7: Need for Affordable Individuals Employed Employee 60% of Employees Housing; Local Individuals . .Employed Pitkin County Employees in Need of . Affordable Housing 2005-2025 Needed Housing Units 2005 17,474 10,485 7,602 2,882 . 1,647 2010 22,622 13,573 9,334 4,239 2,422 2015 27,835 16,701 10,986 5,715 3,266 2020 32,466 19,479 12,292 . 7,187 .4,107 2025. ' . -36,115 21,669 ` 13,171 ..: 8,498 '.. ' .4,856 Source: Table 6 THE INVENTORY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1) Overview There are potentially fivedifferent types of affordable housing .units available today for employees in the Pitkin County, Aspen and Snowmass workforce: They include Category units, resident occupancy units (RO units), employee dwelling units (EDUs), caretaker dwelling units. (CDUs) and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The Category units are ownership and rental units that are regulated -as to size, type; occupancy, and sale/rental price pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. The units have been built either by the private sector pursuant to county or city regulations, or by the Housing Authority, Snowmass, or the Village. of Snowmass, and sometimes by other public entities. There are four differenttypes of Category units; they are for low (Category 1), moderate (Categories 2 and 3) and middle (Category 4) income employees and their families (Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines). In order to address the range of housing demand of county employees and their families, the Category units include_ studios; one bedroom,two bedroom, three bedroom, and four bedroom multi -family units; and single family homes. ' Resident occupancy' units (RO unit) primarily serve local professionals and business owners. The units have been built by the private sector and must be sold to an employee, subject to deed restrictions. The nature of RO units in the supply of affordable housing has changed over time. Initially, RO units were not subject to either income or asset limits; then for a period of time they were subject to both income and asset limits;: and they are now subject to asset (but not income) limits. Even when they were most tightly restricted, however, the income limits, sale prices, and sizes of the RO units were set higher than those for Category units. For example, an RO unit cannot exceed 2,200 square feet in size and must be deed restricted to maintain price levels within the general range of the purchase price, adjustedfor inflation and/or CPI. Most RO units are single family homes: Attached ordetached employee dwellings units (EDUs) are permitted as. of right in the R-30, AFR-2, AFR-10, RS-20, RS-30.and RR-160 zone districts (subject to certain restrictions), and are allowed as a special review use incertain other zone districts in Pitkin County (Sec. 3-150- Pitkin County, Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study Page 9 C/a don Associates -Nicholas - RRC November 2004 DRAFT 120, PCLUC). The EDU must be between 700 and 1,500 net livable square feet, and must be deed restricted and rented to employees who work within the jurisdictional limits of the county or City. at maximumrental rates that do not exceed the. Housing Office Category 3 levels (Sec. 3- 150-120 D..3, PCLUC). The City of Aspen permits owners of residential units to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs) (subject to specific development limitations): The ADU must be between 300 and 700 square feet of net livable area, and deed restricted and rented to county or city employeesby the owner if it is occupied (Sec. 26.40.090, Aspen Code). The Aspen/Pitkin County. Housing Office estimates that virtually none of the existing ADUsare rented out and availableto meet affordable housing needs, so these units are not included in the available. supply: Caretaker dwelling units (CDUs).are 'allowed, 'subject' to specificdevelopment standards, ina number of residential zone districts in the county (Sec. 3-150-130, PCLUC). Generally, CDUs. may be built up to 700 net livable, square feet in size, but they cannot exceed 400 net livable square feet in several specific instances. If the CDU is occupied (occupation is not a requirement), it may only be occupied by members of the immediate family or resident employees. The bounty's regulations state that the CDUs shall: "be limited to occupancy by not more than two (2) adults, and related children, who qualify as (and have been found by the Housing Office to be) employees of thecommunity under such guidelines as may from time to time be established by said authority..." The caretaker dwelling unit may be occupied by members of the immediate family even though .they may not qualify. as employees of the community." (Secs. 3-150-130 A:4 and B.3, PCLUC). . 2). The Inventory of Existing Affordable Housing Units The Aspen/Pitkin County, Housing Office maintains an inventory of all the built and planned affordable housing units' in the county. That inventory is attached to this Study as Appendix A, and includes a breakdown of the units by location and by number of bedrooms: A summary of the inventory of built units is set forth in Table 8 below. Table 8: Inventory Location . , of Affordable Housing Ownership . • • . Units 2004 . Rental Total . Category and RO Units, Within Aspen 690 1,068 ' • 1;758 Outside Aspen ' 563 1 T,' : ` 580 Total 1,253 • 1;085 _ 2,338 Rental EDUs . 28* .. • . :28* Rental CDUs • 43** 43" .Total Affordable Units. 1,253 . . . 1,156 .. 2,409 Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office and Pitkin County Planning Office, see Exhibit A: ' The inventory of EDUs is currently being updated. This represents an estimate from staff of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Officer . ** In 2000; there were.57 CDUs in the county; and the inventory has not been updated since: The Housing Office estimates that approximately 75%q (43) of those units are assumed to be rented and available to address affordable housing needs. Clarion.Associates-Nicholas- RRC Affordable Housing Support Study - .. Page 10 . November 2004 DRAFT. Pitkin County, Colorado What the •.inventory.demonstrate! is that. there are a total .of•2,338 affordable units plus 71 Employee DwellingUnits.and Caretaker Dwelling ,Units that contributeto the'affordable housing supply, for' a total of 2,409 affordable housing units. in 'Pitkin 'County. Of -this amount, the large majority are`Category. units.. Only 477 of the units are Resident Occupancy. (RO) units (i.e. • ownership. units constructed by the private; sector that must, be. sold•to•an employee of the .owner, subject todeed'restrictions). In addition, the inventory ih Exhibit A clarifies that'there are currently 98 affordable housing units in the various stages of the planning and development approval process. When those units are added to the figures above, the result is a total of 2,507 built or planned-for-but-unbuilt affordable housing units in Pitkin County.. • . 3) Affordable Housing Units Expected to be Constructed by Housing Authority In the 1970s, the county and the City of Aspen initiated a program to build new affordable. housing units through the Aspen/Pitkin Housing, Office. Thiseffort is currently supported through a real estate transfer tax that has been approved by the City of Aspen andallocated to the Housing Office for the construction of affordable housing units forlow, moderate, and middle income employees. This is the source of funding that the Housing Office has used in the past, along with some limited . funding through city and county affordable housing mitigation requirements, to acquire land and build affordable housing units. Based on conversationswith the Housing Office staff, that office estimates that it will build approximately an additional 400 Category housing units over the next 10 years.Z 4) Addressing 2004 Affordable Housing Needs Table 6 reveals that in 2004; 7,842 Pitkin County employees were living in the county. At • 1.75 employees per dwelling unit, this means that 4,481 dwelling units were already being provided for these employees. Since 2,409 of units.vvere being provided from the stock of the affordable housing units, the remaining 2,072 were being .provided by the private market. Table 6 also reveals a remaining need for 1,611 units if 60% of employees are to be housed within Pitkin County. When this number is reduced by the amount of affordable housing units currently' under construction (98) and those the authority will build over the' next ten years (400), the anticipated unmet need after ten years is 1,113 affordable housing units. A portion of the needed units will be provided by private market activity, as they have in the past. The calculation of unmet need should therefore also be reduced by the amount of housing expected to be supplied by the private market at affordable prices during the next 10 years. The 2002 Aspen Affordable Housing Strategy Plan concluded that the marketmight provide approximately 350 units. Table 9 shows the distribution of housing"sold for under$500,000 in Aspen and Snowmass in 2003-04. 2 Conversation with Cindy Christensen, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office, June 22, 2004.. Pitkin County, Colorado -. . Clarion Associates -Nicholas - RRC Affordable Housing Support Study • Page 11 Novembei 2004 DRAFT Table 9: Dwelling Units Listings < $500,000. By Price Range in Aspen & Snowmass . - All Listings SF Unit :Condo Both % SF Unit Condo . Both 1988 43 329 468 76.3% 172 412. 613 1989 28 241 269 '.64.4% . 151 . 267. 418 1990 22. 227 249 52.9% 205 266 471. 1991 29 304 333 . 53.4% 260.... 364 . 624 1992 20 300 320 57.6% 211 345 556 1993 12 235 --'247 52.2%. 185 . 288. 473 1994 7 134 , 141. 40.2% 170 . . 181 . 351 1995. 7. 118 ..125 33.8% 200 170. 370. 1996 4 . 91 . . 95 25.1% ` 217 . 162 . 379: 1997 2 80 82 . 23.9%' 197 .:. .146. 343 03-04 2 . 86 ' 88 ..25.0%', 132. . 220 352 Source: Aspen Appraisal Group, Ltd., "Aspen-Snowmass Market Overview,' 2000. Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Offce, 2004. Table 9 shows that the percentageof residential listings under $500,000 has fallen from over 75% 16 years ago to approximately:50% 11 years ago, and then fallen further to 25% in 1996. It seems to have stabilized at that level. The number of units sold in this pricerange also seems to have stabilized between 90 and 100. This information is graphically presented below. 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 80.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% • 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 87 Available Dwellings Under $500,000 Aspen & Snowmass ,Percent of All Listed/Sold ♦ 89 91 93 95 97' 99 01 03 The apparent stabilization of private market supply over the past.8 years is helpful in predicting future market supply. It is unlikely that there will be significant construction of new market. units within affordable price ranges. An examination of units sold under $500,000 suggests few, if any, are recently built. Nevertheless, previously built units remain in the lower price bracket. Table 10 shows that, of the 88 units listedand sold in:2003-04, only 19 were priced under $200,000 (which is slightly higher than the $188,667 maximum affordable housing price for a median income family of three - see "Buying Power" on page 23 below). All of the units sold under $200,000 were condominiums or town houses.. . Pitkin County, Colorado ' - . . Clarion Associates -Nicholas - RRC Affordable Housing &report Study • Page:12 - • - : Novemb r 2004 DRAFT Table 10: !Units Sold ! Aspen and Price Range. Under $500,000 Snowmass Number Sold < $100,000 2 100,000- 150;000 8 150,000 - 200,000 9 200,000-.250,000 .. 13 250,000 = 300,000 5 300,000 - 350,000 15 350,000 - 400,000 . 18 400,000 - 450,000 • 10 1. 450,000 - 500,000 13 Source: Multi -List Service, 2004 Since rising costs of land and constructionfor new development tend to raise prices for resales of existing units, there is little reason to believe that the private market will supply more affordable units in the next 10 years than it has in the past few. years. In fact,: present conditions. suggest that the number supplied could fall further Under the most favorableconditions, market provision of affordable housing could reach 20 per year, or 200 units over the next 10 years. If 200 units were supplied through resales ofexisting units, it would reduce the total unmet from demand from 1,113 to 913 units: Table 11 summarizes the information presented above. • Table 11: Comparison Of Year 2004 Affordable , And Public Programs To Address.Needs Housing Needs Year 2004. Needs and' 'Supply '.. Additional Units .to Address Year' 2004 Needs. Total Number of Employees to be Housed in Pitkin County . 10,661' '. • Total Number of Affordable Housing Units Needed (1.75 emp/du) • 6,092 Existing Provision (includes existing affordable housing units) .' . 4,481 : •. Existing Need . • -. 1,611 .. Affordable Housing Units. Currently Under Construction 98 New Affordable Housing Units. Estimated to be. Constructed by Housing Office, 2004-2014 400 • Net Need,Excluding Private Market Activity 1,113 New Units Provided.by Market 200 . . -. REMAINING NEED 913:... Source: Table 6 and Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office • Since mitigation fees may only be imposed to address the affordable housing needs, created by new growth in the county, and not tofund pre-existing deficits, the county will need to either: (a) identify other sources of funds to address this deficit of 913 affordable housing units, or (b) administer the mitigation fees so as to ensure that those who provide mitigation are receiving the benefits for those payments instead of reducing the existing deficit. Pitkin County, Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study Page 13 Clarion Associates -Nicholas - RRC November 2004 DRAFT . MITIGATING THE DEMAND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREATED: BY NEW . . DEVELOPMENT The need to provide affordable housing for local employees in Pitkin County comes from all new development that demands labor (employees). This .includes residential development, commercial development, and tourist accommodations. 1) Background: Basic Sector versus Local Sector • It is tempting to think that a community may be divided neatly into an economic sector and a residential sector. The economic sector provides the employment and incomes: for the residents. and the residential sector provides for the needs of the local employees and their families. However, in a place like Pitkin County, this distinction between an economic sector and residential sector is misleading. Instead, it: is more useful to conceive of an economy that is divided into two general sectors: the basic sector and the local sector. The basic sector is that part of a regional economy that brings income into the region and distributes that income as wages and salaries within the region. The local sector is that part of the economy that produces goods and services for sale to residents of the region. The basic sector is active while the -local sector is reactive. For a region like Detroit, this model is workable.. Automobiles and associated products are made in the region and sold to (shipped to) consumers living outside of the Detroit region.' The. firms engaged in the production of automotive goods,are paid for the goods'and. services they provide in the process of making automotive products. Their incomes are spent -within the local economy on a wide variety of goods and services. The essential reason for using this model is that the economic health of the region isdependent upon the economic success of the basic sector. Frequently the basic sectoris called the export sector because it produces goods: and services for export (to other regions and not necessarily internationally). Pitkin County experiences thesesame economic forces, but the forces play out a bit differently:. The economic base of Pitkin County is visitors. Some of these visitors are traditional tourists. Others are part-time residents. Still others are present in the area forlong periods: The. essence of these visitors is that they come to the area (and sometimes return) if their visits are pleasant. This is equally true of tourists, part-time residents, and even retirees. All are attracted to the area because of the natural and man-made amenities of the region combined with a community that has an attraction to those people. All of these groups constitute the economic base of the county. They bring money into the county and then spend that money on goods and services produced within the region. The incomes earned by that production leads to spending in the local sector. The residential development of Pitkin. County isvery much. a part of the economic base of the community As such, residential development shares many of the characteristics of other and more typical components of the economic base. (such as Detroit's auto industry). 2) Residential Development Residential development in Pitkin County has two economic impacts. The 'first is the construction of the residence. The second is the operationand maintenance 6f.that residence when it is completed. Both activities generate employment. This employment will be of the type where most of those employed will receive wages and salaries that place them in a position of economic stress in terms of theirability to purchase or rent housing in the county. Each Pitkin County, Colorado - Clarion Associates -Nicholas - RRC Affordable Housing Support Study Page 14 November 2004 DRAFT component that has an economic impact is.discussed•below-in terms: of the demands it places on the need for affordable housing in the county.. (a) Residential Construction Impacts Clearly, the construction of residential units :or.the expansion or renovation of a residential unit requires the employment of contractors and construction workers to do the work. Inaddition, it. requires the purchase of materials to construct the unit: The calculation of construction related demand for affordable housing is a three -step process. The first step isto document the amount of residential and non-residential construction authorized in the county. The second step istodetermine how many construction workers: were involved in theconstruction process. For purposes of this calculation, we have only included employees that actually work in residential construction (rather than in related trades, such as cabinetry or electricians), since the related trades often work on repair jobs unrelated to the construction of new residential and non-residential space. Those types of repairs are more accurately treated as the costs of operating and maintaining units once they have been built, and are covered in subsection b below. . Table 12 summarizes the relationship : between residential construction and number of employees required for that construction,: t'Table 12: 'Square Feet Constructed per Residential Floor Area Construction Employee in Residential Construction: Employment Pitkin County Feet per Employee 1999 715,464 537 1,332 2000 921,150 563 1,636 2001 . . 877,075 481 1,823 2002 ' 993,606`. 598 .. . . 1,662 2003 1,489,991 524 - 2,845 Totals' • , 4,997,285. 2,703• . . .1;849 Source: Pitkin County Building Department and Bureau of the Census, http:l/censtats.census.gov/cqi-bin/cbpnaidcbpdetl.pl Table 12 illustrates that, on average, one employee directly involved. in residential construction builds an average of 1,849 square feet of residential space in a year.. Put anotherway, it takes an estimated 0.541 employee -years to construct 1,000 square feet of residential floor area. Larger construction projects require more construction, time (either more people, working over the same period of time, or the same number of peopleworking for a longer time) to complete: Table 13 sets out the employment impact and the number of dwelling units associated with that impact by size of dwelling. This table displays the number of employees it takes to 'construct unit and the number of dwelling units required to house construction workers based on the size of house being constructed. Construction employeeswill require ,housing. only during the construction period, but the average construction worker career is 40 years. The calculation of construction employee years is therefore divided. by 40 4o convert to needed housing. The employee equivalent is then divided by the number of employeesper dwelling unit (1.75) to calculate the fraction of a dwelling unit needed to house the employees engaged in residential construction of homes of different sizes. Pitkin County, Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study Page 15 Canon Associates -Nicholas - RAC • November 2004 DRAFT Table 13: Construction Employment and Need for Housing Permanent Employment in Pitkin County Dwelling Units Unit Size Employee Years 500 0:270 0.007. 0.004 ., 1,000`• 0.541 0.014 0.008 2,000 . 1.082. . .. 0.027 0.015 '3,000 1.623 0.041.. ' 0.023 4, 000 .. .. 2.163 .:.. . 0.054 ....: 0.031 5,000 2.704 0.068. 0.039 6,000 3.245 0.081 0.046 7,000 .3.786 0.095 0:054 8,000 4.327 0.108 0.062 9;000. 4.868 0.122 0.070 10,000 5.408 0.135 0.077 .. . . 12,000 6.490 . •: 0:162 0.093 Source: U.S.. Census Data; AspenlPitkin Housing Office . This issue was alsoaddressed. in the. 2004 study . by the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments' (NWCOG) of "Second Homes and the • Amenity -Based Economy'. Table '14 summarizes NWCOG's findings on the impact of second home construction on employment: Table 14: Employment Generation Economic Driver by Second Basic Jobs Home Construction Total Jobs in Five County Basic Jobs per Unit Area Total Jobs per Unit 2"tl home construction < 3K sf unit . 430 883 3.3 6.8 2"° home construction 3K+ sf unit . 1,086 - 2,229 9.1 .. . . 18:7 Source: NWCOG "Second Homes and the Amenity -Based Economy", April 2004 The figures in Table 14 differ from those in Table 13 because the NWCOG study focused on second home owners (rather than all home owners), and because the NWCOO numbers reflect an average across five mountain resort counties (rather than being specific to Pitkin County). (b) Residential Operations and. Maintenance Impacts Once a dwelling is completed it will be occupied; operated and maintained. These activities will require labor inputs and thus employ people. To evaluate these impacts, a survey of homeowners in Pitkin County was conducted in June 2004. The survey, administered by RRC Associates, contacted 2,500 Pitkin County homeowners using a mailback survey technique. All non -duplicated households with units in excess of 4,000 square feet, as identified through. County Assessor records, were contacted, as well as a random sample of owners of smaller units (with an overweighting of units of 3,000 — 3,999,square feet in size). A total of 743 surveys were returned by the response cutoff date, for a strong response rate of 29.7 percent. The survey asked respondents to specify their spending and/or direct employment for the operations and maintenance of their home, broken out by the following types of service providers: Pitkin County, Colorado Clarion Associates —Nicholas — RRC Affordable Housing Support Study Page 16. . November 2004 DRAFT • Homeowners associations • Property management firms • Other contracted services • Caretakers and other direct employees of the household For each of these employment categories, respondents were asked to provide annual spending estimates, as well as employment estimates. (if known). Annual spendingamounts were converted into employment using a combination of wage data and assumptions regarding non - labor costs. Wage data was based on annualized wage rates for Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield, counties for specified industry sectors, as extrapolated from second quarter 2003 ES202 data. Specific assumptions for individual service providers are as follows: • • Homeowners associations: We assumed'a conversion ratio cif.$58,000 in homeowners'• dues per•direct job:• This is based on an -assumption of a $27,900 average wage •for .HOA.employees.(regional ES202 data .NAICS'code 813990); total cost per employee to employer of $34,800 (adding- an assumed'20 percent factor for payroll -taxes and benefits); • and• arc; assumption 'that 60 percent: of HOA • costs are •for labor -related expenses •(based on interviews with Home Owners Associations • (HOAsj in other mountain resort communities, as Well as national financial:data for HOAs). • . Propertv management firms: We •assumed a conversion ratio of $58,700 in property management fees per direct job. This is based on an assumption of•a $28,200 average wage- for. residential • property. management employees (regional ES202 data — NAICS code 531'311);.total cost per employee of $35200 (adding an assumed •20.percent factor for ,payroll ;taxes 'and • benefits); . and an.: assumption that • 60, percent •of property management costs are for labor -related expenses (based on •interviews•with property management firms in other mountain resort communities). •:. • Other contracted•services:• We •assumed a conversion ratio of $37,000 in contracted- service•fees per direct. job. This is based on arc assumption of a $23,500 average wage for buildings &dwellings services employees (regional ES202 data — NAICS.codes 5616 & 5617); total cost per employee to employer of $29,400.(adding an assumed.20 percent factor for payroll taxes and benefits); and an assumption that•80 percent service costs are for labor -related. expenses. ▪ Direct employees and caretakers; We assumed`. a conversion ratio of :$42,000 in employment costs. per direct job:.This is based• on. an assumption of a $33,700 average wage:for private household employees .(regional ES202 data— NAICS'cede 814110); and total cost:per.employeeto employer of $42,000 (adding anassumed 20 percent' factor -for payroll taxes and benefits). • As a."check" onthese conversion factors, the data, was also•analyzed using inflation -adjusted 1997 Economic Census'data (national or regional data, depending on availability)-forthe ratio of receipts to employment •in. applicable industries. Very, similar employment estimates were obtained; adding confidence in:the results. Theemploymentestimates resulting from these. extrapolations are siniilarto, although not quite precisely the same as, "full-time equivalents".,(FTE's). Rather; -the. employment estimates represent "employee.equiJalents"- for the respective service occupations, i.e. the number of persons that would typically be employed to complete the.work, based on •existing employment. patterns in the respective industries, which. presumably includes .a blended hybrid of full-time and part-time employees. Pitkin County, Coloredo Clarion Associates —Nicholas = RRC Affordable Housing Support Study Page 17 • November 2004 DRAFT • A total of 446 survey. responses contained sufficient data to determineboth estimated employment and total home square footage (finished and unfinished combined). The distribution of responses by home size is illustrated in Table 15 below. Table Number of Usable Suwey Home Size 15: Cases by Home Size Usable Cases .. < 1,000 sf 40 1,000-1,999.sf 82 2,000 - 2,999 sf , . 51, 3,000- 3,999 sf- .. . . 57 4;000 - 4,999 sf • 88 . 5,000 - 5,999 sf 64 6,000 - 6,999 sf .22 7,000 - 7,999 sf 15 8,000-.8,999 sf 7 9,000 - 9,999 sf 6 . 10,000 - 10,999 sf 6 11,000 - 11,999 sf 3 12,000:- 12,999 sf 1 13,000 - 13,999 sf . - .. 2 . 14,000-.15,000-sf : '• 2 Grand Total 446 Source: RRC survey .` Data at the top end of the home size distribution is somewhat erratic due o the small numberof underlying usable cases, but for much of the observed distribution, the specified exponential trend line closely matches actually observed data, as indicated by the R2 value of 0.336. The basic forms of the equation are: Ln(y 2nd Home) = -4.64138 + (0.000328 * Size in Sq.Ft.) + 2.00514 Ln(y All Other Homes) = 4.64138 + (0.000328'.Size in Sq.Ft.) .. These equations point to the fact that there are significant differences in employment generation between second homes and all other homes, and that second homes use many more employees, on average, than other types of homes. The graph below illustrates this difference. Fillet? County; Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study Clarion Associates -Nicholas.-. RRC November 2004DRAFT Relationship Between Empoyment and Home Size 4.0 3.5 c 3.0 E 2.5 o"2.0 0..1.5 w 1.0: 0.5 0.0 2nd Home Other o0 00 00 00 00 e o0 $3 e 00 00 00 Size The exponential relationship is specified as follows: y =-4.67138 e (0.000328 x) + 2.01 . Where'y ='employment and x = square footage - The exponential relationship above effectively describes employment as a function of home size for units of 9,000 square feet and under. For units larger than 9,000 squarefeet, it is recommended that the ratios for the 9,000 foot unit be applied on a proportional basis per 1,000 feet: The results of applying this formula, as adjusted, to local occupancy homes and second homes of varying sizes is shown in Table 16 below. • Modeled Table Relationship Between Construction Local. Occupancy . 16: Home Size and Post Employment 2nd Home 500 0.011 0.082 1,000 0.013 0.096 2,000 0.018 . 0.134 3,000 0.025 0.186 . 4,000 ` ....: 0.035 0.258. 5,000 . ' . . 0.048 .' 0.358 6,000 0.067 0.497 .' . 7,000 0.093 0.691 8,000 0.129 0.959 9,000 0.179 1.331 10,000 0.199 1.479 11,000 0.219 1.627 Pitkin County, Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study - - -Clarionn Associa es -Nicholas RRC November 2004 DRAFT.. Modeled - a. a Relationship Between Construction Local Occu.anc : •. Home Size and Post Employment `2nd Home 12,000 0.239 1.774 13,000 0.259 .1.922 14,000 0.279 .2.070 . 15,000 0.299 .. 2.218 Source: RRC These findings are generally consistent with several findings from "the 2004 NWCOG.study on. "Second. Homes: and the Amenity -Based Economy". Among other. findings; that study determined that second homes generate about 5;000 jobs to the Pitkin County economy,and that, compared to the average single property owner, the second home owner spends five times as much on lawn'care, home security, pest control, and housecleaning. Table 17 summarizes NWCOG's estimate of this impact on employment. by Second Basic Jobs Home Services Total Jobs in Five County Basic Jobs per ' Unit. .-. Area Total Jobs per Unit Table 17: Employment Generation Economic Driver 2?dhome spending < 3k sf 6219 . 8793 .. 0.7 1.1 2' home spending 3K+ sf : 2283 ..: 3228` 1.3 Source: NWCOG "Second Homes and the Ameni y-Based Economy", April 2004 The figures in Table 16 differ from those in Table 17 because the: NWCOG study focused on second home owners (rather than all home owners), and because the NWCOG numbers reflect an average acrossfive mountain resort counties (and are not specific to Pitkin County). (c) Combined. Impacts. of • Construction, Operations and Maintenance of Residential Development The two separate analyses outlined above can be used to estimatethe amount of employment that construction and operations and maintenance activities generate to build and then service residential development. in Pitkin County. Table 18 estimates this individually and then combines the employment estimates for construction and operation and maintenance activities. Pitkin County, Colorado .• Affordable Housing Support Study Page 20 November 2004 DRAFT Clarion Associates —Nicholas — RRC Table 18: Residential Employment and Need for Housing, Unit Size Construction Local Occupancy : -.'- Second Homes • Post Construction - Total . Post Construction Total Employee Years Perma- nent Employ- ment Dwelling Units Perna- ' nent Employ- ment, Dwelling : Units Employ ment Dwelling Units. Perna - bent • Employ -.Units ment Dwelling Employ ment . Dwelling Units 500 0.270 0.007 .0.004 0.011 0.006 0.018 .0.010. 0.082. 0.047 ,0.089. 0.051 1,000 0.541 ' 0:014 0:008. 0.013 0.007. 0.027 .0.015 0.096 .0.055 .0.110 0.063 2,000. 1.082 ... . 0.027 0.015 0:018. 0.010 0.045 .0.026. . 0.134 : '0.077 :0.161 , 0.092 3,000 1.623 0.041 0.023 0.025 0.014 0.066 0.037 0.186.. 0.106 0.227 0.129. 4,000 2.163 0.054 0.031 0.035 0.020 0.089 0.051 0.258 0.148 0.312 0.178 5;000 2.704 0.068 0.039 0.048 0.028 0.116 0.066 0:358 0.205 0.426 0.243 6,000 3.245 0.081 0.046 0.067 0.038 0.148 0.085 0.497 0.284 0.579 0.331 7,000 3.786 0.095 0.054 0.093. 0.053 - 0:188 0.107 .. 0.691 0.395 0.785:. 0.449 8,000 ' 4.327 . 0.108 0.062 • 0.129 0.074. 0.237. 0.136 0.959. 0.548 1.067. 0.610 9,000 4.868 0.122 0.070'. - 0.179 . 0.102'; 0.301 0:172• ' 1.331.. `0.760 1.452 0.830 10,000 . 5.408 0.135 0.077 0.199 .0.114 0.334 " 0.191, .. 1.479. : 0.845. 1.614 0.922. 12,000 ' 6.490 0.162 . 0.093. : 0.239 0.137 .0.401. 0.229 ".. 1.774 1:014 : 1.937. 1.107 15,000 . 8.113 0.203 0:116. • 0.299 ` 0.171 0.501 0.287 2.218 . 1.267 2.421 ' 1.383 Above 9,000 sf -- use the resul s for 9,000 sf plus the following amounts per.1,000 FT2 over 9,000..,. Per 1,000 FT2 . 0.541 0.014.. 0.008 0.020 0.011 0.033 0.019' 0.148 ..0.084 0.161 0.092 SOURCE RRC NOTE Continuing employees will require housing on a continuing basis while construction employees will require housing only during the construction; Therefore, construction employee years is divided by 40 to convert toneeded housing. • (d) Residential Mitigation . The•wages and salaries paid: to Pitkin.County's low; moderate, .and middle-income.employees are generally insufficient to allow these employees to obtain market housing. Consequently, it will be necessaryfor residential.development to mitigate for local housing costs for employees if the county is going to achieve its affordability•goal; Mitigation can 'come in several -forms. The first is through payment of a fee/subsidy for the difference between the cost of•housing .in the county for -the employee and what the can:reasonably afford: A second is to provide, land for affordable housing that is of equal value to the fee/subsidy.amount needed.. A third is 'the construction of affordable housing -.units. for the employee. .A final and. fourth Option is' to convert existing 'market,units to affordable units. The mitigation fee/subsidy amount is based on the difference between the'cost of housing in the county for the employee and what the employee can reasonably afford. In Pitkin County, this mitigation fee/subsidy amount is. calculated below. at. $31,627 per employee:- This subsidy amount is based • on an average. subsidy amount that • identifies the: difference' between: 2004 costs (land and construction) to.construct the general range of Category units for low,. moderate, and middle income persons, and.the average payments that the Category employees can afford based on their income: • Pitkin County, Colorado- - . Clarion Associates -Nicholas- RRC Affordable Housing Support Study Page 21 November 2004 DRAFT (i) Fee Subsidy The fee subsidy is a calculation of the amount by which the buying power of a typical household in need of affordable. housing in Pitkin County falls short of the amount needed to obtain affordable. housing. The estimate first involves determining the difference between the cost to construct a typical two -bedroom residential unit and what a median income household of three can afford.. This figure is then adjusted to a, per employee subsidy, based on the number of employees that are housed in a residential unit in Pitkin County. In order not to overstate this amount, the calculation is made for a small family (three persons) . and a small unit (two - bedrooms). The,gap for larger family units may be larger. For purposes of this calculation, we use the smaller unit sizes and lowerconstruction costs applicable toconstruction of affordable units (rather than free marketunits) based on past experience in the county. Because the Housing Office has not constructed single-family units to date, the figures are for a multi -family affordable housing unit. Affordable Unit Cost • Unit. Size. Pursuant to the. Housing Offices guidelines, the minimum permitted size for a 2- bedroom multi -family unit for a Category 1 or 2 household is 850 square feet, and the minimum permitted size for a Category 3 or 4 household is 950 square feet. 'Over the 'past 12 years, Category units have been built to approximately these sizes,` and not larger. This calculation uses a blended size assumption of 900 square feet. Construction Cost. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office has received bids to construct affordable housing at$160 per square foot of living area (heated space). This cost is the cost of constructing a "utilitarian" building and excludes land acquisition, infrastructure, design, permitting, finance and "soft costs."' Land costs within Pitkin County are difficult to characterize. Nevertheless, a cost of $1,250,000 per acre near Aspen and $500,000 per, acre outlying from Aspen will be used. Closer to, Aspen, dwellings per acreshould average 12 units and further out units per acre should equal 8. This yields a simple average land cost per -dwelling unit of $87,500.. Given an average unit size of 1,250 square feet for actual affordable units built (versus the 900 square feet prototype unit), the estimated land cost per square foot is $70.00. Land closer to Aspen will have lower costs of providing infrastructure while outlying sites willhave. higher costs. This cost tends to offset the advantage: of. lower outlying land cost Recent experience. by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office would indicate a per unit infrastructure cost of $16,667, or $13.33 per square foot of affordable housing unit (based on the average unit size of .1,250 square feet, for the average unit built). The "soft costs include design, "permitting, administration and general supervision. While the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office performs these tasks without charge, any other provider would incur those costs. These costs are estimated at 7.5% of constriction "hard" and infrastructure costs. The final cost included is interest. Some entity will have to. pay the cost of materials and labor. These costs will be recouped when the unit is sold.. In, the interim, interest•costs will be incurred. This cost is estimated at.10%. Table 19 shows the calculation of a Pitkin County affordable housing cost of providing a living unit. Pitkin County, Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study Page 22 Clarion Associates -Nicholas — RRC November 2004 DRAFT Table 19: Affordable Housing 2004 Category. Construction Cost per S • uare Foot Costs Cumulative Basic Utilitarian " Construction $160.00 . . $160.00' Infrastructure - $13.33 $173.33 Soft Costs. 7.50% . $186.33 Land $70.00 . '.$256.33 Interest/Finance 10.00%, • . $281.97 Source: Clarion Associates and Aspen/Pitkin County Housin• Office Cost Calculation (900 sf * $281.97 land and construction cost) _ $ 253,773/unit Buying Power Subsidy Needed for Median Household of Three. The median household income-in'Pitkin County in 2004 for a household of three persons is $65,306. If a residential unitis going to be affordable for a household of three in Pitkin County, it must sell for $193,970 (this assumes that the household should be able to carry a mortgage on the unit that does not exceed 30% of the monthly income of the family). Since the cost of an average two -bedroom multifamily affordable housing unit is $253,773, a subsidy of $59,803. is necessary to make a typical two bedroom residential unit affordable to a household, of three with a median, income in the county..,. • Per Employee Subsidy.. According to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office, the number of employees per residential unit in the county is approximately 1.75..Dividing the per unit subsidy calculated above by the number of employees per unit results in a peremployee subsidy of $34,173.. In order to determine .the fee/subsidy amount for an individual residential development, the following formula is used: Number of Employees = [ (0.00368 * Unit Size/40) + Size 13211 * 0.00000681)] Basic fee/subsidy = Total Employees (from Table 17)* $34,173 Fee/subsidy at 60% target =Total Employees (from Table 16)* $20,504 * = Times (multiply) Unit Size = Size of residential unit in square feet Even though it will be necessary • to calculate the fee/subsidy amount for each individual residential development since each will vary in size, a schedule for specific sizes of residential developrrient that demonstrates -employees generated, the.affordable housing units needed and the subsidy/fee amount is set down in Table 20. Pitkin County, Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study Page 23 Clarion Associates —Nicholas - RRC November 2004 DRAFT Table 20: Fee/Subsidy for Residential Development Size of Residential: Development Dwelling Units Number of Employees Subsidy per Employee @ 60% Target Fee Subsidy , . @ 60% Target .2"."' Home Local Occupancy 2nd Home Local.. Occupancy.` 2nd Home Local . Occupancy 500_. 0.010. . 0.051 0.018 0.089 . . $20,504. . .. $365 . .$1',818 1,000 0.015 . 0.063 0.027. 0:110 520504. $544 $2,256 2,000 0.026 0.092 '0.045 0.161; $20,504 . 5924.. $3,301 3,000 0.037 0.129 0.066 0.227 $20504 $1,345 $4,645 4,000 0.051 0.178 0.089 0.312 .520,504 $1,822 $6,402 5,000 0.066 .0.243 0.116 0.426 $20504 $2,375 $8;734 6,000 0.085 0.331 0.148 0.579 ; 520,504. 53,037" $11,863 7,000 : 0.107 ... 0.449.. 0.188 .. 0.785 . '$20504. -$3,847 . $16,100 8,000 0:136 0.610. ' 0.237 1.067 520504. $4,864 :. $21,874 9,000. 0:172; 0.830 0.301. 1.452' .$20,504. $6,169 , $29,781 10,000 0.191 . ..0.922 . 0.334 .. - 1.614 $20504 56,854. $33,090 12,000 . . 0.229 1.107 0.401. 1.937 . $20,504 .$8,225 $39,708 15,000 0:287 1.383 . 0.501 2.421 $20504' . $10,282 $49,635 Above 9,000 sf- figures reflect the formula fora 9,000 sf home plus these amounts per1,000 sf over 9,000 Per 1,000 sf. 0.019 0.092 0.033 . . •0.161 . $20,504 . $685. $3,309 Source: Table 17 and fee subsidy calculation Dedication of Land . Mitigation through an offer to dedicate land for affordable housing that is of equal Value to the fee/subsidy amount can also serve as an appropriate form of mitigation, as long as land is needed for the construction of affordable housing, the land dedicated is at an appropriate location, and the land.. can bereasonably developed for affordable : housing. ' Such determinations will need to be.made.on a case -by -case basis. (iii) Construction of Units . In order to ensure fair and adequate mitigation in instances when a residential development proposes to construct the necessary affordable housing to provide: for : the needs of its employee(s),it is necessary to determine the number of employees that serve the; development, and then the type and size of affordable housing units that are needed to accommodate the employee(s). The numberof employees that serve the development can be derived from the initial part of the formula outlined above for determination of the fee/subsidy amount. Number of Employees = [ (0.00368 * Unit Size/40 ) + Size 13211 * 0.00000681)1 The type, size, and occupancy standards applied for the units to be constructed should be. based on the occupancy, type, and size requirements established: in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. Pitkin County, Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study Page 24 • November 2004 DRAFT Clarion Associates -Nicholas - RRC (iv) . Conversion of Units.. Finally, assurance that there is fair and adequate mitigation in instanceswhen residential development'proposes to convert the necessary market housing:to'affordable housing can .be : accomplished in the same ways outlined for the construction of new affordable housing. 3) Non -Residential Development The other basic sector in Pitkin County that employs workers is non-residential development. This includes both commercial and tourist accommodations. Based upon priorexperience, the. county has establishedemployee generation estimates forthe number of employees that are generated by -commercial developments. They do not include estimates; for construction workers. The most ;current. study of non-residential . employee. generation rates in the Aspen/Pitkin area was completed. by EPS in 2002.: Since most of the nonresidential land. uses in Pitkin County are located on the periphery of Aspen it is reasonable to` assume., that these generation rates are generally applicable in the area. The EPS'employee generation levels, are identified in Table 21. However this, table has been modified .in order to avoid double counting service employees. Since the RRC survey demonstrates that the need for those employees is generated by the construction of homes, and mitigation for those employees :has been calculated in Table 20, the commercial businesses that employee those individuals should not also be required to mitigate for their impacts. Approximately two-thirds of service employees have been attributed tohousing-relatedservices, while the remaining one-third have been. attributed to service employment unrelated to the construction and servicing of new homes. Table 21 Employee Generation For Commercial Development and Tourist Accommodations Full Time Equivalent(FTE) Employees.Generated (2002) ' Tourist Accommodations (per room) Hotel -.- Luxury 1.1. Hotel--. Historic 0:3 .. Commercial Development (per-1,000 sf) Office - General . 4.5. Office = Real Estate : ,. 5.9 . Office - Non -Profit Retail - Guest Market 2:9. Retail — Local Market . 2.3 Service (repair, personal, business) . 3.4 Assigned to. Residence 2.3 Assigned to Place of Business . 1.1 Restaurant/Bar 7.4. Governmental Source: EPS Aspen Employee Generation Study 2002. Given the fact that most employees that work at either new commercial development or tourist accommodations are considered to be of either iow moderate of middle.. income, it will be necessary for nonresidential development to mitigate for local housing costs for their employees if the county is going to achieve its affordable housing goal. Mitigation could occur through any of the four mechanisms, discussed for mitigation of residential. impacts. Pitkin County; Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study .Clarion Associates —Nicholas - RRC. Page 25 November 2004 DRAFT As is discussed in the previous section on residential development, on average the fee/subsidy amount necessary to ensure that local housing is available to all low, moderate, and middle- income employees is $34,173 per employee, and the figure for an assumed target of 60% of the workforce is $20,504. In order to determine the fee/subsidy amount for an individual commercial development, the following formula is applied. • TotatEmployees = Unit Size* Employee Generation Basic Fee/subsidy = Total Employees * $34,173. Fee/subsidy at 60% target =. Total Employees . *. $20:504 * = Times (multiply) Unit Size =•.Size of commercial development in square feet . Employee Generation = Employee Generation.Rate from Table 21 Employee Generation for Commercial Development and -Tourist Accommodations: In order to determine. the fee/subsidy for tourist accommodations the following formula is applied. . Total Employees = Unit Size* Employee Generation. Basic Fee/subsidy = Total Employees * $34,173 Fee/subsidy at 60% target = Total Employees *$20,504 * = Times (multiply) Unit Size = Number of Tourist Units. Employee Generation = Employees Generation Rate from Table 21 Employee Generation for Commercial Development and Tourist Accommodations Even though it will be' necessary to calculate the fee/subsidy amount for each individual. development since nonresidential development will vary in size, a schedule for specific sizes and types of commercial development and tourist accommodations that demonstrate employees generated, the affordable housing units needed and the subsidy/fee amount is setdown in Tables 22 and'23: Table 22: Housing Unit Size . ins . Office = Gene's' Subsidy By Size Nos. of Employees Generated Of Commercial . Subsidy Per. Em.to ee . $20,504 . Development Fee/Subsidy . •' 60% Tar et • $92,268 1,000" - 4.5. 2,500 11.25: $20504 $230,670 5,000 .-22.5 $20,504 •:$461,340 7,500 33.75 $20504. . .$692,010 10,000 45 $20,504 $922,680 15,000 67.5 $20504 • $1,384,020 20,000 • 90 $20,504 . $1,845,360 Pitkin County, Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study Page 26 C/a non Associates -Nicholas- RRC ' November 2004 DRAFT. • Table 22: Housing Unit Size in s Office - Real Estate 1,000. Subsidy By Size Nos. of Employees ', . Generated . . . 5.9 Of Commercial Subsidy Per ` - Erri do ee • . $20,504 Development .: Fee/Subsidy :. . 60% Tar. et .$120.974 2,500 14.75 520504. $302,434 5,000 29.5 $20,504 $604,868 7,500 44.25 $20504 $907,302 10,000 59 $20,504 $1,209,736`. 15,000 88.5 : ` :. $20504,.__..° :: $1,814,604 Office - Non -Profit 3.8 $20,504 . ' $77,915 1,000 2,500 9.5. $20504 .. $194,788' 5,000 19 $20,504' .. $389,576 7,500 28.5 $20504 $584,364 10,000 38 $20,504. 5779,152. 15,000 .57 $20504 $1,168,728 20,000 76.. $20,504.. $1,558,304: Retail - Guest Market 2.9 ..$20,504..' . '$59,462 1,000 2,500 ' 7.25 $20504 . $148,654 5,000 14:5 $20,504.. $297,308' 7,500. 21.75. $20504 $445,962 10,000. 29 $20,504 $594,616 15,000 43.5 $20504 $891,924 20,000 58 $20,504 .. .$1,189,232 25,000 .: :72.5 '$20,504 . . 51,486,540 Retail -- Local Market 2.3 $20,504 $47,159 1,000 2,500 5.75 $20504: 51.17,898 5,000. ' 11.5 $20,504 .$235,796 7,500 .17.25 . . : $20504 , . $353,694 10,000 .23 520,504' ` $471,592. 15,000 34.5 : $20504' $707,388- 20,000 46 $20,504 $943,184 25,000 . . 57.5 $20,504 $1;178,980: Service -- repair, personal, business $20,504 $23,215 1,000 1.13 2,500 2:83. $20504 ... $58,037 5,000 5.66 $20,504 .$116,073 7,500 ` 8.49 $20504 $174,110 10,000•. . ' 11.32 $20,504 $232,146 15,000 16.98 520504. . : $348,219 20,000 22.64 $20,504 $464,293 25,000 28.31 $20,504: . 5580,366. Restaurant/Bar 7.4 $20504 $151,730 1,000 2,500 18.5 $20,504 $379,324 5,000 _37 $20,504 . $758,648 7,500 55.5 $20,504 . $1,137,972 Pitkin County, Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study. Page 27 Clarion Associates -Nicholas- RRC . . November 2004 DRAFT Table 22: Housing Unit Size in s Government Subsidy By Size :Nos.ofEmployees Generated 3.9 Of Commercial Subsidy Per Em.lo ee $20,504 Development ' :Fee/Subsidy .. 60%.Tan et. $79,966 1,000 2,500 9.75 $20504 • $199,914. 5,000 19.5 • . $20,504 $399,828: 7,500, 29.25. $20504: . . $599,742 10,000. 39 .:. c$20,504 $799,656 15,000 ; 58.5- ' $20504 .'-: $1,199;484 20,000. _ 78 • .• . '. $20,504 :. ..$1,599,312 25,000 . • • 97.5. .. .. . $20,504 • • $1-,999,140 Source: Table 21 and fee subsidy calculation Table 23: Unit Size rooms Housing Subsidy By Size Nos. of Employees • Generated • For Tourist Accommodations Subsidy/Fee Per Em to ee $20,504 Fee/Subsidy 60% Tar et .:..,$22,554 5 5.5 . $20504 • : ' $112,772 10 11 $20,504 . $225,544 20. 22 • $20504 : $451,088 40 • 44' .. $20,504. • $902,176 100 110 $20,504 $2,255,448: Hotel — Historic 1 3 $20,504 • . • $6,151 5.:. 1.5 $20504 ' .: $30,756 10 : 3 $20,504. 461,512. 20 6'.:: 420504: 5123,024.' 40 12 ' ' $20,504 ... _ $246,048 100: 30 :` $20,504 • $615,120 Source: Table 21 and fee subsidy calculation The parameters for implementation of the other mitigation options • (dedication of land for affordable housing, construction_ of affordable housing and • conversion of market units to affordable units) for nonresidential development is similar to that forresidential development: F. AFFECT OF ALTERNATIVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING:TARGETS: As stated previously, the analysis above is based on an. affordable.housing.target of:60%. •In the tables below, we have outlined how some.of the key calculations would change if a target of 50% or 70% were adopted instead. Table 24 shows that the analysis of Pitkin County's current affordable housing. deficit is very sensitive to the choice of an affordable housing target. If Pitkin County:were.to choose.a target of•50%, then anticipated'construction by the Housing Office and the private market over the next 10 years would eliminate the current deficit (i.e., the.construction underway, or. planned, plus. resales .of.affordable housing units,: will' provide enough housing to' meet the 50% target -for employees generated by.development;up:through' 2004). •On the other hand; if _the county adopted a•target to house.70% of-Pitkin County workers and their families, the current deficit would more than double to 1,928 units. Pitkin County, Colorado • - . . Clarion Associates -Nicholas- RRC Affordable Housing Support Study Page'28 November 2004 DRAFT Table 24: Additional Housing Needed Under Different Affordable Housing Housing Target at 2004 Targets 50% . 60% 70% . Total employees to be housed at target percentage 8,884 10,661 12,438 Total housinq units needed at targetpercentage,. .5,077 • . 6,092 . 7,107 Total number of affordable units being provided 2004- •-•. • • .. 4,481.. -4,481 -4,481 Existing.Need. .596... 1,611 . 2,626 Affordable housing units currently under construction . -98 =98 - .. ...-98 • Affordable housinq units to be built by Housinq Office; 2004-2014 • • • : -400••• •-400 , •400. Existing need to be met by privatemarket activity . . . '-200 . -200 . -200 Deficit in 2004 (number of additional housing units Housing Office would have to construct -beyond expected 400 -- to addressdeficit by 2014) . _102 (no deficit). 913 ' ' 1,928 Source: ClarionAssociates Table 25 shows': howthesame variation in affordable. housing targets affects -the fee subsidy tl . . Table 25: Change Under Different Affordable Affordable,Housing Target in Potential Housing 50%, . mpact-Fees Targets 60% 70% 100% Single Family Home - Local Occupancy. 3,000 sq: ft. $1,121 $1,345 $1,569 $2,242 5,000 sq. ft. $1,980 $2,375 .'$2,771 $3,959 10,000 sq:-ft. . $5;712. .:. $6,854' .. $7,997. , $11,424- 15,000sq. 'ft. • $8,568. . $10,282 $11,995 .,.. $17136 Single Family Home- 2nd Home 3,000 sq: ft. : • $3,870 . $4,645 $5,419 '..$7,741 5,000 sq. ft. .. $7,278 $8,734 $10,189; $14,556 10,000 sq: ft. : $27,575 $33,090 $38,605 $55,150 15,000 sq.. ft. • $41,363 . $49,635 , $57,908 $82,726 Non -Residential Development 5,000 sq. ft. of Office, General • $384,450 $461,340 $538,230 $768,900 5,000 sq. ft. of Retail, Local Market • $196,497 $235,796 $275,095 • $392,993 5,000 sq. ft. of Service Establishment . $96,728 • $116,073 $135,419 $193,455 10 Room Luxury Hotel 1187,953 $225,544 $263,135 .. $375,907 Source: Clarion Associates Pitkin County, Colorado Affordable Housing Support Study Page 29 Clarion Associates -Nicholas- RRC November 2004 DRAFT APPENDIX A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING.. INVENTORY r m One -Bedroom N 0) E O a) d 0 E 0 0 •0 d m 6 d h 0 E 0 2 d O LL O N 0 0 E :`o 0 O) 1r r in ,County Affordable- Housi Department and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housin• N ? N )O r M 0) r O N r N Mr .O N-0 O r` o x- LO CNI K O 0 r CO 1O r 22 V) Tr -r 1 CO (0 V M .CO co v r` 1n . CO v M r M N V r 35 1- 7- -I N N Q) N R O CO v N CO CO O O r r (Studio: One -Bedroom: FTwo-Bedroom: hree-Bedroom: [Four -Bedroom: 1 CO 00i LL S'iC 6a)rn U t0 O CO N O O CD O D 0 h O o N E 00 d m N C 0 E 0 0 0) d H E 0 0 d • N L F O a) 0 LL 0 0 E O 0 (Ownership in County: r tb CO r CO M COm M -. CO 0 0 0 M .0 i+) M O I 0 N CD N N N N- 3. M 0 CO CD N r )O ' 1� N ' :m N'0 M r 4 O O .- 0 5 o O 0 CO (Studio: (One -Bedroom: ITwo-Bedroom:. [Three -Bedroom: IFour-BedrooM: • ISingle-Family: • 0) 4- A 0 (J. N • .0 • N r O M N O vt M u N 0 v M N O M • 'N t O N M N O) O N E O 2 d to c c 0 O O CO o v CO CO I V W 0 a 0 .O co O) 0 U N c 0 Q r C O E E 0 0 z ) c C 0 m •0 m •0. cr U U) c m J d d E 0 0 m -c c r • c m U N N CO N N c c 0 O 0 c 0 E E .O U O D c 0 .0 c t U O CO CL C) 0 0 -0 U W N 0 CL 0 O 2 N m W M a) N c 0 O 0 m W d m r U) L c m O N c 0 0 2 M CO O) m N U 0) c (0 U) •c • m M V N N t • 0 0 0 m J N 0 V d c a c 0 J 0 N CO m to to Z 0 N w c C m r M N 00 co m d cc m v I One -Bedroom N CO N M m CO M Ill N N CO IO M 0 rn m N 0 V CO O N 7 (0 '4) N M N V V V N N V M C) V N N V M V 4 -(0 V <D N N V O CO 4 <D 0 cn (0 N CO 0 N r 00 0 CO i 1- U W 0 a. a O 0 0 0 3 m rn •c 2 06 .c E d N rn 0 c 2 o as 2 0 a E 0) .0 E r r v'0 m a 0) D )m m co l0 co N •`o 0 ater Place Ci aQ 0 11) •0 c m • m 5 N 0 1- 0 r 0 CC LL K y0 CO 0 t 0 O N m .I a m E o o0 y co U M. N a c 0) Q u 145 U 0 42. O C o O E C O 0 • Y N • C 0 c C Vl C d a Q. L O C 3 0 ^ai' Y O 2 d ca One -Bedroom N r 0 V • . CO .0_ n N L O O.N r V V O O 0 O r Ln N N co O N N N Ln CO N CO N m N O 0 O N O O m CO CO N 0 0 0 0 0 N O 0 co CO O 0 0 O O K a U m'•. - - _ coc d o m -L ._ C Y m m: _ La O Q- m �.. N > • a 'O -ii a) m • v v> U i. o -, 2 m ▪ U p OO: w a U U U-U c ai O 3� m C7 L � g �. ..00 GQQ7 QmQ CO7 p- Ul' N C_p. • m Y.. � C O 7 O Q Q Q Q U W W 2 J 2 • 0 d d co H H >i en re W 0 J O Et CC 0 IX NCa o O UCD N. a y 0 O oZ N c 0 CO F O I- r r C V r 404. CO On 8 LO c] tO 0 O eVc- ct COCD N cc CO.' [+) N O .- O' .- .- .. V -n N .--. 13 ❑d Z t r u- 2 to co . - a W - n —June 20 Four - Bedroom DORM 44 •.: CO M CO r 0 Oct . - within City of Asp County Housing Office One- Two- Three - Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom N .r . n r N tr - t- do .' v . O v .n v _ m .O O. .d ,n O c0 N V O O) 0 u) ct r .- V (O a: N Q co ti u .:A O N r t0 O• CO CO O CCr ', CO CO CI CO - N) CL o 2 KCU 0 a C to m •)`v E a). ❑ )'U o rn O r m m 0) r o'o 0 N 0 N o o 0- N _ m 0) .- • o) n Q) r o rn W r O- CO n 0) r r o O lV o a) a) r o O N o) m 0) r Affordable H PROJECT 1715 Cemetery Lane (school) 1985 Maroon Creek (City) ' Ipina Haus .. nderson Parcel C C Z c o a) ❑ CO !Aspen Highlands Village 'Aspen Highlands Village • Beaumont (Hospital) • Bell Mountain . ICastle Ridge ICemetery Lane (City) Centennial •.. 'Cooper Horse . .r' a 0 0 1 COa 2 'HunterLonghouse - IMAA Seasonal .o .2 IMarolt (City) .. . Maroon Creek. Club . .• Mill Street. Condos (Draco) .. Mountain Oaks .• Puppy Smith (City) Puppy Smith Apartments . 0CC Gt CC Li. I K N} 0 0 UN 0 I a • co E co O y Z • 0 J . O F. CVr r CO r 0 r fN CO co N N N (O .N ''r V 0 0 00cv ` co I O N 8 N 2 d d' C 0 0 7 E o I_ o. C 'om u_ m o r n City of Asp Housing Office Two- Three - Bedroom Bedroom N O) r M M O) i.� E 0 Ia. U e.d tot C O D . .- 0 N CO N (O Di r C d C coa0 a)r (O N CO' a :°N r C Q 0 cn /�/ N. © S U . — 0 LI M N co N V M co N V 810 .0 C N y Q • i3 00 NN 0 0)�. .. Affordable H PROJECT 'River Glen River Park Smuggler Mtn. Apartments Smuggler Place ITruscott Place LLLP CO 0 0 E E 0 0 5 kite City. Place (St. Regis) Water Place (City) West Ranch (School Dist) O 0 N 0 CO CO N CO r O 0 TOTAL RENTAL IN COUNTY 0 0 6 0 0 0 11 T7) 0 CO 0 Affordable Housing Rental Units in Pit June Source: Aspen/Pitkin Ci Year One - PROJECT Complete CategorySTU Bedroom M Cr U) O O) r AABC Apartments Animal Shelter Heatherbed West Ranch school CC U1 LL K 0 t 0 U N ' 0 .N E 0 d O h CO 0 0 LO 0) 0 0 Affordable; Housing Progress Towards 2000 AACP• Goal June 2004:. All projects recognized in 2000 AACP and considered since 2.2000 adoption (Includes Public, Private, and Mitigation units:) Source: City of Aspen Community Development Department Site Status @ ., 2.2000 Current ' Status- :: Built. Units Planne d.Units Potentia Units (low est.). Potential Units (high est.) Aspen Country Inn :. Occupied Occupied .. . 40 Snyder Occupied .. Occupied 15 , MAA Seasonal Under Const. Occupied .. . '101 Moore PUD AH . , Under Const. . Occupied. . 31 Highlands AH . Under Const. Occupied 122 North Forty Under Const. . Occupied . 72 7th and Main Under Const. Occupied 12 Truscott Expansion .. Concept App. Occupied. • 99 . . DRACO Inc. Pre -Plan : . Occupied 7 UIIrCommons. . - Planning Occupied . 26 . Christiana . N/A . . Under Const. 2 . Christmas Inn . �N/A Under Const. 2.. Mountain Chalet . N/A Under Const. 2' AMPUD Lot 3 N/A . Under Const.. 4 AMPUD Lot 5 'N/A Under Const. . 9 Aspen Alps N/A Under Const. .2 . . . Bavarian Pre -Plan Under Const. . 19 Murphy SCl (1) N/A ' ' Approved , . ..., . , 3 :. Innsbruck LP N/A .. . ' . . Approved - . 1 Hotel Aspen N/A Approved 2 Boomerang . . N/A Approved 2 Stillwater Pre -Plan Approved, on - .. hold. ` 17 Obermeyer N/A . Approved 21 Burlingame Parcel D .Pre -Plan .Plan 39 Burlingame Village. Pre -Plan . Plan 225 330- .. : Truscott Phase III Pre -Plan Pre -Plan ... 20 .. 40 7th & Hallam (USFS) Pre -Plan Discontinued 0 0 Aspen Mass (2) Pre -Plan, Discontinued 0 .. . 0 7th & Hopkins private Pre -Plan' Discontinued. 0 0. Moore Property (3) N/A . N/A 0. 30 Pitkin County, Colorado_ . Affordable Housing Support Study. Page.36 Clarion Associates -Nicholas-- RRC November 2004 DRAFT Buttermilk Base N/A. Private pre -plan- 0 . . 40.. AABC Infill. . . . N/A . Private pre -plan' - 0 .40. In Town Infill N/A Private 0:.. . 100. . Clarion Associates —Nicholas — RRC Affordable Housing Support Study . Page37 November 2004 DRAFT , Rifkin County, Colorado Rural Area: Maroon Creek Developed Residential Properties Pitkin County Assessor's Date for Heated Residential Square Feet 1. Blair Breckenridge Willcox Parcel I.D. 273522200007 2702 Maroon Creek Rd Total heated Sq ft - 2100 2. Barbara Conviser Parcel I.D. 273515401002 2095 Maroon Creek Rd Total heated Sq ft - 2233 3.. JM Skyways Inc #304 Parcel I.D. 273522200004 120 Bulkley Dr Total heated Sq ft . 2900. 4. Michael & Adelaide Waters Parcel I.D. 273515401006 2165 Maroon Creek Rd Total heated Sq ft: - 3081 5. Thomas Ward & Donna Miller Parcel I.D. 273515401009 2175 Maroon Creek Rd Total heated Sq ft - 3100 6. John J. Nicholson Parcel I.D. 273522200002 2564 Maroon Creek Rd Total heated Sq ft - 3260 7. Jorge & Mary Benitez Parcel I.D. 273515401005 2156 Maroon Creek Rd Total heated Sq ft - 3557 8. Reginald & Leigh Smith Parcel I.D. 273515401007 2021 Maroon Creek Rd Total heated Sq ft - 3730 9. Don & Sara Nelson Parcel l.D.273515401003 2135 Maroon Creek Rd Total heated Sq ft - 4500 10. Larsen Family LP Parcel I.D. 273515400009 1959 Maroon Creek Rd heated Sq ft - 4868 heated Sq ft -.1926 Total heated Sq ft - 6794 11. Jack Guenther, Trustee Parcel I:D; 273515400001 - 1889 Maroon Creek Rd Total heated Sq ft - 5266 12. James Bulkley Family Trust & Kathleen Bulkley Family Residential Trust Parcel I.D. 273522200005 160 Bulkley dr Total heated Sq ft - 5340 13. Becker Maroon Creek Family LP Parcel I.D. 273515400004 2220 Maroon Creek Rd Total heated Sq ft - 5660 14. . Pauline Pitt 2001 Revocable Trust Parcel I.D. 273522200003 60 & 62 Maroon Creek Rd Total heated Sq ft - 5707 15. Larsen Family LP Parcel I.D. 273515400002 1969 Maroon Creek Rd Total heated Sq ft - 5882 16. Bruce E. Carlson Trust Parcel I.D. 273522200006 2767 Maroon Creek Rd Total heated Sq ft - 6212 17. CGW Aspen, LLC Parcel I.D. 273515400003 1819.Maroon Creek Rd Total heated Sq ft 6837 18. Roaring Fork Land, & Cattle Co Parcel. I.D. 273515300005 151 & 145 Bulkley dr heated Sq ft - 1336 heated Sq ft -11,571 Total heated Sq ft 12,907 Average Heated Sq. Ft Per Residential Parcel : 4948 Data based upon the Rural Area of Maroon Creek Road as defined by Pitkin County. The T Lazy 7 Ranch is excluded because it is a short-term accommodations and rental housing property. Source: Pitkin County Assessor & Davis Horn Incorporated, May, 2014 3 RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE - MAROON CREEK RD &:BULKLEY DR 1. Blair Breckenridge Willcox Parcel I.D. 273522200007 2702 Maroon Creek Rd Acres 2.090 Total heated Sq ft - 2100 2. Barbara Conviser .. Parcel I.D. 273515401002 2095 Maroon Creek Rd Acres 5.03.0 Total heated Sq ft - 2233 3. JM Skyways Inc #304 • .• Parcel LD: 273522200004 120 Bnikley Dr Acres 2.2 Total heated Sq ft - 2900 4. Michael & Adelaide Walters Parcel I.D. 273515401006 2165 Maroon. Creek Rd Acres 5.0 Total heated Sq ft - 3081 5. Thomas Ward & Donna Miller Parcel I.D. 273 515401009 2175 Maroon Creek Rd Acres 5.510 Total heated Sq ft - 3100 6. John J. Nicholson Parcel I.D. 273522200002 2564 Maroon Creek Rd Acres 3.52 Total heated Sq ft - 3260 foo r r.r rs. 1 it 13, 21 s551- C "° Z> 7. Jorge & Mary Benitez Parcel I.D. 273515401005 2156 Maroon Creek Rd Acres 5.610 Total heated Sq ft - 3557 8. Reginald & Leigh Smith Parcel I.D. 273515401007 2021 Maroon Creek Rd Acres 4.790 Total.heatedSq ft -3730 9. Don & Sara Nelson Parcel I.D. 273515401003 2135 Maroon Creek Rd Acres 5.0 Total heated Sq ft. - 4500 10. Larsen Family LP Parcel I.D. 273515400009 1959 Maroon Creek Rd Acres 10.5 heated Sq ft 4868. heated Sq ft - 1926 Total heated Sq ft - 6794 3 : s 2t451. 11. . Jack Guenther, Trustee Parcel I.D. 273515400001 1889 Maroon Creek Rd Acres 0.9 Total heated Sq ft - 5266 e( 'Z Co L',1 12. James Bulkley Family Trust & Kathleen Bulkley Family Residential Trust Parcel I.D. 273522200005 160 Bulkley dr Acres 5.845 Total heated Sq ft - 5340 13. Becker Maroon Creek Family LP Parcel I.D. 273515400004 2220 Maroon Creek Rd Acres 2.880 Total heated Sq ft _ 5660 2 14. Pauline Pitt 2001 Revocable Trust Parcel I.D. 273 522200003 60 & 62 Maroon Creek Rd Acres 2.16 Total heated Sq ft - 5707 15. Larsen Family LP Parcel I.D. 273515400002 1969 Maroon Creek Rd Acres 2.340 Total heated Sq ft - 5882 16. Bruce E. Carlson Trust Parcel I.D. 273522200006 2767 Maroon Creek Rd Acres 5.9 Total heated Sq ft - 6212 17. CGW Aspen,.LLC 2` Parcel I.D. 273515400603 J' 1819 Maroon Creek Rd Acres 0.350 Total heated Sq ft - 6837 18. Roaring Fork Land & Cattle Co Parcel I.D. 273515300005 151 & 145 Bulkley dr( Acres 178 heated Sq ft 1336 heated Sq ft - 11,571 Total heated Sq ft 12,907 Average: 4,948 *T Lazy 7 not included. 1 C6 — 2- c4Li 1211 A-v .°--t-Pr(-0-