HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20140422
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
April 22, 2014
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Employee Generation Study Discussion
II. Noise Ordinance Changes
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Work Session: Single-Family and Duplex Employee Generation Study
DATE: April 22, 2014
SUMMARY:
On February 24th, City Council approved a contract with RRC Associates of Boulder, CO to
perform a study of employee generation of single-family and duplex development. Staff has held
previous work sessions with City Council regarding the manner in which the City applies mitigation
requirements to homes. This study is a needed step towards establishing revised mitigation
requirements for single-family development.
The Council requested a work session with RRC to discuss methodology for determining employee
generation. Tonight’s work session is intended to answer questions about the methods of obtaining
data prior to the work being done.
Prior to tonight, staff held a lunch session with RRC and members of the Housing Board and the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff also held meetings with individuals who have been
following the mitigation discussion during the afternoon. Staff will update Council on the
discussion points at the work session.
RELATED INFORMATION / ATTACHMENTS:
Attached to this memo are several housing studies relevant to this effort.
A – Teton Survey. This is a survey used by RRC in Teton County, Wyoming (Jackson). The
survey used in Aspen can be modeled on this Teton survey.
B – 2008 Housing Survey. Much of this report focuses on affordable housing. There is a section
starting on page 35 that focuses on employment patterns of residences. This work was performed
by RRC and is very similar to the work being done today.
C – 2012 Strategic Review of Housing. This report was prepared for a thorough review of the
community’s housing needs. A Section called “planning for the future” starting on page 28
provides useful information.
D – 2012 EPS Housing Demand Model. This work was done in conjunction with the Strategic
Review. It shows demand for affordable housing projected into future years.
E – Summary of January 6th City Council work session. This notes the issues discussed and the
direction received previously on this topic.
F – Proposed Scope of Work – RCC. This is from the current contract and details the proposed
scope of work to be performed by RRC.
P1
I.
TETON COUNTY, WY HOMEOWNER SURVEY 2012
If you own more than one residence in Teton County, Wyoming, please respond to this entire survey based on the residence that
has the highest valuation according to the Teton County Assessor.
ABOUT YOUR TETON COUNTY RESIDENCE
1. Which of the following best describes the type of residence you own in Teton County? (CHECK ONE ONLY)
[ ] Single-family house [ ] Timeshare/fractional unit
[ ] Duplex [ ] Mobile home
[ ] Condominium or townhome in a complex with 20 or fewer units [ ] Other—please specify: _______________________________
[ ] Condominium or townhome in a complex with 21 or more units
2. How many bedrooms does your residence have? ______ bedrooms
3. Are there separate, accessory units or homes located on your property?
[ ] No
[ ] Yes—How many units in total? ____________
(IF YES) How are the accessory unit(s) on your property used? (i.e., the unit(s) other than the primary dwelling unit)
[ ] Caretaker residence
[ ] Household / family member use
[ ] Used by visiting guests of owner/household
[ ] Rented long-term to local resident(s)
[ ] Rented short-term to visitors
[ ] Vacant – not used
4. Please indicate the approximate heated square footage of living space of your residence in Teton County, including both
finished and unfinished space. (If you have separate, accessory residences located on your property, please provide the
square footage for the primary residence plus all accessory residences combined.)
_______________ HEATED FINISHED SQFT of living space (finished, heated interior space; exclude heated garage space)
_______________ + HEATED UNFINISHED SQFT of living space (e.g. unfinished basement; exclude garage and porch/patio/exterior space)
_______________ = TOTAL HEATED SQUARE FEET of living space
5. (IF SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX) Which of the following best describes your lot?
[ ] Small residential lot (less than 1/4 acre)
[ ] Large residential lot (1/4 - 1 acre)
[ ] Small acreage (1 acre to 34 acres)—How many acres? ____________
[ ] Large acreage (35 acres or more)—How many acres? ____________
[ ] Not applicable: Condominium/townhome
6. Where in Teton County is this home located?
[ ] Town of Jackson (within incorporated town limits)
[ ] Elsewhere in Teton County, WY
7. Is your Teton County residence: (CHECK ONE ONLY)
[ ] Restricted housing (i.e. ownership restricted to local resident households who meet employment, income, and/or other criteria)
[ ] Not restricted (i.e. free-market housing)
[ ] Don’t know
8. (IF TIMESHARE / FRACTIONAL UNIT) How many weeks per year do you have access to your unit? _____ weeks per year (SKIP TO
QUESTION #10 AFTER ANSWERING)
P2
I.
9. Approximately how many weeks during each season is your home in Teton County currently used for the following?
Summer
June – Sept
(17 weeks)
Winter
Dec – Mar
(17 Weeks)
Spring/Fall
Apr, May, Oct, Nov
(18 weeks)
Primary residence for owner
Vacation home for owner or guests of owner
Vacation rental — weeks actually occupied by visitors
Vacation rental — weeks available for rent, but not occupied
Rented long term to local resident— monthly rent charged: $ _____________
Business/corporate function
Other use: ________________________
And: Vacant— not occupied (and not available for vacation rental)
Total 17 weeks 17 weeks 18 weeks
10. Who typically occupies your Teton County home when you are in residence? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
[ ] Self [ ] Business associates
[ ] Spouse/partner [ ] Housemate(s) to whom you rent a room
[ ] Children [ ] Other: __________________________
[ ] Relatives/other family members [ ] Not applicable – I don’t use the home for personal use
[ ] Friends
11. Including yourself, how many people in the following categories typically live/stay in your home when you are in residence?
# People, including yourself
(ENTER 0 IF NONE)
Total persons
Total persons under 18 years old
Total persons who are retired
Total persons who work in Teton County*
Total persons who work outside of Teton County*
Total persons who work primarily or exclusively from home
(e.g. telecommute, business conducted from home office, etc.)
* Please respond based on address of employer or business. If person is self-employed sole proprietor,
please respond based on location of proprietor’s business address.
12. How do you expect to be using your Teton County home five years from now? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
[ ] Primary residence for owner [ ] I intend to sell my home within the next five years
[ ] Vacation home for owner or guests of owner [ ] Other: _____________________________________________
[ ] Vacation rental to visitors / tourists [ ] Don’t know / uncertain
[ ] Rented long term to local resident
13. (IF LOCAL RESIDENT) Do you plan on living and working in the Teton County area until you retire?
[ ] Yes Are you currently retired? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don’t know
[ ] No -- plan to move away: in how many years? _____ years [ ] Not applicable – not a Teton County resident
14. (IF LOCAL RESIDENT AND NOT RETIRED) When do you plan to retire? ____ # of years
15. (IF LOCAL RESIDENT AND NOT RETIRED) When you retire, would you like to:
[ ] Stay in your current residence [ ] Move out of Teton County
[ ] Downsize to smaller home in Teton County [ ] Other: _____________________________________________
MAINTENANCE and UPKEEP
The following questions ask for information on how your home is maintained and operated. Please complete all that apply.
16. For your Teton County residence, do you: (MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
[ ] Use or belong to a homeowners association [ ] Hire local contractors/service firms
[ ] Hire a property management company [ ] Hire other employees directly
[ ] Hire an on-site caretaker [ ] None of the above (GO TO Q. 18)
P3
I.
17. What services does your homeowners association, property management company, on-site caretaker, and/or
contractors/employees hired by your household provide? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) And approximately how much do you
spend annually on each? (ANSWER AT BOTTOM OF TABLE)
*Note: If you pay a percentage of the rental income generated by your property, please indicate the dollar amount to which this equates.
18. What other services do you obtain in your home, and approximately how much do you spend on each service per year?
(COMPLETE ALL THAT APPLY)
Obtained
Locally
Travels with My
Household
Amount Spent
Per Year
Chef / kitchen help / catering [ ] [ ] $______________
Child care provider / nanny [ ] [ ] $______________
Concierge / butler [ ] [ ] $______________
Personal assistant [ ] [ ] $______________
Personal trainer [ ] [ ] $______________
Driver, pilot [ ] [ ] $______________
Other: ______________________ [ ] [ ] $______________
None of the above [ ] [ ] Not applicable
19. Where did you contract for services related to purchasing, financing and insuring your Teton County residence?
Home
insurance
Home mortgage/
lending
Legal services for property/
purchase of property
Realtor / sales
representative
Teton County, WY [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Elsewhere [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Did not use / not applicable [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Thank you. Your time and input are greatly appreciated.
Please return this survey using the postage-paid envelope.
Homeowners
Association
Property Mgt.
Company
On-Site
Caretaker
Contractors/
Employees Hired
by You/Your
Household
01) Rental management [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
02) Building maintenance (interior and/or exterior) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
03) Security [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
04) Housekeeping / cleaning [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
05) Operation and maintenance of community amenities
(e.g. clubhouse, swimming pool, Jacuzzi, etc.) [ ] Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
06) Swimming pool maintenance – private pool [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
07) Lawn / landscape maintenance [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
08) Road / driveway maintenance [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
09) Snow removal [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
10) Trash removal [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
11) Insurance [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
12) Cable television [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
13) Other— please specify:________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
14) None of the above [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
What is the approximate amount spent annually on
each of these (HOA, Property Management,
Caretaker, Contractors/Employees)?*
$_____________ $____________ $____________ $______________
P4
I.
City of Aspen
Housing Survey Summary
Resident
Employee
Homeowner
Employer
May 2008
Summary of Results
Prepared by:
RRC Associates, Inc
4950 Pearl East Cir., # 103
Boulder, CO 80301
(303) 449-6558
Rees Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 3848
Crested Butte, CO 81224
(970) 349-9845
P5
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 2
Table of Contents
Study Overview...............................................................................................................3
Residents of Affordable Housing in Aspen..............................................................4
Introduction..................................................................................................................4
Key Findings.................................................................................................................4
Section 1 – Demographics...........................................................................................6
Section 2 - Employment and Commuting................................................................8
Section 3 - Housing Problems..................................................................................10
Section 4 - Project Information.................................................................................14
Section 5 - Retirement................................................................................................19
Section 6 - Miscellaneous..........................................................................................21
Employees Working in Aspen....................................................................................23
Introduction................................................................................................................23
Key Findings...............................................................................................................23
Section 1 - Housing Problems..................................................................................26
Section 2 - Demographic Characteristics................................................................30
Section 3 - Entry-Level Homeownership................................................................32
Section 4 - Retirement................................................................................................34
Aspen Homeowners.....................................................................................................35
Introduction................................................................................................................35
Key Findings...............................................................................................................36
Section 1 - Aspen Homeowner Survey 2008: Summary of Usage Patterns......40
Section 2 - Home Characteristics.............................................................................41
Section 2 - Homeowner Characteristics..................................................................43
Section 3 - Property Use............................................................................................45
Section 4 - Dues and Services...................................................................................47
Section 5 - Employment and Home Size Relationships.......................................51
Aspen-Area Employers................................................................................................53
Introduction................................................................................................................53
Key Findings...............................................................................................................54
Section 1 - Housing–Related Employer Problems.................................................56
Section 2 - Employment and Commuting..............................................................58
Section 3 - Employee Housing.................................................................................60
Appendix A - Homeowner Project Profiles.............................................................61
Appendix B – Survey Forms.......................................................................................75
P6
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 3
Study Overview
The City of Aspen and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority has
commissioned this survey-based housing study that provides a variety of data
concerning local residents, both their demographics and their evaluations of
different aspects of the community. Specifically, this study includes:
The Resident Housing Survey – May, 2008
The Employer Housing Survey – May, 2008
The Employee Housing Survey – May, 2008
The Owner Housing Survey - – September, 2008
This report provides a brief overview of the methodology and selected key
findings from the various surveys. In addition, the City and the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority have the full data bases that were obtained through
these studies. Requests for access to the underlying data should be directed to
the City or Housing Authority.
P7
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 4
Residents of Affordable Housing in Aspen
Introduction
A total of 1,390 surveys were distributed by door hanging to residents of the
following properties. A total of 471 responses were received, which equates to a
34% response rate.
Projects Surveyed
Ownership Rentals
Annie Mitchell Alpina Haus
Aspen Highlands Village Aspen Country Inn
Benedict Commons Beaumont (Hospital)
Burlingame Ranch Castle Ridge
Centennial Centennial
Common Ground Hunter Longhouse
Five Trees Maroon Creek Club*
Hunter Creek Mountain Oaks
Little Ajax Truscott Place
Lone Pine Truscott Place LLLP*
Midland Park Ullr Commons
Smuggler Subdivision Ute City Place (st. Regis)
Snyder
Stillwater
Williams Ranch
Williams Woods
Key Findings
• The majority of residents living in Aspen’s affordable housing, both
owners and renters, work in Aspen’s downtown.
• There is little difference in employment patterns between summer and
winter. The average number of jobs held, the location of employment,
and the average number of employees per household vary little.
• Most residents are satisfied with their housing – 51% are very satisfied.
P8
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 5
• Aspen’s affordable housing residents have incomes much lower than
other residents with a median household income of $63,000, which
compares with a median family income for Pitkin County of $97,600.
• Only 10% of owners are under the age of 35.
• Most renters (80%) would like to move within the next 5 years, the desire
to move into ownership being the primary reason. Most owners would
like to stay in their current homes; of the 43% who want to move, most
want a larger home.
• Of 13 unit design variables that were tested, energy efficiency rated the
lowest in terms of satisfaction. Residents are generally very satisfied with
various aspects of the locations were they live.
• While Aspen’s affordable housing is generally affordable, 28% of renters
spend more than 30% of their income on their rent payment. In contrast,
61% of homeowners have mortgage payments that equal less than 20% of
their household income.
• While the majority of affordable housing residents (63%) plan to live and
work in Aspen until they retire, there is a correlation with length of
residency; new arrivals are much less certain about their future plans.
• 15% of the employees living in Aspen’s affordable housing plan to retire
within the next five years, and most of them want to stay in the homes
where they now live.
P9
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 6
Section 1 – Demographics
Who Lives in Affordable Housing
Household Composition, Age and Children
29%
21%
1%
6%
21%
28%
34%
10%
0
3%
4%
8%
28%
57%
5%
7%
1%
2%
12%
15%
31%
35%
4%
0%
14%
9%
57%
20%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Presence of children age 6
- 18 in your home
Presence of children under
age 6 in your home
75 or older
65 -74
55 - 64
45 - 54
35 - 44
25 - 34
18 - 24
Family members and
unrelated roommates
Unrelated roommates
Unmarried couple
I live alone
Family members only
Rent
Own
Age
P10
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 7
Respondent Ages by Own/Rent
Age of Respondent Overall Own Rent
18 - 24 2% 4%
25 - 34 20%10%35%
35 - 44 33%34%31%
45 - 54 22%28%15%
55 - 64 17%21%12%
65 -74 4%6%2%
75 or older 1%1%1%
100%100%100%
Average Age 444840
Median Age 434737
Length of Residency
0%
1%
3%
8%
88%
15%
18%
14%
26%
27%
4%
6%
23%
22%
45%
30%
28%
24%
9%
9%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
More than 10 years
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
More than 10 years
Own
Rent
How long have you lived in
your current residence?
How long have you lived in
the area?
P11
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 8
Household Income – Overall Median: $63,012
2%
24%
30%
24%
17%
3%
11%
42%
29%
7%
10%
1%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
Under $25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 or more
Rent
Own
Own
Median $66,500
Average $72,160
Rent
Median $46,000
Average $51,425
Section 2 - Employment and Commuting
Where Residents Work by Season
Winter Summer
#%#%
Aspen Downtown 40760.9%41666.2%
Airport Business Park 558.2%589.2%
Aspen Highlands area 507.5%396.2%
Buttermilk area 243.6%40.6%
Snowmass Village 446.6%375.9%
Other 8813.2%7411.8%
Total 668100.0%628100.0%
P12
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 9
Where Residents Work by Own/Rent
Owners Renters
Aspen Downtown 61.0%67.2%
Airport Business Park area 8.7%8.8%
Aspen Highlands area 8.4%4.6%
Buttermilk area 2.7%1.3%
Snowmass Village 6.7%5.5%
Other* 12.5%12.6%
Total 100.0%100.0%
* includes variable job sites, like construction work
Distance Traveled to Work
12.5%
12.9%
19.2%
20.0%
29.6%
5.8%
19.4%
12.9%
12.9%
24.2%
22.6%
8.1%
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%
Less than 1/4 mile
1/4 to 1/2 mile
1/2 to 1 mile
1 to 2 miles
2 to 5 miles
More than 5 miles
Rent
Own
Vehicles Parked at Home
Number Cars/Trucks Percent
0 6.0%
1 54.1%
2 34.2%
3+ 5.7%
P13
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 10
Section 3 - Housing Problems
Satisfaction with Current Residence
Very Satisfied
51%Somewhat Satisfied
37%
Somewhat Dissatisfied
9%
Very Dissatisfied
3%
Satisfaction with Housing by Time Lived in Current Home
51.5%
39.8%
49.4%
56.0%
60.2%
30.9%
49.0%
40.5%
32.1%
30.7%
15.5%
8.2%
8.9%
8.3%
5.7%
2.1%
3.1%
1.3%
3.6%
3.4%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
More than 10 years
Le
n
g
t
h
o
f
t
i
m
e
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
1 - Very Satisfied
2 - Somewhat Satisfied
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied
4 - Very Dissatisfied
P14
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 11
Satisfaction with Housing by Time Lived in the Area
50.0%
25.0%
31.1%
49.1%
57.1%
25.0%
58.3%
46.7%
47.3%
31.6%
12.5%
16.7%
20.0%
3.6%
8.2%
12.5%
2.2%
3.2%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
More than 10 years
Le
n
g
t
h
o
f
t
i
m
e
i
n
a
r
e
a
1 - Very Satisfied
2 - Somewhat Satisfied
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied
4 - Very Dissatisfied
Affordability -- Percentage of Income Spent on Housing Payment
Owners Renters Overall
Under 20% 60.9%36.9%50.2%
20-30% 23.1%35.2%28.5%
30-35% 5.3%11.7%8.2%
35-40% 7.1%5.0%6.2%
40-50% 1.8%7.3%4.2%
Over 50% 1.8%3.9%2.7%
Total 100.0%100.0%100.0%
Total Cost Burdened 16.0%27.9%21.3%
P15
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 12
Affordability -- Percentage of Income Spent on Housing Payment
50.2%
28.5%
8.2%
6.2%
4.2%
2.7%
60.9%
23.1%
5.3%
7.1%
1.8%
1.8%
36.9%
35.2%
11.7%
5.0%
7.3%
3.9%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Under 20%
20-30%
30-35%
35-40%
40-50%
Over 50%
Overall Owners Renters
Cost-burdened
P16
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 13
Desire to and Reason for Wanting to Move
57%
43%
65%
0%
29%
14%
13%
7%
8%
20%
80%
44%
82%
11%
17%
7%
7%
3%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
No
Yes
Need/want larger home
Want to own - now rent
Other
Want newer home
Want to live in different
neighborhood
Want to live closer to
work
Need/want smaller, less
expensive home
Own
Rent
Do you want to purchase
a new or different home
within the next 5 years?
If yes, why?
Would Like to Move within 5 Years by Satisfaction
69.6%
24.9%
5.0%
0.6%
38.5%
44.8%
12.3%
4.4%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
1 - Very Satisfied
2 - Somewhat
Satisfied
3 - Somewhat
Dissatisfied
4 - Very Dissatisfied
S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
No
Yes
P17
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 14
Section 4 - Project Information
Unit Design
Average Rating: 1 = Not at all satisfied; 5 = Very satisfied
4.02
4.08
3.9
3.81
3.75
3.58
3.65
3.46
3.4
3.21
3.42
3.44
3.17
3.7
3.51
3.64
3.7
3.34
3.31
3.17
3.41
3.22
3.38
3.06
3.01
2.9
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5
TYPE OF UNIT
SUNLIGHT
SIZE OF UNIT
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
WINDOWS
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
KITCHEN
HEATING SYSTEM
CLOSET SPACE
STORAGE
INTERIOR FINISH
APPLIANCES
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Own
Rent
P18
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 15
Exterior and Common Areas
Average Rating: 1 = Not at all satisfied; 5 = Very satisfied
3.95
3.98
3.55
3.71
3.57
3.42
3.68
3.47
3.33
3.53
3.06
3.31
3.09
3.18
3.12
2.63
2.93
3.01
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5
DUMPSTER/TRASH
REMOVAL
LAUNDRY
FACILITIES
EXTERIOR
LIGHTING
EXTERIOR
APPEARANCE
LANDSCAPING
PARKING
PETS
COMMON
AMENITIES
PLAY AREAS
Own
Rent
P19
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 16
Location
Average Rating: 1 = Not at all satisfied; 5 = Very satisfied
4.66
4.69
4.72
4.72
4.57
4.52
3.67
4.57
4.52
4.37
4.28
4.19
4.11
3.24
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0
PROXIMITY TO BUS
STOPS
BIKE PATH/TRAIL
ACCESS
LOCATION
SENSE OF SAFETY
NEIGHBORHOOD
SURROUNDING
USES
SOUND LEVELS
Own
Rent
Profiles for each project or for groups of several of the smaller projects are
included in Appendix A to this report.
P20
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 17
Average Rating - Rental Properties
(scale of 1 -Not at all satisfied to 5 - Very satisfied)
All
RentersGrp. 1Grp.2
Centen-
nial
Truscott
Place
Castle
Ridge
Number of bathrooms 3.7 3.1 3.5 3.6 4.0 4.1
Type of unit 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.8
Size of unit 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.8 3.5 3.8
Sunlight 3.5 3.5 3.3 4.0 3.3 3.3
Storage 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.8 3.2 3.5
Heating systems 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.8 3.2
Size of bathrooms 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.8 3.4
Windows 3.3 3.7 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.0
Closet Space 3.2 3.0 2.9 3.5 3.2 3.2
Kitchen 3.2 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.6 3.1
Interior Finish 3.1 3.4 2.9 2.9 3.4 2.7
Appliances 3.0 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.1
Energy Efficiency 2.9 3.2 3.0 2.4 3.6 2.2
Dumpster/trash removal 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.1
Exterior lighting 3.3 3.9 2.9 3.3 3.3 2.8
Landscaping 3.2 3.7 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.8
Laundry facilities 3.1 3.3 2.4 2.8 3.5 3.1
Exterior appearance 3.1 3.9 2.9 2.7 3.0 3.0
Parking 3.1 3.8 3.5 2.6 3.0 3.0
Play areas 3.0 3.1 2.7 3.1 3.2 2.7
Common amenities 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.8 3.2 2.7
Pets 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.4
Proximity to bus stops 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.3 4.6
Bike path/trail access 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.6
Location 4.4 4.3 4.8 4.6 3.9 4.4
Sense of safety 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.0 4.4
Neighborhood 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.3 3.8 4.2
Surrounding uses 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.3 3.9 4.0
Sound levels 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.0 3.2 3.2
Group 1: Alpina Haus, Aspen Country Inn, Beaumont, Maroon Creek
Group 2: Mountain Oaks, Hunter Longhouse, Ute City, Ullr Commons
P21
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 18
Average Rating - Ownership Properties
(scale of 1 -Not at all satisfied to 5 - Very satisfied)
All
Owners Grp.1 Grp.2 Grp.3 CentennialBurlingameSmuggler
Aspen
Highlands
Sunlight 4.1 3.7 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 3.3
Type of unit 4.0 3.6 4.0 4.6 3.8 4.2 3.9 3.9
Size of unit 3.9 3.1 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.1 3.8
Number of
bathrooms 3.8 3.1 3.4 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.4
Windows 3.8 3.7 3.9 4.0 3.2 4.1 4.0 3.3
Kitchen 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.8 3.2 4.3 4.0 3.5
Size of bathrooms 3.6 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.0 4.3 4.0 4.1
Heating system 3.5 3.8 2.9 3.5 2.9 4.3 4.0 2.8
Closet space 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.8 2.7 4.0 3.7 3.2
Interior finish 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.6 3.1 4.1 3.7 3.1
Appliances 3.4 3.3 3.7 3.4 3.1 3.8 3.9 2.7
Storage 3.2 3.3 2.6 3.3 3.3 3.8 3.5 2.6
Energy efficiency 3.2 3.2 2.4 3.4 2.1 4.6 3.5 2.8
Trash removal 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.5 3.8
Laundry facilities 4.0 3.6 4.1 3.5 3.9 4.6 4.1 4.1
Exterior 3.7 3.2 4.1 4.1 3.1 3.8 3.8 3.8
Pets 3.7 3.4 3.5 4.5 3.9 3.2 4.1 2.9
Landscaping 3.6 3.5 4.2 3.8 3.4 2.7 4.1 3.4
Exterior lighting 3.6 4.0 3.4 3.8 3.6 3.2 3.8 3.1
Common amenities 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.2
Parking 3.4 4.1 3.5 3.5 3.4 2.2 4.1 3.5
Play areas 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.3 2.9 3.6 3.6
Proximity to bus 4.7 4.5 4.9 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.9
Location 4.7 4.5 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.9 4.6
Trail access 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.8 4.6
Sense of safety 4.7 4.4 4.8 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.7
Neighborhood 4.6 4.3 4.6 4.8 4.4 4.7 4.6 4.5
Surrounding uses 4.5 4.1 4.7 4.9 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.4
Sound levels 3.7 2.9 3.8 4.5 3.0 4.0 4.1 3.1
Group 1: Annie, Benedict, Hunter Creek
Group 2: Common Ground, Lone, Midland, Williams Woods
Group 3: Five, Ajax, Snyder, Stillwater, Williams Ranch
P22
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 19
Section 5 - Retirement
Plans to Live and Work in Aspen until Retirement
62.8%
14.3%
16.7%
29.5%
57.1%
72.4%
9.8%
28.6%
58.3%
25.0%
8.9%
5.0%
27.4%
57.1%
25.0%
45.5%
33.9%
22.6%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Overall
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
More than 10 years
Ho
w
l
o
n
g
h
a
v
e
y
o
u
l
i
v
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
Yes
No, plan to move away
Don't know
Time until Retirement by Age
Time Until Age
Retirement 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 -74 Overall
Less than 1 year 0.0% 0.0%0.0%0.0%20.0% 0.6%
5 years 1.3% 1.8%1.2%39.0%50.0% 9.9%
10 years 1.3% 0.9%12.3%40.7%20.0% 11.1%
20 years 10.7% 38.4%77.8%20.3%10.0% 37.1%
30 years 40.0% 51.8%6.2%0.0%0.0% 27.2%
More than 30 years 46.7% 7.1%2.5%0.0%0.0% 14.0%
P23
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 20
Where Want to Live upon Retirement
75.4%
3.0%
1.5%
11.1%
9.0%
34.7%
7.5%
7.5%
19.7%
30.6%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Stay in your current
residence
Downsize to smaller
home in Aspen
Move down valley
Move out of the
Roaring Fork Valley
Other
Rent
Own
“Other” includes moving into ownership and moving into larger homes.
Type of Neighborhood Desired Upon Retirement
3.6%
5.9%
10.0%
68.4%
47.1%
35.7%
32.0%
28.0%
47.1%
64.3%
58.0%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Stay in your current
residence
Downsize to smaller
home in Aspen
Move down valley
Move out of the
Roaring Fork Valley
Retirement neighborhood Mixed-age neighborhood Don't know
P24
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 21
Section 6 - Miscellaneous
Would Prefer Home with Stairs
Own Rent Overall
Yes 47.0%56.3%53.1%
No 53.0%43.8%46.9%
Total 100.0%100.0%100.0%
Would Prefer a Home with Stairs by Age
3.2%
40.0%
35.8%
12.6%
8.4%
0.0%0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
18 - 2425 - 3435 - 4445 - 5455 - 6465 -7475 or older
Age of Respondent
%
W
o
u
l
d
P
r
e
f
e
r
S
t
a
i
r
s
Trade Offs
1st 2nd 3rd
Price - the rent or purchase amount 29.4%21.8% 8.4%
Location - the community in which you want to live 29.8%31.5% 19.2%
Unit size - square feet, number of bedrooms 20.2%25.9% 29.9%
Unit type - condo, townhome, house 15.6%12.0% 36.0%
Ownership - ability to own your own unit 5.0%8.8% 6.5%
Total 100.0%100.0% 100.0%
P25
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 22
Utilization of Day Care – Now and In Future
Own Rent Overall
Yes 24.7%28.3%26.2%
No 75.3%71.7%73.8%
100%100%100%
Day Care Preferences
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
I think daycare services are
adequate
I prefer daycare near my workI prefer daycare near my home
Own
Rent
Median Number of Vehicles at Home
Own Rent Overall
Cars/Trucks 1.571.171.40
Recreational Vehicles 0.470.380.43
P26
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 23
Employees Working in Aspen
Introduction
Surveys were distributed to employees working in Aspen through place of work,
while commuting on RFTA buses and at bus stops. Specifically:
• All members of the Aspen Resort and Chamber Association were sent an
email with a link to an on-line version of the employee survey and asked
to forward it to their employees.
• The 10 largest employers were given both paper versions of the survey
and the link to the on-line version depending upon their preference for
distribution to their employees.
• Paper versions in both English and Spanish were distributed on buses and
at bus stops.
• Paper surveys were also given to restaurants, retailers and other
employers in the downtown area for distribution to their employees.
A drawing for $50 grocery store certificates and one-month passes to the Aspen
Recreation Center was offered as an incentive. A total of 575 surveys were
received from employees who work in Aspen.
Key Findings
• Of the 575 employees surveyed, 261 or 45% now live in Aspen.
Commuters typically have lower response rates than other employees, at
least in part due to the time they must spend commuting. The percentage
of employees who commute is thus likely higher than 55%.
• Many of the employees commuting into Aspen for work do so because
they are unable to live in Aspen. Over half of the employees commuting
from the Basalt/El Jebel area would rather live in Aspen as would 42% of
the employees living in Carbondale and 48% of those who now live in
Glenwood Springs or in the towns along the I-70 corridor.
P27
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 24
• Most of Aspen’s employees have found housing that is affordable given
their incomes (housing payment does not exceed 30% of their income).
Approximately 21%, however, live in housing that is not affordable.
There is a direct correlation with income. Over 80% of households with
extremely low incomes (≤ 30% AMI) and 55% of those with very low
incomes (31% - 50% AMI) are cost burdened by high housing payments.
• The median payment for housing occupied by Aspen employees living
both in town and down valley is $1,500 for owners and $1,025 for renters.
• While nearly three-fourths of employees are satisfied with their housing,
satisfaction levels vary by current place of residence, income and the type
of unit in which they now live. Of no surprise, those living in single
family homes are the most likely and mobile home residents are the least
likely to be “very satisfied”. Employees living in subsidized housing tend
to be slightly more satisfied with their housing than employees living in
free-market housing. Employees living in housing provided by their
employers are less satisfied than other employees.
• The average age of employees is nearly 44. Renters are younger than
owners but still average over 37 years of age.
• Most of the homeowners working in Aspen are families but nearly 30% of
renters live with unrelated roommates.
• The median household income of Aspen employees is $79,000. Renters
make considerably less with a median of $60,000 compared to a median of
$100,000 for owners.
• Nearly one-third of employees surveyed live in housing provided by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The majority of employees
(59%), however, reside in free-market housing.
• Price and location far outweigh unit size and type in terms of priorities
when choosing a place to live.
• Of renters who would like to buy a condominium or townhome, about
one-fourth are families, about 70% have incomes of $50,000 or greater, and
most would like to live where dogs are allowed.
P28
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 25
• Nearly 12% of employees who own their homes plan to retire within the
next five years and most of them (57%) plan to stay in their homes. About
7% would like to move down valley and 20% would like to move out of
the valley. Interest in down sizing within the same town is small but
exists. Renters are most interested in moving out of the Roaring Fork
Valley upon retirement
P29
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 26
Section 1 - Housing Problems
Monthly Housing Payment by Own/Rent
Overall Own Rent
None, do not pay rent or mortgage 3.74.23.3
Under $250 0.6 1.0
$250 - $499 2.20.83.3
$500 - $749 11.57.214.9
$750 - $999 16.511.420.5
$1000 - $1249 19.416.521.8
$1250 - $1499 7.87.28.3
$1500 - $1749 12.412.212.5
$1750 - $1999 5.78.43.6
$2000 - $2499 7.810.55.6
$2500 - $2999 5.28.42.6
$3000 - $3499 2.43.41.7
$3500 - $3999 2.24.20.7
$4000 - $4499 1.12.5
$4500 - $4999 0.40.8
$5000 - $5999 0.40.8
$6000 - $6999 0.60.80.3
$8000 - $8999 0.20.4
100%100%100%
Average $1,437$1,762$1,183
Median $1,200$1,500$1,025
Affordability by Own/Rent
Shading denotes cost burden.
% Income Spent on Housing Pmt. Overall Own Rent
Under 20% 49.351.447.6
21-30% 29.630.728.7
31-35% 4.9 3.7 5.8
36-40% 5.3 6.4 4.4
41-50% 4.9 4.1 5.5
Over 50% 6.1 3.7 8.0
100%100%100%
Total Cost Burdened 21.1%17.9%23.6%
P30
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 27
Affordability by AMI
Shading denotes cost burden.
Area Median Income (AMI) % Income Spent on
Housing ≤30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-100% 101-120%121-140% Over 140%
Under 20% 16.718.423.146.558.062.370.7
21-30% 26.342.334.030.934.020.2
31-35% 5.615.87.75.62.5 1.0
36-40% 5.615.8 4.96.21.96.1
41-50% 10.511.56.91.21.92.0
Over 50% 72.213.215.42.11.2
100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
Total Cost Burdened 83.3%55.3%34.6%19.4%11.1%3.8%9.1%
Where Live Compared to Where Want to Live
Where Now Live
Where Want to Live
Aspen Other
Pitkin
Co
Basalt/El
Jebel
Carbondale Glenwood
Sprs. I-70
Towns, Other
Snowmass Village 0.8%23.2%2.5%6.8% 4.8%
Aspen 94.6%62.5%54.2%42.4% 48.4%
Woody Creek, Old Snowmass 0.8%8.9%1.7%3.4% 4.8%
Basalt, El Jebel 1.5%3.6%39.0%6.8% 12.9%
Carbondale 1.5%1.8%1.7%37.3% 6.5%
Glenwood Springs 0.8%0.0%0.0%0.0% 19.4%
I-70 Towns 0.0%0.0%0.0%3.4% 1.6%
Other 0.0%0.0%0.8%0.0% 1.6%
N = 2615611859 62
1st Choice Location – Where Commuters into Aspen Want to Live
52.2%20.3%9.8%7.8%9.8%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
1st Choice Residence
Location
Aspen Basalt/El Jebel
Carbon‐
dale SMV Other
P31
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 28
Satisfaction with Housing
Very Satisfied
33%
Somewhat Satisfied
40%
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
20%
Very Dissatisfied
7%
Satisfaction with Housing by Own/Rent
OverallOwn Rent
1 - Very Satisfied 33.250.4 19.8
2 - Somewhat Satisfied 39.536.9 41.5
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied 20.39.9 28.5
4 - Very Dissatisfied 7.02.8 10.2
100%100% 100%
Reasons for Dissatisfaction
Overcrowded/no privacy/too small 43.037.8 45.6
Too expensive 51.431.7 60.9
Too far from work 40.656.1 33.1
Not in desirable location 13.18.5 15.4
Unavailable year-round 5.6 8.3
Disturbance from nearby short-term rentals 10.812.2 10.1
Unit in poor condition 4.0 5.9
Too far from transit 1.6 2.4
Other 3.21.2 4.1
Total* 173.3%147.6% 185.8%
* Multiple response question; total exceeds 100%.
Satisfaction Levels by Median Household Income
$95,000
$75,000
$70,000
$60,000
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
$100,000
1 ‐ Very Satisfied2 ‐ Somewhat
Satisfied
3 ‐ Somewhat
Dissatisfied
4 ‐ Very
Dissatisfied
M
e
d
i
a
n
I
n
c
o
m
e
P32
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 29
Satisfaction Levels by Where Now Live
40.7%
30.1%
35.5%
40.8%
44.3%
16.7%
33.3%
3.7%
6.8%
3.2%
4.8%
6.6%
13.3%
44.4%
0%10%20%30%40%50%
Snowmass Village
Aspen
Woody Creek or Old Snowmass
Basalt or el Jebel
Carbondale
Glenwood Springs
New castle, Silt, Rifle, or Parachute
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
1 ‐ Very Satisfied 4 ‐ Very Dissatisfied
Satisfaction Levels – Subsidized and Free-Market Housing Compared
42%
33%
32%
33%
50%
43%
32%
38%
8%
19%
27%
21%
5%
9%
8%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Snowmass Village
Housing Office
Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing
Authority
Your employer
None of the above
‐ free marketR
e
n
t
e
d
,
D
e
e
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
o
r
S
u
b
s
i
d
i
z
e
d
b
y
:
1 ‐ Very Satisfied
2 ‐ Somewhat Satisfied
3 ‐ Somewhat Dissatisfied
4 ‐ Very Dissatisfied
P33
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 30
Satisfaction by Type of Current Residence
24%
33%
19%
48%
40%
12%
3%
3%
25%
6%
10%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Apartment
Condominium/townhouse/duplex
Mobile home
Dormitory/room without kitchen
Single‐family house
Caretaker unit
Ty
p
e
1 ‐ Very Satisfied 4 ‐ Very Dissatisfied
Section 2 - Demographic Characteristics
Age and Gender by Own/Rent
Age of Respondent Overall Own Rent
18 - 24 6.20.410.6
25 - 34 30.313.243.5
35 - 44 23.926.921.6
45 - 54 23.033.315.0
55 - 64 13.622.27.0
65 - 74 1.92.11.7
75 or older 1.11.70.7
100%100%100%
Average Age 43.651.637.4
Median Age 404833
Gender
Male 44.945.044.9
Female 55.155.055.1
100%100%100%
P34
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 31
Household Composition by Own/Rent
Overall Own Rent
Live alone 21.113.726.7
Family members only 46.571.027.6
Family members & unrelated roommates 3.95.22.8
Unrelated roommates 16.73.626.7
Unmarried couple 10.96.514.3
Unmarried couple & unrelated roommates 1.1 1.9
100%100%100%
Household Income by Own/Rent
Overall Own Rent
Under $25,000 4.12.35.6
$25,000 - $49,999 16.35.025.0
$50,000 - $74,999 26.122.528.8
$75,000 - $99,999 18.618.019.1
$100,000 - $149,999 25.336.516.7
$150,000 - $199,999 6.910.44.2
$200,000 - $249,999 1.83.60.3
$250,000 - $299,999 0.40.9
$300,000 - $349,999 0.60.90.3
100%100%100%
Average $84,265$103,213$69,675
Median $79,000$100,000$60,000
P35
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 32
Type of Housing Occupied, by Own/Rent
Subsidized or Free Market Overall Own Rent
Snowmass Village Housing Office 2.11.2 2.9
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority 31.037.6 25.7
Your employer 6.20.8 10.5
Your spouse's/roommate's employer 1.4 2.5
Other government/Section 8/tax credits 0.70.4 1.0
None of the above - free market 58.660.0 57.5
100%100% 100%
Unit Type
Apartment 28.22.4 48.3
Condominium/townhouse/duplex 30.044.6 18.6
Mobile home 5.45.6 5.3
Dormitory/room without kitchen 1.4 2.5
Single-family house 30.347.0 17.3
Caretaker unit 1.7 3.1
Other 3.00.4 5.0
100%100% 100%
Section 3 - Entry-Level Homeownership
Priorities and Trade Offs
Overall Own Rent
Price - the rent or purchase amount 35.121.2 45.4
Location - the community in which you live 29.025.1 31.9
Unit size - Square feet, number of bedrooms 5.18.2 2.9
Unit type - condo, townhome, house 2.01.7 2.2
Ownership - ability to own your own unit 28.743.7 17.6
100%100% 100%
P36
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 33
Household Composition -- Renters who Want to Buy Condo or Townhome
30%
27%
25%
14%
2%
2%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
Unrelated roommates
I live alone
Family members only
Unmarried couple
Family members and unrelated
roommates
Unmarried couple and unrelated
roommates
Income Distribution - Renters who Want to Buy Condo or Townhome
Income Range % Households
Under $25,000 4.1%
$25,000 - $49,999 26.6%
$50,000 - $74,999 28.9%
$75,000 - $99,999 19.7%
$100,000 - $149,999 17.4%
$150,000 - $199,999 2.3%
$200,000 - $249,999 0.5%
$300,000 - $349,999 0.5%
Total 100.0%
P37
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 34
Opinions about Living Where Dogs are Allowed
Renters who Want to Buy Condo or Townhome
18.6%
32.6%32.6%
16.3%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Yes, absolutely
necessary
Desirable but not
required
Neutral, not
important
Would prefer to
live where dogs
are not allowed
Section 4 - Retirement
Plans to Retire in Next 5 Years
Overall Own Rent
No 92.188.0 95.3
Yes 7.912.0 4.7
100%100% 100%
Stay in your current residence 53.356.7 46.7
Downsize to smaller home in the same town 4.46.7
Move down valley 6.76.7 6.7
Move out of the Roaring Fork Valley 20.016.7 26.7
Other 15.613.3 20.0
100%100% 100%
P38
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 35
Aspen Homeowners
Introduction
In total, a sample of 3,000 homeowner surveys was mailed to homeowners with
properties located in the Aspen zipcodes (81611, 81612). Households were
selected for inclusion in the sample based on residential parcel information that
was obtained from the Pitkin County Assessor’s website. All residences with
finished square footage of more than 3,000 square feet were mailed a survey
form (1,459). The remaining 1,541 surveys were randomly mailed to residences
with less than 3,000 finished square feet.
Additionally, 400 surveys were hung on doors of units in excess of 3,000 square
feet. (These homes were also intended to receive the survey in the mail.) The
additional door hanging was to insure adequate representation of larger homes
within the City of Aspen. This representation of larger homes was done to best
examine the relationship between employment and home square footage across
the full spectrum of home sizes, including very large homes. Therefore, when
evaluating responses to survey questions, the results should be understood in the
context of the particular sampling. It should be noted, however, that regression
analysis is used to analyze these data and this statistical technique is not
influenced by the oversampling of larger homes. A total of 381 surveys were
returned out of 3,000 households contacted, for a response rate of 12.7%.
The survey included responses from owners of a variety of different types of
housing including condos/townhomes, duplexes and single family homes.
Respondents reported on residences that ranged in size from less than 999 square
feet to greater than 10,000 square feet. The sample included 45 homes (14% of
valid sample) over 6,000 square feet, of which 8 homes were over 10,000 square
feet.
The survey included homes distributed throughout Aspen with the West End
most represented (27% of the total), followed by East of Aspen and the
Downtown (13% each).
P39
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 36
The primary purpose of the 2008 City of Aspen Homeowner Survey was to
gather data on the employment associated with the residences in the City of
Aspen. The survey also gathered extensive data about selected operational and
maintenance characteristics of homes, as well as the use patterns and
demographics of homeowners, which may be of interest for other policy,
planning and research purposes. The City of Aspen is interested in
understanding the link between residences and job generation, particularly the
lower-paying service jobs, to be able to anticipate and plan for the housing needs
of residential service employees in the area.
This surveying effort was designed to provide information for a variety of
purposes. It complements several of the other surveys conducted by the City of
Aspen and the Aspen/ Pitkin County Housing Authority, including surveys of
residents of City-assisted housing, commuters and employers. This Owners
Survey was intended to specifically address employment generated by homes of
various sizes in the City of Aspen. The resulting data may be used to inform and
support housing-related code requirements as may be considered by the City in
the future.
Key Findings
• The survey examined the hours per week and weeks per year spent
working as an “employer or an employee producing goods and services
for residents and/or visitors to Aspen.” About 28% of respondents report
they spent some hours per week producing goods and services for
residents/visitors, with an average of 37 hours per week. These owners
work an average of 45 weeks per year producing these services.
Combining these measures, the data suggest that each Aspen homeowner
works the equivalent of approximately 23percent of a “full time
equivalent” worker producing goods and services for Aspen
residents/visitors. Put another way, three out of four residences are
owned/occupied by persons not contributing to the production of goods
and services. Note that these work patterns reflect owners of
predominantly larger units, and include a combination of working-age
locals as well as retirees and second home owners.
(Explanation: 28% spend time x 37 hours x 45 weeks = 466 hours per year
per responding household. Using the measure of 2,020 hours available
per worker per year, 466/2020 = .23 or 23%.)
P40
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 37
• While 25% of the sample was made up of homes constructed since 2000, a
large share of homes represented in the study were built in 1979 or earlier
(43%). The average year of construction was 1981, and the median year of
construction was 1987.
• Owner household demographics were profiled. The median annual
household income of respondents was $250,000 but the average income
was $1.3 million. About 43% of respondents reported incomes over
$300,000 annually. The median and average age of respondents were both
60 years, with 40% reporting they were 65 years or older.
• Remodeling is an activity impacting a large percentage of Aspen homes.
About 26% of respondents report they remodeled recently and 10% have
plans to remodel. Of those that have remodeled recently, 78% have done
so since 2005. About 32% had spent more than $500,000 on their
remodels, with an average expenditure of $543,000. Of those with plans to
remodel (10% overall) most will do so within the next two years (92%).
• About 17percent of respondents report that they have accessory units.
The use of these units was measured. About 38% were rented long-term
to local residents, 24percent were used as caretaker residences, 19percent
were used for guests of the household, and 16percent were used by
household members. Only 8percent were reported to be vacant and
3percent were rented short-term. (Note – responses on this question sum
to greater than 100percent because of multiple types of use reported.)
• The future use of properties was evaluated through the survey and results
indicate that most respondents will maintain their current use (68percent)
followed by increased personal use (25percent). About 7percent reported
that they will retire to Aspen and use the residence as a retirement
residence and an additional 4percent expect to become a full time resident
of Aspen. In other words, by this measure, about 11percent of all
respondents, or 23% of current non-resident respondents, indicate that
they will become residents of Aspen, either through retirement or moving
as a full time resident. While probably overstated, this is a substantial
percentage that indicates potentially significant shifts in the usage of
second homes over time.
P41
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 38
• A primary purpose of the survey was to determine employment
associated with Aspen residences and the related costs of maintenance,
association fees, etc. These findings are reported in greater detail in the
next section of the report. Selected observations include:
About half (45percent) of respondents use or belong to a
homeowners association. Fifty-two percent hire contractors and
employees to provide services, 27percent hire a property
management company and 10percent report an on-site
caretaker. About 18percent indicate they do not use outside
services for their home.
Of the group that pays dues to a homeowners association
(45percent), snow removal, trash removal and lawn and
landscape services are the most identified services that are
received. Dues average about $5,400 annually.
Similar breakdowns were observed for other types of services
used by households including contractors/employees, property
management companies, and caretakers.
In addition, the survey looked at other services obtained locally
or that were brought to Aspen by second homeowners/part-
time residents. These services included chefs/kitchen helpers,
personal trainers, child care/nannyies, etc.
The total responses to these questions were analyzed and they
became a part of the calculations for Residential Employment
summarized below and presented in more detail in the
attachments.
• Employment and Home Size Relationships were analyzed through the
survey. The Residential Study probed four primary categories of
employers/employees that are hired to assist in the operation and
maintenance of residential units. They include:
Direct hires by homeowners (including caretakers);
Property management firms retained by homeowners to operate
and maintain residential properties;
Homeowners associations responsible for operating and
maintaining residential properties; and
Other contracted services.
P42
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 39
For each type of home service owners were asked to report how much they
spend per year on each service. Annual spending amounts were converted into
direct FTE employment using a combination of wage data and assumptions
regarding non-labor costs.
The employment estimates resulting from this analysis are similar to, although
not quite precisely the same as, “full-time equivalents” (FTE’s). Rather, the
employment estimates represent “employee equivalents” for the respective
service occupations, i.e. the number of full-time workers 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.
The job generation rates were found to vary by square footage according to the
following exponential function:
Equation of Residential Employee Generation by Home Size
Total FTE = 0.0976 * e(.0003)(Square Footage)
A table in the attachments summarizes the FTE employee generation rates that
were calculated by applying the above formula.
P43
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 40
Section 1 - Aspen Homeowner Survey 2008: Summary of Usage Patterns
1. Predominant use of home*:
Valid Percent
Local resident occupied (owner-occupied or long-term rental) 58.5%
Other: second home / short-term rental / other 41.5%
Total 100.0%
*Note: A home is classified as "local resident occupied" if it is used as a primary residence
of the owner and/or as a long-term rental to local resident at least 26 weeks per year.
2. Annual average weeks of use of home, by predominant use:
Predominant Use of Home
A. Local resident occupied
(owner-occupied or long-
term rental)
B. Other: second home /
short-term rental / other
Type of Use: # of Weeks% of Weeks# of Weeks% of Weeks
Primary residence of owner 48.593.2%3.77.1%
Long term rental to local resident 1.63.1%0.20.3%
Vacation home for owner or guest of owner 0.00.1%9.718.7%
Short-term vacation rental - occupied by visitors 0.10.3%4.07.7%
Business or corporate function 0.00.0%0.10.1%
Other 0.00.1%0.61.2%
Vacant 1.8 3.4%33.7 64.8%
Annual total 52.0100.0%52.0100.0%
Observations regarding usage of "local resident occupied" homes (comprising 58.5% of respondent sample):
- On average, such homes are occupied by the owner or by a long-term renter for fully 50 weeks per year.
These homes are predominantly vacant the remaining 2 weeks per year.
Observations regarding usage of "other: second home / short term rental / other" homes (comprising 41.5% of respondent sample):
- On average, these homes are vacant 65% of the time (33.7 of 52 weeks per year).
- When in use, these homes are most commonly used by the owner as a vacation home or primary residence of owner (26% of weeks),
and to a lesser extent, as short-term vacation rentals (8% of weeks), or are used for other purposes (2% of weeks).
P44
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 41
Section 2 - Home Characteristics
Location of Property
2%
2%
2%
3%
5%
5%
13%
13%
27%
28%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
Castle Creek
Cemetery Cove (Truscott)
Shadow Mountain
Highlands
Maroon Creek
Smuggler Mountain
East of Aspen
Downtown
West End
Other
Type of Ownership
Free-market housing 89%
Deed-restricted affordable housing 11%
Residence Type and Average Number of Bedrooms
%
Average #
Bedrooms
Single-family house 67%4.17
Duplex 9%3.71
Condominium or townhome 23%2.62
Mobile/modular home 1%2.60
Other 1%0.5
Total 100%3.72
P45
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 42
Lot Size
42%
28%
11%
19%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
Small residential lot (less
than 1/3 acre)
Large residential lot (1/3 -
1 acre)
Small acreage (1 to 5
acres)
Not applicable:
condo/townhome
Finished Square Feet by Unit Type
Single-family houseDuplex
Condominium
or TownhomeOther Total
1 - 999 20 3 23
1000 - 1999 11 1 28 2 42
2000 - 2999 25 11 7 43
3000 - 3999 49 9 5 1 64
4000 - 4999 48 4 6 58
5000 - 5999 28 3 5 36
6000 - 6999 19 2 21
7000 - 7999 8 8
8000 - 8999 5 5
9000 - 9999 3 3
10,000 or more 8 8
Total 204 28 73 2 311
Average
Square Feet 4,575 3,164 2,014 1,655 3,782
P46
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 43
Section 2 - Homeowner Characteristics
What Year Did You Move to Aspen and When Did You
Purchase Your Current Residence
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Before 19601960 - 19691970 - 19791980 - 19891990 - 19992000 - 20042005 or later
Moved to Aspen
Purchased current residence
How many HOURS PER WEEK do you work as an employer or employee producing goods and
services for residents and/or visitors to Aspen?
None 1%
1 - 5 hours 2%
6 - 10 hours 7%
16 - 20 hours 7%
21 - 25 hours 7%
26 - 30 hours 6%
31 - 35 hours 2%
36 - 40 hours 43%
41 or more hours 26%
Total 100%
Average 36.9
P47
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 44
How many WEEKS PER YEAR do you work as an employer or employee
producing goods and services for residents and/or visitors to Aspen?
None 1%
1 - 5 weeks 1%
6 - 10 weeks 4%
11 - 15 weeks 1%
16 - 20 weeks 3%
21 - 25 weeks 1%
26 - 30 weeks 1%
31 - 35 weeks 1%
36 - 40 weeks 8%
41 - 45 weeks 3%
46 - 50 weeks 33%
51 - 52 weeks 42%
Total 100%
Average 44.6
Age of Respondent
0%
3%
8%
21%
29%
27%
13%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%
Under 18
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 or older
P48
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 45
What is your total annual household income?
Local Resident 2nd Home Owner Overall
$1 - $24,999 1.2% 1%
$25,000 - $49,999 7.9% 5%
$50,000 - $74,999 9.1% 6%
$75,000 - $99,999 5.5%3.2%5%
$100,000 - $124,999 14.6%8.4%12%
$125,000 - $149,999 4.3% 3%
$150,000 - $174,999 9.1%5.3%7%
$175,000 - $199,999 2.4%1.1%2%
$200,000 - $249,999 6.1%10.5%8%
$250,000 - $299,999 9.1%4.2%7%
$300,000 - $399,999 4.9%8.4%6%
$400,000 - $499,999 3.0%3.2%4%
$500,000 - $999,999 13.4%23.2%16%
$1,000,000 or more 9.1%32.6%17%
Total 100%100%100%
Average $506,643 $3,062,263$1,384,060
Median $150,000 $500,000$250,000
Section 3 - Property Use
Property Used at Least Once During the Season as a:
68%
28%
9%
2%1%1%
42%
66%
28%
9%
2%1%1%
43%
61%
17%
3%2%0%1%
47%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Primary
residence for
owner
Vacation home
for owner or
guest of owner
Short-term
vacation rental
occupied by
visitors
Long-term rental
to a local
resident
Business or
corporate
Other purposesVacant-not
occupied
Summer
Winter
Spring/Fall
P49
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 46
How are the accessory units on your property used?
17% of respondents have accessory units
Rented long-term to local resident(s) 38%
Caretaker residence 24%
Used by visiting guests of owner/household 19%
Household/family member use 16%
Vacant - not used 8%
Rented short-term to visitors 3%
Total 108%
Who Typically Occupies Your Aspen Home?
85%
80%
51%
23%
22%
5%
3%
2%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Self
Spouse/partner
Children
Friends
Relatives/other family
members
Other
Housemate(s) to whom
you rent a room
Business associates
Which statements most accurately reflect your
intended future use of your residence?
Maintain current personal use 68%
Increase my personal use of the residence 25%
Increase use by friends and family 15%
Use the residence as a vacation/short-term rental unit 7%
Sell the residence 7%
Retire to Aspen and use as retirement residence 7%
Become a full-time resident of Aspen 4%
Decrease current personal use 2%
Rent the residence long-term to local residents 2%
Other 1%
P50
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 47
How much did you, or do you plan to, spend on remodeling?
Recently
remodeled
(26%)
Plan to
remodel
(10%)
$1 - $49,999 16%52%
$50,000 - $99,999 15%4%
$100,000 - $199,999 18%20%
$200,000 - $299,999 10%0%
$300,000 - $399,999 6%0%
$400,000 - $499,999 3%4%
$500,000 or more 32%20%
Total 100%100%
Average $543,899 $225,480
Section 4 - Dues and Services
Services Used by Owner
18%
10%
27%
45%
52%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
None
Hire an on-site caretaker
Hire a property
management company
Use or belong to a
homeowners association
Hire
contractors/employees
P51
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 48
What services does your HOA provide?
45% of households pay dues to an HOA
Snow removal 75%
Trash removal 61%
Lawn/landscape maintenance 53%
Building maintenance (interior and/or exterior) 50%
Insurance 47%
Operation and maintenance of community amenities 33%
Cable television 31%
Security 21%
Rental management 17%
Housekeeping/cleaning 12%
Swimming pool maintenance - private pool 11%
Other 10%
HOA dues per year
16%
7%
9%
4%
5%
3%
6%
6%
5%
1%
10%
4%
3%
5%
1%
17%
0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18%
$1 - $499
$500 - $999
$1000 - $1499
$1500 - $1999
$2000 - $2499
$2500 - $2999
$3000 - $3499
$3500 - $3999
$4000 - $4499
$4500 - $4999
$5000 - $5999
$6000 - $6999
$7000 - $7999
$8000 - $8999
$9000 - $9999
$10,000 or more
P52
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 49
What services do your contractors/employees provide?
52% of households hire contractors/employees
Trash removal 75%
Cable television 75%
Lawn/landscape maintenance 69%
Snow removal 67%
Insurance 65%
Housekeeping/cleaning 64%
Security 50%
Building maintenance (interior and/or exterior)48%
Swimming pool maintenance - private pool 15%
Rental management 6%
Other 3%
What services does your property management company provide?
27% of households hire a property management company
Building maintenance (interior and/or exterior) 74%
Housekeeping/cleaning 47%
Snow removal 44%
Lawn/landscape maintenance 32%
Rental management 30%
Security 30%
Trash removal 24%
Insurance 12%
Cable television 11%
Swimming pool maintenance - private pool 2%
Other 2%
What services does your onsite caretaker provide?
10% of households hire an onsite caretaker
Housekeeping/cleaning 67%
Building maintenance (interior and/or exterior)62%
Lawn/landscape maintenance 51%
Snow removal 46%
Security 41%
Trash removal 33%
Swimming pool maintenance - private pool 15%
Rental management 13%
Cable television 13%
Insurance 10%
Other 5%
P53
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 50
How much do you spend each year on the following?
Property
Management
Company
On-Site
Caretaker
Contractors/
employees
$1 - $1999 11%17%11%
$2000 - $3999 19%10%16%
$4000 - $5999 14%13%13%
$6000 - $7999 8%0%5%
$8000 - $9999 3%0%4%
$10,000 - $11,999 7%13%11%
$12,000 - $13,999 12%0%2%
$14,000 - $15,999 5%7%7%
$16,000 or more 21%40%30%
Total 100%100%100%
Average $14,517 $29,417 $20,898
Median $6,000 $10,000 $10,000
What other services do you obtain?
Locally Travels with
Household
Chef/kitchen help/caterer 65%43%
Personal trainer 24%5%
Child care provider/nanny 17%57%
Other 15%10%
Personal assistant 9%10%
Driver/pilot 7%33%
Concierge/butler 4%14%
Total 140%171%
How much do you spend each year on the following?
Average Median
Chef/Kitchen Help/Catering $13,874 $5,000
Child care provider/Nanny $15,586 $2,000
Concierge/Butler $78,333 $80,000
Personal Assistant $41,750 $42,000
Personal Trailer $5,288 $5,000
Driver, Pilot $68,900 $38,500
Other $6,815 $6,000
P54
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 51
Section 5 - Employment and Home Size Relationships
The City of Aspen homeowner survey gathered information on the employment
associated with the operations and maintenance of residential units in Aspen.
The Residential Study probed four primary categories of employees that are
hired to assist in the operation and maintenance of residential units. They
include:
Direct hires by homeowners;
Hires by property management firms retained by homeowners to
operate and maintain residential properties;
Hires by homeowners associations responsible for operating and
maintaining residential properties; and
Other contracted services.
For each type of home service the owner uses (homeowners associations,
property management companies, independent contractors, on-site caretakers
and other directly hired employees), owners were asked to report how much
they spend per year on each service. Annual spending amounts were converted
into direct FTE employment using a combination of wage data and assumptions
regarding non-labor costs. Wage data was based on annualized wage rates for
Pitkin County for specified industry sectors, as extrapolated from 2007 QCEW
data.
The employment estimates resulting from this analysis are similar to, although
not quite precisely the same as, “full-time equivalents” (FTE’s). Rather, the
employment estimates represent “employee equivalents” for the respective
service occupations, i.e. the number of full-time workers 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.
The job generation rates were found to vary by square footage according to the
following exponential function:
Equation of Residential Employee Generation by Home Size
Total FTE = 0.0976 * e(.0003)(Square Footage)
P55
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 52
The following table of FTE employee generation rates was calculated by
applying the above formula to the mid-point of each of the residential square-
footage categories shown in the first column.
Residential Job Generation – All unit types
Square Foot
Range FTE
500 0.11
1,000 0.13
1,500 0.15
2,000 0.18
2,500 0.21
3,000 0.24
3,500 0.28
4,000 0.32
4,500 0.38
5,000 0.44
5,500 0.51
6,000 0.59
6,500 0.69
7,000 0.80
7,500 0.93
8,000 1.08
8,500 1.25
P56
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 53
Aspen-Area Employers
Introduction
Employers within Aspen and its urban growth boundary were asked to complete
a 23-question survey concerning how they feel about the availability of
affordable workforce housing, how it is impacting their operations, how their
employment levels and the resulting demand for housing may change in the
future, and about their provision of housing for their employees. The survey
was distributed through a combination of methods aimed at maximizing
responses and intended to allow all employers to participate. These methods
included:
• Via an email from the Aspen Resort and Chamber Association that
included a link to an on-line version of the survey and a .pdf version as an
attachment that employers could print and fax if desired.
• Through direct face-to-face and telephone contact with the 10 largest
employers;
• By issuance of a press release that provided the addresses for the on-line
version of the survey, which resulted in their publication;
• By dropping in on employers in the downtown area during their business
hours; and,
• Through phone calls to approximately 15 of the larger employers (ranked
11 through 25 in terms of number of employees).
A total of 98 responses were received from a board representative mix of
employers including the 10 largest. Combined, these employers provided jobs to
5,334 employees during the winter and 4,939 during the summer, which equates
to approximately 32% of the average of 16,185 jobs in the Aspen area (Aspen zip
codes).
P57
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 54
Key Findings
• 86% of employers surveyed feel that the availability of workforce housing
in Aspen is the most critical or one of the more serious problems facing
the community.
• The majority (56%) feel that housing for year-round employees should be
the top priority but 38% feel that the housing needs of both year-round
and seasonal employees should be considered equally. They perceive that
the lowest-wage workers have the greatest difficulty finding housing.
• Nearly ¾ of the employers reported that their ability to recruit and retain
employees has gotten harder over the past three years. Survey results
applied to total employment suggest that 3,475 jobs were difficult to fill
and 925 remained unfilled this past year. The numbers were slightly
lower during the summer season – 3,000 jobs were hard to fill and 690
remained unfilled.
• It does not appear that visa and immigration regulations are impacting
employers to the extent that housing is; 55% of employers surveyed
reported that visa/immigration limitations have not influenced their
ability to hire employees although 16% indicate the regulations have been
a major limitation.
• Employers report that only 23% of their year-round employees and 34% of
their seasonal workers live in Aspen, which is lower than the 47% found
from the survey of 575 employees.
• About half of the employers surveyed feel that their employment levels
will stay about the same during the next five years while 37% anticipate
growth in the number of jobs they offer. Only five of the employers
surveyed indicated they anticipate a reduction in jobs.
• Most employers anticipate the need to replace retiring employees. They
estimate that 2.8% of their year-round employees will retire within the
next five years.
• Although not all employers responded to the question, 58% of the
employees working for responding employers live in free-market housing,
P58
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 55
28% live in housing provided by the employer and 14% live in other
employee housing.
• The employers surveyed provide a total of 768 employee housing units
during the winter, with a total of 1,897 bedrooms. Slightly fewer units are
provided during the summer months – 644 units with 1,392 bedrooms.
• Many employers indicated they might be willing to provide more housing
assistance than they now offer. Only 27% indicated they would not
consider offering any of the six types of housing assistance tested.
P59
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 56
Section 1 - Housing–Related Employer Problems
Employer Perceptions about Workforce Housing and Hiring Employees
1%
4%
9%
59%
27%
2%
25%
72%
1%
56%
6%
38%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Not a problem
One of the Town's lesser problems
A moderate problem
One of the more serious problems
The most critical problem in the Town
Improved/gotten easier
Stayed about the same
Declined/gotten harder
Don't know/not applicable
Year-round employees
Seasonal employees
Both are equal
The availability of workforce housing in the City of Aspen is:
The ability to recruit and retain employees over the past three years has:
Which segment of the workforce should be TOP priortiy for affordable housing?
Difficult to Fill and Unfilled Jobs
SummerWinter
Total Jobs (See State of Aspen report) 15,43116,938
Jobs -- Employers Surveyed 4,9395,334
Percent of Total 32.0%31.5%
Unfilled Jobs -- Employers Surveyed 221291
Percent of Total 32.0%31.5%
Estimate of Total Unfilled Jobs 690924
Diffcult to Fill Jobs -- Employers Surveyed 9601,094
Percent of Total 32.0%31.5%
Estimate of Total Difficult to Fill Jobs 2,9993,474
P60
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 57
Employees who Left or Rejected Employment
Primary Reason # Employees
(survey =
32% of total)
Estimate of
Total
Employees
Lacked housing 495 1,547
Lacked transportation 84 263
Lacked day care 84 263
Found cost of living in the area was too high 618 1,931
TOTAL 1,281 4,003
Extent to Which Employees Have Difficulty Locating Housing
1 = No Difficulty; 5 = Major Difficulty
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.73.83.944.14.24.34.4
Seasonal workers
Retail/Service clerks
General labor/service
Entry level professionals
Mid-Management
Office support staff
Upper Management
Other
How Visa/Immigration Limitations have Influenced
Ability to Hire Employees
Not at all
55%Somewhat
29%
A major limitation
16%
P61
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 58
Section 2 - Employment and Commuting
Number of Employees in the Next 5 Years
Increase your number
of employees
37%
Reduce your number
of employees
3%
Stay about the same
49%
Don't know
11%
Where Aspen Workers Live
Where Live % Year Round% Seasonal
Snowmass Village 6.1%16.7%
Aspen 23.3%33.9%
Woody Creek 1.2%2.6%
Old Snowmass 1.4%1.8%
Basalt 14.3%14.7%
El Jebel 13.4%9.8%
Carbondale 20.3%12.9%
Glenwood Springs 13.8%4.3%
New Castle/Silt/Rifle/Parachute 5.5%3.3%
Other 0.7%0.0%
Total 100.0%100.0%
P62
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 59
Commuting Options Provided by Employers
13.5%
57.2%
12.0%
11.5%
0.0%
5.8%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Bus/shuttle service (operated by your business)
Bus passes/coupons
Car pooling/van pooling
On-site company vehicle for employee errands
Travel stipend
Telecommuting
Employer Estimates of Retiring Employees
# Employees
Retiring
In
1 Year
In
2 Years
In 5 Years
0 73.857.123.8
1 11.921.428.6
2 4.814.321.4
3 4.84.87.1
5 2.42.411.9
8 2.4 2.4
13 2.4
18 2.4
100%100%100%
Employer Estimates of Number of Retiring Employees
# Will Retire % of Year Round Employees
In 1 Year 28 .8%
In 2 Years 32 .9%
In 5 Years 103 2.8%
P63
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 60
Section 3 - Employee Housing
How Employees Are Housed
In Aspen Elsewhere in
Region
Total % of
Total
Housing provided by employer 380422802 28.1%
Other employee housing 261137398 14.0%
Free market housing 3571,2931,650 57.9%
Provision of Employee Housing
Year Round Total Summer Total Winter
Total Units Provided 319644768
Total Bedrooms Provided 5571,3921,897
Avg Bedrooms per Unit 1.72.62.4
Type of Assistance Now Provided or Would Consider Providing
57%
30%
24%
20%
15%
9%
6%
52%
50%
45%
41%
27%
17%
3%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Assist employees with housing search
Purchase and own units that you rent to
employees
Master lease units rented to employees
Provide rent subsidies
None of the above
other assistance
Down payment assistance
Currently Provide
Would Consider
P64
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 61
Appendix A - Homeowner Project Profiles
P65
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 62
Project Information - Overall
Which best describes your household How far do you travel to work one way
I live alone 40% Less than 1/4 mile 15%
Family members only 41% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 13%
Family members and unrelated roommates 2% 1/2 to 1 mile 16%
Unrelated roommates 8% 1 to 2 miles 22%
Unmarried couple 9% 2 to 5 miles 27%
More than 5 miles 7%
Average Household Size 2.1
Do you have children at home under age 6
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
No 85% 1 - Very Satisfied 51%
Yes 15% 2 - Somewhat Satisfied 37%
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied 9%
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
4 - Very Dissatisfied 3%
No 81% Rate the following for where you live
Yes 19% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 - Very Satisfied
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 41%
Yes 59%
What is the total monthly rent or mortgage
payment for your residence
None, do not pay rent or mortgage 5%
$250 - $499 6%
$500 - $749 21%
$750 - $999 24%
$1000 - $1249 20%
$1250 - $1499 8%
$1500 - $1749 6%
$1750 - $1999 4%
$2000 or more 6%
Median $929
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000 6%
$25,000 - $49,999 32%
$50,000 - $74,999 30%
$75,000 - $99,999 16%
$100,000 - $149,999 14%
$150,000 or more 1%
Median $63,012
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
3.5
012345
TYPE OF UNIT
SIZE OF UNIT
SUNLIGHT
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
WINDOWS
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
KITCHEN
HEATING SYSTEM
CLOSET SPACE
INTERIOR FINISH
APPLIANCES
STORAGE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
LANDSCAPING
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
PARKING
COMMON AMENITIES
PLAY AREAS
PETS
LOCATION
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
BIKE PATH/TRAIL ACCESS
SENSE OF SAFETY
NEIGHBORHOOD
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
P66
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 63
Rental Group 1: Alpina Haus, Aspen Country Inn, Beaumont (Hospital), Maroon Creek Club
Which best describes your household How far do you travel to work one way
I live alone 67% Less than 1/4 mile 16%
Family members only 22% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 6%
Family members and unrelated roommates 0% 1/2 to 1 mile 9%
Unrelated roommates 3% 1 to 2 miles 22%
Unmarried couple 8% 2 to 5 miles 31%
More than 5 miles 16%
Average Household Size 1.7
Do you have children at home under age 6
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
No 89% 1 - Very Satisfied 57%
Yes 11% 2 - Somewhat Satisfied 31%
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied 6%
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
4 - Very Dissatisfied 6%
No 86% Rate the following for where you live
Yes 14% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 - Very Satisfied
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 31%
Yes 69%
What is the total monthly rent for your
residence
None, do not pay rent 3%
$250 - $499 23%
$500 - $749 11%
$750 - $999 60%
$1000 - $1249 0%
$1250 - $1499 3%
$1500 - $1749 0%
$1750 - $1999 0%
$2000 or more 0%
Median $761
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000 24%
$25,000 - $49,999 58%
$50,000 - $74,999 12%
$75,000 - $99,999 3%
$100,000 - $149,999 3%
$150,000 or more 0%
Median $30,000
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.9
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.8
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.1
3.4
0.01.02.03.04.05.0
TYPE OF UNIT
SIZE OF UNIT
WINDOWS
SUNLIGHT
INTERIOR FINISH
HEATING SYSTEM
STORAGE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
CLOSET SPACE
APPLIANCES
KITCHEN
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
PARKING
LANDSCAPING
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
PLAY AREAS
COMMON AMENITIES
PETS
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
LOCATION
BIKE PATH/TRAIL ACCESS
NEIGHBORHOOD
SENSE OF SAFETY
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
P67
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 64
Rental Group 2: Mountain Oaks, Hunter Longhouse, Ute City Place, Ullr Commons
Which best describes your household How far do you travel to work one way
I live alone 43% Less than 1/4 mile 54%
Family members only 21% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 12%
Family members and unrelated roommates 0% 1/2 to 1 mile 12%
Unrelated roommates 29% 1 to 2 miles 15%
Unmarried couple 7% 2 to 5 miles 8%
More than 5 miles 0%
Average Household Size 1.6
Do you have children at home under age 6
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
No 93% 1 - Very Satisfied 32%
Yes 7% 2 - Somewhat Satisfied 43%
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied 25%
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
4 - Very Dissatisfied 0%
No 96% Rate the following for where you live
Yes 4% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 - Very Satisfied
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 26%
Yes 74%
What is the total monthly rent for your
residence
None, do not pay rent 4%
$250 - $499 8%
$500 - $749 8%
$750 - $999 50%
$1000 - $1249 19%
$1250 - $1499 8%
$1500 - $1749
$1750 - $1999
$2000 or more 4%
Median $901
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000 12%
$25,000 - $49,999 27%
$50,000 - $74,999 42%
$75,000 - $99,999 4%
$100,000 - $149,999 12%
$150,000 or more 4%
Median $52,000
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.9
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.8
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.1
3.4
0.01.02.03.04.05.0
TYPE OF UNIT
SIZE OF UNIT
WINDOWS
SUNLIGHT
INTERIOR FINISH
HEATING SYSTEM
STORAGE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
CLOSET SPACE
APPLIANCES
KITCHEN
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
PARKING
LANDSCAPING
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
PLAY AREAS
COMMON AMENITIES
PETS
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
LOCATION
BIKE PATH/TRAIL ACCESS
NEIGHBORHOOD
SENSE OF SAFETY
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
P68
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 65
Centennial Rental Units
Which best describes your household How far do you travel to work one way
I live alone 50% Less than 1/4 mile 24%
Family members only 16% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 29%
Family members and unrelated roommates 0% 1/2 to 1 mile 18%
Unrelated roommates 22% 1 to 2 miles 6%
Unmarried couple 12% 2 to 5 miles 14%
More than 5 miles 8%
Average Household Size 1.7
Do you have children at home under age 6
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
No 96% 1 - Very Satisfied 40%
Yes 4% 2 - Somewhat Satisfied 44%
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied 16%
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
4 - Very Dissatisfied 0%
No 98% Rate the following for where you live
Yes 2% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 - Very Satisfied
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 10%
Yes 90%
What is the total monthly rent for your
residence
None, do not pay rent 0%
$250 - $499 0%
$500 - $749 0%
$750 - $999 27%
$1000 - $1249 20%
$1250 - $1499 24%
$1500 - $1749 16%
$1750 - $1999 8%
$2000 or more 4%
Median $1,313
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000 4%
$25,000 - $49,999 24%
$50,000 - $74,999 47%
$75,000 - $99,999 11%
$100,000 - $149,999 13%
$150,000 or more 0%
Median $55,000
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.4
3.5
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.6
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.3
4.3
3.0
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0
SUNLIGHT
SIZE OF UNIT
STORAGE
TYPE OF UNIT
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
CLOSET SPACE
WINDOWS
KITCHEN
HEATING SYSTEM
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
APPLIANCES
INTERIOR FINISH
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
PLAY AREAS
LANDSCAPING
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
COMMON AMENITIES
PETS
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
PARKING
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
BIKE PATH/TRAIL ACCESS
LOCATION
SENSE OF SAFETY
NEIGHBORHOOD
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
P69
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 66
Truscott Place
Which best describes your household How far do you travel to work one way
I live alone 75% Less than 1/4 mile 2%
Family members only 15% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 6%
Family members and unrelated roommates 1/2 to 1 mile 10%
Unrelated roommates 6% 1 to 2 miles 36%
Unmarried couple 4% 2 to 5 miles 36%
More than 5 miles 10%
Average Household Size 1.3
Do you have children at home under age 6
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
No 96% 1 - Very Satisfied 41%
Yes 4% 2 - Somewhat Satisfied 43%
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied 10%
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
4 - Very Dissatisfied 6%
No 98% Rate the following for where you live
Yes 2% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 - Very Satisfied
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 29%
Yes 71%
What is the total monthly rent for your
residence
None, do not pay rent 0%
$250 - $499 2%
$500 - $749 56%
$750 - $999 21%
$1000 - $1249 19%
$1250 - $1499 0%
$1500 - $1749 0%
$1750 - $1999 2%
$2000 or more 0%
Median $719
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000 10%
$25,000 - $49,999 54%
$50,000 - $74,999 23%
$75,000 - $99,999 6%
$100,000 - $149,999 6%
$150,000 or more 0%
Median $40,000
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.0
3.0
2.5
4.5
4.3
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.2
0.01.02.03.04.05.0
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
HEATING SYSTEM
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
TYPE OF UNIT
KITCHEN
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
SIZE OF UNIT
WINDOWS
INTERIOR FINISH
SUNLIGHT
STORAGE
CLOSET SPACE
APPLIANCES
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
LANDSCAPING
PLAY AREAS
COMMON AMENITIES
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
PARKING
PETS
BIKE PATH/TRAIL ACCESS
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
SENSE OF SAFETY
LOCATION
SURROUNDING USES
NEIGHBORHOOD
SOUND LEVELS
P70
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 67
Castle Ridge
Which best describes your household How far do you travel to work one way
I live alone 37% Less than 1/4 mile 14%
Family members only 33% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 7%
Family members and unrelated roommates 0% 1/2 to 1 mile 14%
Unrelated roommates 13% 1 to 2 miles 45%
Unmarried couple 17% 2 to 5 miles 17%
More than 5 miles 3%
Average Household Size 1.9
Do you have children at home under age 6
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
No 87% 1 - Very Satisfied 14%
Yes 13% 2 - Somewhat Satisfied 64%
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied 14%
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
4 - Very Dissatisfied 7%
No 93% Rate the following for where you live
Yes 7% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 - Very Satisfied
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 7%
Yes 93%
What is the total monthly rent for your
residence
None, do not pay rent 0%
$250 - $499 3%
$500 - $749 30%
$750 - $999 10%
$1000 - $1249 40%
$1250 - $1499 13%
$1500 - $1749 3%
$1750 - $1999 0%
$2000 or more 0%
Median $1,152
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000 7%
$25,000 - $49,999 43%
$50,000 - $74,999 21%
$75,000 - $99,999 11%
$100,000 - $149,999 18%
$150,000 or more 0%
Median $46,096
4.1
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.7
2.2
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.4
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.2
0.01.02.03.04.05.0
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
TYPE OF UNIT
SIZE OF UNIT
STORAGE
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
SUNLIGHT
HEATING SYSTEM
CLOSET SPACE
KITCHEN
APPLIANCES
WINDOWS
INTERIOR FINISH
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
PARKING
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
LANDSCAPING
PLAY AREAS
COMMON AMENITIES
PETS
BIKE PATH/TRAIL ACCESS
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
SENSE OF SAFETY
LOCATION
NEIGHBORHOOD
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
P71
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 68
Ownership Group 1: Annie Mitchell, Benedict Commons, Hunter Creek
Which best describes your household How far do you travel to work one way
I live alone 44% Less than 1/4 mile 21%
Family members only 29% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 15%
Family members and unrelated roommates 0% 1/2 to 1 mile 9%
Unrelated roommates 15% 1 to 2 miles 21%
Unmarried couple 12% 2 to 5 miles 30%
More than 5 miles 3%
Average Household Size 1.7
Do you have children at home under age 6
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
No 94% 1 - Very Satisfied 50%
Yes 6% 2 - Somewhat Satisfied 38%
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied 9%
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
4 - Very Dissatisfied 3%
No 91% Rate the following for where you live
Yes 9% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 - Very Satisfied
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 32%
Yes 68%
What is the total monthly mortgage
payment for your residence
None, do not pay mortgage 15%
$250 - $499 21%
$500 - $749 47%
$750 - $999 9%
$1000 - $1249 9%
$1250 - $1499 0%
$1500 - $1749 0%
$1750 - $1999 0%
$2000 or more 0%
Median $600
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000 6%
$25,000 - $49,999 31%
$50,000 - $74,999 28%
$75,000 - $99,999 25%
$100,000 - $149,999 6%
$150,000 or more 3%
Median $60,000
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.1
4.8
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.1
2.9
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0
HEATING SYSTEM
SUNLIGHT
WINDOWS
TYPE OF UNIT
CLOSET SPACE
STORAGE
KITCHEN
APPLIANCES
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
SIZE OF UNIT
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
INTERIOR FINISH
PARKING
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
COMMON AMENITIES
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
LANDSCAPING
PETS
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
PLAY AREAS
BIKE PATH/TRAIL ACCESS
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
LOCATION
SENSE OF SAFETY
NEIGHBORHOOD
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
P72
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 69
Ownership Group 2: Common Ground, Lone Pine, Midland Park, Williams Woods
Which best describes your household How far do you travel to work one way
I live alone 40% Less than 1/4 mile 19%
Family members only 55% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 19%
Family members and unrelated roommates 0% 1/2 to 1 mile 31%
Unrelated roommates 0% 1 to 2 miles 6%
Unmarried couple 5% 2 to 5 miles 19%
More than 5 miles 6%
Average Household Size 2.1
Do you have children at home under age 6
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
No 83% 1 - Very Satisfied 62%
Yes 17% 2 - Somewhat Satisfied 33%
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied 3%
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
4 - Very Dissatisfied 3%
No 73% Rate the following for where you live
Yes 27% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 - Very Satisfied
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 64%
Yes 36%
What is the total monthly mortgage
payment for your residence
None, do not pay mortgage 14%
$250 - $499 11%
$500 - $749 22%
$750 - $999 14%
$1000 - $1249 17%
$1250 - $1499 17%
$1500 - $1749 6%
$1750 - $1999 0%
$2000 or more 0%
Median $793
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000 3%
$25,000 - $49,999 22%
$50,000 - $74,999 25%
$75,000 - $99,999 25%
$100,000 - $149,999 25%
$150,000 or more 0%
Median $72,500
4.3
4.0
3.9
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.9
2.6
2.4
4.2
4.1
4.1
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
3.8
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0
SUNLIGHT
TYPE OF UNIT
WINDOWS
APPLIANCES
SIZE OF UNIT
KITCHEN
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
CLOSET SPACE
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
INTERIOR FINISH
HEATING SYSTEM
STORAGE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
LANDSCAPING
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
COMMON AMENITIES
PARKING
PETS
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
PLAY AREAS
BIKE PATH/TRAIL ACCESS
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
LOCATION
SENSE OF SAFETY
SURROUNDING USES
NEIGHBORHOOD
SOUND LEVELS
P73
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 70
Ownership Group 3: Five Trees, Little Ajax, Snyder, Stillwater, Williams Ranch
Which best describes your household How far do you travel to work one way
I live alone 14% Less than 1/4 mile 17%
Family members only 81% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 10%
Family members and unrelated roommates 2% 1/2 to 1 mile 22%
Unrelated roommates 0% 1 to 2 miles 24%
Unmarried couple 2% 2 to 5 miles 24%
More than 5 miles 2%
Average Household Size 3.1
Do you have children at home under age 6
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
No 74% 1 - Very Satisfied 88%
Yes 26% 2 - Somewhat Satisfied 9%
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied 2%
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
4 - Very Dissatisfied 0%
No 42% Rate the following for where you live
Yes 58% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 - Very Satisfied
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 80%
Yes 20%
What is the total monthly mortgage
payment for your residence
None, do not pay mortgage 0%
$250 - $499 0%
$500 - $749 5%
$750 - $999 16%
$1000 - $1249 16%
$1250 - $1499 13%
$1500 - $1749 8%
$1750 - $1999 16%
$2000 or more 27%
Median $1,450
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000 0%
$25,000 - $49,999 17%
$50,000 - $74,999 14%
$75,000 - $99,999 29%
$100,000 - $149,999 31%
$150,000 or more 9%
Median $90,000
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.3
4.5
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.6
4.5
4.4
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0
TYPE OF UNIT
SUNLIGHT
SIZE OF UNIT
WINDOWS
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
KITCHEN
CLOSET SPACE
INTERIOR FINISH
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
HEATING SYSTEM
APPLIANCES
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
STORAGE
PETS
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
LANDSCAPING
COMMON AMENITIES
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
PARKING
PLAY AREAS
LOCATION
SENSE OF SAFETY
SURROUNDING USES
NEIGHBORHOOD
BIKE PATH/TRAIL ACCESS
SOUND LEVELS
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
P74
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 71
Centennial Ownership
Which best describes your household How far do you travel to work one way
I live alone 40% Less than 1/4 mile 8%
Family members only 38% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 15%
Family members and unrelated roommates 0% 1/2 to 1 mile 25%
Unrelated roommates 2% 1 to 2 miles 15%
Unmarried couple 19% 2 to 5 miles 30%
More than 5 miles 8%
Average Household Size 1.8
Do you have children at home under age 6
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
No 98% 1 - Very Satisfied 44%
Yes 2% 2 - Somewhat Satisfied 41%
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied 7%
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
4 - Very Dissatisfied 7%
No 88% Rate the following for where you live
Yes 12% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 - Very Satisfied
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 54%
Yes 46%
What is the total monthly mortgage
payment for your residence
None, do not pay mortgage 11%
$250 - $499 3%
$500 - $749 26%
$750 - $999 26%
$1000 - $1249 32%
$1250 - $1499 0%
$1500 - $1749 0%
$1750 - $1999 3%
$2000 or more 0%
Median $800
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000 0%
$25,000 - $49,999 21%
$50,000 - $74,999 51%
$75,000 - $99,999 23%
$100,000 - $149,999 3%
$150,000 or more 3%
Median $60,000
4.1
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.1
3.0
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.4
3.0
0.01.02.03.04.05.0
SUNLIGHT
TYPE OF UNIT
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
SIZE OF UNIT
STORAGE
WINDOWS
KITCHEN
INTERIOR FINISH
APPLIANCES
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
HEATING SYSTEM
CLOSET SPACE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PETS
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
LANDSCAPING
PARKING
PLAY AREAS
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
COMMON AMENITIES
LOCATION
BIKE PATH/TRAIL ACCESS
SENSE OF SAFETY
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
SURROUNDING USES
NEIGHBORHOOD
SOUND LEVELS
P75
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 72
Burlingame Ranch
Which best describes your household How far do you travel to work one way
I live alone 13% Less than 1/4 mile 0%
Family members only 80% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 5%
Family members and unrelated roommates 3% 1/2 to 1 mile 8%
Unrelated roommates 0% 1 to 2 miles 34%
Unmarried couple 5% 2 to 5 miles 47%
More than 5 miles 5%
Average Household Size 2.9
Do you have children at home under age 6
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
No 41% 1 - Very Satisfied 54%
Yes 59% 2 - Somewhat Satisfied 39%
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied 7%
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
4 - Very Dissatisfied 0%
No 80% Rate the following for where you live
Yes 20% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 - Very Satisfied
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 46%
Yes 54%
What is the total monthly mortgage
payment for your residence
None, do not pay mortgage 0%
$250 - $499 3%
$500 - $749 8%
$750 - $999 24%
$1000 - $1249 24%
$1250 - $1499 8%
$1500 - $1749 8%
$1750 - $1999 5%
$2000 or more 22%
Median $1,200
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000 0%
$25,000 - $49,999 29%
$50,000 - $74,999 39%
$75,000 - $99,999 18%
$100,000 - $149,999 11%
$150,000 or more 3%
Median $60,000
4.6
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.8
4.6
3.9
3.8
3.4
3.2
3.2
2.9
2.7
2.2
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.0
0.01.02.03.04.05.0
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
SIZE OF UNIT
KITCHEN
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
HEATING SYSTEM
SUNLIGHT
TYPE OF UNIT
WINDOWS
INTERIOR FINISH
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
CLOSET SPACE
STORAGE
APPLIANCES
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
COMMON AMENITIES
PETS
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
PLAY AREAS
LANDSCAPING
PARKING
SENSE OF SAFETY
NEIGHBORHOOD
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
LOCATION
BIKE PATH/TRAIL ACCESS
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
P76
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 73
Smuggler Subdivision
Which best describes your household How far do you travel to work one way
I live alone 26% Less than 1/4 mile 11%
Family members only 39% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 25%
Family members and unrelated roommates 13% 1/2 to 1 mile 32%
Unrelated roommates 13% 1 to 2 miles 11%
Unmarried couple 10% 2 to 5 miles 21%
More than 5 miles 0%
Average Household Size 2.5
Do you have children at home under age 6
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
No 97% 1 - Very Satisfied 77%
Yes 3% 2 - Somewhat Satisfied 16%
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied 6%
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
4 - Very Dissatisfied 0%
No 84% Rate the following for where you live
Yes 16% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 - Very Satisfied
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 77%
Yes 23%
What is the total monthly mortgage
payment for your residence
None, do not pay mortgage 15%
$250 - $499 4%
$500 - $749 7%
$750 - $999 19%
$1000 - $1249 19%
$1250 - $1499 4%
$1500 - $1749 0%
$1750 - $1999 15%
$2000 or more 18%
Median $1,140
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000 4%
$25,000 - $49,999 23%
$50,000 - $74,999 19%
$75,000 - $99,999 19%
$100,000 - $149,999 27%
$150,000 or more 8%
Median $77,500
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.6
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.6
4.6
4.1
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0
SUNLIGHT
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
SIZE OF UNIT
KITCHEN
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
HEATING SYSTEM
WINDOWS
TYPE OF UNIT
APPLIANCES
INTERIOR FINISH
CLOSET SPACE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
STORAGE
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
PETS
LANDSCAPING
PARKING
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
COMMON AMENITIES
PLAY AREAS
LOCATION
SENSE OF SAFETY
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
BIKE PATH/TRAIL ACCESS
NEIGHBORHOOD
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
P77
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 74
Aspen Highlands Village
Which best describes your household How far do you travel to work one way
I live alone 14% Less than 1/4 mile 13%
Family members only 75% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 0%
Family members and unrelated roommates 7% 1/2 to 1 mile 4%
Unrelated roommates 0% 1 to 2 miles 29%
Unmarried couple 4% 2 to 5 miles 33%
More than 5 miles 21%
Average Household Size 2.9
Do you have children at home under age 6
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
No 69% 1 - Very Satisfied 43%
Yes 31% 2 - Somewhat Satisfied 46%
3 - Somewhat Dissatisfied 11%
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
4 - Very Dissatisfied 0%
No 33% Rate the following for where you live
Yes 67% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 - Very Satisfied
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 44%
Yes 56%
What is the total monthly mortgage
payment for your residence
None, do not pay mortgage 0%
$250 - $499 0%
$500 - $749 12%
$750 - $999 16%
$1000 - $1249 28%
$1250 - $1499 8%
$1500 - $1749 28%
$1750 - $1999 0%
$2000 or more 8%
Median $1,200
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000 4%
$25,000 - $49,999 27%
$50,000 - $74,999 23%
$75,000 - $99,999 27%
$100,000 - $149,999 19%
$150,000 or more 0%
Median $70,000
4.3
4.0
3.9
4.1
4.0
4.3
4.0
3.7
3.7
4.0
3.5
3.9
3.5
4.1
4.5
3.8
3.6
4.1
4.1
3.6
3.8
4.1
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.8
4.6
4.6
4.1
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
TYPE OF UNIT
SIZE OF UNIT
KITCHEN
SUNLIGHT
WINDOWS
CLOSET SPACE
INTERIOR FINISH
HEATING SYSTEM
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
APPLIANCES
STORAGE
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
PLAY AREAS
PARKING
LANDSCAPING
COMMON AMENITIES
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
PETS
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
SENSE OF SAFETY
LOCATION
BIKE PATH/TRAIL ACCESS
NEIGHBORHOOD
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
P78
I.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 75
Appendix B – Survey Forms
P79
I.
Joint Housing Worksession Briefing Book
City of Aspen
Pitkin County
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority
Strategic Review of Housing
Fall 2012
P80
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 2
Table of Contents
Governance ……………………………………………………………………………………………….……4 History of the Housing Authority ................................................................................................. 4 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Housing Board Policy Statements................................................................................................ 5 Amending the Guidelines………………………………………………………………………………..…7 APCHA as a City Department…………………………………………………………………………….9
Pitkin County Demographic Information ...................................................................... 10 Distribution of Household Income in Pitkin County ......................................................... 10 Pitkin County Household Size Data .......................................................................................... 11 Count of Pitkin County Households By Size and Income ................................................. 12
Existing Affordable Housing Inventory.......................................................................... 13 APCHA Inventory by Size and Category ................................................................................. 13 Households in Pitkin County Relative to APCHA Categorical Income Maximums 14 Number of Housing Units Relative to Population by Category Thresholds ............. 15
Challenges to Existing Affordable Housing Stock ....................................................... 18 Capital Reserves .............................................................................................................................. 18 Term Limited, Deed Restricted Units ...................................................................................... 22 City and County Funding .............................................................................................................. 23 Homeowner Affordability ............................................................................................................ 24 Changes in Wages and Housing Prices Over Time…………………………………………….27
Planning for the Future ....................................................................................................... 28 Indications of Current Demand ................................................................................................. 28 Growth in Labor Force .................................................................................................................. 29 An Aging Demographic ................................................................................................................. 32 Updating the EPS Study …………………………………………………………………………………35
Nearby Communities ............................................................................................................ 37 Free Market Options ...................................................................................................................... 37 Snowmass Village ............................................................................................................................ 38 Eagle County ..................................................................................................................................... 39 Garfield County ................................................................................................................................ 39
Livability …………………..………………………………………………………………………………….41 General Principles of Livability ……………………………………………………………..…….....42 Livability Checklist ………………………………………………………………………………………..44
Mitigation …………………………………………………………………………………………………..…47 City of Aspen …………………………………………………………………………………………………47 Pitkin County ………………………………………………………………………………………..............51
P81
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 3
Broadening the Role of Housing in the Community -- Housing and Social
Services ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…58 Background …………………………………………………………………………………………...58 Understanding the Need …………………………………………………………………………60 A Few Real Life Stories in Pitkin County ……………………………………………….….63 Understanding the Opportunities ……………………………………………………………64 Potential Opportunities …………………………………………………………………………..66 APCHA's Historical Role ………………………………………………………………………….71
Appendix - Definitions ......................................................................................................... 75
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: FOURTH AMENDED AND RESTATEDINTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
Attachment B: BY-LAWS OF THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING
AUTHORITY
Attachment C: APCHA AFFORDABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES
Attachment D: APCHA PRESENTATION TO PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON JULY 3, 2012 IN RE: HOUSING PROGRAM
Attachment E: MAPS OF CURRENT OWNERSHIP/RENTAL INVENTORY IN THE
HOUSING SYSTEM
Attachment F: SUMMARY OF CAPITAL RESERVE STUDIES
Attachment G: BRAINSTORM LIST OF POSSIBLE FUNDING SOLUTIONS TO
CAPITAL RESERVE SHORTFALLS BY HOUSING FRONTIERS GROUP
Attachment H: 2012 EPS STUDY: "EMPLOYEE HOUSING DEMAND MODEL"
Attachment I: POD PRESENTATION-BOCC AND REGIONAL MARCH 2012 --
COLORADO CENTER ON LAW AND POLICY: THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY
STANDARD FOR COLORADO 2011
Attachment J: PITKIN COUNTY SELF-SUFFICIENCY STANDARD CHART
Attachment K: ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN HOUSING CHAPTER
Attachment L: RETT/SALES TAX FOR HOUSING BALLOT LANGUAGE
P82
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 4
Governance
The KEY QUESTIONS to be addressed by this portion of the Worksession Agenda
are:
1. What is the purpose of the program? Does that continue to meet the desires of the
community?
2. How is the program structured? Does that structure work to accomplish the stated
purpose?
3. What is the oversight, make-up and structure of the APCHA Board? Does it meet
the needs of the program and the City Council/BOCC?
4. Does the existing IGA serve the interests of the City and the County? Does it
make for an efficient and effective Housing program?
5. What is the role of groups like the Housing Frontiers Group? How does it fit into
the governance/oversight scheme?
HISTORY OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
The housing program was created in 1974. There were two separate entities at that time
– the City and County. In 1981/1982, a citizen panel was formed and combined both
entities into one City and County entity, creating the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. The entity became the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) in
November of 1988 so that the entity could do the following:
• incur debt
• borrow money
• secure mortgages
• obtain grants, gifts or otherwise
• obtain funds for implementing, completing and operating housing projects
• condemnation
There were two new legislations that passed in 2001 relating to Housing Authorities --
House Bill 1172 and House Bill 1174. Both Bills expanded the duties of Housing
Authorities. The City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Community support the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. There are two main funding sources for the
housing program -- a Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) and a portion of a sales tax. The
RETT is a 1% transfer tax on the sales price of all real estate sold within the City of
Aspen only and does not apply to the first $100,000 of each sale. The RETT alone raises
over $3 million per year for the affordable housing program and was extended for a third
time in 2001 for an additional 20 years -- December 31, 2024.
The APCHA was established for the purpose of effecting the planning, financing,
acquisition, construction, reconstruction or repair, maintenance, management and
operation of housing projects pursuant to a multi-jurisdictional plan to provide residential
P83
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 5
facilities and dwelling accommodations at rental or sale prices within the means of
persons of low, moderate and middle income who are permanent residents and persons
employed in the City and County.
Housing authorities are created by Section 29-1-204.5, Colo. Revised Statutes. The
Housing Board consists of a five-member (with an additional alternate) Board of
Directors (Board) that help to make policy. Until November of 1992, the Authority dealt
with three separate accounting firms. Currently, all money transactions are handled
through the City of Aspen with support by Pitkin County.
PURPOSE
"To assure the existence of a supply of desirable housing for persons currently
employed in Pitkin County, persons who were employed in Pitkin County prior
to retirement, the handicapped, and other qualified persons of Pitkin County as
defined herein."
- Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Goal -
(Originally Adopted 1983)
Each year the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (hereinafter APCHA) establishes
Guidelines that govern the development of, admission to and occupancy of deed
restricted affordable-housing units for Aspen and Pitkin County. The guidelines support
the APCHA's goals and are not intended to supersede City or County Land Use Codes or
the International Building Code.
The Affordable Housing Guidelines respond to housing needs in Aspen and Pitkin
County as identified by the APCHA. The guidelines are used to:
• Review land use applications
• Establish employee rental rates
• Establish employee sales prices
• Establish criteria for qualifications and occupancy
• Develop and prioritize current and long range housing programs
• Provide information and a process for developing affordable housing
It is the intent of the Housing Program to provide housing opportunities for persons who
are or have been actively employed or self-employed in Pitkin County, which provide
goods and services to individuals, businesses or institutional operations in Pitkin County.
HOUSING BOARD POLICY STATEMENTS
The purpose of this section is to assist the staff, development community and public in
understanding the Housing Board of Director’s (hereinafter the Board) philosophies
regarding various aspects of the program. These Policy Statements will be reviewed and
revised in detail by the Board every three years with minor administrative changes done
on an as-needed basis and a yearly update for incomes, rental rates and sales prices.
P84
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 6
Affordable/Work Force Housing
As the purpose states above, the existence of the housing program is to provide housing
opportunities for persons who are or have been actively employed or self-employed in
Pitkin County and Aspen in businesses which provide goods and services to individuals,
businesses or institutional operations in Pitkin County. The term “affordable housing” is
used interchangeably throughout this document as work force housing. All deed-
restricted housing, of any type or Category, requires an individual to:
• Work full-time in Pitkin County (due to the seasonal nature of the town, full-
time is defined as working 1500 hours per calendar year) and as defined
herein;
• Utilize their home as their primary residence; and
• Not own any other developed property within the Ownership Exclusion Zone
(hereinafter referred to as the “OEZ”) as defined in Part X, Definitions.
There are other specific criteria for the category units and for the RO units and these are
spelled out within this document. Most relate to maximum household income and
maximum assets for the specific category unit and/or RO units. However, the deed
restriction for each unit will provide the specific criteria for the unit. It is understood that
there are a variety of deed restrictions in our program and that the individual deed
restriction should be reviewed.
Mitigating Affordable Housing Impacts
The Board has prioritized the following mitigation options in order of preference:
1. On-Site Housing – that the location of a deed restricted property used for
construction or redevelopment of a property for mitigation purposes be either
next to or attached to the development.
2. Off-Site Housing – the location of a deed restricted property used for
construction or redevelopment of a property for mitigation purposes is at a
separate location approved by the APCHA. However, at no time will a single
unit be approved in an existing free-market complex.
3. Cash-In-Lieu or Land-in-Lieu – that the applicant for a development may
satisfy the mitigation requirement by payment of an affordable housing
dedication fee or a donation of land. The preference of cash or land shall be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
Development and Construction of Deed-Restricted Housing
The Board has prioritized the following objectives in order of preference regarding the
highest need of types of units to construct:
The private sector priorities for development should be as follows:
P85
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 7
1. For-sale type units whereby the average sales price is no higher than Category
3 and the units consist of one-bedroom and two-bedroom units, with
associated RO units
2. Three-bedroom sales units (Categories 3 and 4)
The public sector priorities for development should be as follows:
1. Entry-level rental units consisting of 1-bedroom Categories 1 and 2
2. For-sale units consisting of Categories 2 and 3 1-bedroom and 2-bedrooms
3. Three-bedroom sales units consisting of Categories 3 and 4
THE APCHA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The current APCHA Board of Directors consists of six members – two are appointed by
the City Council, two are appointed by the BOCC, and two are appointed jointly by the
BOCC and City Council (of which one of these is an alternate and only votes when
another member is absent).
• The terms are held for two years.
• The APCHA Board reviews all land use referrals that require employee housing
mitigation and make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commissions
and/or the City Council or BOCC.
• The APCHA Board is a Grievance Board whereby an owner or renter can request
a hearing regarding a decision made by APCHA staff; this includes, but is not
limited to, enforcement issues.
Under the Second Amended IGA, signed and dated September 13, 1999, the Executive
Director worked under the supervision of the City Manager and took general policy
direction from the Authority. The Executive Director could only be terminated upon the
consent of the Board, the City Manager and the County Manager. A Contract for
Services with the City for management and operations of the Authority was put in place.
There were seven members that made up the APCHA Board – five appointed by the
elected officials, one BOCC director and one City Council person.
Under the Third Amended IGA, signed and dated October 28, 2002, the number of
APCHA Board members went down to six; there was no longer a BOCC or City Council
representative. The development piece was removed from this document and turned over
to the City and/or County. The Executive Director was appointed jointly by the City and
County Managers. The APCHA Board was taken out of the hiring process. The City
Manager provided work assignments to the Executive Director and the APCHA Board
could only do so upon approval of the City Manager.
In the Fourth Amended IGA, dated December 20, 2007, the Long Range Planning section
was modified to state that when the IGA uses the phrase “Housing Strategic Plan” it is
P86
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 8
referring to either the County’s Strategic Plan’s Housing subsection. Or the Housing
section of the City’s “Aspen Area Community Plan”.
The APCHA Board also reviews and makes recommendations of policy changes to the
Guidelines. After the approval by the APCHA Board, formal approval is taken to the
BOCC and City Council.
The current make-up of the Board is:
Chair – Erin Smiddy (Joint City/County Appointee)
Ron Erickson (City Appointee)
Marcia Goshorn (County Appointee)
Rick Head (City Appointee)
Vacant (County Appointee)
Bobbie Burkley – Alternate (Joint Appointee)
AMENDING THE GUIDELINES
Suggestions for changes to the APCHA Guideline can come from anywhere. Typically
they originate from the APCHA Board of Directors or from APCHA staff. If, after
discussion and perhaps several meetings, the APCHA board endorses a change, it is
forwarded to the BOCC and City Council for approval.
Typically the proposed changes have been discussed in a joint City Council/BOCC work
session to reduce the need for scheduling separate times for preliminary discussions. Staff
attends the work session to present the suggestion and to answer questions/take direction.
APCHA Board members often attend and comment also. It has proven difficult to get a
majority of each elected board to reach a consensus opinion at such joint meetings. Often
the direction is to make additional changes or do additional research to bring back at the
next joint work session. Because joint work sessions are only scheduled four times a year,
the process can take some time before a consensus is reached to move the item(s) forward
for formal approval. Due to this, staff plans to rely less on making preliminary
suggestions at joint work sessions.
The adoption process for APCHA Guideline changes requires that they must be brought
forward as a separate agenda item for a formal public hearing, through 1st and 2nd
readings before the Council and Commissioners separately.
To accomplish this APCHA requests a place on the agenda of each elected board. If the
proposed changes are altered by either or both of the boards, the changes must be carried
back and forth until both boards are in complete agreement. The additional scheduling to
complete the process can go on in this fashion for quite some time. This process is
automatically twice as complicated as the approval process by a single board of elected
officials, and it can be significant more than twice as complicated if the issue is complex.
P87
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 9
Staff has approached both the council and commission at a joint session to propose using
a call up procedure, modeled on the procedure used by other boards and commissions,
but it was rejected by both Council and Commissioners.
ADMINISTRATION OF APCHA UNDER THE IGA
Under the current IGA, the “Housing Office” or administrative arm of APCHA functions
as a department of the City of Aspen. The Director reports to the City Manager – not to
the APCHA Board – who in turn delegates his authority to an Assistant City Manager.
City human resource policies govern the hiring and supervision of APCHA employees.
City financial services provide budgetary, payroll and accounting functions. City
purchasing policies govern purchase practices. City legal advice is available in addition
to the legal advice of the APCHA attorney hired and paid for from administrative funds.
As city employees, APCHA employees are provided city benefits – including sick,
vacation, retirement, housing, etc. The administrative budget for APCHA is a city-
administered fund, with funding provided on a 50/50 basis between the city and the
county. The County portion is derived from their General Fund, the City portion comes
from the “150 Fund” which receives funds from RETT and Sales Taxes, mitigation fees,
etc. and which also funds the housing development program of the city government.
Aspen City Council Pitkin County BOCC APCHA Board of Directors Aspen City Manager Pitkin County County Manager
Aspen Assistant City Manager APCHA Director
P88
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 10
Pitkin County Demographic Information
The KEY QUESTIONS to be addressed by this portion of the Worksession Agenda
are:
6. What is the current demand for units and in what category mix? What does the
future demand look like?
7. What is the role of retirement in the demand equation for affordable workforce
housing?
8. If our desire is to retain the existing commuting pattern for the local workforce,
does our approach to retirement need to change?
9. What are the implications for retaining the current approach?
10. What does the supply equation look like if we retain the status quo?
DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN PITKIN COUNTY
Pitkin County’s population can be separated into roughly three equal partitions: nearly
one-third of households earn below $50,000; another third earns up to $100,000; and the
remaining households earn more than $100,000. Detailed income information for Pitkin
County households is shown below, along with comparable national data.
Table 1
Households By Income # of Households % of Total
Households
National
Comparison
Total 7,417 100.0% 100.0%
Less than $10,000 392 5.3% 7.8%
$10,000 to $14,999 214 2.9% 5.9%
$15,000 to $24,999 481 6.5% 12.0%
$25,000 to $34,999 674 9.1% 10.9%
$35,000 to $49,999 949 12.8% 13.9%
$50,000 to $74,999 1,319 17.8% 17.7%
$75,000 to $99,999 785 10.6% 11.4%
$100,000 to $149,999 963 13.0% 12.1%
$150,000 to $199,999 518 7.0% 4.5%
$200,000 or more 1,119 15.1% 3.9%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey; Table S1901 for Pitkin County, CO
Surprisingly, Pitkin County and US brackets from $35,000 to $200,000 show similar
distributions relative to the total population (see chart below). Because of this, and
because available census information does not correlate directly with APCHA affordable
housing categorical limits, we have exercised some allowances to use national
distributions (which are available at $5,000 increments) to redistribute Pitkin County
specific data.
P89
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 11
Source: US Census Bureau, Income Distribution to $250,000 or More for Households; Table HINC-06
PITKIN COUNTY HOUSEHOLD SIZE DATA
Unlike the similarities seen in income distributions, Pitkin County’s household
demographics differ considerably from its national counterpart with regards to workforce
populations. To highlight this, looking at 1-person households for Pitkin County, roughly
75% of those individuals are in the workforce. By comparison, just over 50% of all
single person households contribute to the working class for the U.S. Similarly, nearly
87% of Pitkin County 2-person households have at least one worker, yet the U.S. average
is only 70% for the same population. The average number of workers per Pitkin County
household is 1.25; the national average for the same statistic is 1.12. Because of these
variances, relying strictly on Pitkin County household data relative to workforce
information is crucial.
Table 2
Pitkin County Households by Size and Number of Workers
Households Size
Persons/Workers
All
households:
1 person
household:
2 person
household:
3 person
household:
4+ person
household:
Total 7,417 2,691 2,689 1,016 1,021
No workers 1,118 669 354 80 15
1 worker 3,556 2,022 1,034 284 216
2 workers 2,499 0 1,301 524 674
3+ workers 244 0 0 128 116
Source: US Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey; Table B08202 for Pitkin County, CO
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 20.0%
% of Households US Comparison
P90
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 12
COUNT OF PITKIN COUNTY HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE AND INCOME
With the inclusion of Pitkin County specific household size information, and applying a
universal assumption that total household distribution by income holds true for 1, 2, 3,
and 4+ person households in general, it is possible to further approximate Pitkin County
demographic data into a format suitable to compare with APCHA income criteria.
Table 3
Pitkin County Households by Size and Income
# of Households by
Income Bracket & Size
All
households:
1 person
household:
2 person
household:
3 person
household:
4+ person
household:
Total 7,417 2,691 2,689 1,016 1,021
Less than $10,000 392 142 142 54 54
$10,000 to $14,999 214 78 78 29 30
$15,000 to $24,999 481 175 175 66 66
$25,000 to $34,999 674 245 244 92 93
$35,000 to $49,999 949 344 344 130 131
$50,000 to $74,999 1,319 479 478 181 182
$75,000 to $99,999 785 285 285 108 108
$100,000 to $149,999 963 350 349 132 133
$150,000 to $199,999 518 188 188 71 71
$200,000 or more 1,119 406 406 153 154
Source: Extrapolated from U.S. Census Bureau tables on income and size on pages 3 & 4 (above)
P91
I.
Existing Affordable Housing Inventory
APCHA INVENTORY BY SIZE AND CATEGORY
Below are two tables with both City and County units, noted by size (bedrooms) and category. Aggregated, one can see that the
heaviest concentration of affordable housing units is centered around one- and two-bedroom units for Categories 2 through 4, where
one would expect the greatest need resides. Roughly one-third of all housing options are categorized as resident owned units.
Table 4
Aspen Affordable Housing Units
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6 Category 7 RO Units All
Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent
Studio / Dorm
Units 2 55 8 64 10 87 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 305 37 514
1 Bedroom 9 13 79 120 60 107 76 6 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 30 227 276
2 Bedrooms 2 9 30 78 39 143 153 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 8 112 236 343
3 / 4 Bedrooms 1 0 16 17 61 26 96 0 6 0 4 0 4 0 10 6 198 49
Single-Family 1 0 0 0 20 0 44 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 113 2 180 2
All Units 15 77 133 279 190 363 386 10 10 0 9 0 4 0 131 455 878 1,184
Source: APCHA
Table 5
Pitkin County Affordable Housing Units
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6 Category 7 RO Units All
Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent
Studio / Dorm
Units 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8
1 Bedroom 0 8 5 4 6 18 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 14 33
2 Bedrooms 5 5 12 5 9 27 25 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 9 70 65
3 / 4 Bedrooms 0 1 7 2 5 16 40 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 72 24
Single-Family 0 0 1 0 8 0 52 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 348 0 467 0
All Units 5 17 25 12 28 62 119 22 7 0 58 0 0 0 381 17 623 130
Source: APCHA
P9
2
I.
Table 6
Aggregated City and County Units
Category
1
Category
2
Category
3
Category
4
Category
5
Category
6
Category
7 RO Units All Units
Studio / Dorm Units 60 73 98 20 0 0 0 308 559
1 Bedroom 30 208 191 84 2 2 0 33 550
2 Bedrooms 21 125 218 198 3 1 0 148 714
3 / 4 Bedrooms 2 42 108 139 12 4 4 32 343
Single-Family 1 1 28 96 0 60 0 463 649
All Units 114 449 643 537 17 67 4 984 2,815
Source: APCHA
With understanding that some housing developments are essentially “reserved” for
specific populations and not reasonably available for typical affordable housing
applicants, the following charts exclude a handful of developments from the total count.
Table 7
Aggregated City and County Units Less 200 “Seasonal” Units
Category
1
Category
2
Category
3
Category
4
Category
5
Category
6
Category
7 RO Units All Units
Studio / Dorm Units 60 73 98 20 0 0 0 208 459
1 Bedroom 30 208 191 84 2 2 0 29 546
2 Bedrooms 21 125 218 198 3 1 0 52 618
3 / 4 Bedrooms 2 42 108 139 12 4 4 32 343
Single-Family 1 1 28 96 0 60 0 463 649
All Units 114 449 643 537 17 67 4 784 2615
Source: APCHA, excluding 100 studios from Marolt Ranch dedicated to music students, 4 one-bedroom
and 96 two-bedroom units in Burlingame for seasonal staffing needs – all RO units.
HOUSEHOLDS IN PITKIN COUNTY RELATIVE TO APCHA CATEGORICAL
INCOME MAXIMUMS
Knowing APCHA requirements for various affordable housing categories, there is benefit
in massaging the household census data into comparable thresholds, to see how the
population in Pitkin County compares to the current APCHA affordable housing
inventory.
Table 8
Total Category
1
Category
2
Category
3
Category
4
Category
5
Category
6
Category
7 Other
Pitkin
Households 7,417 2,190 1,178 1,221 1,164 130 165 160 1,209
0 Dependents $34,000 $53,000 $85,000 $139,000 $148,000 $162,000 $179,000 N/A
1 Dependent $41,500 $60,500 $92,500 $146,500 $155,500 $169,500 $186,500 N/A
2 Dependents $49,000 $68,000 $100,000 $154,000 $163,000 $177,000 $194,000 N/A
3 Dependents $56,500 $75,500 $107,500 $161,500 $170,500 $184,500 $201,500 N/A
Total Stock 2,615 114 449 643 537 17 67 4 784
Rentals 1,114 94 291 425 32 0 0 0 272
Ownership 1,501 20 158 218 505 17 67 4 512
Source: APCHA 2012 Housing Guidelines (Asset Thresholds Not Considered)
P93
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 15
Not surprisingly, the largest focus for affordable housing need for Pitkin County is in
Categories 1 – 4. However, note the sizable number of households with income levels
greater than the current maximum for Category 7. Of the aggregate 1,209 households
with income greater than allowable income maximum, many could still qualify for
affordable housing, provided countable assets remain below $900,000. Since no
published asset data exists for Pitkin County by income bracket, it is not possible to
discern what number of this population is still eligible for RO housing without a survey.
NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS RELATIVE TO POPULATION BY CATEGORY
THRESHOLDS
The chart below portrays that there is a positive correlation in the number of APCHA
affordable housing units (rental and ownership) relative to the Pitkin County population.
However, one exception to this correlation is certainly true for Category 1 – at this time,
it is unknown why there is such a large number of Category 1 households and where
those households are residing given the limited number of affordable housing units.
Source: Unit counts from APCHA rental & ownership inventory; household count from Table 8
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6 Category 7 Other TOSV Stock 224 120 125 119 13 17 16 123 Current Ownership Stock 20 158 218 505 17 67 4 512 Current Rental Stock 94 291 425 32 - - - 272 Households By Category 2,190 1,178 1,221 1,164 130 165 160 1,209 Qualified Households that Applied (since 2006) 235 372 411 320 14 9 11 56
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Current Rental Stock Current Ownership Stock TOSV Stock Households By Category Qualified Households that Applied (since 2006)
P94
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 16
In addition to the APCHA housing stock reflected in the preceding chart, the Town of
Snowmass Village (TOSV) also has its own separate stock of affordable rentals
(247units), for-sale units (177 units), and employer-owned staff and caretaker units (333
units). As the criteria used by Snowmass Village does not specifically correspond to the
categories noted within APCHA guidelines, the additional 757 TOSV units included in
the chart below have been allocated on a basis similar to the overall household
demographics for Pitkin County – this is merely an assumption on how to reflect these
additional units, and can be adjusted.
Source: Unit counts from APCHA rental & ownership inventory and Town of Snowmass Village Housing
Manager; household count from Table 8
P95
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 17
Not all RO properties are “high dollar”:
The table above reflects “categorizing” the rental and ownership RO units from previous
chart into applicable categories based on the Pitkin County Assessor’s Office listed actual
values. By redistributing the RO inventory in the “applicable” income and asset
categories, we can more accurately display what populations these RO units are
attempting to support. Remaining RO inventory in the table above reflects current
ownership units with property values above $600,000.
What do these charts tell us?
What might you conclude or wonder from looking at these graphs:
The solid black line represents Pitkin County households not Pitkin County
worker households which we know is greater.
Cat 1 households are finding places to live – but not necessarily in APCHA
housing.
Does that large spike in category 1 households really represent working
households?
People might not report all their income.
People might have assets and small income.
There is little need to create category 5-7 housing. We should concentrate on
developing housing in the Cat 1-4 ranges – there appears to be little demand
and sufficient supply for Cat 5-7 units. Until down-valley prices rise to the
levels we saw prior to the market crash of 2008, or until ASD moves to
severely limit out of district enrollment for down-valley Aspen workers, there
appears to be no reason to concentrate much resources on providing Cat 5-7
units.
There appears to be a need for category 1-4 housing (Cat 1 rental housing, as it is
problematic to purchase at even a Cat 1 level).
What you probably should not take away from these graphs:
Do not hastily assume a huge need for category 1 housing until this data can be
better understood.
Dotted line is a 6 yr aggregate and may be more of an indication of the shape of
the demand curve rather than a snapshot of demand.
Dotted line is based on what's is available for sale and thus, particularly in the
case of category 1, should not be assumed as an indication of demand
P96
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 18
Challenges to Existing Affordable Housing Stock
The KEY QUESTIONS to be addressed by this portion of the Worksession Agenda
are:
11. How do we as a community ensure the maintenance of the existing housing stock
so it can be enjoyed by the next generation of owners?
12. What is the role of government in doing that when the housing stock is privately
owned?
13. Is the problem very much different from the private sector, free market common
ownership development?
14. Are their incentives/disincentives in the current guidelines that need to be
revisited so that owners are economically incented to “do the right thing” by their
properties?
CAPITAL RESERVES
The purpose of a capital reserve fund for a condo or homeowners association is to fund
and plan for the inevitable repair and replacements costs in the common areas of a
community. From roofs to sidewalks, from shutters to gardens, repair and replacement is
part of any property owner's task list. When done properly, an audit or capital reserve
study will collect information on property condition, and project a useful life and repair
and replacement costs. When projected out over a 15 or 30 year period (allowing for
inflation), a study can provide a board with a roadmap to follow for the funding,
replacement, and repair of the association's common areas.
According to the Community Associations Institute (CAI), at the end of 2009 the total
amount of money held in reserves (accumulated reserves) by all HOAs and
condominiums in the U.S. is approximately $35 billion dollars. When divided by the total
number of homes within these HOAs (24 million) we can see that the average
accumulated reserves per household are a paltry $1,458!
Under a cost sharing agreement with APCHA, Capital Reserve studies for maintaining
existing housing stock are in various states of progress – some associations have rough
estimates of need; others are still compiling assessments of various capital items and
continue to develop their financial situation. However, from what data currently
available, an underlying truth exists – that being there is a shortfall in capital reserves for
the affordable housing developments in Aspen and Pitkin County, as there is for almost
every HOA in the free market world.
The following table notes that of the associations already reviewed, aggregate funded
status for capital reserves stands at roughly 22%, or the equivalent shortfall of around
$7.4 million. If the additional associations and total of ~1500 units were extrapolated
from those which were the subject of the studies – and had a similar average shortfall per
unit – the potential shortfall for the entire affordable housing environment could be as
large as roughly $14.2 million.
P97
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 19
Looking at the across the distribution of associations who have participated in the study
effort, first from the perspective of the total reserves needed and the gap between current
reserve amounts and the recommendations:
You can see that the vast majority of the gaps are less than $500,000 per association.
When looking at the gap on a per unit basis the majority is less than $10,000 per unit.
-$3,000,000
-$2,500,000
-$2,000,000
-$1,500,000
-$1,000,000
-$500,000
$0
$500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Table 9
# of
Units
Starting
Capital
Reserve
Targeted
Reserve
Funded
Percent
Shortfall
per Unit
Aggregate
Capital
Shortfall
Associations
Reviewed 778 $2,050,018 $9,428,246 21.7% ($9,484) ($7,378,228)
Minimum 91 $130,000 $82,481 158% $522 $47,519
Maximum 92 $500,455 $3,301,170 15% ($30,443) ($2,800,715)
Source: Aggregated data from Housing Frontier’s as of July 2012
P98
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 20
What is clear is that there are a few associations who have significant (> $1 million per
association, >$20,000 per unit) funding problems to address.Of course, the shortfall
above assumes reaching full funding for replacement of all capital items – a benchmark
not typically achieved by homeowner associations whether deed restricted or free market,
especially following recent economic conditions. In fact, most homeowner associations
never target a full funding scenario but instead opt for other common threshold levels as
described below:
• Baseline funding: Simply maintaining a positive balance in the reserve account –
any amount is sufficient, so long as the balance does not fall below zero.
• Threshold funding: Similar to Baseline funding, this method targets a specific
dollar amount to maintain in reserves (other than zero).
• Statutory funding: Uniquely defined by individual localities through statute, if
such law exists in the location of your property, defining a minimum necessary
reserve percent.
Note that while some states prescribe specific funding requirements for HOAs in rule or
law, Colorado is not one of these – Colorado’s only requirement is to have a replacement
plan established, funding is not mandated and the reserve study may even be performed
internally and not by an independent, third party.
With multiple perspectives held by vastly different individual governing groups and the
unique circumstances and regulations surrounding each development being managed, it is
ineffective to relate the status of capital reserve funding shortfalls for Pitkin County
affordable housing developments to other groupings. Rather, given the diversity that
exists, instead of focusing on the state of the universe for current reserves, it is better to
look at the implications of low reserves and how that affects the development. It is more
beneficial to focus on individual unit sales and ability to secure lending as the basis for
-$35,000.00 -$30,000.00 -$25,000.00 -$20,000.00 -$15,000.00 -$10,000.00 -$5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
P99
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 21
determining appropriate reserve levels, and given today’s economic environment, reserve
levels in the 70%-80% range appear favorable when considering lending options and real
estate transactions.
While there is a sizable gap between the desired 70%-80% benchmark and the current
22% reserve funding percentage in affordable housing units in the Valley with governing
associations, given the number of units involved and potential to spread the shortfall over
multiple years, the problem does appear to be more manageable.
Many experts have recommended a 5-10 year plan to bring reserve levels up to the study-
recommended amounts. Using the average shortfall per unit of $9484, and assuming a
70% target and a ten-year amortization period for all 684 units, the average
temporary monthly increase would be less than $53/month per unit (assuming a 1%
interest earned).
Our HOA communities – and especially their board members – have to recognize the
need to be responsible owners and create a plan to properly fund their reserve amounts at
a higher level than is the current norm. If we look at a hypothetical Category 3 buyer of a
2-bedroom unit in 2000 who paid around $130,000 for the unit, and who, under the
guidelines, could sell that unit today for $187,000, they would have $57,000 of
appreciation. How much of an investment would be appropriate to secure that gain? It
appears to be a reasonable expectation to invest $10,000 (the average capital reserve
shortfall per unit) over those 10 years ($1000 per year) to realize their gain of $57,000,
certainly the counterpart in the free market would see that as a very reasonable cost of
home ownership.
When faced with the need to make a repair and actually spend money, the following are
ways that an HOA can budget those expenditures:
1. Reserves: If you’ve set aside reserves for the type of project you’re facing,
dipping into the reserves is an obvious option. “Unfortunately, associations aren’t
reserving anywhere where they should be,” says Lisa A. Magill, a shareholder and
association attorney at Becker & Poliakoff PA in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. “In
Florida, owners can vote down the association’s funding of any reserves.
Continually, you’ll have owners who aren’t in a position to pay any assessments.
So if an association is collecting reserves, it’s usually only about 10 percent of
what it should be collecting. When projects come up, they’re either paid for by a
special assessment or some other means, usually a loan.”
2. A special assessment: A special assessment is a common fallback option for
HOAs that need money immediately and have no other or better way to raise it.
3. A loan: “An institutional loan usually entails pledging as collateral the HOA’s
lien rights in terms of collecting assessments,” says Andrew Lewis of Eisinger,
Brown, Lewis, Frankel & Chaiet PA in Hollywood, Fla., who specializes in
representing community associations. “Lenders look at all kinds of factors when
P100
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 22
considering HOA loans,” explains Magill. “Are you capitalized? Do you have
reserves? What’s your percentage of delinquencies? What other maintenance
items have to be performed? For example, with the loan, are you funding only one
of 10 projects that need to be done? They also look to make sure you have all the
appropriate insurance, which associations should have, anyway, but sometimes
don’t. But really, the delinquency rate is the most important thing. Some lenders
won’t approve a loan if your HOA has 7-8 percent delinquencies, but the
benchmark is 15 percent.” In our conversations with local lenders, they indicate
they are making these loans and are willing to make these loans to deed restricted
HOAs.
Obviously, a combination of these three options is the most likely way that our deed
restricted communities will fund major maintenance/repair work, given the general
condition of their capital reserves.
TERM LIMITED, DEED RESTRICTED UNITS Numerous APCHA affordable housing projects included deed restricted units – many of these units are deed restricted into perpetuity; however some included term limitations that allow units to go free market after a specified time. Below is a summary of said units and the threshold for when they can be released to potential free market status. As there are varying levels of exposure between rental and ownership units – deed restrictions for ownership units can potentially be adjusted as they come up for sale to continue restrictions into perpetuity – the list is separated by level of ownership.
Source: APCHA
Table 10
Ownership Units with Term Limited Deed Restrictions
Development
Yr.
Built
Total # of
Units
Term
Limited Units Term Limit Requirement
Midland Park 1978 37 22 21 yrs after death of last BOCC approving
Sopris Creek Cabin 1980 6 1 21 yrs after death of last BOCC approving
Park Place 1980 4 4 21 yrs after death of last BOCC approving or 50 yrs
Highlands Villas 1981 16 5 21 yrs after death of last BOCC approving
Smuggler Run 1981 17 5 21 yrs after death of last BOCC approving
Hunter Creek 1982 80 33 21 yrs after death of last BOCC approving
Vincenti Condos 1982 2 2 21 yrs after death of last BOCC approving
Centennial 1985 92 25 21 yrs after death of last BOCC approving
Curton 1985 1 1 21 yrs after death of last BOCC approving
Valley Condos 1982 1 1 21 yrs after death of last BOCC approving or 50 yrs
Edge of Ajax 1981 3 3 Free market in 2032
Rental Units with Term Limited Deed Restrictions
Centennial 1986 148 148 21 year after death of last BOCC approving
Castle Ridge 1981 80 80 Free market in 2032
P101
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 23
CITY AND COUNTY FUNDING
City of Aspen - Housing Development Fund A 1.0% real estate transfer tax (RETT) and roughly 0.2% sales tax make up the primary revenue streams for this fund. These two primary sources over the last five years have annually contributed approximately $6.0 million and $1.0 million, respectively. As the fund has averaged slightly more than $10.0 million in aggregate annual revenue, there are obviously other revenue sources contributing to the fund; however, these sources can fluctuate significantly and are difficult to project beyond the immediate future. The primary purposes of this fund are to support affordable housing development, subsidize existing affordable housing operations for qualified full-time City and County employees, and to fund associated administrative functions supporting affordable housing. The following table provides a simple snapshot of aggregate revenues and expenditures into and out of the fund. A detailed historical and projected fund balance can be found as an attachment at the end of this document.
P102
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 24
Table 11
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Bal. 3,489,280 4,802,404 12,567,361 6,545,680 2,247,010 7,200,040 16,074,370 23,066,000 31,277,630 40,023,760 43,354,190 43,354,190
Revenues 11,130,029 10,288,329 7,396,000 11,583,000 13,771,000 20,586,000 8,710,000 9,249,000 9,815,000 10,392,000 26,164,000 26,133,000
Expenditures 9,816,905 2,523,372 13,417,681 15,881,670 8,817,970 11,711,670 1,718,370 1,037,370 1,068,870 7,061,570 20,635,270 18,469,370
Ending Bal. 4,802,404 12,567,361 6,545,680 2,247,010 7,200,040 16,074,370 23,066,000 31,277,630 40,023,760 43,354,190 48,882,920 56,546,550
Source: Spring 2012 Long Range Plan – City of Aspen Finance Department (Expenditures include Burlingame Phase II development plans)
Pitkin County - Housing Impact Fund
Created in 2005, the employee housing impact fee was established to require the large-scale residential and commercial developments
to pay to mitigate the impacts of development and land use. Fee revenue goes toward managing the employee housing controlled by
APCHA.
Table 12
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Bal. 9,326,791 9,638,842 10,121,384 8,214,054 5,942,574 5,064,309 4,438,669
Current Forecast Extends Only Through 2016 Revenues 312,051 482,542 391,120 1,200,000 1,761,600 424,360 837,091
Expenditures 0 0 2,298,450 3,471,480 2,639,865 1,050,000 1,750,000
Ending Bal. 9,638,842 10,121,384 8,214,054 5,942,574 5,064,309 4,438,669 3,525,760
Source: Pitkin County Finance Department (Projected expenditures were placeholders at the time of compilation until County Commissioners can review needs)
HOMEOWNER AFFORDABILITY
One generally accepted debt-to-income ratio threshold (including principal, interest, insurance and taxes) for conventional home loans
has been 28% of gross monthly income; FHA loans allow for a slightly higher ratio at 29%. While recent history has demonstrated
that such thresholds have not been adhered to in a strict sense; it has also reinforced that the principle behind the establishment of
these thresholds had merit.
Looking at the averages below, one can see that generally speaking, home ownership for Category 4 and below households requires a
greater percentage of gross income relative to Category 5 and above households. Additionally, in some cases, home ownership is
significant relative to income minimums in Category 1 and 2 (and one instance in Category 3), and is above established FHA debt-to-
income ratio thresholds for some income maximums (see highlighted cells).
P1
0
3
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 25
Table 13 – Principal, Interest, Insurance and Tax Obligations Relative to Gross Household Income
% of monthly income Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4 Cat5 Cat6 Cat7
Dependents / Unit Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
0 / Studio 20% 9% 17% 11% 18% 11% 18% 11% 15% 14% 16% 14% 16% 15%
0 / 1BR 26% 12% 21% 14% 20% 12% 19% 12% 16% 15% 17% 16% 17% 16%
0 / 2BR 33% 15% 27% 18% 24% 15% 22% 13% 18% 17% 18% 17% 19% 17%
0 / 3BR 39% 18% 33% 21% 29% 18% 24% 15% 20% 18% 20% 18% 20% 18%
0 / SF 45% 21% 38% 25% 33% 20% 27% 16% 21% 20% 22% 20% 22% 20%
1 / Studio 13% 7% 14% 10% 15% 10% 16% 10% 14% 13% 15% 14% 15% 14%
1 / 1BR 17% 10% 17% 12% 17% 11% 18% 11% 16% 15% 16% 15% 17% 15%
1 / 2BR 22% 12% 22% 15% 21% 14% 20% 13% 17% 16% 18% 16% 18% 16%
1 / 3BR 26% 14% 27% 18% 25% 16% 22% 14% 19% 17% 19% 17% 19% 17%
1 / SF 30% 17% 31% 22% 28% 18% 25% 16% 20% 19% 21% 19% 21% 19%
2 / Studio 10% 6% 12% 9% 14% 9% 15% 10% 13% 13% 14% 13% 15% 13%
2 / 1BR 13% 8% 15% 11% 15% 10% 16% 11% 15% 14% 15% 14% 16% 14%
2 / 2BR 17% 10% 19% 14% 19% 13% 19% 12% 16% 15% 17% 15% 17% 16%
2 / 3BR 19% 12% 22% 16% 22% 15% 21% 14% 18% 17% 18% 17% 18% 17%
2 / SF 23% 14% 26% 19% 25% 17% 23% 15% 19% 18% 20% 18% 20% 18%
3 / Studio 8% 5% 10% 8% 12% 9% 14% 9% 13% 12% 13% 13% 14% 13%
3 / 1BR 10% 7% 13% 10% 14% 10% 15% 10% 14% 13% 15% 14% 15% 14%
3 / 2BR 13% 9% 16% 12% 17% 12% 17% 12% 15% 15% 16% 15% 16% 15%
3 / 3BR 15% 10% 19% 15% 20% 14% 19% 13% 17% 16% 17% 16% 18% 16%
3 / SF 18% 12% 23% 17% 23% 16% 21% 14% 18% 17% 19% 17% 19% 17%
Average 21% 11% 21% 15% 21% 13% 20% 13% 17% 16% 17% 16% 18% 16%
* Taxes are calculated with a mill levy of 31.653. Principal and interest are based on a 30-year fixed, 4.00% rate with 10% down. Insurance is assumed at $1.50
per $2,000 covered.
If additional home ownership costs such as HOA dues and utilities are included into the debt-to-income ratio calculation, percentages
increase dramatically. Though not a complete apples-to-apples comparison, shading has again been included for percentages
exceeding the FHA debt-to-income thresholds even though FHA calculations would not include these other costs.
P1
0
4
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 26
Table 14 – Including HOA Dues and Utilities to Table 13 Figures
% of monthly income Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4 Cat5 Cat6 Cat7
Dependents / Unit Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
0 / Studio 37% 17% 25% 16% 24% 15% 22% 13% 18% 17% 18% 17% 19% 17%
0 / 1BR 52% 24% 33% 22% 29% 18% 25% 15% 20% 19% 21% 19% 21% 19%
0 / 2BR 71% 32% 44% 29% 37% 23% 29% 18% 23% 22% 23% 21% 23% 21%
0 / 3BR 83% 38% 53% 34% 44% 27% 34% 21% 26% 24% 26% 24% 26% 23%
0 / SF 94% 43% 60% 39% 51% 31% 38% 23% 30% 28% 29% 27% 30% 27%
1 / Studio 25% 14% 20% 14% 21% 14% 20% 13% 17% 16% 17% 16% 18% 16%
1 / 1BR 35% 19% 27% 19% 25% 16% 23% 14% 19% 18% 20% 18% 20% 18%
1 / 2BR 47% 26% 36% 25% 32% 21% 27% 17% 22% 20% 22% 20% 22% 20%
1 / 3BR 55% 31% 43% 30% 39% 25% 31% 20% 25% 23% 25% 23% 25% 22%
1 / SF 63% 35% 49% 34% 44% 29% 35% 22% 28% 27% 28% 26% 28% 26%
2 / Studio 19% 12% 17% 13% 19% 13% 18% 12% 16% 15% 17% 15% 17% 16%
2 / 1BR 26% 16% 23% 17% 22% 15% 21% 14% 18% 17% 19% 17% 19% 18%
2 / 2BR 35% 22% 30% 22% 28% 19% 25% 16% 21% 19% 21% 19% 21% 19%
2 / 3BR 41% 26% 36% 26% 34% 23% 29% 19% 23% 22% 23% 22% 24% 22%
2 / SF 47% 29% 42% 30% 39% 26% 32% 21% 27% 25% 27% 25% 27% 25%
3 / Studio 15% 10% 15% 11% 17% 12% 17% 11% 15% 15% 16% 15% 17% 15%
3 / 1BR 21% 14% 20% 15% 20% 14% 20% 13% 17% 17% 18% 17% 19% 17%
3 / 2BR 28% 19% 26% 20% 25% 18% 23% 16% 20% 19% 20% 18% 20% 19%
3 / 3BR 33% 22% 31% 24% 31% 21% 27% 18% 22% 21% 22% 21% 23% 21%
3 / SF 38% 25% 36% 27% 35% 25% 30% 20% 26% 24% 25% 24% 26% 24%
Average 43% 24% 33% 23% 31% 20% 26% 17% 22% 20% 22% 20% 22% 20%
* HOA dues are estimated at $0.40 per square foot per month. Utilities are estimated at $0.08 per square foot per month.
P1
0
5
I.
CHANGES IN WAGES AND HOUSING PRICES OVER TIME
Prior to 1990, income categories were designated as low, moderate or middle income in
accordance with the applicable guidelines at that time. In 1990, APCHA redefined the
terms and established four income categories in an effort to create a greater variety of
units to serve the community's income levels, along with Resident Occupied (RO). The
four income categories were equated to the past income categories and adjusted annually
using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). In 2003, Categories 5, 6 and 7 were added.
Current income amounts were derived from 1999 data collected by the APCHA
including: 1999 Housing Survey of Pitkin County Employees; Colorado Department of
Labor and Employment reports; Colorado Department of Employment and Wages
reports; U.S. Census Bureau: Flow of Funds Accounts Report and Annual Expenditures
Per Child Report; and Housing and Urban Development Data Sets. Increases from these
amounts are determined annually based upon the CPI or 3%, whichever is lower, of the
existing maximum income levels.
The graph above looks at the differences between the changes in Pitkin County Average
Annual Pay since 1998 and 2011 (RED lines) and the CPI Index used to set allowable
rents and change the income limits in the various categories. As is shown, over that 14
year period wages have risen twice as fast as the CPI index has. This may suggest that
prices (rents and allowable sales prices) have become more affordable over this period as
wages have increased at a faster rate than prices have (albeit not in the past 4 years).
-20.00%
-10.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Index
Wage Increase
Pitkin County 1998 to 2011
Wages compared to Category Changes
Red -wage AVG: 3.97%
Blue -index AVG: 1.72%
P106
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 28
Planning for the Future
INDICATIONS OF CURRENT DEMAND
No hard data exists around demand for affordable housing in the Valley. However,
recent data collected for presales at Burlingame Phase II does provide a possible proxy
data set for size, category and quantity that can be extrapolated into countywide
estimates. In the table below, a summary of applications by housing category, and
applications that included mortgage prequalification categorized by housing category
(APCHA Qualified & Mortgage Prequalified) provides a glimpse at demand.
Table 15
Total Applicants - Burlingame
Phase II 233 233
1
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
2
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
Applicants Without Categorization (131) (166)
Just APCHA
Qualified
APCHA
Qualified &
Mortgage
Prequalified
TOTAL 102 100% 68 100% 19 15 32 2
Category 1 19 19% 11 16% 6 1 4 0
Category 2 29 28% 18 26% 9 1 8 0
Category 3 28 27% 21 31% 4 6 11 0
Category 4 22 22% 14 21% 0 6 8 0
Category 5 1 1% 1 1% 0 1 0 0
Category 6 2 2% 2 3% 0 0 1 1
Category 7 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0
Resident Owned (RO) 1 1% 1 1% 0 0 0 1
100% 28% 22% 47% 3%
Source: Burlingame Phase II March 2, 2012 Memo to City Council and Mayor
While a significantly smaller number of applicants took their application process the
additional step to obtain lending prequalification, we can see that this smaller pool of
applicants still appears to be a good representation of the total population expressing
interest in this affordable housing development, based on similar distribution percentages.
Additional information from the smaller pool of applicants also provides us with a
glimpse of needed unit size, shown in the far right-hand columns of the above table.
Expanding these figures to represent an overall demand for Pitkin County presents a
challenge, as there are varying interests within the population seeking affordable housing.
Some individuals may be searching for housing in a family-friendly environment; some
may be searching for immediate access to night-life; some may be searching for housing
located next to specific transportation routes; some may be searching for housing within
close proximity to work - individual’s and/or spouse’s office(s), etc… Obviously, the
Burlingame Phase II cross-section of the County workforce will not fully capture the
P107
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 29
uniqueness of the entire population; but we can try to extrapolate some reasonable
estimates about the larger population, with the help of some additional data.
Table 16
2011 Affordable Housing Lottery Bids
# of Bids As a % 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Single
Family
Total 126 100% 71 24 30 1
Category 1 0 0% 0 0 0 0
Category 2 43 34% 30 6 7 0
Category 3 37 29% 23 8 6 0
Category 4 25 20% 12 8 5 0
Category 5 10 8% 6 0 4 0
Category 6 1 1% 0 0 0 1
Category 7 0 0% 0 0 0 0
RO Unit 10 8% 0 2 8 0
Total
100% 56% 19% 24% 1%
Source: APCHA Historical Data on Lottery Bids by Location and Year (2008 to 2011)
The table above reflects the total number of affordable housing lottery bids in 2011.
There are a number of similarities in the categorical distribution of these bids and the
applicants unique to Burlingame Phase II, especially considering that Burlingame Phase
II does not include Category 1 units and all such applicants are being prequalified for
Category 2 housing. There continues to be a large cluster of housing need in the
Category 3 & 4 levels (roughly at 30% and 20% of total units, respectively), with a
modestly larger need in Category 2 housing (in the range of 35% to 40% of total units).
The remaining 10% to 15% of demand appears to be mixed between Category 5 through
Category 7 and RO units.
Where differences tend to be most apparent between data sets, specifically in areas of
unit size, there are some possible explanations, most notably the family environment
focus for Burlingame and how that differs from downtown Aspen living. This would be
the primary consideration for variance. Other possible concerns such as proximity to
work seem less likely given the concentration of jobs centered in Aspen, Buttermilk, and
Snowmass Village areas and the proximity that the Burlingame development has to all
locations. Based on the primary assumption above, to adjust the Burlingame Phase II
data into a more county-wide representation, shuffling some of the 3 bedroom demand
into 1 bedroom demand appears to be most reasonable.
Ultimately, an allocation of 35% to 40% 1-bedroom, 20% to 25% 2-bedroom, 30% to
35% 3-bedroom and no more than 5% Single Family appears to be a reasonable mix for
demand by unit size.
GROWTH IN LABOR FORCE
Looking at history, recessionary periods are very commonplace for the nation, and for
Colorado. While some recessions have had much greater effects on the economy than
others, there has typically been one national recession each decade at a minimum,
P108
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 30
sometimes two, when looking back as far as the Great Depression. Without a doubt,
there will certainly be another recession in the future; but when it will occur, and how
deep and how lengthy it will remain, and what industries it will most affect, is anyone’s
guess. Without these specifics, the impacts of such downturns and how they will
influence our local workforce – and thus demand for affordable housing in the Valley – is
anyone’s guess.
With some acceptance of this uncertainty, the best assumption may be to apply averaged
growth patterns for population and occupational growth to the current housing
populations, with minor adjustments for near-term events with high probability, to
establish and estimated aggregated changes in affordable housing demand.
Historical employment figures below highlight the dramatic variances between Pitkin
County and Colorado in weathering various economic conditions. Pitkin County has
experienced much greater highs and much deeper lows in employment over the last 20
years. Such variances are largely the result of the lack of diversity in the types of jobs
and industries represented in the County relative to the entire State.
Table 17
Historical Change in Employment
Year Colorado
Employment
Employment
Percent Change
Pitkin County
Employment
Employment
Percent Change
Annual Average
Percent Change Colorado 1.93 Pitkin County 1.35
2011 2,497,297 0.64 9,946 -0.06
2010 2,481,447 -1.30 9,952 -4.57
2009 2,514,236 -3.34 10,429 -7.35
2008 2,601,059 0.68 11,256 1.90
2007 2,583,404 1.64 11,046 -0.02
2006 2,541,828 3.50 11,048 2.96
2005 2,455,773 2.63 10,730 5.60
2004 2,392,952 2.28 10,161 4.99
2003 2,339,532 1.54 9,678 -2.29
2002 2,304,109 0.03 9,905 0.61
2001 2,303,494 0.14 9,845 1.75
2000 2,300,192 1.34 9,676 11.78
1999 2,269,668 1.95 8,656 -2.71
1998 2,226,296 3.34 8,897 1.24
1997 2,154,294 3.39 8,788 3.52
1996 2,083,740 2.06 8,489 -0.08
1995 2,041,652 4.53 8,496 0.40
1994 1,953,111 6.64 8,462 7.14
1993 1,831,489 5.00 7,898 10.83
1992 1,744,235 2.33 7,126 0.95
1991 1,704,522 1.57 7,059 -8.31
1990 1,678,229 N/A 7,699 N/A
Source: Colorado Dept. of Labor and Employment, LMI Gateway (May 3, 2011)
P109
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 31
The table above suggests that a long range average growth in employment for Pitkin County could be pegged at roughly 1.3% per year. Note that this average growth rate differs from the 0.5% growth assumption used in the EPS model (Attachment H), which EPS modeled from the growth data over the last ten years. As this recent ten year history includes two significant recessions, there is an understandable variance between the long term historical percent and the EPS assumption used in the model.
Looking forward, short-term (2 years) and long-term (10 years) employment projections
for Colorado as a whole fall below the average employment growth experience of 1.9%
noted above, and consistently hovering around 1.3% moving forward.
Additionally, and similar to trends identified in history above, “Central Colorado” areas
(which will include Pitkin County) are projected to have greater volatility, with near term
growth estimated at a relatively “strong” 2.2%, and a long-term growth rate retreating
back below historical levels, but consistent with Statewide averages of 1.2%.
Table 18
Region
2011 Estimated
Employment
2013 Projected
Employment
Projected
Employment
Change
Annual Average
Percent Change
Colorado
All Areas 2,442,132 2,513,053 70,921 1.4
Metropolitan Statistical Areas
Boulder-Longmont MSA 171,962 177,045 5,083 1.5
Colorado Springs MSA 268,736 277,464 8,728 1.6
Denver - Aurora MSA 1,319,463 1,355,081 35,618 1.3
Fort Collins-Loveland MSA 142,388 147,773 5,385 1.9
Grand Junction MSA 63,237 65,267 2,030 1.6
Greeley MSA 90,275 95,944 5,669 3.1
Pueblo MSA 61,855 63,429 1,574 1.3
Balance of Colorado
Central Colorado 21,837 22,800 963 2.2
Eastern and Southern Colorado 74,489 75,190 701 0.5
North Central Colorado 88,142 89,929 1,787 1.0
Western Colorado 111,318 113,843 2,525 1.1
Source: Dept. of Labor and Employment, LMI Gateway (May 3, 2012)
Table 19
Region
2010 Estimated
Employment
2020 Projected
Employment
Projected
Employment
Change
Annual Average
Percent Change
Colorado
All Areas 2,392,755 2,694,871 302,116 1.2
Metropolitan Areas
Boulder-Longmont MSA 166,052 174,106 8,054 0.5
Colorado Springs MSA 264,102 295,278 31,176 1.1
Denver - Aurora MSA 1,286,465 1,446,510 160,045 1.2
Fort Collins-Loveland MSA 141,161 167,287 26,126 1.7
P110
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 32
Grand Junction MSA 63,164 77,183 14,019 2.0
Greeley MSA 85,582 104,773 19,191 2.0
Pueblo MSA 60,349 66,644 6,295 1.0
Balance of Colorado
Central Colorado 21,490 24,209 2,719 1.2
Eastern and Southern Colorado 74,376 79,053 4,677 0.6
North Central Colorado 90,297 100,869 10,572 1.1
Western Colorado 111,458 131,137 19,679 1.6
Source: Dept. of Labor and Employment, LMI Gateway (May 3, 2012)
Given above historical and projected data –further supported by signs of an improving
economy, especially through increased construction activity and the return of leisure
spending in the area – it is reasonable to anticipate that Pitkin County will continue to see
larger positive and negative fluctuations in employment, with an averaged annual growth
rate that will net to just over 1.0%, but perhaps be stronger in the near term.
These employment trends will ultimately increase demand on affordable housing.
Additionally, with the migratory nature of mortgage rates free market home prices – both
of which can only really progress upward from current lows – demand will only be
further amplified in the future as these other housing options begin to stretch further out
of reach for much of the workforce.
AN AGING DEMOGRAPHIC
One possible offsetting factor to increased demand for affordable housing is the aging of
current affordable housing residents, and potential turnover expected from this
population. While turnover sounds likely in isolation, the influence of current policy
allowing for individuals to remain in affordable housing after retirement raises this
theoretical turnover into question.
Shown in the table below, Pitkin County has experienced a significant increase in its
population of seniors, which roughly doubled in size between 2000 and 2010. As these
baby boomers continue to retire, there will likely be an increased probability for APCHA
inventory to be overwhelmed by retiree occupants/owners. And with growth in the senior
population expected to continue outpacing that of the younger, traditional workforce
demographic, even with eventual turnover, new retirees will continue stretching existing
inventory.
Source: NWCCOG 2011 Benchmark Report, Page 43
Table 20
Pitkin County Demographic by Age
2000 Actual 2010 Actual 2020 Projected 2030 Projected 2040 Projected
Age Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Total 15,914 100.0% 17,148 100.0% 21,731 100.0% 26,315 100.0% 30,783 100.00%
0-59 14,195 89.2% 13,866 80.9% 16,762 77.1% 20,264 77.0% 24,070 78.20%
60+ 1,382 8.7% 3,282 19.1% 4,969 22.9% 6,051 23.0% 6,713 21.80%
75+ 337 2.1% 582 3.4% 1,202 5.5% 2,042 7.8% 2,359 7.70%
P111
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 33
Demographic information included in the table above represents the average change in
age for the entire population in Pitkin County and thus differs from the aging assumption
included in the EPS model as the EPS data reflects only demographic information for
current affordable housing residences (a subset of the entire Pitkin County population).
Of course, there are reasons for possible turnover in units occupied by this aging
demographic – downsizing as family kids go off into the world; potential nest-egg to live
off of in retirement; desire to change climates or lifestyles; etc. These individual choices
are difficult to predict, especially considering the residents in this Valley and how
passionate they are about outdoor and cultural opportunities offered in this collective
community.
Additionally, given current allowances to retirees in affordable housing, and recently
expired opportunities to transition into free market housing within the Valley (either at
the same size or reduced size dwelling), it is anticipated that newly retired affordable
housing dwellers would remain in their units rather than experience the potential
downside of applying for either a) more costly alternative housing, or b) risk re-
qualification issues in attempting to acquire alternate affordable housing units.
P112
I.
With the population of baby boomers yet to retire over the next decade looming, coupled with current policy allowances for owners to
remain in their affordable housing post retirement, assuming a loss of roughly 10 units per year to non-working individuals (on
average) could be assumed. This estimate is based on the current number of retiree units in APCHA housing (248 as of 2012) times
an estimated 1.5 retirees per household (to estimate some married and some single retirees) divided by the estimated population of
retirees in 2012 (3,619 retirees based on the imputed 2012 value of Pitkin County demographics age 60+ from the table above).
The resulting percentage (10% of total Pitkin County persons age 60+ who live in APCHA housing) can be held constant and
benchmarked against the NWCOG demographic projections for this age band into the future. When the baby boomer retirement wave
is still influential, the estimated loss in housing due to retirees is approximately 12 units per year; when that wave passes, is loss drops
to roughly 7 units per year. As the NWCOG estimate factors in migration out of the county and mortality, these variables should be
incorporated.
NWCOG
Estimate Straight-line Demographic Allocation
NWCOG
Estimate Straight-line Demographic Allocation
NWCOG
Estimate
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Population 60+
3,282 3,451 3,619 3,788 3,957 4,126 4,294 4,463 4,632 4,800
4,969
5,077
5,185
5,294
5,402
5,510
5,618
5,726
5,835
5,943
6,051
Implied Retirees in APCHA Units 372 389 407 424 441 459 476 493
511
522
533
544
555
566
577
589
600
611
622
Assumed Retirees / Unit 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
# of Retiree Units 248 260 271 283 294 306 317 329
340
348
355
363
370
378
385
392
400
407
415
Change in Retiree Units / Year
12 12 12 12 12 12 12
12
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
P1
1
3
I.
UPDATING THE EPS (ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS) STUDY
In 2002, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) developed an affordable housing strategic
plan that contained a Housing Needs Assessment which estimated the need for housing
workers locally by targeting housing 60% of Pitkin County workers locally. The 60%
target was based on the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), but the 2012 AACP
no longer has the 60% target.
The attached 2012 EPS Affordable Housing Demand Model (Attachment H) instead
estimates the need for housing workers locally by targeting the current Pitkin County
worker commuting pattern as one that may be generally accepted as desirable to
maintain. In 2012, about 47% of Pitkin County workers are housed in Pitkin County, but
in the next ten years this could drop to 40% due to the forces of (1) job growth, (2)
further gentrification of neighborhoods and (3) retirement of Pitkin County workers in
their affordable housing units.
(1) Job Growth:
In order to estimate “total employment” – which is the sum of wage and salary
employment plus proprietors – the EPS model uses data from the U.S. Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA), which is considered to be the most accurate job estimates.
However, BEA data lags by approximately 2 years and is thus supplemented for further
accuracy by the use of Colorado Department of Labor (CDOL) and US Bureau of Labor
of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, which lag only by about 7 months and are available at
geographies smaller than counties.
The EPS report first estimates jobs in Pitkin County and then converts those to Pitkin
County workers and finally to Pitkin County worker-households, which would
correspond to a “housing unit”. (It is important to note that the majority of this study
looks at Pitkin County households as a proxy to understanding Pitkin County worker-
households, but the EPS report specifically looks at Pitkin County worker-households,
which may be skewed slightly lower-income than Pitkin County households.) From 2012
to 2022, EPS estimates that – through job growth alone – there will be 530 new Pitkin
County worker-households, and if it is desired to maintain housing 47% of those
households in Pitkin County, there will need to be an additional 247 housing units within
the next 10 years to support job growth.
(2) Gentrification:
The availability of attainably-priced free market housing has continued to decline. The
Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) reported 131 demolitions over a four-
year period from 2005 through 2008. Assuming that half of these units were occupied by
employees, a continued loss of 16 units per year is projected over the next 10 years. Thus
it is estimated that there will need to be an additional 160 housing units within the next
10 years to support further gentrification of neighborhoods.
P114
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 36
(3) Retirement:
The EPS study builds upon the retirement model that was used for the 2007 Housing
Summit by re-developing the age profile of the worker population in existing affordable
housing based on actual birthdates of housing owners and by replacing workers in the
system based on the actual rate of replacement and the actual ages of the replacement
population observed in the past 5 years. Their model suggests the need to replace 367
units over the next ten years as a result of units lost to retirees.
Separate from the EPS study, the persistence of workers in affordable housing units was
also further studied by looking at addresses of individuals in affordable housing who
were registered to vote in Pitkin County in 1996, and comparing those to addresses of the
same individuals registered to vote in 2012. This suggested that about 25% fewer people
than the EPS model estimated are actually staying in the Pitkin County employee housing
system.
By combining the results of these two different methodologies, it is estimated that
approximately 25 existing housing units per year will be lost to retirement over the next
10 years, which is less than was once thought. Thus there will need to be an additional
250 housing units within the next 10 years to support further retirement of workers in
affordable housing units.
Summary:
(1) Job Growth 247
(2) Gentrification 160
(3) Retirement 250
TOTAL 657 new workforce housing units needed from 2012 to 2022
Estimate of production from 2012 to 2022:
Mitigation 50 units
Employers 50 units (an assumption for projection purposes)
City/County 557 units
TOTAL 657 units
City of Aspen Land-Banked Housing Properties and Estimated Units:
Property Potential Units
Burlingame Phase II 161
517 Park Circle 20
802 West Main 12
488 Castle Creek 30
BMC West 150
312 West Hyman 4
TOTAL 377 potential units
P115
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 37
Nearby Communities
FREE MARKET OPTIONS Below are graphs depicting the changes in average home price and average price per square foot throughout Pitkin County and other neighboring communities in the Valley. Consistent with many other areas in the State, local area home prices have been reduced below where they were six years ago, with the mid- and down-Valley areas being hit the hardest.
Source: Data pull by BJ Adams for single family and condo/townhome units as of June 30, 2012.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD ASPEN - Avg. Sale Price $3,301,183 $4,186,190 $3,964,732 $3,758,048 $3,824,395 $3,120,640 ASPEN - Avg. Price / Sqft $1,272 $1,393 $1,127 $1,029 $1,016 $988 TOSV - Avg. Sale Price $2,303,657 $2,170,342 $2,590,321 $2,573,304 $1,762,735 $1,556,702 TOSV - Avg. Price / Sqft $1,046 $1,084 $815 $785 $683 $663 BASALT - Avg. Sale Price $909,267 $868,530 $851,231 $589,906 $588,831 $465,926 BASALT - Avg. Price / Sqft $484 $519 $372 $297 $263 $235
$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 Pitkin County - Average Sale Price and Price / Sqft
P116
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 38
Source: Data pull by BJ Adams for single family and condo/townhome units as of June 30, 2012. Given this dramatic change in price over the course of the last five years, free market housing has increasingly become an alternative to current and prospective affordable housing dwellers in the Valley. Despite for-sale single family housing inventory below $500,000 diminishing from recent levels in mid-Valley locations, similarly priced condominium and townhome units still remain. Additionally, low rates for free-market rentals have also increased migration out of affordable housing environments and have curbed some near-term demand.
SNOWMASS VILLAGE
Inquiries with the Housing Authority in the Town of Snowmass Village returned
information that was somewhat divergent from what may be true for Pitkin and Aspen.
With the recent additions to the Rodeo Lot development providing a handful of additional
single-family homes and duplexes to the area, and the very limited number of bids for
said units, indications of current equilibrium abound for this community. This is also
despite the fact that 2012 sales have increased sizably from 2011, as it is believed that
much of this uptick is stemming from current residents seeking out opportunities down
valley, where dramatically reduced prices have enticed current renters/owners.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD EL JEBEL - Avg. Sale Price $611,246 $705,708 $578,845 $495,409 $374,214 $341,448 EL JEBEL - Avg. Price / Sqft $312 $348 $258 $236 $180 $151 CARBONDALE - Avg. Sale Price $694,275 $686,532 $570,709 $496,809 $374,597 $358,943 CARBONDALE - Avg. Price / Sqft $312 $348 $258 $236 $180 $151 GLENWOOD - Avg. Sale Price $401,803 $421,330 $409,459 $334,819 $244,250 $232,352 GLENWOOD - Avg. Price / Sqft $248 $271 $227 $186 $136 $126
$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 Down Valley Communities - Average Sale Price and Price / Sqft
P117
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 39
EAGLE COUNTY
Eagle County has experienced dramatic declining demand for affordable housing since
the start of the last recession. Prior to 2009, demand equated to roughly twenty-one
buyers per resale unit… today there is merely one buyer per property, and properties tend
to average six to twelve months on the market prior to change in possession. The
dramatic change is speculated to be the result of increased choices in free market
properties (due to price reductions and favorable interest rates) and greater difficulties in
obtaining financing.
With the recent changes in demand, Eagle County gauges that its current affordable
housing stock is meeting demand for some of its population; however, subsidized
properties specific to low income households (60% AMI or below) continue to have two
year waiting lists and would be the demographic/development most in need of additional
housing options in the near term. At this time, only a senior care campus in Eagle is
being considered for development in the foreseeable future – nothing new is being
planned for the Roaring Fork Valley.
GARFIELD COUNTY (includes BASALT)
The Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) is not a developer of affordable
housing. They partner with others for this purpose. Currently, as a partner in a sixty unit
complex, they are providing thirteen Section 8 vouchers to be used so that the project
qualifies as a Low Income Housing Tax Credit project. In this way the developers get tax
credit benefits for providing thirteen very low income (30% AMI) units and the
developers also are able to charge somewhat higher rents on those units which are paid
by the vouchers.
GCHA in combination with the Town of Basalt, the Town of Carbondale, the Town of
Glenwood Springs, and Garfield County, administers the affordable housing programs in
those jurisdictions. Currently that represents fewer than 200 units.
GCHA also is the contract administrator for the Section 8 vouchers for five counties
(including Pitkin).
The Garfield County Housing Authority does not consider its integration with social
services a sophisticated one. Like Pitkin County it makes many referrals to other service
providers such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, Lift Up, or the Veterans
Administration services in Mesa County.
The Garfield County Housing Authority is also experiencing increased demand for
housing that service populations of at-risk households. GarCo Housing staff shared that
Social service providers in Garfield County have expressed some unhappiness with the
GarCo Housing Authority for not providing housing for those it deems in need. APCHA
has a similar experience in Pitkin County.
Each group, housing providers and social service providers, have regulations that govern
how the various programs are administered. Even if housing is provided as the bedrock
P118
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 40
stabilization effort, there is not any assurance that the individual will continue to meet the
requirements of the social services program(s) and regulations. In those cases, a person
may qualify for housing, but they may soon “fall off the social service help wagon”
because they do not continue to meet the social service requirements and therefore lose
their case worker or the other support needed to keep them functioning as peaceful
tenants. The housing entity is then left to absorb the legal expenses it takes to shed a
problem tenant in its housing. Worse yet are those problematic tenants who act out in a
dangerous way before the legal process has had the time it takes, to move them out of the
property. Housing staff members or nearby neighbors often bear the brunt of any danger
that results.
APCHA is more pro-active than the Garfield County Housing Authority in that APCHA
actively refers tenants deemed in need, to the Pitkin County social service provider
network. APCHA updates and posts public lists of service providers throughout the
properties it administers. Beyond that APCHA increasingly enters into a dialog with local
social service providers regarding housing actions it is taking or contemplating that apply
to at-risk tenants. APCHA has included social service professionals in real time e-mail
communications concerning at-risk individuals in an effort to give the social service
network as much of a head start in addressing the need, as it can.
GarCo Housing utilizes federal Section 8 housing vouchers to a much higher degree that
does Pitkin County. GarCO Housing has an allocation directly from HUD, for 434
Section 8 vouchers, but currently only has a budget for 385 to be utilized. Their wait list
for a Section 8 voucher is 3 years.
Many of the Garfield seniors that need housing are aided by those Section 8 vouchers.
Pitkin County only has 15 vouchers allocated through the Colorado Department of
Housing. The federal government has not issued any new section 8 voucher for as long as
any of us can remember, so any new allocations come through the re-shuffling of those
not being used elsewhere to those who have applied for more.
VASH vouchers, which benefit veteran’s, are not available to counties without a
veterans’ hospital so if a local veteran needs such a voucher they are advised to move to
Mesa or Denver Counties in order to have access to them. Un-used Mesa county VASH
Voucher allocations are not being distributed to other counties in need.
P119
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 41
Livability
Adj. 1. liveable - fit or suitable to live in or with; "livable
conditions", livable
The KEY QUESTIONS to be addressed by this portion of t the Briefing Book are:
15. What does “livability” mean?
16. What is the target for the housing stock to be produced? For current housing
stock?
17. What is the balance between the competing priorities of quality, project cost,
livability, total cost of ownership, pride of ownership, sense of community,
neighborhood impacts, accessibility, environmental sustainability, constructability
and many additional detailed considerations?
Throughout 2010, the City of Aspen conducted an inclusive, open, transparent and
rigorous public outreach program to engage the community in the affordable housing
design process. This program sought input from various stakeholder groups including the
general public, Burlingame Ranch Phase I homeowners and HOA leadership, Aspen City
Council, Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, Aspen and Pitkin County
Planning & Zoning Commissions, Housing Board, Housing Frontiers Group,
Construction Experts Group, Citizens Budget Task Force and potential housing partners.
Additional review and input was sought from key jurisdictional departments and agencies
such as the Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority, various city departments, the Aspen
Fire Protection District, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitary District, the Roaring Fork
Transportation Authority, as well as affordable housing property managers and local
media.
At each stage of the design process, input was sought and designs were modified based
on the input received from the community as was deemed appropriate by the design team
and with direction from City Council. The design team was challenged to balance the
competing priorities of quality, project cost, livability, total cost of ownership, pride of
ownership, sense of community, neighborhood impacts, accessibility, environmental
sustainability, constructability and many additional detailed considerations. In addition to
integrating community input, this outreach strategy facilitated the design’s compliance
with applicable guidelines, regulations and requirements, and capitalized on the lessons
learned from other comparable City housing projects.
What the design effort for Burlingame II has taught us can help inform the conversation
about the meaning of livability among the Aspen affordable housing community.
P120
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 42
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LIVABILITY
Goals:
Housing developments should endeavor to balance the principles of community,
livability and quality against impacts such as unreasonable levels of cost and construction
activity intrusion. Housing structures should utilize land as efficiently as possible and
should seek construction efficiencies to levels that do not sacrifice livability beyond
levels that are not consistent with these goals. Architecture should be sensitive to
neighborhood context to the extent possible while achieving these goals as well.
Density:
Density should be considered as more than just a number and should consider
neighborhood context, available open space, amenities and other overall community
considerations. Successful housing developments range in density from Snyder at 7.5
units per acre and Burlingame Ranch at 8.6 units per acre to Centennial at 14.1 units per
acre and Hunter Creek at 20.7 units per acre.
Construction Quality:
Quality construction should be employed to maximize energy efficiency and to mitigate
sound and vibration transmission. It is important to people not to feel as densely housed
as they actually are, and it is possible to invest in construction quality up to a point short
of diminishing returns to make a densely populated facility feel as livable as possible
given available resources.
Environmental Sustainability:
Environmental sustainability standards which are consistent with community goals
should be integral to the construction quality program. Investments in sustainability
measures should be carefully prioritized to be consistent with housing development goals.
Housing Unit Sizes:
Housing for a diverse population of income levels should not discriminate livable space
based on incomes. Creating equitably-sized housing units of standardized sizes can create
construction efficiencies and increase flexibility to transfer units among people of
differing income levels. The Colorado Division of Housing has established “indicators of
modest but decent housing” with suggested sizes of 500 square feet for studio or
efficiency units, 700 square feet for one-bedroom units, 900 square feet for two-bedroom
units and 1,200 square feet for three-bedroom units.
Accessibility:
Housing facilities should provide on-grade access above and beyond code requirements
where reasonably possible. ADA type B accessibility standards are a model example of
dwelling unit uniformity and fair housing conditions with which construction efficiencies
can be achieved.
P121
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 43
Public Safety and Automobile Circulation:
Whenever possible, housing developments should prioritize livability and public safety
over traffic circulation considerations and should provide pedestrians with priority over
automobiles.
Community Open Space:
Community open space should be created to maximize the use of available land and
should be landscaped to facilitate peaceful, playful and socially-interactive enjoyment
through the use of turf or low-grow grasses as well as strategically-placed shrubs and
trees to facilitate demarcation of areas and/or privacy where needed.
Parks and Trails:
Parks and trails provide community benefits and should be connected to housing
developments where possible. The use of boulder retaining walls can create material cost
efficiencies and can be a contextually-sensitive means of retaining earth as opposed to
engineered alternatives.
Parking and Storage:
Parking and storage are key attributes that relate to day to day interaction with a housing
facility. Local workers may not use their cars every day, but they have a right like
everyone else to keep a car in their possession, particularly because Aspen is a remotely
located City. Affordable housing units do not generally afford the amount of space that
suburban living in America generally affords so convenient access to a reasonable
amount of storage space is a key attribute to any housing unit. Parking and storage should
be located within reasonable distance to one’s housing. The use of carport structures can
be an equitable means of providing covered parking without a high level of expense and
can be used where needed to retain earth.
Total Cost of Ownership:
Total cost of ownership or total rent should be considered in affordable housing designs.
The use of durable assemblies and materials as well as low-maintenance mechanical
systems along with operational efficiency considerations such as ease of snow removal
and landscaping can help keep long-term costs down. Thoughtful design for management
of snow, ice, moisture and freeze/thaw conditions can eliminate the need for gutters and
downspouts and can help keep maintenance costs down.
Wildlife:
Sensitivity to wildlife and surrounding open areas is extremely important. Trash and
recycling facilities should be ‘bear-proof’ and should otherwise be consistent with
wildlife management practices. Mail and transit stop facilities should attempt to keep
people separated from areas which could potentially attract bears or other wildlife.
Site Lighting & Facilities:
Site lighting should provide safety while remaining contextually sensitive and where
possible should employ the use of timers and/or sensors to be as energy-efficient as
possible. Guide-on principles can be equally safe and less intrusive than flooding large
P122
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 44
areas with light. External availability of water and electrical sources are amenities that
tenants and/or homeowners highly appreciate.
Public Transportation:
Access/availability of public transportation is a must.
LIVABILITY CHECKLIST
The list below should be utilized as a comprehensive guide when considering future
affordable housing development design.
Characteristics as apply to disabled community
Density
Family oriented vs. non-family oriented
Working vs. retirement orientation
Occupancy per unit standards (minimum/maximum)
Flats vs. multi-levels
• Accessibility
On-grade access vs. stairs to get to unit
Below-grade / partial below grade units
Minimum square footage by bedroom count/per person
• Relationship to category
• Minimum dimensions for room usage
Storage
• How it contributes to “keeping the community orderly”
• Within the unit:
Kitchen cabinets
Laundry areas
Foyer – front and rear
Linen closets
Oversize bedroom closets (upper shelves for seasonal storage)
Additional unfinished areas
• External – areas that can be used for storage and “closet spaces”
Proximity to unit
• “Toys” – bikes, boats, skis, snowmobiles, etc.
• Locked vs. open – security issues
Garbage/mail
• Proximity to units
• Aesthetics
• Animal proofing
• Recycling
Outdoor living areas tied to my unit
• Grilling area
• Patio
• “my garden”
Parking
• Location on site and relationship to streets/alleys
P123
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 45
• Number per unit/bedroom
• On-site vs. on-street vs. remote
• Covered vs. non-covered
• Guest / visitor / service usage
• Accessible parking
• Proximity to unit
• Dimensions of spaces / geometry of getting in and out
• Covered parking and storage associated with “my space”
• Aesthetics of parking in development – “mass”, planters, islands, etc. –
pedestrian movement
• Snow removal/storage issues (cost, ease, etc.)
• Parking of resident’s commercial vehicle
• Trailer (toys) parking
Public space and recreation
• Location
• Trail / pedestrian access
• Flexible use spaces
• Type
• Fencing and security
• Segregation of children
Access to public transportation
• Bike storage at nodes
Noise
• Unit-to-unit transmission
• Outdoor noise
Lighting
• Natural light
• Indoor lighting
• Exterior lighting
Ventilation / heating / cooling
Control systems – network outlets, electric outlets, cable/satellite, utility usage,
lighting, etc.
Laundry in unit
Heating – type
• Baseboard vs. vented vs. radiant
• Electric vs. gas
• Common vs. unit-based
Solar and PV accessibility/orientation/design that allows for
Pets
Landscaping
• Grass vs. native
• Upkeep
• Irrigation
• Hose bibs
P124
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 46
• Community gardens
• Cost of maintenance – design considerations
• Stormwater considerations
Kitchen
• Gas vs. electric appliances
• Single vs. double sink
• Microwaves
• Appliance finishes
• Range hood – externally vented vs. internally recirculated
Counter tops
Durability
• Maintenance
• Dishwasher
• Garbage disposals
• Storage
• Dimensions for usability
• Type of stove
• Islands
Bathrooms
• Lighting
• Tubs / showers
• Toilet type / size
• Storage
• Ventilation
• Dimensions for usability
• Number per unit
• Finishes – aesthetics and durability
• Sinks – single vs. double . . . faucet types
Lifetime maintenance issues (cost of ownership)
• HVAC – access to systems
• Appliances
• Floor coverings
• Infrastructure
• Energy efficiency
P125
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 47
Mitigation
The KEY QUESTIONS to be addressed by this portion of the Briefing Book are:
18. What is the current requirements/current approach?
19. What is the purpose of mitigation requirements?
20. What is the role of mitigation in meeting future supply needs?
21. How does housing mitigation fit into negotiations with developers for “other”
community needs? Is it appropriate for housing mitigation to be the “first to go”
in those negotiations?
One of the impacts of development is the generation of jobs in our housing market where
typical workers cannot afford to live, which means jobs would be filled by commuters.
This phenomenon, unmitigated, would tend to erode the strength and viability of the
year-round community, and place additional pressures on the heavily burdened valley-
wide transportation system, resulting in a reduced quality of life for all.
CITY MITIGATION
The generation of new employees creates the need for additional housing for those
employees. The provision of affordable housing or a cash-in-lieu fee for the construction of
future affordable housing offsets the job and housing impacts created by development.
Under the Growth Management section of the land use code, job generation is calculated by
land uses: Commercial, Lodging, Free-Market Residential, Essential Public Facilities, and
Affordable Housing. The Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) outlines different
employee generation rates for each use.
Development has been required to provide affordable housing for its employee generation
since the 1970s, when the Growth Management Quota System was established. The City has
never required development to mitigate for all of the employee housing impacts – the highest
rate of housing mitigation is 60%. There is disagreement on how this number was
established, but it may track back to a desire expressed in the 1993 AACP that 60% of all
Aspen Area employees should live in the Aspen Area.
The amount of mitigation required of development varies widely, based on the proposed land
uses and on various identified “community benefits.”
Currently, GMQS requires:
• New commercial space to provide affordable housing mitigation for 60% of the
employees generated.
• New lodge units with rooms averaging 600 square feet to provide affordable housing
mitigation for 60% of the employees generated.
P126
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 48
• New free-market residential units (multi-family units and units in a mixed-use
building) to provide affordable housing mitigation equal to 30% of the free-market
net livable area.
• New free-market residential units (demolition and redevelopment of single-family
and duplex) to provide affordable housing mitigation equal to the net increase in floor
area.
There are many instances where mitigation rates are lowered in an effort to gain a community
benefit, for example:
• After determining that small lodge rooms were becoming scarce, the City reduced the
mitigation rate to 20% of new employees generated if a new lodge project featured
average room sizes of 400 square feet or less.
• There are similar rate reductions for the expansion commercial and lodging uses in
Historic Landmark buildings. The rationale is that such properties are already under a
unique and costly regulatory burden, and it is preferable for the long-term health and
viability of the landmarks to be physically improved and functional, while retaining
historic integrity.
• “Alley stores” of 600 square feet or less are exempt from any housing mitigation. The
concept is that small, “out of the way” stores would tend to be local-serving or
locally-owned and therefore reflect a community benefit. There have been no
applications for such space since this exemption was established in 2005.
While affordable housing has clearly been a priority for the City since the 1980s, the City’s
track record of providing exemptions from mitigation indicates that other community benefits
are considered to be just as important. It may simply be that housing mitigation is the City’s
most powerful and versatile negotiating instrument when it comes to influencing the nature
of new development.
There are a wide range of methods for providing housing mitigation. Over the years, the most
highly valued method was the construction of affordable housing on the same site as the new
development. However, this has at times resulted in objectionable height and massing to fit
all uses on the site. As a result, the code allows new development to provide affordable
housing through actual units built or deed-restricts off-site, through the payment of cash-in-
lieu or a housing impact fee, or through an Affordable Housing Certificate program.
Cash-in-Lieu & Housing Impact Fee: The code allows for a “cash-in-lieu” payment as a
method to pay for required affordable housing mitigation. The amount of the cash-in-lieu
payment for one free-market unit is intended to equal the amount necessary to subsidize one
affordable housing unit.
The current cash-in-lieu fee has its origins in 1992, when the Housing Authority reviewed the
costs and sale prices of the West Hopkins affordable housing project to establish a subsidy
amount for one FTE. In 1995, the Housing Authority looked at the costs and sale prices at the
Juan Street and Benedict Commons projects to further refine the subsidy estimate. Since
2001, the Housing Authority has used the Denver Area Consumer Price Index (CPI-W) for
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers to approve annual fee increases.
P127
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 49
To complicate matters, the City uses a cash-in-lieu fee in some cases, as noted above, and a
“housing impact fee” on other cases – and the fee amounts differ substantially. For
development that involves free-market multi-family residential, commercial, or lodging uses,
the cash-in-lieu fee is based on the subsidy amount necessary for a Category 4 housing unit.
Because Category 4 units are intended for relatively high-income households, the sales prices
are higher, and therefore the subsidy is lower. The current Housing Guidelines establish
$139,890 as the subsidy for one Category 4 unit.
However, for development that involves the demolition and expansion of single-family
homes or duplexes, the “housing impact fee” is imposed. This fee is based on the subsidy
required for the average of Category 2 and Category 3 housing units. Because these lower
categories are intended for lower-income households, the sales prices are lower, and therefore
the subsidy is higher. The current Housing Guidelines establish $230,790 as the subsidy for
one such unit.
Some argue that the cash-in-lieu and housing impact fee amounts are lower than the funding
necessary to subsidize one housing unit.
Affordable Housing Certificate Program: The Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
program was enacted in 2010. Three projects, each proposed by the private-sector, have been
approved through this process. One is fully constructed, known as the Ajax Apartments
Condominiums, and another one on Main Street has begun construction. The Ajax
Apartments Condominiums contains eight one-bedroom units and have been sold to qualified
employees. This project created 14 FTE credits for another developer to purchase for
mitigation purposes. At this point in time, however, none of the 14 credit certificates have
been purchased to be utilized to satisfy another developer’s mitigation requirements. This
type of program could emerge as a critically important method of producing affordable
housing.
Previous to the new Certificate program, the private sector – without subsidy or as a
requirement of mitigation – rarely volunteered to build affordable housing, largely because of
the artificially low sale or rental rates they were allowed to charge for the units. The new
Certificate program allows the private sector to not only sell/rent the units, but also to sell the
Certificates to others in the private sector who needed to meet City mitigation requirements.
This makes it more financially viable for the private sector to build affordable housing.
City planning staff reports a need for the program’s first major update. The current program
did not contemplate a certificate owner and a potential purchaser needing to ‘convert’
between category levels. (e.g. “you can sell me your Cat 3s, but I need Cat 2s.”) The
primary certificate developer has recognized this issue and has approached the City. City
staff would like to receive direction to work on this code amendment. Any amendment
would be coordinated with the primary certificate developer and other affected parties.
Demolition and Replacement of Single-Family and Duplex Development: When a
property owner proposes to demolish a single-family or duplex home and replace it with a
larger structure, they are given a ‘menu’ of mitigation methods from which to choose:
P128
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 50
1. Construct an on-site Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), which can be rented to an eligible
employee by the property owner on a voluntary basis;
2. Pay the affordable housing impact fee;
3. Provide a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, reflecting that a fully deed-restricted
unit has been voluntarily constructed elsewhere.
4. Provide a fully deed-restricted housing unit off-site, within the Aspen Infill Area;
5. Place a Resident Occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling, or
one unit of the duplex.
Since 1990, property owners have overwhelmingly chosen either option #1 or #2 – to build
an ADU or pay the fee. In the last 10 years, property owners have overwhelmingly chosen to
pay the fee. Going back to the mid-1990s and currently, APCHA, along with some other
critics, have strongly maintained that because ADUs are not required to be rented, they
represent an ineffective method of mitigation.
Throughout the AACP and other housing-related discussion, there’s been expressed a desire
to eliminate the ADU option for mitigation. If it is the position of the respective boards, City
staff would like to receive direction to amend codes to eliminate the ADU mitigation option.
Any code amendment would still proceed through public hearings
Inclusionary Zoning: It is important to note that much of the provision of affordable
housing in the downtown core (Commercial Core and Commercial Core-1 zone districts) is
based on inclusionary zoning and not mitigation. This means that the zoning code requires
the development of affordable housing when free-market residential development is proposed
on a parcel, regardless of the mitigation requirements outlined in GMQS. For instance, on a
6,000 square foot parcel, an applicant is allowed to construct 3,000 square feet as free market
residential space, but only if they also construct 3,000 square feet as affordable housing.
Aspen’s other commercial zone districts include similar inclusionary requirements.
These downtown zoning prescriptions are not related to the concept of mitigation. For
example, 3,000 square feet of free market residential development would require the
construction of 900 square feet of affordable housing according to the Growth Management
Quota System. The inclusionary zoning downtown requires the applicant to provide 3,000
square feet for affordable housing.
Other Sources of Funding for the Development of Housing: Aside from mitigation that
is directly related to a specific development, the City gathers revenues for the Housing
Development Fund from two sources:
• 1% fee on real estate transactions, known as the RETT
• 45% of the income from a 0.55% sales tax for housing and day care
From City’s “Mitigating Impacts of Development” white paper – section on housing
mitigation -- Some Suggested Next Steps From APCHA
Without a current “target” or ceiling for the production of affordable housing, it is
difficult to determine whether the current revenue streams are adequate to meet housing
goals. The RETT, the sales tax and impact fees in the County fluctuate considerably with
economic conditions, as does the demand for affordable housing.
P129
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 51
• The job generation study that was used for commercial, lodge and office uses is
10 years old and needs to be updated. This effort is currently under way and is
anticipated to be completed later this year. (city only)
• The cash-in-lieu and housing impact fees need to be updated. This process is
currently on-going. A recommended methodology to determine cash-in-lieu is
scheduled to be brought forward for review and approval before the end of 2012
and is proposed to be incorporated within the City and County Land Use Codes.
• Evaluate the accuracy of using CPI-W for annual cash-in-lieu increases and
determine if updated methodology is appropriate
• The “mitigation menu” for single-family and duplex development should be
reviewed for effectiveness. This should include a review of the ADU program
and the viability of the Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit program. (city
only – county doesn’t have the housing certificate program)
• The recent zoning changes to the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1)
zone districts should be reviewed. Any update to these zone districts, including
what uses are appropriate for a third floor, should include an evaluation of how
inclusionary zoning has performed, an examination of the on-site housing
incentive and a feasibility study regarding the ability to provide mitigation on-site
versus restrictive dimensional requirements. (City has received direction from
Council to do this, but as a separate process as the CC and C-1 zoning changes)
• If Council desires to define or redefine “community benefit,” it will involve a
comprehensive review of Growth Management to determine whether current
exemptions should remain, if some should be removed and whether new
community benefits should be added. This kind of process should include a re-
evaluation of the objective scoring system. (city only)
• Not require on-site units or off-site units. Allow an applicant to have a 100%
mixed use building without any AH component within the building. One such
thought would be to require the developer to purchase twice the required number
of housing mitigation credits to satisfy the AH component that would be required
under a “normal” development process. (note that there are very limited housing
credits currently available, so that would need to be part of the conversation – if
we do away with a requirement to build actual units and there aren’t any housing
certificates available then that leaves us with cash-in-lieu payments as the only
mitigation option. Also, doing this would mean getting rid of the inclusionary
zoning that is discussed above.)
COUNTY MITIGATION
PAST: Until 2004 Pitkin County only received housing mitigation funds on Growth
Management projects. In 2004 a study was done with Clarion and Associates that
P130
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 52
assessed the fee based on a capital replacement analysis. This revised the Pitkin County
Land Use Code to account for housing mitigation for all new development (residential,
commercial and tourist) at the time of building permit.
Residential employee generation is based on square footage of the home. See the attached
formulas that were adopted by the BOCC. At the time these fees were very
conservatively applied (see details below).
Commercial mitigation is based on the use and square footage of the space being
developed thereby creating the number of employees generated (see below).
Mitigation for Tourist Accommodations is based on standard and luxury room type and
the # of employees generated. (below).
In 2007 the County looked at a new study but no new regulations were passed based on
the downturn in the economy.
PRESENT: The County is currently participating in a study with the City of Aspen. The
goals of this study are to:
1. Have a uniform approach for all entities ( City, County and Housing
Authority)
2. Make the fee more realistic based on the cost of land and construction costs;
3. Leave the ultimate decision on how to apply the study up to each jurisdiction
to make separately, but have the basis of the study be the consistent and
defensible.
AACP: The AACP discusses mitigation in the Philosophy section:
The creation of affordable housing is the responsibility of our entire
community, not just government. We should continue to explore methods that
spread accountability and responsibility to the private sector, local taxing
districts and others.
Pitkin County approved Section 8-30 of their Land use Code, which provided employee
housing impact fees to enable the County to develop affordable housing. The purpose of
the employee housing impact fee is to require the applicable development to pay to mitigate
the impacts of development and land use to the employee housing stock managed or
controlled by Pitkin County or its housing designee, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority (APCHA). The employee housing impact fee constituted a law of general
applicability of Pitkin County is applicable to all property in unincorporated Pitkin County.
The impact fee is applicable to the following classifications of development and land use:
1. Residential Development and Land Use: Structures with five thousand seven
hundred fifty (5,750) square feet or less of interior space, as measured by the
International Building Code (IBC), shall not be assessed an impact fee. For
residential structures over five thousand seven hundred fifty (5,750) square feet, one
hundred (100) percent of the impact shall be mitigated for the full size of the
P131
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 53
structure. Multiple residential structures on one property shall be considered as one
structure.
2. Commercial Development and Lane Use: 100% of the impact fee shall be mitigated
for the full size of commercial construction.
3. Tourist/Lodge Accommodation Development and Land Use:
(a) Standard Rooms: 100% of the impact shall be mitigated for all rooms in excess
of 4.
(b) Luxury Tourist/Lodge Rooms: 100% of the impact and use shall be mitigated for
all rooms.
(c) Unclassified Development or Land Use: Development or land use not fitting into
the above described development or land use shall be subject to the employee
housing impact fee pursuant to Sec. 8-30-60.
(d) The employee housing impact fee shall be adjusted administratively once per year
on the anniversary date of the adoption of the current fee schedule to reflect
inflation. The measure of inflation shall be the annualized rate of inflation
published in the Consumer Price Index (Denver/Boulder/Greeley CPI-W) as
established by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. If this index should
be discontinued, then reference will be to Denver/Boulder/Greeley CPI-U, and if
this is not available, then to CPI-W All Cities.
Payment of Employee Housing Fee (Section 8-30-20):
Procedures for payment of the Employee Housing Impact Fee are set forth in Chapter 2,
Impact Fee for Residential Development and Land Use, of the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
Impact Fee Formulas:
• Residential Development or Land Use: The fee will vary based upon the size of the
residential development. In no case shall an impact fee apply to properties improved
with less than five thousand seven hundred fifty (5,750) square feet of interior floor
area as measured by the IBC. The fee collected for residential construction shall
reflect mitigation for second-home use unless a covenant is recorded on the property
restricting it to Pitkin County resident occupancy. The formula to determine the fee
amount for each specific residential development is as follows:
For residential development of 9,000 square feet or less:
-- Construction Employment for all Units = {[0.547 * (Unit FT² * .001)] \ 40}
-- Post-Construction Employment – Locally Occupied Unit = Exponent [-
4.67138 + (0.000328 * Unit FT²)]
-- Post-Construction Employment – Second/Vacation Home = Exponent [-
4.67138 + (0.000328 * Unit FT²) + 2.00514]
-- Total Employees = Employment + Post- Construction Employment
-- Impact Fee = Total Employees * $34,173
For Units over 9,000 square feet:
-- Add $1,141.67 per 1,000 square feet for locally occupied units
-- Add $5,515.00 per 1,000 square feet for second/vacation
See Table 8-2 for an Example Fee/Subsidy for Residential Development.
P132
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 54
• Commercial Development and Land Use: The impact fee will vary based on size and
type of commercial development. The formula to determine the fee amount is as
follows:
-- Number of Employees = Unit Size x Employee Generation
-- Fee = Number of Employees x $34,173
-- Employee Generation – Employee Generation Rate stated in Table 8-3
• Tourist/Lodge Accommodation Development and Land Use: The impact fee will
vary based on the number and type of rooms. There are two types of rooms –
historic/standard and luxury.
-- Impact fee for historic/standard tourist/lodge accommodation development or
land use will apply for all rooms in excess of 4:
Number of Employees = Number of Rooms x Employee Generation
Rate (0.3 employees per number of rooms over 4)
Fee = Number of Employees x $34,173
-- Impact fee for luxury tourist/lodge accommodation development or land use
is as follows:
Number of Employees = Number of Rooms x Employee Generation
Rate (1.1 employees per room)
Fee = Number of Employees x $34,173
• Impact Fee or Unclassified Development and Land Use: The employee housing
impact is based upon three classes of development: residential, commercial and
tourist/lodge accommodations. If the type of development proposed is not specified
as one of these three classes of development, the fee applicable shall be calculated
based upon the most comparable type of development and land use category
described above. If a property owner believes that there is no appropriate comparison
between the proposed development or land use and the three classes of development
described above or that the specific instance of proposed development would
generate employees at a significantly lower rate than indicated by the impact fee
schedule, then the property owner may submit an independent fee calculation study,
as described in Section 800, to suggest an alternative impact fee payment.
Unclassified development and land use shall mitigate one hundred (100) percent of
the impact of its employee generation.
Options to Defray the Payment of Impact Fees:
In order to mitigate the impacts of development upon the employee housing capital facilities,
a developer or property owner may be allowed to avoid full payment of the scheduled impact
fee through one or a combination of the following events. These events shall include and be
limited to the construction of deed restricted employee housing, the acquisition and deed
restriction of existing residential housing units, or the dedication of real property to Pitkin
County that will be used for the construction of employee housing. In no event shall the
exercise of any of these three options cause a developer or property owner to exceed the
impact fee schedule with the value of any construction, acquisition or dedication. The
decision of whether or not to accept an offered alternative to full payment of the impact fee is
a discretionary decision of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC may
accept or reject such offer based upon any reasonable consideration including, but not limited
P133
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 55
to any of the following: The type and location of the development to be mitigated; location of
the property that is offered; the physical condition of the offered property; the ability to
utilize the property in the employee housing program; the need for the type of property
offered:
• Construction Requirements for Employee Housing Units: Any employee housing
units developed in lieu of payment of a full impact fee shall meet the following
guidelines:
(1) All construction must comply with all regulations and required permits of the
Pitkin County Code.
(2) Size and materials used in the construction of employee housing shall be
specifically approved by either the BOCC or its housing designee, the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority. All employee housing units constructed shall be ready for
occupancy prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the free-market
development for which the deed restricted housing is in mitigation.
(3) A deed restriction to be recorded against the property shall be reviewed and
accepted by the BOCC and its County Attorney prior to acceptance of the unit for
mitigation of development impacts and/or prior to issuance of a building permit for
the unit.
• Requirements for Converted/Deed Restricted Units : Free-market units required in
lieu of full payment of the scheduled impact fee shall meet the following
requirements:
(1) All units must be specifically approved for mitigation by the BOCC or its
housing designee, the APCHA. The grant of this acceptance will be based upon the
location of the units and the physical quality of the housing units.
(2) The acquired and restricted units shall be ready for occupancy before the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy for the constructed free-market development whose
impact the deed restricted units mitigate.
(3) Prior to acceptance, the deed restriction recorded against the converted units shall
be approved by the BOCC or its County Attorney.
(c) Dedication of Real Property – All real property proposed by a developer or
property owner for dedication to Pitkin County in lieu of full payment of the
scheduled employee housing impact fee, shall be specifically accepted by the BOCC
through enactment of a County ordinance. The BOCC may reject or accept any
offered real property based upon any reasonable consideration. Included in the
criteria for consideration but not representative of all factors that may be considered
by the BOCC in accepting a real property dedication will be: the location of the
property; the size of the property to accommodate development of employee housing;
the existing zoning of the property; the environmental, topographic and soils
condition of the offered property; and the presence of any infrastructure or utilities.
Exemptions and Credits:
• Exemptions from Payment of Scheduled Impact Fees
(1) Employee Housing: No employee housing impact fee shall be imposed on the
construction of deed restricted employee housing as defined from time to time by the
BOCC or its housing designee, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
(2) Replacement, Restoration or Remodel of Existing Units: No employee housing
impact fee shall be charged for replacement or restoration for an improvement that
P134
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 56
was lost or damaged through fire, age or other event not precipitated by the owner of
the property. This exemption shall extend only so far as replacement or restoration for
the unit lost is being sought in its same location and at the same size and
configuration. No employee housing impact fee shall be charged for remodel
construction that does not increase the size of the residential structure. No exemption
shall be recognized for expansion of an existing structure.
• Credits
(1) Previous Payment and Exaction:
(a) Any fee imposed by this chapter shall be subject to offset and reduced to
reflect all previous payments, exactions, dedications or other mitigation made
in relation to the proposed use and development
(b) The value of any payment of any payment, exactions, dedications or other
mitigation made to Pitkin County shall be adjusted upward to reflect the
present value not the value at the time of the original payment, exaction or
dedication. This upward adjustment shall be based upon the annualized rate
of inflation as published in the Consumer Price Index (Denver/Boulder/
Greeley CPI-W) as established by the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics. If this index should be discontinued, then reference will be to
Denver/Boulder/Greeley CPI-U, and if this is not available, then to CPI-W
All Cities.
(c) If the previous dedication, contribution or exaction was made as a part of a
larger approval, i.e., subdivision or PUD review process, then the previous
contribution, dedication or exaction shall be apportioned between all the
properties of the approved development for which the previous contribution,
dedication or exaction was made.
(2) Change in Use: When the imposition of the employee housing impact fee is
required due to change in use, credit shall be recognized for ay legally established
use.
Impact Fee for “Small” Established Commercial Business:
• A “small” established commercial business” (a commercial business that has eight (8)
or fewer full time equivalent employees, that is less than five thousand (5,000) sq. ft.
of floor area, and that has operated continuously as the same type of business with the
same ownership, and in the same location in Pitkin County for a period exceeding
twenty (20) years that relocates and abandons an old facility and that constructs and
owns a new facility to accommodate the same small established commercial business
shall be required to pay only the employee housing impact fee that would be imposed
by Section 8-30-30 on the amount of additional floor area by which the new facility
exceeds the previously occupied facility.
• If a new facility is exempted in conformance with Section 8-30-60(a) above, and the
use of the facility changes prior to occupancy of the new facility or within five years
of occupancy of the new facility, an impact fee shall be required for the new facility
in accordance with the formula and computation of fees established in Section 8-30-
30. The fee owned will be that in effect at the time of the change in occupancy.
• A business utilizing this provision for reduction in/or exemption from the impact fee
shall be subject to periodic employee audits (not more than once every two years)
P135
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 57
which shall be undertaken by Pitkin County and which will be funded by the
business. Any increase in full time equivalent employees documented by an audit will
require the business to pay additional employee impact fees at 100% of the amount
that would be imposed for the additional employees by utilizing the formula and
computation of fees established in Section 8-30-30.
Impact Fee for Change of Use: When a “commercial development” facility changes in use
from one category to a more intensive category of use in terms of employee generation, an
impact fee shall be imposed according to Section 8-30-30 for the increase in employee
generation. The commercial facility is described below.
RESIDENTS PER DWELLING UNIT
Type of Dwelling Unit No. of Residents per Dwelling Unit
Studio 1.25 Residents
One Bedroom 1.75 Residents
Two Bedrooms 2.25 Residents
Three Bedrooms 3.00 Residents
Four or More Bedrooms 3.00 PLUS .5 Residents/Bedroom for
each bedroom over 3
Dormitory/Lodge 1.00 Resident/150 square feet of net
livable space as defined by Housing
designee
P136
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 58
Broadening the Role of Housing Efforts
in the Community -- Housing and Social Services
The KEY QUESTIONS to be addressed by this portion of the Worksession Agenda
are:
22. Are the joint efforts to develop affordable housing by Aspen and Pitkin County
through APCHA serving all segments of the community they should?
23. Should the scope of services, policies and capacity of APCHA be expanded to
more broadly serve emerging community needs?
24. What additional tools and financing sources are available to expand affordable
housing options in Aspen and Pitkin County? What if any additional tools should
we consider building capacity to use?
BACKGROUND:
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) identified the need to expand the
availability of affordable housing for all community residents through all phases of life.
Page 58 of the AACP specifically identified gaps in providing for the needs of the
“Lifelong Aspenite,” including adequate and affordable housing for all community
residents. Likewise, in the Housing Chapter (pg. 38) the AACP specifically identifies the
need to spread responsibility and accountability for developing affordable housing
projects to more than APCHA, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County.
The most recent version of the intergovernmental agreement between the City of Aspen
and Pitkin County creating the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority defines its
purpose as:
“The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (hereafter referred to as the
“Authority”) has been established as a multi-jurisdictional housing
authority for the purpose of assisting the City and County, upon request by
either party, in effecting the planning, financing, acquisition, construction,
development, reconstruction or repair, maintenance, management and
operation of housing projects pursuant to a multi-jurisdictional plan to
provide residential facilities and dwelling accommodations at rental or
sale prices within the means of families or persons of low, moderate and
middle income who are employed in the City or the County, who reside or
need to reside in the City or County, and who have identifiable needs for
affordable housing; e.g. limited incomes, senior citizens and disabled
persons, as defined by the Authority in published guidelines.”
–Fourth Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Creating
the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
P137
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 59
The Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines further narrowed the
purpose of APCHA:
“To assure the existence of a supply of desirable housing for persons
currently employed in Pitkin County, persons who were employed in
Pitkin County prior to retirement, the handicapped, and other qualified
persons of Pitkin County as defined herein.”
- APCHA Affordable Housing Guidelines, Purpose Statement
The APCHA guideline policy statements further narrow the scope of APCHA to:
“…the existence of the housing program is to provide housing
opportunities for persons who are or have been actively employed or self-
employed in Pitkin County and Aspen in businesses which provide goods
and services to individuals, businesses or institutional operations in Pitkin
County… All deed-restricted housing, or any type or category, requires an
individual to:
• Work full-time in Pitkin county (due to the seasonal nature of the
town, full-time is defined as working 1,500 hours per calendar
year) and as defined herein;
• Utilize their home as their primary residence; and
• Not own any other developed property within the Ownership
Exclusion Zone (hereinafter referred to as the “OEZ”) as defined
in Part X, Definitions
-APCHA Affordable Housing Guidelines, Housing Board
Policy Statements
The progression of policy statements from the Fourth Amended IGA creating the
Housing Authority through the Board Policy statements in the Affordable Housing
Guidelines systematically narrows the focus of who is served by APCHA. Specifically,
those excluded from receiving services as defined in the IGA include, but are not limited
to the unemployed, senior citizens, disabled persons, etc. who do not otherwise meet
guideline requirements (employment, etc.). Narrowing the population served by APCHA
also limits the resources the community can leverage for development of affordable
housing projects. Neither outcome is well aligned with the recently adopted AACP.
The remainder of this chapter will explore the growing housing needs for non-workforce
segments of our community. Likewise, we will briefly review opportunities to expand
services and funding sources to spread responsibility and accountability for affordable
housing in Aspen and Pitkin County.
P138
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 60
UNDERSTANDING THE NEED
The County’s partnership with APCHA and the City of Aspen on affordable housing has
historically focused on meeting workforce housing needs. This focus has been very
successful, however, over time, community demographics and needs have changed. The
key question is whether our housing efforts should remain focused on incremental
changes to our workforce housing program, or should it look at longer-term policy
changes to the scope and purpose of our affordable housing efforts?
Specific examples of emerging demographic trends and potential policy issues include:
Aging Population: Pitkin County’s population is aging which presents several
challenges for workforce housing. The population over age 65 in Pitkin county has
doubled from 2000 to 2010, while the overall population increased by only 15%. Even
among the very old, age 85 and older, the trend is consistent: those numbers have also
doubled. Poverty amongst our seniors is increasing too, due to the economy. The 2010
final U.S. Census Report identified the following (see Attachment I: Self Sufficiency for
Pitkin Elders):
• 246 people over age 60 below poverty ($11,139/yr.), or 7.4% of the total
population over age 60
• 535 people over age 60 below 185% of poverty, or 16% of the total population
over 60
A recent Rural Resort Region/Northwest Colorado Council of Governments conducted a
“Community Assessment Survey of Older Adults” which concluded that 2/3 of seniors
report they wish to stay in the community they have made their home; however, aging in
place presents challenges for APCHA:
• There has long been a concern that retirees residing in workforce housing will
increase the strain on the housing supply.
• Most retirees are on fixed incomes. Some are not yet at full retirement age but
have taken early retirement by choice or due to an inability to secure employment.
When housing expenses increase, seniors are particularly at risk, especially in our
shifting economy with limited job creation.
• Seniors still able to work face numerous challenges in securing employment.
There are limited opportunities for seniors to train/retool for the changing
employment market. Seniors also report facing ageism in the job market.
• Limited supply of category 1 and 2 housing units will become an issue with
greater numbers of low income retired workers. In addition, there is a limited
supply of housing vouchers, e.g. Section 8, for the very low income.
• Housing units were not necessarily built for accessibility and units are
deteriorating over time. Upgrades and maintenance can be difficult and costly for
senior owners. Recent additions to inventory are required by law to contain a
percentage of type B and type A units for the disabled. Adopting Universal design
standards that continue development of accessible units could help address this
issue going forward.
P139
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 61
• For some individuals, aging can result in functional and behavioral problems,
such as decreased vision, mobility and increased mental health, cognitive or even
personality problems. These changes can create challenges in both housing and
employment arenas.
• Studies show that pet companionship can be beneficial, particularly for seniors;
however pets are not permitted in many APCHA units. Typically, HOA’s set
standards for pet ownership in for sale housing. ADA and Fair Housing laws
require “reasonable accommodation” for assistance animals. However, such
exceptions can cause tensions in affordable housing developments that do not
otherwise allow animals, and does not account for the benefits of companion
animals.
• Seniors living in small units may find a need for additional space to house a
caregiver and/or an adult child in crisis.
While most seniors focus on meeting basic needs for safety and a desire for
independence, there are additional needs that are unique to individual seniors.
Accommodating seniors in APCHA housing is consistent with the community goals
stated in the AACP.
Accessibility and Accommodation of People with Disabilities: There remain concerns
about the lack of accessibility and accommodation for people with disabilities in our
community. Housing is a particular issue for people with disabilities. How a home is
configured, how much it costs and where it is located can mean the difference between
living independently and living in an institution. Unfortunately, for many people with
disabilities, housing is often inaccessible, unaffordable, segregated or all of the above.
According to the Center for Healthcare Strategies, there are four issues facing many
people with disabilities related to housing:
• Desire for personal control, autonomy and choice in one’s living situation;
• Extremely high rates of poverty;
• Desire to live in the same types of housing as non-disabled people, rather than in
segregated and restrictive settings; and
• Need for long-term services and supports in order to live as independently as
possible.
Too often accommodation for disabilities is limited to mobility impairments. The
definition of developmental disabilities is much broader and includes mental or physical
impairments or the combination of mental and physical impairments. The Federal
Definition is:
The term "developmental disability" means a severe, chronic disability of an
individual that:
(i) is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of
mental and physical impairments;
(ii) is manifested before the individual attains age 22;
(iii) is likely to continue indefinitely;
P140
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 62
(iv) results in substantial functional limitations in 3 or more of the following
areas of major life activity:
(I) Self-care.
(II) Receptive and expressive language.
(III) Learning.
(IV) Mobility.
(V) Self-direction.
(VI) Capacity for independent living.
(VII) Economic self-sufficiency; and
(VIII) Reflects the individual's need for a combination and sequence of
special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized
supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or
extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.
INFANTS AND YOUNG CHILDREN - An individual from birth to age 9,
inclusive, who has a substantial developmental delay or specific congenital or
acquired condition, may be considered to have a developmental disability without
meeting 3 or more of the criteria described above if the individual, without
services and supports, has a high probability of meeting those criteria later in
life.
In almost every country, people with disabilities are one of the largest and fastest
growing segments of the population. Whether disability is acquired from birth, illness,
traumatic injury or the aging process, it is part of the natural condition and will impact
virtually all of us at some point in our lives.
Current information on people with disabilities in Pitkin County and the Roaring Fork
Valley:
• 40 people from Aspen to Rifle are on the autism spectrum (Roaring Fork Autism
Network)
• 494 people served by Mountain Valley Developmental Services (MVDS). 269
children age birth to 3, 82 families of children 4-21, 143 adults.
• There are currently 80 adults on MVDS waiting list waiting for services
(Mountain Valley Developmental Services serve Pitkin, Eagle, Garfield and Lake
Counties)
• 21 adults and 4 children in Pitkin County are on Medicaid Waivers served by
Northwest Options for Long Term Care
• There is an additional population of people with physical disabilities not currently
served by the above agencies and people with developmental disabilities that are
private pay. We have no way of finding the total numbers.
Under APCHA’s current policy guidelines the disabled population cannot be
accommodated unless they meet employment requirements.
P141
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 63
APCHA currently includes some units designated as handicap accessible, but these units
typically go to non-disabled people if there is not someone with a disability and qualified
under the current guidelines. They remain occupied for years by able-bodied people,
which make accessible units even more difficult to obtain.
There is an insufficient supply of housing that meets the best practice criteria below and
could result in people with disabilities living in inappropriate housing, institutions or on
the streets.
• Accessibility, to accommodate limited mobility or other needs.
• Affordability, to address the significant financial burden of a disability such as
attendant or medical care, a large number of people with disabilities live below
the federal poverty level. There are people currently living in Pitkin County that
have significant developmental disabilities and work in the County, but due to
their disabilities cannot work enough hours to meet eligibility requirements.
These individuals could benefit from affordable/accessible housing, but the
current guidelines prevent eligibility.
• Integration, to address the often segregated or otherwise isolated nature of
existing accessible housing from the larger community. People with disabilities
do not want to live in “group homes”. Most people prefer to live and be part of
their own community amongst non-disabled people.
A FEW REAL LIFE STORIES IN PITKIN COUNTY
Max Grange- Max lives with his mother in an accessible home in The Crossings in
Snowmass. The home was totally customized to his needs on the first floor. Max is on
the Consumer Director Attendant Service program from the State of Colorado where he
receives funding for 4 care providers to come to his home and help with his care. Max
works part time for Challenge Aspen as a marketing assistant and part time for the Aspen
Animal shelter writing descriptions for dogs to help get them adopted. He also does
public speaking on his talking machine to local Pitkin County organizations (schools,
Rotary etc). He works approximately 8-10 hours a week due to his physical limitations.
Max is 25 years old and would love to live in the home independently with his care
providers, but the rules call for his mother to continue to live in the home since she is the
person who works 40 hours per week and won the opportunity to own the home through
the lottery system. If something happens to Max’s mom, under the current guidelines, he
would lose the home and most likely end up in a group home or nursing home in
Glenwood Springs.
Lavender Family: Mr. Lavender was an avid cyclist. He recently had a mountain biking
accident in the RFV that left him paralyzed from the neck down. He has a wife and 3
children, one is a new born. They are currently living in a motel room in Carbondale due
to the unavailability of accessible housing. His wife cannot work because she must care
for her husband and 3 children. Mr. Lavender may be able to work eventually, but most
likely for limited hours.
P142
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 64
David Moya is a RFV resident who had an accident on a 4 wheeler. After returning back
to the Valley from the hospital, his family did not have accessible housing and were not
able to care for him. David was sent to live in a nursing home in Glenwood where he
resided for over a year until very recently. He now lives in a home as a roommate, but
does not have adequate space for his power wheelchair.
Bill Bernard is a 24 year old on the autism spectrum. Bill is very active in the Aspen
community. He would like to live outside his home with the supports of his care
providers. Due to his autism, he cannot work 40 hours a week and qualify for affordable
housing. Rentals in Aspen are very costly and may prohibit Bill from getting his own
place and being more independent and able to live outside of his parent’s home.
UNDERSTANDING THE OPPORTUNITIES
Support Services to Help People in Crisis Stay in Housing: According to the Colorado
Center on Law and Policy (Attachment J):
“The income families need to pay basic expense in Pitkin County, such as
housing, child care and food is much higher than the government’s official
Federal Poverty Level. A Pitkin county family with one adult and one
preschooler, for example, needs annual income of $59,408 to make ends-meet,
more than four times the federal benchmark.”
When looking at the monthly income required for families of different sizes to be self
sufficient, it is easy to see how one event (medical, employment, car trouble, injury,
property damage) can throw a family (or individual) into a fiscal crisis.
“Supportive housing” is understood to be a cost-effective combination of housing and
services intended to help people live more stable, productive lives. It can be coupled with
such social services as job training, life skills training, alcohol and drug abuse programs,
community support services (e.g. child care, educational programs, public assistance,
counseling, transportation) and case management to populations in need of assistance.
Sponsors of supportive housing projects generally aim to serve specific populations.
Targeted population groups that might be served by supportive housing in APCHA
include:
• Long-term unemployed individuals
• Elders (those who choose or require supportive services in a regular housing
environment)
• Victims of domestic violence who need to leave their current living situation for
safety reasons
• Mental health clients/residents who have been diagnosed with a mental illness
such as depression, schizophrenia disorders, bipolar disorders, anxiety disorders,
or dementia
• People with multiple needs, including medical ones (including people who have
alcoholism, addictions, physical disabilities or other chronically illnesses)
• Veterans relocating to our community
P143
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 65
• People maturing out of transitional housing (recovery homes and halfway houses)
Support services can be integral to maintaining the housing, the tenant or cooperative
relationships, the financial and economic security, the contribution to the family and
neighborhoods, and the growth opportunities to return to a valued life situation.
Supportive housing encompasses a range of approaches including single sites (housing
developments or apartment buildings in which units are designated as supportive
housing) or scattered site programs in which participants often use rent subsidies to
obtain housing from private landlord and supportive services may be provided through
home visits. Services in supportive housing are flexible and primarily focused on the
outcome of housing stability.
It is difficult to develop a one-size-fits-all design for supportive housing. Case
management as mentioned below is the single most valuable tool to employ in evaluating
and developing solutions for complex situations. Support services such as case
management can be used as an integral part of these proposed ideas and solutions:
• Determine when an individual is not in compliance with APCHA guidelines,
evaluate the reasons (voluntary vs. involuntary) and seek solutions .
• Encourage/incentivize seniors to downsize to smaller units when family size
shrinks and offer assistance with a process and options that enable retirees to
remain in the neighborhood they have always lived in if desired.
• Consider ways to accommodate seniors (and/or those with disability) who need a
larger unit for longer term needs, such as a live-in caregiver or to house a disabled
adult child.
• Develop an appeal board as part of the solution process, for the purpose of
evaluating unusual situations for resolution and appropriate action.
• Allow for some flexibility of APCHA rules in hardship situations, including
unemployment, or a health crisis. APCHA currently uses enforcement discretion
to provide relief for hardship situations, but does not have specific policy
guidance or authority to identify and provide relief for hardship situations.
• There are clear definitions for disability. Consider using a “presumptive” method
(if a person is on SSI or SSDI, they have already been vetted as having a
disability) to determine who may qualify for a waiver of affordable housing work
requirements. As mentioned for hardship situations, APCHA guidelines would
need to be changed with approval of the City and County.
• New construction of affordable housing should be designed with accessibility in
mind. At least some units should be constructed without any stairs, and with
general “visitability” standards. These standards have been incorporated in recent
affordable housing projects in the City of Aspen.
• In the meantime, existing units in many cases could be gradually adapted as
needed for successful “aging in place.” A policy to assist aging
employees/retirees/disabled by adding grab bars and other safety mechanisms will
allow for longer term independence.
• Consider ways to allow companion animals, perhaps in limited areas of certain
complexes, with fees for maintenance, etc. Include other residents who will be
P144
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 66
impacted, in the decisions on allowing pets and related rules. This is in addition
to allowing properly documented support animals MUST be accommodated per
ADA and FHA rules.
• Provide transitional housing for seniors and others in crisis with intensive
services.
• Pursue additional resources for people on low, fixed incomes such as Section 8
and other vouchers.
• Work with CCRC developers to evaluate how low-income APCHA residents in
need of long-term care will be accommodated in the CCRC’s proposed plan for
low-income units. Partnering on these types of projects will likely require new
revenue streams for funding (see next section).
• Educate the younger employee population about the expense of aging and
retirement, and encourage planning for the future while enjoying the financial
benefits of APCHA housing.
POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES
Primary funding sources for development of affordable housing have historically been
applied to meet APCHA’s mission of providing workforce housing (RETT, sales tax,
Payment in Lieu of Housing, and Housing Impact Fees). Current limitations on ‘who’
can be served by APCHA limits our ability to leverage financing tools used by other
communities to develop affordable housing projects that serves all segments of the
community. Following are examples of financing tools to develop affordable housing
projects followed by an overview of projects that have combined these tools in other rural
Colorado Communities.
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
HUD’s section 8 housing vouchers are the Federal Governments main program to help
low income families’ access decent, safe and affordable housing. The Section 8 Program
was authorized by Congress in 1974 and developed by HUD to provide rental subsidies
for eligible tenant families (including single persons) residing in newly constructed,
rehabilitated and existing rental and cooperative apartment projects. Pitkin has (15)
section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers’ with the Division of Housing; Eagle has (11) and
Garfield (5 from DOH, and over 400 from HUD). Pitkin’s Section 8 vouchers are
managed through Garfield Housing. HCV's are either project-based, where the voucher
and subsidy stays with a property or tenant-based where the voucher is issued to a tenant
and they may take it to any unit (private or public – subsidized or unsubsidized in their
community that accepts section 8 rental assistance. HUD has issued communication that
they do not intend to provide Housing Authorities any additional HCV's. So in this case,
housing authorities can petition the Division of Housing for HCV's in their community,
which is followed by a request for application (RFA) process. Please note, a RFA for
project based HCV's was just issued with a deadline for November 1st.
Other vouchers like HUD 811 (for people with disabilities) or HUD 202 (seniors) are
project based and can be applied for through DOH. A recent RFA included the 811
program. The DOH does not currently have 202 funding but there is hope for HUD to
release the process of applying for this subsidy. Section 202 Loan Programs
P145
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 67
provides interest-free capital advances to finance the construction, rehabilitation, or
acquisition with or without rehabilitation of structures that will serve as supportive
housing for very low-income elderly persons, including the frail elderly. It provides rent
subsidies for the projects to help make them affordable.
The capital advance does not have to be repaid as long as the project serves very low-
income elderly persons for 40 years. Project rental assistance funds are provided to cover
the difference between the HUD-approved operating cost for the project and the tenants'
contribution toward rent. Project rental assistance contracts are approved initially for five
years and are renewable based on the availability of funds.
In terms of the criteria for a Housing Authority or a building: a Housing Authority cannot
project-base more than 20% of their HCV's and a building cannot be more than 25%
project-based (unless it's for a special needs population e.g. 811). In order for a building
to be eligible to apply to HUD for a project-based rental assistance contract (this helps
with the permanent financing), it must have recently been awarded funding through
another competitive process like HOME, CDBG, or Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program was established by the Tax
Reform Act of 1986. The program became active in 1987 and is a major federal program
supporting the creation and preservation of rental housing affordable for low-income
households. It authorizes (subject to an annual per capita limit) state housing finance
agencies and a limited number of other administrators to issue LIHTCs competitively to
developers of affordable housing projects. LIHTCs may be used to support the
acquisition, new construction, or rehabilitation of affordable housing. The credits can be
used by property owners to reduce federal income taxes or are often transferred to equity
investors who contributed initial development funds for a project. The LIHTC program
includes two rates of subsidy: 9 percent credits and 4 percent credits.
• 9 percent credits. The 9 percent credits are used to support new construction and
substantial rehabilitation projects that are not otherwise subsidized by the federal
government.
• 4 percent credits. The 4 percent credits are used to support the acquisition of
eligible, existing buildings and for new construction or rehabilitation projects that
are also supported by other federal subsidy programs. The 4 percent rate also
applies to projects that are financed through the issuance of volume-cap
multifamily tax-exempt bonds (the associated LIHTCs are sometimes called 'as of
right' credits because they are automatically attached to the volume-cap bonds).
• Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP). The QAP is the guidance that agencies
administering LIHTC provide to potential developers of tax credit projects. It
details the selection criteria and application requirements for LIHTCs and tax-
exempt bonds.
For projects receiving either 9 percent or 4 percent rates, the relevant rate is applied to the
qualified basis for the designated project annually for a 10-year period, resulting in a 10-
year stream of tax credits. These credits may be used by the developer/owner or sold to
P146
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 68
investors or syndicators to raise equity for the project. Pitkin County has three LIHTC
properties now; Aspen Country Inn (40 units); Truscott Phase II (87 units) and Maroon
Creek Club (42 units). APCHA is the general partner for ACI and T-2.
There are several state and federal programs that provide financial assistance to cities and
counties that provide accessible and affordable housing for people with disabilities.
Colorado currently has a grant to get 500 people out of regional centers and nursing
homes and the biggest barrier is community housing, especially, accessible housing. The
State is pursuing more congregate housing set aside, but, community housing is best,
especially if it is already built. Currently in Colorado there are several housing
vouchers/waivers for people with disabilities:
• The Elderly, Blind and Disabled (EBD waiver) has 22,400 people on it, many
of which get home health care,
• The Comprehensive waiver has 3,012 people on it, and
• Supported Living Services waiver or SLS has 4,007 on it.
• The waiting list for these vouchers is at 4,000 and those individuals must
have housing with their family or non-govt. sponsored housing or they are
homeless.
There are many more funding tools available to promote affordable housing depending
on the nature of a project, and the demographic served (e.g. Limited Equity Housing
Cooperatives, HUD’s HOME program, USDA Housing Preservation Grant Program,
etc.). Each has unique requirements to initiate and oversee.
Examples of Affordable Housing Funding Partnerships in Mountain Communities
(provided by Colorado Department of Local Affairs):
1. Village Court Apartments: Mountain Village, CO, San Miguel County
• 222 affordable units designed for workforce and family housing:
efficiencies, one, two, and three-bedroom units available
• 13 buildings developed in stages (1991-2001)
• Funded through private town funds, bond financing, and Colorado
Division of Housing (DOH) Subsidy
• Affordable units available to workforce, but also section 8 qualified
individuals and families.
• The Town is responsible for the Property Management and
maintenance of the facility, but has formed a partnership with the local
Housing Authority (San Miguel Regional Housing Authority) to place
residents with tenant-based Section 8 vouchers in units. Housing
Authority qualifies residents and verifies income for Section 8 tenants.
2. Middle Creek Village Apartments: Vail, CO, Eagle County
• 142 affordable units: 0, 1, 2, & 3-bedrooms
• Developed in 2002-2003
• Predominately affordable workforce housing; also available to other
tenants & families, Section 8 voucher holders may reside here as well.
P147
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 69
• Financed through: Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC’s), bond
financing, DOH grant + low interest loan, and conventional debt
• Also includes a partnership with the Town of Vail. The town
continues to own the land where the development was built.
3. Riverview Apartments: Avon, CO, Eagle County
• 72 units of project-based section 8 housing available to low and
moderate households in Eagle County
• Originally financed through a Housing Assistance contract with HUD,
rehabilitation took place in 2010 to update the property and extend the
affordability period.
• Financed through LIHTC’s, DOH grants, and a first mortgage- debt
service covered by rental assistant payments (section 8)
4. Spring Tree Village Apartments: Durango, CO, La Plata County
• 27 units of affordable Senior Housing 1 bedroom units in Durango
• Financed through a Rural Development (RD) grant LIHTC’s and
funding from the Colorado Housing and finance Authority
• Residents all earning at or below 50% or Area Median Income and pay
only 30% of their income towards rent as outlined by the RD
agreement.
• An on-site manager lives in the one market rate unit to provide
services to the residents and manage the overall property
5. New Castle Senior Housing: New Castle, CO, Garfield County
• 24 units of affordable senior housing in New Castle Colorado (outside
of Glenwood Springs)
• Financed by the HUD 202 loan program and additional grants,
including DOH
• No additional debt on the property and the site includes an on-site
manager and is fully accessible for the seniors on the property.
• Housing and Urban Development Voucher Programs (Section 8):
• Housing and Urban Development has several voucher programs to
help very-low and low income individuals.
Enhancing Local Capacity
The Federal and State housing resources presents a complicated landscape for Pitkin and
City of Aspen to navigate. Blending new local, state and federal funds to develop
affordable community and supportive housing presents new challenges for APCHA.
However, we have untapped resources available to enhance our local capacity to support
our most vulnerable populations. Taking advantage of these resources requires a change
in APCHA policies, as well as development of new knowledge and skill set’s within
APCHA and the community to put these complex deals together. As demonstrated, we
would not be the first. There are resources in the public and private sectors (e.g.
Department of Local Affairs and consultants) that other mountain communities have used
to determine market needs as well as maximization of external resources.
P148
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 70
References: 1. Report, Colorado Center on Law and Policy, “The Self Sufficiency Standards for Colorado 2011.” Colorado Center on Law and Policy, Denver, CO 2011 2. “Fourth Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.” Recorded 01/02/2008 3. “Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines.” Amended and Approved January 2012 4. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “HUD Housing Choice Vouchers Fact Sheet” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. www.hud.gov 9/20/2012 5. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “HUD Multi-Family Housing Program Description” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. www.hud.gov 9/20/2012 6. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Housing for the Elderly (section 202) 2012.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. www.hud.gov 9/20/2012 7. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “LIHTC Eligibility.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. www.hud.gov 9/20/2012 8. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. “Supportive housing and Homeless Programs (SHHP).” Colorado Department of Local Affairs. www.colorado.gov. 9/20/2012 9. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. “General Introduction 202 Program.” Colorado Department of Local Affairs. www.colorado.gov. 9/20/2012 10. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. “LIHTC Basics – Affordable Housing.” Colorado Department of Local Affairs. www.colorado.gov. 9/20/2012 11. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. “How do Housing Tax Credits Work?” Colorado Department of Local Affairs. www.colorado.gov. 9/20/2012 12. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. “Allocating Housing Tax Credits.” Colorado Department of Local Affairs. www.colorado.gov. 9/20/2012 13. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. “Grants and Loans for Housing Developers.” Colorado Department of Local Affairs. www.colorado.gov. 9/20/2012 14. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. “HOME Programs.” Colorado Department of Local Affairs. www.colorado.gov. 9/20/2012 15. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. “Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8).” Colorado Department of Local Affairs. www.colorado.gov. 9/20/2012 16. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. “HUD Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Program” Colorado Department of Local Affairs. www.colorado.gov. 9/20/2012 17. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. “Housing Development Loan Fund.” Colorado Department of Local Affairs. www.colorado.gov. 9/20/2012 18. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. “Housing Development Grant Fund.” Colorado Department of Local Affairs. www.colorado.gov. 9/20/2012 19. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. “Supportive Housing.” Wikipedia (multiple authors). www.wikipedia.org. 9/19/2012
P149
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 71
APCHA’S HISTORICAL ROLE
It is accurate to say that the APCHA employee housing program has been successful as
designed and that most remain comfortable with its purpose statement:
“To assure the existence of a supply of desirable housing for persons currently
employed in Pitkin County, persons who were employed in Pitkin County prior to
retirement, the handicapped, and other qualified persons of Pitkin County as
define herein.”
as expressed on page two of the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines.
Yet when one considers the possibility of a sustained need for higher levels of social
services to those at-risk, it seems an appropriate moment to consider APCHA as more
than an agent for workforce housing going forward.
Aspen and Pitkin County’s long established housing programs were designed and
approved to provide housing for the local workforce. This housing is referred to
variously as employee housing, affordable housing or workforce housing. The program is
administered by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) through an Inter-
Governmental Agreement between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County. Additionally
APCHA is a sanctioned Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Authority by Colorado statute
(CRS 29-1-204.5). The funding for APCHA is almost entirely generated through local
revenue sources and makes almost no use of state or federal funding.
As a Colorado Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Authority, the APCHA Board of Directors
may, contingent on a public vote and other specific requirements and limitations, levy a
sales tax or use tax or both, levy an ad valorem tax, condemn property for public use, and
establish and adjust a development impact fee. Thus far, APCHA has not used any of
these provisions to generate revenue. Currently, the city and county each have taxes or
impact fees that generate revenue for employee housing development, which are then
administered by APCHA. This is an unusual arrangement among housing authorities but
it has proven to be an effective one.
The APCHA program does contain some provisions that provide advantages for local
retired workers and those who become disabled while working in Pitkin County.
Specifically, if one works full time in Pitkin County for at least four years prior to their
disability or to the age of sixty-five (or the age specified in their deed restriction) they can
then retire and remain in their APCHA housing for the rest of their lives if they so
choose. They must continue to satisfy the other keystone requirements of the program by
living in their APCHA housing nine months out of each year, and by not owning other
developed property in the Ownership Exclusion Zone as define in the Guidelines.
Other normal obligations must also be maintained, such as rent payments, mortgage
payments, HOA assessments, taxes and so on.
There is no established “social safety net” for those in APCHA housing that cannot meet
the financial obligations of their housing.
P150
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 72
APCHA no longer develops housing, relying instead on the city and county to do so.
Therefore concerns expressed about the accessibility and accommodation of people with
disabilities fall to the city and county to provide when building new housing. In existing
housing, APCHA is required in all cases, to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
When recent local discussions began about APCHA incorporating other populations of
need into the established housing program, APCHA sought to remind the citizens that the
housing administered by APCHA is not only subject to the APCHA Guidelines approved
by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County each year but more importantly, nearly every unit
in the inventory has attached to it a deed restriction which requires that the units be
owned or leased by local qualified employees, qualified retired employees, or qualified
employees that became disabled while working in Pitkin County. These deed restrictions
reflect the obligations which have been the basis for the public subsidies and for the
requirements imposed on local developers. The deed restrictions are permanent and they
cannot be changed or ignored based on the need for housing for other purposes, such as
the unemployed and the homeless. The APCHA Guidelines implement and fine tune the
requirements of the deed restrictions but they cannot be used to change their basic
requirements.
The employee housing program administered by APCHA is based on the promises made
to the voters for almost forty years as to the use of public assets and the legal obligations
embodied in the deed restrictions, which are binding contracts. APCHA’s existing
housing cannot be used for other purposes. Exceptions (limited in duration) can be
granted by the APCHA board of Directors based on careful review of the totality of
circumstances, on a case by case basis. Again, promises and representations were made to
the voters that the benefit of APCHA housing is for qualified employees.
That is not to say that a future portion of APCHA housing could not be created and
administered to assist Individuals/families with other needs and that do not require
mandatory employment. The current purpose of the APCHA could be expanded if local
legislative changes are adopted regarding an expanded purpose of APCHA housing, and
if new funding sources are dedicated to serve those new purposes.
Perhaps as a result of the widespread economic hardships our nation has experienced
recently, APCHA and other local service providers are experiencing a higher than
“normal” number of individuals or families on the edge in one or more ways. This local
experience is echoed by a growing number of communities across the region, state, and
country. In response, housing authorities across Colorado have been meeting to share
their experiences concerning these larger challenges and to share how they are
responding to them. They relate that the increasing number of those in need have reached
a point where “Greyhound Therapy”, buying an occasional at-risk individual a one way
bus ticket to somewhere far away, is not a good option.
P151
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 73
They agree that it is very important for each community to understand the nature and
number of at risk people in their jurisdiction. Once that has been established, an
objective discussion can take place to see what might be done. Such an effort is currently
underway throughout Colorado, with Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield counties having already
begun to survey their populations. The information gathered is the basis for a metric
called the Vulnerability Index. It is a component of the Colorado Counts program, which
is a collaborative effort between communities, governments, and the Office of Governor
John Hickenlooper.
The standard Vulnerability Index tools identify those with life threatening health issues.
The survey we are involved with has added questions that identify vulnerability caused
by:
• Behaviors or circumstances which jeopardize health, life and or housing;
• At-risk for system involvement; and
• Frequent user of emergency services
Once this effort has been completed across the region and state, each participating
community will have a better understanding of the number and types of at-risk
populations in their jurisdictions and they will be able to understand the dimensions of
the larger regional and state needs. It is thought that this information will present
opportunities for state and regional collaboration.
Other housing programs in Colorado, typically in larger and more urban jurisdictions,
coordinate to help service the needs of a variety of populations beyond those of the
workforce. It is widely accepted that housing is one of the cornerstone needs that should
be addressed early, if other problems are to have any hope of succeeding. Our look into
these programs indicates to us that such housing programs collaborate with a variety of
other service providers to be able to offer the services most in need in their community.
They often access a variety of federal, state, and local government funding opportunities,
which is an expertise that APCHA has never had to develop due to the relative wealth of
our county. Faith based organizations and businesses are also important partners in many
communities.
It is easy to imagine a host of service challenges across the country that communities
have in common (substance abuse) or those that are more unique for one reason or
another. For instance, areas with warmer climates often have higher numbers of
homelessness, in part, because shelter is not as critical a need; some communities have
large populations of compulsive gamblers (Las Vegas); and still others may have
increased mental health challenges associated with near constant cloud cover and/or long
nights (Oregon, Alaska). Each community or region can identify and define the depth
and breadth of their local challenges and responses.
Locally there has been increased conversation about expanding the housing program to
complement other populations of need. The professionals involved in what most think of
as social service issues, are on the front lines of addressing the needs of the most
P152
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 74
vulnerable in our community and they have expressed that the vulnerabilities or
combinations of vulnerabilities that they see, go beyond purely social service issues and
would be better served by a wider community understanding and an increased integration
of available services and by establishing new services as indicated by needs assessments.
Such an integration of services usually have a housing component; in fact one national
program called Housing First has a simple premise that is easy to grasp: The more quickly
a person or family moves into housing, the sooner they can stabilize their life and address
other issues. Housing assistance is the first priority, followed by case-management;
mental health and substance abuse counseling, employment and other services that help
sustain stability and self sufficiency.
Such an integration of services is not limited to urban centers. Many small communities
have been making progress in addressing a variety of these needs. Grand Junction has
been successfully integrating their housing program with an ever expanding range of
services for a few years now. The La Plata County Housing Authority has been
embarking on a similar mission for less than a year and the housing director there is
excited about the progress they are experiencing. Essentially, La Plata County Housing
Authority addresses the challenges by building the housing and turning it over to social
services.
It is not unusual for well integrated programs to experience reduced need and expense for
hospital emergency treatment, law enforcement, jails, prosecutions, short term shelters,
and the like. According to the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, the average cost of
frequent service users is $43,239/person per year. After they are housed, service
utilization is reduced to $11,694.
It is certainly possible for Aspen and Pitkin County to adopt programs that integrate
housing and other community needs when additional housing is acquired or produced
(excepting properties already purchased but not yet built).
It is very unlikely that such programs can be accommodated in existing APCHA housing
without running afoul of past approvals, regulations and contractual obligations. APCHA
stands ready to cooperate in support of an expanded community response to the
challenges of social service or other community needs.
P153
I.
Strategic Review of Housing 75
Appendix - Definitions
Total income included in Tables 1 through 3 equals the sum of the amounts reported
separately for wage or salary income; net self-employment income; interest, dividends, or net
rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; Social Security; Supplemental
Security Income (SSI); public assistance or welfare payments; retirement, survivor, or
disability pensions; and all other income.
A household as reported in Tables 1 through 3 and Table 8 includes all the people who
occupy a housing unit (a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single
room that is occupied) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which
the occupants live separately from any other people in the building and which have direct
access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a
single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other
group of related or unrelated people who share living arrangements.
Employment reported in Tables 17 through 19 is based on a survey and captures
individuals 16 years and over in the civilian non-institutional population who, during the
reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their
own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid
workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not
working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of
vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-
management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they
were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only
once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity
consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or
volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.
P154
I.
P155
I.
ATTACHMENTS
P156
I.
P157
I.
Attachment A
FOURTH AMENDED AND RESTATED
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING
AUTHORITY
P158
I.
P159
I.
Attachment B
BY LAWS of the
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING
AUTHORITY
P160
I.
P161
I.
Attachment C
APCHA
Affordable Housing Guidelines
P162
I.
P163
I.
Attachment D
APCHA
Presentation to Pitkin County
Board of County Commissioners on July 3, 2012
in re: Housing Program
P164
I.
P165
I.
Attachment E
Maps of Current
Rental/Ownership Inventory
in the Housing System
P166
I.
P167
I.
Attachment F
Summary of
Capital Reserve Studies
P168
I.
P169
I.
Attachment G
Brainstorm List of Possible Funding Solutions to
Capital Reserve Shortfalls by Housing Frontiers
Group
P170
I.
P171
I.
Attachment H
2012 EPS Study
“Employee Housing Demand Study”
P172
I.
P173
I.
Attachment I
POD Presentation-BOCC and Regional March
2012 -- Colorado Center on Law and Policy: The
Self-Sufficiency Standard for Colorado 2011
P174
I.
P175
I.
Attachment J
Pitkin County Self-Sufficiency Standard Chart
P176
I.
P177
I.
Attachment K
Aspen Area Community Plan
Housing Chapter
P178
I.
P179
I.
Attachment L
RETT/Sales Tax for Housing Ballot Language
P180
I.
P181
I.
P182
I.
Acknowledgements
This book was put together with the help
of the following city and county staff:
Pete Strecker Phylis Mattice
Chris Everson Cindy Houben
Tom McCabe Nan Sundeen
Cindy Christensen Jon Peacock
Don Taylor
Scott Miller
Barry Crook
P183
I.
M EMORANDUM
To: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager,
City of Aspen
From: Andy Knudtsen and Brian Duffany,
Economic & Planning Systems
Subject: Employee Housing Demand Model
Date: August 11, 2012
The City of Aspen and Pitkin County are preparing for a Housing Summit
during the summer of 2012. In 2002, Economic & Planning Systems
(EPS) prepared the Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan for the City.
The Strategic Plan contained a forecast of employee housing needs
based on a goal of housing 60 percent of the workforce in the Aspen
Area. The City requested that EPS update this forecast with new data
from more recent housing surveys as well as more recent economic and
demographic data. This memorandum describes the methodology, data,
and assumptions used to estimate employee housing demand for the
Aspen Area.
The analysis begins with employment and commuting trend data for the
2001-2009 time period. The analysis then provides the following
forecasts and estimates for the 2012 through 2022 time period:
Employment trends for Pitkin County;
Total regional housing demand from 2012 through 2022;
Percentage of local and commuter households;
New housing needed to keep up with employment growth;
Employee inventory lost due to retirement and gentrification/
redevelopment; and
New housing needed to keep up with employment growth and to
offset the impacts of retirement and gentrification.
In addition, the Appendix contains an update and revision to the City’s
2007 analysis which projected the number of retirees in deed restricted
housing. City staff has been provided with a spreadsheet model that
allows one to test different assumptions of deed restricted housing
production, loss of employee inventory due to retirement and
redevelopment of market rate attainable units, and locally housed
workers vs. commuter goals.
P184
I.
Memorandum August 11, 2012
Employee Housing Demand Model Page 2
Executive Summary
Housing demand is typically driven by growth in employment. Accordingly, EPS has projected
employment growth over the next decade and estimated the corresponding need to house these
employees. In addition, Pitkin County faces housing impacts from retirees and gentrification. The
findings from this analysis indicate that the combined impact of the increase in retirees living in
deed restricted housing and continued gentrification will generate housing demand that exceeds
housing needed to meet employment growth. The updated retirement projections indicate that
the increase in units occupied by retirees alone is likely to exceed the number of units needed to
accommodate new employees. In addition to constructing housing to meet job and labor force
growth, the City and County will also need to construct housing to replace units occupied by
retirees if it is desired to maintain the current commuting and jobs-housing ratios.
Pitkin County is conservatively projected to add approximately 1,100 jobs over the next 10
years, as shown in Table 1. After adjusting for multiple job holders and multiple wage earners in
households, there is a need for 530 new housing units in the Aspen and Roaring Fork Region. To
maintain current commuting levels, with approximately 47 percent of the workforce living in
Pitkin County and 53 percent commuting, it is estimated that 247 housing units are needed in
price ranges affordable by local employees. Projections of retirees prepared by EPS, building on
the City of Aspen staff’s work in 2007, suggest that retirement could have a larger impact on the
labor force and housing availability than job growth.
Table 1
Summary of Employment and Housing Forecasts
Aspen Area Affordable Housing Strategy Update
Description201220222012-2022
Pitkin County Employment Forecast (Jobs)21,54122,6431,102
Employee Housing Need - Employment Growth
Regional Total------530
In Aspen Area, Maintain ~53% Commuting------247
Employee Housing Need - Retirement and Gentrification
Units Occupied by Retirees248614367
Units Lost to Gentrification/Redevelopment---160 160
Total248774527
Total Housing Need
Employment Growth, Maintain 47% Resident-Employees------247
Replace Retirement/Gentrification Units------527
Total 774
Commuting - No New Employee Housing Built
Live in Aspen Area46.9%39.8%
Commute53.1%60.2%
Total100.0%100.0%
Commuting - Build Needed Employee Housing
Live in Aspen Area47%47%
Commute53%53%
Total100%100%
Source: City of Aspen and Economic & Planning Systems
H:\21900-Aspen Strategic Housing Plan Update\Models\[21900-Empl Housing Model 08-06-2012.xlsx]Summary
P185
I.
Memorandum August 11, 2012
Employee Housing Demand Model Page 3
It is estimated that there are 248 retired households living in deed restricted housing today and
that this number will grow to 774 by 2022, an increase of 527. These 527 housing units will
therefore be unavailable to the local labor force and will need to be replaced to avoid an increase
in commuting, impacts on employers’ abilities to attract and retain employees, and employees’
quality of life.
A large number of Pitkin County employee households, estimated at 1,530 in 2012, also live in
market rate but attainable housing. While difficult to estimate, EPS has assumed that 16 of these
units will be lost each year, on average, due to gentrification effects such as redevelopment or
second home conversions. This is half of the average number of demolitions that occurred in
Aspen from 2005 through 2008. This estimate is based on limited data and should be studied
further to better understand and estimate the labor force impacts. The calculations in this
analysis result in a loss of 160 units due to gentrification. The combined impact of retirement and
gentrification is approximately 527 housing units; these would need to be replaced in the Aspen
Area to maintain the same levels of resident employment.
If no new housing is built that is affordable to employees and the projections for retirement and
gentrification are met, the percentage of commuting employees would increase from approximately
53 percent in 2012 to 60 percent in 2022. Conversely, the proportion of employees who live in
Pitkin County would drop from 47 percent in 2012 to 40 percent in 2022. Over the next 10
years 247 new housing units are needed to meet employment growth and maintain
commuting patterns, while 527 additional units are needed to mitigate retirement and
gentrification effects for a total need of 774 units.
Data Sources
Data sources include publicly available secondary data as well as primary data compiled by the
City of Aspen through household and employee surveys. This section provides a summary of the
data sources used.
Employment Data
Three sources of employment data are used in this analysis, as described below.
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) – BEA provides estimates of total jobs or
“employment” by type. Total employment is comprised of wage and salary jobs covered by
unemployment insurance programs, proprietor employment, farm employment, and other
government and miscellaneous jobs. BEA job estimates are considered to be the most
accurate; however, the most recent estimates lag two years behind the current year. The
time lag occurs because BEA aggregates data from multiple sources and revises prior
estimates and is only available for counties or larger geographies.
Colorado Department of Labor (CDOL) – On behalf of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
state departments of labor collect employment data from individual establishments quarterly
to administer unemployment insurance programs under the Quarterly Census of Employment
and Wages (QCEW) program. The individual establishment level data are known as QCEW
Microdata. These data can be aggregated at the sub-county level to produce local area
employment estimates. However, QCEW data only includes wage and salary jobs covered by
unemployment insurance, known as “covered employment.” Municipalities may request these
data from CDOL. There are confidentiality requirements governing the data, and individual
establishment information may not be disclosed. Establishment level data cannot be reported
to the public or elected officials.
P186
I.
Memorandum August 11, 2012
Employee Housing Demand Model Page 4
QCEW data is available up to two quarters prior to the current quarter. BLS aggregates
QCEW data collected at the state level into county, MSA, state, and national reports. For this
report, these data have been used to estimate place level employment for Snowmass Village.
QCEW has also been used to show employment trends in other Aspen labor shed
communities (Rifle, Silt, Glenwood Springs) presented in the Appendix.
US Bureau of Labor of Labor Statistics (BLS) – The BLS also administers the Current
Employment Statistics (CES) program. The CES surveys about 141,000 businesses and
government agencies, representing approximately 486,000 individual worksites, in order to
provide detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm
payrolls. This is the most current data on employment, lagging by only two months.
However, it results from a sample of businesses and is not as accurate as BEA or QCEW data
sources. These data are available at the state and MSA levels. CES data has been used as an
additional benchmark for growth rates in estimating 2012 employment and forecasted
growth rates.
Differences in Data Sources – To reiterate, there are three key differences in these
employment data sources. Fisrt, the most important difference between these data sources is
the definition of employment. BEA data is “total employment,” which is the sum of wage and
salary employment plus proprietors’ employment. CDOL and BLS data only include wage and
salary jobs. Second, CDOL and BLS data are the only sources available at geographies
smaller than counties. Third, BEA lags by about 2 years while CDOL and BLS data lag by
about 7 months.
Commuting Estimates
Estimates of commuting and local resident employees come from the U.S. Census and the 2008
City of Aspen Housing Survey (RRC Associates, 2008). The U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-
Household Dynamics (LEHD) data series matches employee social security numbers found in
state and federal records on employers and employees. The LEHD data can be used to estimate
the place of residence for employees in a given area, or the place of work for residents of a given
area. The LEHD data indicates that commuting fluctuated between approximately 49.6 percent
and 56.5 percent over the 2001 through 2009 period. The 2008 Survey found that 45 percent of
employees surveyed commute to Aspen. This is consistent with the estimates obtained from the
LEHD data for 2008, which showed a commuting percentage of 45.5 percent.
Baseline Trends and Forecasts
An important distinction in this analysis is the concept of employment (jobs) and employed
persons (employees). Jobs include full- and part-time jobs, and a part-time job is counted as one
job in the data sources. An employed person (employee) can hold one full or part-time job or
multiple jobs. The 1999 and 2008 housing surveys found that, on average, each employee holds
1.3 jobs.
Employment Trends
The analysis begins with a review of past employment trends in Pitkin County (Table 1). In
2001, there were 21,246 total jobs in Pitkin County. By 2009, total employment grew by 637
jobs at an annual rate of 0.4 percent per year. Employment in Pitkin County peaked in 2008 at
23,552 jobs. From 2008 through 2009, employment dropped by 7.1 percent.
P187
I.
Memorandum August 11, 2012
Employee Housing Demand Model Page 5
Wage and salary jobs made up 80 percent of all jobs in 2001, dropping to 75.3 percent of all
jobs in 2009, which indicates that proprietors’ employment (self employed) grew. In fact, over
this time period proprietors’ employment grew by an estimated 1,142 jobs while wage and salary
jobs shrank by 505. The growth of proprietors’ employment is, however, likely a reflection of
people forming their own businesses in an effort to replace wage and salary employment that
was either lost or cut back during the recession.
Employees and Employee Households
Aspen and Pitkin County housing mitigation policies do not apply to development in Snowmass
Village. However, employees working in Snowmass Village, which is in Pitkin County, are eligible
for ASPCHA housing. For reference purposes, there are approximately 2,300 wage and salary
jobs in Snowmass Village (Table 2). These jobs are included in the 10-year employment
projection discussed in the next section.
Total jobs are converted to employees by dividing by 1.3, the average number of jobs held by
employees who work in Pitkin County. As shown, there were an estimated 16,833 employees
working in Pitkin County in 2009, and 16,570 are projected in 2012.
From Census LEHD data, the percentages of local and commuting employees are shown. Since
2002, the earliest year for which LEHD data is available, the proportion of local employees
commuting ranged from a low of 49 to a high of 56 percent. Commuting was higher during
strong economic periods, such as 2005 through 2008, at 53 to 56 percent. In 2010 through
2012, resident employees are estimated to be 46.9 percent, which is the average rate from 2001
through 2009.
Employees must be converted to households since most employed people live with either family
members or roommates. A household is a group of people, related or unrelated, who live in one
housing unit. This means that one employee does not equate to one housing unit; a reduction
must be applied to account for the fact that there is on average more than one employed person
per household. Employee households are calculated by dividing forecasted employees by 1.6,
which is the average number of employees per household in the Aspen Area based on the 1999
and 2008 household surveys. As shown, the 16,570 employees who work in the Aspen Area in
2012 equate to 10,357 employee households, including an estimated 4,854 who live in the
Aspen Area and 5,503 who commute.
Employment and Employee Household Forecast
In order to forecast employee housing demand, an employment forecast for the County is
needed (Table 3). First, employment is projected from 2009 to 2012. QCEW Micro Data for
Pitkin County indicates a growth rate (for wage and salary jobs) of -3.5 percent from 2009
through 2010. A full year of QCEW data is not available for Pitkin County for 2011 at this time.
The CES for Colorado and the Grand Junction MSA suggests a growth rate of 1.5 percent from
2010 through the end of 2011 (Appendix Table 3). EPS assumed an average growth rate of 0.5
percent from 2012 through 2022, which is comparable to the historic growth rate of 0.4 percent
per year from 2001 through 2009. This is a conservative growth rate since the past decade
included two recessions. The resulting employment forecast is for 1,102 new jobs over the next
10 years with a total of 22,643 jobs in 2022.
The employment (jobs) forecast is used to forecast employees, employee households, and the
resulting employee housing demand (Table 4). Employees are calculated by dividing forecasted
employment by 1.3, the average number of jobs held by an employee working in the Aspen
Area. Employee households are calculated by dividing forecasted employees by 1.6, the average
P188
I.
Memorandum August 11, 2012
Employee Housing Demand Model Page 6
number of employees per household in the Aspen Area based on past household surveys. In
2012, there are an estimated 10,356 households in the region with an employee(s) who works in
Pitkin County. Employee households in the region are forecasted to grow to 10,886 by
2022, indicating demand for 530 housing units in the region to house new employees.
The annual, or incremental housing demand, is calculated as the change in employee households
from year to year. As shown, an average of 50 to 55 units of housing (530 divided by 10 years)
would be needed in the region each year to accommodate the forecasted Aspen area
employment growth. In order to maintain a resident-employee percentage of 47 percent,
approximately 25 units of new deed restricted housing are needed each year within
Aspen and Pitkin County.
Retirement and Gentrification Impacts
In this section, the impacts to the labor force are estimated from the growing number of retirees
and the loss of market rate housing due to gentrification and redevelopment pressures. First, it is
necessary to allocate employees by housing type (market rate and deed restricted) in order to
estimate changes in employee households by type of housing occupied.
There are 8,158 occupied housing units (occupied by a year-round resident household) in Pitkin
County (Table 5), and an estimated 4,854 resident employee households. Research conducted
by staff 2012 Housing Summit indicates that 192 deed restricted ownership units (12.8 percent
of ownership units) are occupied by retirees; this will be discussed in more detail below. No data
is available on retirees in rental units, but APCHA estimates that there are one-third the
percentage of retirees in rental housing as compared to ownership housing, resulting in an
estimate of 56 retirees in rental housing, or 4.2 percent of rental units (Table 5). In total, 248
deed units are estimated to be occupied by retirees.
After deducting retiree households, there are an estimated 3,324 active employee households in
deed restricted housing. The remaining 1,530 employee households therefore live in other
market rate, but attainable, housing. This market rate but attainable housing is subject to
potential redevelopment or conversion to second homes.
Retirement and Gentrification Forecast
The number of employee units that move from housing active employees to retirees is projected
in Table 6. Initially, 248 deed restricted units are estimated to house retiree households. By
2022, EPS estimates that this number will grow to 614. This projection was developed using a
cohort component demographic model that ages the population by 5-year cohort and applies
mortality rates and move out rates. This model was initially built by City of Aspen Staff in 2007.
EPS updated the analysis with a new owner age distribution (2012) provided by the City. In
addition, EPS worked with Staff to modify the original model to replace all deaths and move outs
with turnover buyers distributed according to the age distribution of individuals who purchased
existing units from 2007 through 2011. The 2007 model replaced turnover units with buyers
concentrated in a younger population cohort. The detailed calculations are provided in
Appendix 2.
It is also expected that the number of attainable free market housing units that house local
employees will decline due to gentrification, which results in the redevelopment of attainably
priced homes into vacation/second homes for affluent part-time residents that are not affordable
to locally employed people (LEP). We were not able to identify any readily available estimates of
the number of employee occupied homes lost to gentrification/redevelopment. This issue needs
P189
I.
Memorandum August 11, 2012
Employee Housing Demand Model Page 7
further study so that the impacts can be better estimated and understood. EPS obtained limited
data on residential demolitions from the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Demography
Section. DOLA reported 131 demolitions over a four-year period from 2005 through 2008; no
other data were available. This is equivalent to an average of 32 demolitions per year. It is
assumed that half (50 percent) of these units were occupied by employees, or 16 units per year.
As shown, a total of 160 workforce units would be lost over 10 years.
Earlier, it was estimated that 247 new units would be needed to accommodate employment
growth, with 47 percent of workers living in the Aspen Area. Adding the 527 units lost to
retirement and gentrification results in total housing demand of 774 units.
The total amount of housing needed to accommodate employment growth and to
replace employee housing lost to retirement and gentrification, is estimated at 774
units over the next 10 years. These projections and estimates indicate that the
replacement housing demand impacts from retirement and gentrification may exceed
demand from employment growth.
Employee Housing Construction Scenario
As presented above, the spreadsheet model estimates a) the amount of employee housing
needed to accommodate employment growth, and b) housing needed to replace units occupied
by retirees and housing lost to gentrification pressures. An additional calculation sheet is
provided that allows an analyst to assume different levels of employee housing construction and
to view the resulting percentages of resident employee and commuter employee households
(Table 7).
In the top half of Table 7, the “Status Quo” scenario is shown as the existing employee
households in deed restricted and market rate housing. With no new employee housing
construction, 527 units available to employees are lost and commuting increases from 53 to 60
percent.
The bottom half of Table 7 allows the analyst to enter an assumption for new employee housing
construction, or to accept the “default” values for new construction shown as “calc’d need” in the
printed table. The default level of construction is the number of units needed to accommodate
employment growth (Table 4), and the number of units needed to replace retiree units and
units lost to gentrification. As it is presented with the calculated housing need, 774 units are
assumed to be built. This supports an increase in 247 local employee households and replaces
the 527 units of inventory that is expected to become unavailable to the labor force over the
next decade.
P190
I.
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Ta
b
l
e
N
a
m
e
ES
-
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
ES
-
2
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
-
C
o
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
Ta
b
l
e
1
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
T
r
e
n
d
,
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
2
0
0
1
-
2
0
0
9
Ta
b
l
e
2
A
s
p
e
n
A
r
e
a
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
,
2
0
0
1
-
2
0
1
1
Ta
b
l
e
3
A
s
p
e
n
A
r
e
a
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
Ta
b
l
e
4
A
s
p
e
n
A
r
e
a
J
o
b
s
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
,
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
2
2
Ta
b
l
e
5
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
a
n
d
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ta
b
l
e
6
L
o
s
s
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
t
o
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
f
r
o
m
R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
G
e
n
t
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ta
b
l
e
7
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
-
w
i
t
h
R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
G
e
n
t
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
1
-
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
D
a
t
a
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
1
P
l
a
c
e
o
f
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
f
o
r
A
s
p
e
n
A
r
e
a
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
2
W
a
g
e
a
n
d
S
a
l
a
r
y
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
T
r
e
n
d
s
f
o
r
M
a
j
o
r
Z
i
p
C
o
d
e
s
,
2
0
0
1
-
2
Q
2
0
1
1
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
3
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
W
a
g
e
a
n
d
S
a
l
a
r
y
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
,
2
0
0
2
-
2
0
1
1
Ta
b
l
e
A
-
4
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
T
r
e
n
d
s
,
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
1
0
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
2
-
R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
A
g
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
Ta
b
l
e
A
2
-
1
D
e
e
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
O
w
n
e
r
A
g
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
Ta
b
l
e
A
2
-
2
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
b
y
R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
t
u
s
,
2
0
0
7
-
2
0
3
2
Ta
b
l
e
A
2
-
3
A
g
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
,
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
3
2
Ta
b
l
e
A
2
-
4
U
n
i
t
T
u
r
n
o
v
e
r
B
u
y
e
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
f
i
l
e
Ta
b
l
e
A
2
-
5
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
T
I
T
L
E
DI
S
C
L
A
I
M
E
R
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
-
i
n
-
C
h
a
r
g
e
An
d
r
e
w
K
n
u
d
t
s
e
n
73
0
1
7
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
u
i
t
e
6
3
0
De
n
v
e
r
,
C
O
8
0
2
0
2
(3
0
3
)
6
2
3
-
3
5
5
7
P
h
o
n
e
(3
0
3
)
6
2
3
-
9
0
4
9
F
a
c
s
i
m
i
l
e
Au
g
u
s
t
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
Th
i
s
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
w
a
s
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
(
E
P
S
)
a
f
i
r
m
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
z
i
n
g
i
n
r
e
a
l
e
s
t
a
t
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
p
u
b
l
i
c
f
i
n
an
c
e
,
a
n
d
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
p
o
l
i
c
y
.
An
d
r
e
w
K
n
u
d
t
s
e
n
s
e
r
v
e
d
a
s
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
-
i
n
-
c
h
a
r
g
e
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
s
a
w
a
l
l
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
a
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
,
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
s
,
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
i
s
m
o
d
e
l
a
r
e
E
P
S
’
s
i
n
f
o
r
m
e
d
j
u
d
g
m
e
n
t
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
m
a
r
k
e
t
an
d
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
o
f
t
h
e
d
a
t
e
of
t
h
i
s
m
o
d
e
l
.
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
t
h
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
y
c
o
u
l
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
o
r
i
n
v
a
l
i
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
h
e
r
e
i
n
.
T
he
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
m
o
d
e
l
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
,
i
n
p
a
r
t
,
o
n
da
t
a
f
r
o
m
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
W
h
i
l
e
i
t
i
s
b
e
l
i
e
v
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
s
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
r
e
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
,
E
P
S
c
a
n
n
o
t
g
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
t
h
e
i
r
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
.
T
h
i
s
mo
d
e
l
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
r
e
l
i
e
d
o
n
a
s
s
o
l
e
i
n
p
u
t
f
o
r
fi
n
a
l
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
n
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
n
o
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
f
o
r
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
s
c
o
p
e
a
n
d
ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
s
t
u
d
y
.
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
:
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
I
n
c
.
P191I.
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
2
2
0
2
2
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
2
2
Pi
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
J
o
b
s
)
2
1
,
5
4
1
2
2
,
6
4
3
1
,
1
0
2
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
N
e
e
d
-
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
T
o
t
a
l
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
3
0
In
A
s
p
e
n
A
r
e
a
,
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
~
5
3
%
C
o
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
4
7
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
N
e
e
d
-
R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
G
e
n
t
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Un
i
t
s
O
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
b
y
R
e
t
i
r
e
e
s
2
4
8
6
1
4
3
6
7
Un
i
t
s
L
o
s
t
t
o
G
e
n
t
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
/
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
-
-
-
1
6
0
16
0
To
t
a
l
2
4
8
7
7
4
5
2
7
To
t
a
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
N
e
e
d
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
,
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
4
7
%
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
-
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
4
7
Re
p
l
a
c
e
R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
/
G
e
n
t
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
U
n
i
t
s
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
2
7
To
t
a
l
77
4
Co
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
-
N
o
N
e
w
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
B
u
i
l
t
Li
v
e
i
n
A
s
p
e
n
A
r
e
a
4
6
.
9
%
3
9
.
8
%
Co
m
m
u
t
e
5
3
.
1
%
60
.
2
%
To
t
a
l
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
Co
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
-
B
u
i
l
d
N
e
e
d
e
d
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Li
v
e
i
n
A
s
p
e
n
A
r
e
a
4
7
%
4
7
%
Co
m
m
u
t
e
5
3
%
53
%
To
t
a
l
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
a
n
d
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
P192I.
Ta
b
l
e
E
S
-
2
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
-
C
o
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
T
o
t
a
l
Abo
v
e
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
Fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
Ba
s
e
l
i
n
e
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
N
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
K
e
e
p
U
p
w
i
t
h
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
T
o
t
a
l
5
3
0
(
b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
)
In
A
s
p
e
n
A
r
e
a
,
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
~
4
7
%
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
2
4
7
(
b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
)
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
G
o
a
l
50
%
2
6
4
1
7
55
%
2
9
0
4
3
60
%
3
1
7
7
0
Pe
r
1
.
0
%
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
5
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
a
n
d
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
2
20
1
2
-
2
0
2
2
P193I.
Ta
b
l
e
1
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
T
r
e
n
d
,
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
2
0
0
1
-
2
0
0
9
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
T
y
p
e
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
C
h
a
n
g
e
Ann. %
Wa
g
e
a
n
d
S
a
l
a
r
y
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
16
,
9
9
3
1
6
,
5
7
4
1
6
,
4
6
2
1
6
,
8
5
5
1
7
,
3
7
0
1
7
,
8
5
3
1
7
,
8
0
2
1
8
,
2
8
6
1
6
,
4
8
8
-
5
0
5
-
0
.
4
%
Pr
o
p
r
i
e
t
o
r
s
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
F
a
r
m
p
r
o
p
r
i
e
t
o
r
s
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
8
3
9
0
7
6
6
7
6
2
5
7
6
2
6
3
6
2
-
2
1
-
3
.
6
%
N
o
n
f
a
r
m
p
r
o
p
r
i
e
t
o
r
s
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
4
,
1
7
0
4,
2
2
5
4,
4
1
6
4,
6
0
0
4,
7
4
2
4,
8
0
7
5,
1
2
9
5,
2
0
3
5,
3
3
3
1,1633.1%
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
4
,
2
5
3
4
,
3
1
5
4
,
4
9
2
4
,
6
6
7
4
,
8
0
4
4
,
8
6
4
5
,
1
9
1
5
,
2
6
6
5
,
3
9
5
1
,
1
4
2
3
.
0
%
To
t
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
2
1
,
2
4
6
2
0
,
8
8
9
2
0
,
9
5
4
2
1
,
5
2
2
2
2
,
1
7
4
2
2
,
7
1
7
2
2
,
9
9
3
2
3
,
5
5
2
2
1
,
8
8
3
6
3
7
0
.
4
%
Wa
g
e
a
n
d
S
a
l
a
r
y
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
80
.
0
%
7
9
.
3
%
7
8
.
6
%
7
8
.
3
%
7
8
.
3
%
7
8
.
6
%
7
7
.
4
%
7
7
.
6
%
7
5
.
3
%
Pr
o
p
r
i
e
t
o
r
s
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
F
a
r
m
p
r
o
p
r
i
e
t
o
r
s
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
0
.
4
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
N
o
n
f
a
r
m
p
r
o
p
r
i
e
t
o
r
s
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
1
9
.
6
%
20
.
2
%
21
.
1
%
21
.
4
%
21
.
4
%
21
.
2
%
22
.
3
%
22
.
1
%
24
.
4
%
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
2
0
.
0
%
2
0
.
7
%
2
1
.
4
%
2
1
.
7
%
2
1
.
7
%
2
1
.
4
%
2
2
.
6
%
2
2
.
4
%
2
4
.
7
%
To
t
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
So
u
r
c
e
:
U
S
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
1
-
B
E
A
_
E
m
p
l
2001-2009 P194I.
Ta
b
l
e
2
As
p
e
n
A
r
e
a
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
,
2
0
0
1
-
2
0
1
1
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
Jo
b
s
Wa
g
e
a
n
d
S
a
l
a
r
y
J
o
b
s
b
y
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
As
p
e
n
a
n
d
U
n
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
[
1
]
1
4
,
6
7
5
1
4
,
3
4
1
1
4
,
1
7
3
1
4
,
4
9
6
1
4
,
9
9
9
1
5
,
3
9
7
1
5
,
3
4
5
1
5
,
8
5
2
1
4
,
1
7
2
To
w
n
o
f
S
n
o
w
m
a
s
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
[
2
]
2
,
3
1
8
2,
2
3
3
2,
2
8
9
2,
3
5
9
2,
3
7
1
2,
4
5
6
2,
4
5
7
2,
4
3
4
2,
3
1
6
Pi
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
W
a
g
e
a
n
d
S
a
l
a
r
y
J
o
b
s
[
3
]
1
6
,
9
9
3
1
6
,
5
7
4
1
6
,
4
6
2
1
6
,
8
5
5
1
7
,
3
7
0
1
7
,
8
5
3
1
7
,
8
0
2
1
8
,
2
8
6
1
6
,
4
8
8
Pr
o
p
r
i
e
t
o
r
s
J
o
b
s
%
P
r
o
p
r
i
e
t
o
r
s
[
3
]
2
0
.
0
%
2
0
.
7
%
2
1
.
4
%
2
1
.
7
%
2
1
.
7
%
2
1
.
4
%
2
2
.
6
%
2
2
.
4
%
2
4
.
7
%
Pr
o
p
r
i
e
t
o
r
s
4
,
2
5
3
4,
3
1
5
4,
4
9
2
4,
6
6
7
4,
8
0
4
4,
8
6
4
5,
1
9
1
5,
2
6
6
5,
3
9
5
To
t
a
l
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
J
o
b
s
2
1
,
2
4
6
2
0
,
8
8
9
2
0
,
9
5
4
2
1
,
5
2
2
2
2
,
1
7
4
2
2
,
7
1
7
2
2
,
9
9
3
2
3
,
5
5
2
2
1
,
8
8
3
2
1
,
1
1
7
2
1
,
4
3
4
2
1
,
5
4
1
%
C
h
a
n
g
e
-
1
.
7
%
0
.
3
%
2
.
7
%
3
.
0
%
2
.
4
%
1
.
2
%
2
.
4
%
-
7
.
1
%
-
3
.
5
%
1
.
5
%
0
.
5
%
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Jo
b
s
p
e
r
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
[
4
]
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
w
h
o
w
o
r
k
i
n
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
1
6
,
3
4
3
1
6
,
0
6
8
1
6
,
1
1
8
1
6
,
5
5
5
1
7
,
0
5
7
1
7
,
4
7
5
1
7
,
6
8
7
1
8
,
1
1
7
1
6
,
8
3
3
1
6
,
2
4
4
1
6
,
4
8
8
1
6
,
5
7
0
Co
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
L
E
H
D
L
E
H
D
L
E
H
D
L
E
H
D
L
E
H
D
L
E
H
D
L
E
H
D
L
E
H
D
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
[
5
]
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
%
L
i
v
e
i
n
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
[
6
]
4
9
.
0
%
4
8
.
9
%
4
7
.
8
%
4
6
.
9
%
4
5
.
5
%
4
6
.
5
%
4
3
.
5
%
4
5
.
5
%
5
0
.
4
%
4
6
.
9
%
4
6
.
9
%
4
6
.
9
%
%
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
t
o
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
5
1
.
0
%
5
1
.
1
%
5
2
.
2
%
5
3
.
1
%
5
4
.
5
%
5
3
.
5
%
5
6
.
5
%
5
4
.
5
%
4
9
.
6
%
5
3
.
1
%
5
3
.
1
%
5
3
.
1
%
Li
v
e
i
n
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
A
8,
0
0
8
7
,
8
5
0
7
,
7
0
1
7
,
7
6
3
7
,
7
6
7
8
,
1
1
9
7
,
6
9
1
8
,
2
4
5
8
,
4
8
9
7
,
6
1
3
7
,
7
2
8
7
,
7
6
6
Co
m
m
u
t
e
t
o
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
B
8,
3
3
5
8,
2
1
8
8,
4
1
7
8,
7
9
2
9,
2
9
0
9,
3
5
6
9,
9
9
6
9,
8
7
2
8,
3
4
4
8,6318,7608,804
To
t
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
1
6
,
3
4
3
1
6
,
0
6
8
1
6
,
1
1
8
1
6
,
5
5
5
1
7
,
0
5
7
1
7
,
4
7
5
1
7
,
6
8
7
1
8
,
1
1
7
1
6
,
8
3
3
1
6
,
2
4
4
1
6
,
4
8
8
1
6
,
5
7
0
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
p
e
r
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
[
7
]
C
1.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
Li
v
e
i
n
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
=
A
/
C
5,
0
0
5
4
,
9
0
6
4
,
8
1
3
4
,
8
5
2
4
,
8
5
4
5
,
0
7
4
4
,
8
0
7
5
,
1
5
3
5
,
3
0
6
4
,
7
5
8
4
,
8
3
0
4
,
8
5
4
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
=
B
/
C
5,
2
0
9
5,
1
3
6
5,
2
6
1
5,
4
9
5
5,
8
0
6
5,
8
4
8
6,
2
4
8
6,
1
7
0
5,
2
1
5
5,3945,4755,503
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
1
0
,
2
1
4
1
0
,
0
4
2
1
0
,
0
7
4
1
0
,
3
4
7
1
0
,
6
6
0
1
0
,
9
2
2
1
1
,
0
5
5
1
1
,
3
2
3
1
0
,
5
2
1
1
0
,
1
5
2
1
0
,
3
0
5
1
0
,
3
5
7
So
u
r
c
e
:
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
[1
]
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
t
o
t
a
l
m
i
n
u
s
T
o
w
n
o
f
S
n
o
w
m
a
s
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
.
[2
]
8
1
6
1
5
z
i
p
c
o
d
e
.
Q
u
e
r
i
e
d
f
r
o
m
Q
C
E
W
M
i
c
r
o
d
a
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
.
[3
]
U
.
S
.
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
[4
]
R
R
C
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
1
9
9
9
a
n
d
2
0
0
8
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
.
[5
]
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
f
2
0
0
2
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
0
9
.
R
R
C
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
(
2
0
0
8
)
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
c
o
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
a
t
5
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
.
[6
]
U
S
C
e
n
s
u
s
L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
-
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
(
L
E
H
D
)
f
o
r
2
0
0
2
-
2
0
1
0
;
R
R
C
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
2
0
0
8
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
u
r
v
e
y
.
2
0
0
1
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
t
o
b
e
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
t
o
2
0
0
2
L
E
H
D
d
a
t
a
.
[7
]
R
R
C
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
1
9
9
9
a
n
d
2
0
0
8
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
.
[8
]
S
e
e
t
a
b
l
e
3
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
2
-
E
m
p
l
_
H
H
_
T
r
e
n
d
-
-
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
D
a
t
a
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
[
8
]
P195I.
Ta
b
l
e
3
As
p
e
n
A
r
e
a
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
20
1
2
-
2
0
2
2
Fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
-
-
>
2012-
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
[
1
]
2
0
1
1
[
1
]
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
2
Pi
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
J
o
b
s
2
1
,
8
8
3
2
1
,
1
1
7
2
1
,
4
3
4
2
1
,
5
4
1
2
1
,
6
4
9
2
1
,
7
5
7
2
1
,
8
6
6
2
1
,
9
7
5
2
2
,
0
8
5
2
2
,
1
9
5
2
2
,
3
0
6
2
2
,
4
1
8
2
2
,
5
3
0
2
2
,
6
4
3
1
,
1
0
2
Gr
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
-
3
.
5
%
1
.
5
%
0
.
5
%
0.5%
So
u
r
c
e
:
U
S
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
;
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
3
-
E
m
p
l
_
F
c
s
t
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
2
0
1
2
-
-
[1
]
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
0
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
f
r
o
m
Q
C
E
W
M
i
c
r
o
d
a
t
a
f
o
r
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
C
O
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
.
2
0
1
0
-
2
0
1
1
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
fr
o
m
U
S
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
S
e
r
i
e
s
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
Co
l
o
r
a
d
o
a
n
d
t
h
e
G
r
a
n
d
J
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
M
S
A
.
C
o
u
n
t
y
l
e
v
e
l
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
1
2
a
r
e
n
o
t
y
e
t
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
P196I.
Ta
b
l
e
4
As
p
e
n
A
r
e
a
J
o
b
s
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
,
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
2
2
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
Change or Total
Jo
b
s
i
n
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
2
1
,
5
4
1
2
1
,
6
4
9
2
1
,
7
5
7
2
1
,
8
6
6
2
1
,
9
7
5
2
2
,
0
8
5
2
2
,
1
9
5
2
2
,
3
0
6
2
2
,
4
1
8
2
2
,
5
3
0
2
2
,
6
4
3
1
,
1
0
2
Jo
b
s
p
e
r
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
1
.
3
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
w
h
o
W
o
r
k
i
n
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
1
6
,
5
7
0
1
6
,
6
5
3
1
6
,
7
3
6
1
6
,
8
2
0
1
6
,
9
0
4
1
6
,
9
8
8
1
7
,
0
7
3
1
7
,
1
5
8
1
7
,
2
4
5
1
7
,
3
3
1
1
7
,
4
1
8
8
4
8
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
p
e
r
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
6
To
t
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
1
0
,
3
5
6
1
0
,
4
0
8
1
0
,
4
6
0
1
0
,
5
1
3
1
0
,
5
6
5
1
0
,
6
1
8
1
0
,
6
7
1
1
0
,
7
2
4
1
0
,
7
7
8
1
0
,
8
3
2
1
0
,
8
8
6
5
3
0
In
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
20
1
2
-
2
0
1
3
20
1
3
-
2
0
1
4
20
1
4
-
2
0
1
5
20
1
5
-
2
0
1
6
20
1
6
-
2
0
1
7
20
1
7
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
8
-
2
0
1
9
20
1
9
-
2
0
2
0
20
2
0
-
2
0
1
2
2021-2022
Ne
w
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
5
2
5
2
5
3
5
2
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
3
0
Un
i
t
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
C
o
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
P
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
Pc
t
.
H
o
u
s
e
d
L
o
c
a
l
l
y
[
1
]
4
6
.
9
%
4
6
.
9
%
4
6
.
9
%
4
6
.
9
%
4
6
.
9
%
4
6
.
9
%
4
6
.
9
%
4
6
.
9
%
4
6
.
9
%
4
6
.
9
%
Un
i
t
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
2
4
2
4
2
5
2
4
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
4
7
[1
]
S
e
e
T
a
b
l
e
2
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
4
-
E
m
p
l
_
H
H
_
F
c
s
t
P197I.
Ta
b
l
e
5
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
a
n
d
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
2
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Oc
c
u
p
i
e
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
3
,
5
1
8
To
w
n
o
f
S
n
o
w
m
a
s
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
1
,
3
2
7
Ba
s
a
l
t
,
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
3
9
2
Un
i
n
c
.
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
2
,
9
2
1
To
t
a
l
8
,
1
5
8
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
[
1
]
A
4,
8
5
4
De
e
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
AP
C
H
A
R
e
n
t
a
l
1
,
3
1
4
AP
C
H
A
O
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
1
,
5
0
1
Sn
o
w
m
a
s
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
7
5
7
To
t
a
l
3
,
5
7
2
Le
s
s
R
e
t
i
r
e
e
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
i
n
D
.
R
.
O
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
U
n
i
t
s
[
2
]
-
1
9
2
12
.
8
%
o
f
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
u
n
i
t
s
Le
s
s
R
e
t
i
r
e
e
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
i
n
D
.
R
.
R
e
n
t
a
l
U
n
i
t
s
[
3
]
-
5
6
4.
2
%
o
f
r
e
n
t
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
i
n
D
.
R
.
U
n
i
t
s
B
3,
3
2
4
93
.
1
%
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
I
n
O
t
h
e
r
Ma
r
k
e
t
R
a
t
e
U
n
i
t
s
=
A
-
B
1,
5
3
0
[1
]
S
e
e
T
a
b
l
e
2
.
[2
]
A
g
e
c
o
h
o
r
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
y
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
s
t
a
f
f
f
i
r
s
t
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
b
y
E
P
S
i
n
2
0
1
2
;
1
2
.
8
%
o
f
o
w
n
s
h
i
p
u
n
i
t
s
.
[3
]
A
s
s
u
m
e
d
t
o
b
e
t
h
e
1
/
3
t
h
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
u
n
i
t
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
;
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
5
-
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
o
c
k
P198I.
Ta
b
l
e
6
Lo
s
s
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
t
o
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
f
r
o
m
R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
G
e
n
t
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Fa
c
t
o
r
s
20
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
C
h
a
n
g
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
D
e
e
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
U
n
i
t
s
3,
5
7
2
Re
t
i
r
e
e
U
n
i
t
s
-
O
w
n
e
r
s
[
1
]
9.
5
%
/
y
r
g
r
o
w
t
h
19
2
2
1
0
2
3
0
2
5
2
2
7
6
3
0
2
3
3
1
3
6
2
3
9
6
4
3
4
4
7
7
2
8
4
Re
t
i
r
e
e
U
n
i
t
s
-
R
e
n
t
e
r
s
[
1
]
9.
5
%
/
y
r
g
r
o
w
t
h
56
61
67
73
80
88
96
10
5
11
5
12613882
To
t
a
l
24
8
2
7
1
2
9
7
3
2
5
3
5
6
3
9
0
4
2
7
4
6
7
5
1
1
5
6
0
6
1
4
3
6
7
Ne
t
D
.
R
.
U
n
i
t
s
w
i
t
h
L
o
c
a
l
l
y
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
d
P
e
r
s
o
n
s
(
L
E
P
)
3
,
3
2
4
3
,
3
0
1
3
,
2
7
5
3
,
2
4
7
3
,
2
1
6
3
,
1
8
2
3
,
1
4
5
3
,
1
0
5
3
,
0
6
1
3
,
0
1
2
2
,
9
5
8
-
3
6
7
Lo
s
s
o
f
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
b
y
Y
e
a
r
0
-
2
3
-
2
6
-
2
8
-
3
1
-
3
4
-
3
7
-
4
0
-
4
4
-
4
9
-
5
4
-
3
6
7
Em
p
l
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
i
n
O
t
h
e
r
M
k
t
.
R
a
t
e
U
n
i
t
s
1,
5
3
0
Lo
s
t
t
o
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
/
G
e
n
t
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
[
2
]
16
/
y
r
0
-
1
6
-
1
6
-
1
6
-
1
6
-
1
6
-
1
6
-
1
6
-
1
6
-
1
6
-
1
6
-
1
6
0
Ne
t
D
.
R
.
U
n
i
t
s
w
i
t
h
L
o
c
a
l
l
y
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
d
P
e
r
s
o
n
s
(
L
E
P
)
1
,
5
3
0
1
,
5
1
4
1
,
4
9
8
1
,
4
8
2
1
,
4
6
6
1
,
4
5
0
1
,
4
3
4
1
,
4
1
8
1
,
4
0
2
1
,
3
8
6
1
,
3
7
0
-
1
6
0
To
t
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
L
o
s
t
0
3
9
4
2
4
4
4
7
5
0
5
3
5
6
6
0
6
5
7
0
5
2
7
Lo
c
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
i
n
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
o
c
k
4
,
8
5
4
4
,
8
1
5
4
,
7
7
3
4
,
7
2
9
4
,
6
8
2
4
,
6
3
2
4
,
5
7
9
4
,
5
2
3
4
,
4
6
3
4
,
3
9
8
4
,
3
2
7
-
5
2
7
To
t
a
l
D
e
e
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
N
e
e
d
e
d
20
1
2
-
2
0
1
3
20
1
3
-
2
0
1
4
20
1
4
-
2
0
1
5
20
1
5
-
2
0
1
6
20
1
6
-
2
0
1
7
20
1
7
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
8
-
2
0
1
9
20
1
9
-
2
0
2
0
2020-20212021-2022
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
@
5
3
%
C
o
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
2
4
2
4
2
5
2
4
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
4
7
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
3
9
42
44
47
50
53
56
606570527
To
t
a
l
63
6
6
6
9
7
1
7
5
7
8
8
1
8
5
9
0
9
5
7
7
4
[1
]
D
e
e
d
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
o
w
n
e
r
a
g
e
c
o
h
o
r
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
y
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
s
t
a
f
f
f
i
r
s
t
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
b
y
E
P
S
i
n
2
0
12
.
R
e
t
i
r
e
e
s
i
n
r
e
n
t
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
t
o
b
e
t
h
e
1
/
3
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
.
[2
]
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
a
t
5
0
%
o
f
t
h
e
3
2
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
s
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
(
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
)
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
5
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
0
8
.
D
a
t
a
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
y
e
a
r
s
w
a
s
n
o
t
r
e
a
d
i
l
y
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
6
-
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
L
o
s
s
P199I.
Ta
b
l
e
7
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
-
w
i
t
h
R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
G
e
n
t
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Fa
c
t
o
r
s
20
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
Change or Total
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
i
n
R
e
g
i
o
n
A
10
,
3
5
6
1
0
,
4
0
8
1
0
,
4
6
0
1
0
,
5
1
3
1
0
,
5
6
5
1
0
,
6
1
8
1
0
,
6
7
1
1
0
,
7
2
4
1
0
,
7
7
8
1
0
,
8
3
2
1
0
,
8
8
6
5
3
0
St
a
t
u
s
Q
u
o
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
-
N
o
D
.
R
.
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
De
e
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
(
R
e
t
.
)
3
,
3
2
4
3
,
3
0
1
3
,
2
7
5
3
,
2
4
7
3
,
2
1
6
3
,
1
8
2
3
,
1
4
5
3
,
1
0
5
3
,
0
6
1
3
,
0
1
2
2
,
9
5
8
-
3
6
7
Ma
r
k
e
t
R
a
t
e
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
(
G
e
n
t
.
)
1
,
5
3
0
1,
5
1
4
1,
4
9
8
1,
4
8
2
1,
4
6
6
1,
4
5
0
1,
4
3
4
1,
4
1
8
1,
4
0
2
1,3861,370-160
To
t
a
l
H
o
u
s
e
d
L
o
c
a
l
l
y
B
4,
8
5
4
4
,
8
1
5
4
,
7
7
3
4
,
7
2
9
4
,
6
8
2
4
,
6
3
2
4
,
5
7
9
4
,
5
2
3
4
,
4
6
3
4
,
3
9
8
4
,
3
2
7
-
5
2
7
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
s
=
A
-
B
5,
5
0
2
5
,
5
9
3
5
,
6
8
7
5
,
7
8
4
5
,
8
8
3
5
,
9
8
6
6
,
0
9
2
6
,
2
0
1
6
,
3
1
5
6
,
4
3
4
6
,
5
5
9
1
,
0
5
7
Ho
u
s
e
d
L
o
c
a
l
l
y
4
7
%
4
6
%
4
6
%
4
5
%
4
4
%
4
4
%
4
3
%
4
2
%
4
1
%
4
1
%
4
0
%
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
s
5
3
%
5
4
%
5
4
%
5
5
%
5
6
%
5
6
%
5
7
%
5
8
%
5
9
%
5
9
%
6
0
%
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
20
1
2
-
2
0
1
3
20
1
3
-
2
0
1
4
20
1
4
-
2
0
1
5
20
1
5
-
2
0
1
6
20
1
6
-
2
0
1
7
20
1
7
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
8
-
2
0
1
9
20
1
9
-
2
0
2
0
2020-20212021-2022
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
G
r
o
w
t
h
Ca
l
c
'
d
N
e
e
d
24
2
4
2
5
2
4
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
4
7
Re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
G
e
n
t
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ca
l
c
'
d
N
e
e
d
39
42
44
47
50
53
56
60
6570527
To
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
6
3
6
6
6
9
7
1
7
5
7
8
8
1
8
5
9
0
9
5
7
7
4
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
C
63
1
2
9
1
9
8
2
6
9
3
4
4
4
2
2
5
0
3
5
8
8
6
7
8
7
7
4
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Ho
u
s
e
d
L
o
c
a
l
l
y
D
=
B
+
C
4,
8
5
4
4
,
8
7
8
4
,
9
0
2
4
,
9
2
7
4
,
9
5
1
4
,
9
7
6
5
,
0
0
1
5
,
0
2
6
5
,
0
5
1
5
,
0
7
6
5
,
1
0
1
2
4
7
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
s
=
A
-
D
5,
5
0
2
5,
5
3
0
5,
5
5
8
5,
5
8
6
5,
6
1
4
5,
6
4
2
5,
6
7
0
5,
6
9
8
5,
7
2
7
5,7565,785283
To
t
a
l
1
0
,
3
5
6
1
0
,
4
0
8
1
0
,
4
6
0
1
0
,
5
1
3
1
0
,
5
6
5
1
0
,
6
1
8
1
0
,
6
7
1
1
0
,
7
2
4
1
0
,
7
7
8
1
0
,
8
3
2
1
0
,
8
8
6
5
3
0
Ho
u
s
e
d
L
o
c
a
l
l
y
4
7
%
4
7
%
4
7
%
4
7
%
4
7
%
4
7
%
4
7
%
4
7
%
4
7
%
4
7
%
4
7
%
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
s
5
3
%
5
3
%
5
3
%
5
3
%
5
3
%
5
3
%
5
3
%
5
3
%
5
3
%
5
3
%
5
3
%
So
u
r
c
e
:
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
7
-
R
e
t
_
G
e
n
t
_
F
c
s
t
P200I.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
1
Su
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
D
a
t
a
P201I.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
T
a
b
l
e
1
Pl
a
c
e
o
f
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
f
o
r
A
s
p
e
n
A
r
e
a
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
20
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
Em
p
l
o
y
e
d
i
n
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
Li
v
e
i
n
A
s
p
e
n
4
,
3
7
2
3
,
8
2
1
4
,
5
3
7
4
,
4
9
0
4
,
6
9
1
4
,
7
3
4
4
,
8
5
1
4
,
8
8
8
4
,
6
7
4
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
s
4
,
5
7
7
4,
1
7
6
5,
1
3
8
5,
3
7
1
5,
4
0
6
6,
1
5
3
5,
8
0
8
4,
8
0
5
4,506
To
t
a
l
8
,
9
4
9
7
,
9
9
7
9
,
6
7
5
9
,
8
6
1
1
0
,
0
9
7
1
0
,
8
8
7
1
0
,
6
5
9
9
,
6
9
3
9
,
1
8
0
Li
v
e
i
n
A
s
p
e
n
4
8
.
9
%
4
7
.
8
%
4
6
.
9
%
4
5
.
5
%
4
6
.
5
%
4
3
.
5
%
4
5
.
5
%
5
0
.
4
%
5
0
.
9
%
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
s
5
1
.
1
%
52
.
2
%
53
.
1
%
54
.
5
%
53
.
5
%
56
.
5
%
54
.
5
%
49
.
6
%
49.1%
To
t
a
l
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
No
t
e
:
2
0
0
8
R
R
C
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
s
u
r
v
e
y
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
c
o
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
a
t
5
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
r
h
i
g
h
e
r
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
U
S
C
e
n
s
u
s
L
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
(
L
E
H
D
)
;
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
A
1
-
L
E
H
D
C
o
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
P202I.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
T
a
b
l
e
2
Wa
g
e
a
n
d
S
a
l
a
r
y
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
T
r
e
n
d
s
f
o
r
M
a
j
o
r
Z
i
p
C
o
d
e
s
,
2
0
0
1
-
2
Q
2
0
1
1
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
2011.5
Zi
p
C
o
d
e
P
l
a
c
e
N
a
m
e
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
Q
2
2
0
1
1
T
o
t
a
l
Ann. %
Pi
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
81
6
1
1
A
s
p
e
n
1
0
,
0
3
2
9
,
1
6
3
1
0
,
4
2
1
1
0
,
7
8
9
1
1
,
3
8
1
1
1
,
7
2
2
1
2
,
0
3
7
1
2
,
4
6
9
1
1
,
1
2
8
1
0
,
8
3
6
1
0
,
8
9
3
8
6
2
0
.
8
%
81
6
1
5
S
n
o
w
m
a
s
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
2
,
3
1
8
2
,
2
3
3
2
,
2
8
9
2
,
3
5
9
2
,
3
7
1
2
,
4
5
6
2
,
4
5
7
2
,
4
3
4
2
,
3
1
6
2
,
3
9
2
2
,
8
2
6
5
0
8
1
.
9
%
81
6
2
1
B
a
s
a
l
t
2
,
5
0
7
2
,
3
2
2
2
,
2
8
1
2
,
3
9
4
2
,
5
6
8
2
,
8
5
8
3
,
2
7
7
3
,
3
8
6
2
,
9
1
4
2
,
5
1
8
2
,
2
8
4
-
2
2
3
-
0
.
9
%
81
6
2
3
C
a
r
b
o
n
d
a
l
e
3
,
9
4
9
3,
5
9
5
3,
8
5
5
3,
7
7
4
4,
0
4
1
4,
4
2
3
4,
6
2
9
4,
8
2
6
4,
2
1
5
3,
8
1
9
3,624-326-0.8%
To
t
a
l
1
8
,
8
0
5
1
7
,
3
1
3
1
8
,
8
4
6
1
9
,
3
1
6
2
0
,
3
6
0
2
1
,
4
5
8
2
2
,
4
0
0
2
3
,
1
1
4
2
0
,
5
7
2
1
9
,
5
6
5
1
9
,
6
2
6
8
2
1
0
.
4
%
Pc
t
.
C
h
a
n
g
e
81
6
1
1
A
s
p
e
n
-
8
.
7
%
1
3
.
7
%
3
.
5
%
5
.
5
%
3
.
0
%
2
.
7
%
3
.
6
%
-
1
0
.
8
%
-
2
.
6
%
0
.
5
%
81
6
1
5
S
n
o
w
m
a
s
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
-
3
.
6
%
2
.
5
%
3
.
1
%
0
.
5
%
3
.
6
%
0
.
1
%
-
0
.
9
%
-
4
.
8
%
3
.
3
%
1
8
.
1
%
81
6
2
1
B
a
s
a
l
t
-
7
.
4
%
-
1
.
8
%
5
.
0
%
7
.
3
%
1
1
.
3
%
1
4
.
7
%
3
.
3
%
-
1
3
.
9
%
-
1
3
.
6
%
-
9
.
3
%
81
6
2
3
C
a
r
b
o
n
d
a
l
e
-
9
.
0
%
7.
2
%
-2
.
1
%
7.
1
%
9.
5
%
4.
7
%
4.
2
%
-1
2
.
7
%
-9
.
4
%
-5.1%
To
t
a
l
-
7
.
9
%
8
.
9
%
2
.
5
%
5
.
4
%
5
.
4
%
4
.
4
%
3
.
2
%
-
1
1
.
0
%
-
4
.
9
%
0
.
3
%
Ga
r
f
i
e
l
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
81
6
0
1
G
l
e
n
w
o
o
d
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
9
,
9
6
7
9
,
2
9
8
1
0
,
0
2
4
1
0
,
0
3
1
1
0
,
4
3
0
1
0
,
9
3
6
1
1
,
3
2
9
1
1
,
3
6
3
1
0
,
5
1
3
9
,
9
4
5
9
,
9
0
5
-
6
3
-
0
.
1
%
81
6
2
3
C
a
r
b
o
n
d
a
l
e
3
,
9
4
9
3
,
5
9
5
3
,
8
5
5
3
,
7
7
4
4
,
0
4
1
4
,
4
2
3
4
,
6
2
9
4
,
8
2
6
4
,
2
1
5
3
,
8
1
9
3
,
7
1
1
-
2
3
8
-
0
.
6
%
81
6
3
5
P
a
r
a
c
h
u
t
e
7
9
3
7
4
8
8
3
7
1
,
0
3
7
1
,
2
0
4
1
,
5
8
7
1
,
8
6
2
2
,
0
5
7
1
,
8
0
9
1
,
7
1
6
1
,
7
0
2
9
0
9
7
.
5
%
81
6
3
7
G
y
p
s
u
m
1
,
5
3
6
1
,
3
6
6
1
,
4
0
6
1
,
3
5
6
1
,
6
4
7
1
,
8
9
1
2
,
1
0
9
2
,
1
2
6
1
,
7
5
2
1
,
5
2
2
1
,
5
0
2
-
3
4
-
0
.
2
%
81
6
4
7
N
e
w
C
a
s
t
l
e
8
2
1
7
3
5
7
6
0
7
2
8
8
1
7
8
5
5
9
5
6
1
,
0
9
1
9
6
0
7
8
7
7
7
1
-
5
0
-
0
.
6
%
81
6
5
0
R
i
f
l
e
2
,
8
5
7
3
,
0
0
7
3
,
3
4
5
3
,
8
0
1
4
,
7
2
1
5
,
6
6
3
6
,
5
0
2
7
,
4
0
7
6
,
0
9
1
5
,
3
3
2
5
,
3
8
5
2
,
5
2
8
6
.
2
%
81
6
5
2
S
i
l
t
6
2
5
59
8
67
0
69
2
77
1
83
6
92
0
95
9
79
4
72
4
721961.4%
To
t
a
l
2
0
,
5
4
8
1
9
,
3
4
8
2
0
,
8
9
7
2
1
,
4
1
8
2
3
,
6
3
0
2
6
,
1
9
1
2
8
,
3
0
7
2
9
,
8
2
8
2
6
,
1
3
3
2
3
,
8
4
5
2
3
,
6
9
7
3
,
1
4
8
1
.
4
%
Pc
t
.
C
h
a
n
g
e
81
6
0
1
G
l
e
n
w
o
o
d
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
-
6
.
7
%
7
.
8
%
0
.
1
%
4
.
0
%
4
.
9
%
3
.
6
%
0
.
3
%
-
7
.
5
%
-
5
.
4
%
-
0
.
4
%
81
6
2
3
C
a
r
b
o
n
d
a
l
e
-
9
.
0
%
7
.
2
%
-
2
.
1
%
7
.
1
%
9
.
5
%
4
.
7
%
4
.
2
%
-
1
2
.
7
%
-
9
.
4
%
-
2
.
8
%
81
6
3
5
P
a
r
a
c
h
u
t
e
-
5
.
6
%
1
1
.
9
%
2
3
.
8
%
1
6
.
1
%
3
1
.
8
%
1
7
.
4
%
1
0
.
5
%
-
1
2
.
1
%
-
5
.
1
%
-
0
.
8
%
81
6
3
7
G
y
p
s
u
m
-
1
1
.
1
%
2
.
9
%
-
3
.
6
%
2
1
.
5
%
1
4
.
8
%
1
1
.
6
%
0
.
8
%
-
1
7
.
6
%
-
1
3
.
1
%
-
1
.
3
%
81
6
4
7
N
e
w
C
a
s
t
l
e
-
1
0
.
5
%
3
.
4
%
-
4
.
1
%
1
2
.
2
%
4
.
7
%
1
1
.
8
%
1
4
.
1
%
-
1
2
.
0
%
-
1
8
.
0
%
-
2
.
1
%
81
6
5
0
R
i
f
l
e
5
.
3
%
1
1
.
2
%
1
3
.
6
%
2
4
.
2
%
2
0
.
0
%
1
4
.
8
%
1
3
.
9
%
-
1
7
.
8
%
-
1
2
.
5
%
1
.
0
%
81
6
5
2
S
i
l
t
-
4
.
2
%
11
.
9
%
3.
3
%
11
.
5
%
8.
4
%
10
.
0
%
4.
2
%
-1
7
.
2
%
-8
.
7
%
-0.5%
To
t
a
l
-
5
.
8
%
8
.
0
%
2
.
5
%
1
0
.
3
%
1
0
.
8
%
8
.
1
%
5
.
4
%
-
1
2
.
4
%
-
8
.
8
%
-
0
.
6
%
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
O
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
Q
C
E
W
M
i
c
r
o
d
a
t
a
;
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
A
2
-
Z
i
p
C
o
d
e
s
E
m
p
l
2001 - Q2 2011 P203I.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
T
a
b
l
e
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
W
a
g
e
a
n
d
S
a
l
a
r
y
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
,
2
0
0
2
-
2
0
1
1
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ye
a
r
J
o
b
s
Gr
o
w
t
h
Ra
t
e
Jo
b
s
Gr
o
w
t
h
Ra
t
e
20
0
2
2
,
1
8
4
,
2
0
0
-
-
-
5
2
,
5
0
0
-
-
-
20
0
3
2
,
1
5
2
,
8
0
0
-
1
.
4
%
5
3
,
3
0
0
1
.
5
%
20
0
4
2
,
1
7
9
,
6
0
0
1
.
2
%
5
4
,
8
0
0
2
.
8
%
20
0
5
2
,
2
2
6
,
0
0
0
2
.
1
%
5
6
,
4
0
0
2
.
9
%
20
0
6
2
,
2
7
9
,
1
0
0
2
.
4
%
5
9
,
3
0
0
5
.
1
%
20
0
7
2
,
3
3
1
,
3
0
0
2
.
3
%
6
2
,
9
0
0
6
.
1
%
20
0
8
2
,
3
5
0
,
3
0
0
0
.
8
%
6
5
,
9
0
0
4
.
8
%
20
0
9
2
,
2
4
5
,
6
0
0
-
4
.
5
%
6
1
,
6
0
0
-
6
.
5
%
20
1
0
2
,
2
2
2
,
3
0
0
-
1
.
0
%
5
8
,
8
0
0
-
4
.
5
%
20
1
1
2
,
2
5
5
,
3
0
0
1
.
5
%
5
9
,
5
0
0
1
.
2
%
20
1
2
J
a
n
2
,
2
4
9
,
7
0
0
-
0
.
2
%
5
9
,
8
0
0
0
.
5
%
20
1
2
F
e
b
2
,
2
6
1
,
6
0
0
0
.
5
%
5
9
,
7
0
0
-
0
.
2
%
So
u
r
c
e
:
U
S
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
;
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
A
3
-
B
L
S
_
C
E
S
Co
l
o
r
a
d
o
G
r
a
n
d
J
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
M
S
A
P204I.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
T
a
b
l
e
4
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
T
r
e
n
d
s
,
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
1
0
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ar
e
a
20
0
0
2
0
1
0
C
h
a
n
g
e
Oc
c
u
p
i
e
d
U
n
i
t
s
As
p
e
n
3
,
0
3
7
3
,
5
1
8
4
8
1
Ba
s
a
l
t
,
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
n
t
y
.
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
3
0
4
3
9
2
8
8
Sn
o
w
m
a
s
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
1
,
2
1
1
1
,
3
2
7
1
1
6
Un
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
A
r
e
a
2
,
6
9
6
2,
9
2
1
22
5
To
t
a
l
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
7
,
2
4
8
8
,
1
5
8
9
1
0
Vac
a
n
t
U
n
i
t
s
[
1
]
As
p
e
n
1
,
9
9
6
2
,
4
1
3
4
1
7
Ba
s
a
l
t
,
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
n
t
y
.
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
6
8
1
2
2
5
4
Sn
o
w
m
a
s
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
1
,
4
8
9
1
,
0
2
8
-
4
6
1
Un
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
A
r
e
a
1
,
1
0
0
1,
2
3
9
13
9
To
t
a
l
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
4
,
6
5
3
4
,
8
0
2
1
4
9
To
t
a
l
U
n
i
t
s
As
p
e
n
5
,
0
3
3
5
,
9
3
1
8
9
8
Ba
s
a
l
t
,
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
n
t
y
.
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
3
7
2
5
1
4
1
4
2
Sn
o
w
m
a
s
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
2
,
7
0
0
2
,
3
5
5
-
3
4
5
Un
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
A
r
e
a
3
,
7
9
6
4,
1
6
0
36
4
To
t
a
l
P
i
t
k
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
1
1
,
9
0
1
1
2
,
9
6
0
1
,
0
5
9
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
O
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
L
o
c
a
l
A
f
f
a
i
r
s
;
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
A
4
-
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
[1
]
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
"
v
a
c
a
n
t
f
o
r
s
e
a
s
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
"
w
h
i
c
h
c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
s
c
l
o
s
e
l
y
w
i
t
h
s
e
c
o
n
d
h
o
m
e
s
an
d
s
h
o
r
t
t
e
r
m
r
e
n
t
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
.
P205I.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
2
Re
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
A
g
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
P206I.
Ta
b
l
e
A
2
-
1
De
e
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
O
w
n
e
r
A
g
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ag
e
R
a
n
g
e
#%
#
%
#
%
<
2
4
1
0
.
1
%
1
0
.
1
%
1
0
.
1
%
25
-
2
9
7
0
.
5
%
1
7
1
.
2
%
18
1
.
2
%
30
-
3
4
7
4
5
.
0
%
7
1
4
.
9
%
74
4
.
9
%
35
-
3
9
2
2
5
1
5
.
3
%
1
1
6
8
.
1
%
12
1
8
.
1
%
40
-
4
4
2
2
3
1
5
.
2
%
2
2
2
1
5
.
5
%
23
2
1
5
.
5
%
45
-
4
9
2
3
0
1
5
.
6
%
2
1
8
1
5
.
2
%
22
8
1
5
.
2
%
50
-
5
4
2
3
0
1
5
.
6
%
2
0
2
1
4
.
1
%
21
1
1
4
.
1
%
55
-
5
9
2
1
6
1
4
.
7
%
2
0
5
1
4
.
3
%
21
4
1
4
.
3
%
60
-
6
4
1
6
4
1
1
.
2
%
1
8
7
1
3
.
0
%
19
5
1
3
.
0
%
65
-
6
9
5
5
3
.
7
%
1
3
0
9
.
1
%
13
6
9
.
1
%
70
-
7
4
2
7
1
.
9
%
4
4
3
.
1
%
46
3
.
1
%
75
-
7
9
7
0
.
5
%
1
7
1
.
2
%
18
1
.
2
%
80
-
8
4
8
0
.
6
%
5
0
.
3
%
5
0
.
3
%
85
-
8
9
3
0
.
2
%
1
0
.
1
%
1
0
.
1
%
90
-
9
4
1
0.
1
%
0
0.
0
%
0
0.
0
%
To
t
a
l
1
,
4
7
3
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
,
4
3
6
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
,
5
0
1
1
0
0
.
0
%
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
;
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
A
g
e
D
i
s
t
n
C
o
m
p
a
r
e
20
0
7
S
a
m
p
l
e
2
0
1
2
S
a
m
p
l
e
2
0
1
2
O
w
n
e
r
s
0.
0
%
2.
0
%
4.
0
%
6.
0
%
8.
0
%
10
.
0
%
12
.
0
%
14
.
0
%
16
.
0
%
18
.
0
%
< 24
2
5
‐
29
3
0
‐
34
3
5
‐
39
4
0
‐
44
4
5
‐
49
5
0
‐
54
5
5
‐
59
6
0
‐
64
6
5
‐
69
7
0
‐
74
7
5
‐
79
8
0
‐
84
8
5
‐
89
9
0
‐
94
20
0
7
Sa
m
p
l
e
20
1
2
Sa
m
p
l
e
P207I.
Ta
b
l
e
A
2
-
2
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
b
y
R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
t
u
s
,
2
0
0
7
-
2
0
3
2
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
No
t
e
:
A
l
l
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
w
h
o
l
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
.
20
1
2
#
o
f
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
#
o
f
%
o
f
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
N
e
t
R
e
t
i
r
e
e
s
M
o
r
t
a
l
i
t
y
D
e
a
t
h
s
A
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
A
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
N
u
r
s
.
L
e
a
v
i
n
g
f
o
r
Ag
e
O
w
n
e
r
s
S
i
z
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
%
#
i
n
A
.
H
.
%
#
i
n
A
.
H
.
F
a
c
t
o
r
(
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
)
L
i
v
i
n
g
%
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
%
N
u
r
s
.
H
o
m
e
T
o
t
a
l
20
-
2
4
1
1
.
8
2
0
.
1
%
0
%
0
2
25
-
2
9
1
8
1
.
8
3
2
1
.
2
%
0
%
0
3
2
30
-
3
4
7
4
1
.
8
1
3
4
5
.
0
%
0
%
0
1
3
4
35
-
3
9
1
2
1
1
.
8
2
1
8
8
.
1
%
0
%
0
2
1
8
40
-
4
4
2
3
2
1
.
8
4
1
8
1
5
.
5
%
0
%
0
4
1
8
45
-
4
9
2
2
8
1
.
8
4
1
0
1
5
.
2
%
0
%
0
4
1
0
50
-
5
4
2
1
1
1
.
8
3
8
0
1
4
.
1
%
0
%
0
3
8
0
55
-
5
9
2
1
4
1
.
8
3
8
6
1
4
.
3
%
0
%
0
3
8
6
60
-
6
4
1
9
5
1
.
8
3
5
2
1
3
.
0
%
2
8
%
9
9
2
5
3
1
0
.
0
%
1
0
8
9
0
.
0
6
0
0
7
6
5
.
0
5
65
-
6
9
1
3
6
1
.
8
2
4
5
9
.
1
%
6
5
%
1
5
9
8
6
3
.
7
%
6
1
5
3
0
.
0
9
2
3
0
1
1
4
.
0
1
.
1
%
2
1
6
70
-
7
4
4
6
1
.
8
8
3
3
.
1
%
7
5
%
6
2
2
1
1
.
0
%
1
6
1
0
.
1
4
4
8
5
2
9
.
0
3
.
0
%
2
1
.
1
%
1
1
2
75
-
7
9
1
8
1
.
8
3
2
1
.
2
%
1
0
0
%
3
2
0
0
.
0
%
0
3
2
0
.
2
3
0
6
5
6
7
.
0
3
.
0
%
1
1
.
1
%
0
8
80
-
8
4
5
1
.
8
9
0
.
3
%
1
0
0
%
9
0
0
.
0
%
0
9
0
.
3
7
4
9
8
3
3
.
0
3
.
0
%
0
1
.
1
%
0
3
85
-
8
9
1
1
.
8
2
0
.
1
%
1
0
0
%
2
0
0
.
0
%
0
2
0
.
6
2
7
7
7
1
1
.
0
3
.
0
%
0
1
.
1
%
0
1
90
-
9
4
0
1.
8
0
0.
0
%
10
0
%
0
0
0.
0
%
0
0
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
3.
0
%
0
1.1%00
To
t
a
l
1
,
5
0
1
2
,
7
0
3
1
0
0
.
0
%
3
6
3
2
,
3
4
0
1
7
3
4
6
3
9
3
3
4
5
19
2
U
n
i
t
s
13
%
o
f
u
n
i
t
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
u
s
i
n
g
C
e
n
s
u
s
a
n
d
a
c
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
d
a
t
a
.
20
1
7
#
o
f
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
#
o
f
%
o
f
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
N
e
t
R
e
t
i
r
e
e
s
M
o
r
t
a
l
i
t
y
D
e
a
t
h
s
A
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
A
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
N
u
r
s
.
L
e
a
v
i
n
g
f
o
r
Ag
e
O
w
n
e
r
s
S
i
z
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
%
#
i
n
A
.
H
.
%
#
i
n
A
.
H
.
F
a
c
t
o
r
(
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
)
L
i
v
i
n
g
%
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
%
N
u
r
s
.
H
o
m
e
T
o
t
a
l
20
-
2
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
.
0
%
0
%
0
0
25
-
2
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
0
.
1
%
0
%
0
3
30
-
3
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
5
1
.
3
%
0
%
0
3
5
35
-
3
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
3
8
5
.
1
%
0
%
0
1
3
8
40
-
4
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
2
6
8
.
4
%
0
%
0
2
2
6
45
-
4
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
2
5
1
5
.
7
%
0
%
0
4
2
5
50
-
5
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
1
7
1
5
.
4
%
0
%
0
4
1
7
55
-
5
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
8
5
1
4
.
2
%
0
%
0
3
8
5
60
-
6
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
9
0
1
4
.
4
%
2
8
%
1
0
9
2
8
1
1
0
.
0
%
1
1
9
8
0
.
0
6
0
0
7
6
6
.
0
6
65
-
6
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
5
1
1
3
.
0
%
6
5
%
2
2
8
1
2
3
3
.
7
%
8
2
2
0
0
.
0
9
2
3
0
1
2
0
.
0
1
.
1
%
2
2
2
70
-
7
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
3
0
8
.
5
%
7
5
%
1
7
3
5
7
1
.
0
%
2
1
7
1
0
.
1
4
4
8
5
2
2
5
.
0
3
.
0
%
5
1
.
1
%
2
3
2
75
-
7
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
1
2
.
6
%
1
0
0
%
7
1
0
0
.
0
%
0
7
1
0
.
2
3
0
6
5
6
1
6
.
0
3
.
0
%
2
1
.
1
%
1
1
9
80
-
8
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
4
0
.
9
%
1
0
0
%
2
4
0
0
.
0
%
0
2
4
0
.
3
7
4
9
8
3
9
.
0
3
.
0
%
1
1
.
1
%
0
1
0
85
-
8
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
0
.
2
%
1
0
0
%
6
0
0
.
0
%
0
6
0
.
6
2
7
7
7
1
4
.
0
3
.
0
%
0
1
.
1
%
0
4
90
-
9
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
0.
0
%
10
0
%
1
0
0.
0
%
0
1
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
.
0
3.
0
%
0
1.1%01
To
t
a
l
1
,
5
0
1
1
.
8
2
,
7
0
2
1
0
0
.
0
%
6
1
2
2
,
0
9
0
2
1
5
9
1
8
1
8
5
9
4
32
8
U
n
i
t
s
22
%
o
f
u
n
i
t
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
u
s
i
n
g
C
e
n
s
u
s
a
n
d
a
c
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
d
a
t
a
.
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
N
e
x
t
5
Y
r
.
C
o
h
o
r
t
Re
t
i
r
e
e
s
N
e
w
R
e
t
i
r
e
e
s
,
M
o
v
e
O
u
t
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
N
e
x
t
5
Y
r
.
C
o
h
o
r
t
Re
t
i
r
e
e
s
N
e
w
R
e
t
i
r
e
e
s
,
M
o
v
e
O
u
t
P208I.
20
2
2
#
o
f
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
#
o
f
%
o
f
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
N
e
t
R
e
t
i
r
e
e
s
M
o
r
t
a
l
i
t
y
D
e
a
t
h
s
A
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
A
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
N
u
r
s
.
L
e
a
v
i
n
g
f
o
r
Ag
e
O
w
n
e
r
s
S
i
z
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
%
#
i
n
A
.
H
.
%
#
i
n
A
.
H
.
F
a
c
t
o
r
(
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
)
L
i
v
i
n
g
%
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
%
N
u
r
s
.
H
o
m
e
T
o
t
a
l
20
-
2
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
.
0
%
0
%
0
0
25
-
2
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
0
.
1
%
0
%
0
2
30
-
3
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
0
.
3
%
0
%
0
9
35
-
3
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
4
1
.
6
%
0
%
0
4
4
40
-
4
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
5
5
5
.
7
%
0
%
0
1
5
5
45
-
4
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
4
0
8
.
9
%
0
%
0
2
4
0
50
-
5
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
4
0
1
6
.
3
%
0
%
0
4
4
0
55
-
5
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
2
8
1
5
.
8
%
0
%
0
4
2
8
60
-
6
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
9
4
1
4
.
6
%
2
8
%
1
1
0
2
8
4
1
0
.
0
%
1
1
9
9
0
.
0
6
0
0
7
6
6
.
0
6
65
-
6
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
9
2
1
4
.
5
%
6
5
%
2
5
5
1
3
7
3
.
7
%
9
2
4
6
0
.
0
9
2
3
0
1
2
3
.
0
1
.
1
%
3
2
6
70
-
7
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
3
1
1
2
.
3
%
7
5
%
2
4
8
8
3
1
.
0
%
2
2
4
6
0
.
1
4
4
8
5
2
3
6
.
0
3
.
0
%
7
1
.
1
%
3
4
6
75
-
7
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
9
9
7
.
4
%
1
0
0
%
1
9
9
0
0
.
0
%
0
1
9
9
0
.
2
3
0
6
5
6
4
6
.
0
3
.
0
%
6
1
.
1
%
2
5
4
80
-
8
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
2
1
.
9
%
1
0
0
%
5
2
0
0
.
0
%
0
5
2
0
.
3
7
4
9
8
3
1
9
.
0
3
.
0
%
2
1
.
1
%
1
2
2
85
-
8
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
4
0
.
5
%
1
0
0
%
1
4
0
0
.
0
%
0
1
4
0
.
6
2
7
7
7
1
9
.
0
3
.
0
%
0
1
.
1
%
0
9
90
-
9
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
0.
1
%
10
0
%
2
0
0.
0
%
0
2
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
.
0
3.
0
%
0
1.1%02
To
t
a
l
1
,
5
0
1
1
.
8
2
,
7
0
2
1
0
0
.
0
%
8
8
0
1
,
8
2
2
2
2
8
5
8
1
4
1
1
5
9
1
6
5
47
7
U
n
i
t
s
32
%
o
f
u
n
i
t
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
u
s
i
n
g
C
e
n
s
u
s
a
n
d
a
c
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
d
a
t
a
.
20
2
7
#
o
f
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
#
o
f
%
o
f
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
N
e
t
R
e
t
i
r
e
e
s
M
o
r
t
a
l
i
t
y
D
e
a
t
h
s
A
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
A
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
N
u
r
s
.
L
e
a
v
i
n
g
f
o
r
Ag
e
O
w
n
e
r
s
S
i
z
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
%
#
i
n
A
.
H
.
%
#
i
n
A
.
H
.
F
a
c
t
o
r
(
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
)
L
i
v
i
n
g
%
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
%
N
u
r
s
.
H
o
m
e
T
o
t
a
l
20
-
2
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
.
0
%
0
%
0
0
25
-
2
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
0
.
1
%
0
%
0
4
30
-
3
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
3
0
.
5
%
0
%
0
1
3
35
-
3
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
4
0
.
9
%
0
%
0
2
4
40
-
4
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
3
2
.
7
%
0
%
0
7
3
45
-
4
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
8
0
6
.
7
%
0
%
0
1
8
0
50
-
5
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
6
6
9
.
8
%
0
%
0
2
6
6
55
-
5
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
5
9
1
7
.
0
%
0
%
0
4
5
9
60
-
6
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
4
4
1
6
.
4
%
2
8
%
1
2
4
3
2
0
1
0
.
0
%
1
2
1
1
2
0
.
0
6
0
0
7
6
7
.
0
7
65
-
6
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
0
3
1
4
.
9
%
6
5
%
2
6
2
1
4
1
3
.
7
%
1
0
2
5
2
0
.
0
9
2
3
0
1
2
3
.
0
1
.
1
%
3
2
6
70
-
7
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
7
0
1
3
.
7
%
7
5
%
2
7
8
9
2
1
.
0
%
3
2
7
5
0
.
1
4
4
8
5
2
4
0
.
0
3
.
0
%
8
1
.
1
%
3
5
1
75
-
7
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
8
7
1
0
.
6
%
1
0
0
%
2
8
7
0
0
.
0
%
0
2
8
7
0
.
2
3
0
6
5
6
6
6
.
0
3
.
0
%
9
1
.
1
%
3
7
8
80
-
8
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
4
5
5
.
4
%
1
0
0
%
1
4
5
0
0
.
0
%
0
1
4
5
0
.
3
7
4
9
8
3
5
4
.
0
3
.
0
%
4
1
.
1
%
2
6
0
85
-
8
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
0
1
.
1
%
1
0
0
%
3
0
0
0
.
0
%
0
3
0
0
.
6
2
7
7
7
1
1
9
.
0
3
.
0
%
1
1
.
1
%
0
2
0
90
-
9
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
0.
2
%
10
0
%
5
0
0.
0
%
0
5
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
.
0
3.
0
%
0
1.1%05
To
t
a
l
1
,
5
0
2
1
.
8
2
,
7
0
3
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
,
1
3
1
1
,
5
7
2
2
5
1
,
1
0
6
2
1
4
2
2
1
1
2
4
7
61
4
U
n
i
t
s
41
%
o
f
u
n
i
t
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
u
s
i
n
g
C
e
n
s
u
s
a
n
d
a
c
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
d
a
t
a
.
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
N
e
x
t
5
Y
r
.
C
o
h
o
r
t
Re
t
i
r
e
e
s
N
e
w
R
e
t
i
r
e
e
s
,
M
o
v
e
O
u
t
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
N
e
x
t
5
Y
r
.
C
o
h
o
r
t
Re
t
i
r
e
e
s
N
e
w
R
e
t
i
r
e
e
s
,
M
o
v
e
O
u
t
P209I.
20
3
2
#
o
f
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
#
o
f
%
o
f
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
N
e
t
R
e
t
i
r
e
e
s
M
o
r
t
a
l
i
t
y
D
e
a
t
h
s
A
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
A
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
N
u
r
s
.
L
e
a
v
i
n
g
f
o
r
Ag
e
O
w
n
e
r
s
S
i
z
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
%
#
i
n
A
.
H
.
%
#
i
n
A
.
H
.
F
a
c
t
o
r
(
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
)
L
i
v
i
n
g
%
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
%
N
u
r
s
.
H
o
m
e
T
o
t
a
l
20
-
2
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
.
0
%
0
%
0
0
25
-
2
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
0
.
2
%
0
%
0
5
30
-
3
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
0
0
.
7
%
0
%
0
2
0
35
-
3
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
6
1
.
3
%
0
%
0
3
6
40
-
4
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
8
2
.
5
%
0
%
0
6
8
45
-
4
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
0
4
.
1
%
0
%
0
1
1
0
50
-
5
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
1
9
8
.
1
%
0
%
0
2
1
9
55
-
5
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
9
5
1
0
.
9
%
0
%
0
2
9
5
60
-
6
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
8
3
1
7
.
9
%
2
8
%
1
3
5
3
4
8
1
0
.
0
%
1
4
1
2
1
0
.
0
6
0
0
7
6
7
.
0
7
65
-
6
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
5
9
1
7
.
0
%
6
5
%
2
9
8
1
6
1
3
.
7
%
1
1
2
8
7
0
.
0
9
2
3
0
1
2
6
.
0
1
.
1
%
3
2
9
70
-
7
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
8
3
1
4
.
2
%
7
5
%
2
8
7
9
6
1
.
0
%
3
2
8
4
0
.
1
4
4
8
5
2
4
1
.
0
3
.
0
%
9
1
.
1
%
3
5
3
75
-
7
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
2
2
1
1
.
9
%
1
0
0
%
3
2
2
0
0
.
0
%
0
3
2
2
0
.
2
3
0
6
5
6
7
4
.
0
3
.
0
%
1
0
1
.
1
%
4
8
8
80
-
8
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
0
9
7
.
7
%
1
0
0
%
2
0
9
0
0
.
0
%
0
2
0
9
0
.
3
7
4
9
8
3
7
8
.
0
3
.
0
%
6
1
.
1
%
2
8
6
85
-
8
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
5
3
.
1
%
1
0
0
%
8
5
0
0
.
0
%
0
8
5
0
.
6
2
7
7
7
1
5
3
.
0
3
.
0
%
3
1
.
1
%
1
5
7
90
-
9
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
0
0.
4
%
10
0
%
1
0
0
0.
0
%
0
10
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
.
0
3.
0
%
0
1.1%010
To
t
a
l
1
,
5
0
2
1
.
8
2
,
7
0
4
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
,
3
4
6
1
,
3
5
8
2
8
1
,
3
1
8
2
8
9
2
8
1
3
3
3
0
73
2
U
n
i
t
s
49
%
o
f
u
n
i
t
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
u
s
i
n
g
C
e
n
s
u
s
a
n
d
a
c
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
d
a
t
a
.
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
N
e
x
t
5
Y
r
.
C
o
h
o
r
t
Re
t
i
r
e
e
s
N
e
w
R
e
t
i
r
e
e
s
,
M
o
v
e
O
u
t
P210I.
Ta
b
l
e
A
2
-
3
Ag
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
,
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
3
2
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ag
e
R
a
n
g
e
2
0
1
2
2
0
2
2
2
0
3
2
2
0
1
2
2
0
2
2
2
0
3
2
20
-
2
4
2
0
0
0
.
1
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
25
-
2
9
3
2
2
5
1
.
2
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
2
%
30
-
3
4
1
3
4
9
2
0
5
.
0
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
7
%
35
-
3
9
2
1
8
4
4
3
6
8
.
1
%
1
.
6
%
1
.
3
%
40
-
4
4
4
1
8
1
5
5
6
8
1
5
.
5
%
5
.
7
%
2
.
5
%
45
-
4
9
4
1
0
2
4
0
1
1
0
1
5
.
2
%
8
.
9
%
4
.
1
%
50
-
5
4
3
8
0
4
4
0
2
1
9
1
4
.
1
%
1
6
.
3
%
8
.
1
%
55
-
5
9
3
8
6
4
2
8
2
9
5
1
4
.
3
%
1
5
.
8
%
1
0
.
9
%
60
-
6
4
3
5
2
3
9
4
4
8
3
1
3
.
0
%
1
4
.
6
%
1
7
.
9
%
65
-
6
9
2
4
5
3
9
2
4
5
9
9
.
1
%
1
4
.
5
%
1
7
.
0
%
70
-
7
4
8
3
3
3
1
3
8
3
3
.
1
%
1
2
.
3
%
1
4
.
2
%
75
-
7
9
3
2
1
9
9
3
2
2
1
.
2
%
7
.
4
%
1
1
.
9
%
80
-
8
4
9
5
2
2
0
9
0
.
3
%
1
.
9
%
7
.
7
%
85
-
8
9
2
1
4
8
5
0
.
1
%
0
.
5
%
3
.
1
%
90
-
9
4
0
2
10
0
.
0
%
0.
1
%
0.
4
%
To
t
a
l
2
,
7
0
3
2
,
7
0
2
2
,
7
0
4
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
Re
t
i
r
e
e
s
i
n
A
.
H
.
3
4
6
8
5
8
1
,
3
1
8
1
2
.
8
%
3
1
.
8
%
4
8
.
7
%
Un
i
t
s
(
1
.
8
p
e
r
s
.
/
H
H
)
1
9
2
4
7
7
7
3
2
So
u
r
c
e
:
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
A
g
i
n
g
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
0.
0
%
2.
0
%
4.
0
%
6.
0
%
8.
0
%
10
.
0
%
12
.
0
%
14
.
0
%
16
.
0
%
18
.
0
%
20
.
0
%
20
‐
24
2
5
‐
29
3
0
‐
34
3
5
‐
39
4
0
‐
44
4
5
‐
49
5
0
‐
54
5
5
‐
59
6
0
‐ 6465 ‐ 6970 ‐ 7475 ‐ 7980 ‐
20
1
2
20
2
2
2032 P211I.
Ta
b
l
e
A
2
-
4
Un
i
t
T
u
r
n
o
v
e
r
B
u
y
e
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
f
i
l
e
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ag
e
R
a
n
g
e
#
%
2
0
0
7
-
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
7
-
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
2
-
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
7
-
2
0
3
2
0
-
2
4
0
0
.
0
%
00
0
0
0
25
-
2
9
1
0
2
.
1
%
12
4
5
7
30
-
3
4
3
0
6
.
4
%
3
6
1
1
1
6
2
1
35
-
3
9
4
3
9
.
2
%
4
9
1
5
2
3
3
0
40
-
4
4
8
3
1
7
.
7
%
8
1
7
2
9
4
4
5
9
45
-
4
9
7
0
1
5
.
0
%
7
1
4
2
5
3
7
4
9
50
-
5
4
7
3
1
5
.
6
%
7
1
5
2
6
3
9
5
1
55
-
5
9
5
4
1
1
.
5
%
5
1
1
1
9
2
9
3
8
60
-
6
4
4
6
9
.
8
%
4
9
1
6
2
4
3
2
65
-
6
9
4
2
9
.
0
%
4
8
1
5
2
2
3
0
70
-
7
4
1
2
2
.
6
%
12
4
6
8
75
-
7
9
5
1
.
1
%
01
2
3
4
80
-
8
4
0
0
.
0
%
00
0
0
0
85
-
8
9
0
0
.
0
%
00
0
0
0
90
-
9
4
0
0
.
0
%
00
0
0
0
95
-
9
9
+
0
0.
0
%
0
0
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
4
6
8
1
0
0
.
0
%
4
4
9
4
1
6
6
2
4
8
3
2
9
[1
]
T
o
t
a
l
m
o
v
e
o
u
t
s
(
d
e
a
t
h
s
,
a
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
l
i
v
i
n
g
,
n
u
r
s
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
)
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
a
g
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
u
n
i
t
t
u
r
n
o
v
e
r
b
u
y
e
r
s
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
7-
2
0
1
1
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
;
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
f
i
l
e
Bu
y
e
r
s
2
0
0
7
-
2
0
1
1
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
B
u
y
e
r
s
[
1
]
P212I.
Ta
b
l
e
A
2
-
5
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
As
p
e
n
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
Ave
r
a
g
e
20
0
5
-
2
0
0
8
De
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
s
4
5
3
7
3
3
1
6
No
D
a
t
a
N
o
D
a
t
a
33
%
A
s
s
u
m
e
d
t
o
b
e
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
a
t
e
W
o
r
k
f
o
r
c
e
U
n
i
t
s
50
%
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
A
n
n
u
a
l
L
o
s
s
o
f
W
o
r
k
f
o
r
c
e
U
n
i
t
s
(
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
)
1
6
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
L
o
c
a
l
A
f
f
a
i
r
s
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
H:
\
2
1
9
0
0
-
A
s
p
e
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
\
M
o
d
e
l
s
\
[
2
1
9
0
0
-
E
m
p
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
0
8
-
0
6
-
2
0
1
2
.
x
l
s
x
]
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
s
P213I.
WORK SESSION SUMMARY
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Work Session Summary: Single-Family and Duplex Mitigation
DATE: January 6, 2014
SUMMARY:
The City Council reviewed the following recommendations. All were accepted. Council requested
staff proceed with an employee generation study, at the estimated $30-35k amount, to be
accommodated in the department budget during a future supplemental adjustment. Staff is
proceeding with a request for proposals. Staff will return to Council in 3-6 months with results of
the study and requesting additional direction. Some outreach to the construction community may
also occur prior to the next work session.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Community Development is seeking direction from City Council. Following are the points that
need discussion and staff’s recommendations for proceeding:
1. Continue to require affordable housing mitigation for single-family and duplex
development. Development in Aspen brings impacts and the community has imposed various
requirements for those impacts to be mitigated or lessened. Continuing the mitigation requirement
would be in keeping with community expectations for new development and with expectations for
residential development since 1990.
This first question is fundamental to the remaining questions. If the community no longer needs or
wants to require mitigation for the expansion of single-family and duplex development, staff can
proceed with code amendments and the remaining questions are irrelevant.
2. Base the residential mitigation requirements on employee generation associated with
homes. Any mitigation system used by the City will need empirical documentation on the number
of employees generated by single-family and duplex homes. This could include employment
impacts associated with initial construction, associated with ongoing maintenance and operation,
and potentially public safety services.
Documenting employee generation impacts is a specialized expertise well beyond staff’s
capabilities. This is typical and there are consultant firms who specialize in impact fee strategies.
Initial outreach suggests a “bare-bones” study would be $12-15,000. A comprehensive analysis will
cost $30-35,000. The cheaper study would rely on data collected through other studies, both here
and elsewhere. The downside to this would be that some of the data may be called into question as
either old or not reflective of Aspen conditions. The more expensive option would include
collection of current Aspen data, likely through a homeowner survey. Given the importance of the
P214
I.
study being able to withstand public scrutiny and potential court scrutiny, staff believes the extra
cost for high-quality work is justified.
If this option is desired, staff will request a supplemental budget adjustment and proceed with the
procurement process.
3. Assess mitigation requirements based on a project’s net increase in Floor Area. Much
of the City’s impact fees are now based on Floor Area. This simplifies developer estimates and the
City’s review of building permits. This also has some built-in discounts – some areas do not count
as Floor Area, such as garages, basements, and storage.
The current system is based on “demolition.” This requires constant monitoring of quasi-
demolition projects. Impacts to the community are experienced regardless of the process of
construction. Staff recommends mitigation be required upon an expansion of Floor Area,
independent of whether demolition occurs as part of the construction process. This would bring the
housing impacts section of the Land Use Code into alignment with how all other impact mitigation
is treated in the City – based on net expansion, not development technique.
4. Explore a sliding scale or outright exemptions for small homes. In previous discussions,
the Council was interested in minimizing mitigation fees for “small” projects. Setting a Floor Area
threshold under which no mitigation is required is a potential way to minimize financial impacts on
the construction of small homes. Staff suggests more empirical data be collected and a sense of
actual fee potential be determined before pursuing specific fee reduction options.
5. Eliminate voluntary-occupancy ADUs as a mitigation option. The option of providing
an Accessory Dwelling Unit has been widely criticized for providing little actual housing benefit to
the community. Actual occupancy of ADUs is estimated to be 20-30%. Remaining options would
be cash-in-lieu or the certificate program. Also remaining would be the development of an ADU
which is deed-restricted and sold through the APCHA sales program. Voluntary-occupancy ADUs
could still be built, but would not longer provide a property with a mitigation credit.
6. Enable a simple process for retiring existing ADU deed restrictions. The existing ADU
inventory does have a role in the overall housing inventory. While occupancy is low, simply
eliminating existing ADUs will have a detrimental effect on the housing stock. In previous
proposals, staff suggested an administrative process for vacating existing deed restrictions with a
cash-in-lieu or certificate mitigation. Removing an ADU from a property would continue to be at
the option of the property owner.
P215
I.
P216
I.
P217
I.
P218
I.
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: CJ Oliver, Director of Environmental Health and
Sustainability
DATE OF MEMO: April 8, 2014
MEETING DATE: April 22, 2014
RE: Noise Regulation in the Commercial Zone
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting that Council consider a variety of potential
alterations to the existing City of Aspen noise ordinance in response to noise related issues that
have come about over the past year in the commercial core. Staff is requesting direction from
Council on how to respond to these issues.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 2003 Council approved changes to the City of Aspen
Noise Ordinance which included increasing the noise level allowed in the Commercial district
during the nighttime hours (9PM-7AM) from 55 decibels on the A scale (dBA) to 60 dBA.
Council has requested that staff evaluate possible changes to the noise ordinance related to the
levels in the commercial district and present them to Council.
BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen has had a noise ordinance dating back to 1971 which has
undergone several updates in its time, the most recent taking place in 2003. Noise has been
shown through scientific research to have a detrimental impact both from a physical standpoint
and a psychological standpoint. The physical impacts of noise are typically associated with
repeated or prolonged expose to sound at high levels which can cause hearing loss or hearing
damage. Even at levels not loud enough to cause damage to the ears, noise can cause
hypertension, sleep loss and developmental issues in young children. One of the primary intents
of the noise ordinance is to protect against these negative impacts from excessive noise.
The Environmental Health and Police Departments are the primary recipients of noise complaints
in the city. Using the current noise ordinance, these departments respond to complaints and work
with the involved parties to reach a resolution which has been done on an ongoing basis with
favorable results. In 2013 there were a number of noise related issues on “Restaurant Row” also
known as the 300 block of East Hopkins Avenue. Unlike many of the noise issues which
preceded them, these issues required ongoing City action/intervention and ended up with a jury
trial to reach a resolution.
P219
II.
Page 2 of 4
Due to the challenging nature of that situation and the ongoing development of penthouse
condominiums and other residential units in the downtown commercial core, staff is seeking
direction from Council on the regulation of noise in the commercial zone.
DISCUSSION: Below are several options for Council to consider regarding the current noise
ordinance in the commercial zone.
1. No change, leave the ordinance as it is today.
Pros-The current ordinance has been largely effective in controlling noise issues for some time
and it familiar to both the businesses and residents in the zone. The current noise levels
permitted in the commercial zone are similar to many other communities who specify a level for
this type of zoning. These levels represent a balance between the needs of a business to attract
and maintain customers with the needs of residents both in and around the commercial zone to
peacefully enjoy their property.
Cons- Restaurants and bars may find this level challenging to meet, particularly if they wish to
have live music.
2. Change the ordinance to include language that commercial zone noise levels be
measured inside the complainant’s property in a “closed building” setting. This
would mean openings such as windows and door would need to be closed in the
affected property and the current noise levels would be evaluated with those sound
blocking measures in place. This would not be a requirement to close windows at all
times, just if a complaint were made about noise and readings were taken to
evaluate compliance.
Pros- This would require residents and tenants in the commercial zone to take steps to minimize
noise impacts on their own prior to involving an enforcement agency. Readings taken during
noise issues at 308 E Hopkins showed that with the windows and door closed, sound levels
inside the residences were well below the current permissible levels of 60 dBA while with the
windows and doors open the levels were above 65 dBA. This approach shares the weight of
complying with the noise ordinance between residential units and businesses.
Cons- Residents in the core who enjoy sleeping with open window/doors may find this to be an
unfair burden to bear. This may also cause uncomfortable temperatures in buildings without air
conditioning during the warmest parts of the summer. This change would ask residents to make
adjustments for businesses to be able to continue profitable activities.
3. Raise the current noise level allowed at night in the commercial zone from 60 dBA
to ___ dBA.
Pros- This would allow businesses to produce a higher level of noise in the core, making room
for live music, amplified music, etc. to be a part of regular business. There is not a specific
levels listed with this option but comparison levels can be found in Attachment A.
Cons- This would have a negative impact on the residents in the commercial zones ability to
peacefully enjoy their property and may have negative health impacts for residents as well. An
increase in sound also stands to have a negative impact on the residential and lodging zones that
P220
II.
Page 3 of 4
surround the commercial zone as the increased sound from the commercial zone would travel
farther and louder than under the current permissible levels.
4. Move the nighttime definition in the noise ordinance back from 9:00 PM to a later
time such 10:00 or 11:00.
Pros- Music and entertainment tend to start later in the evening and often go beyond the current
9:00 cutoff for nighttime noise levels to go into effect. Allowing 65 dBA until a later time would
permit extra sound form these types of activities for an extended time period while still
protecting some portion of the night at a lower level, more conducive to sleeping. This could also
apply to only select days of the week, for example Friday and Saturday while the rest of the week
stays on a 9:00 nighttime schedule.
Cons- This would also have a negative impact on residential property owners who want to enjoy
their property in a quiet and peaceful manner. 10:00 or 11:00 may be considered very late for
some individuals and families with young children.
Options from this list above could also be combined, for example the starting point for nighttime
noise levels could be moved back to 10:00 and language could be added to require closed
building conditions while taking noise readings in the commercial zone.
Attachment A shows where Aspen fits into the spectrum of various noise ordinances from cities
of various sizes and locations around the country regarding specified noise levels in commercial
or similarly designated zones. Many cities do not specify a decibel level and only prohibit loud,
unusual, frightening, and other forms of “disruptive” noise which are evaluated by a responding
officer.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: None of the options listed above should have direct
financial or budgetary impacts to the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: None of the options listed in the memo should have an
environmental impact.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests that Council consider the options listed above
and provide staff with direction on next steps pertaining to the noise ordinance in the commercial
zone. Staff recommends that council consider the “closed building” option in conjunction with
each of the other proposed options.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A- Noise Level Comparison Chart
P221
II.
Page 4 of 4
P222
II.
Commercial Zone
Daytime Noise Limit
Commercial Zone
Nighttime Noise Limit "Nighttime" starts at:
City
Aspen, CO 65 60 9:00 PM
Steamboat Spring, CO 65 60 11:00 PM
Crested Butte, CO 70 60 10:00 PM
Boulder, CO 65 60 11:00 PM
Ft. Collins, CO ("Downtown Zone")60 55 8:00 PM
Denver, CO 65 60 10:00 PM
Colorado Springs, CO 60 55 7:00 PM
Park City, UT 65 65 10:00 PM above 65 considered "excessive"
New Orleans, LA 65 L10 level 60 L10 level 10:00 PM if receiving property is also commercial
75 LMax 65 Lmax 10:00 PM these levels can be a peak <10% of total
Miami, FL max 65*Max. 65*24 hrs see below*
Portland, OR 70 70 24 hrs 60 if receiving property is residential
* Sound level may not exceed ambient background by more than 5 dBA
L10 is the A-weighted sound pressure level which is exceeded ten percent of the time in any
measurement period. The measurement period shall not be less than ten minutes when measured
at or beyond the property boundary of the receiving land use category (example L10 is the sound
level that is exceeded a total of one minute in a ten-minute period).
For any source of sound the maximum sound level (Lmax) shall not be exceeded.
NOTE: Many cities and towns prohibit excessive, loud, or unusual noise but do not specify
a decibel level leaving the responding agency to make a subjective determination
ATTACHMENT A
P2
2
3
II
.