HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.joint.20160216
CITY COUNCIL & JOINT WORK SESSION
February 16, 2016
4:00 PM, Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Joint Work Session with BOCC
4:00 pm Housing Guidelines Discussion
5:15 pm REMP Request
5:35 pm Hunter Creek Prescribed Burn
5:45 pm Closing Discussion and Future Topics
1 | Page
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council, City of Aspen
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), Pitkin County
FROM: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager, City of Aspen
Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager, City of Aspen
DATE OF MEMO: February 12, 2016
RE: Policy Study, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing
Guidelines (February 8, 2016)
REQUEST OF BOCC AND CITY COUNCIL: Receive presentation and summary of key issues and findings of
the Policy Study of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority’s Affordable Housing Guidelines.
SUMMARY & BACKGROUND: The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) establishes
Affordable Housing Guidelines (Guidelines) periodically to govern deed restricted workforce housing for
City of Aspen and Pitkin County. The last comprehensive review of the Guidelines was back in 1999.
In early 2015, APCHA advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) to conduct a policy study of the
Guidelines, including an in‐depth analysis of affordability; incomes, assets and categories; household
sizes and qualifications; and best practices of peer housing programs in four high‐cost mountain
communities. The scope was expanded to provide an overview of APCHA’s goals and objectives,
including identifying segments of the workforce currently served by the Affordable Housing Program.
A professional services agreement was signed last April with Navigate, LLC, and its three‐member
consultant team, to begin work in early May. On February 8, 2016, after nine months of extensive
research and analysis, the consultants submitted a 100‐plus page policy study to APCHA of its Affordable
Housing Guidelines.
DISCUSSION: Today’s work session will include a half‐hour presentation of the key issues and
recommendations of the policy study from two members of the consultant team – Christine Walker of
Navigate, LLC, and Wendy Sullivan of WSW Associates. The presentation will be followed by a Q&A
discussion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: To consider the “big picture” conclusions (key issues and recommendations)
of study, and provide support and direction to APCHA staff and Board of Directors to lay out timetable
and plan for making recommended improvements to Affordable Housing Program.
P1
I.
!
Prepared by:
Navigate, LLC
Jackson Hole, WY
Rees Consulting, Inc.
Crested Butte, CO
WSW Consulting
San Anselmo, CA
Policy Study
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Affordable Housing Guidelines
!
February 8, 2016
P2
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Table of Contents – 1
Contents
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. 5
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - KEY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 8
APCHA’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM ..................................................................... 9
Inequities Serving Workforce Households .............................................................. 9
INCOMES AND ASSETS ...................................................................................................... 10
Number of Income Categories ............................................................................. 10
Income Category Methodology .......................................................................... 11
Recommended AMI Conversion .......................................................................... 11
Calculating Income ............................................................................................... 12
Asset Caps ............................................................................................................... 13
Negative Perceptions related to Income Qualifications ................................... 15
AFFORDABILITY ................................................................................................................ 15
Affordability Standard ............................................................................................ 15
Affordability over Time ........................................................................................... 16
AFFORDABILITY OF CURRENT RENTS AND OWNERSHIP PRICES ............................................... 16
QUALIFICATIONS FOR APCHA OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL HOUSING ..................................... 17
Income Qualification - Distinctions between Owners and Renters .................. 17
Bedroom Qualification ........................................................................................... 18
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEXITY ........................................................................................... 18
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 20
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 21
Pitkin County Employee Survey ............................................................................. 21
Community Interviews ............................................................................................ 23
Review of Peer Housing Programs ........................................................................ 24
Secondary Data ..................................................................................................... 24
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT ....................................................................................... 24
DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................... 25
CONSULTANT TEAM ......................................................................................................... 28
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... 28
ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS ....................................................................... 29
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) ............................................... 29
City of Aspen Council ............................................................................................ 29
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners ................................................... 29
Administration ......................................................................................................... 29
SECTION I – EXAMINATION OF APCHA’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM ......... 30
PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................ 30
HOUSING PROGRAM ....................................................................................................... 30
EMPLOYEE HOUSING GUIDELINES 2015 ............................................................................. 31
HOUSING PROGRAM GOAL ............................................................................................. 31
EVOLUTION OF THE ASPEN COMMUNITY AND RESULTING HOUSING CHALLENGES .................. 32
P3
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Table of Contents – 2
INVENTORY OF UNITS ........................................................................................................ 33
Ownership Units ....................................................................................................... 35
Rental Units .............................................................................................................. 35
COMPARISON OF APCHA RESIDENTS AND PITKIN COUNTY WORKING HOUSEHOLDS ............ 36
Household Demographics ..................................................................................... 37
Housing Costs .......................................................................................................... 38
Cost Burdened ........................................................................................................ 39
Work Location ......................................................................................................... 39
Type of Industry ....................................................................................................... 40
LOCAL LENDING ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................ 41
SECTION 2 – INCOME, ASSETS AND CATEGORIES ...................................................... 43
PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................ 43
APCHA INCOME LIMITS BY CATEGORY ............................................................................. 43
Maximum Renter Incomes ..................................................................................... 44
Maximum Owner Incomes .................................................................................... 44
APCHA INCOME MAXIMUMS TRANSLATED TO AREA MEDIAN INCOME (AMI) ..................... 45
Area Median Income (AMI) Defined ................................................................... 45
APCHA Categories Expressed as AMI .................................................................. 48
Considerations for Transitioning to an AMI-Based Program ............................... 49
MEASURING INCOME ....................................................................................................... 51
APCHA Standards ................................................................................................... 51
Federal Standards ................................................................................................... 52
APCHA ASSET LIMITS BY CATEGORY ................................................................................ 54
APCHA Asset Maximums ........................................................................................ 54
The Effect of APCHA’s Asset Limits ........................................................................ 54
MEASURING ASSETS ......................................................................................................... 57
APCHA Standards ................................................................................................... 57
Federal Standards ................................................................................................... 59
NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF INCOME/ASSET QUALIFICATION ............................................... 59
Unreported Income ................................................................................................ 60
Trust Funders ............................................................................................................ 60
Complexity and Transparency .............................................................................. 60
APCHA’S CATEGORIES ................................................................................................... 60
Inventory of APCHA Units by Category ................................................................ 60
Distribution of Units and Employed Households by Category ........................... 61
COMPARISON TO PEER COMMUNITIES (BRECKENRIDGE, JACKSON, TELLURIDE, VAIL) ............ 63
Income Categories and Limits .............................................................................. 63
Asset Limits ............................................................................................................... 64
SECTION 3 – AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 65
PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................ 65
STANDARDS OF AFFORDABILITY ......................................................................................... 65
Government Agencies ........................................................................................... 66
Mortgage Lenders .................................................................................................. 67
Peer Resort Communities ....................................................................................... 68
Inputs for Housing Cost Calculation ..................................................................... 69
Weaknesses in the 30% Affordability Standard ................................................... 69
AFFORDABILITY OF APCHA HOUSING ............................................................................... 70
P4
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Table of Contents – 3
Part 1 - Rental Affordability .................................................................................... 71
Part 2 - Ownership Affordability ............................................................................ 80
Affordability of New APCHA Units Over Time ...................................................... 91
OTHER IMPACTS TO THE AFFORDABILITY OF APCHA’S UNITS ............................................... 94
Deferred Maintenance .......................................................................................... 95
Capital Improvements ........................................................................................... 95
Interest Rates ........................................................................................................... 96
COMPARISON TO PEER COMMUNITIES – BRECKENRIDGE, JACKSON, TELLURIDE, VAIL ............ 96
Initial Prices/Rents ................................................................................................... 96
Price Appreciation Limits ....................................................................................... 96
Resale Price Guarantees ....................................................................................... 97
Evaluating Affordability over Time ........................................................................ 97
Capital Improvements ........................................................................................... 97
Special Assessments ............................................................................................... 97
Deferred Maintenance .......................................................................................... 98
SECTION 4 – HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 99
PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................ 99
DIFFERENT INCOME AND BEDROOM QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................... 99
INCOME QUALIFICATION - DISTINCTION BETWEEN OWNERS AND RENTERS ........................... 100
Equity in Housing the Workforce ......................................................................... 101
Affordability ........................................................................................................... 102
Compatibility with AMI ......................................................................................... 103
Impact on Income Categories ........................................................................... 103
Fair Housing Concerns ......................................................................................... 104
Administration ....................................................................................................... 105
BEDROOM QUALIFICATION ............................................................................................ 105
Federal Household Size Restrictions and Fair Housing ...................................... 105
CHFA Household Size Limits ................................................................................. 106
APCHA’s Qualifications ........................................................................................ 106
Ownership Units ..................................................................................................... 107
Rental Units ............................................................................................................ 107
PEER COMMUNITY COMPARISON (BRECKENRIDGE, JACKSON, TELLURIDE, VAIL) ................. 108
Household Size Calculations ............................................................................... 108
Bedroom Occupancy Standards ....................................................................... 108
APPENDIX A: SUPPORTING DATA FOR SECTION 1 – EXAMINATION OF APCHA’S
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM ........................................................................... A-1
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND SIZE ................................................................................. 1
AGE OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS .......................................................................................... 4
HOUSEHOLD INCOMES ....................................................................................................... 4
YEARS WORKED ................................................................................................................ 5
APPENDIX B: SUPPORTING DATA FOR SECTION 2 – INCOME, ASSET AND
CATEGORIES ................................................................................................................ B-1
APCHA CATEGORIES EXPRESSED AS AMI .......................................................................... 1
Direct Translation Not Possible Discussion .............................................................. 1
Estimated Translation to AMI ................................................................................... 2
Measuring Assets – Federal Standards (HUD) ........................................................ 5
P5
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Table of Contents – 4
APPENDIX C: SUPPORTING DATA FOR SECTION 3 – AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS ..... C-1
PART 1 - RENTAL AFFORDABILITY ......................................................................................... 1
Affordability for Renters in Existing Units ................................................................. 1
PART 2 - OWNERSHIP AFFORDABILITY .................................................................................. 1
ESTIMATED AMI RENTS ....................................................................................................... 3
ESTIMATED AMI SALE PRICES .............................................................................................. 6
APPENDIX D: MATRIX OF PEER COMMUNITY HOUSING PROGRAMS ...................... D-1
APPENDIX E: MAP OF OWNERSHIP EXCLUSION ZONE .............................................. E-1
P6
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Table of Contents – 5
List of Tables
Table 1. Recommended AMI Categories with 2015 Income Maximums .............. 12!
Table 2A,B. Survey Representation ............................................................................. 22!
Table 3. 2015 HUD AMI - Pitkin County ........................................................................ 26!
Table 4. Year APCHA Ownership Units Built ................................................................ 33!
Table 5. APCHA Inventory of Deed Restricted Housing ............................................ 34!
Table 6. APCHA Ownership Inventory ......................................................................... 35!
Table 7. APCHA Rental Inventory ................................................................................ 36!
Table 8. Representation in the APCHA Program ....................................................... 37!
Table 9. Housing Costs ................................................................................................. 38!
Table 10. Cost Burdened .............................................................................................. 39!
Table 11. Where do you and others in your household work? ................................. 40!
Table 12. Rentals: Maximum Income Limits, 2015 ..................................................... 44!
Table 13. Ownership: Maximum Income Limits, 2015 ............................................... 45!
Table 14. 2015 HUD AMI - Pitkin County ...................................................................... 46!
Table 15. APCHA and HUD Defined Income Levels .................................................. 48!
Table 16. Estimated Upper AMI Limit for Each Category: 2015 ............................... 49!
Table 17. Estimated AMI Range by APCHA Category: 2015 ................................... 50!
Table 18. Maximum Income Based on Size Category: Current Compared to
Proposed AMI (2015) ..................................................................................................... 51!
Table 19. HUD Income Compared to APCHA Income Inclusions ............................ 53!
Table 20. Net Asset Cap: 2015 .................................................................................... 54!
Table 21. Assets of Households Employed in Pitkin County by Income: 2015 ........ 55!
Table 22. Affordable Purchase Price Given Income and Asset Caps: 2015 ......... 57!
Table 23. Household Assets .......................................................................................... 58!
Table 24. APCHA Redistributed Inventory: 2015 ........................................................ 61!
Table 25. Permitted Increase in Rent for Existing Affordable Rentals ...................... 71!
Table 26. 2015 APCHA Maximum Monthly Rental Rates .......................................... 72!
Table 27. 2015 Category Incomes for APCHA Rentals .............................................. 72!
Table 28. Households Paying Over 30% of Income for Rent: APCHA Renters 2015
......................................................................................................................................... 73!
Table 29. Average Affordability of APCHA’s Maximum Rents: 2015 ...................... 74!
Table 30. Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Rent by Qualifying Households:
New APCHA Rentals, 2015 ........................................................................................... 75!
Table 31. 2015 APCHA Maximum Sales Prices ........................................................... 81!
Table 32. 2015 Category Incomes for APCHA Ownership ........................................ 81!
Table 33. Households Paying Over 30% of Income for Mortgage: APCHA Owners
2015 ................................................................................................................................. 82!
Table 34. Average Affordability of APCHA’s Maximum Sale Prices: 2015 ............. 83!
Table 35. Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Mortgage and HOA by APCHA
Households: 2015 .......................................................................................................... 84!
Table 36. Incomes Needed to Afford Current Sales Prices ....................................... 90!
Table 37. Average Percent Change in APCHA Maximum Rents and Maximum
Incomes by Category: 2000 to 2015 .......................................................................... 92!
P7
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Table of Contents – 6
Table 38. Dual and Single-System Comparison ....................................................... 101!
Table 39. Household Makeup by Owners and Renters ........................................... 102!
Table 40. Rental: Category 1 APCHA vs AMI ........................................................... 103!
Table 41. Income Categories: Rental vs Ownership .............................................. 103!
Table 42. Percentage Adjustments for Family Size: 2015 ........................................ 104!
Table 43. Peer Community Bedroom Occupancy Standards ............................... 109!
P8
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Table of Contents – 7
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Type of Industry for Which You and Others in Your Household Work
......................................................................................................................................... 41!
Figure 2. Households With a Pitkin County Employee by AMI: 2015 ...................... 47 !
Figure 3. Distribution of APCHA Rental Units Compared to Households Employed
in Pitkin County by Category: 2015 ............................................................................. 62!
Figure 4. Distribution of APCHA Ownership Units Compared to Households
Employed in Pitkin County by Category: 2015 .......................................................... 63!
Figure 5. Rent Affordable to Households Within the Permitted Income Range for
Each Category Compared to APCHA Rents: One-Adult Household .................... 77!
Figure 6. Rent Affordable to Households Within the Permitted Income Range for
Each Category Compared to APCHA Rents: Two-Adult Household ..................... 78!
Figure 7. Rent Affordable to Households Within the Permitted Income Range for
Each Category Compared to APCHA Rents: Three-Adult Household .................. 78!
Figure 8. Estimated AMI Rents Compared to Maximum APCHA Rents ................. 80!
Figure 9. Sale Prices Affordable to Households Within the Permitted Income
Range Compared to APCHA Rents: 0-Dependent Household ............................... 87!
Figure 10. Estimated AMI Sale Prices Compared to Maximum APCHA Sale Prices
......................................................................................................................................... 89!
Figure 11. 2015 Resale Value Compared to APCHA Sale Prices by Category:
2015 ................................................................................................................................. 90!
Figure 12. AMI Affordability of APCHA Units Based on Income Category
Designation and the Resale Price of Units: 2015 ....................................................... 91!
Figure 13. Average Percent Change in APCHA Maximum Sales Prices and
Maximum Incomes by Category : 2000 to 2015 ....................................................... 93!
Figure 14. Change in Maximum AMI for Category 1: 2000* to 2015 ..................... 94!
P9
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Recommendations - 8
Executive Summary - Key Issues and
Recommendations
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) Program has been
successful in achieving its primary goal of housing those that work or have
worked in Aspen/Pitkin County. An impressive and diverse inventory of over
2,900 restricted units has been produced that is housing seasonal and long-term
workers, as well as workers in a representative mix of industries in the County.
APCHA housing is also affordable. Comparing incomes to home prices and rents
shows that the vast majority of APCHA’s residents live in homes they can afford,
most spending a far lower percentage of their income for housing than in peer
communities.
Employees express the benefit that this housing has had on the community and
its workers:
Despite APCHA’s positive impact, there is room for improvement. As APCHA’s
housing program has evolved over the last 40 years along with the communities
it serves, some provisions in the Guidelines are no longer applicable. Other
additions have been made over the years to address shifting needs. While all
provisions at one time served important purposes, the patchwork of Guidelines
created over the past 40 years has:
• Contributed to the complexity of the program creating management
challenges and large staffing requirements;
• Reduced transparency, created misconceptions and made it difficult for
residents to understand;
• Made it difficult to evaluate the performance of APCHA’s programs as
evidenced by the complexity of the analysis in this report;
• Resulted in methods that are totally unique to Aspen, thereby limiting the
ability to learn from lessons in peer communities and work with State and
Federal programs when desired; and
• Disproportionately served different types of employee households.
"[T]hanks for providing an opportunity for people to
own/rent in Aspen. [W]ithout the housing authority
Pitkin County would be a ghost town"! – Survey
Comment
"Keep up the good work. This is the most necessary
program we operate in the city/county. It is vital for
the long term health and existence of Aspen”. –
Survey Comment
P10
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Recommendations - 9
The following key issues and recommendations address major elements of
APCHA’s Guidelines – affordability, home prices and how households qualify to
buy or rent APCHA housing. The overriding conclusion is that a major overhaul is
warranted. Minor adjustments will not address the problems identified. Also,
because the elements of the Guidelines are interdependent, changes cannot
be made to one without also changing much of the system. For example, prices
cannot be raised without establishing an affordability standard. The basis for the
income categories cannot be changed as recommended without also
changing the method for qualifying households.
The following key issues and recommendations do not address several pressing
aspects of the housing program that were beyond the scope of this study, such
as how many or what type of units should be developed, the selection system,
how to grapple with retirees remaining in their APCHA homes and how to
address deferred maintenance. They do, however, highlight how the existing
Guidelines relate to the program’s goal of serving the Pitkin County workforce,
where the current system may be falling short of meeting that goal or not
functioning well, and what changes can be considered to improve APCHA’s
ability to meet the housing needs of the local workforce.
APCHA’s Affordable Housing Program
Inequities Serving Workforce Households
Issues:
Some segments of the workforce are presently under-served by APCHA
housing, including:
• Couples with and without children in both ownership and rental housing;
• Persons that have been employed in the area for 4-years or less;
• Very low income renter households earning under $25,000 per year;
• Higher income owner households earning between $100,000 to $200,000
per year; and
• Many APCHA renters, particularly those earning under $50,000 per year,
are cost-burdened (paying over 30% of their income for rent).
Recommendations:
• Focus on serving lower income categories; higher income households
have more options for housing.
• Change the Guidelines as they pertain to income categories and the
dual qualification system as recommended below so that all types of
households are qualified for housing by the same method.
P11
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Recommendations - 10
Incomes and Assets
Number of Income Categories
Issues:
• Eight categories (including RO) are more than in any peer community.
Economic diversity has been achieved as a variety of income levels
are served through an assortment of product type and variety in
pricing; however, it does not appear that as many categories are
needed to maintain this diversity. RO has served multiple purposes over
time and has units that are priced above, as well as within, Category
ranges. The assumption made that mobile homes would not
significantly appreciate if classified as RO units proved to be incorrect.
• The number of categories varies – four for rental and seven for
ownership plus RO. This complicates converting to alternative methods
for basing income categories.
Recommendations:
• Develop clear policies for future RO units. RO units should be used for
housing above the highest priced-capped Category. Units priced
below Category 7 should not be classified as RO units, but rather fully
price-capped regardless of unit type. Tracking the level at which RO
units are priced should be done to allow evaluation of APCHA’s
inventory in the future. Using designations like “RO4” aids this process.
• Consolidate Categories 5, 6 and 7. About 3% of APCHA’s inventory
and only 6% of households employed in Pitkin County are in these
Categories combined. Consolidating them into a single category
could simplify administration, but would require changes in the
Guidelines to reference recorded deed restrictions and education of
homeowners.
• Add Category 5 for rental housing that largely replaces Category 4.
The new category would be comprised primarily of households in the
upper end of Category 3, in which the highest number of APCHA
rental units are classified.
P12
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Recommendations - 11
Income Category Methodology
Issues:
Aspen’s unique income categories were derived from a combination of
five sources used in a difficult-to-replicate methodology and last
calculated 14 years ago. A new system is needed that can be easily
updated for simplification, transparency and compatibility with potential
State/Federal funding and to set prices/rents and maintain affordability
over time,
Recommendations:
Base Categories on AMI. The advantage to this is that it:
• Is a reliable, trusted and readily available data source;
• Is updated annually by HUD, APCHA would need only to copy figures
into its documents;
• Would reduce the complexity of the program;
• Would more consistently maintain the relative affordability of
Categories over time;
• Is consistent with Federal housing programs and multiple funding
sources; and
• Is used by peer communities, which would enable Aspen to evaluate
the performance of its housing programs relative to similar programs.
The AMI’s for households with an employee working in Pitkin County are
now well documented by the survey, making it possible to judge relative
affordability and how the categories should be targeted when
developing additional housing. The chart AMI by Own/Rent in Section 2
contains the basic data for these purposes.
Recommended AMI Conversion
The conversion to AMI should align current incomes to their average AMI
equivalent, as shown below. This would lessen the impact on current
residents of Category units and their ability to sell their homes, and shift
fewer households from one Category to another than would setting
categories at AMI’s either lower or higher than current equivalents.
P13
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Recommendations - 12
Table 1. Recommended AMI Categories with 2015 Income Maximums
Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4 Cat 5* (5-7)
AMI Range: 20% - 50% 51% - 85% 86% - 115% 116% - 185% 186% - 235%
1 person HH $34,150 $48,445 $78,545 $126,355 $160,505
5 person HH $52,650 $74,758 $121,095 $194,805 $247,455
NOTE: The calculated upper AMI limit has been adjusted to the nearest 5%.
*Category 5 would be a new Category for rentals and would merge Categories 5, 6, 7 for
ownership.
Source: Consultant Team
The recommended categories most closely align with the current incomes in
the Guidelines for ownership housing while shifting the incomes downward for
renters. The reasons for this are detailed in Section 2.
Converting to the recommended AMI system involves tradeoffs. Advantages
include:
• Simplicity
• Transparency and consistency
• Ease of transition
• Portability
• Compatibility with program goals
Any conversion of the underlying basis for APCHA’s income categories will
affect existing conditions (such as deed restrictions and leases), current and
future households served, and income, rent and sale prices within Categories.
The shifts are minimal in Category 1 but increase gradually being greatest in
Category 5.
Calculating Income
Issues:
What APCHA includes and excludes in income when qualifying applicants
does not appear to have major gaps. Although different than federal
standards, the method is similar to other resort communities and responds to
the challenges of measuring incomes for workforce households in resort
economies where holding multiple and seasonal jobs is common. Concerns
include:
• Under-reporting of tip and cash income;
• Parents being allowed to provide funds to help purchase homes, which is
a very common practice in resort communities; and
• The ability or not of “trust funders” to live in affordable housing.
P14
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Recommendations - 13
Recommendations:
• Limit the financial contribution that parents or other non-occupants make
to no more than 20% of the purchase price. This would allow buyers
access to conventional mortgage financing without the cost of mortgage
insurance. It would be a compromise that addresses negative
perceptions about “trust funders” and it would still allow buyers to obtain
down payment assistance from sources like CHFA.
• Verify income reported to the bank for the mortgage application at least
two weeks prior to closing. Tip and other cash income may be reported to
qualify for the mortgage, but may not match the income reported to
APCHA.
• For applicants holding jobs that typically generate tip income, require that
an estimate of the income be provided. Confirming this estimate through
employment verification should also be considered.
• Revise the bid submission form/application to further itemize income and
specifically ask about being the beneficiary of a trust.
• Inquire of applicants about trusts that may not be reported on current tax
returns, like those for which the applicant is not yet old enough to receive
income distributions or the income is exempt from taxes.
Asset Caps
Issues:
The scaled asset caps in place:
• Disqualify approximately 36% of employee households working in Pitkin
County;
• Were last changed in 2002;
• Disproportionally impact the income categories, although this is not
necessarily a negative;
• Are a disincentive to saving for retirement, college education and other
major life expenses;
• Have led to two policy changes – reducing the amount of retirement
counted and allowing a portion of assets to be counted as income so
households can income-qualify for a higher Category unit, which could
cost burden some households.
• Add to the amount of staff time needed to qualify applicants.
P15
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Recommendations - 14
Recommendations:
Eliminate the asset caps on Category units and RO units with a price
appreciation cap. Requiring that 75% of income be earned in Pitkin County,
along with a minimum number of hours worked, eliminates buyers with
significant income-producing assets and ensures residents are contributing to
the local economy even if they have been able to save. The locally-earned
income percentage could be increased to further reduce the amount of
income-producing assets applicants could own. This is an approach used in
other resort communities. Neither Breckenridge nor Vail have asset caps.
If asset caps are not eliminated, the following changes are suggested:
• Apply one cap equally to all units. Applying the $900,000 cap, which is
currently the RO Category limit, would only disqualify about 8% of
workforce households compared with 36% currently.
• Exclude qualified retirement savings, as done in Jackson. Retirement
savings cannot be used for housing without high tax penalties.
Discouraging employees from saving for retirement could ultimately
increase the length of time they remain in their APHCA units upon
retirement.
• Limit the exclusion from assets of one-time gifts to no more than 20% of the
purchase price. The lack of down payments is often an impediment to
home purchase. Possibly disqualifying applicants because of down
payment assistance seems counter to APCHA's goals yet allowing parents
to outright purchase homes has been raised as a concern.
• Raise the caps to lower the percentage of disqualified households.
• Retain caps on RO units that are not resale price capped since
competition generated by the more affluent households with significant
assets will escalate price increases. Asset caps should reduce the
inflationary competition by reducing the number of applicants who
qualify, unless a surplus in these units develops.
• Retain the provision prohibiting ownership of other housing within the OEZ.
• Exclude one automobile per employee from the asset calculation. Cars
cannot be used to purchase or rent housing and are often needed for
work or child care. HUD considers cars to be necessary personal property,
not an asset. Counting cars with a price over a designated amount could
be a compromise that addresses complaints about APCHA residents
having expensive automobiles.
!
P16
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Recommendations - 15
Negative Perceptions related to Income Qualifications
Issues:
Surveys and interviews identified negative perceptions about APCHA’s program
related to income qualifying, primarily under reporting of income (especially
tips), “trust funders” qualifying for APCHA housing and complexity that makes it
difficult to understand how to qualify.
Recommendations:
Update APCHA’s website to help improve public awareness and program
perceptions. Specific changes could include:
• Clarifying objectives
• Providing limited access to a database of the inventory
• A report on the number of units sold per year
• A simplified explanation on how income is calculated
• Information on the affordability of purchase prices and rents
The other recommendations herein, such as limiting the exclusion of gifts
when calculating assets to 20% down payments, should result in a system that
is easier to explain, more likely to be perceived as equitable, and address
concerns about inappropriate use of the system.
Affordability
Affordability Standard
Issues:
Prices are not determined consistently based on an adopted standard for
affordability. In some Categories, rents and prices are too high, about right, or
too low relative to income, yet affordability is a clear objective of the Housing
Program.
Recommendations:
Define affordability based on the housing payment equaling 30% of income.
This standard is used widely to determine if housing is affordable. The benefits
of doing so outweigh its weaknesses. Defining affordability on the 30%
standard will support better decision making on many aspects of the Housing
Program such as initial sales prices, appreciation caps, deferred
maintenance, and qualification. It will also provide a basis from which to
evaluate whether the program is meeting its objective of affordability.
P17
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Recommendations - 16
Affordability over Time
Issues:
APCHA’s current income-calculation method results in a program that does
not consistently serve the same target income market each year. In some
years, defined incomes target a higher income market and in some years
they may target a lower market. An advantage of linking income limits to
HUD AMI is that the target income market would remain constant over time
(e.g., always at 50% AMI)
APCHA maximum rents and incomes have generally increased at about the
same rate over the years. For ownership, APCHA maximum sale prices have
been permitted to increase at faster rates than incomes on average,
primarily reducing the affordability of new homes for larger families. Despite
this, sale prices remain very affordable for these households, indicating that
prices had room to increase.
Recommendations:
Use the annual change in AMI to update prices for new units, which would
create stability in the relationship between prices and income over time. This
is the preferred approach of peer communities reviewed as part of this study
and has been found as the best way to retain the affordability of housing
over time. Recognizing that many existing APCHA deed restrictions are based
on CPI and can only be changed at resale, at least future deed restrictions
could tie price increases to AMI and better retain the affordability of these
properties over time.
Affordability of Current Rents and Ownership Prices
Issues:
• Many renters in APCHA units are cost-burdened (pay over 30% of their
income for rent). This is particularly acute in Categories 1 and 2, while rents
in the upper income categories could be raised and would still be
affordable.
• Ownership prices are lower than affordable levels in all Categories,
although the difference is much greater among the upper income
Categories.
Recommendations:
• Raise prices for new ownership units based on the amounts affordable for
the recommended AMI categories.
P18
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Recommendations - 17
• Lower rents for Category 1 by reducing the income levels that the
Category targets when converting to the recommended AMI
income/price structure.
Qualifications for APCHA Ownership and Rental Housing
Income Qualification - Distinctions between Owners and Renters
Issues:
The current method of calculating income based on the number of adults for
rental and dependents for ownership:
• Disadvantages families with children in rentals and larger families in
ownership.
• Raises concerns about Fair Housing.
• Is not compatible with AMI-based income categories.
• Is based on data that are not readily available – neither the Census nor
HUD publish income estimates based on number of adults or dependents.
• Is unique among housing programs.
• Is more complicated to manage than programs where household size is
measured the same for owners and renters and it is confusing to
applicants.
• Involves different scaling factors based on the number of adults or
number of dependents making the gap between categories vary
between owners and renters.
Recommendations:
Use the total number of persons per household for both owners and renters to
determine household income. The advantage to this is that it:
• Simplifies the program by using one method for both rental and
ownership;
• Is consistent with HUD methodology for determining incomes and relates
to AMI;
• Treats households more equitably based on the number of persons, rather
than differently based on the number of adults or dependents;
• Eliminates Fair Housing Issues;
• Maintains the same AMI level within the category regardless of household
size; and
• Is used by peer communities, which would enable Aspen to evaluate the
performance of its housing programs relative to similar programs.
P19
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Recommendations - 18
Bedroom Qualification
Issue:
APCHA determines the number of bedrooms for which a household qualifies
based on the total number of persons in the household, as is done by peer
communities with the exception of Breckenridge. As household composition
and size have changed over the years, situations of overcrowding (families in
one-bedroom units) or under-utilized units (empty nesters in larger units) have
developed. The priority that APCHA gives to current residents of the property
in which units become available attempts to address this problem, yet there
is insufficient movement within the inventory to accommodate changing
household needs. APCHA’s limit of two persons per bedroom for rental
product is likely reasonable, however, based on HUD standards.
Recommendations:
• Develop additional units to allow for movement within the inventory to
accommodate changing household needs.
• Continue to base the qualifications on the total number of persons in the
household.
Administrative Complexity
Issues:
• Aspen has exceptionally complex Guidelines that requires a large staff to
administer, are very hard to update, and difficult to understand.
• There are gaps in understanding of the inventory of units likely resulting
from an outdated system for collecting, maintaining, and disseminating
data.
• APCHA’s inventory has grown to nearly 3,000 units, increasing the
complexity of keeping track of and monitoring units. The current record
keeping system does not support periodic program evaluation.
• The extensive changes recommended herein will initially take more time
and effort than maintaining the status quo. Recommendations will have
to be approved, residents and the public will need to be educated,
Guidelines and deed restrictions changed and new record keeping
systems created.
P20
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Recommendations - 19
Recommendations
• Prioritize implementation of the recommended changes even if staff time
has to be re-directed from day-to-day responsibilities. The investment of
time should save time and taxpayer dollars in the long run.
• Improve and consolidate the APCHA housing database. Implementing a
centralized system to collect, track and disseminate data will help APCHA reduce
its administrative burden, make its inventory more transparent, keep track of what
is working well and where changes may be needed, more easily disseminate
information, and make the system less reliant upon institutional knowledge.
• Simplify current Guidelines by removing provisions that are outdated and that are
not helping APCHA meet its goal. Overly complicated guidelines are hard for the
public to understand, contribute to the perceptions that the application process
is unfair or “rigged,” and add to the cost and difficulty of operating the program.
P21
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Introduction - 20
INTRODUCTION
The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) contracted with the team of
Navigate, LLC, WSW Consulting, and Rees Consulting, Inc., to conduct a
comprehensive review of its affordable housing program to ensure it is meeting
the intended purpose as stated in the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing
Guidelines, Amended and Adopted October 2015:
To provide affordable housing opportunities through rental and sale
to persons who are or have been actively employed or self-
employed within Aspen and Pitkin County, and that provide or
have provided goods and services to individuals, businesses or
institutional operations within Aspen and Pitkin County (prior to
retirement and/or disability).
The purpose of this analysis is to help APCHA understand:
1. The ability for its housing program to serve employed households in Pitkin County;
2. Where the program has been most effective;
3. Where improvements could be made to better meet the intended goals of
APCHA’s workforce housing program; and
4. Potential policy changes that could help APCHA better meet its goals.
This report answers the primary questions raised in the RFP, including:
1. Affordability: Is APCHA’s methodology for setting maximum sales prices and
monthly rents creating affordable outcomes? Is there a better method that would
be more effective?
2. Income/Assets: In the context of the existing Category system, is APCHA’s
methodology for measuring income and assets achieving affordability for its
target households? What assets/income should be included? Are current
Categories segmented appropriately and how do they compare to a system
based on Area Median Income (AMI)? Is there a better approach that would be
more effective?
3. Household size: Is APCHA’s methodology for determining household size based on
number of adults for renters and number of dependents for buyers effective? Is
there a better method that would be more effective?
4. Qualifications: Is APCHA’s twofold system of qualifying renters and buyers
achieving its desired outcome of serving employees? Or should both be based
on the same household size criteria?
P22
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Introduction - 21
5. Best Practices: How do peer communities address challenges of affordability,
income/asset levels, household size, and qualifications to rent or purchase?
Methodology
Information used in this study included a mix of primary research and secondary
data analysis. Data collection for this study took place during the months of May
through September of 2015.
Pitkin County Employee Survey
To conduct this analysis, it was necessary to understand the mix of employed
households occupying APCHA housing compared to the housing needs and
demographics of all employees working in Pitkin County. Secondary data
sources such as the US Census and American Community Survey (ACS) provide
information on households living in a given area, but do not supply information
on households that are employed within a region. In this case, only about 47% of
employees working in Pitkin County actually reside within the county – the rest
commute in. For this reason, the results of this survey cannot be collected from,
nor are they comparable to, the Census or ACS for households living in Pitkin
County.
The survey probed household demographics, where workers live, their
experience and familiarity with APCHA’s program, length and type of
employment, interest in purchasing an affordable home or renting an APCHA
unit, housing expenses and needs, and income and asset characteristics. Survey
results are presented for households that have at least one employed person in
Pitkin County – the primary focus for APCHA’s housing program.
The goal of survey distribution was to reach a representative selection of persons
employed in Pitkin County. With only about 18,000 employees in the county, it
was essential to have the largest employers in the area participate in the survey,
which have a proportionately larger impact on employee housing needs in the
county, along with a mix of smaller employers to capture the array of
employment in the county. To achieve this result, various distribution methods
were used:
• The survey was distributed on-line through Pitkin County employers to their
employees with assistance from the Aspen Chamber Resort Association and
their almost 700 members. We also received direct participation from the
larger employers, including Aspen Skiing Company, Roaring Fork
Transportation Authority, Aspen School District, Auberge Resorts, and Aspen
Valley Hospital.
• The survey was also posted on the APCHA website and publicized through
radio and print advertisements to notify households who may not have
received a survey link from their employer about the survey and provide the
opportunity for them to respond.
P23
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Introduction - 22
• Survey invites were emailed to all occupants of APCHA housing to provide
the ability for all APCHA residents to respond to the survey.
• The survey was also offered in Spanish with the assistance of APCHA and
several of the larger businesses within Pitkin County.
Over 1,470 responses were received from households occupied by at least one
person employed in Pitkin County. Because most respondents have more than
one employee living in their household, the number of employees represented
by the survey is higher (about 2,870 employees). Also, employees hold about 1.2
jobs on average, meaning that the survey represents about 3,450 jobs, or 16% of
all jobs, in Pitkin County.
The mix of jobs represented by respondents covers the array of employment in
Pitkin County and, although not directly comparable, is similar to the distribution
of jobs by industry type reported by local and national jobs sources.
Table 2A. Survey Representation – Industry of Employment
Survey
(Industry of
employment
for Pitkin
County
employees)
Bureau of
Economic
Analysis
(2013)
Colorado
Dept. of
Local
Affairs
(2013)
Retail, accommodation, food service 29.4% 26.0% 28.0%
Ski area, recreation, guiding service,
professional athlete
13.4% 10.8% 11.4%
Government (excluding education and
hospitals)
12.9% 9.5% 10.8%
Banking, legal, computers or other
professional service company
8.7% 11.2% 8.7%
School District, other educational institution* 7.0% 1.7% 1.7%
Construction, landscaping 6.9% 4.3% 4.7%
Hospital, health care** 6.8% 2.4% 2.8%
Real estate leasing and sales, property
management
4.9% 14.1% 10.9%
Other services, except public administration 5.5% 6.5% 7.8%
Other 4.4% 4.9% 4.0%
Administrative and waste management
services***
Not asked 8.5% 9.2%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Federal and state sources are based on NAICS industry codes and classify each business
accordingly; the survey relies on individuals to report their industry of employment, which may differ
from federal classification standards.
*State and federal sources include private education only; survey includes public education jobs
**May include some contract administrative services, which were not asked in the survey.
*** Includes administrative support services hired on contract by other businesses; not asked on the
survey, so will be distributed throughout the other categories on the survey.
P24
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Introduction - 23
The margin of error for survey tabulations is within about 2.5 percentage points at
the 95% confidence level. This means that, for tabulations involving the entire
sample, there is 95% confidence that any given percent reported is no more
than plus or minus 2.5 percentage points from what is actually the case. When
estimates are provided for sub-groups, such as owners and renters, the
tabulations are less precise
Table 2B. Employee Survey Response Summary
Survey
Responses
Received
# of
Employees
Represented
# of Jobs Held
by Respondent
Households
Total Pitkin
County
Jobs
(2015)*
% of Jobs
Represented
by the Survey
Estimated
Margin of
Error (95%)
1,474 2,870 3,450 22,000 16% +/- 2.5%
*Source: Colorado Dept. of Local Affairs (DOLA)
Community Interviews
Over 40 interviews with key stakeholders, employers, realtors and lenders in the
area were conducted as part of this study. More specifically:
• Key stakeholders. More than 25 interviews with key community stakeholders were
conducted, including City and County staff, APCHA staff and board members, City
Council Members, and County Commissioners. Information was collected on
perceptions of the housing program, evolution of the programs, community needs,
opportunities, and challenges.
• Pitkin County Employers. The larger Pitkin County employers were interviewed,
including but not limited to Aspen Skiing Company, Roaring Fork Transportation
Authority, Auberge Resorts, and Aspen Valley Hospital. Employers were asked about
employee recruitment and retention, experience with and perceptions of APCHA’s
housing program, housing needs of their workers, and how APCHA’s housing program
can better serve their employees.
• Real estate agents and local lenders. Over six interviews were conducted with local
and down valley real estate agents and lenders, gathering information on local
housing market and home qualification information, local lending standards and
products used, problems in lending to local households, or on APCHA products, if
any; and where the housing market is falling short of meeting local workforce needs.
P25
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Introduction - 24
Review of Peer Housing Programs
This study included an analysis of housing programs in four high-cost mountain
communities. The following communities were selected because they have
significant experience providing, managing and maintaining a diversity of
housing for their workforce:
• Breckenridge, Colorado
• Telluride, Colorado
• Vail, Colorado
• Jackson, Wyoming
The purpose was to understand how comparable communities address each
primary component of this study, their relative successes and problems, and to
identify methodologies that may help APCHA address its program challenges
and goals. The results of this analysis are summarized throughout the report, as
well as in an easy-to-reference matrix in the Appendix.
Secondary Data
Analysis of existing reports, policies and data included:
• Review of APCHA’s existing housing inventory and program, including the
Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines, Amended and Adopted
October 2015, and related program and policy documents and housing
data sets from APCHA.
• Secondary data sources, including U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages (QCEW), Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA),
Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) and local housing and
economic studies.
Organization of This Report
The analysis of APCHA’s Employee Housing Guidelines 2015 is presented in the
following report sections. Report sections are organized around the topics of
interest expressed in the Request for Proposals:
Section 1: Examination of APCHA’s Affordable Housing Program – which sets
the stage for the analysis in later sections by introducing APCHA’s
program and housing inventory and using the 2015 Employee
Survey results to understand which households APCHA is serving
well and where improvements can be made;
Section 2: Income, Assets and Housing Categories – which evaluates APCHA’s
system for measuring income and assets and their respective limits
defined for each Category of housing;
P26
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Introduction - 25
Section 3: Affordability – which evaluates whether rents and purchase prices
for APCHA homes within each Category are affordable to the
households that qualify for them, both presently and over time; and
Section 4: Household Size and Qualifications to Rent & Purchase – which
analyzes APCHA’s dual qualification system for ownership and
rental units based on household size and a specific number of
bedrooms.
Sections 2 through 4 discuss:
• APCHA’s present policy expressed in its Employee Housing Guidelines
2015,
• Federal and other generally accepted standards for relevant policies,
• The effect of APCHA’s policies on meeting its workforce housing goals,
and
• Practices applied and lessons learned from housing programs in peer
mountain communities.
Based on this research, specific recommendations are made for changes that
could be considered to help APCHA better meet its housing goals. These are
summarized at the beginning of the study in the section titled “Executive
Summary - Key Issues and Recommendations.”
This report also contains the following appendices, providing more detail on the
primary research conducted as part of this study:
• Appendix A contains additional tables and charts for Section 1.
• Appendix B contains additional tables and charts for Section 2.
• Appendix C contains additional tables and charts for Section 3.
• Appendix D contains a matrix of peer community housing programs.
• Appendix E contains a map of the Ownership Exclusion Zone (OEZ).!
Definitions
American Community Survey – The ACS is part of the Decennial Census Program
of the U.S. Census. The survey was fully implemented in 2005, replacing the
decennial census long form that has been discontinued. Because it is based on
a sample of responses, its use in smaller areas (under 65,000 persons) is best
P27
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Introduction - 26
suited for monitoring general changes over time rather than for specific
demographic counts due to potentially high margins of error.
Affordable Housing – As used in this report, housing is deemed to be affordable if
the monthly rent or mortgage payment is equal to or less than 30% of gross
household income (before taxes). When housing costs exceed 30% of income,
the household is considered to be Cost Burdened.
Area Median Income (AMI) – A term that generally refers to the median incomes
published annually for counties by the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). AMI varies by household size, an issue covered in this report.
HUD uses four income categories as follows:
• Extremely Low Income – At or below 30% AMI
• Very Low Income –Between 31% and 50% AMI
• Low Income – From 51% to 80% AMI
• Moderate Income – From 81% to 100% AMI
The published incomes for Pitkin County for 2015 are as follows:
Table 3. 2015 HUD AMI - Pitkin County
AMI 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person
30% $20,500 $23,400 $26,350 $29,250 $31,600
50% $34,150 $39,000 $43,900 $48,750 $52,650
60% $40,980 $46,800 $52,680 $58,500 $63,180
80% $47,400 $54,200 $60,950 $67,700 $73,150
100% $68,300 $78,000 $87,800 $97,500 $105,300
120% $81,960 $93,600 $105,360 $117,000 $126,300
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Consumer Price Index (CPI)1 - A measure of the average change over time in the
prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and
services, including retail goods and other items. The CPI is published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and is commonly used as an economic indicator
of change and to adjust dollar values. APCHA uses CPI to adjust its income limits
and for sale and rental home prices for its housing Categories on a yearly basis.
The cost of housing is not a factor included in the CPI calculation.
Cost Burdened – When housing costs exceed 30% of a household’s gross (pre-
tax) income. Housing costs include rent or mortgage and may or may not
include utilities, homeowner association fees, transportation or other necessary
costs depending upon its application. Households are severely cost-burdened
when housing costs comprises 50% or more of gross income.
1 See CPI “Frequently Asked Questions” at: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm for more information.
P28
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Introduction - 27
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) – A U.S. government
agency created in 1965 by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 3532–3537). It is the principal federal agency responsible for
programs concerned with housing needs, fair housing opportunities, and
improving and developing U.S. communities.
Dependent – According to APCHA Guidelines, a “dependent” is either a
“qualifying child” or a “qualifying relative.” A qualifying child is a child (including
stepchild, adopted child), or eligible foster child – i.e. minors), or a sibling (or
stepsibling) of the taxpayer, or a descendant of either; who has resided in the
principal abode of the taxpayer for at least 100 days out of the calendar year;
who has not attained age 24 as of the end of the year); and who has not
provided more than half of his or her own support for that year. A child who
does not satisfy the qualifying child definition may be a “qualifying relative.”
Employee Housing Guidelines 2015 – Refers to the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee
Housing Guidelines, Amended and Adopted October 2015.
Ownership Exclusion Zone – The area where ownership of improved residential
real property or a mobile home is prohibited in order to be eligible to own or rent
an APCHA deed restricted unit. This is further defined in Appendix E – Ownership
Exclusion Zone Map.
Resident Occupied Units (RO) – A classification of deed restricted housing
intended to serve households earning incomes higher than Categories 1 – 7 but
unable to afford free market housing. In practice, RO units often provide
housing options for households earning within Category level incomes. RO deed
restrictions do not limit the amount of household income and vary on household
asset limitations.
Target Income Household – An identified segment of the workforce often
defined in relationship to a particular income level or a range of incomes within
a specified population. It is typically defined by a percentage of the Area
Median Income, such as 80% AMI.
Qualified Adult – There is no clear definition of Qualified Adult in the APCHA
Guidelines, though there are several references to maintaining full-time work in
Aspen/Pitkin County.
P29
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Introduction - 28
Consultant Team
The consultant team includes:
• Christine Walker, who brings almost 10 years of practical, in-the-trenches
experience as Executive Director of the Teton County Housing Authority
along with an education in architecture. She understands the
complexities of running a housing program in high-cost mountain resort
communities, including: program administration and housing occupant
qualification, developing and managing affordable rental and deed
restricted ownership housing units, and maintaining their operation over
time in light of changing community needs and political challenges.
• Melanie Rees, a housing consultant who has helped high-cost
communities understand their housing needs and create feasible,
effective solutions to address them for 25 years. She is driven by a
background in economic development and the recognition that
workforce housing is crucial for economic success.
• Wendy Sullivan, a planner and attorney who has been helping
communities identify and address their housing needs for about 15 years.
In addition to her solution-oriented data organization and analysis skills,
she can assess the many nuances in housing codes and program rules,
identify potential unintended consequences and highlight practices that
could be open to legal challenge.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all of those who have helped us and have given us their
time and assistance. The information presented in this report is a union of data
and numbers with the experiences and observations of those living in the
community, both of which would not have been possible without such broad
local participation. We have enjoyed working with APCHA, the City of Aspen,
Pitkin County, its businesses and residents, and we appreciate the opportunity to
work with communities that have a desire to understand and better serve the
housing needs of local residents and the workforce.
Thank you to APCHA staff, APCHA Board members, Aspen City Council
members, Pitkin County Commissioners, local and regional employers, realtors,
property managers, lenders, and community stakeholders for your cooperation,
participation and collaboration.
A special thank you to the staff, board, and membership of the Aspen Chamber
Resort Association (ACRA) for their assistance in disseminating and participating
in the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Survey.
P30
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc. Introduction - 29
ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA)
• Ron Erickson, Chair (City Appointee)
• Rick Head, Vice Chair (City Appointee)
• Marcia Goshorn, Director (County Appointee)
• Steve Stunda, Director (County Appointee)
• Renee West, Director (Joint City/County Appointee)
• Becky Gilbert, Director (Joint City/County Alternate)
City of Aspen Council
• Steve Skadron, Mayor
• Art Daly, City Council
• Adam Frisch, City Council
• Ann Mullins, City Council
• Bert Myrin, City Council
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
• Steve Child, Chair, District 4
• Rachel Richards, Vice Chair, District 2
• Patti Clapper, District 1
• Michael Owsley, District 3
• George Newman, District 5
Administration
• Steve Barwick, City Manager, City of Aspen
• Jon Peacock, County Manager, Pitkin County
• Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager, City of Aspen
• Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
• Cindy Christensen, Deputy Director, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
• Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager, City of Aspen
P31
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 1- 30
Section I – Examination of APCHA’s Affordable Housing
Program
Purpose
The information in this section establishes the context for the policy analysis
presented in later sections by:
• Providing an overview of APCHA’s Guidelines and its goals and objectives;
• Discussing the evolution of APCHA and present challenges;
• Summarizing APCHA’s housing inventory; and
• Identifying the segments of the workforce that are both well-served and
under-served by APCHA’s current housing inventory and program.
By examining how the program and housing issues have evolved over time,
current policy and inventory, and gaps in service of the APCHA program, this
section helps frame the discussion for later sections by identifying where the
program is effective and where policy changes may be needed to better meet
program goals.
Housing Program
The housing program in Aspen/Pitkin County was created in 1974 as two
separate entities – the City and County. The consolidated Aspen Pitkin County
Housing Authority (APCHA) was later established in November 1982 for the
purpose of:
…developing and managing housing projects pursuant to a multi-
jurisdictional plan to provide residential accommodations at rental
or sales prices within the means of persons of low-, moderate- and
middle-income who are permanent residents and persons
employed in the City and County.
An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County and APCHA is utilized to define the relationship between and define roles
of the three parties.2 APCHA works directly with the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County. The APCHA board of directors approves policy decisions on the housing
program, but the Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) may call-up the policy for review and revoke any
approval by the APCHA board of directors.
2!Currently, APCHA is operating under the Fifth Amended and Restated IGA dated December 18, 2013. !
P32
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 1- 31
Employee Housing Guidelines 2015
At least every three years APCHA establishes guidelines that govern the
development of and qualifications to occupy deed restricted affordable
housing units for Aspen and Pitkin County. APCHA is currently working under the
Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines, Amended and Adopted
October 2015 (referred to in this report as the Employee Housing Guidelines
2015). These guidelines support APCHA’s goals and do not supersede City or
County Land Use Codes.
Specifically, the Employee Housing Guidelines 2015 are used to:
• Provide information and establish policies and procedures for affordable
housing development;
• Establish eligibility and qualification procedures for affordable units;
• Establish rental policies and procedures including rental rates;
• Establish purchase and sale policies and procedures including maximum
sales prices;
• Set compliance and grievance policies and procedures; and
• Develop and prioritize current and long-range housing programs.
Housing Program Goal
The goal of the APCHA Housing Program has evolved over time, but has
consistently focused on providing housing for persons either currently or
previously employed in Pitkin County. The current goal, as stated in the Employee
Housing Guidelines 2015 is:
To provide affordable housing opportunities through rental and sale
to persons who are or have been actively employed or self-
employed within Aspen and Pitkin County, and that provide or
have provided goods and services to individuals, businesses or
institutional operations, within Aspen and Pitkin County (prior to
retirement and/or disability).
Broken into its primary components, APCHA housing should:
• Be affordable;
• Provide housing for diverse employees that serve the local economy; and
• Provide a mix of rental and purchase options.
P33
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 1- 32
Evolution of the Aspen Community and Resulting Housing
Challenges
Stakeholders indicate that significant changes have occurred in the Aspen area
over the past 40 years, such as housing costs that rose quickly to be some of the
highest in the country, economic and residential growth, improved
transportation infrastructure, and challenges encountered as Aspen approaches
build-out.
APCHA’s Housing Program has also evolved during this time to address the
changing needs of residents and employees, as well as an aging housing stock
and population. Over time:
• Affordability categories have been added.
• Deed-restrictions have been amended.
• Income requirements have been changed.
• New policies have been added to address gaps in policies, changing
needs and shifting priorities.
• Existing policies have been amended.
• Guidelines have grown in size to address a variety of issues, and
• Personnel have been added to manage the larger inventory and
increasingly complicated program.
The result is that a complex program has
been created over many years, which
makes management, public education
and compliance challenging. Furthering
these challenges is an antiquated data management system, an outdated
website, and lack of comprehensive, real time understanding of the inventory.
APCHA has also seen changes in its inventory of affordable housing during this
time, presenting other concerns:
• The housing inventory has grown, along with diversity of housing types
managed, increasing the complexity of keeping track of and monitoring
the growing supply of units.
• The housing program has been asked to serve higher and higher
household income levels, increasing the diversity and complexity of the
product type and deed restrictions.
• Inventory is aging. Units that were built 20 or more years ago are posing
new challenges in terms of capital needs, aging infrastructure, increased
maintenance, and resale complications.
• Early concepts of affordable housing as a “step” into free market housing
have not materialized. According to stakeholder interviews, the increase
“Guidelines have grown bigger
as issues have grown bigger”
APCHA Attorney
P34
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 1- 33
in market prices of homes has rapidly outpaced growth in incomes over
the last few decades, limiting opportunities for movement out of the
affordable housing program. APCHA is seeing limited mobility for families
who outgrow their homes and older occupants remaining as they near or
reach retirement, increasing pressure on the existing affordable housing
stock.
Table 4. Year APCHA Ownership Units Built
Year Built # of Units
Before 1970 0.7%
1970-1979 7.9%
1980-1989 21.1%
1990-1999 25.3%
2000-2010 38.3%
2010-present 6.5%
TOTAL 100.0%
*Redeveloped units categorized based on redevelopment date.
**APCHA does not have specific data on year built for rental product. Stated some units built in the
1960’s, some in the late 1980’s, and some in the late 1990’s early 2000’s.
Source: APCHA and City of Aspen Community Development Department
Inventory of Units
APCHA oversees 2,931 units. This figure includes any unit with a deed restriction
recorded, some of which are owned and/or managed by other entities. There
are additional units for employees in the community that are provided by
employers, and not included in this analysis.
The APCHA units are classified into seven different Categories, based on a
household’s income and assets, and Resident Occupied (RO). Category 1 serves
the lowest income level and Category 7, the highest. RO units are intended to fill
the gap between Category 7 and the free-market and have no income limits,
but impose an asset cap. The Category system is used for both owner and rental
units; however, there are no rental units in levels 5-7 at this time.
Although intended to target higher household incomes, a large portion of the
RO units are priced for households earning within Category income ranges. With
the ownership product, this is primarily the result of the product type, as many of
these RO units are the result of converting mobile homes to employee housing
and have lower price points. The RO rentals are mainly units managed by large
employers that rent at lower rates to their employees.
Until 2002, the Guidelines contained only Categories 1 through 4 and RO, at
which time Categories 5 through 7 were added.
P35
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 1- 34
All deed-restricted housing, of any type or Category, requires an individual to:
• Work or have worked full-time in Pitkin County;
• Use their home as their primary residence; and
• Not own any other developed property within the Ownership Exclusion
Zone (OEZ).3
The below table shows how APCHA’s inventory is distributed based on Category
and number of bedrooms for ownership and rental units combined. As shown
below:
• The bulk of APCHA’s inventory are in Categories 1 through 4 and RO, with a
comparative handful of units (91 total) in Categories 5 through 7;
• About 40% of APCHA’s inventory are smaller units: studios or 1-bedrooms and
dorms. These smaller units tend to provide viable options for single persons; and
• Detached single-family homes make up 22% of the inventory, but are
predominately RO units and unaffordable to most households earning under
$200,000 per year.4 These units are larger on average than the attached product
(47% of the known inventory are 3-bedroom homes5) and are primarily targeted
to families.
Table 5. APCHA Inventory of Deed Restricted Housing6
Category
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RO TOTAL
Attached Units:
Studio 49 75 88 20 0 0 0 91 323 11%
1-bedroom 30 220 202 84 2 2 0 39 579 20%
2-bedroom 21 145 232 207 3 1 0 151 760 26%
3-bedroom 2 47 118 127 14 5 4 29 346 12%
Dorm Units 15 5 12 21 0 0 0 218 271 9%
Detached Units:
Single-Family 1 1 29 97 0 60 0 464 652 22%
Subtotal: 118 493 681 556 19 68 4 992 2931 100%
4% 17% 23% 19% 1% 2% 0% 34% 100%
Source: APCHA and City of Aspen Community Development Department
3 See Appendix E for Ownership Exclusion Zone (OEZ) map.
4 See Section 3 – Affordability for more information.
5 Bedroom sizes are known for 37% of the single-family inventory: 253 single-family homes out of 649 total.
6!This inventory table shows the distribution of APCHA units by Category and RO classification, not price point.
See Section 2 – Income & Assets & Categories for a table which distributes RO units based on their price into the
respective Categories.
P36
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 1- 35
Ownership Units
Ownership housing makes up 55% of APCHA’s total inventory. As shown below:
• The majority of Category 1 and 2 units are 1-bedroom or smaller. Few 3-bedroom
units are available for lower income families.
• Category 3 and 4 offer more larger-sized homes (3- and 4-bedrooms).
Table 6. APCHA Ownership Inventory
Category
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RO TOTAL
Attached Units:
Studio 2 9 10 17 0 0 0 0 38 2%
1-bedroom 9 93 77 79 2 2 0 6 268 17%
2-bedroom 7 61 62 187 3 1 0 29 350 22%
3-bedroom 1 26 75 123 14 5 4 22 270 17%
4-bedroom 0 5 2 21 0 0 0 5 33 2%
Detached Units:
Single-Family 1 1 28 97 0 60 0 462 649 40%
Subtotal: 20 195 254 524 19 68 4 524 1608 100%
1% 12% 16% 33% 1% 4% 0% 33% 100%
Source: APCHA and City of Aspen Community Development Department
Rental Units
The rental inventory makes up 45% of APCHA’s inventory with the bulk of this
serving as long-term rentals. About 15% of all APCHA rentals (199 units) provide
housing for seasonal workers. Other Employers in the valley supplement APCHA’s
rental inventory. Of note, the Aspen Skiing Company adds about 600 seasonal
beds located throughout the Roaring Fork Valley, which are not included in this
analysis.
As shown below:
• The majority (64%) of APCHA’s rental units are smaller in size: dorms,
studios, and 1-bedrooms.
• About 1/3 are 2-bedroom units and only 6% have three bedrooms.
• The percentage of 2-bedroom units is small compared to that typically
seen in most housing markets. For example, in Pitkin County, about 34% of
renter-occupied homes are 2-bedroom units (based on 2010-2014 ACS).
P37
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 1- 36
Table 7. APCHA Rental Inventory
Category
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RO TOTAL
Attached Units:
Studio 47 66 78 3 0 0 0 91 285 22%
1-bedroom 21 127 125 5 0 0 0 33 311 24%
2-bedroom 14 84 170 20 0 0 0 122 410 31%
3-bedroom 1 21 43 4 0 0 0 7 76 6%
Dorm Units 15 0 10 0 0 0 0 213 238 18%
Detached Units:
Single-Family 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0%
Subtotal: 98 298 427 32 0 0 0 468 1323 100%
7% 23% 32% 2% 0% 0% 0% 35% 100%
Source: APCHA and City of Aspen Community Development Department
Comparison of APCHA Residents and Pitkin County Working
Households
This section uses information from the employee survey to compare the
demographics of employee households residing in APCHA housing to households
employed in Pitkin County overall. Results are shown both for owner and renter
households. The purpose of this section is to understand how well APCHA’s
inventory of both ownership and rental units are meeting employee needs and
which segments of the workforce may be adequately served or under-served by
APCHA’s housing in relationship to all Pitkin County working households.
In interpreting the data for this section:
• Where the percentage of households within a certain demographic (e.g.
couples with children) that are occupying APCHA units is lower than that
for employee households overall, this means that APCHA units are under-
serving this population.
• Where the percentage of households within a certain demographic (e.g.
adults living alone) that are occupying APCHA units is higher than that for
employee households overall, this means that APCHA units are over-
serving this population.
• If APCHA is serving the same mix of households as those that are
employed in Pitkin County in total, then the percentage of APCHA
occupants for any demographic will approximately equal that for
employed households overall.
P38
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 1- 37
Household Demographics
The results from comparing the demographics of APCHA working households to
all Pitkin County working households are summarized in the below table. This
creates an easy reference to understand which households are being well-
served by APCHA housing and which segments are currently under-served for
both owner and renter households. The complete data from the survey
supporting the conclusions from this section are located in Appendix A, including
a description of the analysis methodology, tables, charts and observations.
Table 8. Representation in the APCHA Program
OWNER HOUSEHOLDS
Under-Represented
(under-served)
Over-Represented
(well-served)
Household Composition
Couples Adults living alone
Couples with
children
Single parent
families
Household Size 2+ person
households 1-person households
Age of household
members
No age groups
under-represented
No age groups over-
represented
Household income $100,000 to $200,000
per year
$25,000 to $75,000
per year
Years worked in
Aspen/Pitkin County 1 to 3 years 20 or more years
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS Under-Represented
(under-served)
Over-Represented
(well-served)
Household Composition
Couples Adults living alone
Couple with children Unrelated
roommates
Household Size 3+-person
households 1-person households
Age of household
members
Children age 17 or
under None
Household income $25,000 to $75,000 Under $25,000
$75,000 to $100,000
Years worked in
Aspen/Pitkin County Under 7 years 8-years or more
Note: The degree to which households are under or over-represented vary. Additional
information can be found in Appendix A.
Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
P39
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 1- 38
Housing Costs
APCHA homes are more affordable than units occupied by employed
households in total. As shown below:
• The average monthly mortgage payment of APCHA owners is over $400
less than all owners.
• The average monthly rent of APCHA renters is about $260 less than all
renters. Monthly utility payments are also lower for both owner and renter
APCHA households.
• The only expense that is higher for APCHA occupants is the average
monthly HOA dues for homeowners (about $50 more per month). This is
likely due to the high number of attached housing units where HOA dues
include maintenance of the exterior and common spaces.
Table 9. Housing Costs
Owners Renters
Type Households
Employed
in Pitkin
County
Employed
APCHA
Households
Households
Employed
in Pitkin
County
Employed
APCHA
Households
Monthly Rent/Mortgage
Under $500 2% 3% 4% 4%
$500 to $699 3% 8% 8% 7%
$700 to $999 10% 22% 17% 30%
$1,000 to $1,249 13% 20% 16% 21%
$1,250 to $1,499 14% 17% 13% 11%
$1,500 to $1,749 14% 12% 14% 14%
$1,750 to $1,999 9% 5% 10% 7%
$2,000 to $2,499 16% 5% 10% 5%
$2,500 to $2,999 9% 3% 6% 1%
$3,000 to $3,999 7% 4% 3% 0%
$4,000 or more 2% 1% 0% 0%
Avg Monthly Rent/Mortgage $1,800 $1,386 $1,460 $1,202
Average Monthly Utilities $227 $182 $179 $132
Average Monthly HOA $238 $286 N/A N/A
*Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
P40
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 1- 39
Cost Burdened
Households paying less than 30% of their income for rent or mortgage are
generally considered to be in housing that is affordable.7
As shown below:
• APCHA housing is generally more affordable to its occupants than
employee households in total, which is a positive alignment with the
program goal of affordability.
• An estimated 23% of renters in APCHA housing, however, are cost-
burdened by their housing payment. This primarily affects households
earning under $50,000 per year. This is explored in more detail in Section
3 – Affordability.
Table 10. Cost Burdened
Owners Renters
Households Employed in
Pitkin County
Employed
APCHA
Households
Households
Employed
in Pitkin
County
Employed
APCHA
Households
Under 30% 81% 90% 72% 77%
30% to 39% 9% 7% 14% 14%
40% to 49% 4% 2% 5% 2%
50% or more 7% 1% 9% 6%
*Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
Work Location
• All employed APCHA households have at least one employee in Pitkin
County, with 93% of households having a member that works in Aspen.
Only 7% of households also have a worker that holds a job outside of the
county. A very small percentage report having a remote worker – one
that lives in the area and works outside of the region (less than 2%).
• Households with at least one employee in Pitkin County in total are more
likely to have workers in their household that hold jobs outside of Pitkin
County (21%) than employed APCHA households (7%).
7 See Introduction (Definitions) and Section 3 – Affordability for more information on this definition.
P41
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 1- 40
Table 11. Where do you and others in your household work?
Households
Employed
in Pitkin
County
Employed
APCHA
Households
Aspen 86% 93%
Snowmass Village 14% 12%
Woody Creek or Old Snowmass 3% 3%
Basalt 7% 4%
El Jebel 3% 1%
Carbondale 9% 2%
Glenwood Springs 6% 2%
New Castle, Silt, Rifle or Parachute 1% 0%
Other 2% 2%
TOTAL 132% 117%
*Totals exceed 100% due to multiple job holding and employees working in multiple locations.
Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
Type of Industry
The mix of workers employed in each sector in APCHA housing is very similar to
that for employee households in total in Pitkin County. Slightly fewer APCHA
occupants are employed in “lodging, accommodations” and “construction,
landscaping” and slightly more are in “retail and food services” than represented
by employed households in total. Overall, APCHA housing is serving a wide range
of workers in all industry sectors in the County.
P42
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 1- 41
Figure 1. The Type of Industry for Which You and Others in Your Household Work
*Total adds to over 100% due to multiple workers and multiple job-holding.
Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
Local Lending Environment
APCHA encourages buyers to use local lenders, as they understand the terms
and conditions of the deed restrictions encumbering the property.
There are over 20 local lenders familiar with deed-restricted properties in Pitkin
County, and they offer a variety of mortgage products to APCHA purchasers,
including but not limited to conventional, FHA, VA, CHFA, fixed rate, and
adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs). Loans are often sold to the secondary
market (Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac), but many are “portfolio” loans where the
bank holds onto the loan, keeping it in their investment portfolio.
Portfolio loans are typically adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs). ARMs usually start
with a lower initial interest rate, which then increases by a specified index after 3
to 7 years, unlike a fixed-rate mortgage, which maintains the same interest rate
over the life of the loan.
Despite the long-term risk for homeowners associated with ARMs, lenders stated
several reasons why portfolio loans may sometimes be preferred:
5%
3%
4%
6%
8%
9%
9%
11%
16%
17%
18%
18%
8%
2%
5%
6%
8%
9%
6%
11%
16%
18%
21%
14%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Other
Maintenance and repair (automotive
Personal services (massage, hair
Real estate leasing and sales,
Hospital, health care
School District, other educational
Construction, landscaping
Banking, legal, computers or other
Government (excluding education
Ski area, recreation, guiding service,
Retail, bar, restaurant, food services
Lodging, accommodations
Percent of Households
Employed APCHA Households
Households employed in Pitkin County
P43
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 1- 42
1) APCHA homes that are in mixed-use projects cannot be sold to the
secondary market;
2) Lower initial interest rate lowers the monthly payment, which may allow
buyer to meet debt to income ratio qualification;
3) Some buyers do not plan to reside in units for more than 5 or 10 years;
and
4) Buyer preference.
The lenders sometimes work with potential buyers before applying for a home
through APCHA, but it is more common that lenders help a potential buyer after
they have “won” a lottery. Lenders rely on APCHA to determine the sales price
and the lenders are responsible for qualifying the buyer for a loan product.
Lenders report that while there are a number of common challenges with buyers
in the APCHA programs, very few buyers are ultimately denied a loan.
When qualifying buyers for APCHA units, lenders noted:
• Buyers often have student debt;
• Buyers tend to have little for a down payment (e.g. 5% or less), and as
many as 50% of APCHA buyers receive down payment gifts from parents;
• Loans available to buyers have down payment requirements ranging from
0 to 20%; and
• High HOA dues are challenging when trying to qualify for a loan.
P44
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 43
SECTION 2 – Income, Assets and Categories
Purpose
APCHA sets income and asset caps for up to eight Categories of affordable
housing units. This section:
• Presents APCHA’s current income and assets caps for each housing
Category and its methodology for updating Category incomes each
year;
• Reviews APCHA’s system for measuring household income and assets
when qualifying households to buy or rent units;
• Compares APCHA’s system for setting, updating and measuring incomes
and assets within each Category to relevant federal systems and peer
communities; and
• Discusses the effect of the income and assets caps and income updates
on potential housing applicants within each Category and their ability to
qualify for housing.
Based on the findings from this analysis, recommendations are made on
changes to APCHA’s current income, asset and Category system that could help
APCHA better meet its housing goals.
APCHA Income Limits by Category
Income maximums for each Category of housing differ depending upon
whether a household is applying for a rental or ownership unit. This divergence
occurred at some point in the program to distinguish between roommate
situations in rentals and families in for-sale housing. This is unique among
affordable housing programs in peer communities, which all use a single
standard based on household size.
Current income maximums are derived based on an inexact combination of the
following information:
• A Housing Survey of Pitkin County Employees in 1999 for median income
information (e.g., $60,000 per household with 0 – 1 dependent);
• Colorado Department of Labor and Employment wages and
employment reports;
• US Census Bureau data;
P45
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 44
• Annual Expenditure Per Child report and U.S. Flow of Funds Accounts
report; and
• Department of Housing and Urban Development data sets.
These baseline incomes were produced in 2002 and would be difficult and costly
to reproduce.
Maximum Renter Incomes
• Rental units are only provided for Categories 1 through 4.
• Rental income maximums are based on the number of adults in a
household. The scaled wages based on the increasing number of adults
in a household is intended to capture multiple wage earners. For
example, in Category 1, a one-adult household can earn up to $35,000
per year whereas a two-adult household can earn up to $52,000.
Table 12. Rentals: Maximum Income Limits, 2015
Category
No. of Adults 1 2 3 4
One Adult $35,000 $56,000 $88,000 $145,000
Two Adults $52,000 $81,000 $133,000 $215,000
Three Adults $62,000 $96,000 $156,000 $252,000
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015
Maximum Owner Incomes
• Ownership units are provided for Categories 1 through 7, plus RO.
• Ownership income maximums are based on the number of dependents in
a household. As the number of dependents increases, maximum incomes
for each Category also increase to reflect larger families, but to a lesser
extent than the “adult” calculation for rentals. For example, in Category
1, a zero-dependent household can earn up to $35,000 per year whereas
a one-dependent household can earn up to $42,500.
P46
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 45
Table 13. Ownership: Maximum Income Limits, 2015
Category
# of Dependents 1 2 3 4
0 Dependents $35,000 $56,000 $88,000 $145,000
1 Dependent $42,500 $66,500 $95,500 $152,500
2 Dependents $50,000 $71,000 $103,000 $160,000
3+ Dependents $57,500 $78,500 $110,500 $167,500
Category
# of
Dependents
5 6 7 RO
0 Dependents $155,000 $169,000 $186,000 NA
1 Dependent $162,500 $176,500 $193,500 NA
2 Dependents $170,000 $184,000 $201,000 NA
3+ Dependents $177,500 $191,500 $208,500 NA
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015
Aspen’s income categories are unique. APCHA utilizes an approach that adjusts
the income limits each year by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) capped at 3%,
which is not linked to changes in incomes or housing affordability. Most
affordable housing programs instead tie income categories to the Area Median
Income. Annual updating is a simple process using the change in the AMI, which
is calculated by HUD.
APCHA Income Maximums Translated to Area Median Income
(AMI)
Area Median Income (AMI) Defined
AMI is published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for each county and represents the median family income
of an area. This means that the AMI does not incorporate incomes from non-
family single and roommate households, which make up 52% of households
residing in Pitkin County. As a result, the AMI will generally be higher than the
median income of all households.
!.
Pitkin County – 2015
•Median income for households with a Pitkin County employee = $87,500
•HUD Area Median Income = $97,200
P47
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 46
The AMI varies by household size. The median (or middle) family income estimate
in an area generally falls on or near the 100% AMI rate for a family of four. In
Pitkin County, for example, the AMI in 2015 is $97,200. The 100% AMI level is the
“middle” income for a given family size: 50% of family households make more
than that amount, and 50% make less than that amount.
Income levels are expressed as percentages of that AMI number, such as 80%
AMI. HUD uses a range of income levels to define four categories as follows:
• Extremely Low Income – At or below 30% AMI
• Very Low Income – Between 31% and 50% AMI
• Low Income – From 51% to 80% AMI
• Moderate Income – From 81% to 100% AMI
HUD income limits are used to set income limits and rents for public housing and
affordable rental programs in peer communities to determine income eligibility
for access. The AMI categories are designed to capture a particular group of
underserved households, such as households earning under 50% AMI. The
particular group identified is sometimes referred to as the target household
income level or “target income household.”
Calculation of AMI
In contrast to APCHA’s calculation system, HUD calculates income limits based
on the number of persons per household. HUD uses a combination of US Census,
American Community Survey (ACS) and CPI information to update incomes and
makes adjustments for family size and for areas that have unusually high or low
income-to-housing-cost relationships. Pitkin County AMI by household size for
2015 is shown below:
Table 14. 2015 HUD AMI - Pitkin County
AMI 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person
30% $20,500 $23,400 $26,340 $29,250 $31,600
50% $34,150 $39,000 $43,900 $48,750 $52,650
80% $47,400 $54,200 $60,950 $67,700 $73,150
100% $68,300 $78,000 $87,800 $97,500 $105,300
120% $81,960 $93,600 $105,360 $117,000 $126,360
140% $95,620 $109,200 $122,920 $136,500 $147,420
Source: Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
P48
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 47
Households With a Pitkin County Employee by AMI
When considering housing programs related to AMI, it is helpful to understand
the distribution of households within the AMI categories. The distribution of
owners and renter households with a Pitkin County employee show that:
• A higher percentage of renters earn below 100% AMI than owners, which
is typical.
• Similarly, owner are more likely to earn incomes over 120%. A high
percentage (43%) earn over 140% AMI.
• A fairly high percentage of renters earn over 140% AMI than is seen in
many peer communities.
Figure 2. Households With a Pitkin County Employee by AMI: 2015
Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
43%
15%
16%
18%
5%
4%
19%
10%
16%
25%
13%
18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
140%+
120-140%
100-120%
80-100%
50-80%
<50%
Percent of Households With a Pitkin County Employee
AM
I
R
a
n
g
e
Renters
Owners
P49
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 48
APCHA Categories Expressed as AMI
APCHA’s program is designed to serve households earning from low-income
through upper-middle income households. HUD defines alternative categories,
as shown below:
Table 15. APCHA and HUD Defined Income Levels
APCHA
Category
Target
Household
Income Level
HUD AMI
Category
Target Household
Income Level
Category 1 Low-income 30% AMI Extremely low
Category 2 Lower moderate 30 to 50% AMI Very low
Category 3 Upper moderate 50 to 80% AMI Low-income
Category 4 Middle income 80 to 100% AMI Moderate
5, 6, 7 and RO Upper middle 120% AMI Medium or middle
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015; HUD; Consultant team
It is not possible to directly translate APCHA’s current Category system into HUD
AMI ranges; however, AMI percentages can be estimated for each Category
using some basic assumptions and information from the 2015 Employee Survey,
which is discussed in detail in Appendix B.8 AMI estimates for each Category are
presented in Table 15, below. As shown, each Category of APCHA’s rental and
ownership housing serve very different AMI ranges:
• The ownership product is serving lower AMI levels compared to the rental
product. This is unusual as housing programs generally target lower
income ranges with rental product compared to ownership. Further, they
use the same AMI breakouts for ownership and rental Categories, as there
is overlap. For example, households in the middle-income range are both
financially capable and interested in renting or buying.
• The AMI range of rental households served by Category 4 (about 150% to
240% AMI) encompasses the range of ownership households served by
Categories 5 through 7 combined.
• Ownership AMI ranges nearly coincide with HUD defined categories (see
Table 15, above) for Categories 1 through 4:
o Category 1 (50% AMI) equates to HUD very low-income,
o Category 2 (84% AMI) slightly exceeds HUD low income,
o Category 3 (114% AMI) is just above HUD moderate income and
o Category 4 (184% AMI) serves HUD medium or middle incomes and
above.
8 Appendix B presents several reasons why APCHA’s system cannot be directly translated to an AMI system and
provides support for the methodology used to estimate AMI percentages by Category, presented herein.
P50
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 49
Table 16. Estimated Upper AMI Limit for Each Category: 2015
!Rentals Ownership !Rentals Ownership
Cat 1 62% 50% Cat 5 NA 196%
Cat 2 95% 84% Cat 6 NA 213%
Cat 3 147% 114% Cat 7 NA 234%
Cat 4 240% 184% !!!
Note: See Appendix B for more detail on the methodology for these tables.
The upper limit AMI represents the weighted average of the AMIs for the average sized household
within each adult or dependent-sized Category residing in APCHA units for each Category of
rentals.
Considerations for Transitioning to an AMI-Based Program
Because the current system cannot be directly translated into HUD AMI ranges,
any transition will affect existing conditions (such as deed restrictions and leases),
current and future households served, and income, rent and sale prices within
Categories. These tradeoffs need to be considered in light of the numerous
advantages that a simpler program based on AMI could serve over the long
term. As APCHA considers moving its program to an AMI system, several factors
need to be considered:
• Simplicity. The different household income targets and inconsistent AMI
levels between the owner and renter programs are highly unusual for a
housing program. It complicates program administration by adding
complexity to the program and is confusing to applicants. Setting a
consistent AMI level allows the ability to track program performance
based on Categories and in relationship to other housing programs.
• Transparency and Consistency. Because HUD AMI data is from a trusted
source, its methodology is readily available and well documented, its use
is consistent with federal housing programs and multiple funding sources,
and figures are updated yearly, this is the predominate income source
used by peer communities for their housing programs. By linking income
limits to HUD AMI, this also ensures that the target income households for
its housing programs remain constant over time.
• Ease of transition. It is preferable to port the ownership program to an AMI
system that closely represents the current mix of households being served.
This will minimally affect sales prices and associated rights of owners. There
is greater flexibility for change with the rental product, as it is easier to
change a lease agreement (renters) compared to a recorded deed
restriction (owners). APCHA also has a recertification policy in place to
P51
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 50
allow renters to remain in existing rental units that earn incomes up to 20%
higher than the limit.
• Portability. An AMI system is consistent with Federal housing programs and
multiple funding sources. Because peer communities use it, APCHA could
more easily evaluate the performance of its housing programs relative to
similar programs. Current AMI equivalent categories for ownership are also
similar to defined HUD income classifications, which would be maintained
over time.
• Program goals. A primary goal is to provide housing affordable to the
Pitkin County workforce. Owners are well represented by existing AMI
ranges, whereas renters are currently underserved in the lower AMI ranges
and experience a higher incidence of cost burden. Shifting rental
Categories to the lower AMIs of owner Categories will help to address
these issues.
The below table shows how the income ranges for each Category for owners
and renters would be affected by moving to an AMI system based on the
estimated upper AMI limit for owners. It compares the current income maximums
for each adult and dependent-sized household within each Category to the
maximum income for a one-person up to a five-person household for the HUD
AMI range. As shown:
• Overall, little shift is seen in the maximum and minimum income ranges for
both ownership and rentals in Category 1.
• Category 2 and 3 show modest income changes, with more significant
shifts seen in Category 4 and higher, particularly on the upper end.
• Aside from shifts in the income amounts, because HUD incomes are based
on household size, some existing renters and owners within the current
program will now qualify for different Categories. For example, under
Category 1, a three-adult, three-person household earning $62,000 is
equivalent to 81% AMI – this household will be in Category 2 under the
new system. Appendix B has tables showing these AMI levels, which can
be helpful to understand these changes.
Table 17. Estimated AMI Range by APCHA Category: 2015
Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4 Cat 5 (5-7)
AMI
Range:
20% - 50% 51% - 85% 86% - 115% 116% - 185% 186% - 235%
NOTE: The calculated upper AMI limit has been adjusted to the nearest 5%.
P52
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 51
Table 18. Maximum Income Based on Size Category: Current Compared to
Proposed AMI (2015)
Program Household
size
Category
Cat 1
<50%
AMI
Cat 2
50.1-
85%
Cat 3
85.1-115%
Cat 4
115.1-185%
Cat 5-7
185.1 – 235%
Current
Rental
1-adult $35,000 $56,000 $88,000 $145,000 NA
3-adult $62,000 $96,000 $156,000 $252,000 NA
Current
Ownership
0-dep $35,000 $56,000 $88,000 $145,000 $155,000
3+ dep $57,500 $78,500 $110,500 $167,500 $177,500
Proposed
AMI
1-person $34,150 $48,445 $78,545 $126,355 $160,505
5-person $52,650 $74,758 $121,095 $194,805 $247,455
NOTE: The calculated upper AMI limit has been adjusted to the nearest 5%.
Measuring Income
APCHA Standards
APCHA measures the income of households that apply for housing to establish
the Category of unit for which a household can qualify. Resident Occupied units,
have no defined income caps, but must demonstrate that at least 75% of
household income is earned in Pitkin County.
To measure income, APCHA verifies the combined gross income of a
prospective household that wishes to qualify to purchase or rent an APCHA
program unit. Combined gross income includes the income of all individuals that
will be occupying the unit regardless of marital or legal status. Gross income is
generally defined as:
The total income of a person including maintenance and child
support, derived from a business, trust, employment, or income-
producing property, before deductions for expenses, depreciation,
taxes, and similar allowances.
Income is measured at the time of initial purchase, and at subsequent sale or
transfer for APCHA categorized units. For rental units, income is measured at time
of initial lease and every two years. In re-qualifying to rent, a 120% adjustment to
the maximum income amount in the respective Category is allowed. This means
that an existing tenant can earn up to 20% more than the maximum income
permitted and remain in that unit.
P53
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 52
Federal Standards
Income is measured in a variety of ways depending upon the purpose of its
measurement and the program to which it applies. Standards for two federal
purposes are discussed below:
• Income to determine poverty status, and
• Income for public housing qualification
Poverty Income. The poverty threshold, or poverty line, is intended to show the
minimum level of resources that are adequate to meet basic needs. The official
poverty measure was developed in the early 1960’s and its calculation has since
remained largely unchanged. The official measure includes cash income from all
sources, including wages and salaries, Social Security benefits, interest, dividends,
pension or other retirement income.
The program has been criticized for failing to exclude necessary expenses, such
as taxes, health care, commuting costs and child care expenses while parents
work, while also failing to include non-cash income from benefits received to
help families meet their basic needs, such as food stamps. A supplementary
poverty threshold (SPM) has been calculated since 2010 that takes into account
non-cash government benefits and necessary expenses. In 2012, the
supplemental poverty rate was slightly higher than the official poverty rate.
Public Housing Income. Income for the purpose of qualifying households for
public housing is established in 24 C.F.R. § 5.609 and requires Public Housing
Authorities to consider all amounts that contribute to the families’ annual
income. This includes for example gross wage and salary income, overtime pay,
tips and bonuses, interest, dividends, Social Security, alimony, and child support.
Not included are lump-sum additions to income from, for example, inheritance,
capital gains, and insurance payments; nonrecurring income from gifts; and
assistance from some programs, such as food stamps.9 Many of the items listed
as exclusions from annual income under HUD requirements are items that the IRS
includes as taxable income.
9 See Form HUD-50058 Instruction Booklet, “Income and Exclusions Chart,” pp. 25-32 for more detail.
P54
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 53
Table 19. HUD Income Compared to APCHA Income Inclusions
INCLUDED in HUD Income
APCHA
Program
Wage, salary, tips, bonuses (employment pay) Yes
NET Income from operation of business or profession (income
minus business expenses, loan interest, depreciation) Yes
Interest, dividends, income from real or personal property Yes
Periodic amounts received from SSI, pension, retirement
funds, annuities, disability or death benefits, insurance
policies, etc. Yes
Payments in lieu of earnings, such as unemployment and
disability compensation, worker's compensation and
severance pay
If
applicable
Welfare and other public assistance payments
If
applicable
Regular cash or noncash contributions and gifts from one not
residing in the residence Yes
Alimony or child support Yes
EXCLUDED from HUD Income
One-time/temporary income, including gifts Yes
Contributions paid directly to a child care provider by
persons not living in the unit No
Value of food provided through meals on wheels, food
stamps, school lunch act, WIC, etc.
Typically
not
applicable
Source: HUD Occupancy Handbook, 4350.2 REV-1, Chapter 5: Determining Income &
Calculating Rent
HUD does permit households to adjust their income downward with up to five
possible deductions, including:
• A deduction for dependents
• A child care deduction
• A disability assistance deduction
• An elderly/disabled family deduction, and
• A deduction for unreimbursed medical expenses
These deductions are designed to assist families with higher costs due to family
circumstances. APCHA does not add similar deductions.
Interviews with APCHA staff brought up challenges with calculating income, an
outcome of the resort economy where holding multiple and seasonal jobs is
common. The primary concern was capturing under-reporting of tip or cash
income, an issue not unique to Aspen.
P55
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 54
APCHA Asset Limits by Category
APCHA Asset Maximums
Along with income maximums, households must also fall below established net
asset caps established for each Category. Asset limits serve several purposes,
such as testing a potential buyer’s need to purchase a deed restricted home
(e.g., identifying trust-fund recipients) and limiting the resale price of affordable
homes, particularly if a price appreciation cap on the unit is not in place.
The net asset caps shown in the below table for each Category were established
in 2002 and have remained unchanged since that time. Although incomes are
adjusted each year based on CPI capped at 3%, the maximum asset remains
the same each year. Generally households cannot qualify for APCHA housing if
net assets exceed the maximum amounts permitted for the respective Category
of housing, with some exceptions.10
Because asset caps were also added to RO units in 2002, the majority of these
units are not subject to the $900,000 asset cap. There are currently 520 RO
homes, approximately 23% of which (120 total) are affected by the $900,000
asset limitation.
Table 20. Net Asset Cap: 2015
Category
1 2 3 4
Net Asset Cap $100,000 $125,000 $150,000 $175,000
Category
5 6 7 RO
Net Asset Cap $200,000 $225,000 $250,000 $900,000
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015
While financial asset caps are not unique, they are not as common among peer
communities as income limits. Peer communities have found that having
employment provisions that require a large percentage of income to be earned
locally eliminates the need for asset caps.
The Effect of APCHA’s Asset Limits
Evaluating asset caps by Category, we see that as incomes increase, the asset
caps have the effect of excluding a progressively higher percentage of
10 Please see Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines (Oct. 2015), Part IV APCHA Eligibility and
Qualification, for more information.
P56
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 55
households within each income range from qualifying for their respective
Category. In total, about 36% of households employed in Pitkin County that
otherwise earn within targeted APCHA income ranges exceed specified asset
limits.
Table 21. Assets of Households Employed in Pitkin County by Income: 2015
Household Income Range:
Household
Assets:
Under
$25,000
$25 to
49,999
$50 to
74,999
$75 to
99,999
$100 to
149,999
$150 to
199,999
$200,000
or more TOTAL
Less than
$100,000 86% 78% 64% 60% 37% 22% 7% 50%
$100,000 -
$124,999 9% 6% 5% 5% 9% 10% 10% 7%
$125,000 -
$149,999 0% 4% 5% 3% 6% 3% 4% 4%
$150,000 -
$174,999 0% 1% 2% 4% 2% 5% 2% 3%
$175,000 -
$199,999 1% 1% 4% 2% 3% 6% 4% 3%
$200,000 -
$224,999 0% 1% 2% 2% 5% 5% 2% 3%
$225,000 -
$249,999 0% 0% 3% 3% 3% 0% 0% 2%
$250,000 -
$299,999 0% 4% 4% 3% 5% 6% 7% 4%
$300,000 -
$399,999 0% 1% 2% 4% 6% 3% 5% 3%
$400,000 -
$499,999 0% 0% 2% 3% 5% 9% 5% 4%
$500,000 -
$599,999 0% 0% 1% 2% 5% 6% 3% 3%
$600,000 -
$699,999 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 5% 1% 2%
$700,000 -
$799,999 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 8% 2%
$800,000 -
$899,999 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 7% 0% 2%
$900,000 -
$999,999 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 1%
Over
$1,000,000 3% 1% 2% 4% 6% 11% 39% 7%
General
Category: Cat 1 Cat 1 Cat 1 to 2 Cat 2 to 3 Cat 3 to 4 Cat 4 to 6 RO -
Percent
excluded: 14% 21% 31% 31% 45% 50% 42% 36%
Note: Shading denotes households with assets that are too high to qualify for the respective
Category.
*The table presents conservative estimates of the percentage of excluded households in each
category based on firm application of the asset caps. For example, for incomes that cross
Category 1 and Category 2, the above assumes that only households with assets above Category
2 asset limits will be excluded, even though in actuality some households earning Category 1
incomes and exceeding the lower Category 1 asset limits would also be excluded.
Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
P57
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 56
Several interview and survey comments pointed to the $900,000 cap for RO units
as an issue. Households earning over $200,000 per year are largely excluded
from all but RO units based on existing income caps for the other Categories. As
shown above, about 42% of these households have over $900,000 in assets. In
total, however, this comprises no more than about 8% of all working households
and less than a quarter of these households are interested in purchasing from
APCHA. In other words, few households are excluded from the program based
on this asset limitation.
Interview comments also revealed that some households with lower incomes, but
higher than allowed assets are denied access even though they meet all other
criteria. There was a feeling of “being punished” for saving and rewarding those
that do not save.
To help address this, APCHA has a unique clause that allows a household with
lower incomes but assets above the cap to treat a portion of their assets as
income to enable them to qualify for certain Category units. This exception helps
lower income households gain access to APCHA units. On one hand, this may
contribute to the incidence of cost-burden if these households’ incomes cannot
support paying for a higher Category of housing. On the other hand, this is
fortunate because many of these households, despite having assets larger than
the caps, could not afford market housing in the area.
For illustrative purposes, the below table shows the maximum affordable
purchase price for three-or-more dependent households earning the maximum
income for each Category. Even if households were able to apply 100% of the
asset limit toward the purchase price, most households could still not afford
market housing in the area. This is especially true for households in Categories 4
or below.
P58
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 57
Table 22. Affordable Purchase Price Given Income and Asset Caps: 2015
Households with
3-or-more Dependents:
Cat. 1 Cat. 2 Cat. 3 Cat. 4
Maximum income $57,500 $78,500 $110,500 $167,500
Asset Cap: $100,000 $125,000 $150,000 $175,000
Affordable Purchase Price* $214,224 $292,462 $411,682 $624,043
Purchase Price + Max Assets** $314,224 $417,462 $561,682 $799,043
Households with
3-or-more Dependents:
Cat. 5 Cat. 6 Cat. 7
Maximum income $177,500 $191,500 $208,500
Asset Cap: $200,000 $225,000 $250,000
Affordable Purchase Price* $661,300 $713,459 $776,794
Purchase Price + Max Assets** $861,300 $938,459 $1,026,794
* Principal and interest are based on a 30-year fixed rate mortgage at a 5% interest rate and 5%
down payment. Taxes, Insurance and HOA comprise 20% of the mortgage payment.
**This makes an aggressive assumption, for illustrative purposes, that 100% of the max assets in each
Category are applied toward the purchase price of the home.
Measuring Assets
APCHA Standards
Measuring assets refers to the verification of net household assets of a
prospective household that wishes to qualify to purchase or rent an APCHA
program unit. Net assets are calculated by totaling gross assets and deducting
liabilities. Gross assets in the Guidelines are defined as anything which has
tangible or intangible value, including:
• All cash, such as in checking and savings accounts;
• Real and personal property, including automobiles;
• Patents and causes of action which belong to any person;
• Stock, bonds, mutual funds and other investments;
• Interest in the estate of a decedent;
• Business assets/property;
“Yes, I managed to save some money, outside of retirement monies. This
money is to be used in case of emergency, I lose my job, I get injured, for
some reason I am unable to work. But, in order to qualify for employee
housing, I have to use all of this money on housing. This isn't right. There needs
to be some balance”. – Survey Comment
P59
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 58
• Funds or property held in a living trust or any similar entity or interest, where
the person has management rights or the ability to apply the assets to the
payment of debts;
• The entire property of a person, association, corporation, or estate; and
• 60% of a household’s pension plans, retirement accounts, etc.
Any assets held in retirement accounts that are subject to early withdrawal
penalty are adjusted to 60% of present value. Additionally, assets of household
members that are qualified retirees are allowed to adjust the asset cap to 150%
of the amount regularly applicable in the respective Category. As shown below:
• A similar percentage of households employed in Pitkin County and
APCHA households report having no retirement assets in such accounts
(about 23%).
• About one-half have accounts worth less than $100,000 and 17% of Pitkin
County employed households and 12% of APCHA households have
accounts valued at $200,000 or more.
• As would be expected, retirement account assets increase as the age of
household members increase.
Table 23. Household Assets
Employed
APCHA
Households
Households
Employed in
Pitkin County
NONE ($0) 21% 23%
Less than $100,000 53% 48%
$100,000 - $149,999 10% 9%
$150,000 - $199,999 3% 5%
$200,000 - $249,999 4% 3%
$250,000 - $299,999 2% 2%
$300,000 - $399,999 2% 3%
$400,000 - $499,999 2% 2%
$500,000 - $599,999 2% 2%
$600,000 - $799,999 1% 2%
$800,000 - $999,999 1% 2%
Over $1,000,000 0% 1%
*Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding
Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
P60
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 59
Federal Standards
There is no asset limitation for participation in HUD-assisted housing programs. Net
assets can affect a household’s income and total tenant payment, however, as
follows:
• The definition of annual income includes net income from family assets
(e.g. interest earned, etc.).
• Also, when net family assets exceed $5,000, annual income shall include
the greater of the actual income derived from all net family assets or a
percentage of the value of such assets based on HUD’s passbook savings
rate (currently 2%).11 Therefore, if a household’s net assets are large
enough, adding 2% of the asset value to the household’s income may
raise their income above the maximum qualification rate.
HUD generally defines an asset as cash or a non-cash item that can be
converted to cash.12 Appendix B contains a table that more specifically identifies
what does and does not qualify as an asset, which can be referenced for more
information. In summary, when compared with qualifying APCHA assets, the
following primary differences are apparent:
• Retirement accounts are treated differently. HUD includes equity in 401K’s
and other retirement accounts to which the holder has access. APCHA
counts 60% of these accounts;
• One-time/non-recurring gifts may or may not be an asset under HUD.
APCHA does not include one-time gifts as assets and has no policy
restricting them. As peer communities commonly see one-time down
payment gifts from families, they sometimes limit one-time gift amounts or
treat as an asset; and
• Personal automobiles are not included as assets under HUD. APCHA does
include personal cars as assets even though cars are necessary for many
employees and cannot be easily converted into funds for housing.
Negative Perceptions of Income/Asset Qualification
Based on interviews and survey comments, there is a perception that some
households that do not meet the income and/or asset criteria are able to
acquire APCHA housing by skirting or “abusing the system.”
Even though the survey indicated that 97.8% of APCHA households have at least
one employee working in Pitkin County, the negative perception exists and is
11 24 CFR 5.609(b)(3)
12 24 CFR 5.603(b): Definitions
P61
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 60
damaging to the credibility of the program. The time required to dispute
perceptions places an undue burden on staff, diverts attention away from
primary objectives, and can outweigh successes of the organization. Over time,
negative perceptions erode confidence in the program. In other resort
communities, lack of credibility based on perceptions has affected the ability to
create more housing opportunities.
Unreported Income
APCHA staff conveyed the challenge of calculating income, an outcome of the
resort economy where holding multiple and seasonal jobs is common. The
primary concern was capturing under-reporting of tip or cash income. Survey
comments were similar in nature.
Fix that restaurant workers have significant amounts of unreported income. I
mean, I know you can't, but it is frustrating. - Survey comment
Other communities have addressed this by verifying income with employers and
requiring loan documents prior to closing to ensure consistency with income
reported to the bank.
Trust Funders
The other frequent comment is that households that have unearned income
from a trust, or “trust funders,” are unfairly accessing APCHA units. In mountain
resort communities, this demographic is common, as a large segment of the
workforce that moves to these resorts come from highly educated, upper-middle
class families.
To account for the prevalence of “trust funders”, peer communities often limit
the amount of a “gift” down payment, such as 20% of the purchase price.
Complexity and Transparency
An overly complex program reduces transparency, which creates an
environment ripe for negative perceptions. The APCHA program is complex
compared to similar housing programs and some applicants describe the system
as “overwhelming.” Reducing complexity will help to reduce confusion and
both negative and misperceptions.
APCHA’s Categories
Inventory of APCHA Units by Category
To understand how well APCHA unit Categories are serving households with an
employee in Pitkin County, this section compares the distribution of APCHA units
by Category to locally employed households by Category. Because RO units
contribute to the service level of APCHA’s program, the below table redistributes
some RO rental and ownership units that fall within Category prices to that
respective Category.
P62
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 61
• Of 268 RO rentals, 50 are known to be in Category 1 (Truscott Phase I
renting for between $700 to $750/month). Rents for the remaining 218
rental RO units are not known; most are not managed by APCHA.
• About 48% of the 520 RO ownership units are priced at market (e.g.,
above Category 7). Sale prices for most of the remaining RO units fall
within Category 4 (247 units). Another 15 RO units prices fall within
Categories 5 through 7, comprising about 14% of the inventory in these
three Categories.
Table 24. APCHA Redistributed Inventory: 2015
Category
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RO TOTAL
Rentals 148 298 427 32 0 0 0 218 1,123
Ownership 20 197 262 771 25 70 11 252 1,608
TOTAL (#) 168 495 689 803 25 70 11 470 2,731
TOTAL (%) 6% 18% 25% 29% 1% 3% 0% 17% 100%
Rentals exclude 200 seasonal units in Marolt and Burlingame. Rental reclassifies 50 RO units into
Category 1.
Source: APCHA and City of Aspen Community Development Department, Consultant team
Distribution of Units and Employed Households by Category
The below charts compare the percentage distribution of owner and renter
households that have at least one employee in Pitkin County to APCHA units
based on Category. Where the percentage distribution of units is similar to that
of households, this indicates that APCHA is providing units in relationship to
employed household incomes. This shows that:
• The distribution of APCHA rentals is light in Category 1 and Category 4
compared to employed households. This generally coincides with the
observation that APCHA rental units are underserving households earning
under $25,000 and between $75,000 to $100,000 per year in Section 1.
• While more low-income rentals are likely needed, many households
earning at or near Category 4 incomes may be looking to buy, exhibiting
lower demand for rentals.
• There appears to be a good distribution of Category 2 and 3 rentals
compared to households in each Category.
• It is possible that some of the unclassified RO units are helping to fill the
gap in Category 1 and Category 4, but more information is needed to be
sure.
P63
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 62
Figure 3. Distribution of APCHA Rental Units Compared to Households Employed
in Pitkin County by Category: 2015
!
Note: some households whose incomes are within a Category may qualify for higher Category
housing (i.e. a household with Category 2 income may qualify for a Category 3 unit).
Source: APCHA, Employee Housing Survey 2015, Consultant team
• The distribution of ownership units is heavy in Category 4 compared to
households and a little light in Categories 3, 5 and 7. This generally
coincides with the observation that APCHA ownership units are
underserving households earning between $100,000 to $200,000 per year
in Section 1.
• The upper (over $100,000) income households may be limited from
purchasing because of asset caps (about 35%), plus there are desirable
options down valley.
13%
27%
38%
3%
19%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Other
(unclassified RO)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
U
n
i
t
s
o
r
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
APCHA Housing Category
APCHA Rental Units Renter Households Employed in Pitkin County
P64
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 63
Figure 4. Distribution of APCHA Ownership Units Compared to Households
Employed in Pitkin County by Category: 2015
Note: some households whose incomes are within a Category may qualify for higher Category
housing (i.e. a household with Category 2 income may qualify for a Category 3 unit).
Source: APCHA, Employee Housing Survey 2015, Consultant team
Comparison to Peer Communities (Breckenridge, Jackson,
Telluride, Vail)
Income Categories and Limits
All of the towns except Vail have established a series of income categories
based on AMI that are used to determine sale prices and rents, and to qualify
applicants for those units. In Aspen and Jackson, the number of categories
increased over time as market home prices increased and workforce housing
was needed for middle-income households.
The number of categories ranges from three in Telluride up to seven in Aspen,
and Jackson but do not necessarily reflect the range of incomes served. While
Aspen and Jackson have a similar number of categories, the range of incomes
served in Aspen is much broader and extends to lower income households.
Area Median Income (AMI) is used to define the categories in all other
communities. It is common for a portion of units in workforce housing inventories
2%
13%
18%
47%
1%
4%
1%
14%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other (RO)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
U
n
i
t
s
o
r
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
APCHA Housing Category
APCHA Ownership Units Owner Households Employed in Pitkin County
P65
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 2 - 64
to not have income limits. Income restrictions are often relaxed, as workforce
housing income targets are increased in response to market prices rising above
the levels affordable to professionals/ managers. Sometimes older units
developed in the early years of a town’s involvement in housing may not have
income caps. Private developers often try to eliminate or increase income caps
to increase the pool of buyers/renters for units they produce, although
experience has shown that this is not necessary; income caps have not impeded
home sales in any of these towns.
Asset Limits
Asset Limits vary widely. Breckenridge and Vail impose no limits on assets, aside
from prohibiting ownership of other residential real estate. More typical is the use
of flat fees, a multiplier of the original sales price or a multiplier of incomes to
establish asset limits. Retirement funds may or may not be counted; if counted,
this can disincentivize some households to save for retirement.
See Appendix E for additional information on peer communities.
P66
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 65
SECTION 3 – Affordability Analysis
Purpose
This section evaluates the affordability of each of APCHA’s eight Categories of
affordable housing units to the households that the Categories are intended to
serve. This section:
• Introduces federal, industry and peer community standards to understand
the affordability of ownership and rental units to households and discusses
what APCHA should consider in applying affordability standards;
• Evaluates the affordability of APCHA rentals and ownership housing both
for its current occupants and for qualified households for newly restricted
properties. Affordability is analyzed based on the rent or mortgage
payment, as well as rent or mortgage including utilities and homeowner
association fees. How other issues such as deferred maintenance, capital
improvements and interest rates affect affordability are also presented;
and
• Discusses how peer communities have measured and addressed housing
affordability issues.
Based on this analysis, recommendations are made on adjustments that could
be made to APCHA’s rents and sales prices based both on applied affordability
standards and current rents and sales prices to help APCHA better meet its
housing goals.
Standards of Affordability
There is no single “gold standard” for measuring affordability. Multiple measures
exist, and each is designed to serve an intended purpose. The following three
groups are evaluated to demonstrate standards:
• Government agencies
• Mortgage lenders
• Peer resort communities
While the purpose for having affordability standards varies slightly among these
groups, they all:
• Utilize standards to ensure that housing costs are affordable given
incomes;
P67
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 66
• Express the standard as a maximum percentage of income that can be
spent on the housing payment for it to be considered affordable; and
• Set their standard at or near 30% without consideration for unit location,
household income levels and the cost of other necessities.
Government Agencies
Government agencies, such as the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA), use
affordability measures to determine the allocation of public funds by measuring
the level of cost burden in communities and to regulate access to and set rental
rates for public housing units.
HUD utilizes a simple share of income approach stating that housing is not
affordable if housing costs exceed 30% of the household’s gross (pre-tax)
income.13 This standard originated for HUD public housing programs in the United
States Housing Act of 1937. The 30% ratio has evolved over time, beginning at
20% in 1940, rising to 25% in1968 and to 30% in 1981.14
A household is defined as cost-burdened by their housing payment when
housing costs exceed 30% of a household’s gross (pre-tax) income. Households
are severely cost-burdened when rent or mortgage comprises 50% or more of
gross income. Cost burdened households, particularly those in lower income
groups, may be forced to make tradeoffs to meet other necessary household
expenses, such as food, medical, and transportation and in the safety, quality,
and location of their housing to make ends meet.
The application of the 30% ratio of housing costs to income varies. The
calculation may compare just rent or mortgage to a household’s income or may
include the cost of utilities in the calculation. For example:
• For rents in public housing projects, federal regulations limit the amount of
rent plus an allowance for utilities to be no more than 30% of income.15
• The Colorado Housing and Finance Authority permits rents plus utilities for
low-income housing tax credit rentals (LIHTC) to comprise up to 40% of a
qualifying household’s income.16
13!Income is measured for public housing programs as defined in 25 C.F.R. § 5.609. See Section 3 – Income and
Assets in this report.
14 See the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and Housing and Community Development
Amendments of 1981, Public Law 97-35 (8/13/81), 95 Stat. 400.
15 Reference CFR sections here.
16 See Colorado Housing and Finance Authority LIHTC Regulations,
http://www.chfainfo.com/arh/asset/Pages/lihtc-compliance.aspx!
P68
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 67
Although HUD’s standard is applied with some variation and has some
deficiencies, this standard is the most widely used by federal and state housing
programs. It is computed from readily available data (income and housing
costs), is easy to understand and easy to track over time.
Mortgage Lenders
Lending standards are important to consider because buyers of APCHA housing
must obtain mortgages. These standards and the inputs used in calculating them
are designed to determine an individual household’s ability to pay their
mortgage. They also create the secondary market for mortgages by setting the
underwriting criteria on which mortgages are pooled and mortgage backed
securities are issued. If housing programs do not adhere to these standards,
mortgages from portfolio lenders with typically higher, adjustable interests rates
could be the only option for buyers.
To measure a household’s ability to pay, lending institutions rely on lending
standards to minimize risk. If a household meets certain standards, they are less
likely to default on the mortgage. Therefore, housing programs often rely on
lenders to ensure that buyers are capable of paying the mortgage on their
home.
Mortgage applications are typically document heavy, requiring multiple years of
income tax returns, verification of accounts and savings, identification of debts
and assets, among other documents to obtain a complete picture of an
applicant’s obligations and resources.
Standards set by lending institutions for government-backed and conventional,
fixed-rate mortgages typically require:
• A limit on size of the loan. The general national limit is $417,000; however,
the Pitkin County limit is $625,500 based on an adjustment applied to high
cost areas.
• The applicant’s housing debt does not exceed approximately 30% of
income. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) applies a limit of 29%
and conventional Fannie Mae is generally up to 32% or 33%. This ratio is
looked at in isolation to determine whether the buyer will be able to pay
the mortgage over time;
• The ratio of the applicant’s debt to income does not exceed a specified
maximum. Debt may typically comprise up to 45% of a household’s
income and includes student loans, car loans, credit card debt, and other
obligations;
P69
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 68
• A down payment be provided (typically 0 to 20%), with government or
private mortgage insurance if less than 20%; and
• The applicant’s credit score be adequate for the loan being sought (a
higher credit score usually translates to a lower interest rate).
Mortgage companies do not include utilities when calculating whether a
housing payment is affordable. Homeowner’s association fees, however, are
typically included when calculating the debt-to-income ratio.
A mortgage that exceeds the loan limit of $625,500 is known as a jumbo loan.
Because different standards apply to Jumbo Loans, they are not purchased by
Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Also,
because the risk is higher to lenders, mainly due to the larger loan amount,
interest rates and down payments are generally higher. However, debt-to-
income standards are often less restrictive, meaning a household is able to pay a
higher percentage of their income toward housing costs. This is because
households with higher incomes purchase higher priced homes and they have
more funds available to pay for housing and still afford non-housing essentials.
Lending standards recognize the variations in a household’s ability to pay
housing costs based on the household’s financial condition and obligations.
Because of this, there is more flexibility in measuring affordability than with HUD’s
30% measure.
Peer Resort Communities
Determining an affordability standard is a common challenge for policy makers
in resort communities. Selecting a measure that minimizes the subsidy to create
the unit, while ensuring that housing is a source of financial stability to the
occupant is a delicate balance.
All of the peer communities reviewed use the 30% ratio of income-to-housing
cost as the basis for measuring affordability. Because they all use HUD data in
other aspects of their housing program (i.e., AMI data to set income limits,
household size, percentage of AMI to define category ranges) this standard is an
easy method to track affordability of the program.
They also use the 30% figure as the primary input for setting rental rates and sales
prices, although not with consistency. Home prices/rents may be set based on
multiple factors including development costs, subsidies available and developer
negotiations. If the units are income capped, the prices may be close to top end
of the affordable range, requiring applicants to obtain assistance (usually from
parents) or obtain an ARM that will make the payment affordable for the initial
year or two.
P70
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 69
Peer communities vary their assumptions for inputs in the calculations (persons
per bedroom, point within the category range, interest rate, down payment,
etc.), but are generally transparent about the methodology used to calculate
amounts.
Inputs for Housing Cost Calculation
The inputs used in calculating the 30% standard vary among housing agencies
and peer communities:
• The interest rate is a variable that greatly impacts the percentage.
Lenders use the rates they currently charge even if that rate will increase
later through an adjustable rate mortgage. Peer communities tend to use
a rate slightly higher (often one percentage point) than current market
rates as a buffer to interest rate increases. Summit County uses 7.5% for
extra cushion.
• Utilities are not included in any ownership programs.
• None of the peer communities include utilities in either ownership or rental
housing, though Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is handled
differently by its own standard (40% of income on rent including utilities).
• HOA fees are considered, but may be adjusted if the fees are atypically
large (e.g., they cannot be covered by a standard percentage assumed
for taxes, insurance and HOA).
While HUD is the standard applied by all of the peer resort communities, the high
cost of housing requires that these housing programs serve higher-income
households than the HUD standard is generally intended to measure. Many
communities have created units without price caps to address this.
Unfortunately, common experience has shown steep appreciation in prices on
units without a cap and all peer communities now impose a price cap, even on
units intended to serve higher-income groups.
Weaknesses in the 30% Affordability Standard
The simple 30% ratio has criticisms, mainly regarding its ability to explain true
housing affordability, including:
1) Non-housing essentials. Households earning $100,000 per year have much
more left over after paying 30% of their income for rent or mortgage to
cover other necessary costs than do households earning less than $30,000
per year. The flat 30% ratio does not take into account the varying ability
for households at different income levels to afford non-housing essentials
such as food, clothing, transportation, healthcare and childcare.
P71
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 70
2) Cost of living. The 30% ratio does not account for the cost differences in
food, shelter, transportation, and other living expenses that occur from
one housing market to another, affecting the total cost of living in an area
and, therefore, what a household can realistically afford to pay for
housing to meet other expenses.
3) Condition and location of housing. The 30% ratio does not take into
consideration the physical condition, safety, nor location tradeoffs that
households must make or are willing to make to afford their housing. Nor
does it consider investments that owners may need to make to repair
substandard properties.
Restructuring the approach for determining affordability has long been debated
without resolution. Stepping up the percentage as household incomes increase
has been suggested since the residual income for non-housing necessities also
increases as incomes rise. High cost communities such as Pitkin County and peer
communities where housing programs must serve higher-income households
than the HUD standard is generally intended to serve may provide the
environment for this type of scaled residual-income approach. No housing
agencies or communities have been identified, however, that have adopted this
approach.
Affordability of APCHA Housing
The affordability of APCHA’s housing is analyzed in two parts:
1. Rental Affordability and
2. Ownership Affordability.
This section applies the affordability standard of no more than 30% of income
paid toward rent or mortgage (excluding utilities) to determine when housing
may be considered unaffordable. The purpose of this section is to determine
whether APCHA can consider changes in its rents or sales prices to better meet
its goals. The affordability of these units is evaluated by:
1. Comparing the household incomes of existing occupants of APCHA
rentals and owned homes to their rent or mortgage payment.
2. Comparing the rents and sale prices established by APCHA in its
Guidelines to Category incomes, which will primarily impact how new
housing is priced.
3. Examining permitted resale prices to determine whether APCHA homes
remain affordable under current appreciation allowances.
4. Examining changes in APCHA’s rents, sales prices and incomes to
determine if they have retained relative affordability over time.
P72
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 71
Part 1 - Rental Affordability
To keep rents affordable to tenants, APCHA limits the amount of rent that can be
charged for Employee Housing units that falls under APCHA oversight. The rent
includes the cost of common utilities, snow removal, landscaping, condominium
dues, management costs and taxes, but not individually metered utilities or trash.
The rental rate is the same for both furnished and unfurnished units. This practice
is typical among peer communities; although in seasonal worker housing utilities
are generally included, and trash is often covered in all apartment rentals.
APCHA’s inventory of more than 1,300 units has several different rental rates
within each Category, as well as between Categories. Rental rates were
originally based on an amount per square foot. The amount per square foot was
adjusted over the years, and new units placed into service had rental caps
based on the square footage of the unit and its Category. In 2002, the current
baseline rent was established to represent household incomes at that time.
• For units placed in service, rents are allowed to annually increase at CPI or
3%, whichever is less. Prior to 2002, the CPI was not capped. From 1978 to
2015, the annual increase in rent has been as little as zero and as much as
6.6% with an average annual increase of 1.61%.
Table 25. Permitted Increase in Rent for Existing Affordable Rentals
Year Increase Year Increase Year Increase Year Increase
1978 0.00% 1988 0.00% 1998 0.73% 2008 3.00%
1979 0.00% 1989 4.70% 1999 0.54% 2009 0.70%
1980 0.00% 1990 3.00% 2000 1.08% 2010 2.30%
1981 0.00% 1991 0.00% 2001 1.40% 2011 1.30%
1982 0.00% 1992 2.00% 2002 1.63% 2012 3.00%
1983 6.60% 1993 1.20% 2003 2.15% 2013 1.70%
1984 5.00% 1994 1.00% 2004 1.60% 2014 1.10%
1985 3.30% 1995 1.10% 2005 3.00% 2015 1.10%
1986 0.00% 1996 0.99% 2006 3.00%
1987 0.00% 1997 1.31% 2007 1.70%
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015
For newly income-restricted rental units, APCHA establishes maximum rents each
year, also based on CPI. Once units are placed into service, they may
appreciate as defined above.
In 2015, established rents range from a low of less than $500 to nearly $3,000 per
month, as shown in the below table.
P73
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 72
Table 26. 2015 APCHA Maximum Monthly Rental Rates
Unit Type Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 RO
Studio $492 $875 $1,307 $1,734 $2,379
1 Bedroom $608 $1,028 $1,457 $1,903 $2,545
2 Bedroom $720 $1,180 $1,610 $2,057 $2,697
3 Bedroom $834 $1,320 $1,767 $2,210 $2,853
SF Detached $951 $1,489 $1,918 $2,284 $2,929
*Includes cost of common utilities, condominium dues, management costs and taxes.
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015
APCHA also establishes maximum yearly incomes that occupants may earn to
qualify for rentals in each Category. Incomes vary based on the number of
adults in the household.17 Income maximums are used to qualify households for
both existing and newly-restricted APCHA units. The below table shows the range
of incomes that households may earn to qualify for each Category of housing.
Table 27. 2015 Category Incomes for APCHA Rentals
Number of
Adults
Cat1 Cat2
Min* Max Min Max
1-Adult $14,000 $35,000 $35,001 $56,000
2-Adults $23,000 $52,000 $52,001 $81,000
3-Adults $28,000 $62,000 $62,001 $96,000
Number of
Adults
Cat3 Cat4
Min Max Min Max
1-Adult $56,001 $88,000 $88,001 $145,000
2-Adults $81,001 $133,000 $133,001 $215,000
3-Adults $96,001 $156,000 $156,001 $252,000
*The minimum income for Category 1 was estimated based on the spread of incomes permitted in
Category 2. APCHA does not define a minimum income for Category 1 households, but does
require occupants to work full time (1,500 hours per calendar year), meaning that the vast majority
of qualifying households earn at least $15,000 ($10/hour) or more per year.
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015
Affordability for Renters in Existing Units
Cost-burden is a problem for a portion of current APCHA renters. APCHA’s
affordable rental housing is not affordable for all who occupy it.
17 See Section 2 – Income, Assets & Categories for more information on APCHA income maximums.
P74
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 73
About 23% of existing APCHA renters are cost-burdened (pay more than 30% of
their income) for rent. This is only somewhat lower than for households employed
in Pitkin County overall (28% of renters are cost-burdened).18 When utilities are
added, the percentage of cost-burdened APCHA renters increases to 27.5%.
Evaluated by Category of unit and household type:
• Cost-burden mostly affects households occupying units in Category 1
(61.5% of households) and Category 2 (32.4% of households).
• One-adult households find units less affordable than other households --
30% are cost-burdened.
When utilities are added to the rent or mortgage payment, low income and one-
adult households are still disproportionately cost burdened. Data on the impact
of including utilities is provided in Appendix C.
Table 28. Households Paying Over 30% of Income for Rent: APCHA Renters 2015
1-adult 2-adults 3-adults Total
Households
% Cost-Burdened 29.9% 18.0% 9.1% 23.0%
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
% Cost-Burdened 61.5% 32.4% 0.3% 0.0%
Source: 2015 Employee Survey
Rents for New Units Compared to APCHA Category Incomes
In general, APCHA’s specified rents in relation to maximum incomes for every
Category are affordable. Some variations are seen when households earn less
than the maximum incomes in some Categories:
• Households earning near the minimum income for Category 1 and one-
adult households in Categories 2 and 3 have trouble affording rents.
• For all other households and Categories, it would be possible to increase
rents under the current income ranges and not compromise the general
affordability of the program based on the 30% housing payment
standard.
18 See Section 1 – APCHA Affordable Housing Program for this data.
“Stop raising the rent!! I was in my employee housing for 3 months and the rent
was raised 5%!!! I'm lucky if I get a 2% raise......I never get a 5% raise....please
stop!!” – Survey comment
P75
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 74
The below table provides a simple overview of the average affordability of
APCHA’s rental program. By dividing the average maximum income for each
Category into the average of rents for all unit types, a ratio of average rent to
average income is generated. This shows that rents are set within affordable
ranges, based on the 30% standard, with affordability generally increasing as the
Categories increase. In other words, Category 4 is relatively more affordable to
households that income-qualify for units (12% average rent to income) than
Category 1 (17% average rent to income).
Table 29. Average Affordability of APCHA’s Maximum Rents: 2015
Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4
Average income
range*
$49,667 $77,667 $125,667 $204,000
Average rent** $721 $1,178 $1,612 $2,038
Ratio of monthly rent to
monthly income***
17% 18% 15% 12%
*Simple average of 1-, 2- and 3-adult maximum incomes specified by APCHA.
**Simple average of maximum rents specified for each unit type.
***Ratio of average rent divided by average income.
This general observation is supported by the more detailed analysis presented
below, which compares the incomes that one-, two- and three-adult households
can earn to qualify for each Category unit to the rents for each unit type. This
shows that:
• Rents in each Category are generally affordable for households earning
at or near the maximum incomes. Theoretically, one-adult households
renting single family homes in Category 1 or 2 would pay over 30% of their
income for rent but, with only three single-family rentals, this seems
unlikely.
• Affordability problems occur for households earning near the minimum
incomes in Category 1, including:
o No units are affordable to one-adult households;
o Only studios are affordable to two-adult households; and
o Three-adult households can only afford a 1-bedroom (which they
cannot occupy due to two persons per bedroom restrictions).
• Affordability is also a problem for one-adult households earning near the
minimum incomes in all but Category 4. One-adult households earning
the minimum income In Categories 2 or 3 could only afford a studio unit.
This may work fine for a 1-person household, but is unsuitable for a single-
parent household. This supports the need to base household size (and
incomes) on total occupants, not just adults as explored in Section 4.
P76
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 75
• Rents in most Categories are priced affordable for the full range of
incomes. For example, a two-adult household earning between the
minimum and maximum income in Category 2 could afford to rent a
Category 2 studio, 1-bedroom or 2-bedroom unit. Only one-adult
households earning at or near the minimum income for each Category
have significant limitations on selection.
Table 30. Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Rent by Qualifying Households:
New APCHA Rentals, 2015
Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4
Adults / Unit Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
1 / Studio 42.2% 16.9% 30.0% 18.8% 28.0% 17.8% 23.6% 14.4%
1 / 1BR 52.1% 20.8% 35.2% 22.0% 31.2% 19.9% 25.9% 15.7%
1 / 2BR 61.7% 24.7% 40.5% 25.3% 34.5% 22.0% 28.0% 17.0%
1 / 3BR 71.5% 28.6% 45.3% 28.3% 37.9% 24.1% 30.1% 18.3%
1 / SF 81.5% 32.6% 51.0% 31.9% 41.1% 26.2% 31.1% 18.9%
2 / Studio 25.7% 11.4% 20.2% 13.0% 19.4% 11.8% 15.6% 9.7%
2 / 1BR 31.7% 14.0% 23.7% 15.2% 21.6% 13.1% 17.2% 10.6%
2 / 2BR 37.6% 16.6% 27.2% 17.5% 23.9% 14.5% 18.6% 11.5%
2 / 3BR 43.5% 19.2% 30.5% 19.6% 26.2% 15.9% 19.9% 12.3%
2 / SF 49.6% 21.9% 34.4% 22.1% 28.4% 17.3% 20.6% 12.7%
3 / Studio 21.1% 9.5% 16.9% 10.9% 16.3% 10.1% 13.3% 8.3%
3 / 1BR 26.1% 11.8% 19.9% 12.9% 18.2% 11.2% 14.6% 9.1%
3 / 2BR 30.9% 13.9% 22.8% 14.8% 20.1% 12.4% 15.8% 9.8%
3 / 3BR 35.7% 16.1% 25.5% 16.5% 22.1% 13.6% 17.0% 10.5%
3 / SF 40.8% 18.4% 28.8% 18.6% 24.0% 14.8% 17.6% 10.9%
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consultant Team
APCHA households pay an average of $132 per month in utilities.19 When the
average cost of utilities is added to the maximum rents for each Category,
households earning the maximum income for each range are still generally able
to afford APCHA rentals. As shown below:
• A few households earning the maximum income in each Category pay
over 30% for rent plus utilities, but no household pays more than 40% for
rent plus utilities;
• As expected, the affordability for households earning at or near the
minimum for each Category decreases. One-adult households have the
most affordability problems, along with all lower income households in
Category 1.
19!Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015; see Section 1 – Examination of APCHA’s Affordable Housing Program
for this data.
P77
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 76
Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Rent Plus Utilities by Qualifying Households:
New APCHA Rentals, 2015
Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4
Adults /
Unit Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
1 / Studio 53.5% 21.4% 34.5% 21.6% 30.8% 19.6% 25.4% 15.4%
1 / 1BR 63.4% 25.4% 39.8% 24.9% 34.0% 21.7% 27.7% 16.8%
1 / 2BR 73.0% 29.2% 45.0% 28.1% 37.3% 23.8% 29.8% 18.1%
1 / 3BR 82.8% 33.1% 49.8% 31.1% 40.7% 25.9% 31.9% 19.4%
1 / SF 92.8% 37.1% 55.6% 34.7% 43.9% 28.0% 32.9% 20.0%
2 / Studio 32.6% 14.4% 23.2% 14.9% 21.3% 13.0% 16.8% 10.4%
2 / 1BR 38.6% 17.1% 26.8% 17.2% 23.5% 14.3% 18.4% 11.4%
2 / 2BR 44.5% 19.7% 30.3% 19.4% 25.8% 15.7% 19.8% 12.2%
2 / 3BR 50.4% 22.3% 33.5% 21.5% 28.1% 17.1% 21.1% 13.1%
2 / SF 56.5% 25.0% 37.4% 24.0% 30.4% 18.5% 21.8% 13.5%
3 / Studio 26.7% 12.1% 19.5% 12.6% 18.0% 11.1% 14.4% 8.9%
3 / 1BR 31.7% 14.3% 22.5% 14.5% 19.9% 12.2% 15.7% 9.7%
3 / 2BR 36.5% 16.5% 25.4% 16.4% 21.8% 13.4% 16.8% 10.4%
3 / 3BR 41.4% 18.7% 28.1% 18.2% 23.7% 14.6% 18.0% 11.2%
3 / SF 46.4% 21.0% 31.4% 20.3% 25.6% 15.8% 18.6% 11.5%
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consultant Team
The following charts show the range of rents that each sized household can
afford to pay given the income range for each Category. This range is
compared to the APCHA rents for each sized home, visually displaying where
Category rents may exceed a household’s ability to pay. This analysis supports
the above findings that households earning below maximum incomes Category
1 and Category 2 have difficulty affording rents.
One-adult households earning:
• The maximum income in Category 1 can afford to pay up to $875 in rent,
which is higher than the rents for all available unit types.
• The minimum income for Category 1 can afford to pay $350 per month,
which is lower than the rents for all APCHA units – no rentals would be
affordable to this household based on the 30% standard.
• The only Category in which minimum-income 1-adult households can
afford more than a studio is in Category 4.
P78
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 77
Figure 5. Rent Affordable to Households Within the Permitted Income Range for
Each Category Compared to APCHA Rents: One-Adult Household20
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consultant Team.
Two-adult households earning:
• The maximum income in all Categories can afford any unit type.
• At any point within the income range in Categories 3 and 4 can afford any unit
type.
• The minimum income in Category 2 can afford up to $1,300 in rent. Studios, 1-
and 2-bedroom units rent for less than this amount.
• The minimum in Category 1 can afford $575 per month. Only studio units rent for
less than this amount.
20 Based on the standard that no more than 30% of income is used for rent. Category 1 minimum rents are
calculated from the estimated minimum incomes in Table 30, above.
$350
$876
$1,401
$2,201
$875
$1,400
$2,200
$3,625
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
Re
n
t
1-Adult Household by Category
Minimum income rent Studio 1BR 2BR 3BR SF Maximum income rent
P79
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 78
Figure 6. Rent Affordable to Households Within the Permitted Income Range for
Each Category Compared to APCHA Rents: Two-Adult Household
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consultant Team.
Three-adult households earning the minimum income can easily afford any
type unit in any Category excluding Category 1. Category 1 minimum-
income earners can pay $700 per month, which would include a studio or 1-
bedroom unit.
Figure 7. Rent Affordable to Households Within the Permitted Income Range for
Each Category Compared to APCHA Rents: Three-Adult Household
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consultant Team.
$575
$1,301
$2,026
$3,326
$1,300
$2,025
$3,325
$5,375
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
Re
n
t
2-Adult Household by Category
Minimum income rent Studio 1BR 2BR 3BR SF Maximum income rent
$700
$1,551
$2,401
$3,901
$1,550
$2,400
$3,900
$6,300
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
Re
n
t
3-Adult Household by Category
Minimum income rent Studio 1BR 2BR 3BR SF Maximum income rent
P80
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 79
Based on the above, APCHA may:
• Raise rents, particularly in Categories 3 and 4. This may be desirable if a
goal is to decrease subsidies to the program. Decreased subsidies to the
higher income Categories may permit increased subsidy to lower income
households and help alleviate some of the cost-burden among
households in Categories 1 and 2 in particular.
• Decrease incomes. Depending upon program goals and target market
incomes to serve, it may be appropriate to decrease qualifying incomes
for Categories 3 and 4 in particular. Category 4 rental incomes span the
same range as Category 5 through 7 for ownership.
These decisions are at least as much tied to policy as they are to calculations.
Estimated AMI Rents
The below presents one option that APCHA could consider. This shows the
change in rents that would occur if APCHA changed to an AMI system based on
the porting methodology presented in Section 2 – Income, Assets and
Categories.21 The calculation represents the mid-point rent for the AMI range,
meaning that some rents will be lower than the calculated rent and some will be
higher. As shown:
• Rents for Category 1 are estimated to be about the same as current
APCHA rents;
• Rents would increase based on permitted affordability for each higher
Category. The largest change is seen in Category 4, with most rents
doubling (or more) from their current rates.22
• Part of the reason for this large increase is related to the assumption that
households will pay no more than 30% of their income for rent for it to be
affordable. This contrasts with APCHA’s current program, which shows
average rent affordability to be low, averaging between 12% and 18% of
monthly income (see Table 30 at the start of this section). A change in this
assumption, which may be related to policy as much as process, would
affect the AMI rent rates.
21 See Appendix C for details on the calculation methodology and assumptions made.
22 Appendix C has a detailed table showing the percentage change in rents for each unit type.
P81
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 80
Figure 8. Estimated AMI Rents Compared to Maximum APCHA Rents
AMI Rent represents the mid-point rent for the AMI range. Some rents may fall below this price
point and some above, but average rents will equal those in the table.
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consultant Team.
Part 2 - Ownership Affordability
To keep ownership units affordable long-term, APCHA establishes the maximum
purchase price for housing units that it oversees. APCHA determines this price at
the time of initial sale and upon each transfer of ownership.
The initial sales price is calculated to be affordable to the household income
category it is designed to serve. In 2002, the current baseline was established to
represent current household incomes at that time and to take into account
other housing costs (property taxes, insurance, HOA dues, interest rate, etc.). The
method of calculation used is unclear. This baseline has been adjusted annually
based on CPI capped at 3% to determine the maximum price at resale.
The initial sales price on RO units is determined on a case-by-case basis with the
developer usually setting the price. If another affordable housing unit is
developed in association with the RO unit, the average sales price of both units is
not allowed to be greater than the Category 3 maximum.
The Maximum Sales Prices for newly deed-restricted units and lots (i.e., those first
sold in 2015) established by APCHA are as follows:
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
Mid-point
rent
APCHA
rent
Mid-point
rent
APCHA
rent
Mid-point
rent
APCHA
rent
Mid-point
rent
APCHA
rent
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
R
e
n
t
Studio 1-br 2-br 3-br Single Family
P82
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 81
Table 31. 2015 APCHA Maximum Sales Prices
Unit Type Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
Studio $40,000 $93,000 $155,000 $262,000
1 Bedroom $52,000 $111,000 $169,000 $280,000
2 Bedroom $63,000 $137,000 $200,000 $311,000
3 Bedroom $72,000 $168,000 $234,000 $344,000
SF Detached $87,000 $199,000 $264,000 $371,000
SF Lot n/a n/a n/a n/a
Unit Type Category 5 Category 6 Category 7 RO
Studio $365,000 $407,000 $457,000 n/a
1 Bedroom $395,000 $438,000 $488,000 n/a
2 Bedroom $429,000 $471,000 $522,000 n/a
3 Bedroom $457,000 $498,000 $549,000 n/a
SF Detached $489,000 $532,000 $579,000 n/a
SF Lot $105,000 $146,000 $152,000 $186,000
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015
APCHA also establishes maximum yearly incomes that occupants may earn to
qualify to own in each Category. The below table expresses the range of
incomes that can qualify for each Category of housing.
Table 32. 2015 Category Incomes for APCHA Ownership
Dep
end
ents
Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4
Min* Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
0 $14,000 $35,000 $35,001 $56,000 $56,001 $88,000 $88,001 $145,000
1 $18,500 $42,500 $42,501 $66,500 $66,501 $95,500 $95,501 $152,500
2 $29,000 $50,000 $50,001 $71,000 $71,001 $103,000 $103,001 $160,000
3 $36,500 $57,500 $57,501 $78,500 $78,501 $110,500 $110,501 $167,500
Dependents Cat5 Cat6 Cat7
Min Max Min Max Min Max
0 $145,001 $155,000 $155,001 $169,000 $169,001 $186,000
1 $152,501 $162,500 $162,501 $176,500 $176,501 $193,500
2 $160,001 $170,000 $170,001 $184,000 $184,001 $201,000
3 $167,501 $177,500 $177,501 $191,500 $191,501 $208,500
*The minimum income for Category 1 was estimated based on the spread of incomes permitted in
Category 2. APCHA does not define a minimum income for Category 1 households, but does
require occupants to work full time (1,500 hours per calendar year), meaning that the vast majority
of qualifying households earn at least $15,000 ($10/hour) or more per year.
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015
P83
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 82
Current APCHA Owners
Cost-burden is not a significant problem for current APCHA owners.
Only 10% of current APCHA owners are cost-burdened (pay more than 30% of
their income) for mortgage. This is lower than for owners employed in Pitkin
County overall (19% total).23 When HOA fees are also added, APCHA cost-
burden rises to 15%.
Evaluated by Category of unit and household type:
• Cost-burden mostly affects households occupying units in Category 1
(55.4% of households) and Category 2 (23.8% of households).
• A similar percentage of households by dependent type are cost
burdened by their mortgage payment, ranging between about 8% and
11%. This rises to near 16% for zero- and one-dependent households when
HOA fees are added.
Table 33. Households Paying Over 30% of Income for Mortgage: APCHA Owners
2015
0-
dependents
1-
dependent
2-
dependents
3-
dependents*
TOTAL
owners
% cost-burdened 10.8% 10.6% 7.5% 11.0% 10.0%
Including HOA 15.6% 16.6% 9.3% -- 15.0%
*Small sample size for 3+ dependent households, consider this with interpretation.
Category
1*
Category
2
Category
3
Category
4
Categories
5 - 7**
% cost-burdened 55.4% 23.8% 4.7% 4.1% 1.3%
*Category 1 has a small sample size, consider this with interpretation.
**Categories 5, 6, and 7 are consolidated due to small individual sample sizes.
Source: 2015 Employee Survey
New For-Sale Homes Compared to APCHA Category Incomes
The below table provides a simple overview of the average affordability of
APCHA’s ownership program. By dividing the average maximum income for
each Category into the average of sale prices for all unit types, a ratio of
average sale price to average income is generated.
• The below generally shows that sale prices are set within affordable
ranges.
23 See Section 1 – APCHA Affordable Housing Program for this data.
P84
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 83
• Typically households can afford to purchase homes that are at least
three-times and, with current low interest rates, near 4-times their income
based on the 30% affordability standard.
• Calculated ratios show sale prices average between 1.48- and 2.68-times the
maximum household incomes for each Category, indicating relatively affordable
prices.
Table 34. Average Affordability of APCHA’s Maximum Sale Prices: 2015
Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4 Cat5 Cat6 Cat7
Average
income
range*
$42,501 $64,501 $95,501 $152,501 $162,501 $176,501 $193,500
Average
sale price**
$62,800 $141,600 $204,400 $313,600 $427,000 $469,200 $519,000
Ratio of sale
price to
income***
1.48 2.20 2.14 2.06 2.63 2.66 2.68
*Simple average of 0-, 1-, 2- and 3-dependent maximum incomes specified by APCHA.
**Simple average of maximum sale prices specified for each unit type.
***Ratio of average sale price divided by average income.
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015, Consultant Team.
This general observation is supported by the more detailed analysis presented
below, which compares the incomes that zero- through three+-dependent
households can earn to qualify for each Category unit to the maximum sale
prices for each unit type. This shows that:
• Sale prices in each Category are generally affordable for households
earning at or near the maximum incomes.
• Affordability problems occur for households earning near the minimum
incomes in Category 1 for zero-dependent households. These households
could afford a 1-bedroom or smaller home.
• Minimum income earners in Category 2 with zero- or one-dependent
generally could not afford 3-bedroom or single-family homes.
• Home choices for which households can qualify based on their size are
generally available to the remaining households in other Categories.
“Affordable housing in Pitkin County is not affordable. You cannot afford to
raise a family in Aspen anymore with just one job. Homeowner's Association
fees are ridiculous. We were on the list for Burlingame Phase 2 but chose to
purchase down valley because of how expensive HOA fees were predicted
to be for the unit”. – 2015 Employee Housing Survey Comment
P85
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 84
Table 35. Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Mortgage and HOA24 by APCHA Households: 2015
Dependents /
Unit
Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4 Cat5 Cat6 Cat7
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
0 / Studio 21.9% 8.7% 20.3% 12.7% 21.2% 13.5% 22.8% 13.8% 19.3% 18.0% 20.1% 18.4% 20.7% 18.8%
0 / 1BR 28.4% 11.4% 24.3% 15.2% 23.1% 14.7% 24.3% 14.8% 20.8% 19.5% 21.6% 19.8% 22.1% 20.1%
0 / 2BR 34.4% 13.8% 29.9% 18.7% 27.3% 17.4% 27.0% 16.4% 22.6% 21.2% 23.2% 21.3% 23.6% 21.5%
0 / 3BR 39.3% 15.7% 36.7% 22.9% 32.0% 20.3% 29.9% 18.1% 24.1% 22.6% 24.6% 22.5% 24.9% 22.6%
0 / SF 47.5% 19.0% 43.5% 27.2% 36.1% 22.9% 32.3% 19.6% 25.8% 24.1% 26.3% 24.1% 26.2% 23.8%
1 / Studio 16.5% 7.2% 16.7% 10.7% 17.8% 12.4% 21.0% 13.1% 18.3% 17.2% 19.2% 17.6% 19.8% 18.1%
1 / 1BR 21.5% 9.4% 20.0% 12.8% 19.4% 13.5% 22.4% 14.0% 19.8% 18.6% 20.6% 19.0% 21.2% 19.3%
1 / 2BR 26.1% 11.3% 24.7% 15.8% 23.0% 16.0% 24.9% 15.6% 21.5% 20.2% 22.2% 20.4% 22.6% 20.6%
1 / 3BR 29.8% 13.0% 30.2% 19.3% 26.9% 18.7% 27.6% 17.3% 22.9% 21.5% 23.4% 21.6% 23.8% 21.7%
1 / SF 36.0% 15.7% 35.8% 22.9% 30.4% 21.1% 29.7% 18.6% 24.5% 23.0% 25.0% 23.1% 25.1% 22.9%
2 / Studio 10.6% 6.1% 14.2% 10.0% 16.7% 11.5% 19.5% 12.5% 17.5% 16.4% 18.3% 16.9% 19.0% 17.4%
2 / 1BR 13.7% 8.0% 17.0% 12.0% 18.2% 12.6% 20.8% 13.4% 18.9% 17.8% 19.7% 18.2% 20.3% 18.6%
2 / 2BR 16.6% 9.6% 21.0% 14.8% 21.5% 14.9% 23.1% 14.9% 20.5% 19.3% 21.2% 19.6% 21.7% 19.9%
2 / 3BR 19.0% 11.0% 25.7% 18.1% 25.2% 17.4% 25.5% 16.4% 21.8% 20.6% 22.4% 20.7% 22.8% 20.9%
2 / SF 22.9% 13.3% 30.4% 21.4% 28.4% 19.6% 27.6% 17.7% 23.4% 22.0% 23.9% 22.1% 24.1% 22.0%
3 / Studio 8.4% 5.3% 12.4% 9.1% 15.1% 10.7% 18.1% 12.0% 16.7% 15.7% 17.5% 16.3% 18.3% 16.8%
3 / 1BR 10.9% 6.9% 14.8% 10.8% 16.5% 11.7% 19.4% 12.8% 18.0% 17.0% 18.9% 17.5% 19.5% 17.9%
3 / 2BR 13.2% 8.4% 18.2% 13.4% 19.5% 13.8% 21.5% 14.2% 19.6% 18.5% 20.3% 18.8% 20.9% 19.2%
3 / 3BR 15.1% 9.6% 22.4% 16.4% 22.8% 16.2% 23.8% 15.7% 20.9% 19.7% 21.5% 19.9% 21.9% 20.1%
3 / SF 18.2% 11.6% 26.5% 19.4% 25.7% 18.3% 25.7% 16.9% 22.3% 21.1% 22.9% 21.3% 23.1% 21.2%
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consultant Team.
24!Principal and interest are based on a 30-year fixed, 5% rate with 5% down. Taxes, Insurance and HOA comprise 20% of the mortgage payment. HOA dues average
$286 per month for APCHA households based on the 2015 Employee Housing Survey.
P
8
6
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 85
APCHA owners pay an average of $182 per month in utilities.25 When the
average cost of utilities is added to the maximum mortgage plus HOA payment
for each Category, households earning the maximum income for each range
are still generally able to afford APCHA homes. As shown below:
• Zero- and one-dependent households earning the maximum income in
Categories 1 through 4 pay over 30% for rent plus utilities for some 3-
bedroom and single family homes. None of the maximum income
households pay more than 40% for mortgage/HOA plus utilities;
• As expected, the affordability for households earning at or near the
minimum for each Category decreases.
o Zero-dependent households have the most affordability problems,
along with most lower-income households in Category 1.
o Three-dependent households within qualifying income ranges
would still pay less than 40% of their income to purchase a home in
any Category.!
25 Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015; see Section 1 – Examination of APCHA’s Affordable Housing Program
for this data.!
P87
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 86
Percent of Monthly Income Spent on Mortgage, HOA and Utilities26 by APCHA Households: 2015
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 26.8% 10.7% 22.3% 13.9% 22.7% 14.5% 23.8% 14.4% 20.0% 18.7% 20.8% 19.0% 21.4% 19.4%
0 / 1BR 35.8% 14.3% 27.2% 17.0% 25.2% 16.1% 25.7% 15.6% 21.8% 20.4% 22.5% 20.6% 23.0% 20.9%
0 / 2BR 44.9% 18.0% 34.1% 21.3% 30.3% 19.3% 28.9% 17.5% 23.8% 22.3% 24.4% 22.3% 24.8% 22.5%
0 / 3BR 51.7% 20.7% 41.7% 26.0% 35.7% 22.7% 32.3% 19.6% 25.7% 24.0% 26.0% 23.9% 26.3% 23.9%
0 / SF 61.1% 24.4% 48.9% 30.6% 40.4% 25.7% 35.0% 21.2% 27.8% 26.0% 28.2% 25.8% 28.2% 25.6%
1 / Studio 20.3% 8.8% 18.4% 11.7% 19.1% 13.3% 21.9% 13.7% 19.0% 17.8% 19.8% 18.2% 20.5% 18.7%
1 / 1BR 27.1% 11.8% 22.4% 14.3% 21.3% 14.8% 23.7% 14.8% 20.7% 19.4% 21.5% 19.8% 22.0% 20.1%
1 / 2BR 34.0% 14.8% 28.1% 18.0% 25.5% 17.7% 26.6% 16.7% 22.7% 21.3% 23.2% 21.4% 23.7% 21.6%
1 / 3BR 39.1% 17.0% 34.3% 21.9% 30.0% 20.9% 29.7% 18.6% 24.4% 22.9% 24.8% 22.9% 25.2% 23.0%
1 / SF 46.2% 20.1% 40.3% 25.7% 34.0% 23.7% 32.3% 20.2% 26.5% 24.8% 26.9% 24.7% 27.0% 24.6%
2 / Studio 12.9% 7.5% 15.6% 11.0% 17.9% 12.4% 20.3% 13.1% 18.1% 17.0% 18.9% 17.5% 19.7% 18.0%
2 / 1BR 17.3% 10.0% 19.1% 13.4% 19.9% 13.7% 22.0% 14.1% 19.7% 18.6% 20.5% 19.0% 21.1% 19.3%
2 / 2BR 21.7% 12.6% 23.9% 16.8% 23.9% 16.4% 24.7% 15.9% 21.6% 20.3% 22.2% 20.5% 22.7% 20.8%
2 / 3BR 25.0% 14.5% 29.2% 20.5% 28.1% 19.4% 27.6% 17.7% 23.3% 21.9% 23.7% 21.9% 24.1% 22.1%
2 / SF 29.5% 17.1% 34.2% 24.1% 31.9% 22.0% 29.9% 19.2% 25.2% 23.7% 25.7% 23.7% 25.9% 23.7%
3 / Studio 10.3% 6.5% 13.6% 9.9% 16.2% 11.5% 18.9% 12.5% 17.3% 16.3% 18.1% 16.8% 18.9% 17.3%
3 / 1BR 13.7% 8.7% 16.6% 12.1% 18.0% 12.8% 20.5% 13.5% 18.9% 17.8% 19.7% 18.2% 20.3% 18.7%
3 / 2BR 17.2% 10.9% 20.8% 15.2% 21.6% 15.3% 23.0% 15.2% 20.6% 19.5% 21.3% 19.7% 21.8% 20.1%
3 / 3BR 19.8% 12.6% 25.4% 18.6% 25.4% 18.1% 25.7% 16.9% 22.2% 21.0% 22.7% 21.1% 23.2% 21.3%
3 / SF 23.4% 14.9% 29.8% 21.8% 28.8% 20.5% 27.9% 18.4% 24.1% 22.7% 24.6% 22.8% 24.8% 22.8%
26 Principle and interest are based on a 30-year fixed, 5% rate with 5% down, and 20% of payment to insurance, taxes and HOA. Utilities are estimated at $0.15 per
square foot based on an average of $182 per month for APCHA households, as reported by employees on the Employee Housing Survey 2015.
P
8
8
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 87
The following chart show the range of sale prices that zero-dependent
households can afford to pay given the income range for each Category, with
charts for other household sizes (one- through three+ dependents) in Appendix
C.
The affordable range of sale prices is compared to APCHA sale prices for each
type of home, visually displaying where Category prices may exceed a
household’s ability to pay. This analysis supports the above findings that
households earning below maximum incomes Category 1 and Category 2 have
difficulty affording maximum sale prices.
For zero-dependent households:
• The maximum income in Category 1 can afford to purchase a home for
about $137,000. This is higher than the sale prices for all available unit
types.
• The minimum income for Category 1 can afford to purchase a $55,000
home. This household could afford to buy a studio based on current
APCHA prices based on the 30% standard.
• The ability for zero-dependent households earning the minimum income
increases with each Category. This type of household can afford up to a
one-bedroom unit in Category 2, a two-bedroom in Category 3 and
larger homes in all remaining categories.
Figure 9. Sale Prices Affordable to Households Within the Permitted Income
Range Compared to Maximum APCHA Sale Prices: 0-Dependent Household27
27 Based on the standard that no more than 30% of income is used for housing payments, including mortgage
principal, interest, taxes, insurance and estimated HOA. Category 1 minimum sales prices are calculated from
the estimated minimum incomes in Table 35, above.
$54,904
$137,260
$219,616
$345,111
$568,649 $607,866
$662,770
$729,440
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6 Category 7
Sa
l
e
P
r
i
c
e
0-Dependent Household by Category
Minimum income price Studio 1BR 2BR 3BR SF Maximum income price
P89
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 88
Remaining household sizes (one-dependent through three+-dependent) show a
similar pattern of rising affordability as Categories increase. Only one-dependent
households are limited in their selection in Category 1, with generally good
options for other dependent-sized households across each Category.
Based on the above, APCHA may want to consider raising sale prices, mostly in
Categories 2 or higher, though all Categories have room for increase. This may
be desirable if a goal is to decrease subsidies to the program. Decreased
subsidies to create the higher income Categories may permit increased subsidies
to create lower income Categories.
Estimated AMI For Sale Prices
The below presents one option that APCHA could consider. This shows the
change in sale prices that would occur if APCHA changed to an AMI system
based on the porting methodology presented in Section 2 – Income, Assets and
Categories.28 The calculation represents the mid-point sale price for the AMI
range, meaning that some prices will be lower and some will be higher. As
shown:
• Sale prices are estimated to increase across the board, with
proportionately higher increases in Category 1 than in other Categories.
Increases average between about 55% to 90% across Categories.29
• Part of the reason for this large increase is related to the sale price
assumptions, resulting in households being able to afford homes that are
about 3.9 times larger than their incomes. As shown in Table 31 at the
beginning of this section, average APCHA sale prices average much less
than this.
• The interest rate of a loan can have a large impact on affordability,
generally reducing a household’s purchasing power by just over 5% for
every 0.5% rise in the interest rate. High HOA dues, which are common in
high cost resort communities, can also affect affordability.
28 See Appendix C for details on the calculation methodology and assumptions made.
29 Appendix C has a detailed table showing the percentage change in rents for each unit type.!
P90
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 89
Figure 10. Estimated AMI Sale Prices Compared to Maximum APCHA Sale Prices
Affordable sale price estimated based on principal and interest for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage
at 5% interest rate, 5% down payment and 20% of mortgage for insurance, taxes and HOA and a
mortgage payment that comprises 30% of household income.
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015, Consultant Team.
APCHA Re-Sales
For re-sales of APCHA homes, the deed restriction recorded on the unit controls
the maximum resale price. There are appreciation caps on the Category units
and some RO units. This appreciation cap varies by property and may allow a
fixed 3%, 4% or 6% increase per year; the lesser of CPI or 3%; or the lesser of CPI or
6%.
It is uncommon for a seller to obtain less than the maximum allowable sales price
despite the condition of the property, as there are typically multiple bidders. The
buyer purchases “as is” based on strong demand and limited supply.
Comparing the average appreciated value for homes in each Category, plus
permitted Capital Improvements, the average permitted sale price for existing
homes in 2015 falls in the middle of the permitted range for new unit sales,
except for Category 1. Only homes in Category 1 have appreciated to sale
prices that exceed the targeted price range for new Category 1 units.
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
Mi
d
-
p
o
i
n
t
p
r
i
c
e
AP
C
H
A
p
r
i
c
e
Mi
d
-
p
o
i
n
t
p
r
i
c
e
AP
C
H
A
p
r
i
c
e
Mi
d
-
p
o
i
n
t
p
r
i
c
e
AP
C
H
A
p
r
i
c
e
Mi
d
-
p
o
i
n
t
p
r
i
c
e
AP
C
H
A
p
r
i
c
e
Mi
d
-
p
o
i
n
t
p
r
i
c
e
AP
C
H
A
p
r
i
c
e
Mi
d
-
p
o
i
n
t
p
r
i
c
e
AP
C
H
A
p
r
i
c
e
Mi
d
-
p
o
i
n
t
p
r
i
c
e
AP
C
H
A
p
r
i
c
e
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6 Category 7
Ho
m
e
S
a
l
e
P
r
i
c
e
Studio 1-br 2-br 3-br Single Family
P91
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 90
Figure 11. 2015 Resale Value Compared to APCHA Sale Prices by Category:
2015
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015, Consultant Team.
The below table compares the incomes needed to afford the average
maximum resale prices to APCHA income limits. This shows that the average
income needed to afford an average resale unit in all Categories falls below the
maximum income limit for zero-dependent households. This indicates that resale
prices on average would be affordable to APCHA Category households.
Table 36. Incomes Needed to Afford Current Sales Prices
Income Limits by Number of Dependents
Category 2015
Average
Resale Price
Income to
Afford*
0 1 2 3+
1 $93,478 $23,836 $35,000 $42,500 $50,000 $57,500
2 $126,994 $32,382 $56,000 $66,500 $71,000 $78,500
3 $194,051 $49,481 $88,000 $95,500 $103,000 $110,500
4 $273,368 $69,706 $145,000 $152,500 $160,000 $167,500
5 $430,457 $109,762 $155,000 $162,500 $170,000 $177,500
6 $302,754* $77,199 $169,000 $176,500 $184,000 $191,500
7 $520,777 $132,793 $186,000 $193,500 $201,000 $208,500
RO $906,376 $231,117 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Affordable purchase prices are based on a 30-year fixed, 5% rate loan with 5% down, principal,
interest, insurance, HOA and taxes are assumed to be 20% of the monthly payment. *Category 6
includes some mobile homes in Woody Creek, which are priced below Category 6 rates, lowering
the average value. Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; Consultant team.
Category
1
Category
2
Category
3
Category
4
Category
5
Category
6
Category
7
APCHA Minimum Sale Price
(studio) $40,000 $93,000 $155,000 $262,000 $365,000 $407,000 $457,000
2015 Average Resale Value $93,478 $126,994 $194,051 $273,368 $430,457 $302,754 $520,777
APCHA Maximum Sale Price
(single family) $87,000 $199,000 $264,000 $371,000 $489,000 $532,000 $579,000
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
Sa
l
e
P
r
i
c
e
o
f
A
P
C
H
A
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P92
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 91
The below chart better illustrates the discrepancy between APCHA’s sale prices
and specified incomes for each Category. This chart distributes APCHA’s
inventory by AMI based on their labeled Category30 and compares this to the
unit distribution by AMI based on its actual sale price.
This shows that that sale prices are set very affordable relative to the maximum
incomes specified for each Category. For example, only 2% of units are
classified as “Category 1” but 21% of units are priced affordable to households
that income qualify for “Category 1.” This means that prices should be able to
be increased without compromising affordability for income-qualifying Category
households.
Figure 12. AMI Affordability of APCHA Units Based on Income Category
Designation and the Resale Price of Units: 2015
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015, Consultant Team.
Affordability of New APCHA Units Over Time
Two additional factors relate to the affordability of APCHA’s housing program:
1) The affordability of the program to individuals applying to the program over time,
and
2) The affordability of APCHA’s Categories to the group of Pitkin County working
households as a whole over time.
30 For example, the income needed to qualify for Category 1 is about equivalent to a 50% AMI level on
average – all Category 1 units were placed into the 50% AMI bin regardless of their specified price point.
2%
13%
18%
47%
1%
4%
1%
14%
21%
29%
32%
4%
1% 1% 1%
12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Under 50%
($165,000)
50 to 85%
($255,000)
85 to 115%
($381,000)
115 to 185%
($612,000)
185 to 195%
($645,000)
195 to 215%
($711,000)
215 to 235%
($778,000)
Over 235%
(Over
$778,000)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
A
P
C
H
A
O
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
U
n
i
t
s
AMI Category
(Maximum Affordable Price in Parentheses)
Units by AMI (based on Category)
Units by AMI (based on sale price)
P93
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 92
Affordability to Individuals Over Time. This is analyzed by determining whether
APCHA’s maximum rents and sales prices have changed at a similar, faster or
slower rate than Category incomes for newly deed restricted units. If, for
example, maximum rents and sale prices increased at a faster rate than
qualifying maximum incomes, then this means that the affordability of new deed
restricted units has decreased over time for qualified households.
The average income and housing price change is presented below. With few
exceptions, rents have increased at either the same or slightly lower rate on
average than incomes since 2000.31 This indicates that the base affordability of
the program for new applicants occupying newly restricted rentals has remained
fairly consistent over the years.
Table 37. Average Percent Change in APCHA Maximum Rents and Maximum
Incomes by Category: 2000 to 2015
Time Period Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
% change
2000 - 2005
Income 13% 13% 12% 12%
Rent 12% 12% 12% -3%
% change
2005 - 2010
Income 12% 10% 11% 11%
Rent 11% 11% 11% 11%
% change
2010 - 2015
Income 9% 10% 8% 9%
Rent 8% 8% 8% 8%
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consultant Team.
For ownership, sale prices have been permitted to increase at faster rates than
incomes on average. This varies by Category and unit type, however. Incomes
for households with two or more dependents have increased more slowly than
households with fewer dependents, indicating affordability of new homes for
larger families has decreased over time. Based on the affordability tables
presented above, however, units within each Category are more affordable to
these larger households than to households with fewer dependents, indicating
that sale prices had room to grow and still remain affordable for these
households.
31 The year 2000 was chosen because this was the first year in which APCHA calculated different income
requirements for rentals (based on the number of adults in the household) and ownership (based on the
number of dependents in the household).
P94
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 93
Figure 13. Average Percent Change in APCHA Maximum Sales Prices and
Maximum Incomes by Category: 2000 to 2015
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consultant Team.
Affordability to Working Households Over Time. This is analyzed by determining
whether the change in APCHA’s incomes has continued to serve the same
target-income households over time. If, for example, the specified income range
for each Category has increased to serve a higher target-income household
group over time, then this means that the affordability of the program to Pitkin
County workers as a group has decreased.
Under the current adult/dependent and income-calculation system, APCHA’s
defined incomes have targeted varying income levels of households over time
for every Category of housing. An advantage of linking income limits to HUD AMI
is that the target income market would remain constant over time.
The below chart shows how the target income level changes over time under
APCHA’s system. The graph shows the maximum AMI level that has been served
by Category 1 for one-adult (renters) and two-dependents (owners) households
since the year 2000 (in five-year increments). It also shows what AMI level would
have been served each year if APCHA’s system had been based on HUD’s AMI
system, targeting Category 1 to serve 50% AMI households. As shown:
• The HUD AMI system would have resulted in the program targeting 50%
AMI households in each successive year regardless of household size;
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Income Sales Price Income Sales Price Income Sales Price
% change 2000 - 2005 % change 2005 - 2010 % change 2010 - 2015
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
P95
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 94
• APCHA’s current income-calculation method results in a program that
does not consistently serve the same target income market each year. As
shown, maximum AMI levels have fluctuated from 42% to 50% for one-
adult renter households and from 56% to 64% for two-dependent owner
households; and
• A similar pattern occurs for all adult and dependent-sized households
across all Categories.
Figure 14. Change in Maximum AMI for Category 1: 2000* to 201532
*The year 2000 was selected as a start date because this is the first year for which incomes were
defined for households by both number of adults and number of dependents.
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consultant Team.
Other Impacts to the Affordability of APCHA’s Units
The focus of affordability is often isolated to the initial sales price and the
appreciation cap. As the housing program has evolved, it has become evident
that other aspects affect the ability to preserve affordability over time, including
deferred maintenance, capital improvements, and interest rates.
32!See!Appendix!C!for!charts!showing!similar!changes!for!Categories!2,!3,!and!4.!
50% 50% 50% 50%
46% 42%
49% 52%
64%
56%
63% 61%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2000 2005 2010 2015
Ta
r
g
e
t
I
n
c
o
m
e
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
(
M
a
x
A
M
I
l
e
v
e
l
)
Year
50% AMI Level APCHA Max AMI (1-adult) APCHA Max AMI (2-dependents)
P96
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 95
Deferred Maintenance
As the housing inventory matures, challenges with deferred maintenance have
become apparent. In most housing markets, deferred maintenance results in a
reduced sales price. This frequently does not occurred upon resale of APCHA
units. Because deed restricted units are in limited supply, priced well below
market and in such high demand, units have often sold for their maximum resale
prices regardless of their condition and maintenance history and APCHA’s best
attempts to enforce minimum standards for maximum sale price. In some
instances, sellers have issued a credit to buyer’s closing costs (for inspection
items) and/or made particular repairs and/or replacements. But in many
instances because owners can collect maximum resale prices despite unit
condition, there is little to no incentive for the owner to maintain the unit.
APCHA does require the homeowner to maintain their unit in good repair and, if
a member of an HOA, to pay dues to enable the association to maintain the
exterior and common elements of any shared property. APCHA’s enforcement
of both of these standards, however, is difficult because of vague minimum
standards, limited communication between APCHA and the HOAs, and APCHA’s
only remedy to cure a violation is to force a sale, which is very heavy handed.
If maintenance is not performed over time, the cost of homeownership can
quickly become unaffordable. As units have transferred ownership over the
years and awareness of the need to maintain units has increased, APCHA is now
confronted with the challenge of addressing costly deferred maintenance within
the system.
Capital Improvements
An increase in the maximum sales price for certain capital improvements is used
as an incentive to maintain and improve deed restricted units. APCHA adopted
a Capital Improvement policy about 5 years ago that allows a 10% increase in
the maximum sales price for each new owner. Any capital improvements
associated with health and safety, energy efficiency, water conservation, and
green building products are exempt from the 10% cap. All improvements are
depreciated based on the Marshall Swift Residential Handbook.
Although Capital Improvements cut down on maintenance expenses, the
increase in appreciation makes units less affordable over time.
“There is desperation in the lottery - happy to take a D+ property – at any
price and condition” – Interview comment
P97
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 96
Interest Rates
Interest rates can significantly impact affordability. Even if prices rise faster than
incomes, the units may still be affordable if interest rates drop. Interest rates
peaked in the early 1980’s during the beginning of the APCHA housing program,
and have trended down since then with an extended period of historically low
levels. It is likely that interest rates will increase in coming years giving purchasers
less buying power making homes less affordable.
Comparison to Peer Communities – Breckenridge, Jackson,
Telluride, Vail
All five communities have often grappled with the question, “What is
affordable?” For years, they focused on initial prices and capping annual
appreciation at no more than 3%. More recently, their concerns about
preserving affordability over time are expanding to take into account the
cumulative impacts of annual appreciation in combination with capital
improvements, special assessments and the need to address deferred
maintenance.
Initial Prices/Rents
Towns have learned through a common mistake that prices must be set at some
point within the range rather than at the maximum allowed, as has been pushed
when trying to minimize subsidies. Prices at the upper end of the category
eliminate most of the potential buyers/renters with incomes that fall within the
category or they force buyers to stretch their resources and potentially own
homes they really cannot afford. Towns have learned to set prices below income
caps. Breckenridge includes a 10% price differential – units with income caps of
90% AMI are priced at 80% AMI. Telluride has an even wider range – Tier 1 units
have income limits of 120% AMI and targets prices at 70% AMI for one bedroom
and 90% AMI for two and three bedrooms.
Price Appreciation Limits
These five towns are committed to preserving affordability over time through
limits on appreciation; however, these limits may not be imposed on all units,
they may vary by project or even within developments, and may vary on their
effectiveness at maintaining the affordability of units over time. Price caps are
sometimes derived by compromise between officials who advocate that
workforce housing owners should have the same rights for return on investment
as others, or that the market should interfere as little as possible, especially on
units developed by the private sector. In Aspen and Telluride, all units produced
in recent years are price capped. In Vail, the majority of the inventory does not
P98
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 97
have price or rent limits. In Jackson, “attainable” units serving higher income
categories are not price capped.
Resale Price Guarantees
The Recession and softening of workforce housing prices in some communities
(though not in Vail) caused some residents of workforce housing to realize that
their 3% caps on annual appreciation were not guarantees of 3% appreciation,
despite provisions in their deed restrictions. These inaccurate perceptions still
persist in some towns. In Breckenridge, the lessor of 3%, or the change in the AMI,
is strictly enforced even when the AMI decreases. If the AMI decreases, it is
treated as 0% appreciation permitted for that year. However, in Jackson, if the
AMI decreases the home is depreciated by the change in AMI.
Evaluating Affordability over Time
Changes in affordability over time have not been regularly evaluated by
comparing the AMI required to afford the initial price to the AMI needed for
subsequent purchases. Price is not the only factor in this evaluation. Interest rates
significantly impact affordability. So even if prices rise faster than incomes, they
may still be more affordable if interest rates have dropped. With interest rates
relatively steady in recent years, this had not been much of an issue but will likely
impact affordability to a greater extent long term.
Capital Improvements
Capital improvements are allowed with limitations. Each town has a list of
improvements, the cost for which can be added to the resale price. Luxury
improvements are not allowed. Towns vary as to the eligibility of additions and to
depreciation of improvements. The Town of Breckenridge allows up to 15% to be
added to the resale price for approved and, in some cases, specified capital
improvements for the life of the property – once capital improvements exceed
15% more than the sale price to the first owner, then the price of capital
improvements cannot be added to the resale value.
Special Assessments
Special Assessments can be added to the resale price in Vail, where major roof
repairs were needed on one development due to design/construction issues.
Adding the cost of special assessments to the price encourages homeowners to
make the extensive work needed rather than opting for a less expensive but
short-term solution. There are problems with across-the-board application of this
approach, however. Special assessments make the homes less affordable over
P99
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!
Section 3 - 98
time. If the assessments are due to deferred maintenance, it could be a form of
bail out for the HOA.
Deferred Maintenance
Deferred Maintenance is starting to become a problem as inventories age, not
only in Aspen but in other communities as well. Jackson requires a third party
inspection requiring a standard level of maintenance and allowing some
negotiations between seller and buyer on price. Good communication with
property managers/HOAs will become increasingly important. Vail is concerned
about HOA’s holding fees steady and not being prepared for costly
improvements when inevitably needed in the future. Breckenridge has learned
that HOA’s are needed to maintain exteriors on projects other than just
condominiums. Towns have required initial capitalization of reserves, with
Telluride providing seed funding. Towns have not, however, assumed on-going
responsibility for monitoring HOA’s and ensuring that fees are increased as
needed over time to adequately maintain properties.
P100
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 4 - 99
Section 4 – Household Size and Qualifications
Purpose
This section analyzes APCHA’s system for establishing eligibility for housing.
Applicants for both ownership and rental housing must qualify for a specific
income category and number of bedrooms. Income qualification and bedroom
size qualification are based on different standards:
• Income qualification is based on a dual system with separate criteria for
owners and renters and is not measured by the total number of persons in
the household, but rather the number of adults (for renters) or the number
of dependents (for owners).
• The number of bedrooms an applicant is allowed to rent or purchase, on
the other hand, is determined based on the total number of persons in the
household for both ownership and rental.
The focus of this section is on how income size is determined and impacts
APCHA’s housing programs. It covers in order:
• The basis for income compared to bedroom qualifications;
• The different methodologies for income qualification for owner and renter
households, analyzing the pros and cons of two methodologies versus a
single calculation for household size.
• The basis for qualifying households for a specific number of bedrooms.
The methods employed by peer communities and HUD programs are reviewed
in each section. This section builds upon information presented previously,
identifying issues that should be considered when reviewing APCHA’s system for
qualifying households.
Different Income and Bedroom Qualifications
The two ways by which household size is determined for income category and
the number of bedrooms qualifications were created for distinct reasons:
• The income system was designed to recognize the differences between
households that rent compared to those who own. Counting only
dependents in ownership housing was done since relatively more families
own, while counting only adults in rentals was due to a relatively high
proportion of singles living alone or with income-earning roommates.
P101
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 4 - 100
• The bedroom qualification system based on total household size was
designed to maximize utilization of the units by minimizing unused
bedrooms while preventing overcrowding.
The result is a unique, confusing and administratively burdensome system.
Specifically:
• Neither HUD nor any peer community has different methods for
determining household size. All base household size on the total number
of occupants that will reside in the home. While there may be slight
variation in the way that dependent children are counted when they
divide their time between divorced/separated parents, the calculation is
generally very straightforward.
• Employees who want to live in APCHA housing would have to go through
three household size calculations to determine the number of bedrooms
for which they would qualify and how much they could earn to qualify for
a rental or ownership unit. This is confusing to applicants.
• The time it takes for staff to perform the three household size calculations
and to explain why different methodologies are used to the applicants
contributes to high staffing levels. APCHA has roughly three to four times
the staff members as do housing authorities in peer communities. The
large size of APCHA’s inventory is a prime reason for the large staff;
however, this large inventory also compounds the administrative burden
of its complicated system – multiple calculations of household size for
nearly 3,000 units adds up to a lot of staff time.
Income Qualification - Distinction between Owners and Renters
As described earlier, Aspen quantifies household size differently when
establishing income Category eligibility for both ownership and rental housing:
• For rental housing, the income Category is based on the number of adults.
• For home ownership, only the number of dependents is counted
regardless of the number of income earners.
The definitions for Qualified Adults and Dependents are in the appendix.
Differences between a dual system as compared to a single calculation
methodology based on the total number of persons residing in the household is
summarized in the following table.
P102
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 4 - 101
Table 38. Dual and Single-System Comparison
Dual System
Adults in Rental
Dependents in Ownership
Single System
Total Persons in Household
Equity in Housing the
Workforce
Disfavors families Removes household type
from the factors
influencing who is housed
Affordability Rents less affordable for
households with
dependents;
Purchase prices less
affordable for larger family
households in upper
Categories.
If incomes are the same,
rents would be the same
regardless of household
type – bedrooms would
become the only variable
Income Categories May qualify for homes in
different ownership and
rental Categories.
Consistent categories for
owners and renters
Compatibility with AMI
Not compatible Compatible
Fair Housing Raises concerns about
discrimination based on
familial status
Not based on familial
status
Administration More complicated Less complicated
Equity in Housing the Workforce
The extent to which the dual system for household size calculation has been
effective at achieving its purpose is difficult to measure because of the
significance of other factors, primarily product type and bedroom mix, and the
lack of historic occupancy data for comparative evaluation.
• It appears that the current system is not effectively contributing to housing
families in ownership. More than 20% of APCHA owner households are
adults living alone. There are relatively fewer single-parent families,
couples and couples with children residing in APCHA ownership than
among all households working in Pitkin County (75% compared with 85%).
• Renters living alone or with roommates continue to dominate occupancy
of rental housing (64% of units) and will likely to do so under the current
system that bases income qualification on multiple income earners with
no dependents Families are under served by APCHA’s rental housing –
56% of Pitkin County employee households are families, yet families reside
in only 36% of APCHA’s rental units.
P103
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 4 - 102
Table 39. Household Makeup by Owners and Renters
Owners Renters
Type Households
Employed
in Pitkin
County
Employed
APCHA
Households
Households
Employed
in Pitkin
County
Employed
APCHA
Households
Adult living alone 12% 21% 26% 43%
Single parent with child(ren) 5% 10% 5% 5%
Couple, no child(ren) 35% 27% 27% 19%
Couple with child(ren) 42% 37% 18% 11%
Unrelated roommates 1% 1% 17% 21%
Immediate and extended
family members
3% 1% 6% 1%
Other 1% 1% 1% 1%
Average Household Size 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.0
Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
Peer communities address the varied housing needs of their workforce primarily
by unit design and bedroom mix. They apply an analysis of their workforce
household demographics to decisions targeting units to meet different
households with product variety and bedroom mix.
Affordability
With the current dual system, affordability must be analyzed separately for rental
and ownership housing.
Rental
This system works to the disadvantage of families since each Category is
relatively less affordable to households with dependents than adult-only
households. For example, one adult can be a person living alone or a single-
parent household (one adult, one child). Both households can earn up to
$35,000 and qualify for Category 1; however, the single parent is supporting two
people with that same income.
Using the recommended single system applied to AMI would better serve
households with dependents. For example, as shown below, a roommate
household with two people will be placed in a Category 1 unit. A single-parent
household with two people earning $40,000 will be placed in a more expensive
rental unit under Category 2. In a revised AMI system both households would
qualify for a Category 1 rental unit.
P104
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 4 - 103
Table 40. Rental: Category 1 APCHA vs AMI
Household
Type
Persons in
Household
APCHA
Household
Group
Household
Income
APCHA
Rental
Category
AMI Rental
Category
Single Parent
Family
2 1-adult $40,000 Cat. 2 Cat. 1
Roommate
Household
2 2-adult $40,000 Cat. 1 Cat. 1
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015, Consultant Team.
Ownership
APCHA’s scaled incomes based on number of dependents works to the
disadvantage of larger families (with the exception of Category 1 and to some
extent Category 2). As family size increases, the maximum AMI that that family
can earn to be eligible for Categories 3 or higher decreases. Each Category of
housing above Category 2 is relatively less affordable to progressively larger
families.
Compatibility with AMI
Multiple reasons have been put forth in this report for converting from current
income categories to ones based on AMI. For this conversion, switching from a
dual renter/owner system for calculating household size is also necessary. AMI is
based on the total number of persons per unit. Counting only some of the
occupants (the adults or the dependents) would not result in classifications
appropriate for the household.
Impact on Income Categories
The dual calculation method could result in applicants being classified in
different income Categories. The incomes in each Category are higher for
renters than owners. This is a function of the larger increases permitted for renters
that add another “adult” compared to owners who add another “dependent.”
For example, a Category 1 renter might only be allowed to qualify to purchase a
Category 2 home.
Table 41. Income Categories: Rental vs Ownership
Household
type
APCHA size
class
Household’s
Income
Category
1 Max
Income
Qualification
Category
Rental Couple,
no kids
2-adult $50,000 $52,000 Cat 1
Ownership Couple,
no kids
0-
dependent
$50,000 $35,000 Cat 2
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015
P105
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 4 - 104
Fair Housing Concerns
Families are a protected class under the Fair Housing Act. This means that
Familial status is one basis for discrimination under Fair Housing regulations. There
can be no preference for one type of household over another. A rule or policy
need only have a discriminatory effect to violate the Fair Housing Act;
discriminatory intent is not required.33 The current system of basing qualification
and APCHA-calculated income limits for ownership on number of “dependents”
and for rental on number of “adults” disadvantages larger families and may raise
Fair Housing Act concerns. More specifically:
• Income caps calculated for ownership Categories do not equitably reach
households within the same AMI group. Specified income caps allow a
household with no dependents to earn a higher AMI (or relative income)
in most Categories than households with one or more dependents. This was
illustrated in a table in Appendix B (Dependent Households in Estimated AMI
Categories: 2015).
• Basing rental categories on the number of adults disadvantages
households with children. Households with children may have the same
number of income earners as one- or two-adult households, but must
support more persons with their income. This was illustrated above in Table
41.
In contrast to APCHA’s income calculation system, HUD AMI limits are calculated
for every area with adjustments for family size. Family size adjustments are made
to meet the intent of Congress that income limits within each AMI range should
be higher for larger families and lower for smaller families. The same family size
adjustments are used for all income limits, as follows:
Table 42. Percentage Adjustments for Family Size: 2015
Number of Persons in Family
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
70% 80% 90% Base 108% 116% 124% 132%
Source: HUD, “FY2015 HUD Income Limits Briefing Material,” Office of Policy Development &
Research, p.9.
As a result, to base income qualification on the number of adults only or the
number of dependents only could open the door to complaints of discrimination.
Using the total number of persons regardless of familial status as done by HUD
and peer communities would address this concern.
33 See Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s
Discriminatory Effects Standard,” 78 Fed. Reg. 11460 (February 15, 2013).
P106
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 4 - 105
Administration
A dual system complicates administration and takes additional staff time in
several ways:
• Calculating and applying different household sizes if applicants are
considering both ownership and rental housing options.
• Explaining the two methods to employees who need to explore all of their
options for living in Aspen and Pitkin County.
• Updating two sets of income tables annually instead of just one.
• Evaluating program performance by complicating the factors that
influence outcomes; i.e. the more variables, the greater the difficulty of
understanding the impact of any one of them.
Bedroom Qualification
Federal Household Size Restrictions and Fair Housing
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) does not have a
fixed standard to define occupancy minimums or maximums in HUD subsidized
properties. Minimum standards are typically put into place to prevent abuse of
the system – e.g. by a single-person occupying a two- or three-bedroom unit
based on one income, then illegally renting out one of the bedrooms. Maximum
standards are often used to prevent overcrowding of units.
Owners of HUD subsidized properties must develop occupancy standards that
specify the unit size and number of bedrooms appropriate for different family
sizes. Occupancy standards ensure that tenants are treated fairly and
consistently, and receive adequate housing space. An example of occupancy
standard is a limit of two persons per bedroom. Maximum occupancy limits can
raise Fair Housing Act concerns, whereas occupancy minimums are neither
required nor prohibited by the Fair Housing Act.
While HUD has stated that “an occupancy policy of [no more than] two-persons
per bedroom, as a general rule, is reasonable under the Fair Housing Act,” other
factors, such as the number and size of bedrooms, age of children, the overall
size of the dwelling unit, and state and local laws need to be considered in
determining a reasonable level of occupancy. In general, an occupancy policy
which limits the number of people per bedroom is more likely to be considered
reasonable than one that limits the number of children in light of Fair Housing
concerns.34
34 See Department of Housing and Urban Development Occupancy Standards Statement of Policy, 63 Fed.
Reg. 70,256 (December 18, 1998).
P107
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 4 - 106
CHFA Household Size Limits
Similarly, affordable rentals constructed under the Low Income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC) program35, at least since 1990, do not have program-specified unit
maximum or minimum occupancy limits, although limits may be imposed by
individual property owners/managers. All units receiving current LIHTCs have rent
restrictions based on number of bedrooms, imputed household size (an assumed
1.5-persons per bedroom) and AMI. The scaled rents and AMI income
requirements helps control for ‘under-occupancy’ of units. For example, a single-
person household earning within the targeted AMI level would typically not
income-qualify for a higher-rent three-bedroom unit.
APCHA’s Qualifications
Aspen, like most peer communities, uses criteria to match the size of applicant
household to the number of bedrooms they are qualified to own or rent. The
total number of persons in a household, including qualified adults and
dependents, are counted in determining the unit size for which an APCHA
applicant may qualify.
The priority is one qualified person per bedroom; however, applicants may in
some cases qualify for a larger unit. In a two-person household of two adults only
(no dependents) both adults must be working in Pitkin County to qualify for an
additional bedroom. APCHA also has a maximum size limit of two persons per
bedroom in rental product to prevent overcrowding.
APCHA maintains specific criteria related to dependents including, among other
things, custody and unborn children. Below is the example in the Guidelines to
assist potential buyers/renters on how the household size is determined to qualify
for bedrooms:
35 The LIHTC is an indirect federal subsidy that finances low-income housing. The program provides tax
incentives to encourage individual and corporate investors to invest in the development, acquisition, and
rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. See in Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code for LIHTC provisions.
P108
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 4 - 107
Ownership Units
The household size standards apply at time of purchase for ownership units. This
process creates a high occupancy rate at time of purchase or lease and reflects
the household makeup at that specific time. Households are not static, and the
occupancy of the unit, as measured by occupied bedrooms, changes over
time.
Since APCHA’s housing program has a long history, household composition has
changed for many residents yet, with limited opportunities to move into larger or
smaller homes, mismatches between household size and number of bedrooms
occurs. Examples include empty nesters in 3-bedroom units and families with
children in 1-bedroom units.
Rental Units
The household size standards apply at time of lease for rental units, and require
requalification every two years. For example, for a two-adult household to
maintain a 2-bedroom unit, both adults must show full-time employment in
Aspen/Pitkin County until reaching retirement age.
Roommates are permitted, and individuals residing in 2- or 3-bedroom units must
have each bedroom filled with qualified tenants, meaning 1 qualified adult or
dependent per bedroom.
There is more oversight ability with rental units to maintain a high occupancy
rate. For families, however, this is challenging. Growing families may need more
space and seek a larger unit, if available; shrinking families (empty nesters) may
be forced to lease a bedroom to another qualified tenant or risk losing their
rental. There is limited stability over the long-term.
•Two qualified adult applicants in a single household qualify for a two-bedroom
unit.
•One qualified adult with a single dependent in the household qualify for a
two-bedroom unit.
•Two qualified adults with two dependent children in the household shall qualify
for a four bedroom.
•A qualified adult married to a non-qualified spouse qualify for a one-bedroom
unit.
•A qualified adult married to a spouse caring for dependent children in the
household shall qualify for one bedroom per adult and one bedroom per
dependent.
P109
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 4 - 108
Peer Community Comparison (Breckenridge, Jackson,
Telluride, Vail)
Household Size Calculations
All peer communities calculate the size of the household based on total persons
that will reside in the home. Breckenridge uses this only for income qualification
purposes and does not match the number of persons per household with the
number of bedrooms.
Bedroom Occupancy Standards
Standards are typically used to match households with available homes
(Breckenridge is an exception). For example, a single person living alone can buy
a studio or 1-bedroom unit while only families with three or more members can
buy 3-bedroom units.
This practice was created because demand for affordable housing in these
communities outweighs availability. Minimum occupancy requirements help
increase the utilization rate of limited resources, ensure larger households have
access to the larger homes and protect against potential fraudulent use of units
(e.g. illegal rental of unoccupied bedrooms). This practice can be problematic,
however. If opportunities to move up or down within the workforce housing
inventory are inadequate, as is usually the case, it is difficult to serve households
as their needs change over time.
The high utilization rate only reflects the household’s conditions at the time of
purchase. Designs with flex space can offer an alternative. At the Wellington
neighborhood in Breckenridge, some units were constructed with unfinished
space. The cost to finish this space and increase the usable floor area of the
home as families grow could then be added to the sale price as an allowable
capital improvement.
P110
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
Section 4 - 109
Table 43. Peer Community Bedroom Occupancy Standards
Peer Community Bedroom Occupancy Standards
Minimum Maximum
Aspen 1 qualified person per
bedroom (adult or
dependent)
2 persons per bedroom
in rental product
Breckenridge None None
Jackson Rental: 1 person per
bedroom; Ownership: 3+
persons per 3 bedroom,
no other minimums
None
Telluride 1 bedroom - 1 person
2 bedrooms - 1 person
3 bedrooms - 2 persons
4 bedrooms - 3 persons
None
Vail 3+ household members
for 3 BR units; no other
minimums
2 persons per bedroom
P111
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix A - 1
Appendix A: Supporting Data for Section 1 –
Examination of APCHA’s Affordable Housing Program
This Appendix summarizes the demographics of employee households residing in
APCHA housing to households employed in Pitkin County overall based on
information from the 2015 Employee Survey. The findings from this analysis are
presented in the report (Section 1 – Examination of APCHA’s Affordable Housing
Program). This Appendix presents the data behind the findings.
The purpose of this analysis is to understand how well APCHA’s inventory of both
ownership and rental units are meeting employee needs and which segments of
the workforce may be adequately served or under-served by APCHA’s housing
in relationship to all Pitkin County working households.
In interpreting the data for this section:
• Where the percentage of households within a certain demographic (e.g.
couples with children) that are occupying APCHA units is lower than that
for employee households overall, this means that APCHA units are under-
serving this population.
• Where the percentage of households within a certain demographic (e.g.
adults living alone) that are occupying APCHA units is higher than that for
employee households overall, this means that APCHA units are over-
serving this population.
• If APCHA is serving the same mix of households as those that are
employed in Pitkin County in total, then the percentage of APCHA
occupants for any demographic will approximately equal that for
employed households overall.
Household Composition and Size
The composition of ownership and renter households shows distinct differences.
Owners are more likely to be comprised of couples or couples with children,
whereas renters have a higher percentage of adults living alone and roommate
households than owners. These are important considerations when designing
units for employee occupancy.
Comparing occupants of APCHA ownership housing to employed households
overall:
P112
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix A - 2
• A higher percentage of APCHA owners are “adults living alone” and
“single parents with children” than employed households overall,
meaning that these households are being well-served by APCHA housing.
Single-parent households typically face more significant housing struggles
than other household types, meaning that over-serving this population
with affordable housing may be desirable.
• A lower percentage of APCHA owners are “couples without children”
and, to some extent, “couples with children” than employed households
overall, meaning that these households are being under-served by
APCHA housing. This is consistent with both survey and interview
comments that suggest a need for more desirable options for families.
Desirable for families was defined in interviews and survey responses as
larger (2+ bedrooms), pet friendly, parking, storage, like the Aspen School
District units, townhomes or single family homes with outdoor space.
For renter households:
• “Couples” and “couples with children” are both under-served by APCHA
housing.
• There is a comparatively high percentage of adults living alone (43%) in
APCHA units, which is not surprising since 46% of APCHA’s inventory are
studio and one-bedroom units.
• APCHA renters have a much lower average household size than
employed renters in total, which is consistent with the large number of
studio and one-bedroom rentals. APCHA also does not permit more than
two persons per bedroom to occupy rentals, avoiding the overcrowding
that may otherwise occur in the rental market. Per interviews with
stakeholders and employers, renters often have more people living in the
unit than appear on the lease.
P113
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix A - 3
Household Composition
Owners Renters
Type
Households
Employed
in Pitkin
County
Employed
APCHA
Households
Households
Employed
in Pitkin
County
Employed
APCHA
Households
Adult living alone 12% 21% 26% 43%
Single parent with
child(ren) 5% 10% 5% 5%
Couple, no child(ren) 35% 27% 27% 19%
Couple with
child(ren) 42% 37% 18% 11%
Unrelated
roommates 1% 1% 17% 21%
Immediate and
extended family
members 3% 1% 6% 1%
Other 1% 1% 1% 1%
Average Household
Size 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.0
*Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
Renter Household Size
*Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
9%
15%
18%
35%
23%
2%
10%
14%
35%
39%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
5+-persons
4-persons
3-persons
2-persons
1-person
Percent of Renters
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
e
r
s
o
n
s
i
n
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
Employed APCHA Households
Households employed in Pitkin County
P114
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix A - 4
Age of Household Members
• As would be expected, owner households are older on average than
renters. For employed households overall, 65% of owner households have
at least one person age 45 or older compared to only 23% of renters.
• The relative mix of ages for occupants age 18 or older is similar between
APCHA households and employed households overall.
Age of Household Members
Owners Renters
Type
Households
Employed
in Pitkin
County
Employed
APCHA
Households
Households
Employed
in Pitkin
County
Employed
APCHA
Households
Age 5 or younger 20% 19% 15% 8%
6 to 17 23% 26% 15% 6%
18 to 29 16% 18% 43% 43%
30 to 44 47% 45% 52% 51%
45 to 64 54% 56% 20% 19%
65 and over 9% 7% 3% 4%
TOTAL 169% 171% 148% 131%
*Totals add to over 100% because the data reports the age of all household members, not just the
head of the household.
Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
Household Incomes
APCHA households are fairly representative of the mix of incomes of employee
households in total. The exceptions are:
• Renters earning under $25,000 are slightly under-served in APCHA units;
• Owners earning over $100,000 are also under-served in APCHA units; and
• Both owners and renters earning between $25,000 and $75,000 are over-
served by APCHA units.
P115
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix A - 5
Household Income (Gross)
Owners
Renters
Type
Households
Employed
in Pitkin
County
Employed
APCHA
Households
Households
Employed
in Pitkin
County
Employed
APCHA
Households
Under $25,000 1% 1% 7% 5%
$25,000 to $49,999 5% 11% 19% 28%
$50,000 to $74,999 15% 23% 23% 25%
$75,000 to $99,999 20% 20% 23% 19%
$100,000 to
$149,999 35% 30% 21% 21%
$150,000 to
$199,999 16% 9% 5% 2%
$200,000 or more 9% 6% 3% 0%
*Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding. Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
Years Worked
• Occupants of APCHA housing have been employed in the area longer,
on average, than employed households in total. This indicates that
APCHA housing is helping to retain workers in the area and reduce
employee turnover.
• Of potential concern is that the percentage of renters employed in the
area less than 4 years may be underserved by APCHA rentals. This is
consistent with interview comments that suggest new recruits have
difficulty accessing APCHA housing.
Years Worked in Aspen/Pitkin County
Owners Renters
Households
employed in
Pitkin
County
Employed
APCHA
Households
Households
employed
in Pitkin
County
Employed
APCHA
Households
Less than one year 1% 1% 19% 14%
1 to 3 years 9% 4% 28% 22%
4 to 7 years 10% 10% 21% 18%
8 to 11 years 22% 17% 15% 21%
12 to 15 years 12% 14% 7% 9%
16 to 19 years 10% 11% 4% 6%
20 or more years 35% 44% 6% 10%
*Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding. Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
P116
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix B - 1
Appendix B: Supporting Data for Section 2 – Income,
Asset and Categories
APCHA Categories Expressed as AMI
Direct Translation Not Possible Discussion
It is not possible to directly translate APCHA’s current Category system into HUD
AMI ranges. This is due to several reasons, including:
• APCHA household size characterizations by number of adults and number
of dependents include households with varying number of persons.
Neither Category fits succinctly into one AMI household-size category. This
is because households measured by the number of adults may have one
or more children. Likewise, a household measured by number of
dependents may have one or more adults.
Average Household Size of APCHA Households: 201536
Renters Owners
# of
Adults
Average
# Persons
# of
Dependents
Average
# Persons
1 1.1 0 1.6
2 2.4 1 2.8
3 3.4 2 3.8
3 4.9
Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
• APCHA’s income calculations based on the number of adults differs from
its calculation based on number of dependents. Neither income
calculation matches HUD AMI calculations based on household size.
• APCHA maximum incomes for each Category do not change depending
upon the total number of persons within each adult or dependent
household type – a one-adult household can earn a maximum of $35,000
in Category 1 whether it has one-person or three-persons in their
household. Incomes for each HUD AMI category vary based on the
number of persons in the household.
36 See Section 4 – Household Size and Qualifications for more detail on household size by number of adults and
dependents.
P117
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix B - 2
APCHA Income and HUD Income by Number of Persons in Household: 2015
1-person 2-persons 3-persons 4-persons
APCHA max income
(Category 1, 1-adult or 0-
dependent) $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000
HUD 50% AMI $34,150 $39,000 $43,900 $48,750
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015; HUD
All of these factors complicate the ability to translate APCHA Categories into
HUD AMI estimates. The net result is that as household size increases within each
defined adult or dependent-sized household, the respective household must
earn a lower AMI percentage to be able to qualify for housing.
The table below provides an example by showing the equivalent AMI level for
varying sized one-adult households in Category 1. This shows that:
• A one-adult household in Category 1 can earn a maximum of $35,000.
• If the one-adult household consists of one person, then this household can
earn up to 51% AMI to qualify for a unit.
• If the one-adult household has three persons, then the household can only
earn up to 40% AMI to qualify for a unit.
This same pattern occurs for all sized adult and dependent households within
each Category.
Translation of APCHA Income to HUD AMI: Category 1, 1-Adult (2015)
1-person 2-persons 3-persons 4-persons
APCHA max income
(Category 1, 1-adult) $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000
HUD 100% AMI $68,300 $78,000 $87,800 $97,500
APCHA Equivalent AMI
(APCHA income/HUD 100% AMI) 51% 45% 40% 36%
Source: Employee Housing Guidelines 2015; HUD; Consultant team
Estimated Translation to AMI
Although a direct porting of APCHA’s system to AMI is not possible, it is possible to
estimate AMI percentages for each Category using some basic assumptions and
information from the 2015 Employee Survey. The upper AMI percentage for each
Category of housing for renters (by number of adults) and for owners (by number
of dependents) was estimated for both the maximum AMI and the average AMI:
• The maximum AMI is based on the smallest-sized household that can
occur within each adult and dependent category earning at the top of
P118
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix B - 3
the permitted income range (e.g. a one-person, one-adult household
earning $35,000 in Category 1). All current households within this Category
will earn at or below this AMI level. This AMI estimate skews high and
would have the effect, if adopted, of pulling many households into lower
Categories that, under the present adult/dependent system, now qualify
for higher Categories.
• The average AMI is calculated from the average-sized household of
APCHA occupants for each adult and dependent Category earning at
the top of the permitted income range (e.g. an average 1.1-person, one-
adult household earning $35,000 in Category 1). Some households within
each Category will earn above the average AMI level and some will earn
below. This is the best AMI estimate to capture the core range of
households served by the APCHA program for each Category.
As shown below:
• The AMI for adult households increases as the number of adults in the
household increases;
• The AMI for dependent households in Categories 3 or higher decreases as
the number of dependents in the household increases. Category 1 shows
the opposite effect, and Category 2 shows fairly consistent AMIs for all
dependent Categories.
Adult Households in Estimated AMI Categories: 2015
Adults /
Unit
Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4
Max
AMI*
Average
AMI**
Max
AMI
Average
AMI
Max
AMI
Average
AMI
Max
AMI
Average
AMI
1 52% 51% 88% 87% 129% 127% 212% 209%
2 76% 71% 104% 99% 171% 162% 276% 262%
3 81% 77% 109% 105% 178% 170% 287% 275%
Average*** 65% 62% 97% 95% 152% 147% 248% 240%
*Max AMI is the AMI of the smallest permitted household size within each Adult category. For a
one-adult household, this would be one person; two-adult household would be two persons and
three-adult household would be three persons.
**The Average AMI is based on the average sized household within each Adult Category residing
in APCHA rentals.
***The overall average is a weighted average based on the distribution of current APCHA renters
by number of adults. About 41% are one-adult households; 53% are two-adult households; 7% are
three-or-more-adult households.
P119
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix B - 4
Dependent Households in Estimated AMI Categories: 2015
Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4
Depend
ents /
Unit
Max
AMI*
Avg
AMI**
Max
AMI
Avg
AMI
Max
AMI
Avg
AMI
Max
AMI
Avg
AMI
0 52% 47% 88% 84% 129% 119% 212% 196%
1 57% 50% 90% 85% 122% 111% 196% 178%
2 61% 54% 87% 83% 117% 108% 182% 167%
3+ 64% 58% 87% 84% 113% 106% 172% 160%
Average
*** 56% 50% 88% 84% 124% 114% 200% 184%
Cat5 Cat6 Cat7
Dependents /
Unit
Max
AMI*
Avg
AMI**
Max
AMI
Avg
AMI
Max
AMI
Avg
AMI
0 227% 209% 247% 228% 272% 251%
1 208% 189% 226% 206% 248% 225%
2 194% 178% 210% 193% 229% 210%
3+ 182% 170% 196% 183% 214% 199%
Average*** 213% 196% 232% 213% 254% 234%
*Max AMI is the AMI of the smallest permitted household size within each Dependent category. For
a zero-dependent household, this would be one person; one-dependent household would be two
persons; two-dependent household would be three persons; and 3+-dependents would be four-
persons.
**The Average AMI is based on the average sized household within each Dependent category
owning APCHA homes.
***The overall average is a weighted average based on the distribution of current APCHA owners
by number of dependents. About 51% are zero-dependent households; 22% are one-dependent
households; 21% are two-dependent households; 6% are 3-or-more-dependent households.
P120
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix B - 5
Measuring Assets – Federal Standards (HUD)
HUD Compared to APCHA Asset Inclusions
APCHA
Program
Cash held in savings, checking accounts, safe deposit
boxes, etc. Yes
Stocks, bonds, mutual funds, money market accounts,
etc. Yes
Equity in Real Property (owned or bequeathed) Yes
Equity in other capital investments
Individual retirement, 401K, Keogh Accounts (when the
holder has access to the funds even if a penalty may
be assessed) 60% included
Revocable trusts Yes
Retirement and pension funds (if employed: only that
amount the family can w/draw w/out retiring or
terminating employment; if retired: periodic receipts
are income – the remaining amount is NOT an asset;
lump-sum receipts are assets)
60% of valid
pension plan
Lump-sum or one-time receipts (capital gains,
inheritance, lottery winnings, etc.)
NOTE: non-recurring gift may/may not be an asset – if
put as cash into savings or some verifiable investment,
then it is an asset; if used to pay bills, not an asset
Not included:
Gifts (i.e. down
payment gifts)
Not Included:
Necessary personal property (e.g., furniture, cars,
clothing, etc.)
Included:
autos
Assets part of an active business Yes
Source: HUD Occupancy Handbook, 4350.2 REV-1, Chapter 5: Determining Income & Calculating
Rent, Exhibit 5-2. Only select assets of most relevance to the APCHA program are included above.
Reference the Handbook for more information.
P121
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix C - 6
Appendix C: Supporting Data for Section 3 –
Affordability Analysis
Part 1 - Rental Affordability
Affordability for Renters in Existing Units
Households Paying Over 30% of Income for Rent: APCHA Renters 2015
1-adult 2-adults 3-adults Total
Households
% Cost-Burdened 29.9% 18.0% 9.1% 23.0%
Including utilities 37.6% 19.3% 14.3% 27.5%
Category
1
Category
2
Category
3
Category
4
% Cost-Burdened 61.5% 32.4% 0.3% 0.0%
Including utilities 75.0% 40.0% 4.6% 0.0%
Source: Employee Housing Survey 2015
Part 2 - Ownership Affordability
The following chart show the range of sale prices that one- through three+
dependent households can afford to pay given the income range for each
Category (the chart for zero-dependent households is in the main report
document).
The affordable range of sale prices is compared to APCHA sale prices for each
type of home, visually displaying where Category prices may exceed a
household’s ability to pay.
The below charts show that for one-dependent through three+ dependent
households, affordability rises as Categories increase. Only one-dependent
households are limited in their selection in Category 1, with generally good
options for other dependent-sized households across each Category.
P122
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix C - 7
Sale Prices Affordable to Households Within the Permitted Income Range
Compared to Maximum APCHA Sales Prices: One-Dependent Household37
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consultant Team.
Sale Prices Affordable to Households Within the Permitted Income Range
Compared to Maximum APCHA Sales Prices: Two-Dependent Household
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consultant Team.
37 Based on the standard that no more than 30% of income is used for housing payments, including mortgage
principal, interest, taxes, insurance and estimated HOA. Category 1 minimum sales prices are calculated from
the estimated minimum incomes in Table 35 (in the main report document) for all one- through three+-
dependent charts.
$72,552
$166,673
$260,794
$374,524
$598,062 $637,279
$692,183
$758,852
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6 Category 7
Sa
l
e
P
r
i
c
e
1-Dependent Household by Category
Minimum income price Studio 1BR 2BR 3BR SF Maximum income price
$113,730
$196,086
$278,442
$403,937
$627,475 $666,692
$721,596
$788,265
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6 Category 7
Sa
l
e
P
r
i
c
e
2-Dependent Household by Category
Minimum income price Studio 1BR 2BR 3BR SF Maximum income price
P123
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix C - 8
Sale Prices Affordable to Households Within the Permitted Income Range
Compared to Maximum APCHA Sales Prices: Three+-Dependent Household
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consultant Team.
This section describes the methodology used to calculate affordable rents and
sales prices from estimated rental AMI categories presented in Section 2, as
follows:
APCHA Rentals and Ownership
Estimated Upper AMI Limit for Each Category: 2015
!
Rentals Ownership
!
Rentals Ownership
Cat 1 60% 50% Cat 5 NA 195%
Cat 2 95% 85% Cat 6 NA 215%
Cat 3 150% 115% Cat 7 NA 235%
Cat 4 240% 185%
!!!Estimated AMI limits were rounded to the nearest 5% point in the above table.
Estimated AMI Rents
Methodology:
• Because it is desirable that Category 1 and 2 rents remain affordable and
many of these renter households are cost-burdened, the low end of the
range was selected for Categories 1 (25% range) and Category 2 (30%
range). The midpoint was selected for Categories 3 and 4. This results in
mid-point AMI levels as follows:
!
$143,143
$225,499
$307,855
$433,350
$656,888 $696,105 $751,009
$817,678
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6 Category 7
Sa
l
e
P
r
i
c
e
3+-Dependent Household by Category
Minimum income price Studio 1BR 2BR 3BR SF Maximum income price
P124
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix C - 9
AMI Low- or Mid-Point Used Per Category
AMI basis for rents
Cat 1 30%
Cat 2 71%
Cat 3 120%
Cat 4 193%
• CHFA household size limits were used to determine the number of persons
permitted per bedroom to determine income and rent calculations.
CHFA Occupancy Limits for Rent Calculations (2015)38
# of Persons
Studio 1
1-bedroom 2
2-bedroom 3
3-bedroom 5
Single family 6
• Category 1 minimum AMI was assumed to be 20%, which is about
equivalent to a one-person household earning $14,000 per year. This is
based on the requirement that qualified applicants must work at least
1,500 hours per year. At $10 per hour this would be $15,000 per year. This
minimum income is not established by APCHA, but it was stated that
incomes earning substantially below $15,000 call into question whether
the work requirement is being met.
• Rents are based on the affordability standard that no more than 30% of
income is applied toward rent.
38 Source: Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, “LIHTC Qualified Allocation Plan,” 2016. Available at:
http://www.chfainfo.com/arh/lihtc/LIHC_Documents/CHFA_QAP_2016.pdf
!
P125
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix C - 10
APCHA Max Rents and AMI Category Rents Compared
Category 1
(20% to
60% AMI)
Category
2 (60.1-
75%)
Category 3
(95.1- 145%
AMI)
Category 4
(145.1 - 240%
AMI)
APCHA Rent (2015)
Studio $492 $875 $1,307 $1,734
1-br $608 $1,028 $1,457 $1,903
2-br $720 $1,180 $1,610 $2,057
3-br $834 $1,320 $1,767 $2,210
Single-family $951 $1,489 $1,918 $2,284
AMI Rent (estimated)
Studio $512 $1,080 $2,049 $3,287
1-br $585 $1,235 $2,340 $3,754
2-br $659 $1,389 $2,634 $4,225
3-br $848 $1,790 $3,393 $5,443
Single-family $907 $1,913 $3,627 $5,818
% Change
Studio 4% 23% 57% 90%
1-br -4% 20% 61% 97%
2-br -9% 18% 64% 105%
3-br 2% 36% 92% 146%
Single-family -5% 28% 89% 155%
AMI Rent represents the mid-point rent for the AMI range. Some rents may fall below this price point
and some above, but average rents will equal those in the table.
P126
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix C - 11
Estimated AMI Sale Prices
Methodology:
• Because it is desirable that Category 1 and 2 sale prices remain
affordable, the low end of the AMI range was selected for Categories 1
(25% range) and Category 2 (30% range). The midpoint was selected for
Categories 3 and 4.
!
AMI!Low(!or!Mid(Point!Used!Per!Category
AMI basis for sale prices
Cat 1 27%
Cat 2 60%
Cat 3 100%
Cat 4 150%
Cat 5 190%
Cat 6 205%
Cat 7 225%
!
• Category 1 minimum AMI was assumed to be 20%, which is about
equivalent to a one-person household earning $14,000 per year. This is
based on the requirement that qualified applicants must work at least
1,500 hours per year. At $10 per hour this would be $15,000 per year. This
minimum income is not established by APCHA, but it was stated that
incomes earning substantially below $15,000 call into question whether
the work requirement is being met.
• CHFA household size limits were used to determine the number of persons
permitted per bedroom to determine income and rent calculations (see
Table above - CHFA Occupancy Limits for Rent Calculations (2015)).
• Sale prices are based on the affordability standard that no more than 30%
of income is applied toward mortgage. An assumption of a 5% interest
loan, with 5% down payment and 20% of the monthly payment toward
taxes, insurance and HOA. The interest rate assumption can have a
significant impact on affordable prices. For example, increasing the
interest rate by just 0.5% can decrease the amount that a household can
pay for a single family home by between about $10,000 (Category 1) to
over $50,000 (Category 7).
P127
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix C - 12
APCHA Max Sale Prices and AMI Category Sale Prices Compared
Cat 1
(20 - 50%
AMI)
Cat 2
(50 - 85%)
Cat 3
(85 - 115%)
Cat 4
(115 - 185%)
APCHA Sale Price (2015)
Studio $40,000 $93,000 $155,000 $262,000
1-br $52,000 $111,000 $169,000 $280,000
2-br $63,000 $137,000 $200,000 $311,000
3-br $72,000 $168,000 $234,000 $344,000
Single-family $87,000 $199,000 $264,000 $371,000
AMI Sale Price
Studio $73,471 $151,773 $267,853 $401,780
1-br $106,633 $173,420 $305,894 $458,841
2-br $120,031 $234,187 $344,327 $516,490
3-br $143,955 $251,405 $412,957 $619,435
Single-family $154,618 $268,720 $443,546 $665,320
% Change
Studio 84% 63% 73% 53%
1-br 105% 56% 81% 64%
2-br 91% 71% 72% 66%
3-br 100% 50% 76% 80%
Single-family 78% 35% 68% 79%
AMI Rent represents the mid-point sale price for the AMI range. Some sale prices may fall below
this price point and some above, but average sale prices will equal those in the table.
P128
I.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix D - 1
Appendix D: Matrix of Peer Community Housing Programs
P
1
2
9
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 1
!
Appendix D: Matrix of Peer Community Housing Programs
!
Workforce!Housing!in!Mountain!Resort!Towns:!A!Peer!Community!Comparison!
!
Aspen,!Breckenridge,!Jackson,!Telluride!and!Vail!
!
!!
The!following!tables!are!organized!into!color4coded!sections:!
!!
Policies!and!Goals!
Strategies!and!Implementation!!!
Workforce!Housing!Inventories!
Qualifications!and!Occupancy!!!
Prices!and!Affordability!
Development!Standards!
Impact!Mitigation!and!Fees!in!Lieu!
Management/Oversight!
!
Abbreviations!used!in!these!tables!include:!
!
ADU!–accessory!dwelling!unit!HH!–!household!
AH!–!affordable!housing!Hrs!–!hours!
AMI!–!Area!Median!Income!Mos!4!months!
Avg!–!average!Pmt!4!payment!
BR!–!bedroom!SF!–!square!feet!
DR!–!deed!restriction!Wk!4!week!
EDU!–!employee!dwelling!unit!Yr!–!year!
!
P
1
3
0
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 2
Policies!and!Goals!
!
!
!!
!Housing!Goal!Policies/Priorities!Objectives!
As
p
e
n
!
Provide!affordable!housing!opportunities!through!rental!
and!sale!to!persons!who!are!or!have!been!actively!
employed!or!self4employed,!and!that!provide!or!have!
provided!goods!and!services!to!individuals,!businesses!or!
institutional!operations,!within!Aspen!and!Pitkin!County.!
Regulatory!requirements!
Development!coordinated!by!the!City!or!County!
APCHA!manages!inventory!
Development!Priorities.!Private!Sector:!1)!
Ownership:!1!and!24bed!units!in!Cat!1!43!w/!
associated!RO!units!2)!Ownership:!34bed!units!in!
Cat!3!&!4.!!!Public!Sector:!1)!Entry4level!rental:!1!
bedroom!units!in!Cats!1!&!2;!2)!Ownership:!1!&!
24beds!in!Cats!2!&!3;!3)!Ownership:!3!beds!in!
Cats!3!&!4.!
Reduce!pressures!on!the!valley4wide!transportation!
system!
Reduce!air!quality!impacts!associated!with!a!commuting!
workforce!
Ensure!a!vital,!demographically!diverse!year4round!
community!critical!to!a!viable!economy!
New!AH!includes!all!infrastructure!costs!(transportation,!
government!services,!schools,!and!other!basic!needs)!
Control!growth!and!job!generation!to!reduce!the!pressure!
to!provide!AH!
Br
e
c
k
e
n
r
i
d
g
e
!
Vision:!To!have!a!diversity!of!permanently4affordable!
housing!integrated!throughout!the!community,!which!
provides!a!variety!of!housing!options!to!sustain!the!local!
economy!and!preserve!the!character!of!the!community.!!
!
Goal:!The!primary!goal!of!the!Plan!is!to!insure!that!900!
additional!workforce!housing!units!are!approved!and/or!
constructed!in!the!Upper!Blue!by!the!time!the!community!
reaches!full!build!out.!!!
Policies:!Assure!that!workforce!housing:!
• Has!a!variety!of!densities!and!styles,!is!
accessible!to!all!members!of!the!
community,!is!dispersed!and!concentrated!
in!local!neighborhoods;!
• Helps!reduce!impacts!of!commuting!and!
provides!the!labor!for!local!businesses!to!
succeed.!!
• Is!provided!for!a!wide!diversity!of!income!
levels!in!ownership!and!rentals!that!support!
the!local!economy!and!preserves!a!vibrant!
middle!class.!!
Priorities:!!
• Housing!employees!who!work!in!the!Upper!
Blue!–!not!telecommuters,!remote!workers,!
or!unemployed.!
• Sharing!responsibility:!1)!development!by!
the!private!sector,!2)!land!acquisition!3)!
payment!of!fees!to!the!Town!
House!not!less!than!47%!of!the!employees!working!in!
Town;!
Maintain!at!least!25%!of!homes!occupied!by!primary!
residents;!
Increase!the!homeownership!rate!above!the!current!rate!
of!41%;!
Provide!housing!for!all!income!levels!up!to!180%!AMI.!!
P
1
3
1
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 3
!
Policies!and!Goals!
!
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
!
Ensure!a!variety!of!workforce!housing!opportunities!exist!
so!that!at!least!65%!of!those!employed!locally!also!live!
locally!
Regulatory!requirements!
Housing!Authority!initiated!developments!
incentives!(25%!density!bonus!for!AH)!
Partnerships!with!private!sector!(non4profit!and!
for4profit)!
1)!Maintain!a!diverse!population!
2)!Strategically!locate!a!variety!of!housing!types!
3)!Reduce!the!shortage!of!housing!that!is!affordable!to!
the!workforce!
4)!Use!a!balanced!set!of!tools.!
Te
l
l
u
r
i
d
e
!
Provide!for!the!construction!and!maintenance!of!
affordable!housing!within!the!Town!and!the!Region!which!
serves!both!permanent!population!and!seasonal!
employees!and!includes!choice!for!both!rental!and!
ownership,!in!a!mixture!of!locations!and!unit!types.!
Ensure!a!minimum!of!70%!of!those!working!in!
the!Telluride!Region!reside!within!it,!achieved!
through!mitigation,!incentives!and!Town!
development!using!sales!tax!with!a!roughly!
equal!share!of!public!and!private!resources!
2010!4!2015:!construct!70490!units!at!approx!12/yr,!
explore!additional!funding!sources,!re4evaluate!overall!
demand!and!targeted!groups.!201642020:!same!as!for!
2010!4!2015.!
Va
i
l
!
Vail!20/20!Housing!Goal:!“The!Town!of!Vail!recognizes!the!
need!for!housing!as!infrastructure!that!promotes!
community,!reduces!transit!needs!and!keeps!employees!
living!in!town,!and!will!provide!enough!deed4restricted!
housing!for!at!least!30%!of!the!workforce!through!
policies,!regulations!and!publicly!initiated!development.”!!
Regulatory!requirements;!Town!initiated!
development;!regional!partnerships!
Address!needs!generated!by!development!&!
redevelopment;!address!catch4up!needs;!integrate!DR!
housing!at!time!of!development;!house!emergency!and!
key!workers;!ensure!housing!remains!economically!
competitive;!place!employees!closer!to!work;!plan!for!
housing!with!transportation!
!
!!
!Housing!Goal!Policies/Priorities!Objectives!
P
1
3
2
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 4
Strategies/Implementation!
!
!Adopted!Plans!Timeframe!Review/Updating!Prioritization!Process!
As
p
e
n
!
2012!Aspen!Area!Community!Plan!
2002!Aspen!Housing!Strategic!Plan!
10!years!Guidelines!are!updated!at!least!every!3!
years!and!generally!reviewed!annually!
!
Br
e
c
k
e
n
r
i
d
g
e
!2008!Affordable!Housing!Action!Plan!Build!out!!Track!progress!annually:!
• #!units!produced/preserved!
• age!groups!served!
• incomes!served!!
• #!units!lost!annually!
Modify!strategies!as!appropriate.!
!
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
!
Jackson/Teton!County!Comprehensive!Plan!
2012;!Housing!Action!Plan!2015!
10!years!or!less!if!65%!
goal!is!not!being!achieved!
Annual!Indicator!Report:!
4!Workforce!Housing!%!
4!Affordability!of!Housing!
4!Workforce!Housing!Stock!
4!Jobs,!Housing!Balance!
!
Te
l
l
u
r
i
d
e
!Telluride!Master!Plan!2006,!revised!2012!
(contains!strategies)!
Telluride!Affordable!Housing!Strategic!Plan!
(TAHST)!2004!(examines!needs)!
5!yr!objectives!through!
2020!
Guidelines!are!modified!regularly!as!
needed!
Va
i
l
!
Vail!20/20!Strategic!Action!Plan,!2007!
Employee!Housing!Strategic!Plan,!2008!
5410!yr!planning!horizon;!
143!yr!action!steps!
Annual!but!skipped!2013414!Council/HA!Board!
Implementation!Matrix!4!action,!who,!cost,!
when,!priority!
!
!
!!
P
1
3
3
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 5
Strategies/Implementation!
!
!Housing!Strategies!
As
p
e
n
!
1) Reserves!for!major!repairs!and!capital!projects!
2) Utilize!units!to!the!maximum!degree!possible!and!for!as!long!as!possible,!considering!functionality!and!obsolescence!
3) Provide!education!to!potential!and!current!homeowners!regarding!the!rights,!obligations,!responsibilities!of!home!ownership!
4) Emphasize!the!use!of!durable!and!environmentally!responsible!materials,!recognizing!the!realistic!lifecycle!of!the!buildings!
5) Bolster!socioeconomic!diversity!through!housing!inventory!
6) Prepare!for!the!growing!number!of!retiring!Aspenites!
7) Employers!should!participate!in!the!creation!of!seasonal!rental!housing!
8) Assume!proportionate!responsibility!for!maintenance/management!when!employers!provide!housing!through!publicly4owned!seasonal!rental!housing!
9) Redefine!and!improve!buy4down!policy!
10) Eliminate!Accessory!Dwelling!Unit!program!unless!mandatory!occupancy!is!required;!
11) Ensure!fiscal!responsibility!in!the!development!of!publicly4funded!housing!
12) Promote!broader!support!and!involvement!in!the!creation!of!non4mitigation!AH,!including!public4private!partnership!
13) Design!AH!for!energy!efficiency!and!livability!
14) Locate!AH!in!Urban!Growth!Boundary!
15) Prefer!on4site!mitigation!
16) Track!trends!in!housing!inventory!and!job!generation!for!policy!discussions!
17) Design!AH!to!optimize!density!while!being!compatible!with!massing,!scale!and!character!of!the!neighborhood!
18) Treat!AH!and!market!owners!In!mixed!income!neighborhoods,!fairly,!equitably!and!consistently!(parking/pets)!
19) Make!rules,!regulation!and!penalties!of!AH!clear,!understandable!and!enforceable!
20)!Ensure!effective!management!of!AH!assets!
Br
e
c
k
e
n
r
i
d
g
e
!
1) Building!development!fee!waivers!
2) Free!density!for!employee!units!
3) Land!banking;!annexation!fee!waivers!
4) No!plant!investment!fees!for!water!service!
5) RETT!exemption!
6) Positive!points!for!other!non4workforce!housing!projects!(performance!zoning)!
7) Housing!impact!fee!and!sales!tax!(Voter!approved!2006!and!2015)!
8) Housing!fund!w/!yearly!appropriations!from!the!Town's!General!Fund!(created!2007)!
9) Acquisition/buy!downs!
10) Annexation!policy!_!80%!of!new!units!should!be!affordable!
!
!!
P
1
3
4
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 6
!Housing!Strategies!
J ac
k
s
o
n
!
1)!Evaluate!qualifying!criteria!based!on!full4time!workers!with!priority!to!critical!service!providers!
2)!Improve!perception!of!workforce!housing!through!education!
3)!Identify!locations!for!all!housing!types,!in!particular!multifamily!
4)!Update!guesthouse!and!accessory!residential!unit!regulations!
5)!Complete!a!new!nexus!study!
6)!Update!mitigation!requirements!
7)!Adopt!a!10_year!coordinated!workforce!housing!action!plan!
8)!Evaluate!the!appropriate!governmental!structure!of!the!housing!authority!
9)!Update!land!development!regulations!to!reduce!barriers!to!development!of!housing!
10)!Evaluate!and!update!existing!workforce!housing!incentives!
11)!Explore!a!funding!source!to!create!workforce!housing!
12)!Continue!to!pursue!State!&!Federal!grants!to!develop!workforce!housing!
13)!Increase!collaboration!with!employers!to!produce!workforce!housing!
!!!
Te
l
l
u
r
i
d
e
!
1) Maintain!appropriate!mitigation!rates!for!development!
2) Refine!regulations!to!assure!all!employment!sources!contribute!equitably!to!housing!
3) Generate!a!range!of!units!types!affordable!to!a!range!of!AMI!groups!
4) Ensure!affordable/employee!housing!is!a!units!by!right!in!all!zone!districts!except!Open!Space/Parks!
5) Participate!with!developers!and!homeowners!
6) Increase!effectiveness!of!density!bonuses!in!Commercial!and!Accommodations!zones!
7) Improve!incentives!for!"back!yard"!and!secondary!units!
8) Leverage!funds!and!legal!powers!for!the!region!
9) Continue!cooperation!w/!regional!jurisdictions!
10) Maintain!geographic!distribution!through!site!identification/evaluation!
11) Consider!out4of4town!mitigation!for!in4town!projects!w/!reduced!credit!
12) Guide!production!through!the!Telluride!Affordable!Housing!Strategic!Plan!(TAHSP)!
!
Va
i
l
!
1) Commercial!linkage!
2) Inclusionary!housing!
3) Housing!district!zoning!designation!
4) Acquisition/buy!downs!
5) EHU!exchange!program!
6) Rezoning!and!vacant!land!review!
7) Support!DR!projects!developed!by!others!
8) Explore!dedicated!funding!source!
9) Create!baseline!data!on!existing!conditions!
10) Monitor!local!occupancy!of!market!homes!
11) Demographic!survey!of!current!residents!
12) Provide!list!of!essential!services!
13) Homebuyer!education!!
!
!!
P
1
3
5
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 7
!
!
Workforce!Housing!Inventories!
!
!
!
!
Total!
Units!
Owner!
#!
Renter!
#!
Owner!
%!
Renter!
%!
Eff.!1!BR!2!BR!3!BR!4+!BR!
As
p
e
n
!2,931!1,608!
!
1,323!
!
55%!
!
45%!11%!20%!26%!12%!22%!
Br
e
c
k
e
n
r
i
d
g
e
!838!623!215!74%!26%!1%!18%!36%!35%!
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
!1,504!538!
!
966!
!
36%!64%!12%!
!
26%!37%!23%!2%!
Te
l
l
u
r
i
d
e
!310!106!204!37%!72%!1%!35%!41%!20%!3%!
Va
i
l
!
737!86!651!12%!88%!14%!22%!46%!12%!6%!
!
!
!
!!
P
1
3
6
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 8
Qualifications!and!Occupancy!
!
!#!of!Categories!AMI!Ranges!Asset!Caps!Household!Size!Criteria!
As
p
e
n
!
5!rental!
8!ownership!
AMI!not!used.!
Cat!1:!low4income!
Cat!2:!lower!moderate!income!
Cat!3:!upper!moderate!income!
Cat!4:!middle!income!
Cat!5!4!7!and!RO:!upper!middle!income!
Established!in!2002!and!increased!annually!by!CPI!or!
3%,!whichever!is!less!
Cat!1:!$100,000!
Cat!2:!$125,000!
Cat!3:!$150,000!
Cat!4:!$175,000!
Cat!5:!$200,000!
Cat!6:!$225,000!
Cat!7:!$250,000!
RO!$900,000!
Caps!have!not!been!changed!since!2002!
Same!for!rental!and!ownership!
Retirement!accounts!discounted!at!60%!!
1!qualified!adult/dependent!per!bedroom!
Dependent!requires!custody!100!days/!
year.!
Pregnancies!counted!
Br
e
c
k
e
n
r
i
d
g
e
!6!≤60%!AMI!
60!–!80%!AMI!
80!–!100%!AMI!
100!–!110%!AMI!
110!–!120%!AMI!
120!–!160%!AMI!
None!None!
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
!
7!Cat!1:!≤80%!AMI!
Cat!2:!81!4!100%!AMI!
Cat!3:!101!4!120%!AMI!
Cat!4:!≤!140%!
Cat!5:!≤!175%!
Cat!6:!≤!200%!
Employment4Based!4!no!income!limits!
Cat!1:!$145,120!
Cat!2:!$181,400!
Cat!3:!$217,680!
Cat!4:!253,960!
Cat!5:!$317,450!
Cat!6:!$362,800.!
Based!on!2x!the!44person!income!cap!
Retirement!accounts!not!counted!!!
Rental:!!1!person!HH!=!1!BR,!2!person!HH!=!
1!or!2!BR,!3!person!HH!=!1,!2!or!3!BR.!
Ownership:!!3+!household!members!for!3!
BR,!no!HH!min!for!1!or!2!BR!
Pregnancies!not!counted!
Te
l
l
u
r
i
d
e
!
3!Tiers!Tier!1:!≤120%!AMI;!target!70%!1!BR;!90%!2!&!3!BR!
Tier!2:!≤150%!AMI;!target!90%!1!BR;!110%!2!&!3!BR!
Tier!3:!!≤200%!AMI!
AMI!targets!vary!by!bedroom!since!AMI’s!do!not!
vary!proportionately!by!HH!size!(the!24person!AMI!is!
not!double!the!14person!AMI)!
Total!household!assets!including!business!
cannot!exceed!2x!the!original!purchase!price;!
may!be!forced!to!sell!within!1!year!if!assets!
grow!above!limit.!!
Min:!1!BR!4!1!person;!2!BR!4!1!person;!3!BR!
4!2!persons;!4!BR!4!3!persons!
!
Va
i
l
!
No!income!
categories!
7!types!by!zone!
None!None!3+!household!members!for!3!BR!units!4!no!
min.!HH!size!for!other!units!
No!more!than!2!persons/!bedroom!
Pregnancies!counted!!
!!
P
1
3
7
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 9
Qualifications!and!Occupancy!
!
!Employment!Other!Criteria!–!Disabilities,!Retirees!Preferences!
As
p
e
n
!
Work!full4time!(1500!hours!per!calendar!year)!in!Pitkin!
County!
Legal!resident!
Primary!residence!
Disabled!or!Senior!if!met!employment!requirements!
immediately!prior.!
Ownership:!Years!worked!in!Aspen/PC:!!4!4!7!
years!=!5!chances,!8!4!11!years!=!6!chances;!
12!4!15!years!=!7!chances;!16!4!19!years!=!8!
chances;!20+!years!=!9!chances.!
HH!size/BR!match!
In4complex!
Mobility!disabled!for!accessible!units!
Displaced!residents.!!Emergency!workers!
Rental:!Duration!of!work!history!unless:!
emergency!worker,!mobility!disabled!in!
accessible!units,!senior!at!Aspen!Country!Inn,!
displaced!residents.!!
Br
e
c
k
e
n
r
i
d
g
e
!A!person!eighteen!(18)!years!of!age!or!older!who!earns!his!or!
her!living!by!working!in!Summit!Co.!an!avg!of!at!least!30!
hours/week,!together!with!such!person's!spouse!and!minor!
children,!if!any.!Must!remain!locally!employed!during!term!of!
occupancy.!!
Age!55+!working!15+!hours!in!Summit!County!
Age!62+!no!longer!working!the!required!number!of!
hours,!but!occupied!the!residential!unit!as!a!qualified!
occupant!for!at!least!74years!prior.!
None!
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
!
1!household!member!must!demonstrate!an!average!of!30!
hours!per!week!employment!in!Teton!County,!WY!
Senior!(at!least!62!yrs)!4!employed!in!TC!a!min!of!2!
consecutive!years!during!their!current!residency!or!
disabled.!!1!member!must!be!a!US!Citizen!or!prove!
permanent!residency!in!US.!Rental:!Primary!residence!
(11!months!per!year)!Ownership:!Primary!residence!(9!!
months!per!year)!
Rental:!min.!4!consecutive!years!working!in!
county!immediately!prior!to!application!
Critical!Service!Provider!is!exempt!from!
employment!preference.!Ownership:!
priorities!for!4!years!of!employment!in!TC,!
critical!service!provider,!number!of!times!
applied,!and!in4complex!
Te
l
l
u
r
i
d
e
!
Ownership!4!1!HH!member!must!work!1,400!hrs/yr!for!past!
12!mos!or!5!of!7!past!years!within!district;!10!hrs!of!volunteer!
service!can!be!counted!
Rental!4!1!HH!member!works!or!intends!to!work!at!least!1000!
hrs/yr!within!the!district!or!is!employee!of!Qualified!Owner.!!
Disabled!and!resident!for!at!least!12!prior!months!
immediately!prior!or!for!at!least!5!of!the!previous!7!
years!or!elderly!and!met!employment!requirements!
immediately!prior!
Established!history!of!employment!in!District!
4!3!yrs!qualifies!for!second!lottery!entry!
Va
i
l
!
Work!for!licensed!business!within!Eagle!County;!avg.!30!
hrs/wk!
Primary!residence!
75%!of!income/earnings!from!Eagle!Co!business!
!
Years!of!employment!and!residency!in!Vail!
3:1!over!Eagle!County;!highest!bid!also!stated!
in!Guidelines!but!all!bids!are!for!max!price!
since!buyers!willing!to!pay!max!prices!
outnumber!supply!
!
!!
P
1
3
8
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 10
Qualifications!and!Occupancy!
!
!Owning!Other!Real!Estate!Selection!System!Recertification!Misc:!Exceptions,!Renting!Bedrooms!
As
p
e
n
!
Not!allowed!to!own!any!interest!in!
residential!real!estate!in!the!
Ownership!Exclusion!Zone!(OEZ).!!This!
has!expanded!over!the!years!to!
include!further!down!valley.!
APCHA!prequalifies/defines!category!
Ownership:!Most!sold!through!APCHA,!
some!RO!through!realtors.!!Weighted!
lottery!based!on!preferences.!
Developer!can!identify!1/3!of!buyers,!
but!must!be!top!priority.!No!lender!
pre4qualification!
Rental:!most!managed!by!private!
party,!APCHA!managed!selection!by!
bid,!occupancy!&!most!years!worked.!!!
Rental:!every!2!years!for!
employment,!primary!residency,!
ownership!of!property!in!OEZ,!
and!income/asset!cap!for!
category!of!unit!
Max!gross!income!increased!to!
120%!for!recertification!!
Rental:!one!year!to!come!into!compliance!if!
income/assets!are!exceeded!or!if!actively!bidding!
to!purchase!a!DR!unit!4!but!rent!is!increased!to!
increased!category!
Can!have!roommates!that!are!qualified!
employees!but!cannot!rent!to!visitors!via!Airbnb!
or!other!means.!
Br
e
c
k
e
n
r
i
d
g
e
!Most!deed!restrictions!prohibit!
ownership!of!other!residential!
property.!No!restriction!on!the!
ownership!of!commercial!property.!
!
!
Prequalified!by!SCHA!SCHA!sends!a!letter!annually!to!
owners!requiring!signed!affidavit!
that!they!are!DR!compliant.!
Annual!for!LIHTC!rental!units!
Short4term!renting!of!units!or!rooms!not!allowed.!
May!rent!to!another!Qualified!Occupant!if!renter!
occupies!unit!with!the!owner.!
!
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
!
Affordable:!Not!allowed!at!time!of!
purchase!
Employment8Based:!!Not!allowed!
while!own!DR!unit.!!Can!apply!to!
purchase!a!DR!unit!4!must!list!other!
real!estate!for!sale!if!selected!to!
purchase!DR!unit!
Weighted!lottery!for!rental!and!
ownership,!Lender!pre4qualification!&!
homebuyer!education!
Affordable:!other!real!estate!
ownership!and!work!requirement!
at!time!of!purchase!only,!DR!
allows!for!re4certification!but!no!
resources!budgeted!
Employment8Based:!Eligibility!
remains!during!ownership!and!
DR!allows!recertification!
annually,!not!done!based!on!lack!
of!resources!
Cannot!rent!a!room!or!portion!of!the!home.!
Te
l
l
u
r
i
d
e
!
May!own!property!if!value!does!not!
exceed!asset!cap.!If!DR,!must!sell.!If!
not!DR,!must!sell,!rent!to!qualified!
household!or!obtain!an!exceptions!
Lotteries!for!new!units!
Mortgage!prequalification!required!
Owners!can!list!with!broker!or!sell!
directly!Consultation!with!Housing!
Authority!advised!
604day!notice!to!sell!required!
Rental!units!4!every!time!
occupancy!changes!
Exceptions!to!qualification!criteria!have!been!
common!due!to!the!number!of!rules!(Town!staff)!
Additional!eligibility!criteria!may!be!imposed!on!
any!project!
Exchanges!between!sellers/buyers!limited!to!price!
of!home!!
Va
i
l
!
Not!allowed!unless!a!DR!unit!that!will!
be!sold!
For!resale:!one!application!period!in!
April!each!year!creates!a!permanent!
reserve!lottery!list;!separate!lotteries!
held!for!new!units!
Annual!re4certification!by!Town!
for!owners!4!non4compliance!
rarely!discovered.!!
Annual!for!all!DR!rental!units!
completed!by!management!cos.!
Renting!bedroom(s)!to!roommates!or!to!visitors!
via!Airbnb!is!OK!though!short!term!renting!seldom!
done!
Reporting!by!neighbors!is!the!main!way!non4
compliance!is!discovered!
!
!!
P
1
3
9
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 11
Qualifications!and!Occupancy!
!
!Leave!of!Absence!Mortgage!Debt!Survivability!of!Deed!Restrictions!
As
p
e
n
!
Up!to!one!year!for!bona!fide!reason!with!possible!1!
year!extension!but!no!appreciation!during!the!2nd!year.!!
Owner!may!rent!DR!home!to!qualified!tenant!
Retirees!allowed!to!rent!6!months!each!year!with!
approval!from!APCHA!(this!option!has!not!been!utilized)!
Local!lenders!recommended,!no!restrictions!on!type!of!
mortgage!
Debt!cannot!exceed!the!Maximum!Resale!Price!
No!pre4qualification!
Co4owners/co4signers!must!be!approved.!!!
Do!not!survive!foreclosure!
Homebuyer!Education!&!Intro!to!Community!
Association!Living!required!!
Br
e
c
k
e
n
r
i
d
g
e
!May!rent!for!a!max!of!14year!during!term!of!ownership!
to!another!Qualified!Applicant!if!owner!is!not!present.!
No!restrictions!Do!not!survive!foreclosure!
Town!reserves!right!to!cure!
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
!
Up!to!1!year!allowed!for!specific!reasons!(school,!care!
give!out4of4town!family!member,!travel!opportunities,!
etc.)!
Must!rent!to!qualified!employee.!!Additional!time!with!
TCHA!Board!approval.!
Qualified!Mortgage!required!(approval!by!TCHA),!must!be!
institutional!lender!and!cannot!exceed!95%!of!the!Maximum!
Resale!Price,!debt!to!income!ratio!cannot!exceed!45%!
without!approval!from!TCHA!Board.!
Co4owners/co4signers!must!be!approved.!!!
Do!not!survive!foreclosure!
Te
l
l
u
r
i
d
e
!
Up!to!2!yrs!w/!bona!fide!reason!and!commitment!to!re4
occupy!
Conventional!Fannie!Mae!lenders!must!be!used!
Debt!cannot!exceed!100%!of!original!price!or!103%!as!part!of!
public/non4profit!closing/down!pmt!assistance!or!for!capital!
improvements!
Co4owners/co4signers!must!be!approved!
Survive!foreclosure!
Va
i
l
!Leave!of!absence!may!be!granted!for!1!yr.!No!restrictions!
Most!loans!are!ARM’s!obtained!through!local!portfolio!
lenders!
Do!not!survive!foreclosure!
!
!!
P
1
4
0
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 12
Prices!and!Affordability!
!
!Appreciation!Cap!Transaction!Fees!&!Sales!
Commissions!
Capital!Improvements!Other!Price!
Adjustments!
As
p
e
n
!
Standard!is!3%!or!CPI!whichever!is!
less,!not!compounded.!!(CPI!–!all!
items,!US!City!Average,!Urban!Wage!
Earners!and!Clerical!Workers)!
Also!have!fixed!3%,!4%!or!6%!and!
the!lesser!of!CPI!or!6%.!
2%!to!APCHA!10%!cap,!depreciated!by!Marshall!Swift!handbook!with!exemptions!
for!energy!efficiency!&!safety!
!
Br
e
c
k
e
n
r
i
d
g
e
!
Current!policy:!!lesser!of!0.25%!per!
month!of!ownership!(3%!per!year)!
OR!%!change!in!100%!AMI!from!time!
of!purchase!to!time!of!sale!to!track!
AMI!and!avoid!price!creep.!Some!
early!deed!restrictions!guaranteed!
3%!(Wellington)!and!5%!(Monarch).!!
Varies:!Realtor!sales!
commission!not!to!exceed!3%!
to!7%;!if!SCHA!sells!the!unit,!
they!charge!a!2%!commission.!
15%!cap!on!Certified!improvements!based!on!the!first!sale!price!of!
the!home;!
Subsequent!owners!can!make!improvements,!but!can!only!re4coop!
up!to!15%!above!what!the!initial!buyer!bought!the!home!for;!
Capital!Improvement!application!must!be!filed!and!approved!by!
Town!who!then!issues!a!"certificate!of!improvement"!!!
!
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
!Varies!4!2.5%!compounded!is!
standard!
2%!to!TCHA!10%!cap,!depreciated!by!Marshall!Swift!handbook!
Pre4approval!required!
Recently!sent!notice!to!all!owners!with!deadline!to!submit!any!
Capital!Improvement!requests!to!achieve!a!baseline.!
!
Te
l
l
u
r
i
d
e
!3%!or!CPI4W!whichever!is!less!Brokers!commission!&!1%!
transaction!fee!to!housing!
authority!not!added!to!price!
5%!of!original!purchase!price,!or!up!to!30%!if!increases!ability!to!
house!additional!occupants!
Varies!slightly!by!type!
Pre4approval!required!
Special!Improvement!
District!assessments!
Va
i
l
!
Up!to!3%!per!year!–!no!index!used!
(bids!for!max.!allowed!appreciation!
always!obtained)!
2%!to!Town!4!not!added!to!
price!
15%!of!purchase!price!every!10!yrs!from!purchase!date!4!no!
depreciation!
Luxury!items/upgrades/decks!not!permitted!
Appliances/flooring/countertops!depreciated!over!5!yrs.!!
Town!approval!required!before!price!increased.!
Special!assessments!
!
!
!!
P
1
4
1
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 13
Prices!and!Affordability!
!
!Rent!
Mid!range!2!BR!
Sale!Price!
Mid!range!2!BR!
HOA!Initial!Capitalization!Deferred!Maintenance!Misc!Price!Considerations!
As
p
e
n
!
$1610!!
$200,000!
Capital!reserve!study!as!part!of!the!
initial!HOA!docs,!and!HOA!docs!contain!
a!separate!capital!reserve!fund!be!
established!and!maintained.!!!
Owners!must!maintain!their!units!in!
good!repair,!including!but!not!limited!
to!roof,!boiler,!water!heater,!
appliances,!and!fixtures.!!!
No!guarantee!of!ability!to!receive!max!sales!
price!in!Guidelines/Restrictions;!however,!
perception!that!seller!"deserves"!max!sales!
price!
Considered!a!violation!of!deed!restriction!if!
delinquent!on!HOA!dues!
Br
e
c
k
e
n
r
i
d
g
e
!
!$279,516!
!A!few!deed!restrictions!provide!that!
the!cost!to!remedy!any!health,!safety!
issues!due!to!disrepair!can!be!deducted!
from!the!max!sales!price.!No!provisions!
otherwise.!Recommends!HOA!be!
established!to!maintain!exterior!of!
units.!
No!guarantee!of!ability!to!receive!max!sales!
price!written!into!some!(not!all)!restrictions!
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
!
$1112!$245,175!
6!months!to!1!year!operating!and!
reserves!negotiated!with!developers!
3rd!party!inspection!with!standard!
level!of!maintenance;!some!
negotiations!with!Seller!and!Buyer,!
good!communication!with!property!
mgmt/HOAs,!strong!stance!at!sales!to!
help!ensure!adequate!reserves!
No!guarantees!of!the!subsequent!owner’s!
ability!to!sell!or!rent!for!maximum!price!
stated!in!guidelines/restrictions!
Not!often!that!homes!sell!below!max!price,!
but!seller's!often!have!to!make!repairs!or!
contribute!funds!to!buyer!at!closing!
Considered!a!violation!of!deed!restriction!if!
delinquent!on!HOA!dues!
Te
l
l
u
r
i
d
e
!
$1925!$296,650!
Town!seeds!HOAs!on!projects!it!
develops.!For!mitigation!units,!HOA!
dues!cannot!exceed!1.25%!of!original!
purchase!price!and!must!be!
proportional!to!market!units!or!lot!size!
Has!not!had!problems!thus!far;!owners!
seem!to!be!aware!that!upkeep!is!
important!
No!guarantees!of!the!subsequent!owner’s!
ability!to!sell!or!rent!for!maximum!price!
stated!in!guidelines!
Va
i
l
!
$1378!$247,500!
3!months!from!buyers!at!closing!HOA!dues!held!steady;!reserves!likely!
inadequate!
A!special!assessment!was!used!for!major!
roof!repairs!and!improvements;!enabled!
residents!to!make!the!big!fix!instead!of!a!
patchwork!of!improvements!
Note:!In!Vail,!the!rents!and!sale!prices!are!averages!of!recent/current!amounts!charged!for!existing!units.!In!other!towns,!amounts!are!current!rates!charged!for!mid!range!
income!categories!(the!categories!that!include!100%!AMI).!
!
!!
P
1
4
2
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 14
!
Development!Standards!
!
!BR!Target!Eff!SF!1!BR!SF!2!BR!SF!3!BR!SF!Unit!Type!Quality/Design!
As
p
e
n
!Ownership:!!1!&!2!BR!in!Cat!1!4!
3!with!associated!RO!units!
3!BR!in!Cat!3!&!4!
500!min!700!min!900!min!1,200!min!Mostly!attached!
product!
Single!family!min!
1,500!SF!
Converted!units:!interior!exterior!freshly!painted:!appliances!
and!carpet!less!than!5!yrs!old!and!in!good!condition;!window,!
heating,!plumbing!and!electrical!systems,!fixtures!and!
equipment!in!good!condition!and!working!order!and!brought!
up!to!the!current!code;!landscaping!and!yard!in!satisfactory!
condition;!roof!in!good!repair!with!10!years!remaining!useful!
life;!APCHA!must!approve!unit!and!all!HOA!docs!
Br
e
c
k
e
n
r
i
d
g
e
!Changes!based!on!needs!
Specified!by!Town!
Development!code!specifies!250!SF!min!for!all!
employee!housing!units!
No!standards!by!bedroom.!
Development!code!does!not!apply!to!most!new!
development!–!town!is!built!out.!!!
Town!staff!works!with!developers!to!design!
units!required!through!annexation,!
redevelopment,!or!other!policies/agreements.!
Diverse!supply!All!employee!housing!units!shall!have!a!living!area!containing!
at!a!minimum:!a!kitchen!sink;!cooking!appliance!and!
refrigeration!facilities,!each!having!a!clear!working!space!of!
not!less!than!thirty!inches!(30")!in!front;!sleeping!
accommodations;!a!separate!closet!with!a!door;!and!a!
separate!bathroom!with!a!door,!lavatory,!and!a!bathtub!or!
shower!
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
!
R
e
n
t
a
l
!None!350!min!
550!max!
550!min!
750!max!
750!min!
1,050!max!
950!min!
1,350!max!
Tends!to!be!condos!10!SF!of!enclosed!storage!space!per!bedroom,!access!to!
outdoor!space!(deck,!patio,!or!common!green!space!=!2%!of!
the!size!of!the!unit)!Dorms:!!150!net!livable!SF.!!Each!
additional!bedroom!150!4!250!SF.!!Can!request!a!20%!
reduction!in!SF!if!100%!above!grade,!above!avg!natural!light!
(exterior!windows!in!living!space!&!bedrooms),!layout!
maximizes!livable!space!(no!more!than!15%!stairs!or!
hallways).!
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
!
O
w
n !None!400!min!
600!max!
600!min!
800!max!
850!min!
1,100!max!
1,200!min!
1,500!max!
SF,!Townhome,!
condo!
Each!additional!bedroom:!150!4!250!SF.!Can!request!a!20%!
reduction!in!SF!if!4!100%!above!grade,!above!average!natural!
light!(exterior!windows!in!living!space!&!bedrooms),!layout!
maximizes!livable!space!(no!more!than!15%!stairs!or!
hallways).!
Te
l
l
u
r id
e
!None!450!min!
600!max!
450!min!
600!max!
750!min!
950!max!
950!min!
1,200!max!
Diverse!–!apts,!ADU’s,!
duplexes,!condos!
At!least!243!BR!per!1,000!full!sq!ft!intervals,!kitchens!and!
bathrooms,!above!grade!minimums!(70%)!
Va
i
l
!None!438!min!613!min!788!min!1,225!min!Condos,!duplex,!apt,!
accessory!4!no!single!
family!
Own!entrance,!kitchen/kitchenette,!bathroom!!
!
!!
P
1
4
3
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 15
!
Impact!Mitigation!and!Fees!in!Lieu!
!
!Commercial!Linkage!Residential!Linkage!Inclusionary!Zoning!Compliance!Options!
As
p
e
n
!
Lodging:!10%430%!of!
net!livable!area/10%4
60%!employee!
mitigation.!Varies!by!
avg!size!of!lodge!units!
Commercial:!4!
employees!exempt,!
30%!for!4!48!
employees.!60%!above!
8!
$79/SF!for!additional!
single!family/duplex!
square!footage!
60%!of!units/30%!floor!
area!or!
70%!of!units/70%!of!
bedrooms!
Prioritized:!!1)!on4site!units!constructed!or!converted!next!to!or!attached!to!the!
proposed!development;!2)!Off4site!constructed!or!converted!at!a!separate!location!
within!the!Aspen!core!(a!single!off4site!DR!unit!in!a!free4market!complex!is!not!allowed);!
3)!Use!of!affordable!housing!credits;!4)!APCHA!approved!buy4down!units;!and!5)!
Payment!in4lieu!to!the!City!or!payment!of!Impact!Fee!to!the!County;!or!land!conveyance!
of!vacant!property!to!the!city!or!APCHA.!
!
Br
e
c
k
e
n
r
i
d
g
e
!N/A!N/A!N/A!Performance!zoning!awards!0!or!negative!points!for!anything!5%!or!less:!!up!to!10!
points!for!9.5%!or!more.!
!
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
!
25%!of!peak!seasonal!
employees!
N/A!25%!of!total!units!
!
In!order!of!preference:!!On!site,!off4site,!fee!in4lieu!
!
Te
l
l
u
r
i
d
e
!
40%!commercial.!hotels!
60%!other!
accommodations!
!
60%!4!all!units!
Job!generation!for!
hotels!applied!to!
multifamily/mixed!use!
residential!units!
!
N/A!350!SF/employee!provided!on!or!off!site,!land,!deed!restricting!market!units,!fees!in!lieu!
!
Va
i
l
!
20%!4!all!uses!
!
N/A!10%!of!gross!residential!
floor!area!
!
Code:!≥50%!on!site;!property!on!site;!EHU's!off!site!(equal!#);!fees!in!lieu;!property!off!
site.!Actual:!2!units!on!site,!7!units!off!site,!$1,457,942!fees!in!lieu!since!2007!
!
!
!
!!
P
1
4
4
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 16
Impact!Mitigation!and!Fees!in!Lieu!
!
!
!Income!Targets!Use!Categories!Applicability!Exemptions!Fees!in!Lieu!
Calculation!Method!
Fees!in!Lieu!!
Amounts!
As
p
e
n
!
Categories!1!4!4!Category!4!!!Construction!Cost!–!
Affordability!Gap!
Last!calculated!in!2001!w/!
annual!CPI!updates!
Cat!1!4!$295,077!!
Cat!2!4!$246,881!
Cat!3!4!$232,946!
Cat!4!4!$144,393!
!
Br
e
c
k
!
N/A!N/A!N/A!N/A!N/A!N/A!
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
!
Linkage:!Cat!1!or!<80%!
AMI!
IZ:!Cat!1!4!3!or!
<120%!AMI!split!
equally!among!the!3!
categories!
!
Conventional!lodging,!short4term!
rental,!office,!retail,!service,!
restaurant/bar,!heavy!
retail/service,!industrial!and!
other!uses!by!independent!
calculation.!
Net!new!!Institutional!uses,!
agricultural!uses,!
redevelopment!of!
preexisting!uses!
Market!Cost!–!Affordability!
Gap!Cat!1!4!$145,098!
Cat!2!4!$109,403!
Cat!3!4!$73,742!
Employee!Housing!(Comm)!4!
$114.40/SF!
!
Te
l
l
u
r
i
d
e
!
<1000!SF!4!Tier!1!
100042000!SF!–!1,000!
min!Tier!1!plus!Tier!2!!
>2000!SF!4!50%!Tier!1!
Commercial!and!public!uses!
Hotels!and!accommodations!
Multi4family!dwellings!and!mixed4
use!residential!
One!and!two4family!dwellings!
!
Town!wide!Redevelopment/chang
es!in!use!without!
increase!in!job!
generation!
Affordable!EDU's!
Construction!Cost!–!
Affordability!Gap!
Last!updated!in!2009!
!
$228/SF!
10%!limit!unless!mitigation!
is!≤500!SF!or!for!portion!of!
development!>15%!of!floor!
area!
Va
i
l
!
None!
Fee!in!lieu!calculation!
based!on!120%!AMI!
Eating/drinking!establishment;!
Accommodation!unit/limited!
service!lodge!unit;!Retail!
store/personal!service/repair!
shop;!Business/professional!
office;!Real!estate!office;!
Conference!facility;!Health!club;!
Spa!
Developments!
requiring!
mitigation!of!
1.25+!employees!
in!3!core!districts!
Redevelopment!with!
no!increase!in!square!
feet.!AHU's.!
Multiple!zone!districts!
Market!Cost!–!Affordability!
Gap!
Last!updated!in!2013!
!
$74,481/employee!or!
$134.65/SF!
!
!!
P
1
4
5
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 17
!
Management/Oversight!
!
!Political!Commitment!Education/PR!Regional!Cooperation!Partnerships!
As
p
e
n
!
Strong!
Many!policy!makers!and!large!voting!block!
live!in!deed!restricted!housing!
Solid!funding!source!makes!development!
less!challenging!
!City!and!County!4!but!City!has!most!of!
the!funding.!!Desire!to!have!a!more!
coordinated!regional!approach!with!
restricted!housing!down!valley.!
Strong!funding!source!limits!the!necessity!to!
partner.!!Some!emphasis!to!have!employers!
share!in!fiscal!responsibility!to!produce!seasonal!
housing.!
Br
e
c
k
e
n
r
i
d
g
e
!Strong!
Continued!program!monitoring,!
management!and!upkeep!keeps!Town!on!
task!
Solid!funding!sources!and!commitment,!
Strong!policies!and!dedicated!oversight!
Yearly!updates!on!
housing!progress,!
publications!made!to!
public,!information!
updated!and!available.!
Have!periodic!SCHA/regional!board!
meetings!4!strives!for!coordination.!
Public/private!partnerships!widely!used!in!past!
to!develop!and!presently!4!Town!acts!as!
developer,!but!hires!project!manager/contractor.!
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
!
Mixed/Changing!
High!level!of!community/stakeholder!
Slow!to!reach!decisions!
Looking!for!free!market!solutions!
Transitioning!to!more!control!by!the!Town!of!
Jackson!
No!dedicated!source!of!public!funding!
Limited!though!a!major!
strategy!of!the!Strategic!
Plan!!
Housing!Authority!has!
helpful!web!site!and!
email!blasts!when!homes!
become!available!
Limited!to!Regional!Housing!Needs!
Assessment!
Labor!force!dependent!on!commuter!
communities!
Have!not!extended!strategic!planning!
and!solutions!to!regional!commute!shed!!
Partner!with!non4profit!and!for4profit!developers!
to!leverage!funds!for!AH!production!
Habitat!for!Humanity!and!the!Jackson!Hole!
Community!Housing!Trust!are!active!producers!
of!housing!
Te
l
l
u
r
i
d
e
!
Strong!
Consistent!policies!over!decades!
Firm!support!for!price4capped!deed!
restrictions!
Solid!revenue!source!(sales!tax)!leveraged!by!
bond!issue!
The!San!Miguel!Regional!Housing!
Authority!manages!the!housing!
programs!and!inventories!of!3!
jurisdictions:!Telluride,!Mtn.!Village!and!
the!County!
!!
Va
i
l
!
Unclear!
Lack!of!consensus!on!Town!roles!and!
responsibilities!for!employee!housing!
No!dedicated!funding!source
Helped!fund!County!project!down!valley!
in!Edwards!
Communicates!regularly!with!Eagle!
County!Housing!Office!&!Valley!Home!
Store!for!county!wide!collaboration!
Has!supported/subsidized!apartment!
development!by!the!private!sector!
A!Working!Group!has!been!formed!by!the!
majors,!town!managers!and!county!
commissioners!for!potential!joint!ventures!
!
!
!!
P
1
4
6
I
.
Policy Study: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. February 2016
!
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
!Appendix D - 18
Management/Oversight!
!
!Town!Council!Role!Town!Staff!Role!Housing!Authority!Role!Staffing!!
As
p
e
n
!
Set!policy,!hire!APCHA!ED!City!Manager!provides!direction!and!
oversight!of!APCHA!ED!
Recommend!policy,!implement/manage!
units!created!through!City/County!
development!and!mitigation!
14!4!Executive!Director,!Operations!
Manager,!Sales!Manager,!
Qualifications!Specialist,!
Administrative!Assistants!(2);!
Property!Manager:!(4),!Property!
Maintenance!(4)!
Br
e
c
k
e
n
r
i
d
g
e
!Town!council!directed!4!set!the!policy.!Town!Staff!implement!the!policies!and!
now!moving!toward!developing!
projects!rather!than!through!
partnerships!
Town!pays!SCHA!a!fee!to!do!income!and!
purchase!qualifications!
Manage!Town!buy4down!rental!units!
compliance!monitoring!
One!(Town);!five!(SCHA)!shared!with!
Summit!County!and!3!other!
municipalities!!
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
!
Teton!County!Commissioners!4!appoint!
TCHA!Board!members,!approve!funding!
and!projects!
Agreement!underway!between!Town!of!
Jackson!and!Teton!County!to!share!
oversight!and!funding!of!Regional!Housing!
Authority!
Implement!housing!land!development!
regulations!with!support!of!TCHA!staff;!
Resources!to!TCHA!4!IT,!legal,!
engineering,!HR,!policies!and!
procedures!
Manage!restrictions,!recommend!policy!
Develop!housing!
Review!development!applications!
Update!in4lieu!fees!
Conduct!housing!studies!to!support!
regulations!
4!4!Executive!Director,!Sales!and!
Compliance!Coordinator,!
Administrative!Assistant,!Housing!
Specialist!
Te
l
l
u
r
i
d
e
!
Set!policy,!approve!guidelines!and!
mitigation!
Review!development!applications,!
impose!mitigation!requirements,!
design/build!units!
Manage!deed!restrictions!
Qualify!applicants!
Calculate!resale!prices!
Administer!Section!8!rent!subsidies!
Provide!homebuyer!education!
Apply!for!State/Federal!project!financing!
1!project!coordinator/developer!
Shandoka!Apt!management!
HA!staff!sharing!time!w/!Mtn.!Village!
&!County!
Va
i
l
!
Approve!all!facets!of!housing!program!Review!development!applications!
Impose!mitigation!requirements!
Administer!deed!restrictions!
Administer!buy!down!and!exchange!
programs!
Update!strategic!plan!
Unclear!4!in!transition!2!Plus!property!managers!and!
maintenance!at!privately!owned!
apartments!
!
!
P
1
4
7
I
.
Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting; Rees Consulting, Inc.
!
Appendix E - 1
Appendix E: Map of Ownership Exclusion Zone
I-70
US 6
I-70
CO
8
2
Silt
Glenwood
Springs
Rifle
New
Castle
NOTE:
Data source for this map:
Federal/State Lands, Private Parcels,
Municipalities, Roads and Water Features
from Garfield County GIS Department.
Colorado River from USGS National
Hydrography Dataset Program.
This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation
of the features depicted and is not a legal
representation. The accuracy may change
depending on the enlargement or reduction.
Copyright 2010 Aspen/Pitkin GIS
031.5
Miles
Legend
Roads
Colorado River (Project Area)
Water Features
Adjusted 5 mi Buffer
Actual 5 mi Buffer
Private Parcels
Municipalities
BLM
STATE OF CO
DEPT OF ENERGY
USFS
APCHA OWNERSHIP
EXCLUSION ZONE
P148
I.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
WORK SESSION DATE: February 16, 2016
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Aspen Energy Challenge Affordable Housing Program
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Ryland French, City of Aspen Efficiency Specialist; Mona Newton, CORE
Executive Director
THRU: Cindy Houben, Pitkin County Community Development Director; David Hornbacher,
Director of City of Aspen Utilities and Environmental Initiatives
ISSUE STATEMENT
City of Aspen staff will present a proposal to upgrade the energy efficiency in a portion of affordable
housing rental units in Aspen over the next several months using Renewable Energy Mitigation Program
(REMP) funds. The CORE Board of Trustees has approved requesting a one‐time appropriation of REMP
funds for this use; however, formal approvals would still be required from the Pitkin County Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) and the City of Aspen City Council.
REQUEST OF BOARD AND COUNCIL
Permission to return to the BOCC and City Council in respective individual meetings to make a formal
request for approval to use $500,000 of REMP funds for the Aspen Energy Challenge Affordable Housing
Program.
BACKGROUND
A program of significant magnitude bringing energy efficiency improvements to affordable housing units
in Aspen has the potential to make a positive impact on the community’s affordable housing stock in
terms of energy savings, building longevity, and occupant comfort, health, and safety. Staff and
leadership from the City of Aspen Canary Initiative, City of Aspen Utilities Agency, City of Aspen
Affordable Housing Office, City of Aspen Asset Management Department, Pitkin County, and the
Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) are developing such a program, with support from the
Aspen City Manager, Aspen City Council’s Best Year Yet (BYY) top ten goal number 8, and the CORE
Board of Trustees. Representatives from these entities comprise a project team to guide and oversee
this Aspen Energy Challenge Affordable Housing Program.
In addition to the benefits this program will bring to the community, it is timely, as it supports the Aspen
Energy Challenge. The Aspen Energy Challenge (AEC) is a collaboration between the City of Aspen, CORE,
Holy Cross Energy, and SourceGas to lead Aspen’s effort to win the $5,000,000 Georgetown University
Energy Prize (GUEP). Aspen is currently in third place among fifty communities across the nation
competing from 2015 through 2016 to save the most electricity and natural gas in their homes, schools,
and municipal buildings through innovative, replicable, and equitable approaches.
The project team will need to remain sensitive to what is realistic and feasible in terms of staff and
organizational capacity, funding, regional workforce and building stock logistics; and to develop and
P149
I.
implement a high quality program within those bounds. However, this program can capitalize on the
political will and community support that currently exists for energy efficiency efforts.
OBJECTIVE STATEMENT
Transform the quality and livability of affordable housing stock in the Aspen area by improving energy
efficiency, enhancing tenant wellbeing, and lowering utility bills, while tracking results.
PHASING
Staff proposes the implementation of a Phase 1 of this program over the next several months. This
phase of the program will deliver energy efficiency improvements to Marolt Seasonal Housing,
Burlingame Seasonal Housing, and Truscott Housing (Truscott Place I, Truscott Place LLLP II), to the
greatest degree possible with the funds available. These properties represent a total of 396 units, or
18% of the total 2163 affordable housing units in Aspen. Recommended improvements have been
identified, and are in the process of being prioritized.
Based on the success of Phase 1, a Phase 2 may be developed that applies a similar program design to
other affordable housing units in Aspen.
It is noteworthy that, independent of this program, an additional 40 affordable housing rental units at
Aspen Country Inn will receive substantial energy efficiency upgrades through a general building
rehabilitation project taking place in 2016‐2017.
Phase 1 Property Details Matrix
Legend: AH (City of Aspen Affordable Housing), AM (City of Aspen Asset Management), COA (City of
Aspen), PPM (Preferred Property Management)
Truscott Place (I) Truscott Place LLLP (II) Marolt Ranch Burlingame Seasonal
Number of Units 109 87 100 100
Owned By COA Private COA COA
Managed By AH, AM AH, AM AH, AM PPM
APCHA Category Cat 2: 21; Cat 3: 27; RO:51 2 RO RO
FUNDING
P150
I.
On December 17th, 2015, the CORE Board passed a motion to approve ‘supplemental budget of
$500,000 from the REMP fund to support the Aspen Energy Challenge, specifically to improve energy
efficiency in affordable housing in the upper valley, starting with rentals, as phase one of this program.’
The CORE Board passed an additional motion that ‘no more than 10% of the $500,000 may be spent on
administrative costs, with the requirement that APCHA be responsible for funding administrative costs
beyond 10%. ‘
The “administrative costs” reference project management costs, yet to be identified.
The text, “APCHA be responsible for funding administrative costs beyond 10%,” is meant to
assign responsibility to the City of Aspen Affordable Housing Office to identify a funding
mechanism for administrative costs beyond that percentage, be that the City of Aspen 620 fund,
the City of Aspen 150 fund, or any other funding mechanism.
The City of Aspen BYY Goal #8 team presented at the Aspen City Council work session on February 1st,
2016. At that work session, an overview of this program was presented to Council.
At this time, staff requests permission to return to the BOCC and City Council in respective individual
meetings to make a formal request for approval to use $500,000 of REMP funds for the Aspen Energy
Challenge Affordable Housing Program
Funding from Energy Outreach Colorado (through SourceGas and Holy Cross Energy) and additional local
utility rebates will be pursued. These funds will be in addition to the REMP funds, enhancing the total
amount invested in efficiency improvements through this program. The additional funding secured will
be dependent on the energy efficiency improvements chosen to be implemented.
As costs are determined for prioritized improvements, it may be possible that investment of Pitkin
County funds and City of Aspen funds may be warranted if the wishes of the BOCC and City Council are
to maximize the scope and impact of this program.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The question of how the project management role will be fulfilled for this program is currently being
discussed, and will be determined before the formal REMP budget request at the BOCC and City Council
individual meetings.
PHASE 1 ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS
Energy assessments have been conducted on the Phase 1 properties, providing recommended energy
efficiency improvements for each property.
CORE staff have prioritized and categorized the recommended improvements into the following lists:
No or low cost, beginning measured
Mid‐cost, intermediate measures
Higher‐cost, advanced measures
Ultimately, improvements to be implemented will be chosen and finally prioritized based on a balance
of:
Prioritization and categorization of the recommended improvements by CORE staff
P151
I.
Acceptable impacts on staff time
Acceptable access to facilities and units
Currently pending work or ownership changes
Potential for additional funding sources
With approval of this REMP funding request, energy efficiency measures would be completed according
to the final prioritization of improvements and the total funds available.
Example Improvement Matrix: to Change Based on Actual Improvements Chosen and Funds Secured
REMP
Funds
EOC/Utility
Funds
Heating
Systems
Insulation, Air
Sealing,
Ventilation
Doors Lighting Fridges Total
Truscott Place I: $175,000 $35,000 $5,000 $80,000 $50,000 $25,000 $50,000 $210,000
Truscott Pl II
LLLP:
$110,000 $35,000 $5,000 $80,000 $20,000 $40,000 $145,000
Marolt: $50,000 $35,000 $5,000 $60,000 $20,000 $85,000
Burlingame
Seasonal:
$115,000 $25,000 $60,000 $60,000 $20,000 $140,000
Totals: $450,000 $130,000
Totals: $75,000 $280,000 $50,000 $85,000 $90,000 $580,000
TIMELINE
Draft Phase 1 Timeline: to Change Based on Actual Improvements Chosen
IMPACTS
Impacting 396 units, equaling 18% of affordable housing units in Aspen
Achieving an estimated reduction of xxx kWh’s and xxx Therms (TBD based on improvements
chosen)
Reduced utility bills (TBD based on improvements chosen)
Reduced environmental impact (TBD based on improvements chosen)
P152
I.
Improved comfort, health and safety
TRACKING
A transparent tracking document will be maintained to demonstrate how funds are spent and to
demonstrate the impacts of the program. Community level data reported for the GUEP will be useful as
well.
APPENDIX
APCHA Rental Units Income Categories
P153
I.
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor, City Council, & Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Chris Forman, Parks Operations Manager
Gary Tennenbaum, Assistant Director Open Space & Trails
THRU: Tom Rubel, Parks and Open Space Director
Dale Will, Director Open Space & Trails
DATE OF MEMO: February 4, 2016
MEETING DATE: February 16, 2016
RE: Hunter Creek Prescribed Burn
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: There is no formal request of Council or Board of County
Commissioners. This memo and presentation is designed to provide an update on the
collaborative management efforts in the Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain plan area, specifically
as it pertains to the prescribed burn planned in spring 2016.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Forest Service is planning to conduct a prescribed fire in the Hunter
Creek Valley in the spring of 2016 (Attachment A). The project is to be implemented under the
Hunter-Smuggler Cooperative Plan, which was finalized in early 2014 after all of the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) were met. The fire will target
Gambel oak, mountain shrub, and aspen ecotypes and will reduce fuel loading, improve wildlife
habitat, and improve forest resiliency. A total of 1,100 acres has been defined for this burn,
though it is expected that not all of this acreage will burn due to snow and moisture levels across
the various aspects of this area. The fire will only occur under very specific, favorable weather
and wind conditions with the anticipated burn time to occur over a 1-3 day period. Recreational
users will be diverted from the area during the fire event.
BACKGROUND: The Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan outlines a series of
projects and improvements to the Hunter Creek/Smuggler Mountain study area. Developed
through an open and cooperative approach of community and local agency involvement, the Plan
addresses important needs in this area such as recreational opportunities, forest health, wildlife
habitat, and fuel loading. The prescribed fire proposed this spring is one of many management
P154
I.
Page 2 of 3
tools specified in the Plan and will provide an ecologically sound, cost effective path to achieve
the goals mentioned above.
Historically, fire has been the primary disturbance agent in the Gambel oak, mountain shrub, and
aspen ecotypes. Due to the proximity to the City of Aspen and homes within the wildland urban
interface, natural fire ignitions in this area are extinguished as soon as possible. These natural
ignitions are not encouraged to burn across this landscape due to variations in weather, humidity,
wind, and location which make it much more difficult to manage by fire specialists. The
prescribed fire scenario provides an opportunity to effectively manage the timing, location, and
intensity of the fire since the burn will only occur under favorable conditions set forth within the
USFS burn plan. In addition to all of the safety parameters built into the burn plan, there will be
USFS fire specialists as well as Aspen Fire District staff and equipment present throughout the
prescriptive timeframe. A similar project was successfully completed on Basalt Mountain in
April 2015.
A public relations and outreach group has been identified consisting of members from several
partners in the project, including the Forest Service, Wilderness Workshop, Aspen Center for
Environmental Studies, Pitkin County, and City of Aspen. In the upcoming months, there will
be many publications within the newspapers, announcements on local radio, public open houses,
website updates, and other means of providing information to the public about the burn. In
addition, the Pitkin Alert System will be utilized on the day(s) of the event as well as a
centralized call center will be in place for anyone to obtain real time information.
DISCUSSION: The entire management area consists of 4,681 acres of National Forest lands,
of which, 1,100 acres have been targeted for ignition in late April or early May 2016. The actual
date of the burn cannot be predicted at this point as it is dependent upon weather and moisture
conditions. In addition to these parameters, the fire will not move forward unless the air quality
standards and conditions are met within the smoke permit issued via the State of Colorado Air
Pollution Control Division. US Forest Service fire specialists will utilize ground and air
techniques for ignition within the burn area, while Aspen Fire Protection District staff and
equipment will be stationed in Hunter Creek between the burn area and the built environment of
Red Mountain and the City of Aspen. Anticipated burn time will last for 1 to 3 days, after which
fire officials will declare the area safe for recreational activity. As mentioned previously, it is
not anticipated that all 1,100 acres will burn during this year’s event. In fact, if the weather
conditions are not favorable, the burn will not occur this spring at all and will be shelved for
amenable conditions in future years.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: This project is being funded through a partnership
between the US Forest Service, Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, Pitkin County, and the
City of Aspen. City and County costs for this project have been approved within the 2016
budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: This area has lacked integrated, cohesive management and
vision, and thus, is now seeing degradation of wildlife habitat and forest health, as well as
increased fuel loading. A prescribed burn will most closely mimic a natural disturbance and
begin the process of restoring the landscape and addressing those issues mentioned above.
P155
I.
Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is recommending that Council and Board of County
Commissioners continue their support of the Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Collaborative
Plan and the management prescriptions defined within the plan.
ALTERNATIVES: Much of the targeted area is too steep to mechanically treatment, therefore
without the use of prescribed fire, no management can occur. In addition, mechanical treatment
is more expensive and impactful to the recreational user.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Prescribed Fire Project Area Map
P156
I.
The U.S. Forest Service is planning to conduct a prescribed fire in the Hunter Creek Valley in
the spring of 2016. The project is to be implemented under the Hunter-Smuggler Cooperative
Plan, which was finalized in early 2014 and seeks to improve wildlife habitat, forest resiliency and
recreation in the Hunter Creek Valley and surrounding landscape.
Where, when and how long will the burn occur?
Where: The attached map on the back shows the areas where the prescribed burn will take
place. We are asking the public to refrain from recreating in the Hunter Creek-Smuggler area for
approximately 1-3 days during the prescribed burn.
When: The project will be implemented when conditions are ideal for a safe and effective
prescribed fire. Conditions are considered suitable when the snow has melted off the south-
facing aspects (slopes) in Hunter Creek and all other surrounding areas still retain moisture and
snow. These conditions typically occur in April or early May. Other environmental factors such
as wind, temperature and relative humidity will be key elements.
Duration: Please note that the work will take place over a 1-3 day period. After which, officials
will declare the area safe to recreate in.
What to expect during the prescribed fire?
On the day of the burn please do not call 911. There may be large volumes of smoke visible at
times in the Hunter Creek valley and people may even see flames.
Recreation and trail use: For your own safety, please refrain from recreating in the Hunter
Creek Valley until the area is declared safe. Updates will be available at the White River National
Forest Twitter account @WhiteRiverNews, the White River National Forest website: http://www.
fs.usda.gov/whiteriver or by calling the Sopris Ranger Station (970) 963-2266.
Smoke: Prior to burning, a smoke permit is obtained through the state of Colorado - Air Pollution
Control Division. The Upper Colorado River Interagency Fire Unit (UCR) works hard to minimize
smoke impacts on surrounding communities.
If you have a smoke sensitivity, please contact Jim Genung at 970-404-3150 so we can keep you informed of smoke
conditions. Prescribed fire smoke may affect your health. For more information, please visit: https://www.colorado.
gov/pacific/cdphe/wood-smoke-and-health.
Where can I get more Information and sign up for alerts?
• For general information, please visit www.aspennature.org
• Real-time updates will be available on Twitter @WhiteRiverNews or @UCRFireCenter
• Sopris Ranger Station: 970-963-2266
• Aspen Fire Department: Parker Lathrop, 970-925-5532
• Pitkin County Alert System: Information about the prescribed burn will be
disseminated via the Pitkin Alert system. To sign up for the alert system visit
www.PitkinAlert.org.
• Garfield and Eagle County Alert Systems: The Garfield and Eagle County alert
systems will also provide information during the prescribed fire. More information
on those systems is available here: Garfield County: http://garco911.org/
• Eagle County Emergency Alert: https://www.ecalert.org/index.php?CCheck=1
Hunter Creek Prescribed Fire: Information & Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
P157
I.
Crews patrol the April 2015 prescribed fire on
Basalt Mountain. Prescribed fires burn slowly and
close to the ground, clearing out the understory
while leaving much of the overstory intact.
Regrowth from the same prescribed fire, four
months later. Plentiful spring precipitation quickly
re-greened the landscape and provided fresh
forage for wildlife.
P158
I.