HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.jointworksession.20260622AGENDA
JOINT CITY COUNCIL / BOCC
WORK SESSION
June 22, 2026
4:00 PM, Pitkin County BOCC
Meeting Room, 1st Floor
530 East Main St.
Aspen, CO 81611
I.Work Session
I.A Joint Work Session Agenda
Zoom Meeting Instructions
Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85488912792?pwd=9maTvnRK4onlmNajGhA0lgbEnuzHkG.1
Passcode:151975
Join via audio:
+1 719 359 4580 US
Webinar ID: 854 8891 2792
Passcode: 151975
International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kcIW6MSDtR
06.22.2026 Agenda PKT.pdf
1
1
AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Board of County Commissioners
Special Meeting Agenda
MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2026, 4:00 PM
BOCC Meeting Room, 1st Floor
530 E Main St, Aspen, CO 81611
Zoom Meeting Link | Passcode: 151975 | Webinar ID: 854 8891 2792
4:00 PM Joint Meeting with City of Aspen
4:00 PM Water and Fire Restrictions Public Announcement - Mayor and Chair (5 min)
4:05 PM Housing Needs Assessment - Liz Axberg and EPS (40 minutes)
4:45 PM Legislative update - Prop 175 impacts discussion (15 minutes)
5:00 PM 2027 Airport and Community Planning - Kara Silbernagel & Community Partners (60 minutes)
6:00 PM Adjourn
12
AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
2
3
STAFF REPORT
TO: Aspen City Council and Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Liz Axberg, Housing Policy Analyst
City Manager’s Office, City of Aspen
THROUGH: Diane Foster, Deputy City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 22, 2026
SUBJECT: Regional Housing Needs Assessment – Final Report
__________________________________________________________________
INTENDED OUTCOME: The purpose of the June 22 presentation to the joint Pitkin
County Board of County Commissions and Aspen City Council Meeting is to share the
final Regional Housing Needs Assessment before finalizing the document and submitting
it to the State of Colorado.
SUMMARY and BACKGROUND: In 2024, the Colorado Legislature enacted Senate Bill
24-174, requiring every local government in Colorado to complete and publish a Housing
Needs Assessment by December 31, 2026, with updates every six years.
Additionally, in November 2022, Colorado voters approved Proposition 123, the state
affordable housing fund. Proposition 123 created millions in affordable housing funding.
The legislation restricts funding to be used for projects that serve specific AMIs. The
funding programs were originally restricted to:
• Land banking: 60% AMI for rental and 100% for ownership
• Equity: 90% AMI for rental (per-project average)
• Concessionary Debt: Limited to 60% AMI for rental (per-project average)
For jurisdictions to apply for project funding that serves higher AMI levels, Rural Resort
communities were required to submit a Rural Resort Income Limit Petition which needed
to be supported by recent housing-needs data. To secure this petition, Aspen, Pitkin
County, and Snowmass Village partnered on the Housing Needs Assessment to prove
the region’s need for affordable housing at higher AMIs. In April 2026, the state approved
the rural resort petition for Unincorporated Pitkin County, Aspen, and Snowmass Village
to be eligible for Proposition 123 funding in the current cycle that serves up to 120% AMI
(for both rental and ownership).
34
To leverage this effort to also meet the requirements of SB24-174, the Housing Needs
Assessment scope was broken into two phases. The first phase covered the data
requirements of Proposition 123. This portion was prioritized to be completed first due to
timing limitations of Proposition 123 funding. Phase 2 built out the remaining components
of the Housing Needs Assessment required to be compliant with SB24-174. Not being in
compliance with this legislation has possible impacts for jurisdictions such as restricted
access to funds for affordable housing.
Early into the process, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) recommended
that jurisdictions complete their studies at a regional scale to streamline review and
maximize efficiency. To fully cover our heavily intertwined region, the study brought in
Basalt, Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, Garfield County, New Castle, Silt, Rifle, and
Parachute. The city of Aspen, on behalf of the city, Pitkin County and Snowmass Village,
contracted with Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) to complete the work. This is the
same team which recently completed the Town of Basalt’s Housing Needs Assessment
and Eagle County’s Housing Needs Assessment. Eagle County was not involved due to
their assessment being completed in 2025.
The final step to make the Housing Needs Assessment a state compliant document is to
give all participating jurisdictions’ Board’s and Council’s opportunity to review and provide
feedback on the final report. There is no requirement to adopt the assessment. This
Housing Needs Assessment will put all participating jurisdictions in compliance with the
state legislation. Staff will be available to present findings from the housing needs
assessment and answer questions. After all Board and Council feedback has been
received, EPS will adjust the study based on Board and Council feedback and staff will
submit the final version to the State to review.
DISCUSSION: Nothing in the housing needs assessment is legally binding nor does it
make recommendations on the amount of housing any of the included jurisdictions
“need to build”. While the housing needs assessment estimates our current housing
need and projected housing need, the Housing Action Plan (also required by SB-174) is
the portion where individual City and Town Council’s will have the opportunity to utilize
the housing needs assessment data and other information (land available, cost of
construction, etc.), to set goals on the amount of housing to bring to the community over
the next 10 years. Housing Action Plans can be completed locally or regionally. These
are required to be completed by January 1, 2028. To read more on the Housing Action
Plan, go to DOLA’s website.
Both Aspen City Council and the Board of County Commissions received a presentation
on Phase 1 of the Housing Needs Assessment in December 2025. The first
presentation covered mainly demographic data and the calculations for the estimated
housing need over a 10-year period. This presentation will cover the second phase of
the Housing Needs Assessment which includes:
45
• Housing Problems
o Overcrowding/Homelessness, affordability, and displacement risk
• Housing Resources
o Current tools, programs, and funding sources
• Housing Development Challenges and Opportunities
• Policy Programs and Recommendations.
This will also be an opportunity for both the BOCC and City Council to ask questions
about the Housing Needs Assessment as a whole. After this presentation, the Housing
Needs Assessment will be presented to all other participating jurisdictions. The
remaining presentations are scheduled for:
• Town of Carbondale – June 23rd
• Town of Snowmass Village – July 6th
• Town of New Castle – July 7th
• Garfield County – July 13th
• APCHA Board – July 15th
• City of Glenwood Springs – July 16th
• Town of Parachute – July 16th
• Town of Basalt – July 28th
Staff ultimately hope that Boards and Councils find the information from the study to be
useful and valuable, with these studies serving as effective tools for planning and
envisioning the future of our communities. After all Councils and Boards have had the
opportunity to review the full Housing Needs Assessment, Aspen staff will submit the
assessment for the entire region. For the Housing Needs Assessment to maintain
compliance, it will need to be updated every 6 years.
The report for each phase of the assessment is separately attached for the Board and
Council to review, but after Council and Board presentations, these documents will be
consolidated into one report.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A – Regional HNA Phase I Draft Report
• Attachment B – Regional HNA Phase II Draft Report
5
6
REGIONAL HOUSING
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Roaring Fork Valley and Colorado River Valley Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Pitkin County
City of Aspen
Town of Snowmass Village
Town of Basalt
Garfield County
Town of Carbondale
City of Glenwood Springs
Town of New Castle
Town of Silt
City of Rifle
Town of Parachute
February 9, 2026
EPS #243156
67
OAKLAND OFFICE SACRAMENTO OFFICE LOS ANGELES OFFICE DENVER OFFICE
1330 Broadway, Suite 450 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 701 800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 410 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1850
Oakland, CA 94612 Sacramento, CA 95814 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Denver, CO 80202
510 841 9150 916 649 8010 213 489 3838 303 623 3557
epsys.com
7
8
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
H2 1
2. Demographic Trends 3
Population ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Households .............................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Income ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
3. Economic Trends 17
Employment ............................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Wages ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 22
Commuting .............................................................................................................................................................................. 26
4. Housing Inventory 27
Housing Units ......................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Housing Occupancy ............................................................................................................................................................. 28
Tenure ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Affordable Inventory ........................................................................................................................................................... 30
5. Housing Market Trends 31
Home Sales .............................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Rental Housing ....................................................................................................................................................................... 48
Recent Development ........................................................................................................................................................... 49
Development Pipeline ......................................................................................................................................................... 51
Affordability Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... 53
6. Current and Projected Housing Needs 63
Summary of Need .................................................................................................................................................................. 65
Existing Housing Shortage (Catch Up) .......................................................................................................................... 67
Projected Housing Needs (Keep Up) ............................................................................................................................. 72
Needs by Jurisdiction .......................................................................................................................................................... 82
Appendix A: Need Tables for All Jurisdiction
8
9
List of Tables
Table 1. Population Trends, 2010-2023.............................................................................................................................. 4
Table 2. Hispanic/Latino Population, 2010-2023 ............................................................................................................ 6
Table 3. Median Age, 2010-2023 ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 4. Labor Force by Age, 2023 ........................................................................................................................................ 9
Table 5. Household Growth, 2010-2023 ......................................................................................................................... 10
Table 6. Average Household Size, 2010-2023 ............................................................................................................... 12
Table 7. Household Types, 2010-2023 ............................................................................................................................. 13
Table 8. Household Growth by Household Type, 2010-2035 ................................................................................. 14
Table 9. Median Household Income, 2010-2023 .......................................................................................................... 15
Table 10. Regional Employment, 2010-2023 .................................................................................................................... 17
Table 11. Pitkin County Employment by Industry, 2010-2023.................................................................................. 18
Table 12. Garfield County Employment by Industry, 2010-2023 ............................................................................. 19
Table 13. Pitkin County Employment Share by Occupation, 2019-2024 ............................................................... 20
Table 14. Garfield County Employment Share by Occupation, 2019-2024 .......................................................... 21
Table 15. Pitkin County Wages by Occupation, 2024 ................................................................................................... 22
Table 16. Garfield County Wages by Occupation, 2024 ............................................................................................... 23
Table 17. Commuting Patterns, 2022 .................................................................................................................................. 26
Table 18. Housing Units, 2010-2023 ................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 19. Housing Tenure, 2010-2023................................................................................................................................ 29
Table 20. Affordable Housing Inventory ............................................................................................................................ 30
Table 21. Upper Valley Median Sale Price by Unit Type, 2015-2024 ...................................................................... 31
Table 22. Upper Valley Single-Family Residence Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024 ...................... 32
Table 23. Upper Valley Townhouse Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024 ............................................... 33
Table 24. Upper Valley Condominium Unit Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024 ................................ 34
Table 25. Mid Valley Median Sale Price by Unit Type, 2015-2024 ........................................................................... 36
Table 26. Middle Valley Single-Family Residence Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024 .................... 36
Table 27. Middle Valley Townhouse Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024 .............................................. 37
Table 28. Middle Valley Duplex Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024 ....................................................... 37
Table 29. Middle Valley Condominium Unit Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024 ............................... 38
Table 30. Lower Valley Median Sale Price by Unit Type, 2015-2024 ...................................................................... 40
9
10
List of Tables (continued)
Table 31. Lower Valley Single-Family Residence Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024 ...................... 40
Table 32. Lower Valley Townhouse Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024 ............................................... 41
Table 33. Lower Valley Condominium Unit Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024 ................................ 42
Table 34. Colorado River Valley Median Sale Price by Unit Type, 2015-2024 .................................................... 44
Table 35. Colorado River Valley Single-Family Residence Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024 .... 45
Table 36. Colorado River Valley Townhouse Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024 ............................. 46
Table 37. Regional Residential Building Permits, 2016-2024 .................................................................................... 49
Table 38. Affordable Housing Pipeline ................................................................................................................................ 52
Table 39. Maximum Affordable Rent by Income and Household Size ..................................................................... 54
Table 40. Maximum Supportable Rent by Number of Median Wage Jobs ............................................................ 54
Table 41. Maximum Affordable Purchase Price by Income and Household Size, Pitkin County ................... 56
Table 42. Maximum Affordable Purchase Price by Income and Household Size, Garfield County .............. 57
Table 43. Upper Valley Sales by Affordability, 2015-2024 ......................................................................................... 58
Table 44. Mid Valley Sales by Affordability, 2015-2024 .............................................................................................. 58
Table 45. Lower Valley Sales by Affordability, 2015-2024 ......................................................................................... 59
Table 46. Colorado River Valley Sales by Affordability, 2015-2024 ........................................................................ 59
Table 47. Maximum Affordable Purchase Price by Number of Median Wage Jobs ........................................... 61
Table 48. Summary of Housing Need ................................................................................................................................... 65
Table 49. Housing Need by Source ....................................................................................................................................... 66
Table 50. Overcrowded Housing Units, Pitkin and Garfield Counties, 2023 ........................................................ 67
Table 51. Housing Need Generated by In-Commuters ................................................................................................. 68
Table 52. Housing Need Generated by Unfilled Jobs..................................................................................................... 69
Table 53. Existing Housing Shortage by Category .......................................................................................................... 70
Table 54. Existing Housing Shortage by Income and Tenure – Pitkin County ...................................................... 71
Table 55. Existing Housing Shortage by Income and Tenure – Garfield County ................................................. 72
Table 56. Current and Projected Jobs by Occupation – Pitkin County ................................................................... 73
Table 57. Current and Projected Jobs by Occupation – Garfield County .............................................................. 74
Table 58. Housing Demand from Employment Growth at 25th Percentile Wages – Pitkin County ............. 75
Table 59. Housing Demand from Employment Growth at 75th Percentile Wages – Pitkin County ............. 76
Table 60. Housing Demand from Employment Growth at 25th Percentile Wages – Garfield County ......... 77
1011
List of Tables (continued)
Table 61. Housing Demand from Employment Growth at 75th Percentile Wages – Garfield County ......... 78
Table 62. Pitkin County Housing Needed from Employment Growth, 2025-2035 ............................................ 79
Table 63. Garfield County Housing Needed from Employment Growth, 2025-2035 ....................................... 79
Table 64. Housing Demand Generated by Retiring Workers ..................................................................................... 80
Table 65. Projected Housing Need Summary – Pitkin County ................................................................................... 81
Table 66. Projected Housing Need Summary – Garfield County............................................................................... 81
Table 67. Gross Needs and Gaps Summary ....................................................................................................................... 82
Table 68. Jobs Distribution by Location, 2023 ................................................................................................................. 83
Table 69. Gross Needs by Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................................. 83
Table 70. Development Pipeline by Tenure ....................................................................................................................... 84
Table 71. Net Needs and Gaps Summary............................................................................................................................ 85
Table 72. Regional Development Pipeline ......................................................................................................................... 86
Table 73. Allocated Net Need by AMI – Pitkin County ................................................................................................. 87
Table 74. Allocated Net Need by AMI – Garfield County ............................................................................................. 88
1112
List of Figures
Figure 1. Population Growth, 2000-2023 ............................................................................................................................ 3
Figure 2. Population Forecast to 2035 .................................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 3. Population by Age, 2023 .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4. Forecast Household Growth to 2035 ............................................................................................................... 11
Figure 5. Income by Source, 2010-2023 ............................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 6. Pitkin County Employment and Median Wages by Occupation, 2024 ................................................ 24
Figure 7. Garfield County Employment and Median Wages by Occupation, 2024 ........................................... 25
Figure 8. Housing Occupancy, 2010-2023........................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 9. Upper Valley Sales by AMI, 2015-2024........................................................................................................... 35
Figure 10. Middle Valley Sales by AMI, 2015-2024 ......................................................................................................... 39
Figure 11. Lower Valley Sales by AMI, 2015-2024........................................................................................................... 43
Figure 12. Colorado River Valley Sales by AMI .................................................................................................................. 47
Figure 13. Residential Building Permits by Type and Location, 2016-2024 ........................................................... 50
Figure 14. AMI Needed to Afford Median Priced Home by Location (2 Person Household) ............................ 60
Figure 15. Median Wage Jobs Needed to Afford Median Priced Home by Location ........................................... 62
12
13
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1314
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 Introduction
1. Introduction
H2
This Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) was prepared to provide information and
analysis on the types of affordable housing needed in Pitkin and Garfield Counties,
covering the Roaring Fork Valley (Aspen to Glenwood Springs) and the Colorado
River Valley (New Castle to Parachute). This work involved a market and
affordability analysis of current conditions in the region, and a calculation of
housing needs over the next 10 years to catch up with current housing gaps and
keep up with future housing needed due to economic growth.
This work was contracted by the City of Aspen to be completed for a collaborative
group of local government stakeholders, including: Pitkin County, City of Aspen,
Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt, Garfield County, Town of Carbondale,
City of Glenwood Springs, Town of New Castle, Town of Silt, City of Rifle, and Town
of Parachute.
Study Area and Subareas
This study covers the Roaring Fork Valley and the Colorado River Valley,
encompassing Pitkin and Garfield Counties, as well as the portion of Eagle County
within the Roaring Fork Valley (Basalt and El Jebel). Data is analyzed at multiple
levels, including the overall region, individual counties, valleys, jurisdictions, and
subregions. Subregions are defined as:
• Upper Valley: Aspen, Snowmass Village
• Mid Valley: Basalt, Carbondale
• Lower Valley: Glenwood Springs, New Castle
• Colorado River Valley: Silt, Rifle, Parachute
14
15
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
15
16
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Demographic Trends
2. Demographic Trends
Population
Communities in this region range in population from 1,400 to 10,600 and have
seen varied population growth or loss since 2000.
As shown in Figure 1, Rifle (10,600) and Glenwood Springs (10,150) are the largest
communities in the region, followed by Aspen (6,600) and Carbondale (6,575).
Since 2000, New Castle (140%) and Silt (106%) have seen the largest percentage
increases in their population. Aspen, Carbondale, Snowmass Village, and Parachute
are all within 400 residents of their 2000 population; Aspen and Snowmass Village
have experienced population declines since 2015.
Figure 1. Population Growth, 2000-2023
1617
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 Demographic Trends
Pitkin County’s population grew slowly from 2010 to 2015, and has declined since
2015.
As shown in Table 1, the county’s population was 17,700 in 2015 and has since
declined to 16,650 – an average annual decrease of 0.8% (132 residents) per year.
Among jurisdictions in the county, Basalt is the only area that saw population
growth since 2015, adding an average of 17 new residents per year between 2015
and 2023. Population in the unincorporated county declined by 12% since 2010.
Garfield County has grown faster since 2015 than from 2010 to 2015.
Garfield County added an average of 650 new residents per year since 2015,
compared to 270 annually from 2010 to 2015. As shown in Table 1, Silt, Rifle, and
Parachute all saw slower growth since 2015. Despite this, communities west of
Glenwood Springs are still the primary growth areas of the county (along with
unincorporated areas), growing at faster rates than Carbondale and Glenwood
Springs.
Table 1. Population Trends, 2010-2023
Population 2010 2015 2020 2023 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Pitkin County 17,156 17,701 17,356 16,642 545 109 0.6%-1,059 -132 -0.8%
Aspen 6,659 7,238 6,986 6,617 579 116 1.7%-621 -78 -1.1%
Snowmass Village 2,826 3,162 3,100 2,994 336 67 2.3%-168 -21 -0.7%
Basalt (part)931 963 1,072 1,102 32 6 0.7%139 17 1.7%
Unincorp. Pitkin County 6,740 6,338 6,198 5,929 -402 -80 -1.2%-409 -51 -0.8%
Garfield County 56,150 57,495 61,794 62,722 1,345 269 0.5%5,227 653 1.1%
Carbondale 6,398 6,286 6,461 6,575 -112 -22 -0.4%289 36 0.6%
Glenwood Springs 9,576 9,713 10,052 10,149 137 27 0.3%436 55 0.6%
New Castle 4,497 4,413 4,928 4,971 -84 -17 -0.4%558 70 1.5%
Silt 2,917 3,249 3,545 3,668 332 66 2.2%419 52 1.5%
Rifle 9,137 9,803 10,445 10,594 666 133 1.4%791 99 1.0%
Parachute 1,084 1,228 1,390 1,392 144 29 2.5%164 21 1.6%
Unincorp. Garfield County 22,541 22,803 24,973 25,373 262 52 0.2%2,570 321 1.3%
Eagle County 52,057 52,781 55,671 54,411 724 145 0.3%1,630 204 0.4%
Basalt (part)2,917 2,674 2,903 2,896 -243 -49 -1.7%222 28 1.0%
Source: CO State Demography Office, Economic & Planning Systems
2010-2015 Change 2015-2023 Change
17
18
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Demographic Trends
Growth in the region is expected to take place primarily in Garfield County, while
the population of Pitkin County is expected to remain stable.
As shown in Figure 2, the State Demography Office forecasts that Garfield County
will grow by 1.5% annually through 2035, adding just over 12,000 new residents.
Pitkin County’s population is forecasted to remain stable at just under 16,700
residents.
Figure 2. Population Forecast to 2035
18
19
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Demographic Trends
Garfield County has a higher percentage Hispanic/Latino population than Pitkin
County, with Silt and Rifle having the highest percentages of their populations
identifying as Hispanic/Latino.
As shown in Table 1Table 2, nearly one-third of the population in Garfield County
identified as Hispanic/Latino in 2023, compared to 11% in Pitkin County. This share
has increased from 24% in 2010, a higher increase than Pitkin County (which rose
from 8% to 11%).
Within the counties, Silt (47%) and Rifle (42%) have the highest population shares
identifying as Hispanic/Latino. Both of these communities have increased from
25% in 2010.
Table 2. Hispanic/Latino Population, 2010-2023
Percent Hispanic/Latino 2010 2018 2023
Pitkin County 8%10%11%
Garfield County 24%28%32%
Aspen 7%9%11%
Snowmass Village 6%0%12%
Basalt 18%17%6%
Carbondale 34%49%21%
Glenwood Springs 26%26%36%
New Castle 24%21%29%
Silt 25%28%47%
Rifle 25%26%42%
Parachute 36%33%21%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic & Planning Systems
19
20
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Demographic Trends
Aligning with broader statewide and national trends, both counties have aging
populations.
Garfield County’s median age (37.2) is similar to the statewide median of 37.9
years, while the median age in Pitkin County (47.3) is 10 years higher than the
state. As shown in Table 3, median age decreases from Aspen and Snowmass
Village towards Glenwood Springs and through the Colorado River Valley, with
younger populations in New Castle, Silt, Rifle, and Parachute.
Table 3. Median Age, 2010-2023
Description 2010 2018 2023 Total Ann. #Ann. %
Pitkin County 42.0 42.0 47.3 5.3 0.4 0.9%
Garfield County 34.5 36.3 37.2 2.7 0.2 0.6%
Aspen 40.9 41.7 41.7 0.8 0.1 0.1%
Snowmass Village 40.4 49.3 58.3 17.9 1.4 2.9%
Basalt 36.6 43.9 43.6 7.0 0.5 1.4%
Carbondale 33.6 33.6 40.8 7.2 0.6 1.5%
Glenwood Springs 34.7 39.5 35.7 1.0 0.1 0.2%
New Castle 31.2 32.3 37.4 6.2 0.5 1.4%
Silt 31.2 31.3 33.7 2.5 0.2 0.6%
Rifle 31.0 32.4 32.3 1.3 0.1 0.3%
Parachute 30.5 30.3 26.8 -3.7 -0.3 -1.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic & Planning Systems
2010-2023
2021
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 Demographic Trends
Communities in the Colorado River Valley have higher shares of population under
age 25, while Roaring Fork Valley communities have higher shares of population
age 65 and older.
As shown in Figure 3, the population under age 25 is highest in Parachute (at nearly
50% of the population) and decreases towards Glenwood Springs and through the
Roaring Fork Valley. The population age 65 and older follows an opposite pattern,
with the highest share of the population in Snowmass Village and decreasing
towards Glenwood Springs and through the Colorado River Valley.
Figure 3. Population by Age, 2023
2122
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Demographic Trends
A significant portion of the labor force in both counties is aged 55 or older.
As shown in Table 4, 24% of the labor force in Garfield County and 31% of the
labor force in Pitkin County are age 55 or older. Across communities in the region
this share ranges from 14% in New Castle to 47% in Snowmass Village. Areas with
higher labor force participation from older residents will likely see high retirement
rates in the coming years.
Table 4. Labor Force by Age, 2023
Description
Garfield
County
Pitkin
County Aspen
Snowmass
Village Basalt Carbondale
Glenwood
Springs
New
Castle Silt Rifle Parachute
16 to 19 years 5%2%0%5%4%3%7%0%4%7%16%
20 to 24 years 9%7%11%0%6%7%10%12%6%14%12%
25 to 29 years 10%9%5%13%6%10%8%10%16%10%10%
30 to 34 years 11%10%14%5%9%9%16%14%6%13%8%
35 to 44 years 22%20%21%11%30%23%22%18%25%21%18%
45 to 54 years 19%22%26%19%12%26%15%31%27%17%14%
55 to 59 years 8%10%7%10%9%7%7%3%7%8%6%
60 to 64 years 8%8%6%16%6%5%8%7%4%6%6%
65 to 74 years 7%11%6%21%15%10%5%5%5%3%8%
75 years and over 1%2%2%0%2%0%1%0%0%0%2%
Total 100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
Age 55+24%31%22%47%32%22%21%14%17%18%22%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic & Planning Systems
22
23
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 Demographic Trends
Households
Household growth trends are similar to population, with growth focused in
Garfield County.
As shown in Table 5, Pitkin County added households from 2010 to 2015, and lost
households from 2015 to 2023. Garfield County added households during both
these time periods, with faster growth since 2015 (average of 279 new households
per year) than from 2010 to 2015 (173 new households per year). When compared
to population growth, household growth is faster, indicating a likely increase in
smaller households (a decline in average household size).
Table 5. Household Growth, 2010-2023
Households 2010 2015 2020 2023 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Pitkin County 7,825 8,299 8,034 7,981 474 95 1.2%-318 -40 -0.5%
Aspen 3,517 3,729 3,542 3,478 212 42 1.2%-251 -31 -0.9%
Snowmass Village 1,327 1,446 1,389 1,391 119 24 1.7%-55 -7 -0.5%
Basalt (part)392 416 477 508 24 5 1.2%92 12 2.5%
Unincorp. Pitkin County 2,589 2,708 2,626 2,604 119 24 0.9%-104 -13 -0.5%
Garfield County 19,921 20,786 22,423 23,021 865 173 0.9%2,235 279 1.3%
Carbondale 2,203 2,271 2,426 2,491 68 14 0.6%220 28 1.2%
Glenwood Springs 3,766 3,809 3,936 4,023 43 9 0.2%214 27 0.7%
New Castle 1,518 1,580 1,818 1,850 62 12 0.8%270 34 2.0%
Silt 1,036 1,087 1,179 1,256 51 10 1.0%169 21 1.8%
Rifle 3,268 3,406 3,591 3,689 138 28 0.8%283 35 1.0%
Parachute 368 433 504 507 65 13 3.3%74 9 2.0%
Unincorp. Garfield County 7,762 8,200 8,969 9,205 438 88 1.1%1,005 126 1.5%
Eagle County 18,902 19,553 20,819 21,120 651 130 0.7%1,567 196 1.0%
Basalt (part)1,134 1,138 1,282 1,334 4 1 0.1%196 25 2.0%
Source: CO State Demography Office, Economic & Planning Systems
2010-2015 Change 2015-2023 Change
2324
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 Demographic Trends
Forecasted household growth is expected to follow similar trends as population.
As with population, the number of households in Pitkin County is expected to
remain stable at around 8,000, while Garfield County is expected to add 5,300 new
households by 2035, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Forecast Household Growth to 2035
24
25
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 Demographic Trends
Household size varies throughout the valleys, with larger households in the
Colorado River Valley.
As shown in Table 6, average household size has decreased in every community
except Glenwood Springs since 2010. In general, Pitkin County communities have
lower household sizes than Garfield County communities. Aspen has the lowest
average household size, at 1.65 persons, while Parachute has the highest, at 2.82.
Table 6. Average Household Size, 2010-2023
Description 2010 2018 2023
Pitkin County 2.09 2.53 1.88 -0.2
Garfield County 2.73 2.73 2.64 -0.09
Aspen 1.88 2.32 1.65 -0.23
Snowmass Village 2.12 2.24 1.88 -0.24
Basalt 2.41 2.19 2.16 -0.25
Carbondale 2.81 2.89 2.24 -0.57
Glenwood Springs 2.50 2.43 2.58 0.08
New Castle 2.88 3.07 2.61 -0.27
Silt 2.97 2.77 2.81 -0.16
Rifle 2.81 2.81 2.77 -0.04
Parachute 2.92 2.69 2.82 -0.10
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic & Planning Systems
2010-2023
Change
25
26
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 Demographic Trends
Household types vary throughout the region, with family households (related
household members) more common in Garfield County.
As shown in Table 7, there is a higher share of family households in Garfield County
(68%) than in Pitkin County (48%). Silt has the highest share of family households,
at 78%. In general, the further down-valley and west along I-70 a community is, the
more family households (and fewer households with unrelated members) it has.
Table 7. Household Types, 2010-2023
Description 2010 2018 2023
Family Households
Pitkin County 48%49%48%
Garfield County 70%72%68%
Aspen 39%43%38%
Snowmass Village 48%42%49%
Basalt 58%50%61%
Carbondale 63%64%59%
Glenwood Springs 60%57%56%
New Castle 76%81%64%
Silt 77%77%78%
Rifle 69%75%70%
Parachute 65%66%68%
Non-Family Households
Pitkin County 52%51%52%
Garfield County 30%28%32%
Aspen 61%57%62%
Snowmass Village 52%58%51%
Basalt 42%50%39%
Carbondale 37%36%41%
Glenwood Springs 40%43%44%
New Castle 24%19%36%
Silt 23%23%22%
Rifle 31%25%30%
Parachute 35%34%32%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic & Planning Systems
2627
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 Demographic Trends
In the next 10 years, Pitkin County is not expected to add many new households
with children, while 25% of Garfield County’s household growth is expected to be
households with children.
As shown in Table 8, the State Demography Office (SDO) projects that Pitkin
County will only add 200 households by 2035, representing 0.2% average annual
growth, and there is expected to be a slight decrease in households with children.
In Garfield County, SDO projects 1.8% average annual growth in households, an
increase of over 5,300 households by 2035. Over 1,300 of these are expected to be
households with children. These projections align with other data presented in this
report indicating that households with kids are increasingly moving into the lower
Roaring Fork Valley and the Colorado River Valley, where homes are less
expensive and families can better afford the size of home they are looking for (i.e.,
not having a family share 1 or 2 bedrooms).
Table 8. Household Growth by Household Type, 2010-2035
Description 2010 2018 2023 2030 2035 Total Ann. #Ann. %
Pitkin County
One adult no kids 2,088 2,313 2,289 2,351 2,375 86 7 0.3%
One adult with kids 316 347 334 333 333 -1 0 0.0%
More than one adult no kids 3,380 3,684 3,604 3,699 3,731 127 11 0.3%
More than one adult with kids 2,042 1,859 1,754 1,747 1,745 -9 -1 0.0%
Total 7,825 8,203 7,981 8,129 8,184 203 17 0.2%
Garfield County
One adult no kids 5,178 5,853 6,365 7,286 7,927 1,562 130 1.8%
One adult with kids 852 1,008 1,048 1,125 1,260 212 18 1.5%
More than one adult no kids 8,386 9,382 10,126 11,547 12,573 2,447 204 1.8%
More than one adult with kids 5,504 5,393 5,482 5,901 6,590 1,108 92 1.5%
Total 19,921 21,636 23,021 25,860 28,349 5,328 444 1.8%
Source: CO State Demography Office, Economic & Planning Systems
2023-2035ProjectionEstimate
27
28
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Demographic Trends
Income
Median household income is approximately $100,000 in Pitkin County and
$86,000 in Garfield County, and has increased in all communities since 2010.
As shown in Table 9, the median household income in Pitkin County increased by
over 50% between 2010 and 2023, while in Garfield County it increased by 33%.
Most of this increase came between 2018 and 2023. This is likely the result of
multiple factors, including new residents moving to the region with incomes not
tied to local jobs, and is not necessarily a result of increasing wages.
Table 9. Median Household Income, 2010-2023
Median Income 2010 2018 2023 Total Ann. #Ann. %
Pitkin County $64,502 $71,244 $100,318 $35,816 $2,755 3.5%
Garfield County $64,902 $72,898 $86,172 $21,270 $1,636 2.2%
Aspen $62,458 $72,973 $78,636 $16,178 $1,244 1.8%
Snowmass Village $58,478 $61,273 $107,559 $49,081 $3,775 4.8%
Basalt $65,625 $72,167 $106,000 $40,375 $3,106 3.8%
Carbondale $63,971 $78,438 $94,300 $30,329 $2,333 3.0%
Glenwood Springs $53,882 $63,248 $87,000 $33,118 $2,548 3.8%
New Castle $65,964 $98,864 $88,421 $22,457 $1,727 2.3%
Silt $58,790 $57,011 $86,484 $27,694 $2,130 3.0%
Rifle $67,647 $64,832 $80,629 $12,982 $999 1.4%
Parachute $42,784 $45,357 $58,910 $16,126 $1,240 2.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic & Planning Systems
2010-2023
28
29
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 Demographic Trends
Pitkin and Garfield County have seen different trends in sources of income, with
most income in Pitkin County coming from investments, rather than wages or
transfer receipts.
The composition of household income indicates the nature of current conditions
and change in a community. Income typically comes from three sources – wage and
salary (i.e., a paycheck), investments (stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.), and transfer
receipts (income payments for which no services are performed – primarily
government benefits, such as social security).
As shown in Figure 5, personal income in Pitkin County comes primarily from
investments (nearly 65%). This share of income has remained stable since 2010.
Over this time period transfer receipts decreased slightly as a share of income
(from 4.8 to 3.9%), while wages and salary increased slightly.
In Garfield County, wages and salary have decreased as a share of personal income
(from 60 to 55%), while investment income has increased along with a small
increase in transfer receipts. This trend indicates slow change in Garfield County
where new residents may not be working in the county, and/or may not be relying
on employment for their income.
Additionally, an increase in the share of income from transfer receipts is often seen
in communities with an aging population. The absence of this trend in these
communities (with a small increase in Garfield and a decrease in Pitkin) indicates
that the area’s aging population is either still working or relying on investment
income and not receiving significant government benefits, the latter being more
likely in Pitkin County.
Figure 5. Income by Source, 2010-2023
29
30
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 Economic Trends
3. Economic Trends
Employment
Garfield County has nearly 1.5 times as many jobs as Pitkin County.
As shown in Table 10, there were approximately 27,000 jobs in Garfield County in
2023, compared to just under 18,000 jobs in Pitkin County. Employment in both
counties has surpassed 2020 levels, recovering from decreases seen during early
COVID-19 in late 2020 and through 2021.
Pitkin County employment increased slightly faster than Garfield County between
2015-2023, a reversal of trends from 2010-2015.
Between 2010 and 2015 Pitkin County added an average of 165 jobs per year, or
average annual growth of 1.1%. In contrast, Garfield County added an average of
508 jobs per year over this same time period, average annual growth of 2.1%.
From 2015 to 2023 this trend reversed, with Pitkin County adding an average of
233 new jobs per year (1.4% average annual growth), compared to 168 jobs per
year in Garfield County (0.6% average growth).
Table 10. Regional Employment, 2010-2023
Description 2010 2015 2020 2023 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Pitkin County 15,003 15,826 15,215 17,687 823 165 1.1%1,861 233 1.4%
Garfield County 23,095 25,634 24,727 26,981 2,539 508 2.1%1,347 168 0.6%
Source: CO Dept. of Labor and Employment, Economic & Planning Systems
2010-2015 2015-2023
30
31
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 Economic Trends
In Pitkin County, the largest employment industries are those related to tourism,
with nearly half of jobs in Accommodation & Food Services (25%), Arts &
Recreation (13%), and Retail Trade (8%).
As shown in Table 11, Accommodation & Food Services and Arts & Recreation are
the largest employment sectors in Pitkin County. These industries have been two
of the largest growth sectors since 2010. Real Estate (7%) and Public
Administration (9%) also contribute a significant number of jobs to the county,
although Real Estate jobs have decreased slightly since 2015.
Table 11. Pitkin County Employment by Industry, 2010-2023
Total Employment 2010 2015 2023 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Pitkin County
Ag./Forestry/Fishing 56 91 102 35 7 10.2%11 1 1.4%
Mining ---------------------------
Utilities 58 57 52 -1 0 -0.3%-5 -1 -1.1%
Construction 751 737 742 -14 -3 -0.4%5 1 0.1%
Manufacturing 97 112 111 15 3 2.9%-1 0 -0.1%
Wholesale Trade 83 70 126 -13 -3 -3.3%56 7 7.6%
Retail Trade 1,247 1,381 1,470 134 27 2.1%89 11 0.8%
Transport./Warehousing 191 215 412 24 5 2.4%197 25 8.5%
Information 191 170 126 -21 -4 -2.3%-44 -6 -3.7%
Finance 283 227 257 -56 -11 -4.3%30 4 1.6%
Real Estate 1,143 1,297 1,269 154 31 2.6%-28 -4 -0.3%
Prof./Tech Services 725 721 918 -4 -1 -0.1%197 25 3.1%
Management 32 61 103 29 6 13.8%42 5 6.8%
Admin. and Waste Services 1,278 924 988 -354 -71 -6.3%64 8 0.8%
Education 638 667 665 29 6 0.9%-2 0 0.0%
Health Care 730 798 871 68 14 1.8%73 9 1.1%
Arts/Rec.1,798 2,141 2,664 1 343 69 3.6%523 65 2.8%
Accomm./Food Services 3,907 4,205 4,451 298 60 1.5%246 31 0.7%
Other (ex. Public Admin.)673 721 826 48 10 1.4%105 13 1.7%
Public Admin.1,112 1,231 1,524 119 24 2.1%293 37 2.7%
Unclassified ------7 ------------------
Total 15,003 15,826 17,687 823 165 1.1%1,861 233 1.4%
1 2023 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (NAICS 71) total employment sourced through BLS, due to undisclosed data on CDLE
Note: Total employment may not sum due to undisclosed data
Source: CO Dept. of Labor and Employment (CDLE), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Economic & Planning Systems
2010-2015 2015-2023
31
32
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 Economic Trends
Garfield County has a more diverse distribution of employment across sectors
than Pitkin County. Most job growth since 2015 has been in Construction and
Health Care.
As shown in Table 12, Construction and Health Care each accounts for 14% of jobs
in the county and have also added the most jobs since 2015. Other significant
employment sectors are Retail Trade (12% of jobs), Accommodation & Food
Services (11% of jobs), and Education (10% of jobs). Professional & Technical
Services and Arts & Recreation, while comprising a smaller share of overall jobs,
have seen the fastest growth since 2015.
Table 12. Garfield County Employment by Industry, 2010-2023
Total Employment 2010 2015 2023 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Garfield County
Ag./Forestry/Fishing 155 214 200 59 12 6.7%-14 -2 -0.8%
Mining 1,896 1,468 863 -428 -86 -5.0%-605 -76 -6.4%
Utilities 239 323 304 84 17 6.2%-19 -2 -0.8%
Construction 2,754 3,167 3,682 413 83 2.8%515 64 1.9%
Manufacturing 287 388 349 101 20 6.2%-39 -5 -1.3%
Wholesale Trade 712 710 547 -2 0 -0.1%-163 -20 -3.2%
Retail Trade 2,905 3,056 3,142 151 30 1.0%86 11 0.3%
Transport./Warehousing 716 816 639 100 20 2.6%-177 -22 -3.0%
Information 218 208 305 -10 -2 -0.9%97 12 4.9%
Finance 538 522 543 -16 -3 -0.6%21 3 0.5%
Real Estate 622 702 677 80 16 2.4%-25 -3 -0.5%
Prof./Tech Services 988 1,082 1,421 94 19 1.8%339 42 3.5%
Management 148 150 195 2 0 0.3%45 6 3.3%
Admin. and Waste Services 788 1,200 1,190 412 82 8.8%-10 -1 -0.1%
Education 2,430 2,642 2,796 212 42 1.7%154 19 0.7%
Health Care 2,509 3,116 3,679 607 121 4.4%563 70 2.1%
Arts/Rec.330 413 741 83 17 4.6%328 41 7.6%
Accomm./Food Services 2,432 2,979 3,093 547 109 4.1%114 14 0.5%
Other (ex. Public Admin.)632 730 777 98 20 2.9%47 6 0.8%
Public Admin.1,796 1,739 1,832 -57 -11 -0.6%93 12 0.7%
Unclassified ------8 ------------------
Total 23,095 25,634 26,981 2,539 508 2.1%1,347 168 0.6%
Note: Total employment may not sum due to undisclosed data
Source: CO Dept. of Labor and Employment (CDLE), Economic & Planning Systems
2010-2015 2015-2023
32
33
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 Economic Trends
In addition to breaking jobs down by industry, looking at jobs by occupation (the
type of role) is useful in understanding the nature of employment.
As shown in Table 13, 17% of jobs in Pitkin County are in food preparation and
serving related occupations, 11% are in sales and related occupations, and 10% are
in office and administrative support. Since 2019, the share of jobs in food
preparation and serving has more than doubled (from 8.1% to 16.8%), while a
number of other occupations, including healthcare support, protective service,
building and grounds cleaning/maintenance, and construction, have seen their
share of jobs decrease.
Table 13. Pitkin County Employment Share by Occupation, 2019-2024
Total Employment Share 2019 2024
Pitkin County
Management 4.4%5.7%
Business and Financial Operations 6.4%7.4%
Computer and Mathematical 1.5%1.3%
Architecture and Engineering 1.8%1.7%
Life, Physical, and Social Science 0.6%0.7%
Community and Social Service 1.0%0.7%
Legal 1.0%0.9%
Educational Instruction and Library 4.1%4.1%
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 3.5%2.1%
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 1.2%2.6%
Healthcare Support 1.3%0.7%
Protective Service 4.0%2.3%
Food Preparation and Serving Related 8.1%16.8%
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 10.7%7.2%
Personal Care and Service 7.5%6.6%
Sales and Related 10.2%11.1%
Office and Administrative Support 12.4%10.2%
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 0.2%0.6%
Construction and Extraction 6.6%4.1%
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 5.8%6.0%
Production 2.0%1.7%
Transportation and Material Moving 5.5%5.6%
Total 100.0%100.0%
Source: CO Dept. of Labor and Employment OEWS, Economic & Planning Systems
33
34
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 Economic Trends
As shown in Table 14, in Garfield County 11% of jobs are in each of sales and related
occupations, office and administrative support, and construction and extraction,
with 10% of jobs in food preparation and serving. Food preparation and serving
jobs also increased between 2019 and 2024, from 3.9% to 10.0% of total jobs.
Table 14. Garfield County Employment Share by Occupation, 2019-2024
Total Employment Share 2019 2024
Garfield County
Management 4.3%5.2%
Business and Financial Operations 4.3%5.5%
Computer and Mathematical 1.2%1.2%
Architecture and Engineering 1.8%1.5%
Life, Physical, and Social Science 1.0%0.9%
Community and Social Service 1.9%1.9%
Legal 0.7%0.7%
Educational Instruction and Library 12.5%6.7%
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 1.3%1.2%
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 6.6%5.8%
Healthcare Support 2.7%2.9%
Protective Service 2.6%2.6%
Food Preparation and Serving Related 3.9%10.0%
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 5.1%4.4%
Personal Care and Service 3.0%2.7%
Sales and Related 8.0%10.7%
Office and Administrative Support 11.8%10.7%
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 0.2%0.2%
Construction and Extraction 12.4%11.1%
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 5.3%5.1%
Production 2.2%2.1%
Transportation and Material Moving 7.1%7.0%
Total 100.0%100.0%
Source: CO Dept. of Labor and Employment OEWS, Economic & Planning Systems
34
35
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 Economic Trends
Wages
Broken down by occupation, wages are similar in Pitkin County and Garfield
County but vary significantly based on the type of work being done.
As shown in Table 15 and Table 16, the overall wage distribution is similar in Pitkin
and Garfield Counties, with the 25th percentile wage around $41,000, median wage
around $53,000, and 75th percentile wage around $76,000. Across occupations,
the median wage varies from a low of around $37,000 in food preparation and
serving to a high of between $160,000-$180,000 in legal occupations. Among
lower-paying occupations, wage differences between counties are more significant
at the higher end of the wage distribution (75th percentile) than the lower end (25th
percentile), indicating that it may become increasingly difficult for Pitkin County
employers to attract entry-level workers. If wages are similar between counties
and housing costs are lower in Garfield County, more workers are likely to choose
to both live and work in Garfield County.
Table 15. Pitkin County Wages by Occupation, 2024
25th Median 75th
Wages Percentile Wage Percentile
Pitkin County
Management $86,473 $120,781 $158,386
Business and Financial Operations $61,540 $79,555 $106,960
Computer and Mathematical $78,478 $92,064 $121,339
Architecture and Engineering $62,859 $81,431 $102,710
Life, Physical, and Social Science $73,695 $73,695 $96,307
Community and Social Service $57,864 $67,139 $85,248
Legal $89,485 $127,845 $160,286
Educational Instruction and Library $46,085 $57,978 $78,410
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media $48,104 $65,330 $85,866
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical $79,555 $107,587 $131,652
Healthcare Support $44,857 $56,450 $61,107
Protective Service $49,864 $68,517 $79,350
Food Preparation and Serving Related $33,523 $38,661 $53,321
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance $38,189 $46,390 $56,138
Personal Care and Service $39,067 $45,996 $51,473
Sales and Related $36,181 $45,549 $63,653
Office and Administrative Support $42,488 $49,816 $64,463
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry $39,520 $46,205 $65,617
Construction and Extraction $48,610 $58,174 $72,989
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair $47,864 $59,608 $75,041
Production $39,078 $46,592 $58,760
Transportation and Material Moving $38,910 $56,018 $76,851
Total - All Occupations $40,980 $54,080 $76,851
Source: CO Dept. of Labor and Employment OEWS, Economic & Planning Systems
35
36
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 Economic Trends
Table 16. Garfield County Wages by Occupation, 2024
25th Median 75th
Wages Percentile Wage Percentile
Garfield County
Management $85,873 $119,989 $158,850
Business and Financial Operations $60,847 $78,881 $106,469
Computer and Mathematical $75,166 $92,786 $125,260
Architecture and Engineering $68,133 $85,815 $111,114
Life, Physical, and Social Science $60,882 $74,963 $96,307
Community and Social Service $47,575 $60,679 $75,054
Legal $79,889 $122,949 $184,694
Educational Instruction and Library $42,537 $54,767 $63,647
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media $47,104 $60,412 $80,380
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical $71,112 $99,832 $124,680
Healthcare Support $41,694 $46,980 $50,970
Protective Service $43,541 $60,029 $75,331
Food Preparation and Serving Related $31,040 $36,348 $46,311
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance $36,487 $43,818 $50,919
Personal Care and Service $33,844 $38,647 $53,631
Sales and Related $35,159 $42,742 $57,540
Office and Administrative Support $42,608 $49,317 $61,281
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry $35,675 $43,819 $53,947
Construction and Extraction $47,888 $58,195 $70,720
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair $47,495 $61,224 $78,488
Production $40,384 $49,635 $72,203
Transportation and Material Moving $40,148 $47,493 $60,089
Total - All Occupations $40,755 $52,374 $75,846
Source: CO Dept. of Labor and Employment OEWS, Economic & Planning Systems
36
37
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 Economic Trends
Some of the lowest wages are in occupations with the highest employment levels.
In Pitkin County, five of the top six occupations (by employment) earn less than the
county median wage of $54,000. Food preparation and serving jobs account for
17% of employment, and have the lowest median wage ($38,700). As shown in
Figure 6, the two next-largest employment sectors also have some of the lowest
wages, with sales jobs accounting for 11% of employment (median wage of
$45,500) and office and administrative support jobs accounting for 10% of
employment (median wage of $49,800).
Figure 6. Pitkin County Employment and Median Wages by Occupation, 2024
% Employment Occupation Median Annual Wage
Pitkin County Median Wage
Pitkin County $54,080
16.8%Food Preparation and Serving Related $38,661
11.1%Sales and Related $45,549
10.2%Office and Administrative Support $49,816
7.4%Business and Financial Operations $79,555
7.2%Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance $46,390
6.6%Personal Care and Service $45,996
6.0%Installation, Maintenance, and Repair $59,608
5.7%Management $120,781
5.6%Transportation and Material Moving $56,018
4.1%Educational Instruction and Library $57,978
4.1%Construction and Extraction $58,174
2.6%Healthcare Practitioners and Technical $107,587
2.3%Protective Service $68,517
2.1%Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media $65,330
1.7%Architecture and Engineering $81,431
1.7%Production $46,592
1.3%Computer and Mathematical $92,064
0.9%Legal $127,845
0.7%Life, Physical, and Social Science $73,695
0.7%Community and Social Service $67,139
0.7%Healthcare Support $56,450
0.6%Farming, Fishing, and Forestry $46,205
Source: CO Dept. of Labor and Employment OEWS, Economic & Planning Systems
37
38
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 Economic Trends
In Garfield County, wages for top jobs are slightly higher, with construction
accounting for 11% of jobs with a median wage of $58,200 (higher than the overall
median). As shown in Figure 7, the next three largest employment sectors account
for between 10% and 11% of jobs, and have median wages of $36,000-$49,000
(sales, office and administrative support, and food preparation and serving).
Figure 7. Garfield County Employment and Median Wages by Occupation, 2024
% Employment Occupation Median Annual Wage
Garfield County Median Wage
Garfield County $52,374
11.1%Construction and Extraction $58,195
10.7%Sales and Related $42,742
10.7%Office and Administrative Support $49,317
10.0%Food Preparation and Serving Related $36,348
7.0%Transportation and Material Moving $47,493
6.7%Educational Instruction and Library $54,767
5.8%Healthcare Practitioners and Technical $99,832
5.5%Business and Financial Operations $78,881
5.2%Management $119,989
5.1%Installation, Maintenance, and Repair $61,224
4.4%Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance $43,818
2.9%Healthcare Support $46,980
2.7%Personal Care and Service $38,647
2.6%Protective Service $60,029
2.1%Production $49,635
1.9%Community and Social Service $60,679
1.5%Architecture and Engineering $85,815
1.2%Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media $60,412
1.2%Computer and Mathematical $92,786
0.9%Life, Physical, and Social Science $74,963
0.7%Legal $122,949
0.2%Farming, Fishing, and Forestry $43,819
Source: CO Dept. of Labor and Employment OEWS, Economic & Planning Systems
38
39
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 Economic Trends
Commuting
Due to the long linear geography of the region, there are higher rates of commuting
throughout the Roaring Fork Valley and Colorado River Valley. There are higher
rates of commuting into Pitkin County, however, as a significant number of people
commute long distances (25 or more miles each way) into Pitkin County.
As shown in Table 17, in 2022 (the most recent year data is available) 62% of Pitkin
county employees lived outside of the county. Given that the area of Basalt and
Carbondale encompasses three counties (Pitkin, Garfield, and Eagle), a higher level
of in-commuting than other counties is to be expected. When commutes are
considered by distance, however, conditions of commuting in the valley become
clearer. Nearly 25% of Pitkin County employees commute more than 50 miles each
way, with another 17% commuting between 25 and 50 miles. These are likely to be
long inter-county commutes (it is approximately 21 miles between Aspen and
Basalt).
In Garfield County, only 33% of employees commute in from outside of the county.
While 23% of workers commute 50 miles or longer, these can be intra-county
commutes.
Table 17. Commuting Patterns, 2022
Commuting Patterns
Pitkin
County
Garfield
County
All Employees
Living and Working in the same county 38.4%67.0%
Commuting into the county 61.6%33.0%
Commute Distance
Less than 10 miles 32.8%38.8%
10 to 24 miles 25.7%27.1%
25 to 50 miles 16.9%10.9%
Greater than 50 miles 24.6%23.3%
Source: LEHD; Economic & Planning Systems
39
40
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 Housing Inventory
4. Housing Inventory
Housing Units
There are nearly twice as many housing units in Garfield County as in Pitkin
County, and Garfield County added units faster than Pitkin County from 2015 to
2023.
As shown in Table 18, Garfield County had just over 25,000 housing units in 2023,
nearly twice the 13,600 units in Pitkin County (despite having nearly four times the
population, indicating that many housing units in Pitkin County are not used by full-
time residents).
From 2010 to 2015, both counties added housing slowly, averaging fewer than 75
new units per year (73 in Pitkin County and 62 in Garfield County). Growth in both
counties increased from 2015 to 2023, with Pitkin County adding an average of 95
new units per year over this time, and Garfield County adding an average of 233 new
units per year. Within municipalities, Basalt has seen the most significant growth
since 2015, increasing housing units at an average of 2.6% (52 units) per year.
Table 18. Housing Units, 2010-2023
Housing Units 2010 2015 2023 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Pitkin County 12,488 12,853 13,612 365 73 0.6%759 95 0.7%
Aspen 5,931 6,067 6,301 136 27 0.5%234 29 0.5%
Snowmass Village 2,355 2,478 2,697 123 25 1.0%219 27 1.1%
Basalt 1 1,832 1,834 2,249 2 0 0.0%415 52 2.6%
Unincorp. Pitkin County 3,688 3,794 3,975 106 21 0.6%181 23 0.6%
Garfield County 22,892 23,201 25,068 309 62 0.3%1,867 233 1.0%
Carbondale 2,426 2,471 2,677 45 9 0.4%206 26 1.0%
Glenwood Springs 4,118 4,176 4,445 58 12 0.3%269 34 0.8%
New Castle 1,668 1,695 1,944 27 5 0.3%249 31 1.7%
Silt 1,136 1,161 1,337 25 5 0.4%176 22 1.8%
Rifle 3,696 3,714 3,901 18 4 0.1%187 23 0.6%
Parachute 537 539 547 2 0 0.1%8 1 0.2%
Unincorp. Garfield County 9,311 9,445 10,217 134 27 0.3%772 97 1.0%
1 Basalt figures represent a total of values within both Pitkin and Eagle Counties
Source: CO State Demography Office, Economic & Planning Systems
2010-2015 Change 2015-2023 Change
4041
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 Housing Inventory
Housing Occupancy
Occupancy rates are much lower in Pitkin County than in Garfield County and have
decreased since 2010.
In most mountain resort communities, housing vacancy is indicative of second/
vacation homes and timeshare/fractional ownership, rather than traditionally
vacant homes (for sale or for rent). This is the case in Pitkin County more than
Garfield County. As shown in Figure 8, housing vacancy in Pitkin County increased
from 37.3% in 2010 to 41.4% in 2023. While high, this is a lower vacancy rate than
many peer resort communities, which can reach 60% or higher. Over this same
time period Garfield County saw decreasing vacancy rates, from 11% in 2010 to
8.2% in 2023, numbers that are more in line with communities that have more
traditional (non-resort) housing markets.
Figure 8. Housing Occupancy, 2010-2023
4142
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29 Housing Inventory
Tenure
Countywide, there are similar proportions of owners (70%) and renters (30%) in
both Pitkin and Garfield Counties, however there are significant differences
across municipalities.
As shown in Table 19, in 2023 both Pitkin and Garfield Counties had approximately
70% homeowners and 30% renters (percentages reflect occupied homes, and do
not include vacant units/second homes/vacation rentals). Within municipalities
there is more variation, ranging from fewer than 60% homeowners in Aspen,
Basalt, Glenwood Springs, and Parachute, to over 70% homeowners in Snowmass
Village, New Castle, Silt, and Rifle.
Table 19. Housing Tenure, 2010-2023
Description 2010 2018 2023
Owners
Pitkin County 60%65%68%
Garfield County 66%67%70%
Aspen 53%59%59%
Snowmass Village 54%57%71%
Basalt 63%67%58%
Carbondale 58%59%64%
Glenwood Springs 54%53%53%
New Castle 71%69%71%
Silt 73%64%74%
Rifle 57%63%71%
Parachute 56%45%52%
Renters
Pitkin County 40%35%32%
Garfield County 34%33%30%
Aspen 47%41%41%
Snowmass Village 46%43%29%
Basalt 37%33%42%
Carbondale 42%41%36%
Glenwood Springs 46%47%47%
New Castle 29%31%29%
Silt 27%36%26%
Rifle 43%37%29%
Parachute 44%55%48%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic & Planning Systems
42
43
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30 Housing Inventory
Since 2010, most communities have seen an increase in homeownership and
decrease in renters.
Countywide, owner-occupied units increased from 60% to 68% in Pitkin County
and from 66% to 70% in Garfield County. This trend did not occur evenly across the
counties, however, as Basalt and Parachute saw an increase in the share of renter-
occupied households over this time, and Glenwood Springs, New Castle, and Silt
saw their owner/renter splits remain relatively stable.
Affordable Inventory
There are nearly 4,500 units of affordable housing in the region, with over 90% of
that in Pitkin County.
As shown in Table 20, there are over 4,100 units of affordable housing in Pitkin
County, accounting for 30% of the regional housing inventory. Seventy percent of
Pitkin County’s affordable housing is in Aspen, and nearly half of the city’s housing
inventory is affordable housing.
In Garfield County, affordable housing is primarily in Carbondale (64% of
affordable units in the county) and Glenwood Springs (31% of units). Countywide,
only 1% of housing units are programmatically or deed-restricted affordable
housing (compared to 30% in Pitkin County). Regionwide, 56% of affordable
housing is for sale and 44% is rental housing.
Table 20. Affordable Housing Inventory
Description Rental Ownership Unknown Total Count % Aff.
Pitkin County
Aspen 1,325 1,584 2 2,911 6,301 46.2%
Snowmass Village 485 353 0 838 2,697 31.1%
Basalt 43 251 0 294 1,610 18.3%
Unincorporated Pitkin County 14 74 0 88 3,975 2.2%
Total Pitkin County 1,867 2,262 2 4,131 13,612 30.3%
Garfield County
Carbondale 58 154 11 223 2,677 8.3%
Glenwood Springs 26 35 47 108 4,445 2.4%
New Castle 0 0 0 0 1,944 0.0%
Parachute 0 0 0 0 547 0.0%
Rifle 0 16 0 16 3,901 0.4%
Silt 0 0 0 0 1,337 0.0%
Unincorporated Garfield Coun 0 0 0 0 10,217 0.0%
Total Garfield County 84 205 58 347 25,068 1.4%
Total 1,951 2,467 60 4,478 38,680 11.6%
Source: CO State Demoraphy Office (SDO), Local planning offices, Economic & Planning Systems
Affordable Housing All Housing (2023)
4344
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31 Housing Market Trends
5. Housing Market Trends
Home Sales
Housing prices throughout the region have increased significantly, especially since
2010. To best group similar market dynamics, the sales market is analyzed by
subarea, including the Upper Valley, Mid Valley, Lower Valley, and Colorado River
Valley.
Upper Roaring Fork Valley
The median priced home in the Upper Valley was $3.5 million in 2024, up from
$1.9 million in 2015 and $2.8 million in 2020.
As shown in Table 21, the median sale price increased at 8.3% annually between
2015 and 2020, and 5.7% annually between 2020 and 2025. The fastest price
increase was in condos, which saw an annual increase of 22% per year from 2020
to 2024.
Table 21. Upper Valley Median Sale Price by Unit Type, 2015-2024
Median Sale Price 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Upper Roaring Fork Valley
Single-Family Residence $4,675,000 $5,122,500 $7,175,000 $447,500 $89,500 1.8%$2,052,500 $513,125 8.8%
Townhouse $3,075,000 $3,125,000 $4,800,000 $50,000 $10,000 0.3%$1,675,000 $418,750 11.3%
Duplex $2,975,000 $3,850,000 $7,187,500 $875,000 $175,000 5.3%$3,337,500 $834,375 16.9%
Condominium $958,500 $1,177,500 $2,620,000 $219,000 $43,800 4.2%$1,442,500 $360,625 22.1%
Sub-Region Total $1,900,000 $2,830,000 $3,533,000 $930,000 $186,000 8.3%$703,000 $175,750 5.7%
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Medians exclude conditions with less than 2 sales.
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
44
45
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32 Housing Market Trends
Single family homes are the most expensive product type in the Upper Valley, far
out of reach for most households.
In 2024, the median sale price for a single family home was $7.3 million in Aspen,
$7.5 million in Snowmass Village, and $2.7 million in Snowmass. As shown in Table
22, while prices for these homes have consistently been high (median prices have
been over $1 million since at least 2015), they have increased significantly in
recent years. In Snowmass Village, between 2020 and 2024 the median price of a
single family home increased by an average of nearly $1 million per year (20%
average growth). Aspen saw a lower average increase (an average of $60,000 per
year), but the median sale price was already over $7 million in 2020.
Table 22. Upper Valley Single-Family Residence Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024
Upper Roaring Fork Valley
Single-Family Residence 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Median Sale Price
Aspen $5,600,000 $7,061,250 $7,300,000 $1,461,250 $292,250 4.7%$238,750 $59,688 0.8%
Snowmass Village $2,805,000 $3,623,750 $7,500,000 $818,750 $163,750 5.3%$3,876,250 $969,063 19.9%
Snowmass $1,225,000 $2,325,000 $2,676,563 $1,100,000 $220,000 13.7%$351,563 $87,891 3.6%
Sub-Region Total $4,675,000 $5,122,500 $7,175,000 $447,500 $89,500 1.8%$2,052,500 $513,125 8.8%
Sale Volume
Aspen 103 140 40 569 95 402 80
Snowmass Village 35 68 27 275 46 234 47
Snowmass 13 27 14 98 16 98 20
Sub-Region Total 153 242 83 974 162 754 151
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Sub-Regional Total includes geographies with small number of sales
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
45
46
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 33 Housing Market Trends
Townhomes are also expensive in the Upper Valley, although sales volume
decreased significantly in 2024.
As shown in Table 23, the median townhome price in Snowmass Village more than
doubled between 2020 and 2024, while the number of sales fell by half. In Aspen,
the median price actually decreased slightly (by 1.7%), after increasing by an
average of $430,000 per year between 2015 and 2020. However, only five
townhomes were sold in Aspen in 2024, compared to 41 in 2020.
Table 23. Upper Valley Townhouse Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024
Upper Roaring Fork Valley
Townhouse 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Median Sale Price
Aspen $3,700,000 $5,850,000 $5,459,250 $2,150,000 $430,000 9.6%-$390,750 -$97,688 -1.7%
Snowmass Village $1,635,000 $2,230,000 $4,587,500 $595,000 $119,000 6.4%$2,357,500 $589,375 19.8%
Sub-Region Total $3,075,000 $3,125,000 $4,800,000 $50,000 $10,000 0.3%$1,675,000 $418,750 11.3%
Sale Volume
Aspen 24 41 5 156 26 90 18
Snowmass Village 12 33 16 107 18 97 19
Sub-Region Total 36 74 21 263 44 188 38
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Medians exclude conditions with less than 2 sales.
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
4647
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 34 Housing Market Trends
Condominiums, which are often a more affordable homeownership option, have
also significantly increased in price.
The median price condo in the Upper Valley was over $2.5 million in 2024. As
shown in Table 24, between 2020 and 2024 the median condo price increased an
average of $184,000 per year in Aspen (8.3% annual increase) and $434,000 in
Snowmass Village (32.6% annual increase).
Table 24. Upper Valley Condominium Unit Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024
Upper Roaring Fork Valley
Condominium 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Median Sale Price
Aspen $1,137,500 $1,965,000 $2,700,000 $827,500 $165,500 11.6%$735,000 $183,750 8.3%
Snowmass Village $685,000 $829,977 $2,565,000 $144,977 $28,995 3.9%$1,735,023 $433,756 32.6%
Sub-Region Total $958,500 $1,177,500 $2,620,000 $219,000 $43,800 4.2%$1,442,500 $360,625 22.1%
Sale Volume
Aspen 125 119 83 650 108 551 110
Snowmass Village 57 134 159 514 86 716 143
Sub-Region Total 182 254 245 1,168 195 1,277 255
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Sub-Regional Total includes geographies with small number of sales
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
47
48
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 35 Housing Market Trends
In 2024, 80% of sales in the Upper Valley were only affordable to households
earning over 400% AMI ($452,400 for a 3-person household).
No sales in 2024 were affordable below 120% AMI. As shown in Figure 9, the share
of sales only affordable to households earning over 400% AMI has increased over
time, while sales affordable to those earning less than 200% AMI have nearly
disappeared.
Figure 9. Upper Valley Sales by AMI, 2015-2024
48
49
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 36 Housing Market Trends
Mid Roaring Fork Valley
In the Mid Valley, prices are lower than the Upper Valley but median sales prices
are still over $1 million for all home types except condominiums.
As shown in Table 25, median sales prices for all home types in the mid valley have
increased by over 10% per year since 2020. Condominiums are the only housing
type with a median sale price under $1 million, but condo prices have increased an
average of 13.3% annually since 2020, from $525,000 to $866,000.
Table 25. Mid Valley Median Sale Price by Unit Type, 2015-2024
Single family homes are the most expensive home type in the Mid Valley, and are
getting increasingly more expensive.
The median price for a single family home has more than doubled since 2015, from
$667,500 to $1.6 million. As shown in Table 26, prices in Basalt and Carbondale
are similar, although Carbondale saw faster price increases from 2015 to 2020,
while prices in Basalt increased more quickly from 2020 to 2024.
Table 26. Middle Valley Single-Family Residence Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024
Median Sale Price 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Mid Roaring Fork Valley
Single-Family Residence $667,500 $1,020,500 $1,575,000 $353,000 $70,600 8.9%$554,500 $138,625 11.5%
Townhouse $501,900 $757,000 $1,289,375 $255,100 $51,020 8.6%$532,375 $133,094 14.2%
Duplex $425,000 $594,000 $1,375,000 $169,000 $33,800 6.9%$781,000 $195,250 23.3%
Condominium $582,000 $525,000 $865,750 -$57,000 -$11,400 -2.0%$340,750 $85,188 13.3%
Sub-Region Total $590,000 $853,929 $1,423,000 $263,929 $52,786 7.7%$569,071 $142,268 13.6%
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Medians exclude conditions with less than 2 sales.
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
Mid Roaring Fork Valley
Single-Family Residence 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Median Sale Price
Basalt $776,000 $1,030,000 $1,817,417 $254,000 $50,800 5.8%$787,417 $196,854 15.3%
Carbondale $627,000 $1,000,000 $1,505,000 $373,000 $74,600 9.8%$505,000 $126,250 10.8%
Sub-Region Total $667,500 $1,020,500 $1,575,000 $353,000 $70,600 8.9%$554,500 $138,625 11.5%
Sale Volume
Basalt 52 72 21 322 54 224 45
Carbondale 136 195 94 963 161 658 132
Sub-Region Total 190 268 118 1,294 216 887 177
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Sub-Regional Total includes geographies with small number of sales
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
49
50
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 37 Housing Market Trends
Townhomes in the Mid Valley are nearly as expensive as single family homes, and
have experienced similar price increases.
In 2015, townhomes in the mid-valley cost around $500,000. As shown in Table 27,
since then median prices have more than doubled—$1.25 million in Basalt and
$1.39 million in Carbondale.
Table 27. Middle Valley Townhouse Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024
Duplexes were a more significant portion of the sales market in Carbondale in
2015 and 2020, but sales declined (and prices increased) in 2024.
As shown in Table 28, from 2015 to 2020 the median price for a duplex increased
by 6.8% annually, from $425,000 to $591,500. From 2020 to 2024, however, sales
volume decreased and prices increased an average of 18.1% per year, to a median
price of $1.15 million.
Table 28. Middle Valley Duplex Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024
Mid Roaring Fork Valley
Townhouse 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Median Sale Price
Basalt $501,900 $764,000 $1,250,000 $262,100 $52,420 8.8%$486,000 $121,500 13.1%
Carbondale $492,000 $757,000 $1,385,500 $265,000 $53,000 9.0%$628,500 $157,125 16.3%
Sub-Region Total $501,900 $757,000 $1,289,375 $255,100 $51,020 8.6%$532,375 $133,094 14.2%
Sale Volume
Basalt 39 37 18 181 30 145 29
Carbondale 18 48 22 181 30 194 39
Sub-Region Total 59 86 40 367 61 340 68
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Sub-Regional Total includes geographies with small number of sales
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
Mid Roaring Fork Valley
Duplex 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Median Sale Price
Basalt $438,750 $727,000 ---$288,250 $57,650 10.6%---------
Carbondale $425,000 $591,500 $1,150,000 $166,500 $33,300 6.8%$558,500 $139,625 18.1%
Sub-Region Total $425,000 $594,000 $1,375,000 $169,000 $33,800 6.9%$781,000 $195,250 23.3%
Sale Volume
Basalt 4 5 1 29 5 25 5
Carbondale 19 12 7 92 15 55 11
Sub-Region Total 23 17 8 121 20 80 16
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Medians exclude conditions with less than 2 sales.
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
50
51
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 38 Housing Market Trends
Condominiums are the least expensive home type in the Mid Valley, but prices
have increased significantly since 2020.
Until 2020, the median sale price for condos was under $600,000. As shown in
Table 29, since then prices have increased an average of 15.5% per year in Basalt
and 13% per year in Carbondale. While the median condo price in Basalt is over $1
million, it is still less than $1 million in Carbondale.
Table 29. Middle Valley Condominium Unit Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024
Mid Roaring Fork Valley
Condominium 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Median Sale Price
Basalt $589,000 $599,900 $1,069,000 $10,900 $2,180 0.4%$469,100 $117,275 15.5%
Carbondale $409,500 $449,500 $732,500 $40,000 $8,000 1.9%$283,000 $70,750 13.0%
Sub-Region Total $582,000 $525,000 $865,750 -$57,000 -$11,400 -2.0%$340,750 $85,188 13.3%
Sale Volume
Basalt 17 55 14 222 37 189 38
Carbondale 6 23 16 89 15 96 19
Sub-Region Total 23 78 30 311 52 285 57
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Medians exclude conditions with less than 2 sales.
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
51
52
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 39 Housing Market Trends
While home sales are accessible to more households in the Mid Valley than the
Upper Valley, nearly 75% of sales in 2024 were only affordable to households
earning 300% AMI or more.
As shown in Figure 10, affordability challenges have increased since 2020. In 2024,
nearly half of sales were only affordable to households earning over 400% AMI,
and only 2% of sales were affordable to households earning less than 150% AMI.
Figure 10. Middle Valley Sales by AMI, 2015-2024
52
53
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 40 Housing Market Trends
Lower Roaring Fork Valley
Sales in the Lower Valley are less expensive than other regions in the valley, with
median sales prices for all home types still under $1 million.
Prices in the lower valley have increased at similar rates to the upper- and mid-
valley areas, but prices are still lower than other areas in the region. As shown in
Table 30, 2024 median prices range from $455,000 for condominiums to $750,000
for duplexes and single family homes.
Table 30. Lower Valley Median Sale Price by Unit Type, 2015-2024
Median prices for single family homes in the Lower Valley are still under
$800,000, but have increased significantly since 2020, particularly in New Castle.
Since 2015, the median price for a single family home in New Castle has more than
doubled, from $329,000 to $675,000. As shown in Table 31, the increase has been
faster since 2020, with prices increasing an average of 11.3% per year from 2020
to 2024. Prices in Glenwood Springs have also increased, from a median sale price
of $480,000 in 2015 to nearly $800,000 in 2024.
Table 31. Lower Valley Single-Family Residence Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024
Median Sale Price 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Lower Roaring Fork Valley
Single-Family Residence $420,000 $556,500 $747,000 $136,500 $27,300 5.8%$190,500 $47,625 7.6%
Townhouse $290,000 $350,000 $570,869 $60,000 $12,000 3.8%$220,869 $55,217 13.0%
Duplex $314,000 $431,000 $750,000 $117,000 $23,400 6.5%$319,000 $79,750 14.9%
Condominium $247,500 $280,000 $455,000 $32,500 $6,500 2.5%$175,000 $43,750 12.9%
Sub-Region Total $375,000 $495,000 $640,000 $120,000 $24,000 5.7%$145,000 $36,250 6.6%
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Medians exclude conditions with less than 2 sales.
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
Lower Roaring Fork Valley
Single-Family Residence 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Median Sale Price
Glenwood Springs $480,000 $611,250 $799,500 $131,250 $26,250 5.0%$188,250 $47,063 6.9%
New Castle $329,250 $440,000 $675,000 $110,750 $22,150 6.0%$235,000 $58,750 11.3%
Sub-Region Total $420,000 $556,500 $747,000 $136,500 $27,300 5.8%$190,500 $47,625 7.6%
Sale Volume
Glenwood Springs 137 216 72 996 166 707 141
New Castle 90 95 66 588 98 412 82
Sub-Region Total 227 311 138 1,584 264 1,119 224
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Medians exclude conditions with less than 2 sales.
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
53
54
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 41 Housing Market Trends
Townhomes in the Lower Valley are a more affordable option, with lower sales
prices but also lower inventory.
As shown in Table 32, median sales prices for townhomes are lower than single
family homes but have increased at similar rates since 2020. In Glenwood Springs,
the median townhome price nearly doubled from 2015 to 2024, from $320,000 to
$628,000. In New Castle, the median townhome price more than doubled since
2015, from $245,000 to $524,000.
Table 32. Lower Valley Townhouse Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024
Lower Roaring Fork Valley
Townhouse 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Median Sale Price
Glenwood Springs $320,000 $377,000 $628,000 $57,000 $11,400 3.3%$251,000 $62,750 13.6%
New Castle $245,000 $325,000 $524,000 $80,000 $16,000 5.8%$199,000 $49,750 12.7%
Sub-Region Total $290,000 $350,000 $570,869 $60,000 $12,000 3.8%$220,869 $55,217 13.0%
Sale Volume
Glenwood Springs 25 28 18 158 26 130 26
New Castle 12 23 30 146 24 112 22
Sub-Region Total 37 51 48 304 51 242 48
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Medians exclude conditions with less than 2 sales.
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
5455
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 42 Housing Market Trends
Condominiums in the Lower Valley are the least expensive home type, although
prices have been increasing significantly since 2020.
As shown in Table 33, while the median condo price in Glenwood Springs was
$505,000 in 2024, it has more than doubled since 2015 and increased by an
average of nearly 15% per year since 2020. In New Castle, while there are fewer
condos for sale, the median price was $389,000 in 2024 but has increased an
average of 12.4% per year since 2020.
Table 33. Lower Valley Condominium Unit Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024
Lower Roaring Fork Valley
Condominium 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Median Sale Price
Glenwood Springs $247,500 $292,000 $505,000 $44,500 $8,900 3.4%$213,000 $53,250 14.7%
New Castle ---$244,000 $389,000 ---------$145,000 $36,250 12.4%
Sub-Region Total $247,500 $280,000 $455,000 $32,500 $6,500 2.5%$175,000 $43,750 12.9%
Sale Volume
Glenwood Springs 22 39 44 192 32 185 37
New Castle 0 17 11 63 11 106 21
Sub-Region Total 22 56 55 255 43 291 58
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Medians exclude conditions with less than 2 sales.
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
55
56
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 43 Housing Market Trends
Home sales in the Lower Valley are affordable to a wider range of households than
the Mid- and Upper Valley regions.
In 2024, 23% of sales in the Lower Valley were only affordable to households
earning 251% AMI or more, a much smaller portion than other regions. As shown in
Figure 11, 11% of sales in 2024 were affordable to households earning less than
150% AMI.
Figure 11. Lower Valley Sales by AMI, 2015-2024
5657
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 44 Housing Market Trends
Colorado River Valley
The Colorado River Valley has the lowest prices in the region but has seen similar
rates of price escalation as other communities.
As shown in Table 34, median prices for most product types in the Colorado River
Valley have doubled or nearly doubled since 2015. While the median price for
condominiums was still under $300,000 in 2024, other product types – particularly
single family homes and duplexes – are getting close to $500,000. Single family
homes and townhomes are the most prevalent product types in the region – across
the valley there were a combined 11 sales of condos and duplexes in 2015 and
2024, and 24 combined sales in 2020.
Table 34. Colorado River Valley Median Sale Price by Unit Type, 2015-2024
Median Sale Price 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Colorado River Valley
Single-Family Residence $248,281 $335,000 $450,000 $86,719 $17,344 6.2%$115,000 $28,750 7.7%
Townhouse $163,000 $203,000 $357,000 $40,000 $8,000 4.5%$154,000 $38,500 15.2%
Duplex $190,000 $282,000 $435,000 $92,000 $18,400 8.2%$153,000 $38,250 11.4%
Condominium $155,000 $157,500 $272,000 $2,500 $500 0.3%$114,500 $28,625 14.6%
Sub-Region Total $235,000 $315,000 $418,000 $80,000 $16,000 6.0%$103,000 $25,750 7.3%
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Medians exclude conditions with less than 2 sales.
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
57
58
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 45 Housing Market Trends
Single family home prices have increased in all communities in the Colorado River
Valley. Prices generally decrease further west in the valley, with higher prices in
Silt and lower prices in Parachute.
In 2015, the median price for a single family home in all Colorado River Valley
communities was under $300,000. By 2024, as shown in Table 35, the median sales
price in Silt was $500,000, and nearly $400,000 in Parachute. From 2020 to 2024,
prices increased an average of around 10% per year in Rifle, Battlement Mesa, and
Parachute.
Table 35. Colorado River Valley Single-Family Residence Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024
Colorado River Valley
Single-Family Residence 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Median Sale Price
Silt $289,000 $415,000 $500,000 $126,000 $25,200 7.5%$85,000 $21,250 4.8%
Rifle $237,500 $338,250 $486,500 $100,750 $20,150 7.3%$148,250 $37,063 9.5%
Battlement Mesa $241,500 $268,000 $400,000 $26,500 $5,300 2.1%$132,000 $33,000 10.5%
Parachute $190,500 $270,000 $393,304 $79,500 $15,900 7.2%$123,304 $30,826 9.9%
Sub-Region Total $248,281 $335,000 $450,000 $86,719 $17,344 6.2%$115,000 $28,750 7.7%
Sale Volume
Silt 85 71 47 470 78 327 65
Rifle 143 186 85 1,045 174 715 143
Battlement Mesa 26 17 19 157 26 75 15
Parachute 34 97 72 393 66 407 81
Sub-Region Total 288 371 223 2,065 344 1,524 305
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Medians exclude conditions with less than 2 sales.
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
58
59
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 46 Housing Market Trends
Townhome prices have more than doubled in most communities since 2015.
As shown in Table 36, in 2015 the median price for a townhome was under
$200,000 throughout the Colorado River Valley. By 2024 the median price was
$320,000 in Parachute (an average increase of 17.1% per year since 2020),
$368,500 in Rifle (average increase of 14.2% per year), and $422,500 in Silt
(average increase of 10.3% per year).
Table 36. Colorado River Valley Townhouse Median Sale Price and Volume, 2015-2024
Colorado River Valley
Townhouse 2015 2020 2024 Total Ann. #Ann. %Total Ann. #Ann. %
Median Sale Price
Silt $185,000 $285,750 $422,500 $100,750 $20,150 9.1%$136,750 $34,188 10.3%
Rifle $163,000 $217,000 $368,500 $54,000 $10,800 5.9%$151,500 $37,875 14.2%
Battlement Mesa $145,000 $180,500 ---$35,500 $7,100 4.5%---------
Parachute $152,000 $170,000 $320,000 $18,000 $3,600 2.3%$150,000 $37,500 17.1%
Sub-Region Total $163,000 $203,000 $357,000 $40,000 $8,000 4.5%$154,000 $38,500 15.2%
Sale Volume
Silt 3 10 4 44 7 31 6
Rifle 21 32 22 205 34 191 38
Battlement Mesa 3 4 1 19 3 7 1
Parachute 2 19 15 53 9 81 16
Sub-Region Total 29 65 42 321 54 310 62
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region. Medians exclude conditions with less than 2 sales.
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
2015-2020 Change 2020-2024 Change
59
60
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 47 Housing Market Trends
Home sales are accessible to a wide range of households in the Colorado River
Valley, with 7-8% of sales throughout 2022, 2023, and 2024 affordable to
households earning between 80-100% AMI, and fewer than 4% of sales in 2024
requiring a household to earn over 200% AMI.
As shown in Figure 12, around one-third of homes sales has been consistently
affordable to households earning between 120-150% AMI, with sales every year
affordable to incomes below that. With the affordability challenges throughout the
Roaring Fork Valley, though, the competition for sales in the Colorado River Valley
is not just from residents of the valley but people throughout the region looking for
more affordable homeownership options.
Figure 12. Colorado River Valley Sales by AMI
60
61
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 48 Housing Market Trends
Rental Housing
There is not a centralized, consistent source of rental market data in this region.
Available data indicates typical rents of $2,000 or more.
Rental data is not as readily available as home sale data, and current rental rates
are hard to capture. CHFA’s statewide apartment survey only includes the
Glenwood Springs metro, reporting median rent of $1,800 in Q3 2025, up from
$1,145 in Q1 of 2022 (57% increase). Zillow data for Garfield County reports
typical rent of $2,780 in June 2025, a 12% increase from June 2023 (reliable data is
not available for Pitkin County).
Survey data from previous work in the region from 2023-2025 indicates rents of
$2,500-$3,500 in the Mid Valley, $1,800-$2,500 in the Lower Valley, and $1,600-
$2,000 in the Colorado River Valley.
61
62
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 49 Housing Market Trends
Recent Development
Between 2016 and 2024, over 2,400 residential building permits were issued in
the region.
As shown in Table 37, there were over 2,400 residential units permitted across the
region between 2016 and 2024 (note that data is not consistently available across
all jurisdictions and years, so this is likely an underestimate of total permits issued).
Based on the available data, Garfield County saw twice as much permit activity as
Pitkin County over this time, with Glenwood Springs comprising the bulk of that
(61% of new construction permits).
Table 37. Regional Residential Building Permits, 2016-2024
Description 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
Pitkin County
Aspen 17 3 39 20 13 94 18 18 29 251
Snowmass Village 6 5 10 3 1 13 4 4 1 47
Basalt 19 57 23 41 99 72 42 ----353
Unincorporated Pitkin County ----------31 44 48 33 156
Total Pitkin County:42 65 72 64 113 210 108 70 63 807
Garfield County
Carbondale 15 12 24 122 98 57 39 60 30 457
Glenwood Springs 6 18 228 101 30 236 72 303 20 1,014
New Castle 29 22 21 6 14 28 25 11 13 169
Parachute 1 1 6 9 2 ----3 --22
Total Garfield County:51 53 279 238 144 321 136 377 63 1,662
Total overall:93 118 351 302 257 531 244 447 126 2,469
Note: Unincorp. Pitkin County data only available from 2021, Basalt through 2022
Source: Local planning offices, Economic & Planning Systems
62
63
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 50 Housing Market Trends
Recent residential development has primarily been multifamily housing.
As shown in Figure 13, most building permits since 2016 have been for multifamily
housing, with 151 projects totaling over 1,700 units region-wide. Carbondale, New
Castle, and Unincorporated Pitkin County have also seen high permit numbers for
single family homes.
Figure 13. Residential Building Permits by Type and Location, 2016-2024
63
64
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 51 Housing Market Trends
Development Pipeline
As of fall 2025, there are over 1,000 affordable housing units in the development
pipeline throughout the region.
As shown in Table 38, as of fall 2025 and including both market rate and affordable
units there are a total of 926 units under construction, 408 units entitled, and 788
units in another stage of the development process throughout the region. Over half
of the units under construction are affordable, with another 146 affordable units
entitled and 437 in another development stage.
The plans for these projects (including unit counts, tenure, and AMI level) were
current at the time of data collection, but are subject to change as projects
progress through the development process. For many affordable projects,
particularly those entitled or in another early stage of development, specific AMI
levels or affordability restrictions are not yet known. Some entitlements are also
flexible – for example, the Lumber Yard project includes an allowance for units for
households at or below 50% AMI to be leased to household earning up to 85% AMI
if no eligible lower-income households apply.
Resident Occupied (RO) units are deed-restricted properties that must be utilized
as the primary residence of the owner or tenant. These units do not have income
requirements but typically include local work requirements, occupancy
stipulations, and asset limitations. Specific deed restrictions vary.
64
65
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 52 Housing Market Trends
Table 38. Affordable Housing Pipeline
65
66
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 53 Housing Market Trends
Affordability Analysis
“Affordable” housing is typically defined as housing that costs no more than 30% of
a household’s gross monthly income. For ownership housing, this includes
mortgage principal, interest, property taxes, and insurance. For rental housing, this
includes monthly rent payments. Utilities, internet, or other additional costs are
not included – while these have an impact on a renter household’s ability to cover
monthly bills, because they can vary so widely and are not included in ownership
affordability calculations, they are excluded to provide an “apples-to-apples”
comparison to ownership affordability.
Households that pay more than 30% of their gross income towards housing are
considered “cost burdened,” and those that pay more than 50% of their income to
housing are considered “severely cost burdened.” The amount that a household can
afford to spend on housing will depend on the size of the household (number of wage
earners) and the income earned by all household members.
In many high-cost communities, residents
will work multiple jobs to increase their
income, and/or live with multiple
roommates (or families) to spread housing
costs over multiple earners. In data, this may
show up as housing appearing more
affordable, while not reflecting desired
community conditions. Area Median Income
(AMI) affordability metrics reflect
household income (all wage earners, all jobs,
and all sources of income), and not
individual wages or salaries on their own.
Rental Affordability
The rent a household can afford will vary based on household size and income. As
shown in Table 39, affordable rents range from $538 per month for a single-person
household at 30% AMI in Garfield County to $7,069 per month for a 3-person
household at 250% AMI in Pitkin County.
These figures include only rent – because utility costs may or may not be included
in rental rates and can vary widely across units, they are not included in this
analysis (for rental or ownership affordability). However, it is important to
recognize the potential magnitude and impact of utility costs to renters. Based on
HUD data, typical utility costs can range from $200-$400 per month in apartments
and $250-$500 per month in single family homes. These typical rates may be
exceeded, particularly in the winter months in poorly insulated units where heating
costs alone can be hundreds of dollars per month.
OWNERSHIP
AFFORDABILITY
The ownership
affordability analysis
assumes a 6.0% interest
rate (the 30-year
average), 5% down
payment, 30-year loan
term, $300/month HOA
fees (based on similar
areas), $3,000/year
66
67
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 54 Housing Market Trends
Table 39. Maximum Affordable Rent by Income and Household Size
A resident working one job earning the median wage can afford less than $2,000
per month in rent. This is generally not enough to afford a one-bedroom unit.
As shown in Table 40, a single person earning the median wage can likely only
afford a shared bedroom in a unit. It would take 2-3 jobs (worked by one person or
multiple earners) to be able to afford a 1-bedroom unit in the Lower Valley or
Colorado River Valley, and more jobs for a larger unit. For families, this often leads
to cost burden or overcrowding.
Table 40. Maximum Supportable Rent by Number of Median Wage Jobs
Income Level
Description 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 120% AMI 150% AMI 200% AMI 250% AMI
Pitkin County
1-person Household
Annual Household Income $26,400 $44,000 $70,400 $88,000 $105,600 $132,000 $176,000 $220,000
Maximum Supportable Rent 30%$660 $1,100 $1,760 $2,200 $2,640 $3,300 $4,400 $5,500
2-person Household
Annual Household Income $30,180 $50,300 $80,480 $100,600 $120,720 $150,900 $201,200 $251,500
Maximum Supportable Rent 30%$755 $1,258 $2,012 $2,515 $3,018 $3,773 $5,030 $6,288
3-person Household
Annual Household Income $33,930 $56,550 $90,480 $113,100 $135,720 $169,650 $226,200 $282,750
Maximum Supportable Rent 30%$848 $1,414 $2,262 $2,828 $3,393 $4,241 $5,655 $7,069
Garfield County
1-person Household
Annual Household Income $21,510 $35,850 $57,360 $71,700 $86,040 $107,550 $143,400 $179,250
Maximum Supportable Rent 30%$538 $896 $1,434 $1,793 $2,151 $2,689 $3,585 $4,481
2-person Household
Annual Household Income $24,600 $41,000 $65,600 $82,000 $98,400 $123,000 $164,000 $205,000
Maximum Supportable Rent 30%$615 $1,025 $1,640 $2,050 $2,460 $3,075 $4,100 $5,125
3-person Household
Annual Household Income $27,660 $46,100 $73,760 $92,200 $110,640 $138,300 $184,400 $230,500
Maximum Supportable Rent 30%$692 $1,153 $1,844 $2,305 $2,766 $3,458 $4,610 $5,763
Source: Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) 2024 AMI Definitions, Economic & Planning Systems
Number of Median Wage Jobs
Description 1 2 3 4
Pitkin County
Total Wages $51,007 / Year $51,007 $102,014 $153,021 $204,028
Maximum Supportable Rent 30%$1,275 $2,550 $3,826 $5,101
Garfield County
Total Wages $50,377 / Year $50,377 $100,754 $151,131 $201,508
Maximum Supportable Rent 30%$1,259 $2,519 $3,778 $5,038
Source: Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA), Economic & Planning Systems
67
68
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 55 Housing Market Trends
Ownership Affordability
The home price a household can afford will vary based on household size and
income. As shown in Table 41 and Table 42, a 2-person household earning 100%
AMI can afford a $322,000 house in Pitkin County, and a $242,000 home in
Garfield County. A household earning 250% AMI can afford a $946,000 home in
Pitkin County and $749,000 home in Garfield County. As was noted previously and
will be outlined further in this section, even with a household income over
$200,000 homeownership is increasingly out of reach for area residents.
68
69
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 56 Housing Market Trends
Table 41. Maximum Affordable Purchase Price by Income and Household Size, Pitkin County
Income Level
Description 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 120% AMI 150% AMI 200% AMI 250% AMI
Pitkin County
2-person Household
Annual Household Income $30,180 $50,300 $80,480 $100,600 $120,720 $150,900 $201,200 $251,500
Monthly Housing Payment Maximum 30%$755 $1,258 $2,012 $2,515 $3,018 $3,773 $5,030 $6,288
Supportable Monthly Payment
Less: Insurance $3,000 / Year -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250
Less: Property Taxes 6.77% ass't rate 65.209 mills -$30 -$60 -$100 -$130 -$160 -$200 -$280 -$350
Less: Miscellaneous (e.g. HOA dues)$3,600 / Year -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300
Net Supportable Mortgage Payment (Monthly)$175 $648 $1,362 $1,835 $2,308 $3,023 $4,200 $5,388
Valuation Assumptions
Loan Amount $29,100 $108,000 $227,200 $306,100 $385,000 $504,100 $700,500 $898,600
Mortgage Interest Rate 6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.
Loan Term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term
Downpayment as % of Purchase Price 5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%
Maximum Supportable Purchase Price for a 2-person HH $30,600 $113,700 $239,200 $322,200 $405,300 $530,600 $737,400 $945,900
3-person Household
Annual Household Income $33,930 $56,550 $90,480 $113,100 $135,720 $169,650 $226,200 $282,750
Monthly Housing Payment Maximum 30%$848 $1,414 $2,262 $2,828 $3,393 $4,241 $5,655 $7,069
Supportable Monthly Payment
Less: Insurance $3,000 / Year -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250
Less: Property Taxes 6.77% ass't rate 65.209 mills -$30 -$70 -$120 -$150 -$180 -$230 -$310 -$390
Less: Miscellaneous (e.g. HOA dues)$3,600 / Year -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300
Net Supportable Mortgage Payment (Monthly)$268 $794 $1,592 $2,128 $2,663 $3,461 $4,795 $6,129
Valuation Assumptions
Loan Amount $44,700 $132,400 $265,500 $354,800 $444,200 $577,300 $799,800 $1,022,200
Mortgage Interest Rate 6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.
Loan Term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term
Downpayment as % of Purchase Price 5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%
Maximum Supportable Purchase Price for a 3-person HH $47,100 $139,400 $279,500 $373,500 $467,600 $607,700 $841,900 $1,076,000
Source: Pitkin County Assesor, Garfield County Assessor, Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA), Economic & Planning Systems
69
70
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 57 Housing Market Trends
Table 42. Maximum Affordable Purchase Price by Income and Household Size, Garfield County
Income Level
Description 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 120% AMI 150% AMI 200% AMI 250% AMI
Garfield County
2-person Household
Annual Household Income $24,600 $41,000 $65,600 $82,000 $98,400 $123,000 $164,000 $205,000
Monthly Housing Payment Maximum 30%$615 $1,025 $1,640 $2,050 $2,460 $3,075 $4,100 $5,125
Supportable Monthly Payment
Less: Insurance $3,000 / Year -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250
Less: Property Taxes 6.77% ass't rate 73.007 mills -$20 -$50 -$90 -$120 -$140 -$180 -$250 -$310
Less: Miscellaneous (e.g. HOA dues)$3,600 / Year -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300
Net Supportable Mortgage Payment (Monthly)$45 $425 $1,000 $1,380 $1,770 $2,345 $3,300 $4,265
Valuation Assumptions
Loan Amount $7,500 $70,900 $166,800 $230,200 $295,200 $391,100 $550,400 $711,400
Mortgage Interest Rate 6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.
Loan Term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term
Downpayment as % of Purchase Price 5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%
Maximum Supportable Purchase Price for a 2-person HH $7,900 $74,600 $175,600 $242,300 $310,700 $411,700 $579,400 $748,800
3-person Household
Annual Household Income $27,660 $46,100 $73,760 $92,200 $110,640 $138,300 $184,400 $230,500
Monthly Housing Payment Maximum 30%$692 $1,153 $1,844 $2,305 $2,766 $3,458 $4,610 $5,763
Supportable Monthly Payment
Less: Insurance $3,000 / Year -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250
Less: Property Taxes 6.77% ass't rate 73.007 mills -$30 -$60 -$100 -$130 -$160 -$210 -$280 -$350
Less: Miscellaneous (e.g. HOA dues)$3,600 / Year -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300
Net Supportable Mortgage Payment (Monthly)$112 $543 $1,194 $1,625 $2,056 $2,698 $3,780 $4,863
Valuation Assumptions
Loan Amount $18,600 $90,500 $199,100 $271,000 $342,900 $449,900 $630,500 $811,000
Mortgage Interest Rate 6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.
Loan Term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term
Downpayment as % of Purchase Price 5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%
Maximum Supportable Purchase Price for a 3-person HH $19,600 $95,300 $209,600 $285,300 $360,900 $473,600 $663,700 $853,700
Source: Pitkin County Assesor, Garfield County Assessor, Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA), Economic & Planning Systems
7071
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 58 Housing Market Trends
The affordability gap for homeowners has always been a challenge, but expanded
significantly in 2021 and 2022, particularly in the Upper- and Mid Valley.
As shown in Table 43, Table 44, Table 45, and Table 46, affordability challenges
have become worse over time. In the Upper Valley, through 2021 around 10% of
home sales were affordable to a household earning 150-200% AMI and a small
percentage of homes were affordable at 120-150% AMI; since 2022, it takes 200%
AMI just to get into the market. This same trend is seen to varying degrees
throughout the region, with a household in the Mid Valley needing about 200%
AMI to enter the housing market, and a household in the Lower Valley needing to
earn about 150% AMI. These affordability challenges are pushing residents who
want to purchase homes further out in the region.
Table 43. Upper Valley Sales by Affordability, 2015-2024
Table 44. Mid Valley Sales by Affordability, 2015-2024
Description 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Upper Roaring Fork Valley
80% AMI and Below 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
81% to 100% AMI 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
101% to 120% AMI 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
121% to 150% AMI 2%2%2%9%5%3%3%1%0%1%
151% to 200% AMI 11%14%10%10%13%9%9%1%2%3%
201% to 250% AMI 9%9%8%10%7%7%9%6%3%3%
251% to 300% AMI 4%3%5%6%7%5%6%7%4%5%
301% to 400% AMI 11%12%8%11%8%5%9%7%14%9%
Greater than 400% AMI 63%60%66%54%60%71%64%78%77%80%
Subtotal 100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
Description 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Mid Roaring Fork Valley
80% AMI and Below 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
81% to 100% AMI 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%1%
101% to 120% AMI 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
121% to 150% AMI 1%3%1%3%3%2%2%0%2%1%
151% to 200% AMI 23%17%18%15%18%16%13%8%8%3%
201% to 250% AMI 26%23%18%16%20%16%21%11%11%9%
251% to 300% AMI 19%14%22%17%18%13%14%16%11%13%
301% to 400% AMI 16%22%24%27%20%21%14%23%21%27%
Greater than 400% AMI 14%21%16%21%22%31%35%41%48%47%
Subtotal 100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
7172
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 59 Housing Market Trends
Table 45. Lower Valley Sales by Affordability, 2015-2024
Table 46. Colorado River Valley Sales by Affordability, 2015-2024
Description 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Lower Roaring Fork Valley
80% AMI and Below 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
81% to 100% AMI 0%0%0%0%0%0%2%0%1%5%
101% to 120% AMI 3%1%0%1%5%4%7%5%4%3%
121% to 150% AMI 23%18%13%13%18%19%11%9%11%4%
151% to 200% AMI 37%32%32%33%32%28%29%20%21%36%
201% to 250% AMI 23%29%31%27%26%25%25%28%27%30%
251% to 300% AMI 9%12%12%16%11%14%16%26%23%16%
301% to 400% AMI 5%7%10%9%7%9%10%12%13%7%
Greater than 400% AMI 1%1%1%2%1%0%0%0%0%0%
Subtotal 100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
Description 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Colorado River Valley
80% AMI and Below 0%0%0%0%0%2%3%2%2%0%
81% to 100% AMI 16%8%6%4%9%12%11%7%7%8%
101% to 120% AMI 26%22%17%20%24%18%19%15%13%16%
121% to 150% AMI 37%37%34%35%31%36%34%31%34%33%
151% to 200% AMI 14%24%33%33%29%25%30%32%41%41%
201% to 250% AMI 7%9%7%7%6%7%4%11%4%2%
251% to 300% AMI 1%1%4%1%0%0%0%0%0%0%
301% to 400% AMI 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Greater than 400% AMI 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Subtotal 100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
Sales exclude the 5% of the highest and lowest sales by region
Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Economic & Planning Systems
72
73
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 60 Housing Market Trends
2-person households in Pitkin County earning even 300% AMI ($301,800) cannot
afford homes in the Mid- or Upper Valley areas
As shown in Figure 14, a Pitkin County household earning 120% AMI can only
afford the median priced home in the Colorado River Valley; a Garfield County
households needs to earn 150% AMI. To afford anything in the Roaring Fork
Valley, a Pitkin County household needs to earn 200% AMI, while a Garfield
County household needs to earn 250% AMI.
Figure 14. AMI Needed to Afford Median Priced Home by Location (2 Person Household)
When considering affordability by wage level, a household would need to work 3-4
median wage jobs to find homes they can afford to buy anywhere in the region.
Understanding affordability by wage level draws a connection between local
employment and housing affordability, and does not include other forms of income.
As shown in Table 47, single earner working a median-wage job can afford
$166,200 in Garfield County and $221,900 in Pitkin County, which does not come
close to the median-priced home. It would take 4 median wage jobs in Pitkin
County and 5 median wage jobs in Garfield County to afford a $1 million home, and
even that is increasingly hard to find in the Roaring Fork Valley, meaning there is
increasing pressure on the housing market throughout the Colorado River Valley.
7374
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 61 Housing Market Trends
Table 47. Maximum Affordable Purchase Price by Number of Median Wage Jobs
Number of Median Wage Jobs
Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pitkin County
Total Wages $76,546 / Year $76,546 $153,092 $229,638 $306,184 $382,730 $459,276 $535,822 $612,368 $688,914 $765,460
Monthly Housing Payment Maximum 30%$1,914 $3,827 $5,741 $7,655 $9,568 $11,482 $13,396 $15,309 $17,223 $19,137
Supportable Monthly Payment
Less: Insurance $3,000 / Year -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250
Less: Property Taxes 6.77% ass't rate 65.209 mills -$100 -$210 -$320 -$430 -$540 -$650 -$760 -$870 -$980 -$1,090
Less: Miscellaneous (e.g. HOA dues)$3,600 / Year -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300
Net Supportable Mortgage Payment (Monthly)$1,264 $3,067 $4,871 $6,675 $8,478 $10,282 $12,086 $13,889 $15,693 $17,497
Valuation Assumptions
Loan Amount $210,800 $511,600 $812,400 $1,113,300 $1,414,100 $1,714,900 $2,015,800 $2,316,600 $2,617,400 $2,918,300
Mortgage Interest Rate 6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.
Loan Term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term
Downpayment as % of Purchase Price 5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%
Maximum Supportable Purchase Price $221,900 $538,500 $855,200 $1,171,900 $1,488,500 $1,805,200 $2,121,900 $2,438,500 $2,755,200 $3,071,900
Garfield County
Total Wages $63,458 / Year $63,458 $126,916 $190,374 $253,832 $317,290 $380,748 $444,206 $507,664 $571,122 $634,580
Monthly Housing Payment Maximum 30%$1,586 $3,173 $4,759 $6,346 $7,932 $9,519 $11,105 $12,692 $14,278 $15,865
Supportable Monthly Payment
Less: Insurance $3,000 / Year -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250 -$250
Less: Property Taxes 6.77% ass't rate 73.007 mills -$90 -$190 -$290 -$390 -$490 -$590 -$690 -$800 -$900 -$1,000
Less: Miscellaneous (e.g. HOA dues)$3,600 / Year -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300 -$300
Net Supportable Mortgage Payment (Monthly)$946 $2,433 $3,919 $5,406 $6,892 $8,379 $9,865 $11,342 $12,828 $14,315
Valuation Assumptions
Loan Amount $157,900 $405,800 $653,700 $901,600 $1,149,600 $1,397,500 $1,645,400 $1,891,700 $2,139,600 $2,387,500
Mortgage Interest Rate 6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.6.0% int.
Loan Term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term
Downpayment as % of Purchase Price 5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%
Maximum Supportable Purchase Price $166,200 $427,200 $688,100 $949,100 $1,210,100 $1,471,100 $1,732,000 $1,991,300 $2,252,200 $2,513,200
Source: Pitkin County Assesor, Garfield County Assessor, Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA), Economic & Planning Systems
7475
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 62 Housing Market Trends
A single earner at the median wage cannot afford the median-priced home
anywhere in the region, and wage earners in one area typically have to move down
valley to find any affordability.
As shown in Figure 15, a Pitkin County household will need over 5 median wage
jobs to afford a median priced home in the mid-valley, while 2 earners working
median-wage jobs in Pitkin County can afford the median-priced home in the
Colorado River Valley.
A Garfield County household will need at least 2 median wage jobs to afford a
median priced home in the Colorado River Valley, and over 3 median wage jobs to
afford a median priced home in the Lower Valley.
Figure 15. Median Wage Jobs Needed to Afford Median Priced Home by Location
75
76
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 63 Current and Projected Housing Needs
6. Current and Projected Housing Needs
This chapter outlines the current and projected housing needs in Pitkin and
Garfield Counties over the next 10 years, considering where current needs are
unmet (Existing Housing Shortage) and where future needs are expected
(Projected Housing Needs). These numbers represent the total need for the region
– communities often do not (and cannot) address 100% of identified needs, but by
understanding the different components of need each jurisdiction can set informed
goals and priorities and better target their available resources. The amount of
housing need that is addressed within the region ultimately depends on regional
and local capacity, resources (especially funding), partnerships, and policy.
This need also does not necessarily represent new development that is needed, but
rather the number of units needed for local occupancy. This can be achieved
through a combination of new development and acquisition of existing units not
currently occupied year-round.
ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
Housing needs that are translated from jobs to housing through the following
factors:
• 1.3 jobs per person (to move from jobs to employees)
• 1.6 employees per household (to move from employees to housing)
• 5% vacancy rate (to take housing needs to total housing units)
Housing needs are allocated by tenure and income based on the
following assumptions:
• Households are distributed by income and AMI based on the 2023
jurisdiction AMI distribution
o Needs that are directly based on job growth are distributed
based on wages and household formation factors
• Households are distributed by tenure (ownership and rental) according
to income level, as outlined below
7677
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 64 Current and Projected Housing Needs
AMI and Tenure Distribution
Needs by AMI and tenure are distributed based on locally used categories and
resources/programs, as outlined below.
Pitkin County
Pitkin County uses five income categories:
• Category 1: Less than 50% AMI
- 100% rental
• Category 2: 51% to 85% AMI
- 30% ownership, 70% rental
• Category 3: 85% to 130% AMI
- 50% ownership, 50% rental
• Category 4: 131% to 205% AMI
- 60% ownership, 40% rental
• Category 5: Greater than 205% AMI
- Broken out into 205-240% (80% ownership, 20% rental) and greater than
240% (100% ownership), where data allows
Garfield County
Garfield County uses four income categories, with 3 additional categories and 3
subcategories added for this analysis.
• Category I: 70% AMI and below
- Broken out into Less than 30%, 31-50%, and 51-70%
- 100% rental
• Category II: 71% to 90% AMI
- 100% rental
• Category III: 91% to 110% AMI
- 50% ownership, 50% rental
• Category IV: 111% to 135% AMI
- 50% ownership, 50% rental
• This analysis also includes needs in 136-150% (50% ownership, 50% rental),
151-200% (70% ownership, 30% rental), and over 200% AMI (70% ownership,
30% rental)
77
78
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 65 Current and Projected Housing Needs
The assumption that households earning below certain income levels will be
renters does not mean that residents at those income levels do not or should not
own homes. However, market conditions (including development costs and the
affordability gap for low-income households) and the nature of funding available
for affordable housing means that it is difficult, if not impossible, for local
governments to provide affordable ownership housing at these income levels.
Tenure goals have been set based on realistic goals related to the programs and
resources available in each county. That said, additional funding and program
support for entities that are able to provide this product is a key way to be able to
deliver ownership affordability for lower-income households.
Summary of Need
Overall, accounting for units in the development pipeline, the region needs nearly
7,200 housing units for resident occupancy over the next 10 years – 2,500 in
Pitkin County and 4,600 in Garfield County.
As shown in Table 48, this includes 3,100 units to address existing housing shortages,
and 4,100 units to address projected housing needs. There is more need for rental
housing than ownership, with 61% of total housing need for rental housing.
As noted above, it is important to note that communities typically do not address
100% of identified needs. These housing needs numbers are intended to help shed
light on where need is being generated, and the primary areas of need.
Table 48. Summary of Housing Need
78
79
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 66 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Regionally, the largest factors impacting housing need are employment growth,
unfilled jobs, and retirees, but the impact of various factors differs by county.
As shown in Table 49, region-wide employment growth accounts for 35% of total
housing need, while unfilled jobs and filling jobs vacated by retirees each account
for just over 20%. In Pitkin County, commuting is the largest factor, accounting for
nearly one-third of total need. In Garfield County, employment growth is the
largest factor impacting housing need, accounting for almost 42% of overall need.
Table 49. Housing Need by Source
79
80
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 67 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Existing Housing Shortage (Catch Up)
Existing housing shortage is estimated using 3 factors:
• Reducing/eliminating overcrowding and residents living in temporary housing
conditions
• Reducing long distance in-commuting
• Addressing housing needs associated with unfilled jobs
Overcrowding and Temporary Housing
Overcrowded housing units are defined as those with more than 1.0 occupants per
room (all rooms, not just bedrooms). Temporary housing includes a variety of
housing situations including staying in a hotel or motel, staying with family or
friends, and sleeping in a vehicle. The goal of including overcrowded and temporary
housing units in the existing housing shortage is to eliminate overcrowding and
temporary housing in the region (provide one new housing unit for every one
overcrowded or temporary unit).
As shown in Table 50, there are an estimated 247 overcrowded and temporary
housing units in Pitkin County and 601 overcrowded and temporary units in
Garfield County, resulting in a total regional need for 848 additional housing units.
Table 50. Overcrowded Housing Units, Pitkin and Garfield Counties, 2023
Commuting
As noted previously, an estimated 42% of employees in Pitkin County commute 25
miles or more each way into the area for work. In Garfield County, 23% of
employees commute over 50 miles each way. While it is unrealistic to house all
commuters with long commutes into or between counties, some of these
commuters would prefer to live locally if adequate, affordable housing was
available. The goal of including in-commuters in the existing housing shortage is to
create housing opportunities for in-commuters who would prefer to live locally.
The commuting capture focuses on long commutes, aiming to capture 25% of
employees commuting 25-50 miles into Pitkin County, 25% of employees
commuting over 50 miles, and 5% of employees commuting over 50 miles in
Garfield County (note that percentages reflect capture of commuters in each
category, not total employees).
Description Pitkin County Garfield County Total
Total Overcrowded and Temporary Housing Units 247 601 848
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SHG Advisors, Economic & Planning Systems
80
81
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 68 Current and Projected Housing Needs
As shown in Table 51, applying the in-commuting estimates for various commuting
distances, accounting for 1.3 jobs per employee results in approximately 1,411
potential new residents in Pitkin County and 241 in Garfield County. Accounting
for household formation and a housing vacancy factor, this results in a need for 916
new housing units in Pitkin County and 157 new units in Garfield County.
Table 51. Housing Need Generated by In-Commuters
Pitkin Garfield
Description County County Total
2023 Employment 17,687 26,981 44,668
Jobs per employee 1.3 1.3 1.3
Employees 13,605 20,755 34,360
Commuting
% commuting 25 to 50 miles 17%11%13%
# commuting 25 to 50 miles 2,302 2,257 4,560
Target % moving to county of employment 25%0%13%
New residents 576 0 576
% commuting over 50 miles 25%23%24%
# commuting over 50 miles 3,341 4,826 8,167
Target % moving to county of employment 25%5%13%
New residents 835 241 1,077
Possible new in-commuter residents 1,411 241 1,652
Employees per household 1.6 1.6 1.6
Estimated additional households 872 149 1,022
Vacancy adjustment 5%5%5%
Estimated additional housing units 916 157 1,073
Source: U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), Colorado Dept. of Labor
& Employment, Economic & Planning Systems
81
82
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 69 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Unfilled Jobs
Data from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment shows an average
of 3,142 job openings in any given month in 2024 – 1,050 jobs in Pitkin County and
2,092 jobs in Garfield County. The goal of including unfilled jobs in the existing
housing shortage is to ensure available housing for new workers needed to fill
these jobs.
As shown in Table 52, applying jobs per employee and employee per household
factors, along with a housing vacancy adjustment, to these unfilled jobs results in
a need for 1,569 new housing units – 524 in Pitkin County and 1,045 in Garfield
County.
Table 52. Housing Need Generated by Unfilled Jobs
Description Pitkin County Garfield County Total
2024 Avg. Job Openings 1,050 2,092 3,142
Jobs per Employee 1.3 1.3 1.3
Employees needed 808 1,609 2,417
Employees per household 1.6 1.6 1.6
Estimated additional households 499 995 1,495
Vacancy adjustment 5%5%5%
Estimated additional housing units 524 1,045 1,569
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment, Economic & Planning Systems
82
83
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 70 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Existing Housing Shortage
In total, not accounting for the development pipeline, 3,490 total units are needed
to accommodate current housing need in the region – 1,687 units in Pitkin County
and 1,803 in Garfield County.
As shown in Table 53, the largest share of need (45%) is generated by unfilled jobs,
followed by commuting (31%) and overcrowded and temporary housing (24%).
Table 53. Existing Housing Shortage by Category
Pitkin Garfield
Description County County Total
Overcrowding and Temporary Housing
Number of overcrowded and temporary housing units 247 601 848
Adjustment factor 100%100%100%
Units needed 247 601 848
Commuting
Possible new in-commuter residents 1,411 241 1,652
Units needed 916 157 1,073
Unfilled Jobs
Employees needed 808 1,609 2,417
Units needed 524 1,045 1,569
Total Units Needed 1,687 1,803 3,490
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor and Employment, Longitudinal Employer-
Household Dynamics, Colorado State Demographer's Office, Economic & Planning Systems
83
84
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 71 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Most of the existing need is for rental units, but there is also significant need for
homeownership.
As shown in Table 54 and Table 55, across the region 61% of needed units are
rental housing. In Pitkin County, 56% of the need is for rental housing, with most of
that need in Category 1 and Category 2 (up to 85% AMI). In Garfield County, 66% of
the need is for rental housing, primarily in Category I and Category II (up to 90%
AMI). Note that because this need is distributed based on the Census household by
income distribution, need above ~200% AMI ($200,000) cannot be disaggregated.
Table 54. Existing Housing Shortage by Income and Tenure – Pitkin County
Description Total Owner Rental
Extremely- to Very Low Income
Category 1 (<50% AMI)336 0 336
Low Income
Category 2 (51% - 85% AMI)397 119 278
Moderate Income
Category 3 (86% - 130% AMI)273 137 137
Middle Income
Category 4 (131% - 205% AMI)265 159 106
Category 5 and above 416 333 83
Total 1,687 748 940
Pitkin County
Existing Shortage
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD,
CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
84
85
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 72 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Table 55. Existing Housing Shortage by Income and Tenure – Garfield County
Projected Housing Needs (Keep Up)
Projected housing shortage is estimated using two factors:
• 10-year job growth
• Units needed to accommodate employees filling jobs vacated by retirees
through 2035
Employment Growth
Employment growth is based on the State Demography Office (SDO) 10-year job
projections for Pitkin and Garfield Counties and the current distribution of
occupations in each county. Job growth projections are used to forecast projected
housing demand, rather than population projections, because jobs are the primary
driver of housing demand in rural resort communities such as the Roaring Fork and
Colorado River Valleys.
As shown in Table 56 and Table 57, SDO projects an additional 1,264 jobs in Pitkin
County (0.5% average annual growth) and 4,042 jobs in Garfield County (1.0%
average annual growth) by 2035. In Pitkin County this growth is expected to take
place relatively evenly between 2025 and 2030 and 2030 and 2035, while in
Garfield County nearly 60% of the growth is expected between 2025 and 2030.
SDO only projects total jobs; these are assumed to have the same occupation mix
as current employment in each county.
Description Total Owner Rental
Category I
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI)239 0 239
Very Low Income (31 - 50% AMI)166 0 166
Low Income (51% - 70% AMI)190 0 190
Moderate Income
Category II (71% - 90% AMI)198 0 198
Category III (91% - 110% AMI)163 81 81
Category IV (111% - 135% AMI)187 94 94
Middle Income
136% - 150% AMI 107 54 54
151% - 200% AMI 270 189 81
Greater than 200% AMI 281 197 84
Total 1,803 615 1,188
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD,
CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Garfield County
Existing Shortage
85
86
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 73 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Table 56. Current and Projected Jobs by Occupation – Pitkin County
2025-2030-
Description 2025 2030 2035 Total Ann. #Ann. %2030 2035
Pitkin County Occupations
Management 1,296 1,334 1,368 72 7 0.5%37 34
Business and Financial Operations 1,694 1,743 1,787 93 9 0.5%49 45
Computer and Mathematical 295 303 311 16 2 0.5%9 8
Architecture and Engineering 398 409 420 22 2 0.5%11 10
Life, Physical, and Social Science 162 167 171 9 1 0.5%5 4
Community and Social Service 162 167 171 9 1 0.5%5 4
Legal 206 212 218 11 1 0.5%6 5
Educational Instruction and Library 928 955 979 51 5 0.5%27 24
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 471 485 497 26 3 0.5%14 12
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 589 606 622 33 3 0.5%17 16
Healthcare Support 162 167 171 9 1 0.5%5 4
Protective Service 516 530 544 28 3 0.5%15 14
Food Preparation and Serving Related 3,859 3,970 4,072 213 21 0.5%111 102
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 1,650 1,697 1,741 91 9 0.5%48 43
Personal Care and Service 1,517 1,561 1,601 84 8 0.5%44 40
Sales and Related 2,533 2,606 2,673 140 14 0.5%73 67
Office and Administrative Support 2,342 2,409 2,471 129 13 0.5%68 62
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 133 136 140 7 1 0.5%4 3
Construction and Extraction 928 955 979 51 5 0.5%27 24
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 1,384 1,424 1,461 76 8 0.5%40 36
Production 398 409 420 22 2 0.5%11 10
Transportation and Material Moving 1,281 1,318 1,352 71 7 0.5%37 34
Total Projected Jobs 22,903 23,564 24,167 1,264 126 0.5%661 603
Source: CO State Demography Office (SDO), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics OEWS, Economic & Planning Systems
2025-2035
86
87
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 74 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Table 57. Current and Projected Jobs by Occupation – Garfield County
These new jobs are translated to housing demand using expected wages by
occupation, with half of new jobs at the 25th percentile wage (Table 58 for Pitkin
County, Table 60 for Garfield County) and half of jobs at the 75th percentile wage
(Table 59 for Pitkin County, Table 61 for Garfield County) to account for the range
of income of new workers.
These new jobs by wage are then translated to employees (using 1.3 jobs per
employee), households (using 1.6 employees per household), and housing units
(using a 5% vacancy factor). Household income is determined based on the
additional 0.6 earner (for a total of 1.6 earners per household) and assumes the
local average household size (2.0 persons in Pitkin County, 2.5 persons in Garfield
County). These households are then tabulated by AMI, based on household income
and household size.
2025-2030-
Description 2025 2030 2035 Total Ann. #Ann. %2030 2035
Garfield County Occupations
Management 1,941 2,063 2,152 212 21 1.0%122 90
Business and Financial Operations 2,021 2,148 2,241 220 22 1.0%127 93
Computer and Mathematical 428 455 475 47 5 1.0%27 20
Architecture and Engineering 562 597 623 61 6 1.0%35 26
Life, Physical, and Social Science 348 370 386 38 4 1.0%22 16
Community and Social Service 709 754 787 77 8 1.0%45 33
Legal 254 270 282 28 3 1.0%16 12
Educational Instruction and Library 2,489 2,646 2,761 272 27 1.0%157 115
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 442 469 490 48 5 1.0%28 20
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 2,155 2,290 2,390 235 24 1.0%136 100
Healthcare Support 1,071 1,138 1,187 117 12 1.0%67 49
Protective Service 950 1,010 1,054 104 10 1.0%60 44
Food Preparation and Serving Related 3,694 3,926 4,097 403 40 1.0%232 171
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 1,646 1,750 1,826 180 18 1.0%104 76
Personal Care and Service 990 1,053 1,098 108 11 1.0%62 46
Sales and Related 3,948 4,196 4,379 431 43 1.0%248 182
Office and Administrative Support 3,948 4,196 4,379 431 43 1.0%248 182
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 80 85 89 9 1 1.0%5 4
Construction and Extraction 4,095 4,353 4,542 447 45 1.0%258 189
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 1,900 2,020 2,108 207 21 1.0%120 88
Production 763 811 846 83 8 1.0%48 35
Transportation and Material Moving 2,610 2,774 2,894 285 28 1.0%164 121
Total Projected Jobs 37,045 39,375 41,087 4,042 404 1.0%2,330 1,712
Source: CO State Demography Office (SDO), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics OEWS, Economic & Planning Systems
2025-2035
87
88
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 75 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Table 58. Housing Demand from Employment Growth at 25th Percentile Wages – Pitkin County
25th %ile Household % AMI for New New New New
Ann. Wage Income [1]2-person HH New Jobs Employees Households New Units New Jobs Employees Households New Units
Occupation Sectors 2024 wages 1.6 empl./hh $100,600 1.3 jobs/empl 1.6 empl./hh 5% vacancy adj.1.3 jobs/empl 1.6 empl./hh 5% vacancy adj.
Pitkin County
Management $86,473 $139,848 139.0%19 14 9 9 17 13 8 9
Business and Financial Operations $61,540 $99,525 98.9%24 19 12 12 22 17 11 11
Computer and Mathematical $78,478 $126,918 126.2%4 3 2 2 4 3 2 2
Architecture and Engineering $62,859 $101,658 101.1%6 4 3 3 5 4 2 3
Life, Physical, and Social Science $73,695 $119,183 118.5%2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1
Community and Social Service $57,864 $93,580 93.0%2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1
Legal $89,485 $144,719 143.9%3 2 1 1 3 2 1 1
Educational Instruction and Library $46,085 $74,531 74.1%13 10 6 7 12 9 6 6
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media $48,104 $77,796 77.3%7 5 3 3 6 5 3 3
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical $79,555 $128,660 127.9%9 7 4 4 8 6 4 4
Healthcare Support $44,857 $72,545 72.1%2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1
Protective Service $49,864 $80,642 80.2%7 6 4 4 7 5 3 3
Food Preparation and Serving Related $33,523 $54,215 53.9%56 43 26 28 51 39 24 25
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance $38,189 $61,761 61.4%24 18 11 12 22 17 10 11
Personal Care and Service $39,067 $63,181 62.8%22 17 10 11 20 15 9 10
Sales and Related $36,181 $58,513 58.2%37 28 17 18 33 26 16 17
Office and Administrative Support $42,488 $68,713 68.3%34 26 16 17 31 24 15 15
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry $39,520 $63,913 63.5%2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
Construction and Extraction $48,610 $78,614 78.1%13 10 6 7 12 9 6 6
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair $47,864 $77,408 76.9%20 15 10 10 18 14 9 9
Production $39,078 $63,199 62.8%6 4 3 3 5 4 2 3
Transportation and Material Moving $38,910 $62,927 62.6%18 14 9 9 17 13 8 8
Total - All Occupations $40,980 $66,275 65.9%330 254 157 165 302 232 143 151
[1] Assuming one earner makes 25th percentile wage of occupation and remaining earner makes the same wage
Source: CO State Demography Office (SDO), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics OEWS, APCHA, ACS, 2019 Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study, Economic & Planning Systems
2030 2035
88
89
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 76 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Table 59. Housing Demand from Employment Growth at 75th Percentile Wages – Pitkin County
75th %ile Household % AMI for New New New New
Ann. Wage Income [1]2-person HH New Jobs Employees Households New Units New Jobs Employees Households New Units
Occupation Sectors 2024 wages 1.6 empl./hh $100,600 1.3 jobs/empl 1.6 empl./hh 5% vacancy adj.1.3 jobs/empl 1.6 empl./hh 5% vacancy adj.
Pitkin County
Management $158,386 $256,149 254.6%19 14 9 9 17 13 8 9
Business and Financial Operations $106,960 $172,980 171.9%24 19 12 12 22 17 11 11
Computer and Mathematical $121,339 $196,235 195.1%4 3 2 2 4 3 2 2
Architecture and Engineering $102,710 $166,107 165.1%6 4 3 3 5 4 2 3
Life, Physical, and Social Science $96,307 $155,752 154.8%2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1
Community and Social Service $85,248 $137,867 137.0%2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1
Legal $160,286 $259,221 257.7%3 2 1 1 3 2 1 1
Educational Instruction and Library $78,410 $126,808 126.1%13 10 6 7 12 9 6 6
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media $85,866 $138,866 138.0%7 5 3 3 6 5 3 3
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical $131,652 $212,913 211.6%9 7 4 4 8 6 4 4
Healthcare Support $61,107 $98,825 98.2%2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1
Protective Service $79,350 $128,328 127.6%7 6 4 4 7 5 3 3
Food Preparation and Serving Related $53,321 $86,233 85.7%56 43 26 28 51 39 24 25
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance $56,138 $90,789 90.2%24 18 11 12 22 17 10 11
Personal Care and Service $51,473 $83,244 82.7%22 17 10 11 20 15 9 10
Sales and Related $63,653 $102,942 102.3%37 28 17 18 33 26 16 17
Office and Administrative Support $64,463 $104,252 103.6%34 26 16 17 31 24 15 15
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry $65,617 $106,119 105.5%2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
Construction and Extraction $72,989 $118,041 117.3%13 10 6 7 12 9 6 6
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair $75,041 $121,360 120.6%20 15 10 10 18 14 9 9
Production $58,760 $95,029 94.5%6 4 3 3 5 4 2 3
Transportation and Material Moving $76,851 $124,287 123.5%18 14 9 9 17 13 8 8
Total - All Occupations $76,851 $124,287 123.5%330 254 157 165 302 232 143 151
[1] Assuming one earner makes 75th percentile wage of occupation and remaining earner makes the same wage
Source: CO State Demography Office (SDO), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics OEWS, APCHA, ACS, 2019 Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study, Economic & Planning Systems
2030 2035
89
90
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 77 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Table 60. Housing Demand from Employment Growth at 25th Percentile Wages – Garfield County
25th %ile Household % AMI for New New New New
Ann. Wage Income [1]2.5-person HH New Jobs Employees Households New Units New Jobs Employees Households New Units
Occupation Sectors 2024 wages 1.6 empl./hh $87,100 1.3 jobs/empl 1.6 empl./hh 5% vacancy adj.1.3 jobs/empl 1.6 empl./hh 5% vacancy adj.
Garfield County
Management $85,873 $138,878 159.4%61 47 29 30 45 34 21 22
Business and Financial Operations $60,847 $98,404 113.0%64 49 30 32 47 36 22 23
Computer and Mathematical $75,166 $121,562 139.6%13 10 6 7 10 8 5 5
Architecture and Engineering $68,133 $110,188 126.5%18 14 8 9 13 10 6 6
Life, Physical, and Social Science $60,882 $98,461 113.0%11 8 5 5 8 6 4 4
Community and Social Service $47,575 $76,940 88.3%22 17 11 11 16 13 8 8
Legal $79,889 $129,200 148.3%8 6 4 4 6 5 3 3
Educational Instruction and Library $42,537 $68,793 79.0%78 60 37 39 58 44 27 29
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media $47,104 $76,179 87.5%14 11 7 7 10 8 5 5
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical $71,112 $115,005 132.0%68 52 32 34 50 38 24 25
Healthcare Support $41,694 $67,429 77.4%34 26 16 17 25 19 12 12
Protective Service $43,541 $70,416 80.8%30 23 14 15 22 17 10 11
Food Preparation and Serving Related $31,040 $50,199 57.6%116 89 55 58 85 66 41 43
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance $36,487 $59,008 67.7%52 40 25 26 38 29 18 19
Personal Care and Service $33,844 $54,734 62.8%31 24 15 16 23 18 11 11
Sales and Related $35,159 $56,861 65.3%124 96 59 62 91 70 43 46
Office and Administrative Support $42,608 $68,908 79.1%124 96 59 62 91 70 43 46
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry $35,675 $57,695 66.2%3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1
Construction and Extraction $47,888 $77,447 88.9%129 99 61 64 95 73 45 47
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair $47,495 $76,811 88.2%60 46 28 30 44 34 21 22
Production $40,384 $65,311 75.0%24 18 11 12 18 14 8 9
Transportation and Material Moving $40,148 $64,929 74.5%82 63 39 41 60 46 29 30
Total - All Occupations $40,755 $65,911 75.7%1,165 896 554 582 856 658 407 428
[1] Assuming one earner makes 25th percentile wage of occupation and remaining earner makes the same wage
Source: CO State Demography Office (SDO), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics OEWS, APCHA, ACS, 2019 Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study, Economic & Planning Systems
2030 2035
90
91
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 78 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Table 61. Housing Demand from Employment Growth at 75th Percentile Wages – Garfield County
75th %ile Household % AMI for New New New New
Ann. Wage Income [1]2.5-person HH New Jobs Employees Households New Units New Jobs Employees Households New Units
Occupation Sectors 2024 wages 1.6 empl./hh $87,100 1.3 jobs/empl 1.6 empl./hh 5% vacancy adj.1.3 jobs/empl 1.6 empl./hh 5% vacancy adj.
Garfield County
Management $158,850 $256,899 294.9%61 47 29 30 45 34 21 22
Business and Financial Operations $106,469 $172,186 197.7%64 49 30 32 47 36 22 23
Computer and Mathematical $125,260 $202,576 232.6%13 10 6 7 10 8 5 5
Architecture and Engineering $111,114 $179,698 206.3%18 14 8 9 13 10 6 6
Life, Physical, and Social Science $96,307 $155,752 178.8%11 8 5 5 8 6 4 4
Community and Social Service $75,054 $121,381 139.4%22 17 11 11 16 13 8 8
Legal $184,694 $298,695 342.9%8 6 4 4 6 5 3 3
Educational Instruction and Library $63,647 $102,933 118.2%78 60 37 39 58 44 27 29
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media $80,380 $129,994 149.2%14 11 7 7 10 8 5 5
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical $124,680 $201,638 231.5%68 52 32 34 50 38 24 25
Healthcare Support $50,970 $82,431 94.6%34 26 16 17 25 19 12 12
Protective Service $75,331 $121,829 139.9%30 23 14 15 22 17 10 11
Food Preparation and Serving Related $46,311 $74,896 86.0%116 89 55 58 85 66 41 43
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance $50,919 $82,348 94.5%52 40 25 26 38 29 18 19
Personal Care and Service $53,631 $86,734 99.6%31 24 15 16 23 18 11 11
Sales and Related $57,540 $93,056 106.8%124 96 59 62 91 70 43 46
Office and Administrative Support $61,281 $99,106 113.8%124 96 59 62 91 70 43 46
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry $53,947 $87,245 100.2%3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1
Construction and Extraction $70,720 $114,371 131.3%129 99 61 64 95 73 45 47
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair $78,488 $126,934 145.7%60 46 28 30 44 34 21 22
Production $72,203 $116,770 134.1%24 18 11 12 18 14 8 9
Transportation and Material Moving $60,089 $97,179 111.6%82 63 39 41 60 46 29 30
Total - All Occupations $75,846 $122,661 140.8%1,165 896 554 582 856 658 407 428
[1] Assuming one earner makes 75th percentile wage of occupation and remaining earner makes the same wage
Source: CO State Demography Office (SDO), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics OEWS, APCHA, ACS, 2019 Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study, Economic & Planning Systems
2030 2035
91
92
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 79 Current and Projected Housing Needs
As shown in Table 62 and Table 63, based on these assumptions there is a need for
2,650 new housing units to accommodate demand from employment growth over
the next 10 years – 631 units in Pitkin County, and 2,019 units in Garfield County.
In Pitkin County, this need is primarily for households earning between 51% and
130% AMI; in Garfield County the need is primarily for households earning 71-90%
and 111-135% AMI.
As shown, this analysis does not generate any keep up need below 50% AMI, due to
wage levels and multiple earner households (i.e., if someone is working even a job
at the 25th percentile wage and someone else in the household is also earning even
60% of that same wage, they will earn over 50% AMI).
Table 62. Pitkin County Housing Needed from Employment Growth, 2025-2035
Table 63. Garfield County Housing Needed from Employment Growth, 2025-2035
Description Total Owner Rental
Extremely- to Very Low Income
Category 1 (<50% AMI)0 0 0
Low Income
Category 2 (51% - 85% AMI)270 81 189
Moderate Income
Category 3 (86% - 130% AMI)268 134 134
Middle Income
Category 4 (131% - 205% AMI)65 39 26
Category 5 and above
Category 5 (206% - 240% AMI)8 6 2
Greater than 240% AMI 21 21 0
Total 631 281 350
Source: SDO, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics OEWS, APCHA, ACS, 2019 Greater
Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study, Economic & Planning Systems
Pitkin County
Units Needed (2025-2035)
Description Total Owner Rental
Category I
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI)0 0 0
Very Low Income (31 - 50% AMI)0 0 0
Low Income (51% - 70% AMI)282 0 282
Moderate Income
Category II (71% - 90% AMI)618 0 618
Category III (91% - 110% AMI)211 105 105
Category IV (111% - 135% AMI)517 259 259
Middle Income
136% - 150% AMI 128 64 64
151% - 200% AMI 117 82 35
Greater than 200% AMI 145 102 44
Total 2,019 612 1,407
Source: SDO, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics OEWS, APCHA, ACS, 2019 Greater
Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study, Economic & Planning Systems
Garfield County
Units Needed (2025-2035)
92
93
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 80 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Retirees
In addition to new jobs, housing will be needed for employees filling the jobs of
retiring workers. For those retirees who continue to live in the county, a job opening
is created by their retirement but a housing unit is not. Therefore, additional
housing units will be needed to accommodate new employees filling those open
positions because of the cost and scarcity of resident housing in this region.
U.S. Census data indicates that 11,650 workers across Pitkin and Garfield Counties
are aged 55 or older. Based on 2019 community survey and U.S. Census data, EPS
estimates that 9% of Pitkin County workers will retire in the next five years and an
additional 31% will retire in the next six to 10 years, with 65% of retirees staying in
the county. In Garfield County, an estimated 14% will retire in the next five years
and 21% in the next six to 10 years, with 54% of retirees staying in the county. As
shown in Table 64, applying these factors to current 55+ employment and applying
employees per household and vacancy factors results in a net need of 1,546 new
housing units (535 in Pitkin County and 1,011 in Garfield County).
Table 64. Housing Demand Generated by Retiring Workers
Total projected housing needs
Employment growth and retiring employees combine to generate a total need for
4,196 housing units through 2035, 1,166 in Pitkin County and 3,030 in Garfield
County, as shown in Table 65 and Table 66.
In Pitkin County, overall need is 56% rental housing and 44% ownership. The
greatest need for rental units is for households earning 51-85% ($51,300 to
$85,500), and the greatest need for ownership units is for households earning 86-
130% AMI ($86,500 to $130,800).
Retiring by Retiring by Retiring by Retiring by
Description 2030 2035 Total 2030 2035 Total
Labor Force age 55+----3,170 ----8,481
% of 55+ employees planning to retire 9%31%40%14%21%34%
Retiring employees 285 983 1,268 1,145 1,739 2,883
Employees per household 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Estimated retiring households 176 608 784 708 1,075 1,783
% of retirees likely to stay in County 65%65%65%54%54%54%
Additional households needing units 115 395 510 382 580 963
Vacancy adjustment 5%5%5%5%5%5%
Estimated additional housing units 120 415 535 401 610 1,011
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2019 Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study, Economic & Planning Systems
Pitkin County Garfield County
93
94
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 81 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Table 65. Projected Housing Need Summary – Pitkin County
In Garfield County, overall need is 70% rental housing and 30% ownership. The
greatest need for rental units is for households earning 71-90% AMI ($61,800 to
$78,400), and the greatest need for ownership units is for households earning 111-
135% AMI ($96,700 to $117,600).
Table 66. Projected Housing Need Summary – Garfield County
Description Total Owner Rental
Extremely- to Very Low Income
Category 1 (<50% AMI)0 0 0
Low Income
Category 2 (51% - 85% AMI)500 150 350
Moderate Income
Category 3 (86% - 130% AMI)494 247 247
Middle Income
Category 4 (131% - 205% AMI)119 72 48
Category 5 and above
Category 5 (206% - 240% AMI)15 12 3
Greater than 240% AMI 38 38 0
Total 1,166 519 648
Pitkin County
Projected Need
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE),
LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Description Total Owner Rental
Category I
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI)0 0 0
Very Low Income (31 - 50% AMI)0 0 0
Low Income (51% - 70% AMI)424 0 424
Moderate Income
Category II (71% - 90% AMI)927 0 927
Category III (91% - 110% AMI)316 158 158
Category IV (111% - 135% AMI)777 388 388
Middle Income
136% - 150% AMI 192 96 96
151% - 200% AMI 176 123 53
Greater than 200% AMI 218 153 66
Total 3,030 918 2,111
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE),
LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Garfield County
Projected Need
94
95
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 82 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Needs by Jurisdiction
Based on this analysis, regionwide there is a gross need (not accounting for the
development pipeline) for 7,686 housing units over the next 10 years. As shown in
Table 67, this is split approximately 45% current need and 55% future need, with
3,490 units to address existing housing shortages and 4,196 units to address
projected housing needs.
Within the region, existing needs are split approximately 50/50 between Pitkin and
Garfield Counties, while over 70% of future need is expected to be in Garfield
County. This aligns with trends outlined earlier indicating a shift of both population
and employment to Garfield County, with slow or stagnated growth in Pitkin County.
Table 67. Gross Needs and Gaps Summary
Existing Projected Gross % County % Regional
Description Shortage Need Need Need Need
Pitkin County 1,687 1,166 2,854 100%37%
Aspen 883 610 1,493 52%19%
Snowmass Village 300 208 508 18%7%
Basalt 213 147 360 13%5%
Unincorp. Pitkin County 291 201 493 17%6%
Garfield County 1,803 3,030 4,832 100%63%
Carbondale 232 389 621 13%8%
Glenwood Springs 717 1,205 1,922 40%25%
New Castle 58 97 155 3%2%
Silt 41 69 111 2%1%
Rifle 279 469 748 15%10%
Parachute 56 95 151 3%2%
Unincorp. Garfield County 419 705 1,124 23%15%
Regional Total 3,490 4,196 7,686 100%
Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor and Employment, Longitudinal Employer-
Household Dynamics, Colorado State Demographer's Office, 2019 Greater Roaring Fork Regional
Housing Study, Economic & Planning Systems
95
96
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 83 Current and Projected Housing Needs
As required by SB-24 174, housing needs are allocated within each county across
jurisdictions and the unincorporated areas according to the distribution of jobs. As
shown in Table 68, the biggest job centers in the region are Aspen (52% of Pitkin
County jobs) and Glenwood Springs (40% of Garfield County jobs).
Table 68. Jobs Distribution by Location, 2023
Based on this allocation, gross housing need is distributed as shown in Table 69.
The largest housing needs are in Glenwood Springs (1,922 total units), Aspen
(1,493 total units), and unincorporated Garfield County (1,124 units).
Table 69. Gross Needs by Jurisdiction
Total Employment 2022 County Region
Pitkin County + Basalt (Eagle)19,769 100.0%45.7%
Aspen 10,341 52.3%23.9%
Snowmass Village 3,519 17.8%8.1%
Basalt 2,497 12.6%5.8%
Unincorp. Pitkin County 3,412 17.3%7.9%
Garfield County 23,536 100.0%54.3%
Carbondale 3,025 12.9%7.0%
Glenwood Springs 9,361 39.8%21.6%
New Castle 756 3.2%1.7%
Silt 539 2.3%1.2%
Rifle 3,644 15.5%8.4%
Parachute 737 3.1%1.7%
Unincorp. Garfield County 5,474 23.3%12.6%
2022 % share
Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), Economic &
Planning Systems
% County % Regional
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Need Need
Pitkin County 1,687 748 940 1,166 519 648 2,854 1,266 1,587 100%37%
Aspen 883 361 522 610 271 339 1,493 632 861 52%19%
Snowmass Village 300 153 147 208 92 115 508 246 262 18%7%
Basalt 213 100 113 147 66 82 360 166 195 13%5%
Unincorp. Pitkin County 291 133 158 201 90 112 493 223 270 17%6%
Garfield County 1,803 615 1,188 3,030 918 2,111 4,832 1,533 3,299 100%63%
Carbondale 232 89 143 389 118 271 621 207 414 13%8%
Glenwood Springs 717 241 476 1,205 365 840 1,922 606 1,316 40%25%
New Castle 58 22 36 97 29 68 155 51 104 3%2%
Silt 41 14 27 69 21 48 111 35 76 2%1%
Rifle 279 89 190 469 142 327 748 231 517 15%10%
Parachute 56 14 43 95 29 66 151 43 109 3%2%
Unincorp. Garfield County 419 146 273 705 214 491 1,124 359 764 23%15%
Regional Total 3,490 1,362 2,128 4,196 1,437 2,759 7,686 2,799 4,887 100%
Existing Shortage Projected Need Gross Housing Need
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor and Employment, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Colorado State Demographer's Office, 2019 Greater Roaring Fork
Regional Housing Study, Economic & Planning Systems
96
97
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 84 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Development Pipeline
Developments in the region that are under construction or entitled will address
some of the 7,686 units needed. Table 70 summarizes current developments by
location, and projects are detailed in Table 72. There are 641 total pipeline
affordable units in the region – 357 units in Pitkin County and 284 units in Garfield
County. Units under construction are netted out of existing need and entitled units
are netted out of projected housing demand for each community.
Table 70. Development Pipeline by Tenure
% County % Regional
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Pipeline Pipeline
Pitkin County 317 0 317 40 17 23 357 17 340 100%56%
Aspen 277 0 277 18 0 18 295 0 295 83%46%
Snowmass Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0%
Basalt 40 0 40 22 17 5 62 17 45 17%10%
Unincorp. Pitkin County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0%
Garfield County 178 10 168 106 12 94 284 22 262 100%44%
Carbondale 23 0 23 2 0 2 25 0 25 9%4%
Glenwood Springs 95 0 95 9 0 9 104 0 104 37%16%
New Castle 0 0 0 29 6 23 29 6 23 10%5%
Silt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%0%
Rifle 10 10 0 60 0 60 70 10 60 25%11%
Parachute 50 0 50 0 0 0 50 0 50 18%8%
Unincorp. Garfield County 0 0 0 6 6 0 6 6 0 2%1%
Regional Total 495 10 485 146 29 117 641 39 602 100%
Source: Local Planning Departments, Economic & Planning Systems
Under Construction Entitled Total Pipeline
97
98
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 85 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Once pipeline units have been netted out, the total housing need across the region is
7,168 units – 2,538 in Pitkin County and 4,630 in Garfield County, shown in Table 71.
Table 71. Net Needs and Gaps Summary
98
99
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 86 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Table 72. Regional Development Pipeline
Location Project Name Affordable Market Total Type Rent/Own Market Restriction AMI Level
Under Construction
Aspen Lumber Yard 277 0 277 MF Rental Deed restricted <50% - 205%
Basalt Tree Farm 40 0 40 MF Rental Deed restricted --
Carbondale Carbondale Marketplace 23 92 115 MF Rental Deed restricted 80% - 120%
Glenwood Springs Glenwood Meadows 15 285 300 MF Rental Deed restricted - RO 100%
Glenwood Springs Mountain View Flats 4 36 40 MF Rental Deed restricted - RO 100%
Glenwood Springs Benedict Senior Housing 34 0 34 MF Rental LIHTC 30% - 80%
Glenwood Springs Iron Mountain Place 42 0 42 MF Rental RFTA employees 120%
Parachute The Gateway 50 18 68 MF Rental Workforce 80% - 100%
Rifle Wapiti Commons Phase 2 10 0 10 MF Own HFH 80%
Total Under Construction 495 431 926
Entitled
Aspen Aspen Hills 11 11 22 MF Rental Deed restricted --
Aspen 1020 East Cooper 4 0 5 MF Rental Deed restricted - RO --
Aspen 120 Main St 2 0 2 DU Rental Deed restricted - RO --
Aspen 808 Cemetery Lane 1 0 1 SF Rental Deed restricted --
Basalt Basalt Center Circle 17 48 65 MF Own Deed restricted - RO 60% - 120%
Basalt Basalt Commercial Park Lot J 3 0 3 TH Rental Deed restricted 60% - 120%
Basalt Stott's Mill 2 0 2 TH Rental Deed restricted 80% - 120%
Carbondale ANB Mixed Use Development 2 14 16 MF Rental Deed restricted 80% - 120%
Glenwood Springs Westlink 3 11 14 TH Rental Affordable/workforce --
Glenwood Springs The Confluence 6 0 6 TH Rental Deed restricted - RO --
New Castle Lakota/Longview HFH 6 0 6 SFH Own HFH --
New Castle Valley View Hospital 6 0 6 MF Rental Hospital staff --
New Castle Town of New Castle 5 0 5 MF Rental Town staff --
New Castle Garfield County RE-2 School District 7 0 7 MF Rental School district staff --
New Castle Colorado River Fire District 2 0 2 MF Rental CRFD staff --
New Castle Castle Valley Ranch 3 127 130 TH Rental Town managed discount rental pr --
Rifle Rifle Apartments 60 0 60 MF Rental LIHTC 30% - 80%
Unincorporated Garfield County Eagle Ridge 4 31 35 SFH & TH Own Deed restricted 70% - 110%
Unincorporated Garfield County The Reserve, Aspen Glen 2 19 21 SFH Own Deed restricted 90% - 110%
Total Entitled 146 261 408
Other
Aspen 1020 East Cooper 4 0 5 MF Rental Deed restricted - RO --
Aspen Phillips Mobile Home 35 0 35 MH & MF Unknown ----
Snowmass Village The Draw Site 63 0 63 MF Rental Workforce/rent control by TSV 80%
Snowmass Village SHOP 20 0 20 MF Rental SkiCo employees --
Basalt Major Employer Tiny Homes 30 0 107 --Rental Workforce 100%
Basalt Sopris Meadows Parcel 5 46 109 155 MF Own Deed restricted - RO --
Basalt Tree Farm Ownership 10 0 10 --Own Deed restricted 100% - 140%
Glenwood Springs Glenwood Gardens aka Canyon Vista 80 0 80 MF Rental Affordable --
New Castle Castle Valley Ranch 3 127 130 TH Rental Town managed discount rental pr --
Parachute Grand Valley Village 28 0 28 TH Unknown Workforce --
Parachute Mt. Callhan Eco Dwelling 54 0 54 SFH Own Affordable --
Unincorporated Garfield County Aster Place 58 0 58 MF Rental LIHTC 30% - 80%
Unincorporated Garfield County Oak Meadows 3 22 25 SFH & TH Own Deed restricted --
Unincorporated Garfield County River Ranch Phase 3 15 18 SFH & ADU Own Workforce --
Total Other 437 273 788
Source: Local planning departments, Economic & Planning Systems
Unit Count
99
100
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 87 Current and Projected Housing Needs
Table 73 and Table 74 summarize net need by AMI for Pitkin County and Garfield
County overall (not by jurisdiction). In Pitkin County, the greatest need for the
existing shortage is under 50% AMI for renters and above 205% AMI for owners
(note that this allocation is done based on the existing income distribution, and
there are documented challenges in filling low-income units that currently exist in
the county, and so this analysis may be overstating demand for units under 50%
AMI). The greatest need for future growth is 51-85% AMI for renters, and 86-
130% AMI for owners).
Table 73. Allocated Net Need by AMI – Pitkin County
100
101
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 88 Current and Projected Housing Needs
In Garfield County, the greatest need for existing shortage is less than 30% AMI for
rental, and over 200% AMI for ownership (note that housing for those making less
than 30% AMI is considered homeless/transitional housing and is typically
programmed and funded differently from traditional affordable housing). The
greatest projected need is between 71-90% AMI for renters and 111-135% AMI
for owners. A detailed breakdown of existing shortage and projected need by
tenure and AMI for all jurisdictions is provided in Appendix A.
Table 74. Allocated Net Need by AMI – Garfield County
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental
Category I
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI)232 0 232 0 0 0 232 0 232
Very Low Income (31 - 50% AMI)162 0 162 0 0 0 162 0 162
Low Income (51% - 70% AMI)173 0 173 388 0 388 561 0 561
Moderate Income
Category II (71% - 90% AMI)179 0 179 903 0 903 1,082 0 1,082
Category III (91% - 110% AMI)142 81 60 312 155 156 453 237 217
Category IV (111% - 135% AMI)145 94 51 769 386 383 913 479 434
Middle Income
136% - 150% AMI 104 54 51 188 95 93 292 149 143
151% - 200% AMI 267 189 78 173 123 50 440 312 128
Greater than 200% AMI 278 197 81 215 152 63 493 349 144
Total 1,683 615 1,068 2,947 910 2,036 4,629 1,525 3,104
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Garfield County
Existing Shortage Projected Need Net Housing Need
101
102
Appendix A
Need Tables for All Jurisdiction
102
103
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 88 Appendix A
Table A-1. Pitkin County Housing Need by Tenure and AMI
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental
Extremely- to Very Low Income
Category 1 (<50% AMI)282 0 282 0 0 0 282 0 282
Low Income
Category 2 (51% - 85% AMI)293 119 174 487 139 348 780 258 521
Moderate Income
Category 3 (86% - 130% AMI)205 137 69 485 241 244 691 378 313
Middle Income
Category 4 (131% - 205% AMI)222 159 63 112 72 41 334 231 103
Category 5 and above 399 333 66 399 333 66
Category 5 (206% - 240% AMI)15 12 3 15 12 3
Greater than 240% AMI 38 38 0 38 38 0
Total 1,401 748 653 1,138 502 636 2,538 1,250 1,289
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Existing Shortage Projected Need Net Housing Need
Pitkin County
103
104
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 89 Appendix A
Table A-2. Aspen Housing Need by Tenure and AMI
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental
Extremely- to Very Low Income
Category 1 (<50% AMI)174 0 174 0 0 0 174 0 174
Low Income
Category 2 (51% - 85% AMI)130 67 63 261 78 183 392 146 246
Moderate Income
Category 3 (86% - 130% AMI)61 61 0 259 129 129 319 190 129
Middle Income
Category 4 (131% - 205% AMI)84 72 12 55 37 18 139 109 30
Category 5 and above 187 161 26 187 161 26
Category 5 (206% - 240% AMI)8 6 2 8 6 2
Greater than 240% AMI 20 20 0 20 20 0
Total 636 361 275 603 271 332 1,239 632 607
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Existing Shortage Projected Need Net Housing Need
Aspen
104
105
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 90 Appendix A
Table A-3. Snowmass Village Housing Need by Tenure and AMI
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental
Extremely- to Very Low Income
Category 1 (<50% AMI)31 0 31 0 0 0 31 0 31
Low Income
Category 2 (51% - 85% AMI)69 21 49 89 27 62 158 48 111
Moderate Income
Category 3 (86% - 130% AMI)61 30 30 88 44 44 149 74 74
Middle Income
Category 4 (131% - 205% AMI)44 26 18 21 13 8 65 39 26
Category 5 and above 95 76 19 95 76 19
Category 5 (206% - 240% AMI)3 2 1 3 2 1
Greater than 240% AMI 7 7 0 7 7 0
Total 300 153 147 208 92 115 508 246 262
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Snowmass Village
Existing Shortage Projected Need Net Housing Need
105
106
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 91 Appendix A
Table A-4. Basalt Housing Need By Tenure and AMI
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental
Extremely- to Very Low Income
Category 1 (<50% AMI)22 0 22 0 0 0 22 0 22
Low Income
Category 2 (51% - 85% AMI)31 12 19 50 8 42 81 20 61
Moderate Income
Category 3 (86% - 130% AMI)34 21 13 53 25 28 88 46 42
Middle Income
Category 4 (131% - 205% AMI)44 31 13 15 9 6 60 40 19
Category 5 and above 42 36 6 42 36 6
Category 5 (206% - 240% AMI)2 2 0 2 2 0
Greater than 240% AMI 5 5 0 5 5 0
Total 173 100 73 125 49 77 298 149 150
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Basalt
Existing Shortage Projected Need Net Housing Need
106
107
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 92 Appendix A
Table A-5. Unincorporated Pitkin County Housing Need by Tenure and AMI
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental
Extremely- to Very Low Income
Category 1 (<50% AMI)55 0 55 0 0 0 55 0 55
Low Income
Category 2 (51% - 85% AMI)62 19 44 86 26 60 148 45 104
Moderate Income
Category 3 (86% - 130% AMI)50 25 25 85 43 43 135 68 68
Middle Income
Category 4 (131% - 205% AMI)49 29 20 21 12 8 70 42 28
Category 5 and above 75 60 15 75 60 15
Category 5 (206% - 240% AMI)3 2 1 3 2 1
Greater than 240% AMI 7 7 0 7 7 0
Total 291 133 158 201 90 112 493 223 270
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Unincorporated Pitkin County
Existing Shortage Projected Need Net Housing Need
107
108
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 93 Appendix A
Table A-6. Garfield County Housing Need by Tenure and AMI
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental
Category I
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI)232 0 232 0 0 0 232 0 232
Very Low Income (31 - 50% AMI)162 0 162 0 0 0 162 0 162
Low Income (51% - 70% AMI)173 0 173 388 0 388 561 0 561
Moderate Income
Category II (71% - 90% AMI)179 0 179 903 0 903 1,082 0 1,082
Category III (91% - 110% AMI)142 81 60 312 155 156 453 237 217
Category IV (111% - 135% AMI)145 94 51 769 386 383 913 479 434
Middle Income
136% - 150% AMI 104 54 51 188 95 93 292 149 143
151% - 200% AMI 267 189 78 173 123 50 440 312 128
Greater than 200% AMI 278 197 81 215 152 63 493 349 144
Total 1,683 615 1,068 2,947 910 2,036 4,629 1,525 3,104
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Garfield County Total
Existing Shortage Projected Need Net Housing Need
108
109
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 94 Appendix A
Table A-7. Carbondale Housing Need by Tenure and AMI
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental
Category I
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI)39 0 39 0 0 0 39 0 39
Very Low Income (31 - 50% AMI)12 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 12
Low Income (51% - 70% AMI)19 0 19 54 0 54 73 0 73
Moderate Income
Category II (71% - 90% AMI)10 0 10 118 0 118 128 0 128
Category III (91% - 110% AMI)18 13 5 41 20 20 59 33 25
Category IV (111% - 135% AMI)17 12 5 99 50 49 116 62 54
Middle Income
136% - 150% AMI 12 6 6 25 12 12 37 18 18
151% - 200% AMI 32 23 10 23 16 7 55 39 17
Greater than 200% AMI 50 35 15 28 20 8 78 55 23
Total 209 89 120 387 118 269 596 207 389
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Carbondale
Existing Shortage Projected Need Net Housing Need
109
110
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 95 Appendix A
Table A-8. Glenwood Springs Housing Need by Tenure and AMI
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental
Category I
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI)87 0 87 0 0 0 87 0 87
Very Low Income (31 - 50% AMI)65 0 65 0 0 0 65 0 65
Low Income (51% - 70% AMI)57 0 57 167 0 167 225 0 225
Moderate Income
Category II (71% - 90% AMI)82 0 82 367 0 367 448 0 448
Category III (91% - 110% AMI)38 24 14 126 63 63 164 87 77
Category IV (111% - 135% AMI)36 36 0 309 154 154 345 190 154
Middle Income
136% - 150% AMI 43 23 20 74 38 36 118 61 56
151% - 200% AMI 114 82 32 68 49 19 182 131 51
Greater than 200% AMI 105 76 29 85 61 24 190 136 53
Total 628 241 387 1,196 365 831 1,824 606 1,218
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Glenwood Springs
Existing Shortage Projected Need Net Housing Need
110111
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 96 Appendix A
Table A-9. New Castle Housing Need by Tenure and AMI
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental
Category I
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI)6 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 6
Very Low Income (31 - 50% AMI)5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 5
Low Income (51% - 70% AMI)6 0 6 9 0 9 15 0 15
Moderate Income
Category II (71% - 90% AMI)5 0 5 20 0 20 25 0 25
Category III (91% - 110% AMI)8 4 4 7 4 3 16 8 7
Category IV (111% - 135% AMI)6 3 3 18 10 8 24 13 11
Middle Income
136% - 150% AMI 2 1 1 4 2 2 7 4 3
151% - 200% AMI 6 4 2 4 3 1 11 8 3
Greater than 200% AMI 13 9 4 5 4 1 18 13 5
Total 58 22 36 68 23 45 126 45 81
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
New Castle
Existing Shortage Projected Need Net Housing Need
111112
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 97 Appendix A
Table A-10. Silt Housing Need by Tenure and AMI
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental
Category I
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI)4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 4
Very Low Income (31 - 50% AMI)4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 4
Low Income (51% - 70% AMI)5 0 5 10 0 10 14 0 14
Moderate Income
Category II (71% - 90% AMI)6 0 6 21 0 21 27 0 27
Category III (91% - 110% AMI)3 2 2 7 4 4 11 5 5
Category IV (111% - 135% AMI)4 2 2 18 9 9 22 11 11
Middle Income
136% - 150% AMI 2 1 1 4 2 2 7 3 3
151% - 200% AMI 7 5 2 4 3 1 11 8 3
Greater than 200% AMI 6 4 2 5 4 2 11 8 3
Total 41 14 27 69 21 48 111 35 76
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Silt
Existing Shortage Projected Need Net Housing Need
112
113
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 98 Appendix A
Table A-11. Rifle Housing Need by Tenure and AMI
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental
Category I
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI)33 0 33 0 0 0 33 0 33
Very Low Income (31 - 50% AMI)28 0 28 0 0 0 28 0 28
Low Income (51% - 70% AMI)35 0 35 36 0 36 71 0 71
Moderate Income
Category II (71% - 90% AMI)33 0 33 133 0 133 165 0 165
Category III (91% - 110% AMI)29 14 14 49 24 24 78 39 39
Category IV (111% - 135% AMI)33 17 17 120 60 60 153 77 77
Middle Income
136% - 150% AMI 19 9 9 30 15 15 49 24 24
151% - 200% AMI 43 30 13 27 19 8 70 49 21
Greater than 200% AMI 27 19 8 34 24 10 61 42 18
Total 279 89 190 428 142 286 707 231 476
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Rifle
Existing Shortage Projected Need Net Housing Need
113114
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 99 Appendix A
Table A-12. Parachute Housing Need by Tenure and AMI
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental
Category I
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI)10 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 10
Very Low Income (31 - 50% AMI)10 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 10
Low Income (51% - 70% AMI)7 0 7 13 0 13 20 0 20
Moderate Income
Category II (71% - 90% AMI)0 0 0 29 0 29 29 0 29
Category III (91% - 110% AMI)3 3 0 10 5 5 13 8 5
Category IV (111% - 135% AMI)5 3 3 24 12 12 30 15 15
Middle Income
136% - 150% AMI 3 1 1 6 3 3 9 4 4
151% - 200% AMI 6 4 2 6 4 2 12 8 3
Greater than 200% AMI 4 3 1 7 5 2 11 8 3
Total 48 14 35 95 29 66 143 43 101
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Parachute
Existing Shortage Projected Need Net Housing Need
114
115
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 100 Appendix A
Table A-13. Unincorporated Garfield County Housing Need by Tenure and AMI
Description Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental Total Owner Rental
Category I
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI)54 0 54 0 0 0 54 0 54
Very Low Income (31 - 50% AMI)39 0 39 0 0 0 39 0 39
Low Income (51% - 70% AMI)44 0 44 99 0 99 143 0 143
Moderate Income
Category II (71% - 90% AMI)44 0 44 216 0 216 259 0 259
Category III (91% - 110% AMI)42 21 21 72 35 37 113 56 58
Category IV (111% - 135% AMI)43 21 21 181 90 90 223 112 112
Middle Income
136% - 150% AMI 23 11 11 45 22 22 67 34 34
151% - 200% AMI 58 41 17 41 29 12 99 69 30
Greater than 200% AMI 73 51 22 51 36 15 124 87 37
Total 419 146 273 703 212 491 1,122 357 764
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment (CDLE), LEHD, CHFA, Economic & Planning Systems
Unincorporated Garfield County
Existing Shortage Projected Need Net Housing Need
115
116
REGIONAL HOUSING
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
DRAFT PHASE II REPORT
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Roaring Fork Valley and Colorado River Valley Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Pitkin County
City of Aspen
Town of Snowmass Village
Town of Basalt
Garfield County
Town of Carbondale
City of Glenwood Springs
Town of New Castle
Town of Silt
City of Rifle
Town of Parachute
June 16, 2026
EPS #243156
116117
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
117
118
Table of Contents
1.Housing Problems 1
Overcrowding, Temporary Housing Conditions, and Homelessness ................................................................... 1
Housing Affordability ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
Displacement Risk ................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.Housing Resources 15
Existing Housing Tools and Programs ........................................................................................................................... 16
Dedicated Funding Sources .............................................................................................................................................. 26
3.Housing Development Challenges and Opportunities 29
Development Challenges and Market Limitations ................................................................................................... 29
4.Policy Programs and Recommendations 31
Regional Strategies ............................................................................................................................................................... 31
Countywide and Local Strategies .................................................................................................................................... 32
118
119
List of Tables
Table 1. Overcrowding, Temporary Housing, and Homelessness, Pitkin and Garfield Counties, 2023 ...... 1
Table 2. Cost Burdened Households .................................................................................................................................... 2
Table 3. Share of Households by AMI................................................................................................................................... 4
Table 4. Housing Units Built Before 1970 .......................................................................................................................... 6
Table 5. Overcrowded Housing Units .................................................................................................................................. 7
Table 6. Population Aged 18 and Older Without a High School Degree ................................................................. 8
Table 7. Population with Limited English Proficiency .................................................................................................... 9
Table 8. Single-Parent Households .................................................................................................................................... 10
Table 9. BIPOC Households .................................................................................................................................................. 11
Table 10. Population Aged 65 Years and Above .............................................................................................................. 12
Table 11. Households With Household Members with Disability, 2022 ................................................................ 13
Table 12. Summary of Existing Housing Resources ........................................................................................................ 15
List of Figures
Figure 1. Pitkin County Lower-Income Cost Burdened Renter Households ........................................................... 3
Figure 2. Garfield County Lower-Income Cost Burdened Renter Households ...................................................... 3
Figure 3. Pitkin County Renter Households ........................................................................................................................ 5
Figure 4. Garfield County Renter Households.................................................................................................................... 5
119
120
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 Housing Problems
1.Housing Problems
This chapter details specific housing problems in the Roaring Fork and Colorado
River valleys, identifying additional factors (beyond those directly contributing to
housing needs) leading to housing challenges in the region. These include
overcrowding/temporary housing, affordability/cost burden, and displacement risk.
Overcrowding, Temporary Housing Conditions, and
Homelessness
Overcrowding is defined as a living arrangement with more than one person per
room (total rooms, not just bedrooms). This may include units with several
roommates, multiple couples sharing one unit, or entire families living in a single
bedroom. In addition to overcrowding, temporary housing conditions exist in the
region, where residents live with family or friends, live in a camper or RV, stay in a
private vehicle not suited for habitation, or live in a hotel/motel. Additionally,
conditions in the region can cause homelessness, where individuals lose access to
stable and safe permanent housing.
Aggregating data from the U.S. Census and local research by SHG Advisors and
Pitkin County on homelessness, there are an estimated 247 households in Pitkin
County and 601 households in Garfield County that are overcrowded, living in
temporary housing conditions, or experiencing homelessness (Table 1).
It is important to note that these data points are typically hard to obtain and are
likely an undercount, due to the nature of survey distribution and respondents’
fear of possible legal consequences for their living arrangement or residency and
employment status.
Table 1. Overcrowding, Temporary Housing, and Homelessness, Pitkin and Garfield Counties,
2023
Description Pitkin County Garfield County Total
Total Overcrowded and Temporary Housing Units 247 601 848
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SHG Advisors, Economic & Planning Systems
120121
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 Housing Problems
Housing Affordability
Housing affordability is a significant challenge in Pitkin and Garfield Counties.
Affordability is defined as a household’s ability to secure safe, stable, and adequate
housing without a significant financial burden, typically not spending more than
30% of gross income on housing. In 2024, 38.1% of Pitkin County households and
34.8% of Garfield County households were cost burdened, paying 30% or more of
their income toward housing (Table 2). The overall share of cost burdened
households increased in both Pitkin and Garfield counties between 2019 and 2024.
Only three communities (Snowmass Village, Basalt, and Silt) saw a decreased share
of cost burdened households over this time.
Table 2. Cost Burdened Households
Displacement Risk
Displacement risk is the likelihood that residents or businesses may be forced to
involuntarily relocate due to economic pressures or physical conditions. Many
factors influence displacement risk in the region, including economic
circumstances, demographics, and housing conditions.
Displacement risk is outlined based on 11 specific factors: Cost burdened low-
income renter households, low-income households, renter households, older housing
units, overcrowded housing units, educational attainment, English proficiency,
single-parent households, BIPOC households, older populations, and residents
with a disability. Many of these data points have high margins of error and may not
reflect reality on the ground, but many of the issues noted below are a significant
challenge in the region and increase displacement risk for many residents. This
data also reflects existing conditions, which includes a significant amount of deed-
restricted and affordable housing, so not all of the data represents a risk or need.
Description 2019 2024 2019 2024
Cost Burdened Households
Pitkin County 2,636 3,511 35.3% 38.1%
Aspen 1,177 1,932 35.1% 47.1%
Snowmass Village 521 572 42.5% 32.5%
Basalt (total)854 833 45.2% 42.4%
Garfield County 6,292 8,148 29.3% 34.8%
Carbondale 789 990 32.3% 35.2%
Glenwood Springs 1,496 1,582 37.8% 40.6%
New Castle 361 951 23.7% 46.9%
Silt 515 474 48.9% 36.1%
Rifle 858 1,180 25.2% 31.1%
Parachute 149 155 29.9% 30.0%
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Economic & Planning Systems
% Total HouseholdsNo. of Households
121122
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Housing Problems
Cost Burdened Low-Income Renter Households
Renter households, especially those earning lower incomes and cost burdened
(paying over 30% of their income toward housing), are more vulnerable to
increasing rent, squeezing the balance of their income to be spread across other
necessities like food and healthcare. Among renter households earning less than
$75,000 annually, over 80% in Pitkin County (Figure 1) and 70% in Garfield County
(Figure 2) are cost burdened. In some communities, nearly all renter households
earning less than $75,000 are cost burdened. The share of low-income renter
households who are cost burdened has generally increased since 2019.
Figure 1. Pitkin County Lower-Income Cost Burdened Renter Households
Figure 2. Garfield County Lower-Income Cost Burdened Renter Households
122
123
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 Housing Problems
Low-Income Households
Lower income households in general, not just those that are cost-burdened, are
also at risk of displacement because their incomes are insufficient to afford market
rate housing or readily adjust to changes in housing costs. As shown in Table 3,
approximately 40% of the region’s households earn below 80% AMI, increasing
their vulnerability to displacement (for those not living in affordable housing).
Table 3. Share of Households by AMI
≤ 30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI >80% AMI
Description Extremely Low Very Low Low Income >= Moderate
Pitkin County 8.3%10.0%19.7%61.0%
Aspen 7.5%9.2%24.4%58.2%
Snowmass Village 8.1%10.4%21.8%60.4%
Basalt (Pitkin County)5.9%2.4%32.9%57.9%
Unicorp. Pitkin County 10.0%12.2%8.8%66.2%
Garfield County 9.9%9.2%19.1%60.8%
Carbondale 12.4%7.4%12.2%67.2%
Glenwood Springs 14.0%7.6%15.9%61.2%
New Castle 11.0%2.8%23.2%61.3%
Silt 9.9%10.8%22.9%55.2%
Rifle 8.2%10.4%27.2%52.1%
Parachute 11.9%23.7%21.7%41.5%
Unicorp. Garfield County 7.7%10.4%17.8%64.1%
Totals may not sum due to margins of error
% Households
Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD Consolidated Planning/CHAS
Data, 2018-2022 5-year estimates; Compiled by SDO
123124
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Housing Problems
Renter Households
Renters may also be at greater risk of displacement because they do not own their
homes and are vulnerable to unforeseen increases in housing costs. Rent can often
go up significantly with new lease terms, and rising rent can increase displacement
pressure for residents. Approximately 37% of Pitkin County and 30% of Garfield
County households are renters (Figure 3 and Figure 4). This share is slightly higher
in certain communities, including Aspen, Basalt, Glenwood Springs, and Parachute,
meaning a greater share of the population are at increased risk of displacement
(similarly to low-income households, those living in programmatically affordable
units are less vulnerable to displacement).
Figure 3. Pitkin County Renter Households
Figure 4. Garfield County Renter Households
124
125
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Housing Problems
Older Housing Units
Older housing can also be a displacement risk factor due to potential deferred
maintenance, more expensive maintenance in the future, and lack of accessibility
features (for example, it can be challenging for someone to stay in their home as
they age or if their mobility changes). Older housing units may also have historic
preservation designations, making repairs and changes more challenging and/or
expensive.
About 17% of Pitkin County and 14% of Garfield County housing units were built
before 1970 (Table 4). This share is higher in Glenwood Springs (31%) and Rifle
(23%). Some communities have also added housing since 2019, reducing the share
of older housing stock.
Table 4. Housing Units Built Before 1970
Description 2019 2024 2019 2024
Housing built before 1970
Pitkin County 2,279 2,235 16.3%16.7%
Aspen 1,569 1,123 24.2%18.3%
Snowmass Village 204 374 6.8%12.6%
Basalt (total)109 258 4.4%11.8%
Garfield County 4,221 3,524 17.6%14.1%
Carbondale 349 234 12.8%7.9%
Glenwood Springs 1,503 1,320 33.7%31.4%
New Castle 152 66 9.1%3.2%
Silt 164 66 15.0%5.0%
Rifle 737 901 20.6%22.7%
Parachute 123 60 18.7%10.9%
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Economic & Planning Systems
% Total UnitsNo. of Units
125
126
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Housing Problems
Overcrowded Housing Units
As described above, overcrowding is defined as a living arrangement with more
than one person per room. As of 2024, about 1.0% of Pitkin County occupied
housing units and 2.0% of Garfield County were overcrowded (Table 5). This data
shows that in most communities, the share of overcrowded units has decreased
since 2019.
Table 5. Overcrowded Housing Units
Description 2019 2024 2019 2024
Overcrowded Housing Units
Pitkin County 172 95 2.3%1.0%
Aspen 92 47 2.7%1.1%
Snowmass Village 38 0 3.1%0.0%
Basalt (total)37 38 2.0%1.9%
Garfield County 1,010 476 4.7%2.0%
Carbondale 159 24 6.5%0.9%
Glenwood Springs 241 10 6.1%0.3%
New Castle 89 63 5.8%3.1%
Silt 8 17 0.8%1.3%
Rifle 142 71 4.2%1.9%
Parachute 3 11 0.6%2.1%
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Economic & Planning Systems
% Occ. UnitsNo. of Units
126127
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 Housing Problems
Educational Attainment
Individuals with low educational attainment, non-English speakers, single-parent
households, and households headed by people identifying as Black, Indigenous, and
People of Color (BIPOC households) can have higher risk of displacement due to
job access and employment and housing discrimination.
In Pitkin County, only about 3.7% of the population aged 18 years and over do not
have a high-school degree (Table 6). In comparison, 11.0% of the adults in Garfield
County do not have a high-school degree, with slightly higher shares in Carbondale
and Rifle.
Table 6. Population Aged 18 and Older Without a High School Degree
Description 2019 2024 2019 2024
Adults without a high school degree
Pitkin County 498 535 3.3%3.7%
Aspen 143 88 2.2%1.4%
Snowmass Village 5 100 0.2%3.9%
Basalt (total)118 26 3.7%0.7%
Garfield County 5,818 5,166 13.2%11.0%
Carbondale 1,000 699 19.0%12.6%
Glenwood Springs 996 911 12.8%11.6%
New Castle 322 164 9.4%4.6%
Silt 221 301 10.4%11.5%
Rifle 1,213 1,119 17.9%14.6%
Parachute 202 77 22.7%8.0%
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Economic & Planning Systems
% Total Adults Count
127
128
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Housing Problems
English Proficiency
Residents in the region are generally proficient in English. In 2024, 0.3% of Pitkin
County residents aged 5 years and above, and 5.7% in Garfield County, reported to
have limited English proficiency (Table 7).
These figures have large margins of error (for example, it is unlikely that the true
count in Snowmass Village is 0) and may be an undercount due to self-reporting
and because residents with limited English proficiency may also have immigrant
backgrounds with a distrust of government. These residents may be facing housing
instability, along with language and cultural barriers.
Table 7. Population with Limited English Proficiency
Description 2019 2024 2019 2024
Population 5 years and older with limited english proficiency
Pitkin County 118 48 0.7% 0.3%
Aspen 7 45 0.1% 0.7%
Snowmass Village 0 0 0.0% 0.0%
Basalt (total)45 0 1.2% 0.0%
Garfield County 3,076 3,337 5.6% 5.7%
Carbondale 655 306 10.4% 4.8%
Glenwood Springs 596 312 6.3% 3.2%
New Castle 296 278 6.6% 6.4%
Silt 123 203 4.4% 5.9%
Rifle 685 896 7.6% 9.2%
Parachute 41 11 3.4% 0.8%
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Economic & Planning Systems
% Pop >5yrsCount
128
129
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 Housing Problems
Single-Parent Households
In addition to single-parent households being at risk of displacement due to job
access and employment and housing discrimination, they also often have lower
incomes and higher relative costs related to childcare compared to two-parent
households. Approximately 3.2% of Pitkin County households and 5.9% of Garfield
County households were single-parent households in 2024 (Table 8). There are
higher rates of single parent households in Silt (11.9%) and Parachute (16.1%). The
rate of single parent households decreased in all Pitkin County communities
between 2019 and 2024, which may indicate displacement already occurring in
this group.
Table 8. Single-Parent Households
Description 2019 2024 2019 2024
Single-Parent Households
Pitkin County 578 296 7.7%3.2%
Aspen 218 169 6.5%4.1%
Snowmass Village 140 47 11.4%2.7%
Basalt (total)53 16 2.8%0.8%
Garfield County 1,193 1,390 5.5%5.9%
Carbondale 114 103 4.7%3.7%
Glenwood Springs 250 322 6.3%8.3%
New Castle 122 85 8.0%4.2%
Silt 161 157 15.3%11.9%
Rifle 123 322 3.6%8.5%
Parachute 59 83 11.8%16.1%
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Economic & Planning Systems
% Total HouseholdsNo. of Households
129
130
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 Housing Problems
BIPOC Households
About 19% of Pitkin County heads of households and 28.3% of Garfield County
identified as a race or ethnicity other than non-Hispanic white (Table 9). These
residents may face housing discrimination, leading to higher vulnerability to
displacement. Similarly to the data on English proficiency, these data have large
margins of error and should be taken as general trends, and not absolute counts.
Table 9. BIPOC Households
Description 2019 2024 2019 2024
BIPOC Households
Pitkin County 567 1,752 7.6% 19.0%
Aspen 315 896 9.4% 21.8%
Snowmass Village 0 322 0.0% 18.3%
Basalt (total)77 261 4.1% 13.3%
Garfield County 4,941 6,628 23.0% 28.3%
Carbondale 619 590 25.3% 21.0%
Glenwood Springs 916 1,362 23.1% 35.0%
New Castle 327 711 21.5% 35.1%
Silt 334 507 31.7% 38.6%
Rifle 888 1,537 26.0% 40.5%
Parachute 104 36 20.9% 7.0%
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Economic & Planning Systems
% Total HouseholdsNo. of Households
130
131
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 Housing Problems
Older Population
Aging residents and populations with disabilities are more vulnerable to
displacement due to limited employment and housing opportunity, and are often
living on fixed incomes which make it more challenging to adjust to rising housing
costs. The population over age 65 is increasing across the region, with 22.8% of
Pitkin County residents and 14.8% of Garfield County residents aged 65 years and
older. Communities like Snowmass Village and Basalt have a higher share of older
residents, at nearly 35% and 24% respectively (Table 10).
Table 10. Population Aged 65 Years and Above
Description 2019 2024 2019 2024
Population aged 65 years and over
Pitkin County 3,192 3,875 17.8%22.8%
Aspen 1,413 1,174 19.0%17.4%
Snowmass Village 416 1,038 14.9%34.9%
Basalt (total)787 1,038 20.5%23.9%
Garfield County 7,477 9,222 12.7%14.8%
Carbondale 815 1,322 12.0%19.9%
Glenwood Springs 1,369 1,364 13.8%13.3%
New Castle 396 775 8.1%15.9%
Silt 172 274 5.5%7.5%
Rifle 1,022 1,015 10.6%9.6%
Parachute 113 152 8.6%10.7%
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Economic & Planning Systems
% Total PopulationPopulation >65yrs
131
132
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 Housing Problems
Populations with a Disability
Over 15% of Pitkin County households and 20% of Garfield County households
reported to have at least one member in their households with a disability, as
shown in Table 11. These households are at a higher risk of displacement since
they may have fewer employment and housing options that are accessible.
Table 11. Households With Household Members with Disability, 2022
Description Estimate Share Estimate Share
Household member has a hearing or vision impairment 810 10.0% 2,410 10.8%
Household member has an ambulatory limitation 220 2.7% 2,230 10.0%
Household member has a cognitive limitation 385 4.7% 1,595 7.1%
Household member has a self-care or independent living limitation 275 3.4% 1,810 8.1%
Household member has at least one of the above limitations 1,265 15.6% 4,530 20.2%
Household member has none of the above limitations 6,850 84.4% 17,860 79.8%
Total Households 8,115 22,390
Note: Households may be counted in multiple categories (categories are not mutually exclusive)
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy 2018-22 (CHAS), Economic & Planning Systems
Pitkin County Garfield County
132
133
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
133
134
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Housing Resources
2.Housing Resources
Housing challenges have been a long-term persistent issue in the region, and the
counties and municipalities have already made strides in addressing housing
affordability. There are a variety of housing affordability programs and resources
that are available throughout the region, as shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Summary of Existing Housing Resources
Pitkin Snowmass Garfield Glenwood New
Program County Aspen Village Basalt County Carbondale Springs Castle Silt Rifle Parachute
Deed Restriction Programs X X X X X
Includes buy-downs and deed restriction
incentive programs, either at time of sale or for
existing owners
Inclusionary Housing Policies X X X X X X X X
Includes inclusionary housing ordinances, set-
aside requirements, and affordability incentives
Down Payment Assistance X X X X X
Includes grants, loans, or deed restriction
incentives or contributions to down payment
assistance programs
Employee Housing Programs X X X X X
Includes deed-restricted units and down
payment assistance specifically for town
Habitat for Humanity X X X X X X X
Communities with current or planned Habitat for
Humanity developments
Rental Assistance X X
Includes grants and loans for first/last month
rent and security deposit
ADU Incentives X X X X X X
Includes loans, grants, and fee waivers for ADU
construction for local housing
Fee waivers and reductions X X X X X X
Includes utility fees, permitting fees, and other
development costs
Source: Respective Towns and Counties, Economic & Planning Systems
134
135
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 Housing Resources
Existing Housing Tools and Programs
Deed Restriction Incentives and Buydown Programs
Deed restriction incentives and buydown programs are programs where
governments or organizations provide funding to a prospective home buyer or an
existing homeowner in exchange for placing a deed restriction on their home.
These funds may be used to either “buy-down” a home, i.e. reduce purchase price,
or towards maintenance and upkeep of a home that may allow an existing owner to
remain in their home. The deed restriction typically restricts ownership in
perpetuity to a local employee or resident.
• The West Mountain Regional Housing Coalition (WMRHC), a nonprofit
organization working with local governments in the region to address housing
affordability, administers the Good Deeds program, which contributes funds at
closing of a market home purchase toward the application of a deed restriction
on the property. The WMRHC contributes up to 30% of the contracted
purchase price in exchange for the recording of a price-capped deed restriction
on the property in perpetuity. To qualify for the program, buyers must work an
average of 1,400 hours per year anywhere in Pitkin and Garfield counties, with
75% of those hours at a business with a physical location in the counties. As of
June 2026, WMRHC had purchased 23 deed restrictions.
• Many governments within the region are members of the WMRHC, including
Pitkin County, the Towns of Carbondale, Basalt, and Snowmass Village, and the
Cities of Aspen and Glenwood Springs. Some of these communities and other
agencies in the region also have local deed restriction programs.
• The City of Aspen administers an Affordable Housing Credits Program (AH
credits), aiming to both encourage private sector development of affordable
housing and to establish an option for housing mitigation that immediately
offsets the impact of new development. A Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit is issued to a developer who builds affordable housing voluntarily (rather
than to meet a mitigation requirement). This certificate can then be purchased
by another entity to satisfy the mitigation requirements of its own new
development.
135
136
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 Housing Resources
Inclusionary Housing Policies and Mitigation Requirements
Inclusionary Housing Ordinances (IHOs) are policies that require a designated
percentage of housing units in new developments to be set aside as affordable or
local housing. These policies ensure that new residential growth naturally includes
housing options accessible to local households. Some governments also administer
workforce housing mitigation measures on new developments that require
developers to build, buy, or pay for affordable housing to offset the impact of their
development on the local housing market.
• The Pitkin County Employee Housing Impact Fee (EHIF) requires developers
and property owners to mitigate the local workforce housing shortage caused
by new development, demolitions, or replacement construction. The fee is
calculated to offset the number of employees generated by construction and
permanent maintenance of a property. Funds collected from the EHIF are used
by the County to subsidize, acquire, and build dwelling units managed by
APCHA or the County. A developer may be allowed to avoid full payment of the
impact fee through the construction of deed restricted employee housing, the
acquisition and deed restriction of existing residential housing units, or the
dedication of real property to Pitkin County that will be used for the
construction of employee housing.
• The City of Aspen’s IHO requires 30% of a residential development’s total floor
area to be set aside for affordable housing. When a project triggers employee
housing mitigation or fee-in-lieu requirements, the City conducts an employee
generation analysis. The current residential mitigation rate is 0.107 Full-Time
Equivalent (FTE) employees per 1,000 square feet of free-market single-family,
duplex, and multi-family development. This rate reflects 100% of construction-
related employee generation and 25% of operations and maintenance employee
generation. To help developers satisfy their combined IHO and employee
mitigation obligations, the City’s Affordable Housing Mitigation Program offers
a menu of compliance options, including the Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credits program.
• The Town of Snowmass Village requires developers to mitigate 100% of the
employee housing demand created by new projects. Developers must typically
construct on-site or off-site affordable housing, pay fees-in-lieu, or donate land
for housing projects.
• In Basalt, all new residential developments with more than two units are
required to provide 20% of residential units (at least 25% of residential square
footage) as deed-restricted housing affordable to those making an average
100% AMI for rentals and 120% AMI for for-sale units. Additionally, 30% of
employees generated by new commercial development are required to be
mitigated for with housing affordable to those making an average of 100% AMI.
136
137
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 Housing Resources
• Garfield County’s Land Use Development Code (LUDC) requires that all
residential Land Use Change permits and subdivisions proposing 15 or more
units or lots in unincorporated Garfield County provide 10% of the lots or units
as Mitigation Units. Developers can meet this obligation through the
construction of income-limited for-sale or rental housing on site, a partnership
and monetary donation to a nonprofit that constructs affordable housing, or off-
site construction subject to BOCC approval. Mitigation units must be affordable
to low- and moderate-income households, dispersed across three categories:
20% of required units must be affordable at Category I (70% AMI and sold up to
80% AMI households), 30% must be Category II (90% AMI and sold up to 100%
AMI households), and 50% of units must be in Category III (110% AMI and sold
up to 180% AMI households).
• In Carbondale, the Community Housing Inclusionary Requirements established
a two-track compliance policy for developments of four or more units, each for
rental and ownership projects. Under the rental track, four-unit projects must set
aside 25% of units for local AMI categories, projects with five to six units require
20% AMI units (15% of bedrooms), while projects with seven or more units
require 25% AMI units (20% of bedrooms). The for-sale track combines AMI and
Resident Occupied (RO) restrictions. Four-unit developments must provide 25%
RO units. Projects with five to six units require 20% AMI units (15% of
bedrooms) plus 20% of remaining units as RO. Projects with seven to nine units
require 25% AMI units (20% of bedrooms) plus 20% of remaining units as RO.
Large projects of ten or more units require 25% AMI units (20% of bedrooms)
plus 25% of remaining units as RO. Both tracks apply an AMI sequencing cycle
to distribute affordability across income bands. The first required unit targets
100% AMI, the second targets 80% AMI, and the third targets 120% AMI. The
fourth unit requires 150% AMI for for-sale projects or 80% AMI for rental
projects, after which the allocation cycle repeats. The Community Housing
Guidelines provides additional direction for mitigation compliance and directs
the types of units being built, minimum unit size, and sale price.
• Per the Glenwood Springs Community Housing Standards and Guidelines, all
developments with 10 or more units must provide 10% (for-sale) or 20% (rental)
of units as affordable to 100% AMI. Furthermore, 20% of units, rental or for-
sale, must be occupied by local workforce
137
138
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 Housing Resources
Downpayment Assistance
Downpayment Assistance is a financial program that provides grants or loans to
help homebuyers cover the upfront costs of purchasing a home.
• The Garfield County Housing Authority (GCHA) provides up to 3% of the
purchase price of a home, up to a maximum of $15,000, to qualified households
who work a minimum of 30 hours per week and earn below 150% AMI. The loan
must be repaid within 30 years or upon specific conditions such as resale,
refinance, default and foreclosure, whichever is earlier.
• The City of Glenwood Springs administers a downpayment assistance program
where first-time homebuyers and first-generation homebuyers with gross
household incomes of up to $126,721 can receive downpayment assistance of
up to 20% of the purchase price within city limits. Repayment on the loan would
only be due upon resale, refinance, or when it is no longer the primary residence.
Employee Housing Programs
Employee housing programs provide assistance to City, Town, or County
employees to rent or purchase a residence.
• The City of Aspen provides a range of resources for full-time employees subject
to City Manager approval. This includes subsidized rental, ownership, and
transitional rentals through the 78 housing units in their inventory, a homeowner
assistance program in the form of a loan, and rental assistance for all employees.
• Pitkin County has made available a “Touchdown Unit” for County employees
living outside the transit service area, to facilitate access to an overnight studio
up to two nights at no charge. The County also administers an Employee
Housing Opportunity Program through shared equity and downpayment
assistance. The shared equity model contributes funds towards buying a free-
market unit in exchange for placing a Pitkin County deed restriction on the unit,
whereas downpayment assistance provides access to a low-interest loan up to
$50,000 or 15% of the purchase price, via the Impact Development Fund for
closing related costs. Ownership achieved through the shared equity model is
contingent upon employment with Pitkin County, while ownership achieved
through downpayment assistance is not.
• The Town of Snowmass Village provides rental housing units within their
inventory at subsidized rates to its employees.
• The City of Aspen and Town of Snowmass Village can also provide one and up
to two employees respectively, priority status to purchase a condominium at
Habitat for Humanity’s The Carter building (formerly known as L3) in Glenwood
138
139
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 Housing Resources
Springs, that offers deed-restricted, affordable homeownership units with
prices ranging from $320,000 to $388,000.
• In the Town of New Castle, the developments of Longview at Lakota and North
Wildhorse provide its partner agencies with the first right of refusal for up to 26
rental units (Longview at Lakota) and 3 rental units (North Wildhorse), at a 25%
discounted rate. These units are then available to other beneficiaries, including
Town staff.
• Many local employers also have housing and/or assistance programs for their
employees. For example, the Roaring Fork School District has approximately
117 rental units in their inventory that are available to employees at below-
market rent through a housing lottery process.
Rental Assistance
Rental Assistance is a financial program in which a government or organization
provides grants, loans, or other funds to help subsidize rental costs for eligible
households.
• The City of Glenwood Springs initiated an employer-based rental assistance
pilot program in 2025. Businesses in the city can apply for rental assistance on
behalf of their employees who spend over 30% of their income on rent, and
assistance is covered equally by the City of Glenwood Springs 2C fund and
the employer.
139
140
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 Housing Resources
ADU Incentives
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) can add a considerable amount of housing to an
area and provide other benefits such as generating a passive income and providing
independent housing for aging residents or their caretakers. Local governments
can incentivize the development of ADUs through financial or regulatory benefits.
• In Pitkin County, Caretaker Dwelling Units (CDUs) serve as a housing resource
by allowing property owners to build smaller accessory spaces for local workers
or multi-generational families. These units are deed-restricted to protect
against short-term rentals, requiring a minimum six-month lease if rented, and
occupancy is limited to immediate family or two qualified community
employees. The County’s code allows attached units by right in several
residential and agricultural zones, while offering a special review pathway for
detached layouts or commercial zones. CDUs are limited to 700 or 1,000 square
feet depending on lot size, require two parking spaces, and remain tied to the
primary parcel rather than being sold separately or used as commercial
development mitigation.
• The City of Aspen has ADU/Carriage Houses as part of the menu of options for
affordable housing mitigation. There are floor area bonuses granted and this can
generate AH credits when the unit is deed restricted and sold under APCHA.
• The Town of Snowmass Village incentivizes the development of ADUs by
streamlining approvals and modifying codes to increase workforce housing.
Revisions include allowing ADUs by right up to 750 square feet or 15% of
allowable floor area to encourage creation while protecting neighborhood scale.
• The Town of Basalt has recently established an ADU incentive program to
facilitate the construction of ADUs through a Revolving Loan program. To
qualify for funds, the tenants of the ADU must work within the Basalt area.
• Garfield County’s LUDC allows for additional ADUs for employee housing by
right in commercial zones and with administrative review in other zones.
• The City of Glenwood Springs permits ADUs in all zones where Single-Family
Residences (SFRs) are permitted and apply a reduction in system improvement
fees for the ADU.
• As part of the awarded CEO Local Impact accelerator grant, the City of Rifle is
developing several pre-approved ADU plans that can be utilized by Rifle
property owners within city limits. Additionally, the City is offering five $10,000
impact fee waivers to use towards City required impact fees on ADU's.
140141
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 Housing Resources
Fee Waivers and Reductions
There are several ways local governments can structure fee waivers and
reductions to facilitate development, including affordable housing.
• Under Aspen’s municipal code, the City Council can waive or reduce impact
fees for developments classified as affordable housing or essential public
facilities if they choose to subsidize the project. The City has recognized the high
costs of permit fees for doing business within the City of Aspen. These high costs
reflect the unique economic market and stringent regulatory requirements of
development and redevelopment within the City of Aspen. In response to and
understanding of the high fees for services provided by the City, the City has
also spent time building policies around waivers and deferrals for certain types
of development.
The concept of waivers and/or deferrals has been articulated through guiding
policies within the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Specifically, Section
VII.3, states that abatements in mitigation for certain types of development
should be encouraged that provide significant community benefits and are in the
public interest. This includes certain building and permit related fee waivers
and/or deferrals for: Fee waiver for new 100% deed restricted Affordable
Housing Projects; Affordable Housing mitigation deferral agreements for
property owners who are qualified as a full-time local working resident to pass
the fees accrued through redevelopment along to a future homeowner of that
property who is not qualified as a full-time working local; Full and partial
waivers for development projects carried out by internal City of Aspen
departments – notably Asset Management.
• For any projects proposing to create Mitigation Units as part of their
development, Garfield County waives traffic impact and building permit fees.
• In Carbondale, the Board of Trustees may approve fee waivers of Land Use
applications, professional fees, special studies, building permit and plan check
fees, and park development fees. The fees only apply to deed restricted units
and can be prorated to apply to the deed restricted units.
• All residential development in Glenwood Springs is eligible for a system
improvement fee waiver if they voluntarily deed restrict units to 100% AMI and
to occupancy by local workforce, per the Voluntary Deed Restriction program.
The City Council may also grant fee waivers to other types of development.
141142
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 Housing Resources
Land Use and Regulatory Policies
Land Use and regulatory policies facilitate development, including affordable
housing, by removing restrictive barriers and creating financial incentives for
builders. These policies could include updating zoning codes to allow higher density
and streamlining permitting processes, among others.
• In Pitkin County, the Growth Management exemption policy removes growth-
control barriers for four distinct types of deed-restricted housing: category-
specific affordable sale units, Resident Occupied (RO) sale units, Caretaker
Dwelling Units (CDUs), and job-related on-site affordable rental units. The code
allows "70/30" mixed-income projects within the AH/PUD zone to be exempt
from growth management if they provide a minimum of 70% affordable or RO
units, align with APCHA goals, and sit within a half mile of transit. Outside of
these specific Affordable Housing zones, exemptions are granted for standard
category sale units, and additional density on substandard lots may also be
allowed through a special review process. Furthermore, the policy extends to
individual CDUs on substandard lots, publicly owned rental projects, and job-
related on-site worker housing.
• The City of Aspen utilizes its Land Use Code (LUC) to incentivize Affordable
Housing through increased density and intensity. In core mixed-use and
multifamily residential zones, 100% Affordable multifamily developments are
permitted at a higher intensity by right. The city also allows rural adaptation, by
permitting higher density near key service areas. Additionally, the City’s LUC
allows affordable housing as a use by right to remove unnecessary obstacles in
the development of 100% Affordable Housing across most of Aspen’s zone
districts, in an effort to streamline review and provide more predictability to
both private and public sector affordable housing projects.
Following the City of Aspen’s 2021–2022 Building Moratorium, newly adopted
language updated the Affordable Housing density bonus program. As a result,
developers can now build 100% affordable triplexes or fourplexes in residential
zones previously restricted to single-family homes and duplexes. Further, the
city provides dimensional flexibility such as reduced minimum lot sizes to
existing, non-conforming multi-family properties if they convert to deed-
restricted Affordable Housing. Lastly, the City adopted language in 2022,
creating an administrative review pathway for 100% deed-restricted affordable
housing projects that fully comply with the LUC. Previously, these projects
required Planning and Zoning Commission review, even when they met all
underlying zone district dimensions, parking minimums, and development
standards. This update streamlined the review process, providing greater
timeline predictability for development.
142
143
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 Housing Resources
• Garfield County may grant a density bonus for any development in the
Residential Suburban (RS) and Residential Urban (RU) zones that are also within
Urban Growth Areas, if the project creates one or more Mitigation Units as part
of the development. Additionally, the County is also exploring an expedited
review process for Affordable Housing, planned for implementation in 2026.
• Glenwood Springs has established residential design standards with a housing
variety requirement that obligates larger multifamily residential developments
(25+ units) to provide a variety of housing types. The City offers multiple ways
for developers to satisfy this requirement with higher levels of affordability.
Projects may also make a payment to the City in lieu of providing all or a portion
of the required housing variety types, subject to City Council approval.
Additionally, to facilitate housing construction, the City permits development on
original Townsite lots created between 1883 and 1913. Even if these non-
conforming lots do not meet current minimum lot size requirements, they are
considered buildable for all uses allowed within the zone district, subject to
standard parking and design regulations.
• New Castle’s Comprehensive Plan has established Affordable Housing goals
and policies to pursue Affordable Housing development and preservation. Goal
HO-1A states that New Castle will investigate, pursue and establish mutually
supportive and beneficial partnerships with other agencies to preserve and create
Affordable Housing. Other policies state that new development will be required
to provide a variety of housing densities, types and sizes to ensure a diversity of
unit availability and unit pricing that serve a broad spectrum of the community,
that the Town will favor developments with higher building densities and
smaller home sizes that serve middle and lower income buyers, and that on-site
employee housing may be required in connection with non-residential
development. Lastly, policy HA-4A states that Town will pursue affordable
housing for workforce in jobs deemed essential to community quality, including,
but not limited to, public safety, teaching, public health and government.
143144
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 Housing Resources
Development Specific Programs
Development Specific Programs are programs in which incentives or benefits are
tied directly to a certain development, typically negotiated by the local government.
• Certain developments in the Town of New Castle include specific provisions
targeting local residents and workforce members. At Longview at Lakota,
partner agencies hold a right of first refusal for up to 26 rental units at a 25%
discount. This program specifically benefits staff from the Town, the RE-2 school
district, Colorado River Fire Rescue (CRFR), Habitat for Humanity, Valley View,
and other local employees. Similarly, at North Wildhorse, partner agencies have
a right of first refusal for up to three units at a 25% discount, set aside for town
staff and local workers. For senior living, Lakota Ridge and New Castle Senior
Housing provide 50 and 24 income-based, discounted rental units, respectively,
for residents aged 55 and older. Finally, the Coal Seam development dedicates
four housing units specifically for employees of its on-site retail establishments.
Other Programs
• The Citizen Housing policy in Pitkin County establishes a framework to protect
and expand the supply of affordable, desirable housing for local workers,
seniors, and individuals with disabilities. It directs new affordable development
and diverse housing types into established Urban Growth Boundaries while
discouraging sprawling urban densities in rural areas. Outside these boundaries,
the policy permits low-impact options such as caretaker units, job-related on-
site housing, and the replacement or conversion of existing local housing.
Furthermore, it promotes the rehabilitation, purchase, and financial buy-down
of existing units, while giving structural preference to developers who use
innovative, energy-conserving building techniques to lower long-term living costs.
• The City of Aspen is developing the Aspen Area Community Trust, which is
intended to be a Community Land Trust (CLT) model for the development of
affordable housing and commercial space.
• The Town of Snowmass Village streamlines affordable housing approvals in its
land use code with a more flexible "special review" process, as opposed to the
traditional PUD process. This shift is designed to reduce the number of formal
review meetings, allowing for faster, more collaborative development of
workforce housing.
• The City of Rifle has adopted Fast Track requirements for Proposition 123.
144
145
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 Housing Resources
Dedicated Funding Sources
Many of the housing programs listed above require funding from the government
and organizations that administer them. Some dedicated funding sources for
housing are in place, as listed below.
• Pitkin County’s Affordable and Workforce Housing Mill Levy is an annual mill
levy of 1.5 mills for no more than 25 years starting in 2025 to be used for
affordable and attainable housing purposes. Approximately $8.3M is generated
annually in funds, which can be used for partnering on housing programs, buying
deed restrictions on free market housing, creating a capital reserve maintenance
fund, reducing homelessness impacts on public agencies, prioritizing housing in
areas consistent with existing employment, and attracting and retaining
essential workers, services, and facilities to protect rural character.
• As described earlier, the EHIF in Pitkin County is a fee assessed on applicable
development to defray the cost of employee housing by mitigating the impacts
of development. The fee is calculated based on size and type of development
and paid at the time of building permit issuance. Amounts generated fluctuate
year to year based on approved development. The employee housing impact fee
supports the policy of Pitkin County to provide affordable employee housing for
individuals working in Pitkin County
• In Aspen, the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) is a 1.0% real estate transfer tax
for the purpose of addressing community housing and became effective July 1,
1989. The first $100,000 is excluded from taxation, and all existing affordable
deed restricted housing units are exempt. This tax has a sunset provision, and
absent an extension by voter approval, it will expire after December 31, 2060.
The funds collected are deposited into the City’s Housing Development Fund, to
be utilized for workforce housing.
• Aspen applies a 5.00 to 10.00% Short-Term Rental Tax. At least 70% of all
receipts are directed towards affordable housing efforts and the remainder (up
to 30%) towards environmental initiatives and capital repair and maintenance
needs. The City of Aspen also manages a 505 Employee Housing Fund, funded
by individual departments which contribute $10,000 per FTE. These funds are
directed towards building, maintaining, and acquiring units for City of Aspen
employees. Lastly, a 0.45% sales tax, also set to sunset in 2060, is partly
dedicated toward workforce housing.
• In Basalt, a Short-Term Rental (STR) Regulatory Fee at the rate of $2,532 per
bedroom on non-exempt STRs, is collected and applied toward affordable
housing creation. The fee is expected to generate approximately $100,000 per
year. The Town also negotiates Real Estate Transfer Assessments (RETA) for
individual development projects, and collected funds are either entirely or
partly dedicated toward affordable housing creation.
145
146
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 Housing Resources
• Snowmass Village voters approved a measure (2C in 2022) to repurpose existing
tax revenue for workforce housing, rather than raising taxes. This allows the
town to use portions of the 2.4% lodging tax and 2.5% sales tax for the acquisition,
construction, and maintenance of local workforce housing. The Town’s Floor-
Area Excise Tax applies to additions to existing homes that exceed the town's
established square footage limits by 10% or 550 square feet. The final tax is
determined per square foot of the excess floor area and the funds collected are
applied toward workforce housing. Other sources of funds are the Town’s STR
permit fee of $400 per unit and operating income of the housing portfolio.
• Garfield County’s BOCC has discretionary grants and funding that have been
used to support specific projects.
• Like Basalt, the Town of Carbondale negotiates voluntary RETAs on properties
throughout the town. Funds generated through RETAs vary significantly year-
to-year and are contributed to the General Housing Fund, and disbursed subject
to trustee discretion.
• In Glenwood Springs, half of the 2.50% accommodation tax applied is dedicated
toward the development, preservation, and partnerships for workforce housing.
146147
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
147
148
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29 Housing Development Challenges and Opportunities
3. Housing Development Challenges and
Opportunities
The Greater Roaring Fork region’s housing needs are exacerbated by development
challenges. With increasingly unreachable market housing prices and rent,
subsidized deed-restricted housing has remained one of the only ways the local
workforce and residents can afford to remain in the community. However,
increasing construction costs, geographic constraints, limited land and labor
availability, a short building season, infrastructure challenges, and limited
resources constrain further development and add to housing challenges.
Development Challenges and Market Limitations
Key challenges to development include:
• Land Scarcity: Pitkin County’s Community Housing Appendix of the Pitkin
County Vision 2050 comprehensive plan recognizes limited development
opportunity within the Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB). Across the Aspen and
Basalt UGBs, there is only an estimated 109 acres of privately owned vacant
land left to potentially develop.
• Development Costs: The cost of new housing development has been increasing
across Colorado and is felt acutely in mountain resort communities such as the
Greater Roaring Fork region. As an example, in the upper-valley, land costs
range between $3 - $5 million per acre, and cost to build is at or above $1,000
per square foot, making a two-bedroom apartment or condominium cost over
$1 million to produce. The increasing costs of material and labor exacerbate the
housing challenges in the region and make development of housing affordable to
residents prohibitively expensive without financial assistance.
• Non-Local Demand for New Product: As one of the nation’s most coveted
mountain resort and destination communities, there is high demand for new
housing product from non-residents. This additional demand creates competition
for limited new housing, often pricing out residents because of the higher buying
power of non-local buyers. While this pressure is more exaggerated in the
upper-valley areas, as development opportunities are discovered in the middle-
and lower-valley areas, the non-local demand may also migrate.
• Water Access: The potential to develop land is further restricted by limited
water resources and by the need to develop infrastructure to support
development. Additionally, water availability in individual jurisdictions impacts
the methods in which they may be able to meet their housing needs. While the
148
149
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30 Housing Development Challenges and Opportunities
housing needs identified in this report are estimates based on the data analyzed,
if a jurisdiction does not have available water to meet that need through new
development, it will need to explore alternative housing strategies like
preservation and/or work with partner jurisdictions to collectively meet the
regional need.
Pitkin County’s Water Conditions Report associated with the Pitkin County Vision
2050 comprehensive plan, considers modest population growth and new
development and suggests redevelopment and remodeling of its existing building
stock will have a larger impact on future water demand. Based on Pitkin County's
2050 build-out estimates, the report estimates that new residential development
could add an additional 500 to 2,100 acre-feet of demand. It highlights that existing
public water systems are not equipped for unplanned growth or redevelopment,
meaning any new connections will require significant financial support and
infrastructure upgrades to remain reliable. At the same time, ongoing proliferation
of large homes served by private, exempt wells could challenge future reliability.
Garfield County’s Comprehensive Plan 2030 explicitly links future growth to water
availability, noting that availability of legal and physical water is a primary
constraint to future development in Garfield County. Due to limited water
resources, municipal water providers and special districts often require developers
to dedicate physical water rights or demonstrate adequate legal supply before
approving new developments, adding to barriers of housing development.
149
150
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31 Policy Programs and Recommendations
4. Policy Programs and Recommendations
Based on the housing needs and goals outlined previously, the following policy
programs and recommendations have been developed. This includes regional,
countywide, and local actions, with the intent of local jurisdictions taking actions that
meet their individualized needs while collectively working to address regional
challenges. This framework provides a starting point for future Housing Action Plan
work, creating guidance for the direction for future policy decisions and actions.
Regional Strategies
There are opportunities for collaboration across the region to efficiently use
resources available for housing while addressing components of housing
challenges that cross jurisdictional boundaries. This is particularly relevant given
the cross-jurisdiction commuting patterns in this area, where within one
household, members may work in multiple jurisdictions, blurring the boundaries of
where housing issues begin and end.
Across the Roaring Fork Valley and Colorado River Valley, key opportunities for
regional collaboration include:
Partnership building: Work to formalize relationships and commitments (e.g.
through IGAs) to enable ongoing regional collaboration (such as cross-jurisdiction
funding for projects).
Collaboration: Continue existing collaborative efforts (including the West
Mountain Regional Housing Coalition), and consider establishing a housing
roundtable group to ensure regular communication and collaboration among
entities across the region. Consider collaboration on programs being undertaken
across jurisdictions in the region (for example, mobile home park preservation).
Education: Coordinate to establish a central educational resource for regional
residents and employees on available housing resources and programs. This may
include supporting the establishment of a “Housing Navigator” position within a
regional entity (a process which is currently underway with the West Mountain
Regional Housing Coalition).
150
151
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32 Policy Programs and Recommendations
Countywide and Local Strategies
Countywide and local strategies are outlined for both Pitkin County and Garfield
County. Strategies are noted in six categories: partnerships, planning, funding,
regulation, development, and programs & preservation.
Pitkin County
In Pitkin County, strategies are focused on building upon existing housing efforts.
The main focus is to address catch up need and preserve existing inventory, while
still finding opportunities to increase the availability of affordable housing through
development and preservation.
Programs and Preservation: Establish new programs for buyers, renters, and
owners using funding sources, incentives, and partnerships to create new units and
convert existing units into affordable/local housing
• Focus resources on preserving existing inventory, including deed-restricted
housing and non-deed restricted locally occupied housing that may be
converted to non-local ownership through sale
• Identify and replace old and expiring deed restrictions with permanent (non-
expiring) restrictions
• Expand and establish new programs to preserve mobile home communities
throughout the county
• Ensure sufficient financial resources for maintaining existing inventory
• Explore options for “right sizing” units between long term owners in large units
and potential new residents looking for larger units (i.e., ensure existing
residents can downsize while maintaining affordability and equity in their
investment)
Partnerships: Identify and prioritize opportunities for partnerships among local
governments, employers, and other agencies and organizations
• Continue to approach housing with a regional mindset, seeking out
opportunities for countywide collaboration where possible
• Establish opportunities for pooled resources and multiple stakeholders to come
to the table in establishing programs and developing projects with the resources
they have available (funding, land, infrastructure, etc.)
151
152
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 33 Policy Programs and Recommendations
Planning: Encourage ongoing planning activities related to affordable housing
including planning grant applications, Proposition 123 initiatives, redevelopment
areas, comprehensive plans, and community housing plans.
• Continue to move forward with existing programs and fine tune and refine
existing housing policies. As areas in the region enter later phases of housing
program implementation, where policies have been on the books for years (in
some cases decades), these will need to be maintained/refined moving forward
• Look for ways to implement innovative housing strategies, given that standard
solutions have mostly been implemented in these areas. In addition to existing
programs, consider additional approaches to land use code, zoning, and
development processes to reflect broad changes within the last 5 to 15 years
• Work to implement the findings of related housing studies, including the Pitkin
County Homelessness Strategic Support study and housing partnership and
financing toolkit.
• Support housing near existing or planned transit.
• Seek to coordinate and promote housing types and price points to provide
greater variety of housing options and increase mobility for owners and renters
throughout the housing continuum.
Funding: Explore new or increased revenue sources at both the jurisdictional and
regional level to support housing strategies.
• Identify ways to combine local and regional resources, where practical, to
support housing programs and development.
• Identify potential opportunities for new local and/or regional funding sources.
Regulation: Consider new components or amendments to municipal and land use
code and rezoning actions to enable broader development of affordable housing.
• Explore broader adoption of existing successful policies (e.g. affordable/local
housing overlay).
• Where possible, reduce administrative barriers to affordable housing
development, working within the local context to recognize environmental and
physical factors that need to be considered as part of the development process.
152
153
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 34 Policy Programs and Recommendations
Development: Encourage the creation of new affordable housing units through
incentives and public and private partnerships.
• Work to incentivize collaborative solutions, such as land banking, where
multiple jurisdictions can participate within a regional entity, bringing together
different groups that bring different resources to the table.
• Continue working towards establishing a Community Land Trust, which can
expand in scope across the region as it gets developed.
Garfield County
In Garfield County, strategies are focused on building guardrails around existing
affordable product while planning for additional housing needs as population and
employment continue to grow in the county. Strategies may differ for communities
in the Roaring Fork and Colorado River valley, with an overall focus on preserving,
maintaining, and growing the affordability that is bringing people to the region, in
the face of rising prices.
Programs and Preservation: Establish new programs for buyers, renters, and
owners using funding sources, incentives, and partnerships to create new units and
convert existing units into affordable/local housing
• Prioritize addressing preservation of mobile home communities
• In addition to regional education efforts, grow and develop local housing
resources for residents and employees
• Implement mechanisms to preserve existing affordability within the region,
including broadening the use of deed restrictions (both income-based and
resident-occupied, as relevant), as well as ensuring that new inventory is
permanently affordable to local residents.
• Update existing deed restrictions to ensure consistency locally and regionally,
and align with best practices on components such as capital improvements
• Consider a “template” deed restriction or consistent document for the region
for ease of administration and resident understanding
• Consider additional mechanisms and models for preserving affordability, such
as land trusts and shared equity
• Prioritize efforts in areas with highest displacement pressure
• Consider alternative homeownership affordability programs, particularly in
areas with cross-agency collaboration
153
154
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 35 Policy Programs and Recommendations
Partnerships: Identify and prioritize opportunities for partnerships among local
governments, employers, and other agencies and organizations
• Encourage regional collaboration using IGAs and other partnership mechanisms
with local governments, housing authorities, employers, and other organizations
• Pursue partnership opportunities with developers and landowners with large
housing opportunities in the region. For example, negotiate an agreement for
some affordable units, or “buy down” units within a development (fund the
development gap) to be permanently affordable.
Planning: Encourage ongoing planning activities related to affordable housing
including planning grant applications, Proposition 123 initiatives, redevelopment
areas, comprehensive plans, and community housing plans.
• Support housing near existing or planned transit.
• Seek to coordinate and promote housing types and price points to provide
greater variety of housing options and increase mobility for owners and renters
throughout the housing continuum.
• Utilize a range of planning tools to support housing development, including
comprehensive plans, community housing plans, and existing zoning and
development tools
Funding: Explore new revenue sources at the regional level to support housing
strategies.
• Recognize that most housing strategies need funding to support
implementation, which means a need to expand funding availability
• Explore a variety of options, including a countywide/regional option where a
portion can be shared back to communities for local efforts
Regulation: Consider new components or amendments to municipal and land use
code and rezoning actions to enable broader development of affordable housing.
• This may include incentives for infill development (focusing housing options
near transit, other services), fee reductions, or other regulatory changes to
target areas for increased housing inventory
154
155
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 36 Policy Programs and Recommendations
Development: Encourage the creation of new affordable housing units through
incentives and public and private partnerships.
• Prioritize new development in areas with existing infrastructure, including
water, sewer, transit, and transportation
• Particularly consider infrastructure opportunities and constraints in planning
for multifamily and larger developments
• Identify opportunities to support development of a diversity of home types,
including modular construction, as well as both rental and homeownership
opportunities
155
156