The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Enforcement options the next step
by Mark Reaman
More than 80 percent of the deed-restricted affordable housing in Crested Butte appears to be being used as intended. That means that about 15 percent of the units are not in absolute compliance.
The town recently concluded a survey conducted by Carolyn Czenkusch that showed the staff estimates given to Town Council members earlier this year tracked closely to the on-the-ground numbers. Now town staff will come to the council in September with some ideas on how to bring the rest of the units into line.
Crested Butte building and zoning director Bob Gillie reported the results of the survey to the council at a work session on August 4. In a PowerPoint presentation he went over the history of deed-restricted units in Crested Butte. “It’s been a fairly successful program but things are changing a bit,” he said.
There are currently 208 deed-restricted units in town. Of those, 149 are listed as ADUs (accessory dwelling units) or commercial units where long term renters live in the commercial districts. The rest are projects such as Red Lady Estates or homes in Paradise Park.
Czenkusch conducted a four-week survey focused on 149 ADU or commercial units. She found that 21 of the units were not in total compliance with the intent of the deed restriction. The deed restrictions were part of a deal where the original owners were granted a discount in the town tap fee in exchange for restricting the units.
Under the town regulations the units must be rented to a person who resides in Gunnison County not less than six months per year. Nine of the units are apparently left vacant on purpose, while six of them are being used for family and guests. In 2014, five of the units were rented but to people who don’t claim a local address. There is a suspicion that two are attempting to rent the units to short-term vacationers, while three are rented month-to-month.
Gillie said those numbers track with what the staff estimated through its mail survey conducted every two years. He said in the past, about half of the owners have responded honestly and easily. “The other half is like extracting teeth,” he said. “It can take about nine months to get all the responses.”
“It is remarkable that people would answer that they’re not complying,” noted councilman Skip Berkshire.
“Most people are pretty honest with this,” explained town building department assistant and sustainability coordinator Jessie Earley.
Czenkusch said her focus was surveying renters, as opposed to owners like the town’s mail survey. Still, the two efforts tracked pretty closely. “I could tell when I went by a place if someone was living there and they were local. Dirty socks and a dog bowl were pretty common,” she quipped.
“The question at this point is what are our enforcement tools if people refuse to rent their ADUs to a qualified applicant,” said Gillie, noting that about 13 percent of the units surveyed are not complying. “Is it possible to fine them? Do we take away the C.O. [certificate of occupancy]? [Town attorney] John Belkin and I need to drill down and figure out the best options. What if someone is VRBOing the property? That’s a fairly new phenomenon and we only suspect there’s two of those right now.”
Gillie explained to the council that the work session and survey report was the foundation for a longer discussion.
“The units out of compliance seem to be the same ones every time,” noted Czenkusch. “It’s an ethical issue really. Being blatantly non-compliant is the issue. Getting 20 more beds into the rental pool won’t solve the problem but it will help.”
“It is an ethical issue,” agreed councilman Jim Schmidt. “These people have essentially taken money out of our affordable housing fund that we could be using. That really bothers me. I think we really need to go hard on enforcement with this. If some are getting away with it, others might do the same thing. If we enforce the rules on the blatant ones, the others might follow. If we impose a fine, it has to be substantial enough to get people to comply.”
“I agree,” said councilperson Shaun Matusewicz. “And look at the leverage. If we spend, say $5,000, to bring one of these units into compliance, that is a lot cheaper than building a new long-term rental unit.”
Czenkusch suggested the town develop a system similar to a Match.com site that would bring together renters and landlords that are compatible. “Some of these units are pretty close to the main houses so I understand why they don’t want a derelict living there,” she said. “But there are people who can fit in different neighborhoods. Create a bank of people that includes ski bums and Western State professors needing housing.”
Berkshire suggested the regional housing authority might be able to provide that service.
Councilman Glenn Michel asked about the situation where some people in town are renting accessory buildings on their property that are not designated as dwelling units. Gillie said that too is illegal and the town makes efforts to bring those situations into compliance with town code.
Gillie and Belkin said they would get together and come up with some enforcement options for the council. That report will come to the council in early September.
