The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Incentivizing owners to spend $ on a fence or a roof repair?
[ by Mark Reaman ]The Crested Butte town council amended its affordable housing guidelines for 2025 in July. It was part of an annual guideline update that among other things reflects revised Area Median Incomes (AMIs), and according to a memo to the council from CB housing director Erin Ganser, “incorporates clarifications or improvements based on program experience and evolution of best practices.” She said most of the major changes in the guidelines were implemented last year while this year’s amendments were seen as modifications.
Most of the council discussion centered on the amendment addressing the “Capital Improvement Policy” for so-called appreciation capped units. The discussion focused on how to encourage owner investment on extending the useful life of the homes while maintaining their affordability and what were appropriate improvements that could be added to the eventual sales price to another qualified buyer.
According to Ganser’s memo, the policy in 2016 encouraged investment in “quality of life” improvements, such as fences, paved driveways and built-in cabinetry, but excluded owners from gaining value from repairs and replacement of critical building elements. So, while an owner could tack on the cost of a fence to the ultimate sales price on top of the standard 3% appreciation rate when he or she went to sell the unit, they could not do the same when it came to something like a roof repair.
The 2024 guideline update flipped the policy to focus the investments into so-called critical elements and excluding quality of life improvements. In 2024 the guidelines also made sustainability improvements eligible to be included in the ultimate sales price. This year however, the recommendation was to focus on utilizing the GreenDeed grant program to help pay for sustainability improvements.
Ganser was clear in the desire to incentivize owner investment in improvements that would extend the useful life of the building. Some councilmembers, particularly John O’Neal, argued that owners should be able to make quality of life improvements and recoup those costs. Ganser said every such project added cost to the next owner, thus making the homes increasingly more expensive, a direct conflict with “affordable” housing.
“We should also think about the people in those units,” said O’Neal.
“Fair, but they are not meant as investments,” countered councilmember Gabi Prochaska.
“They can still make the improvements if they want, but they can’t be added to the unit’s appreciation,” said councilmember Mallika Magner.
O’Neal admitted he saw the logic in the restriction.
Ganser said there is some discussion in the mountain community housing world about the standard practice of using 30% of a person’s income as the right metric for determining how much a person should be able to pay for housing. “Given the high cost of living in mountain communities, there is discussion about what the right number might be,” she said. “We want to gather data for that issue.”
HUD’s 2025 income levels for Gunnison County calculate 100% AMI for a two-person household as $90,000. Mineral Point targets households at 60% AMI and below which equates to $54,000 for a two-person household. For Paradise Park, the state funds on the project limit incomes to 140% AMI and below, which is $126,00 for a two-person household.
The council voted unanimously to approve the amendments to the town housing guidelines.
