Three weeks for a Hail Mary pass. Do you believe in miracles?

by Mark Reaman

Admittedly hoping for some sort of miracle, the Crested Butte Town Council on Monday voted to delay by three weeks what looks like a significant postponement of the second phase of the Paradise Park affordable housing project.

A unique contractual situation has impeded Bywater Development LLC from obtaining the $6 million bond—or 120 percent of the project’s estimated cost—that the town has required as part of the deal. That in essence led the town staff to advise the council at the July 15 meeting to pull the plug on Phase 2 of the project. That phase of the project would have allowed local businesses to purchase 10 units of deed-restricted affordable housing. Local individuals have committed to the 15 affordable units in Phase 1 that is already underway and being constructed at lightning speed.

“Right now we don’t have what we consider to be an adequate bond,” community development director Michael Yerman told the council. “So the staff recommends putting Phase 2 of the project on hold. We can rebid the project this fall and break ground next spring. At this time we can’t recommend moving forward with Phase 2.”

Basically, because the deal between Bywater and the town involved the town transferring its property to Bywater in order for the developer to obtain financing, the owner of the property, Bywater, was also the developer/general contractor.

But the town requires a bond to ensure completion of the project. Such bonds are basically a common way for municipalities to guarantee a project gets completed. If for some reason the developer walks away, the town could cash the bond, take the money and complete the project. To be both the property owner holding the bond and the contractor doing the work gave pause to bond brokers, who could foresee a possible incentive to not do the work.

According to Joel Wisian of Bywater, that “complicated factor in the circumstance we created is making it difficult to get the bond you’ve been asking for at 120 percent. There was zero interest by bonding firms in that scenario. The second factor is with the transfer of the land to us, I’m essentially bonding myself since I’m the property owner and the contractor. So it is not a normal course of business. I wasn’t aware of that when we went to market.”

Wisian said he was ahead of schedule and under budget with the first phase of the project that has begun by Rainbow Park. He said he would like to continue with both phases of the project but was comfortable with whatever the town decided.

Town attorney John Sullivan agreed with Yerman that the town should not move forward with the second phase at this time.

Responding to councilman Will Dujardin, who asked if lowering the required bond from 120 percent of the project’s estimated cost to 100 percent would help, Wisian said it might. “But the bigger issue is the general contractor/ownership issue. That is very unusual. It is a relationship that doesn’t exist in the bonding community.”

Wisian brainstormed that perhaps the town could issue the bond to cover itself and he would pay for the cost of the bond.

“We haven’t heard of or looked at that option,” said Sullivan. “Before considering it, we would need to look at it.”

Yerman said if the project didn’t stay on schedule and an ordinance transferring land to Bywater wasn’t approved by the first meeting in August, the project would likely have to be postponed.

Wisian agreed. “That would make it late August and we need to let our crews know before then,” he said. “If those units are rebid this fall, the pricing on those 10 units would have to be revisited.”

“When we learned about this in executive session [earlier in the July 15 meeting], my heart just dropped out,” said Dujardin. “But I feel we have to protect ourselves.”

Wisian suggested the council set the public hearing for the Phase 2 land transfer for the August 6 meeting in the hope that he could figure out a solution. “It gives me more time to see if I can work something out and you vote then. If nothing can be in place, vote no,” he said.

“Every piece of information I have is that no bond can happen in two weeks under the circumstances,” said Sullivan.

“Not in the amount that is necessary,” added Yerman.

The $6 million bond would cover both the first and second phases of the Paradise Park project. Bywater currently does not have a bond in place but Yerman said, given the speed of the construction in the first phase, Wisian’s ability to produce a $2 million bond by the end of August would be sufficient to protect the town’s interest in Phase 1.

Town manager Dara MacDonald said that being a public entity put the council in a place that should keep them from taking major risks. “Joel has done an outstanding job going vertical with this initial phase,” she said. “This is an atypical situation and I know it is a hard situation to walk away from. But I’m not comfortable having the town go in to Phase 2 unprotected.”

“What is the harm in setting for public hearing?” asked mayor Jim Schmidt.

“The primary concern in extending the public hearing is that it becomes an emotional issue with the public to the council,” MacDonald responded. “Some people are losing their dream with this and they will appeal to you to make it happen no matter the risk.”

Yerman said the town in the past has taken the risk on about six units at $1.7 million, and said, “But this bond is for $6 million. I am super bummed about the circumstance too. Affordable housing is very important in the community right now but so is softball and so is emptying the trash cans on Elk Avenue. I don’t want to put all the chips we have in one basket.”

“We need to continue to be creative in addressing affordable housing, like this town has always been,” said MacDonald.

“We were lined up to buy three of these,” said Kyleena Falzone of the Secret Stash and Bonez. “Can the business owners try to come up with a way to cover the bond money? I’m not sure how but there are people out there willing to help. It may take a miracle but I’ve had a few miracles in my life.”

“If something doesn’t come up, if there is no miracle solution, then vote it down at the next meeting,” said Wisian. “But give us those couple of weeks. There might be a miracle.”

The council voted 7-0 to allow three weeks for the manifestation of such a miracle.

“I’ll go work hard like I always do and see if we can figure something out,” promised Wisian, who immediately huddled with Falzone and some members of town staff during a break in the meeting.

The council will consider the situation again at the August 6 meeting.

Would you sell a deed restriction on your free market house?

By Mark Reaman

While Crested Butte’s affordable housing problem is not exactly like Vail’s, there could be lessons learned from some Vail initiatives. On Monday, June 17 representatives of the Crested Butte Town Council, the Gunnison Valley Rural Housing Authority and Mt. Crested Butte gathered to listen to Vail’s director of housing explain a relatively new program that basically buys deed restrictions on existing or new free market housing.

George Ruther delved into the 18-month-old Vail InDEED program that incentivizes homeowners to deed-restrict their property in exchange for cash. Vail hopes to acquire an additional 1,000 deed-restricted units by 2027. InDEED is one of the tools to accomplish that goal.

Ruther said a shift in the housing discussion took place when the mission was changed from just adding more affordable and workforce housing to “sustaining community through the creation and support of Resident Housing in Vail. It made a difference in the overall conversation. Plus everyone understands you can’t build your way out of the housing problem.”

So Ruther said officials looked for out-of-the-box solutions and Vail InDEED was one that has so far worked. He said 114 such deed restrictions have been acquired for a total of 166 bedrooms. The town purchases deed restrictions in a free market type of environment and keeps those deed restrictions simple but tight.

“Why would someone deed-restrict their house?” Ruther asked. “There are a variety of reasons. A lot of first-time homebuyers applied to the program. They can make the monthly payments perhaps but not come up with a down payment. We can act like the rich uncle and help them with that. There is a growing acceptance that to live in Vail you have to be very wealthy or live in a deed-restricted unit. Secondly, local employers are purchasing properties to house their workers and using the program to offset the cost. We have had a homeowner facing a major assessment in her condo complex use the program to come up with the cash for the assessment. Long-term investors looking for consistent cash flow through long-term rentals are applying. We don’t care who owns the property or the deed restriction. We want locals living in the units.”

To achieve that, the deed restrictions are not onerous. The property has to be a primary residence for an owner or renter and there is 100 percent annual verification. There is no price appreciation cap placed on the property. There are no income limits involved. The restrictions are attached as a covenant on the title and will survive a foreclosure.

“How do you do that?” asked GVRHA executive director Jennifer Kermode. “We can’t get our lending institutions to keep the deed restrictions in foreclosure.”

Ruther said it wasn’t easy but once he explained to the lending officers at FirstBank that the town did not have a lien on the property and the town had no interest in pursuing any cash in a foreclosure but simply wanted the deed restriction kept on the title, they agreed. He then reached out to other lending institutions and they too followed suit. “They are getting a better understanding of lending in this type of market,” he said.

According to Ruther the town purchases a deed restriction at from 15 percent to 20 percent of the free market value of a residential unit. The units are basically appraised and the owner and the town negotiate a price. “It is a real estate deal. There is a willing buyer and a willing seller. There is no formula. The price varies on a whole series of factors,” he said. “About 70 percent of the time we are able to come to terms with an applicant. The program isn’t right for everyone.”

The average cost of deed restriction purchase has been about $64,000. The program has involved everything from studio condominiums to larger, three-bedroom homes. The town has so far spent about $7.5 million on the program.

“The program was meant to be simple and the goal was to create and keep homes for local residents to live in Vail,” said Ruther. He estimates the program is about 35 percent to 40 percent new residents. “The program is meant to be forward thinking,” he said. “It may not bring in all new workers but it keeps units from going into the second homeowner pool when it goes up for sale, which happens the majority of the time.”

Crested Butte community development director Michael Yerman noted that adding more strenuous restrictions to the covenant would result in the need for a higher price.

The audience asked several questions about the program and Ruther defended the no-income-limit aspect of the program. “The average house price in Vail is now $1.6 million. But it’s not just about affordability, it’s about availability,” he said, noting that that applies to people of both high and low income. “We want people with all sorts of jobs to live in Vail.”

Local housing consultant Willa Williford said while the Vail housing situation was different from Crested Butte’s, the program provided a potential new tool. She said a similar sort of program was part of Boulder’s initiative for a while to help first-time homebuyers with down payments. She said Boulder moved away from that program to focus more on rental units. “Crested Butte has fewer condos than Vail and there are more single-family homes in a historic district so there are different challenges. It would be a big policy decision for town to use this type of program.”

“Addressing housing is an investment in the long-term sustainability of any resort community. There have to be different tools,” Ruther said. “I tell people one change the neighbors might see with this type of program is that their neighbor’s porch light might be on year-round instead of just two weeks a year.”

 Parameters still in the works for November ballot issue

By Kendra Walker

The Mt. Crested Butte Town Council continues to work toward defining a lodging tax that would ultimately fund future workforce housing and affordable housing projects. It appears the majority of the council is leaning toward a lodging tax on all short-term rental properties, including hotels, and they want to raise more than the $230,000 per year that a 1 percent lodging tax would generate. But an agreement on an appropriate amount is still undecided.

During a Town Council work session on Tuesday, May 21, council discussed next steps for the proposed ballot issue for the upcoming November vote. The group is working through ballot language that would be general enough to fall under the full umbrella of all workforce housing assistance, with the ability to prioritize specific projects later down the road.

“This is an opportunity to be forward-looking,” said councilman Dwayne Lehnertz. “We need to build this fund to take advantage of opportunities as they come up; it might be building something, it might be a foreclosure, it might be payment assistance, it could be all of those things. Whatever they may be and however varied they may be, we want to have money ready to go for those things.”

Councilman Nicholas Kempin added, “The priority is housing for our staff. We want to make sure we take care of our own and support them as a town and government.”

However, council is still determining to whom and what the tax would apply and how much it would cost. Debate among the group was whether the tax should cover the full spectrum of short-term rentals. Short-term renters in Mt. Crested Butte currently pay 13.9 percent in sales tax.

“Anything that rents for less than 30 days is a short-term rental,” clarified town manager Joe Fitzpatrick, “whether done by the owner, through a rental-by-owner website, by a management company or as part of a hotel.” He later added, “We’re asking the taxpayers to allow us to charge our guests.”

Concern was raised about hotels falling into the lodging tax because of fees and taxes already paid by their guests, as well as the question of whether hotels contribute to the lack of affordable housing in the first place.

“The conversation we’re having is really designed to get more local workers into houses and to utilize whatever’s causing the shortage of housing,” said councilman Steve Morris. “To me, the hotels haven’t really been a reason why people don’t have a place to live here … That’s why I view them as separate.”

Mayor Janet Farmer countered, “They [hotels] actually are a large part of our seasonal people who need lodging. They’re a huge chunk of our workforce. The tourists need all of those extra people.”

“Splitting it out would be a logistical nightmare,” said councilman Roman Kolodziej. “The Grand Lodge is no different from someone renting out their home in Eagle’s Nest. It seems like it has to be across the board. What we’re trying to do is have tourism pay its way and mitigate the impacts of it.”

A final agreement was not made but council is leaning toward the lodging tax to include anything defined as a short-term rental, including hotels.

As for how much, Farmer said, “It’s going to take a number of years to build up anything substantial.” And the council isn’t ready to make a final decision on the tax percentage. Council felt a 1 percent lodging tax across the board would be too low to make a substantial impact. The group did agree that it would be worthwhile to check how the lodging tax compares with other ski communities’ short-term rental fees.

The Town of Crested Butte passed a ballot initiative in 2017 to implement a 5 percent tax increase on vacation/short-term rentals for its affordable housing fund, which went into effect January 2018. This vacation rental excise tax does not apply to hotels. The Town collects 18.4 percent from vacation/short-term rentals in total, and collected $285,447 from the 5 percent excise tax portion in 2018.

“I think having a goal of somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 per year would actually allow us to put money in the bank that can make an impact,” suggested councilwoman Lauren Daniel, referring to the town of Crested Butte’s lodging tax. “I’m not saying that we have to do a project like what they did in town [with Anthracite Place], but just as a place to start.”

“If we’re throwing numbers out, I’d love to see $800,000 [annually] as my magic number,” said Morris. “3.5 percent with a 5 percent maximum cap.”

Town attorney Kathy Fogo also suggested the tax could be lowered after a few years if the funding becomes sufficient to do what’s necessary. “Once we build up funds, we could cut back,” she said.

“You can make an affordable project practical,” said community development director Carlos Velado. He suggested the town doesn’t necessarily have to raise enough to do a complete project on its own but could rather contribute to a project with partners and help subsidize the cost to make projects more viable. “With limitations for affordable housing here and the high cost of land and high cost of construction in the valley, you have to have those contributions to make it work and it makes a difference.”

Council is not yet ready to write the ballot issue, but will continue to discuss parameters leading up to the September 6 deadline in order to include it on November’s ballot.

“We’ll have to come back to that discussion about how much we actually want to raise and whether it would be across the board or not,” concluded Farmer. “And at some point we’ll have to prioritize what the funding is for down the road.”

Working toward a vote this fall

by Mark Reaman

The Mt. Crested Butte Town Council decided last week to go on the path to let voters decide whether to implement a new lodging tax to fund future affordable housing projects.

The council instructed staff at the Tuesday, April 16 council meeting to let the Gunnison County clerk know that the town intends to put a ballot issue on the upcoming November ballot.

What exact form that tax and accompanying ballot language will take—how much of a tax, what lodging properties will be impacted, how much they want to raise, what the money will be used for—has yet to be determined.

Town manager Joe Fitzpatrick asked the council at the work session to first focus on what they want to do with money raised from any tax. “Before raising money, you should know what we would do with it. How much money do we need and how much do we want? Do we want to be a developer?” he asked. “Or do you want to give the money to the Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority? Do you want to buy units, say, out of foreclosure? We need to set a direction before putting a tax before the voters.”

The council didn’t definitively answer any of those questions but they all agreed with the concept of fleshing out a lodging tax to put before the voters. Fitzpatrick said a 1 percent lodging tax on rentals within town would raise about $230,000 per year. “A lodging tax comes out of the pocket of the renter. It doesn’t directly tax the owner,” Fitzpatrick said.

Currently the town collects a 5 percent sales tax on lodging. Overall, a person renting a room in Mt. Crested Butte pays 13.9 percent in sales tax. Fitzpatrick said there were 847 rental properties in the town but that includes the fact the only two conventional hotels in town—the Elevation Hotel and Nordic Inn—are considered one rental property each despite the additional rental rooms. The Nordic has about 28 rooms while the Elevation has 262 rooms.

“I think it will be hard to get the hotels on board with this idea since they pay commercial taxes and fees,” said councilwoman Lauren Daniel. She voiced some hesitation with taxing hotels when the theory behind the new tax is that the increase in VRBO-type properties was eliminating workforce housing and as such, that particular area of lodging should be targeted.

“I embrace the philosophy that progress should pay its own way,” said councilman Dwayne Lehnertz. “So if more people come, then more people should pay more to deal with the ramifications of more people coming here.”

Councilman Roman Kolodziej said by phone that he would prefer to not impose the tax on hotels and instead focus on the rental-by-owner units.

Coucilman Nicholas Kempin said that seemed more fair to him as well, given the higher fees and taxes hotels normally pay as opposed to rental units owned by individual residents.

Fitzpatrick made the case that taxing all rentals in town would result in more revenue. He again emphasized that the hotel owners would not be paying the tax; rather, the renters of the rooms would directly foot the bill. He noted, “Mt Crested Butte lives and dies financially off rentals. We’ve always been the bedroom at this end of the valley. In terms of regulating rentals, in my opinion it is not a good idea to limit short-term rentals in any way.”

“If 1 percent raises $230,000, is it worth our while doing that?” asked Daniel. “Is one  percent enough? It almost doesn’t seem worth it.”

“It’s not a ton of money but it is some money,” said Kempin. “We may not be able to build something with that but we could purchase something out of foreclosure. It could make a difference in the long run.”

Lehnertz said the new tax could be more than 1 percent. “We were told that the tax increase downtown has had zero negative impact with stays in Crested Butte,” he said.

“Getting back to the reason we want to do this … the purpose is primarily to increase affordable housing,” said Daniel.

“And that could go forward in a broad spectrum of affordable housing,” added Kempin, listing a number of potential opportunities.

Town attorney Kathy Fogo said the ballot language should be general. “It could say that the money would go to fund affordable housing. You don’t need to include a list of projects. Keep it broad. Broader language gives you more leeway as things come up. You have to give a lot of thought to wording in the ballot language as it gets closer.”

Kolodziej argued that the council should have a clear public goal or benchmark of what the money would be used for after it is collected.

“That can be part of our strategic plan on what to do with the money,” suggested mayor Janet Farmer.

“Remember this will go to the voters so the council isn’t making any final decision,” said Daniel.

“It seems pretty cohesive that we want to do a tax on this,” said Farmer. “We are just not yet sure on who or for how much.”

But the council agreed during the regular meeting to ask for a placeholder on the county ballot this November. They will continue to work out the details of how best to raise money through a new tax earmarked for affordable housing. No date has been set for the next such meeting.

Before the November vote, the Town Council hopes to have also decided on appropriate license fees and regulations governing short-term-rental units in town. All of the efforts would be timed to go into effect in January 2020.

The housing plan approved this month by the Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority is pretty much what you might expect. There are a lot of good ideas in the plan that include some out-of-the-box ways to assist local workers in living here while respecting the character of different parts of the valley. There are a lot of charts, graphs and statistics showing the need for workforce housing. It is focused on what public housing has been done so far and generally, what public housing efforts might be expected.

GVRHA executive director Jennifer Kermode described the plan as a roadmap and it is. In fact, it is more roadmap than, say, a concrete blueprint that results in a final structure. It is a document outlining how to drive to the structure that will eventually be built but not how to exactly build it. And at this point that is probably appropriate. There are ideas on what roads might be used to arrive at the ultimate location of workforce housing nirvana. But the plan doesn’t pinpoint that place just yet.

The ideas—or roads, if you will—acknowledge that trying to solve the affordable housing dilemma means more than building a $200,000 deed-restricted home for a local family. It recognizes that things like “energy efficiency, transportation, healthcare, childcare, and local wages are all ingredients in a sustainable local cost of living.”

But this roadmap is missing, in my opinion, one major element: the foundational component of what the major employers in the valley are contributing to the plan. I don’t know if the big employers are a highway or a side street on this roadmap.

Under the 2016 housing needs assessment, the idea was that the public sector—you and me, as taxpayers—would help facilitate 420 (how Crested Butte appropriate) units. The private sector would fill in with 540 units. If you count the projects approved for the coming year, the public portion of the plan is well on its way, with nearly 200 units in the affordable housing pipeline up and down the entire valley. The private sector—not so much. Kermode said fewer than 50 such units have been built by the free market sector.

And that makes free market sense. If I managed a big institution or owned a big company—say, a ski area controlled by, say, Vail Resorts, and the local public officials were all pledging to build more housing—I’d let them. That’s a whole heck of a lot cheaper than building it on the company’s dime and it solves a problem without dinging the shareholders.

But that is the part of the road map that’s pretty much missing. The one portion of the plan I see addressing that element is where it states that the GVRHA will “Assist major employers in drafting their housing strategies that align with their goals and with the roles the GVRHA can play for them.”

The roadmap needs more.

I want to know what Vail Resorts, Western Colorado University, Gunnison Valley Health, the school district—all major employers in the valley—plan to do to help solve their workforce housing problem. The public sector needs to know what the private sector is doing to facilitate a comprehensive plan. The big guys need to step up and do more than pledge that they’ll swoop in and take on master leases for publicly built housing. They need to build some of their own or contribute real money or real land to the effort at the very least. Because if they don’t step up, it all falls on the public and the taxpayers—you and me—and while this liberal-leaning valley appreciates a social “safety net,” I don’t think it wants to fund a “corporate welfare” program.

This plan is good as a starting point. It looks at different ways to help workers afford to live here—from building homes and potentially contributing land to possibly helping with financial burdens such as down payments and helping to reduce utility bills. It touches on how smaller employers can get involved and potentially help their workers obtain good housing near their jobs.

It makes sense that the roadmap is a little nebulous right now—there are literally hundreds of deed-restricted units being built soon in Crested Butte, Mt. Crested Butte, Gunnison and the county. Let’s see how all of these new units sell and fill up before going all-in with another 250 public units. And I might advise again, as the government entities take the lead and build real units, that they consciously set aside some of those units for the public employees who work for them (us).

The bottom line is that how the major employers in the valley (private and public) contribute to the housing solution is an integral part of any long-term community housing strategy. That part of the plan needs to be as clear as the government portion. Without that part of the roadmap being clearly defined, it would be like an 18-wheeler deciding to drive over the Devil’s Punchbowl because that blurry section on the map seems like a quick shortcut. It isn’t.

—Mark Reaman

A road map for closing the housing gap

By Alissa Johnson

The Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority (GVRHA) approved a 40-page housing plan this month intended to help address the area housing shortage. Director Jennifer Kermode calls the Gunnison Valley Housing Plan a road map for the GVRHA by outlining “where we are now and how to get where we want to be.”

A 2016 Housing Needs Assessment identified a need for 960 affordable housing units. According to Kermode, the assessment estimated that the public sector would need to be involved in the construction of 420 of those units and assumed the free market would build approximately 540.

“To date, fewer than 50 have been built by the free market,” Kermode says.

The Housing Plan sets a goal of building 375 or more affordable homes between now and 2024 to address a large portion of the public sector’s 420 units. The GVRHA, which is not set up as a developer, will largely do that by coordinating efforts throughout the valley and providing support to homeowners and the housing authority’s member jurisdictions, such as Crested Butte, Mt. Crested Butte, the city of Gunnison and Gunnison County. That includes project evaluation, advocating for funding and supporting homeowners and renters through education and technical assistance.

“In laymen’s terms, the role of the GVRHA is to plan for and assist in the creation of new, affordable housing in the valley; accelerate the implementation of new programs and services, thus expanding our reach to locals; and put systems into place that protect the investments that the local governments, residents and tax-payers make into our community,” Kermode said.

Currently, there are just under 200 affordable for-sale and rental homes being built in the valley. “Our current projects, which sound impressive considering the number of homes built in the past ten years [that were] affordable to local workers, just aren’t enough to close the gap between what’s needed and what’s available,” Kermode said.

The full plan is available at the GVHRA website, under the GVRHA documents tab.

Info for a long-term vision

by Mark Reaman

With just more than 1,100 responses to the town of Crested Butte’s community survey this past summer, the town planning department has concluded there are three “over-arching community issues that need to be addressed: lack of workforce and attainable housing; affordability and the cost of living; and maintaining the quality of life and sense of community.”

“It was not a surprise to see housing at the top of the list,” town planner Bob Nevins told the council. “The survey has a lot of insights and we can use it as a foundation for our community plan.”

Based on the returns, Nevins informed the council in a summary of the survey that Crested Butte is comprised of long-term residents, with 59 percent of the respondents having lived in town and/or the Gunnison Valley for between 11 and 40 years or longer. The majority of those who responded were homeowners and worked in town.

“Residents are largely outdoor enthusiasts who are open to accommodating responsible growth that preserves the Town’s unique historical character and developing a balanced economy with good-paying jobs and attainable housing,” said Nevins in his report.

Nevins said the three primary concerns (housing, cost of living and sense of community) “are valley-wide as indicated by the residents in the north and south valley that took the survey. “What is interesting to note is that Crested Butte and its environs seem to attract people with like-minded interests, values and concerns as evidenced by the responses from Colorado and out-of-state visitors who participated in the survey.”

The survey was available for three and a half month, from June 1 until mid-September. The SurveyMonkey was on the town website, promoted through the chamber of commerce and Facebook, and available at local coffee shops with dropboxes. The goal was to get at least 1,000 returns and in the end, 1,104 people responded. Thirty percent were from in-town residents; 39 percent from those in Crested Butte South or north of Crested Butte South; and 14 percent from the south end of the valley including Gunnison. The rest were from Colorado residents or people living out of the state.

As might be expected, when given a chance to add comments to the survey, people did. Nevins described them to the council as “some being pretty funny and others being telling.” See the sidebar below this story for a sample.

Results of the survey, including the comments, are posted on the town website. It is expected the survey will be conducted every few years to keep a finger on the pulse of the community.

 

Sample of CB survey comments…

What kind of community do you want Crested Butte to be in 20 years?

• I’d like for Crested Butte to be able to accommodate responsible growth without losing its unique historic character. But, I also need to see Crested Butte support a more diverse community that comes from all different socioeconomic background, races, sexualities, etc. Crested Butte can’t continue to be just an affluent white space, we need to understand the importance and the value of diversity and work harder as a community to become more diverse in all aspects.

• Community is key. If we lose community we become Disneyworld and just a façade. Town has always been a year-round community, although always difficult to financially support oneself here because of the seasonal and supposed consequential low wages. However, taxing primary homeowners is not the answer to affordable housing, we’re already struggling, tax the second homeowners more by sheltering primary residents with a homestead tax break.

• I just hope the locals don’t become super di*ks to the tourists and new people that move to town.

• I want town to keep its character and kindness. That’s what makes Crested Butte the place it is.

• Town closes most of Elk Ave. to Pedestrian Only Zone with planted trees and a small creek using water diverted from Coal Creek.

• In 20 years I will be in my late 80s and hope to walk around like Paul Reddin.

• New CFA monstrosity gets sold to mining company and Mt. Emmons project finds its legs! HCCA moves to Telluride and farms funds there.

What are the greatest local challenges Crested Butte is facing now and in the future?

• Increased traffic and parking problems; changing demographics/values; impacts of climate change and other environmental factors; affordability/cost of living; and second homes/vacation rentals.

• Parking is unbearable.

• Locals being forced out, town is losing its character.

• Kindness Drought.

• Too many tree huggers, not enough miners.

• Stop ruthlessly marketing Crested Butte.

• No affordable housing equals no workforce, multi-million-dollar homes and short-term rentals mean no real housing.

• Lack of mining, too many bicycles, not enough straws.

Solutions for traffic and parking issues?

• Close Elk Ave. permanently to cars. Turn it into a park pedestrian zone with outdoor cafés in the middle. Add a small creek with diverted water from Coal Creek. Allow Bird/Lime eBikes and eScooters with nightly restock at CBCS to encourage remote parking.

• Move the post office off of Elk Ave. Everyone drives on Elk to get their mail.

• Gravel pit parking transportation center/ tram to the mountain/ Electric mass and individual transit, foot and bike travel only.

• No roundabouts! They ruin walkability and speed up cars. If people want to come here they can learn to stop at stop signs.

• Roundabouts at each Four-way Stop.

• Time for permit parking!

• The locals are the worst. Parking on Elk all day in two-hour parking areas. Enforce the law for starters!

• Get over it. Cars bring people. People bring money. Without people with money y’all don’t live in Crested Butte.

• Vegi powered fart cars.

• Phase in a total ban of cars in town over a three-year period except for residents with permits.

How to promote environmental stewardship

• Reduce fuel use by taking the bus, walking or biking to work.

• Bring my own cup and plate to events.

• Quit using straws at the Talk of the Town.

• Choose to not have children.

• Keep my thermostat low. Use flannel sheets and comforters all year.

• Just stay out of the car and off the snowmobiles as much as possible. Don’t fly much at all, a huge fuel suck. Turn off the light, keep heat low (energy efficient home), hang clothes, etc. and conserve energy.

• I rode my bike or walked to work for 35 years. Ban the automobile from town. I know it can be done because I lived it.

• Dumb—This is why you have a problem and are out of touch. These are stupid.

• I take daily actions to increase my carbon footprint!

Any other comments?

• Our motto should be: Crested Butte, love it by leaving it the way that you found it. We should not even try to accommodate more growth, it will simply ruin the wonderful community that we have.

• The reality appears to be that many are leaving not only because they can’t afford to be here any longer but the character and the demographics are changing the town, our home, exponentially. And yes, Crested Butte may lose its essential funkiness.

• Do not put additional expenses on the businesses. It is a tough economy here with the seasonality and bad last winter.

• I am not afraid of the changes that are coming. I’m more afraid that the changes won’t be allowed because so many are trying to stop all change and don’t consider any change with an open mind.

• Your voting district has lost the voice of reason and the voice of the middle class.

• Even the smallest changes are met with heated opposition. Don’t listen to the haters.

• Crested Butte is a fine place to live and raise a family. Keep it that way.

• Talk to the businesses, workers and owners who are directly impacted by the Town decisions instead of solely relying on the public input from people who have enough free time to attend the public meetings and write letters to the papers.

• Keep resisting big massive ill-conceived projects like the Corner at Brush Creek.

• The Town should be supportive of the Brush Creek project, as it would serve the whole Crested Butte community.

• VRBOs are killing this community. Every changing of the season sees more locals moving away because of lack of housing.

• Way too many tourists—we should stop spending tax dollars on tourism promotions.

• The local government has a socialist flavor.

• I loved the Crested Butte of 20 years ago. And I’m still loving it today and sharing it with generations of my family.

• Save the Alleys. Stop promoting. We are full.

• The Town’s values are good, but town has gotten to the point where the average person can’t afford to live here. This is a travesty.

• I’m not anti growth exactly. However I am anti propel forward at any cost. I’m terrified that one day there will be homes from the current edge of town all the way to the base of the Butte. That will make me sick.

• Remove stupid and short-sighted short-term rental regulations.

• We need a gondola from town to the ski hill.

• Not all development is bad development. It’s time to stop blocking every little thing that comes down the pike. And be as open-minded as you claim to be.

• It’s the culture of Crested Butte to resist any changes.

• Out with the yuppies, and in with job creators and people who earn their living!

• The people of Crested Butte are kind and lovely and love their community and it is evident in their care for their community.

• Now that Vail is in town, you might be screwed.

• All these people worried about Vail—they could have not done anything that negatively impacts the town as the new Center does and we did it to ourselves.

• Crested Butte and Gunnison should enhance their serendipity.

• We are privileged to live here. We need to be realistic about our expectations and all play a role in being inclusive and intentional with how we support a viable community so that we don’t become an empty historic over-priced exhibit instead of a town.

• One of the best things about Crested Butte and the valley is how the rednecks and hippies all get along (riding mountain bikes and dirt bikes on same trails).

• Stop regulating and taxing so much.

• Crested Butte is truly special and unique.

• It is important we keep our unique character through our funky festivals, traditions and community events and hard on people who come here and don’t respect the environment we so strongly love and protect.

• Love.

Council continues toward spring groundbreaking

By Mark Reaman

Despite requests by some neighbors to slow down the affordable housing construction slated for this summer on Block 76 by Rainbow Park, the Crested Butte Town Council passed a resolution approving a minor subdivision for the area. The change basically reduces the number of structures on the half block from seven to six but increases the number of units from 11 to 15.

Plans for the project went through a series of meetings starting last July when a neighborhood meeting to discuss the potential increase in density was held at the Rainbow Park Pavilion. Several questions and some concerns were raised at that meeting. Several meetings and design “charrettes” were held by the town to provide community input into the project and the plans evolved with many changes. Several design teams competed to spearhead the project, and Bywater LLC was ultimately chosen.

The designs of the individual units will now go through the BOZAR (Board of Zoning and Architectural Review) process this winter before starting construction this spring.

Town planner Bob Nevins told the council there had been extensive public outreach to neighbors and the BOZAR had approved the subdivision 7-0, but the review board wanted council to hear neighbors’ concerns.

Leslie Baeder attended the December 17 council meeting and said she and many neighbors had felt disregarded in the public process. “The July meeting ended with confusion and questions. I haven’t felt there was opportunity to comment,” she said. “I felt like it was a done deal. It’s felt wrong to me. I feel like the process is going at a very high speed.”

Baeder said 20 of 23 nearby homeowners signed a letter to council in opposition to the increased density before having more opportunity for education on the process and project. She handed out copies of state statutes she felt applied to the situation that were not followed by town.

Town attorney Barbara Green said the particular statutes did not apply to what was before the council.

“I’m here in the hope you will hit the reset button,” said Baeder. “Let the community get educated and provide input on it. We want to slow down and not push this through at such a high speed that can lead to mistakes.”

Neighbor John Wirsing agreed with that request. “I agree with how fast it has moved. The first meeting in July was contested and now five months later it is ready to be approved. Block 76 is the parking lot for Rainbow Park. It is already congested in that area. I would really encourage you guys to slow down. You are trying to build a lot of units at one of the most expensive times to build. That’s not a great development decision.”

Wirsing said the costs of building affordable housing in Crested Butte were high when compared to nearby Gunnison, where he said homes could be built for $200 a square foot. “I encourage you to hit the brakes,” he told the council.

But Kat Cooke hopes the project keeps moving ahead. “As a 30-year-old young professional, I see it as maybe my only chance to have an opportunity to purchase a home in Crested Butte,” she said. “I personally have felt very informed about the process. I’m not uninformed or uneducated. I don’t think it’s been rushed. It would be disheartening to see the project come to a standstill. I live nearby now and it’s a great neighborhood. I don’t see that changing with these affordable housing units. It’s a positive thing.”

“We’re all for affordable housing,” assured Baeder. “We’re asking for a slow-down. We’d like the opportunity to catch our breath and look at different ways of doing it. We all know affordable housing will eventually be located there.”

Town community development director Michael Yerman said one reason for the big build this coming summer is to get it out of the way. He said if it is not done all at once, the construction could take many years and neighbors would deal with the impacts for a long time instead of just one year. “Slowing this down could push it into 2020,” he told the council.

“I’m always sensitive to the idea of the public not feeling heard,” said councilman Jackson Petito, “I’m not sure what the solution is but if there is any way the neighborhood could feel more heard, that’s our job—to hear the public.”

“Getting public input and thought is important to all of us,” added councilman Chris Haver. “It’s tough.”

“We as a staff have done everything we could to get the neighborhood to these meetings,” said Yerman. “It is disheartening to hear Leslie.”

Councilman Will Dujardin was at the July meeting and said he disagreed with Baeder’s framing of the meeting that she insinuated ended in confusion and some contention. “I disagree with your assessment,” he told her. “And the people I represent on council are very much in favor of this project.”

“I agree with Will and feel the council and town have talked about this project at quite a few meetings,” agreed councilwoman Laura Mitchell.

Councilman Paul Merck also agreed with Dujardin but said until he got on council he was not always in the public information loop. “But we were all elected to build affordable housing and we understand it will impact people.”

Heli Peterson said she was thankful to be in the affordable housing neighborhood. “My concern is the density of it,” she said. “The bottom line is that I know you can’t fight town hall. It’s inevitable, but for it to go through so quickly feels like we haven’t been heard.”

Schmidt also said that the council was elected in large part to address the affordable housing issue. “This is one of the difficult things about being on council,” he said, “to sit up here and have to make a decision when you know your friends disagree with what you might do.”

The council passed the resolution approving the minor subdivision on Block 76 by a vote of 6-1, with Petito voting against the measure.

Numerous affordable housing projects in the works

By Cayla Vidmar

The recent failure of ballot initiative 6A, which was intended to provide a steady stream of revenue for local affordable housing through a property tax; the five new affordable housing projects being worked on in 2019; and the Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority (GVRHA) looking to add a developer to the team were all discussion points at last week’s public housing forum held to discuss a long-term housing plan for the valley.

Of the dozen people who attended the meeting held in Crested Butte South on December 5, some were current long-time locals looking for purchasing opportunities, while others owned their homes but were concerned with the housing issue for the community as a whole.

Despite not receiving a “dedicated funding stream” from 6A, GVRHA executive director Jennifer Kermode spoke to the numerous affordable housing projects being worked on in 2019. The projects, which include Paradise Park, Homestead and Stallion Park in the north valley, Lazy K, and Lot 22 in Gunnison, will potentially bring 170 affordable homes into the valley. The projects are in various stages of development, and not all will be built out in 2019.

“It’s not like nothing is going to happen because 6A didn’t pass. We will have projects happening in 2019,” Kermode assured the crowd.

Kermode writes via email that “All the homes in Paradise Park, Stallion Park and Homestead are to be deed restricted,” while noting, “Some of the homes in Lazy K and Lot 22 could be [free] market homes to reduce subsidies needed to make the rest of them affordable.”

Kermode notes, “The current list of projects will meet about 20 percent of the total 960 homes identified by the Housing Needs Assessment” as needed in the valley by 2020.

Despite 6A not passing in the general election in 2018, Kermode is optimistic about another go in 2019. “It’s not unusual for these initiatives to go to the voters at least twice, so hopefully we’ll put this on the ballot again in 2019,” she said. The ballot initiative would have increased property taxes, with revenues earmarked for affordable housing projects in the valley. “So whether we need to have more messaging or different messaging or more specifics on where dollars go, although that gets tricky, we’re going to work those details out in the next month or two, so that in 2019 we’ll be hitting the ground running,” continued Kermode.

Willa Williford, the workforce housing consultant for GVRHA, spoke to a need that was brought up in previous meetings: development expertise. “We need more in-house development expertise,” Williford said, “We’re planners, we’re not developers, so that’s something that Jennifer can hire or contract out.”

Kermode says, “Ideally the Housing Authority would have an employee who can act more like an ‘owner’s rep’ for our members to assist in future developments.” This person, Kermode explains, would be responsible for seeing a project through to the end and looking out for the GVRHA’s interest, particularly when there are public benefits and money invested in a project.

Included in the presentation was a graph showing what the city of Gunnison, Crested Butte, Gunnison County and Mt. Crested Butte had in their tool box for affordable housing. Crested Butte town councilman Chris Haver said compiling this data and presenting it to the various councils acted as a sort of motivator to encourage the communities to jump on board with new ideas. “Seeing what each community is doing helps spur each community to look into new opportunities that they might not have thought of,” says Haver.

Of the 17 “housing tools,” ranging from land banking to redevelopment incentives, the town of Crested Butte checked the most boxes, followed closely by the city of Gunnison. “Crested Butte started to look further into ways to expedite the BOZAR process for affordable housing after learning that Gunnison offered this incentive,” says Haver.

Questions from the audience included whether or not Vail had been contacted to help with the housing need. Kermode said she had reached out to the new Crested Butte Mountain Resort general manager Tim Baker, but “I imagine he’s still drinking from the fire hose, but I’m hoping to see how they can come to the table for this discussion.”

For now, Kermode writes, “Without a dedicated funding stream, we can work with the communities on the current projects [listed above], but then we need to find more land to build on.”

February date for actual drawing

By Mark Reaman

The town of Crested Butte, in conjunction with the Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority, is beginning the process of selecting lottery winners for deed-restriction housing in town. Council approved the process at the Monday, November 5 Town Council meeting and the GVRHA was to have posted application packets for the lots and duplex homes on its website on Tuesday, November 6.

The work now begins to reach out to potential buyers before holding the lottery in early February. Part of the outreach will include a certified homebuyer class for potential buyers on Monday and Tuesday, December 3-4.

Those attending the class get an additional entry into the lottery. Those who are considered “essential service providers” also get additional entries.

The number of entries in the lottery is also determined by length of time spent working in Gunnison County. For example, if you have worked in the county longer than three years but less than five years, you get five chances. If you have worked in the county longer than 20 years, you get 10 chances.

“I was surprised at how many people we surveyed who had lived here and worked here 20 or 30 years and needed housing,” Crested Butte community development director Michael Yerman told the council at the November 5 meeting. He cited a town survey that showed 85 of 148 people taking the survey had lived and worked in the county at least five years and were interested in deed-restricted housing.

This lottery sets aside 26 homes and/or vacant lots for people making less than 200 percent and less than 140 percent of area median income (AMI). A two-person household making $110,800 is at the maximum 200 AMI cap. The 140 AMI for two people is $77,560.

Of the 13 units set aside for the 200 AMI category, up to seven will be set aside for local businesses interested in purchasing the units for employees to rent. This can provide local business assistance and generate pre-sales that will help support the financing of the affordable housing development.

The lottery will include selecting back-up purchasers for each lot or unit in case the first selection doesn’t go through with the purchase. The town will have nothing to do with the actual lottery, as it will be run by the GVRHA. The housing authority will help each purchaser close on the property and will receive a 2 percent commission for its services.

If interested in getting into the lottery, contact the town or the GVRHA.