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.

Solar farms and almost free market sale to seed more deed restrictions

By Mark Reaman

Crested Butte community development director Michael Yerman presented some out-of-the-box ideas to the Town Council Monday, November 5, as part of his proposed Five-Year Affordable Housing Plan. Council was generally on board with Yerman’s proposal.

The two most novel ideas included powering all the units to be built on Block 76 through a solar farm and not using any natural gas, and looking at starting a deed restriction purchase program in town that would essentially pay people to add a deed restriction to their current free-market unit.

The start-up funds for such a program would be raised by loosening deed restrictions on an affordable single-family lot in the Paradise Park area and selling it for a minimum $400,000, with the caveat that it be owner-occupied by a local in perpetuity.

“Town is doing a lot for affordable housing and you guys are killing it,” Yerman told the council at the Monday meeting as he went over past successes and current projects in the hopper. He said the goal was still to build an additional 93 units of housing in the next five to seven years. He said the recently implemented Vacation Rental Tax has been successful and is estimated to bring in at least $255,000 annually to the town affordable housing fund. He reminded the council that there would be two acres of land banked for affordable housing once the Slate River annexation is completed.

But it was the potential to construct a block of housing that would essentially be mostly off the grid that excited Yerman. The town would invest in energy offsets primarily through solar panels to offset energy use in the new units constructed on Block 76 by Rainbow Park. Yerman said roof forms on the actual homes would not be large enough to produce the needed energy, so his idea is to build a solar farm on the roof of the new wastewater treatment facility.

“A solar garden is doable at between $150,000 and $220,000,” Yerman said. “We could save $75,000 by not installing a gas line extension. The council has set aside $100,000 in next year’s budget for a ‘green’ or sustainable project and this could be that project. I still need to have a conversation with the Gunnison County Electric Association [GCEA] since the power would be electric. We still have a lot to look at but I’m excited and think it could work.

“The last thing I want is to do it just to have a warm and fuzzy thing that then costs residents $250 per month,” Yerman continued. “I want it to be able to really reduce their utility costs. It should be $100 per month. It would be really cool if it worked on Block 76.”

Yerman said this “pilot project,” if successful, could open the door to some other deed-restricted units that currently have high utility costs. It might even entice some property owners to adjust deed restrictions if they could tie into the solar farm.

Mayor Jim Schmidt said the county was using geothermal energy to heat the courthouse and that could be another option worth exploring. Yerman said he would look at numbers for other alternatives to see what could work.

“If this is something the council wants to do, we need to bust a move,” Yerman said. “We need to run the numbers. Time is of the essence.”

“Send it,” chimed in councilman Will Dujardin.

“I’d want some more details,” said councilman Jackson Petito.

“You need to have that GCEA conversation,” said Schmidt. “Electric can be expensive if getting it from offsets.”

“The buildings on Block 76 will be built energy-efficient,” said Yerman, “but we want to do it right and make sure utility costs will actually be low.”

Town manager Dara MacDonald said electricity generated from non-fossil fuel sources like solar is a good way to reduce carbon emissions.

“Can you get back to us with a good idea of the practicality by the end of January?” asked Schmidt.

“We’ll have to do it by then,” said Yerman. “We just need to be sure it works and people won’t be stuck with a $350 per month utility bill.”

Purchasing deed restrictions on existing units 

Yerman explained to the council that the town of Vail had successfully implemented a deed restriction purchase program for free-market units.

MacDonald reported that Vail had purchased about 200 deed restrictions in nine months at about $65,000 each. “It seems like there is a lot of potential there,” she said. “We suggest taking a longer look at it.”

Yerman said the program could work in multiple ways to keep locals living in town. He explained that if local homeowners are having a difficult time making payments on their free-market units, they could arrange for the town to purchase a deed-restriction on the property. They would then receive a substantial payment that would make it easier for them to remain living in town.

That property would then be deed-restricted to keep it in the local pool in perpetuity.

Yerman said this arrangement could be very effective in the event of an economic downturn. He said such a deed restriction purchase was definitely less expensive than building new deed- restricted units.

Yerman’s idea to initially fund the project would be to take Lot 5 in Block 80 and sell it at a significant price by opening up the deed restriction to simply restrict ownership of the property to people who occupied a home on the lot as locals. There is only one water and sewer tap to the lot and to get more that would allow additional units on the site would cause some road and soil issues. That suggested deed restriction would go along with any sale. Yerman said the town could take sealed bids with a minimum of $400,000 for the lot that sits on the edge of the affordable housing area. The money from the lot sale would then be the seed money for the deed restriction purchase program.

Schmidt suggested selling the lot totally free market and getting twice the revenue from a sale. “It is the best lot over there,” he said.

“I want that home to be occupied by locals. We’d want the lights on and kids to get candy there when they go by on Halloween,” Yerman said.

Jim Starr suggested requiring an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to be built on the lot.

Yerman said he understood that idea but wanted to keep the property affordable for a local who lived in the valley. “Doing that could make the property very expensive,” he said. “It is possible and they may want to do it but I wouldn’t want it required.”

Council was supportive of both the deed restriction purchase program and the idea of a solar-powered Block 76.

And there’s more

Other parts of the five-year plan included an expedited BOZAR (Board of Zoning and Architectural Review) review process. Given the busy schedule of the BOZAR at the moment, the town has implemented a maximum of six BOZAR project reviews per month. Yerman is suggesting that two of those six spaces be reserved for projects containing affordable housing components. Other projects will be bumped down the schedule to accommodate such projects.

Yerman said having a minimum of $600,000 in reserves before embarking on major affordable housing construction projects was a good standard to have in the plan. He said it would take about two and a half years to build up those reserves, primarily through the vacation rental sales tax revenues. He said using the real estate transfer tax (RETT) as the town is doing this year is not a good long-term use of those funds.

He emphasized that as the Slate River annexation north of town comes online, the affordable housing potential there could be significant but it would be expensive, would take many years to finalize and would have to be a regional effort and not just a town initiative. “The future of affordable housing is regional,” he stated.

“Overall, I think looking at the five-year plan we can make great strides in affordable housing,” Yerman concluded.

Housing Authority engages town council, gives updates on 6A

By Katherine Nettles

Jennifer Kermode and Willa Williford of the Gunnison Valley Housing Authority (GVHA) stopped in to the Mt. Crested Butte Town Council meeting on October 16 to ask for input on its Gunnison Valley Housing Plan draft, as they had done previously with the Gunnison County Board of Commissioners (BOCC). Also in attendance were Chris Haver, who is helping guide the effort from the Crested Butte Town Council, and Carlos Velado, the town community development director.

Williford described her position as a workforce housing consultant, helping to create a plan for the housing authority that will set project goals and ways to respond to the needs of the four jurisdictions it represents: the city of Gunnison, the towns of Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte, and Gunnison County overall. Each jurisdiction provides funding to the authority.

Williford said the plan is important regardless of the election outcome (ballot measure 6A would provide additional funding to the GVHA). Williford asked the council for a discussion of the town’s specific housing goals and needs, and asked for the council to begin with feedback or revisions to the planning statement. She mentioned that in the previous discussions with other jurisdictions about the statement, the term “character” had been raised, among others.

After initial comments from council members Lauren Daniel and Dwayne Lehnertz regarding the terms “character,” “values,” and “needs,” the council decided, at the suggestion of mayor Todd Barnes, that it consider the guiding principles and provide more extensive input at a later time. “We have an all-day retreat on [October 18], which might be a better place to discuss your questions and give you more thoughtful feedback.”

Williford and Kermode responded that if the council can hone in on its goals, “It would be hugely valuable to us. Thank you,” Williford said.

Among issues that the council was interested in exploring was a  visual map of land banks for potential affordable housing uses.

Kermode was then asked to update the council on ballot measure 6A. She reviewed a few basics, such as the goal of raising $850,000 and that the funds could then be addressed to several areas: low to moderate income (80 to 100 percent of Area Median Income (AMI)), and to employees who are perhaps above 100 percent AMI. “There is a gap between that and the market,” said Kermode. The third area, she said, was to focus on mixed use and mixed income properties. “There hasn’t been any organized opposition, just one person paying for ads in local papers,” said Kermode.

Mayor Barnes clarified that the ballot measure wouldn’t eliminate the annual contributions made by each town and the county. Kermode said that was correct. She also stated that the plan is that after 10 years the mill will be reduced from 1.5 to .5.

“You always want to give people the opportunity to see what successes we’ve had. It is important for us to have successes we can show,” said Kermode.

Kermode ended by saying that if the property tax passes, “There is a plan for how the tax will be collected, managed, and allocated. The board has been very thoughtful in getting prepared for this.”

BOCC  has questions on commuting, vision and public process

By Cayla Vidmar

The Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority (GVRHA) presented a draft housing plan to the Gunnison County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) Tuesday, the beginning stage to evaluate the plan. Although the commissioners didn’t make any decisions, there was plenty of discussion, primarily on the general concepts, rather than the details, of the plan.

A long discussion ensued with plenty of input from the commissioners regarding the vision statement; monitoring short-term rentals; the GVRHA role in affordable housing in the valley; engaging Crested Butte South; living where you work versus commuting; and the difficulty of building affordable housing.

The conversation kicked off with the dissection of the draft plan vision statement. Commissioner Jonathon Houck raised concerns about the phrase “our vision is to support the character…,” saying, “We have an evolving character within the countywide community and in the municipalities. “Often times what we bump up against is, character for a lot of people means it has to look like, be like, exactly like it’s always been. I don’t want a single word within a vision statement to be a club or shield depending on where you stand.”

Cathie Pagano, director of Gunnison County community and economic development, suggested swapping out “character” for “community values,” taken directly from the One Valley Prosperity Project (OVPP), which she noted was compiled from a thorough public process.

“Character has lots of different meanings for different folks,” Houck concluded.

The conversation pivoted to short-term rentals, with Houck saying, “We can’t really talk about housing in a tourism-based economy without talking about the impacts of short- term rentals.”

Commissioner John Messner cited statistics on short-term rentals in Colorado increasing 68 percent in a single year. Houck acknowledged the significant impact short-term rentals have had on the workforce housing issue, and stressed that the draft plan should allow for adaptability and flexibility to future impacts.

GVRHA board member and Crested Butte Town Council member Chris Haver asked if the BOCC was looking for the GVHRA to monitor changes that impact housing and advise on possible solutions. Messner responded that without monitoring and proactive approaches, it’s difficult to get ahead of future issues, and said, “In the next five to 10 years we’re going to see some significant changes, and we need to understand how that impacts workforce housing in general.”

Houck then asked for clarification of the GVRHA’s role in housing, particularly if its focus is development or managing programs for developers.

GVRHA executive director Jennifer Kermode said she does not see the housing authority itself being the developer of housing anytime soon. Willa Williford, workforce housing consultant working with the GVRHA, said the county has the capacity to catalyze development, but it seems the county was seeking to hand off the long-term daily monitoring and implementation of programs to the GVRHA.

Houck clarified that in terms of “development,” he meant not actually building units, but rather weighing all the resources available and evaluating the process so that “We’re getting the maximum opportunity and leverage on the project.”

Williford expanded, saying, “One of the things that seems really clear is that the housing authority could be sort of the keeper of this regional balance of needs and ensuring that projects aren’t competing against one another … for resources … without over-engineering it, but being the air traffic control on that.”

Crested Butte South then came into the fold, with Williford bringing up how to engage Crested Butte South with affordable housing, saying there’s been discussion but no existing inventory. Commissioner Phil Chamberland jumped in, saying it’s a good time to engage Crested Butte South on the issue, because of the development of the commercial area and the potential for residential opportunity there.

“The typical emerging theme, not specific to this community, you see all the time is ‘This is great, we love housing, but whoa, we’re not sure if this is the right place to do it,’” Houck said. Messner added that all the jurisdictions, from Mt. Crested Butte to Crested Butte South are “fighting within the elements and they’re all fighting the community character question.”

Williford acknowledged the value of a unified vision to overcome that issue, but noted it’s not easy work.

Commissioner Houck then said, “The elephant in the room is, as a community, and all up-valley/down-valley communities deal with this, no one wants to get into it because it’s messy and tends to be an us versus them [issue], but at some point we have to cross that all-important question of will people live where they work, or are we going to use transportation to link people to where they work?”

Williford said, “It’s going to be both,” and Houck noted “It’s not that cut and dry, but that’s typically one of the things up valley and down valley communities hedge up against … it’s that concept of what are our core values.”

Chamberland said, “I think people should have the opportunity if they want to live where they work to be able to live where they work, which means we need to create housing where the jobs are. We just have to create the infrastructure so that the decision is not left to random happenstance, but is their decision.”

Williford said, “It probably goes back to our guiding principles, that commuting is part of the solution but it’s not the entire solution.”

On the topic of public process, Houck asked “where are we willing to go on density, where are we willing to go on different land uses, and also how willing are we to, over time, grow into acceptance or comfort over what initially seems uncomfortable?” He explained that initially Anthracite Place, the three-story apartment complex next to Clark’s Market, was met with a lot of resistance from the public, but is now considered a win for everyone. Houck then asked what the tools are to “get us through those choppy waters.”

Houck explained elected officials are currently experiencing those choppy waters with The Corner at Brush Creek proposal, and they will likely experience it in the future. He noted that the community should always be involved and transparency is necessary, but there’s also a reason for the housing authority and elected officials.

The discussion flowed again to the obvious desire from all communities to solve the workforce housing issue, but then, when the rubber meets the road and real projects come down the pipeline, they’re met with resistance. Houck said the One Valley Prosperity Project was the tool to weigh community values against housing projects.

Messner replied, saying “What made the One Valley Prosperity Project successful, in my opinion, was that it was comprehensive in its approach to bringing different stakeholders together that are not just elected officials.” He explained that it’s critically important to understand need and potential solutions by bringing a bigger group of stakeholders that includes major employers, and downtown district businesses to the table.

“All of sudden we’re hearing these folks saying ‘Listen, you’re not hearing our needs, you’re not seeing what we’re going through, you’ve got blinders on as elected officials,’” Messner concluded.

Kermode added the need to inform the public about the difficulty of making affordable housing projects a reality. “We get comments all the time of ‘Just lower the price of the home, or just build another Anthracite,” she said, explaining that those things don’t happen easily.

Messner and Houck added the difficulty of building homes to the level of energy efficiency needed in the county, and balancing that with the need for developers to make a profit. Houck noted, “We want to be energy efficient and thoughtful about design, but there’s a cost driver, too.”

Messner added, “In private-public partnerships there has to be a level of profitability for the developer.”

At the end of the meeting, Houck asked at what point the GVRHA will officially support a project, noting that in the “us versus them” nature of the current housing discussion, people are taking the GVRHA support, or lack thereof, and manipulating that position based on which side of the issue they’re on. Kermode said it was likely something she would have to take to the board.

One detail the plan includes is that Gunnison County “will increase the availability of housing by facilitating the construction of 200 new affordable units,” by December 31, 2021.

The GVRHA’s goal is to have the final draft at the end of October, and a final plan that the GVRHA board can adopt in either this December or January 2019. Kermode writes via email that there may be another public engagement meeting after the draft is completed, but one is not currently scheduled.

No definite answers yet and a split in opinions

By Katherine Nettles

“Do we trust the process?” is the question with which Mt. Crested Butte town attorney Kathleen Fogo began Mt. Crested Butte Town Council’s first solo work session on the proposed Brush Creek affordable housing development .

The council had met previously in a joint council meeting with the town of Crested Butte, and intended to get an idea of its own council’s overall leanings before proceeding with any further joint efforts to approve, deny, or tack on additional conditions to the 40-plus conditions provided by the Gunnison County Commissioners as a basis for sketch plan approval.

A range of opinions came from the councilmembers, however, indicating not all are yet on the same page. Councilmembers Dwayne Lehnertz and Janet Farmer had significantly differing thoughts on whether to move the project forward with a third vote of approval among the four ownership stakeholders, which could result in a nod to transfer the property to potential developer Gary Gates.

Three out of four stakeholders, namely Gunnison County, Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR), the town of Crested Butte and the town of Mt. Crested Butte, must approve the concept for the developer to move forward with a preliminary plan. CBMR and Gunnison County have given approval, and the remaining two stakeholders continue to grapple with their decision.

Lehnertz discussed at length that the sketch plan “does not anywhere near reflect the ownership/rental ratio according to our needs.” He said he would need to see that better matched to be compatible with previous housing needs assessments for the towns of Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte.

Farmer disagreed. “I think this project does a good job of meeting a lot of our needs. It doesn’t meet all of them, but we don’t want the density, so it can’t really meet all our needs there.” She went on to say that if as a council they are not comfortable with the original density plans, beginning with 240 units and now capped at 180 units, then only so much can be offered to relieve housing shortages.

Lehnertz said that specifically regarding rentals, ”We don’t need that many units right there.” He also stated his concern with water use.

Fogo said many of those concerns have already been addressed in the county conditions, and such resource limitations would constrain the project as part of the process.

Councilmember Steve Morris asked how everyone felt about the number of 180 maximum units for the project. Lehnertz said he would prefer 85, particularly in order to get support from neighbors in the area.

Councilmember Lauren Daniel would be more comfortable with 150 to 160 units, and Morris would be more comfortable with 180 if they could add in more ownership with it. Farmer explained that she had initially come up with 175, but determined the county’s cap of 180 was close enough to work. Her concern was also about water affecting that number.

Councilmember Ken Lodovico said his preference was between 80 and 100 for overall safety, water and sanitation considerations, but he felt these would all be addressed in the county’s conditions. He said he would consider up to 120 units if the conditions worked out.

Councilmember Nicholas Kempin was reticent regarding any hard numbers, and said he wanted to wait. “I am not prepared to give a number. I want more information. I am still wanting to narrow down the details of ball fields, parking. I guess I view it a little differently. The decision before us is whether to sell the property. At this moment I would prefer to keep the leverage that we have to sell the property—seems like we’re putting the cart before the horse,” he said.

Mayor Todd Barnes said he would be in favor of 100 percent rentals, and said 54 for-sale units in the works at this point certainly meets the need to qualified individuals and families at this end of the valley. He also felt a ball field was unnecessary, as the town of Mt. Crested Butte already has a field paid for (but not constructed) up on the mountain.

Morris wondered about what ratios of open space might be required according to density of a new development. With 10.5 acres for 160 units, said Barnes, “If you throw out the ball field, you have three acres for parking. Very nice.”

Lehnertz felt that the details should be pinpointed now, before it is too late and the land has been developed. He felt that getting sufficient parking will be a significant hurdle. “The Epic pass is coming. Cottonwood is being paved. The hoards are on their way,” he said. Fogo responded to Lehnertz that that the town just purchased a lot for 150 parking spaces.

A discussion among several council members of the below-market sales price to the developer, Gatesco Inc., followed.

“We should not sell it, we should lease it. Or have some type of termination date on the agreement so that at some point in the future it reverts back to the housing authority … for the benefit of our constituents,” said Lehnertz. Lodovico agreed that the sale price was very low, but that it was acceptable as an incentive and that there was good reasoning behind it.

Several other councilmembers agreed that it is not unusual to make a low purchase price incentive available to developers. Fogo also clarified that the development cannot be done as a lease.

The council reviewed that water sustainability for the project will be evaluated in February, and that traffic controls and a number of other items in the conditions will dictate the final unit numbers.

“I have gotten to the point where, no—I don’t trust the process … because I don’t know what the end result is going to look like,” said Lehnertz. He said he felt the council is “hamstrung” by a developer who is not willing to give them enough details, and that he has concerns about a number of things.

Fogo responded, “You don’t know exactly what the layout is going to look like, you don’t know if the number is truly going to be 180, but you do know the max out there. I think you actually do have a pretty good idea of what the process is going to allow … I think you have more than a guess, and I think you have more than ‘no idea.’”

Farmer said she absolutely wants to see the process move forward. “I have a problem with us saying that no, we don’t want to see this project go through to the next steps. We have such a critical need for housing. Anything else on the table would be another two years at least. I hope we can figure out a way to let the process be what it will.”

Mt. Crested Butte town manager Joe Fitzpatrick said, “It’s important to note that today there is an application. This council has to decide number one, do we have a housing need in this community? Number two, are we willing to move forward with the application that is in our hands … that has to take the next step and go through a huge list of expensive questions … But we need to be willing to say if we want to move into the preliminary plan– that if 180 units fit based on all the other needs, that we are willing to accept it. And that we are willing to sell the land if it makes it through to the preliminary plan.”

Fogo added that to be historically correct, Mr. Gates had responded to the request for proposals and was selected because people [and this council] liked it at the time.

Lodovico stated that while everyone agrees there is a housing shortage, “This council is not sure 100 percent yet if we are ready to go into that process. That is my take-away from the last hour.” He later encouraged the council to listen to the Crested Butte council as well and take into serious consideration its opinions.

Barnes closed the work session by asking if everyone agreed the work was productive, which they did. He then encouraged everyone to go over county recommendations again, and to “listen to the public that is giving you comment.”

Another joint work session on the project is set with the town of Crested Butte for October 1.

Potential residents provide feedback

By Mark Reaman

The town of Crested Butte is working to get everything set so that Block 76, the parcel next to the Rainbow Park soccer field, can be developed as affordable housing next summer.

Because the town wants to develop Block 76 before all the affordable housing lots in the Paradise Park subdivision are built out, the town needs the okay from the original developers, Bill Lacy and Daniel Dow. Then an amendment to the annexation agreement would need to be executed by both the town and the developer. That process appears to be moving in a positive direction.

The council passed a resolution to amend the Verzuh Annexation Agreement on Monday, August 20. That paves the way to start development of the block next year. As part of the agreement with the developers, the project has to be completed in one phase.

“The biggest thing I see with doing Block 76 in one year is that it will minimize the impacts to the park and the neighborhood,” community development director Michael Yerman told the Town Council at the August 7 meeting. “It will also provide efficiencies that can help keep the costs down.”

Yerman said the town conducted a housing survey for potential buyers and had 184 responses. Yerman said the “key takeaways” were that long-term locals need housing; only 38 of the people who responded would qualify for a conventional loan, while 81 would need a subsidized loan; and most people would like to live in a two-bedroom, two-bath type of unit. Yerman also said 96 of the respondents had pets.

The town received four submittals from developers interested in building the potential units on the site. Council followed the advice of a local review committee and chose three to move to the next step of meeting with council and the public. They include Bywater, LLC; Coburn Development; and The Morrison Group.

The groups will take community input and develop individual proposals that will then be presented to the community at a September 17 meeting. The town will subsidize all three groups to the tune of $5,000 to develop a plan. From there the council will select a developer for the project on October 1 and begin the BOZAR (Board of Zoning and Architectural Review) process. That is expected to take much of the winter. Breaking ground on the project is expected to happen next spring.

District looking at two designs to possibly save money

By Anika Pepper

Rising construction costs are putting the squeeze on the potential sale of a duplex that the Gunnison Re1J school district has been planning on purchasing in the town of Crested Butte.

The Gunnison Watershed School District board heard from Crested Butte community development director Michael Yerman on Monday evening regarding the ongoing development of the duplex the district intends to buy on Teocalli Avenue in the Paradise Park subdivision. Yerman pointed to the fact that an approximate 30 percent increase in building costs will inevitably increase the purchase price in the transaction between the town and the school district.

The original price of the duplex building was estimated at about $520,000, but due to the increased construction cost the new purchase price looks closer to $590,000. However, Yerman presented a single-story duplex alternative to the district that would cost closer to $560,000. Yerman said the town wants to work with the district’s budget and is trying hard to keep costs down.

Re1J superintendent Leslie Nichols said the school district would ask for assistance from the Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Foundation, a group dedicated to help provide workforce housing in the valley. Nichols said the organization might assist if the payment ends up becoming an issue. According to Yerman, the foundation donated $25,000 for the design portion of this duplex project.

Looking at the most recent financial figures, the board stated that it looked like there was a $44,000 or $74,000 difference from what was expected, depending on the unit design.

There are two designs for the proposed units. The first is for a one-story, two-bedroom, one-bath duplex that is approximately 912 square feet. The other design is slightly larger, at 1,024 square feet and would be a two-story duplex with two bedrooms and two bathrooms. Yerman suggested that the smaller building would save construction costs with the decreased size and only one bathroom. The one-story unit would also be ADA-compliant in case the school has an employee with disabilities. School board member Dale Orth said the board wanted to hear more about both units, but indicated they were more interested in the larger two-bathroom unit.

While the board seems eager to get this project under contract, Yerman said the town of Crested Butte is not in any rush. “It is well worth having a funding conversation with the foundation,” he stated.

Yerman said the duplex would be built whether or not the school district ultimately purchases the building. If the school district passes on the purchase, the two units will be added to the town lottery for affordable housing.

Nichols highlighted a positive working relationship with the town of Crested Butte on this project, saying, “The town of Crested Butte has put the district in a great position to ultimately build three buildings of six duplexes.”

Nichols said moving forward, the next step in this process would be to get in touch with the Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Foundation before the school board meeting on September 8.

Prepares to ask voters to approve property tax increase this fall 

By Kristy Acuff

As the Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority (GVRHA) prepares to ask voters this fall to approve a ballot measure increasing county property taxes to fund affordable housing projects, executive director Jennifer Kermode caught up with the Crested Butte News to outline the group’s proposed plans.

If approved, the property tax increase is estimated to generate $880,000 annually for 10 years. When asked what is on the docket in terms of future housing projects, Kermode said it is too early to start talking about specific projects. Instead, the GVRHA is focusing on planning with local jurisdictions in the valley and looking at developing partnerships with multiple funding sources.

“It is difficult to get very specific about how many dollars would be spent in each of the years ahead, as we don’t have partnerships already established with private developers, state and federal assistance agencies, industry non-profits or housing foundations [different from the GVHF] at this point,” wrote Kermode via email. “Typically, those partnerships come along as these types of partners learn about the commitment that a community has made to solving its housing challenges. Voting in a dedicated funding stream is just such a commitment.”

Over the next several weeks, the GVRHA will be working with local jurisdictions to plan for housing development in the valley, according to Kermode. “This plan should provide guidance over the next several years for how housing will happen in the valley—who it should be for, what type of housing should be built where and how it will physically get built,” wrote Kermode.

When asked whether the funds would be used primarily to acquire land, build infrastructure such as water and sewer, or construct new developments, Kermode said GVRHA plans to use a variety of tools to address the affordable housing crisis in the valley.

“The acquisition of land for future development is certainly one of the tools that the GVRHA and its member jurisdictions should use when the right opportunities present themselves,” wrote Kermode. “There have been a few suitable parcels recognized in our search, but they are listed at prices that make them unsuited to an affordable housing development. And, there are some that have no easy connection to infrastructure, and without a funding stream to help pay for infrastructure, it’s currently not practical to spend the GVRHA’s limited financial resources on them… so both land and infrastructure are important, even critical, tools for us to get housing on the ground.”

At this point, GVRHA has compiled a “pipeline” of potential project sites and ideas based on available land that is publicly owned by either the city of Gunnison, Gunnison County or the towns of Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte.

The pipeline includes lots 77-80 in Crested Butte that could site 14 duplexes, as well as two lots in Larkspur owned by the county (0.4 acres) and 2.13 acres in the Buckhorn/Stallion Park area also owned by the county.

In Mt. Crested Butte, 17 acres of the North Village and 5.34 acres in the proposed Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory’s expanded campus are listed as potential sites.

The remaining sites listed in the pipeline include 35 acres of land owned by the city of Gunnison in various locations around the city.

If passed by the voters this fall, the property tax increase of 1.5 mils will result in an increase of $10.80 per $100,000 of residential value and $43.50 per $100,000 for commercial properties.

“Creating homes for our locals matters in so many ways; I trust that our valley communities want to see it occur,” wrote Kermode. “We don’t have a world of opportunities to accomplish this goal, so each one that is presented to us has to be taken advantage of with careful planning and foresight. Finally, we have to make a commitment to help ourselves; it takes hard work, financial capital and community vision.”

“The best time to talk about housing was 20 years ago”

By Cayla Vidmar

The Mt. Crested Butte Town Council has instructed the staff to initiate action that will bring 17 acres in the current North Village Planned Unit Development (PUD) into town control with the idea of locating housing on the parcel. It is currently designated as parkland.

Currently, those 17 acres are used as tent camping during the summer months, and in the original annexation agreement, a softball field was required to be built. Despite some obvious anger from locals at the decision during the July 17 Town Council meeting, the council voted unanimously to approve the initiation to remove those 17 acres from the North Village PUD.

Mayor Todd Barnes kicked off the discussion, stating “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago; the best time to talk about housing was 20 years ago, so it’s time to start talking about some housing.”

Town manager Joe Fitzpatrick mentioned the original North Village annexation agreement, in which “the developer agrees to install one finished softball field.” Fitzpatrick noted, “That’s one thing hanging out there if we pull this acreage out of the PUD.”

Councilman Dwayne Lehnertz asked, “So if the property is pulled out of the PUD, is that potentially void?”

“Potentially,” Fitzpatrick answered. “That’s a little bit of a gray area. This agreement did not anticipate the property being separated out.” Fitzpatrick passed that bit of gray area to town attorney Kathleen Fogo to decipher at a future date.

“We could fit a softball field on there somewhere, Joe. It would be an amenity for the neighborhood,” said Barnes.

Barnes made sure to clarify what the 17 acres would be used for, asking, “Would we want to amend the motion to include the purpose of the removal and clarify that it is specifically for housing?”

Fogo said they could, and echoed that she thought that was the direction the council was heading regarding the parcel.

Councilwoman Lauren Daniel asked if further clarification on what type of housing—workforce and affordable housing—was necessary at this time. Barnes stated that no, “housing is housing,” and said it wasn’t important to delineate that yet.

The motion to remove the 17-acre parcel from the North Village PUD for the purpose of housing development was approved by all council members. At which point an angry group of about a half dozen people from the public streamed out of the room, the word “unbelievable” muttered towards the council.

According to community development director Carlos Velado, next steps on the parcel involve a recommendation from the county Planning Commission to the Town Council after a public hearing, and then the council will consider the alteration, after another public hearing.

If removal from the North Village PUD is approved, the parcel will require rezoning, and “The rezoning process will require additional public hearings,” Velado confirmed via email.

“A necessary step to close the affordable housing gap” 

By Kristy Acuff

For the first time since 2011, the Gunnison County Board of County Commissioners will increase workforce housing linkage fees approximately 5 percent to 7 percent for new construction and additions, beginning in 2019.

County commissioners approved the increase at a board meeting Tuesday, July 3. According to Linda Nienhueser, county finance director, the linkage fees have generated between $155,000 and $210,000 annually over the past three years to fund workforce housing across the valley.

From now on, the county will generate new linkage fees annually, based, in part, on the affordability gap between market home prices and what someone earning the area median income (AMI) can afford to pay. The affordability gap has increased to $126,461 this year, up from $111,559 in 2011.

“I’m still not a fan of linkage fees,” said commissioner Phil Chamberland, “but I can see why they are necessary to help offset the affordable housing gap.”

Under the increased fees, a 5,000-square-foot residential project would incur $11,438 in linkage fees, while a 2,500-square-foot home would incur only $1,857 in fees. The fees are based on the estimated number of employees needed to build the new construction and the mitigation rate, which is meant to offset the affordability gap between market prices and what the AMI earner can afford for housing in the valley.

In other words, new construction brings employees to the valley who are in need of housing that is currently unaffordable. The larger the construction, the more employees; hence, the higher the linkage fee needed to pay for affordable housing.

Under the approved increase, the mitigation rate for residential development between 500 and 2,000 square feet is 5 percent. The rate rises linearly up to 40 percent for development up to 4,000 square feet and then plateaus at 40 percent for units larger than 4,000 square feet.

The mitigation rate is set at 1 percent for all commercial development.

There are several exemptions for projects that do not incur linkage fees. Any builder/owner earning 120 percent or less of the AMI can apply for a fee exemption. Any builder constructing deed-restricted affordable housing or anyone constructing a secondary unit to be used for affordable housing is exempt from the fee. Finally, any addition or reconstruction of fewer than 500 square feet may be exempt from the linkage fees.

Funds from the linkage fees are used by the county to develop affordable housing in the valley. For example, the eight affordable units currently under construction in Stallion Park are financed with the linkage fee funds, according to county economic and development director Cathie Pagano.