Reduced to four units, two of which will be for sale

by Katherine Nettles

The Mt. Crested Butte Town Council approved alterations to a planned affordable housing development for the Pitchfork Subdivision last week, allowing for a previous sketch plan of six units to be reduced to four. It approved the application with requirements that two of the units remain as long-term rentals and that a parking study and plan be submitted as well.

The decision came after a public hearing and lengthy discussions between Gunnison County sustainable operations director John Cattles, who is acting as developer and general contractor for the project, and the council.

The project will be developed on property purchased by Gunnison County in 2002 for affordable housing purposes. Cattles asked to reduce the unit count and for the flexibility to sell all of the units in order to cover the costs of construction. He proposed maintaining the same number of total bedrooms at 10, but said that the originally planned six-plex was too complex with stairs, fire breaks, and demand for space.

A four-plex would be a better build economically, said Cattles, but the county would need to sell at least two units to cover construction costs. The sale of the units would be to qualified residents under the provisions of an amended deed restriction. The other two would be available for long-term lease through the Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority (GVRHA).

The council held a public hearing prior to the council session and its vote. Much of the concern coming from public comment and the development commission focused on crowded parking areas rather than the number of units.

Several residents of Pitchfork spoke, one of whom opposed the sale of the units and preferred they be used for long-term rentals to aid in the affordable housing shortage. Others expressed concern over snow storage, since the vacant lot slotted for the development is currently used for overflow by default.

Mayor Todd Barnes spoke to the ongoing issues at Pitchfork with parking, and the use by some Pitchfork residents of space that exceeds what has been allocated to them to store recreational equipment, firewood, and vehicles. The overall agreement was that enforcement is key.

“As we build this, we are going to make sure everybody understands who has a license to park where. And as you guys put the asphalt in and as you cut back the dirt…it is an opportunity to clarify where everybody goes, and to solve it and be an example… That’s not a bad guy position, it’s for the benefit of the neighborhood,” said Barnes.

The design included nose-in parking for the new units, overlapping with what is technically an existing sidewalk. Cattles discussed options for parallel parking instead of nose-in parking, which he said would be very difficult to achieve.

“The parking plan is a real nightmare, with lots having easements on adjacent lots for parking,” Cattles said, pointing out that people are parking on the lot designated for the county. “So people will be losing spots that have been available to them because there is no one else built out.”

“They weren’t their spots to begin with; they were just a convenience,” councilmember Dwayne Lehnerz stated.

“The overall parking issue in Pitchfork is something we can’t really resolve. We are happy to reach out to neighbors…see what makes it better. We’re not going to be able to fix the snow storage problem or the parking problem,” said Cattles.

Council member Lauren Daniel, who lives at Pitchfork, noted that the nose-in parking doesn’t cover an area that is used by pedestrians, although it is a pedestrian walkway.

Not everyone agreed on how to handle that. Community Development Director Carlos Velado argued that the pedestrian walkway is designated to keep people off the roadway for safety and [Americans with Disabilities Act] compliance.

Councilmember Nicholas Kempin stated that he was comfortable with nose-in parking and appreciated the ADA considerations, but that it made sense to make an exception there since the dominant form of use is on the driveway and streets.

Additionally, the council addressed common issues associated with selling units under deed restriction, including people gaming the system with short-term rentals and the loss of deed restrictions if a sold unit faces foreclosure. Town attorney Kathleen Fogo said there is potential of building in a right of first refusal to the developer, which in this case would be the county.

Velado stated, “We’ve learned a lot over the years about the deed restrictions. The deed restriction in this is going to be a key component.”

Council member Ken Lodovico summarized that most of the public input had not been about the issue at hand, which is a reduction in the number of units and the for sale versus rent aspect. “The unit count, affordable housing going from six to four—I don’t know if we would be considering that if it wasn’t Pitchfork and the problems that Pitchfork creates, with the logic being that a reduction from six units to four units is less of an impact. And if there’s ever a subdivision that needs less of an impact, it’s Pitchfork. “

The council voted unanimously for approval, with the conditions that one two-bedroom unit and one three-bedroom unit may be sold, the other two bedroom unit and three bedroom unit would be available for rental, and that a parking study and plan be submitted.

Cattles said he was determined to try and continue with the project, possibly breaking ground during the next building season in spring of 2019. He said having only two units to sell will make it very challenging to build the development, but that his mission for the next several months is to work on how to finance it.

“There are other sites that the county has where we can build and not subsidize it…but we are going to have to subsidize this either way, it is just a matter of how much,” said Cattles of the council’s decision. “It is very challenging. If affordable housing were easy to do, the private sector would be doing it.”

Working toward something both towns can buy into

By Alissa Johnson

The Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte town councils met on Tuesday for the first of at least two joint work sessions on the Brush Creek affordable housing project proposal. While the discussion ultimately led to a call for more discussion—the work session will continue in late September or early October—councilmembers did agree that it makes sense to try and get on the same page.

“Whether it’s this applicant or another applicant down the road, they understand that the north end of the valley is extremely interested in housing and solving the problem—putting roofs over people’s heads, primarily the workforce. A 4-0 vote is a much stronger position than 3-1,” said Mt. Crested Butte Mayor Todd Barnes.

The towns represent two of the four entities that have a stake in the property, which lies at the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Highway 135. Their partners are Gunnison County and Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR), both of which are in favor of the current proposal. And although the sketch plan has already passed the county review process, that approval came with many conditions—including a stipulation that three of the four partners sign off on a development concept before the developer can apply for preliminary plan review.

To date, the Crested Butte Town Council has expressed consistent frustration with the project, as proposed, and Mt. Crested Butte has received a lot of attention for having the deciding vote. The two councils came together to discuss whether they could find some common ground and what uses of the property might be acceptable.

“I think the major discussion the 14 of us can have is use of the property… so really, with that, I’ll open it up to you,” Barnes said to both councils at the start of the meeting.

“We have an hour and a half,” Crested Butte mayor Jim Schmidt pointed out, urging people to be succinct. “There’s 16 or 17 of us at the table [including staff]; at five minutes a piece that puts us at an hour and a half.”

That said, the discussion rather quickly centered around a few familiar points: whether or not the proposed development of the Brush Creek parcel ought to include a ballpark; the inclusion of what’s called “intercept parking” or a park and ride lot, and how bus routes might serve the location; and the much-debated question of density and what number of units would be acceptable to council members from both towns (the county stipulated that density could not exceed 180 units).

While Schmidt reiterated that the priority is affordable housing, he also pointed out that the need for parking will only grow now that Vail is purchasing CBMR. Meetings with other communities impacted by similar Vail purchases have confirmed as much—some estimates suggest that drive traffic has increased by 40 percent in other communities.

“The other thing is, we’re very concerned about the impacts, especially to our athletic fields. They’re certainly being used to the max now,” Schmidt said. “I’d like to see a piece of the property act like a playing field.

It is possible, however, that Mt. Crested Butte could provide another ball field. Mt. Crested Butte town manager Joe Fitzpatrick confirmed that an annexation to the town during the early 2000s included a stipulation that CBMR provide a ballpark. While the councils did discuss whether that alleviated the need for recreational space in the Brush Creek proposal, they reached no conclusion. Mt. Crested Butte councilmember Lauren Daniels said she would rather see parking than a ball field, for example, yet Mt. Crested Butte councilmember Dwayne Lehnertz felt it was too soon to take the item off the table.

Crested Butte councilmember Kent Cowherd felt that the property could fit all the needs in question: up to five acres to accommodate parking and a ball field and the remaining nine to 10 acres for affordable housing. That ran counter to the perspectives of councilmembers like Mt. Crested Butte councilwoman Janet Farmer who felt the parcel is simply too small.

What remained even further out of reach, as it has for many months, was an acceptable project density, and how many of those units should be rentals versus be available for ownership. Councilmembers also expressed their desire to see site plans and a pro forma, or financial projections, sooner than later.

While the two councils were unable to arrive at consensus within the allotted time frame, members of both were open to coming up with conditions that could be added to those stipulated by the county. Crested Butte councilmembers, in particular, emphasized that the town is not an automatic no vote.

“I truly believe we can work toward something both towns could buy into,” Crested Butte councilmember Chris Haver said.

“I think that’s the ideal situation, to have all four parties in agreement,” added fellow councilmember Jackson Petito. “I don’t want it to pass with three, I want the two of us bodies to come together for the remaining two votes… Wouldn’t that be great, wouldn’t we be doing our jobs really well, finding a way to say yes?”

In that spirit, the councils agreed to continue the work session, though the delay did concern Crested Butte councilmember Will Dujardin.

“For me the crisis is personal. I go to work… and kind of get hammered by my coworkers about this kind of stuff. Let’s remember that this crisis is getting worse every week here,” he said.

Lehnertz responded, “I would say this is a problem that has been accumulating and accumulating over decades and to take a couple months to get it right [is okay], if that helps you put it in perspective. I hope it does.”

“Welcome to public service,” quipped Barnes.

The councils directed staff to set up the next joint meeting in late September or early October. Later that evening, at the regular town council meeting in Crested Butte, members of that counsel agreed to individually compile conditions they’d like to see added to the Brush Creek proposal. They’ll submit those conditions to staff prior to the next joint session.

Plan is being developed prior to voters deciding on increasing property taxes for affordable housing

By Cayla Vidmar

The Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Association (GVRHA) held a public input session in Almont on Thursday, August 23, in hopes of finding new ideas from locals for a housing plan the organization is creating. Ideas were across the board, including encouraging tiny home communities like those in Salida, developing more modular or mobile homes, and being more creative with federal lands and programs.

The GVRHA recently received approval from the Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte town councils and the Gunnison Board of County Commissioners to put an initiative on the November ballot to increase property taxes in order to generate a sustainable, annual funding stream for affordable housing. In 2017, the GVRHA approached the county commissioners to put this initiative on the ballot, but the request was unanimously denied; the commissioners asked the group to better define the request, detail funding needs and identify additional funding streams that will address the housing crisis long-term.

Many of the approximately dozen locals in attendance at the Thursday meeting had ties to affordable housing. According to GVRHA executive director Jennifer Kermode, the purpose of the meeting was to begin developing the regional housing plan, which she hopes to have a rough draft for at the end of October.

Kermode said, “The Regional Housing Plan will be a tool for the GVRHA and its members [the city of Gunnison, Gunnison County, Mt. Crested Butte and Crested Butte] to use in the planning and development of affordable workforce and senior housing; it will include an inventory of tools used in the design and development of affordable rental and for-sale housing, tools to make ownership affordable and to keep affordable housing programs sustainable.”

The meeting began with three presenters speaking to different facets of housing needs in the valley, and what is currently being done. The discussion centered on the disparity between the low growth of income versus rapidly increasing home costs; the difficulty of building affordable housing as construction costs increase; and the programs and projects the GVRHA has been working on.

The discussion was then passed to the audience, to get “out of the box” ideas for housing and funding for it. Butch Clark, local philanthropist and founder of the Coldharbour Institute in Gunnison, brought up the idea of tiny home neighborhoods, referring to the one in Salida. “I’ve been approached by Western students and faculty about the concept of tiny homes, and I’m wondering if that’s possible, while potentially allowing Western [State Colorado University] students to learn how to build them in an architectural program,” Clarke said.

Kermode said that was exactly the kind of idea they were looking for. Clark also suggested utilizing the Recreation of Public Purposes Act, which utilizes public lands. “It’s used very little in Colorado, and the public entity can get land at about 10 percent of the average cost of equivalent acres, and if it’s sold, it has to be resold back to the Bureau of Land Management,” said Clark.

According to Willa Williford, a workforce-housing consultant working with the GVRHA, “The purpose [of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act] is to define how certain public lands may be disposed of via sale or transfer to states and political subdivisions for recreational and public purposes. Use of lands for habitation … is permissible only when necessary for and integral to the public purpose.” However, Williford says, “The link between this act and local workforce housing isn’t firmly established yet.”

Three Rivers Resort owner Mark Schumacher suggested using modular or mobile homes. He spoke enthusiastically of the success he’s had with his own mobile home park, and providing his employees with affordable housing. “Why don’t you look at modular or mobile homes? You can do them very quickly, on demand. I know people think they get run-down, but I just moved one into the park. It’s 1,100 square feet and it cost $80,000. I had it here in 30 days. It has all requirements for county regulations, and it was $70 per square foot, so why are we even looking at building condos for $200 per square foot?”

This conversation sparked a larger debate about what kind of housing people are looking for—not everyone wants to live in a mobile home, and the county needs a variety of housing.

“The point here to me is that we need a spectrum of choices. We need mobile homes, we need rental housing, we need for sale, we need it in all of our communities. We’re in this together,” said Williford.

People began chiming in, agreeing that mobile homes were not the sole solution to the complex needs of the valley.

“We would not want 30 mobile home parks in the valley—we would want a variety of home options for people,” said Narcissa Channell.

“The problem is so big … We were on the Western campus today, and there are three new professors and none of them can find housing. The spectrum of people looking for housing is all the way down to seasonal minimum-wage employees, to the professionals trying to find housing,” said Darin Higgins, executive director of the Gunnison Valley Housing Foundation. “We’re looking to build 960 homes by 2020, and that was determined in 2016, and since then we’ve built fewer than 100. So anything we can do to get that caught up is huge.”

Wade Baker, vice president of administrative services at Gunnison Valley Hospital, said what ultimately matters is the types of housing in the county. “There’s an unrealistic expectation that people move to paradise and want a paradise-like home,” he said. “And so we hire people and they see what they can buy and they don’t want to live here. The mobile home solution may be affordable but they don’t want that.”

To which Schumacher suggested, people could live in mobile homes to begin with, save their money and then buy something in their price range later down the road.

Kermode and Williford then shifted the discussion to allowing participants to comment on posters hung up around the room, detailing the Housing Needs Assessment, the One Valley Prosperity Project, the GVRHA mission and current projects. Attendees put up sticky-notes with comments and ideas for the GVRHA to use in the draft plan.

Williford said the next step will be reaching out to each jurisdiction and seeking the opportunity to discuss the plan at a study session. Kermode doesn’t yet have a meeting date for the next gathering, but interested people can contact her directly at jkermode@gvrha.org.

Not a great time to build units at low cost

By Mark Reaman

Rapidly rising construction costs in the valley have put a dent in Crested Butte’s affordable housing progress. Instead of starting construction on four duplexes this year in the Paradise Park subdivision, the town has cut back to three, with the goal to get six units up and occupied by next year.

According to community development director Michael Yerman, the issue started to become clear when initial bids from subcontractors came in higher than expected to the developer, High Mountain Concepts.

The bids raised the price of each unit to $275,000, up from the estimated $257,000. That left no room for contingencies or profit. The plans were then revised and some units went from two-bedroom/two-bath units to two-bedroom/one-bath units.

The project was rebid and the costs came back even higher, resulting in the cost per unit being closer to $287,000. That was more than a 10 percent increase in price from original estimates and pushed the potential renters and owners up to the 140 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) level from the 120 percent level. A single person making about $70,000 falls into the 140 percent AMI.

The town is already committed to paying $18,000 in water and sewer tap fees and has contributed to design and survey costs. To return the price point so someone making 120 percent AMI (about $60,000 for a single adult) could participate, it would cost about another $150,000.

“High Mountain has been very good to work with and John and Karen [Stock] have even cut some of their costs to try to make this work and keep the costs down,” said town manager Dara MacDonald at Monday night’s council meeting.

“It is tough right now,” explained John Stock. “Steel in the last three months is up 30 percent,” he said. “You wouldn’t think it matters in a project like this but it impacts a lot of things, including our blades, nails and tools. Cedar is up probably 400 percent. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. It is not a great time to produce things at low costs.”

“I don’t want to waste more time before breaking ground so we want to get this going,” said Yerman. “We have to break ground on this soon to get people in next year.”

Councilman Kent Cowherd asked if the town could provide some in-kind service for something like excavation. Stock said it was possible but if the foundation hole wasn’t perfect, it could add up to wasted money and more time. MacDonald said she could look into it.

Ultimately, the council agreed to amend the original $2 million contract for four duplexes with High Mountain Concepts to now be $1.7 million for the construction of three duplexes.

Block 76 action

In other affordable housing action, the town is sending a letter to the original Verzuh annexation developers asking that Block 76, the property right next to the Rainbow Park soccer field, be included in the 2019 affordable housing build. If Bill Lacy and his partners agree, the council could see an amendment to the agreement at the August 6 meeting. The original annexation agreement stated that the Paradise Park subdivision needed to be completely built out before building could start on Block 76. If an agreement can’t be reached with the developers, the town will explore ways to reach the Paradise Park build out sooner rather than later.

Yerman said four development teams have responded to the Request for Qualifications. The council will choose three teams to continue in the process. The next neighborhood meeting to discuss the project is scheduled for August 15 so the three respondents can get further community input to prepare a conceptual plan.

Upon approval, developer is optimistic about Thanksgiving 2019 occupancy date

By Cayla Vidmar

A plan to quickly develop and sell the remaining 22 units within the deed-restricted Homestead subdivision in Mt. Crested Butte was presented to the Town Council last week by Mt. Crested Butte community development director Carlos Velado and development company Homestead Housing, LLC. All 22 units would be for sale, and people making up to 200 percent of area median income (AMI) would be eligible to purchase the units. If the contract is approved, development would begin in spring 2019 with a goal from the developer of a six-month turnaround, with occupancy by Thanksgiving 2019.

According to the Mt. Crested Butte town website, the Homestead subdivision is a community project between the town and Crested Butte Mountain Resort. The subdivision has the potential for 37 units, with priority given to employees of CBMR and the town of Mt. Crested Butte. The units would be a combination of duplexes, triplexes and two four-plexes.

If the contract moves forward, it would require a major alteration to the subdivision’s planned use unit development to create more parking and better snow management, but would not increase density.

Velado said, “Ideally we’d start building by spring of 2019, and could have all 22 units built within 12 months.” To which Lance Windle, owner of Housing Homestead, LLC, responded, “Occupancy by Thanksgiving 2019 is the goal.”

One concern the council had was where the developer’s employees would live and if the developer would be utilizing local contractors. Windle stated he’s looking down in Gunnison to house his employees.

Councilmen Ken Lodovico asked if the developer intended to use local contractors. Windle replied, “We love to take local contractors, but the reality is in order to build 22 units in six months, we have to have a framer and plumber that can dedicate solely to us, and that’s not good for local contractors because it ruins their business in town.”

There is already a list of interested individuals for the property with the town of Mt. Crested Butte, and Velado is “pretty confident we could have a lot of these units filled, if not all of them prior to completion.”

The official contract was not complete at the time of the June 19 meeting, which meant the council was unable to vote on a contract to sell the parcel to the developer. Once the contract is complete and agreed upon by all parties, it will be brought back to Town Council for a vote, but timing on this is not certain.

The town of Mt. Crested Butte is collecting names for people interested in purchasing a unit in the Homestead subdivision. Interested parties must meet deed-restricted qualifications, including: having resided in Gunnison County for at least one year; being employed in Gunnison County and making at least 80 percent of total income in Gunnison County; and having a net worth of less than $400,000 or a combined household income up to 200 percent of the AMI.

Interested parties can view the qualification requirements on the town’s website. To be added to the town list, email Jill Lindros at jlindros@mtcrestedbuttecolorado.us and include your full name, phone number, address and email address for contact.

Anthracite Place coming up on two successful years

By Cayla Vidmar

In August 2016, the first tenants at Anthracite Place, located next to Clark’s Market, moved in, and two years later, the apartments are seeing a 98.7 percent annual occupancy rate, according to Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority executive director Jennifer Kermode. She credits this success to numerous things, including demand and good property management.

The project has the capacity to house 66 full-time residents and has a mix of units, including 24 one-bedroom units and six two-bedroom units.

Anthracite Place utilizes the low-income housing tax credit, which is a dollar-to-dollar tax credit created under the Tax Reform Act of 1986. This credit provides tax credit incentives for private investors to develop housing for low-income Americans.

“Anthracite Place has apartments earmarked for employees who make under 50 percent of Area Median Income (AMI), and some units earmarked for employees who make under 60 percent of income,” according to the FAQs page on the Anthracite Place website.

The limits for income eligibility are based on number of individuals in a household and income, the range for which can be found at gvrha.org.

According to Kermode, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publishes the AMI limits on an annual basis, and the Gunnison County AMI went down in 2018, which means programs (like Anthracite Place) that tie income eligibility with the AMI could be affected.

“At Anthracite Place, tenants can remain in their units until their income exceeds 140 percent of what their original income was at move-in,” writes Kermode. For instance, if a one-person household has an income of $19,800 per year when they move into a 50 percent AMI apartment, if their income grows to exceed $27,720, they would be ineligible to remain in their apartment, according to Kermode. She continues by explaining that HUD uses the US Census Bureau’s 2011-2015 American Community Survey income data to calculate 2018 AMIs, “so it’s not really measuring ‘real-time, real-place’ data.”

The Anthracite Place receives federal funding, therefore certain federal laws, including those for marijuana, must be followed, regardless of state regulations. “We do not allow smoking of any kind in the building … and marijuana may not be smoked on any part of the property,” says Kermode.

Since Anthracite Place opened its doors in 2016, 43 households have lived in the development, 14 of which moved in when it opened and have remained in the building, according to Kermode. In 2017, there were 12 units that saw turnover, and two so far in 2018. According to Kermode, “Most who vacate their unit leave the valley for new employment opportunities or family reasons.”

Currently there are 15 households on the waitlist, and some of those are current residents hoping to move into a larger, two-bedroom unit. Kermode says Anthracite Place is considered a very successful project by the community and investors, and credits that success to “lack of affordable housing at the north end of the valley, with no shortage of demand, along with good property management.”

Interested applicants can view FAQs and submit an application for the waitlist at gvrha.org, and may direct questions to the Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority at (970) 641-7900.

Increasing density by Rainbow Park—but by how much?

By Mark Reaman

Moving toward developing more deed-restricted affordable housing units in Crested Butte, the Town Council agreed to spend $30,000 for beginning the process to develop Block 76 and the triplex lots on Blocks 79 and 80.

Block 76 is the large vacant lot to the north of Rainbow Park. Blocks 79 and 80 are located in the current affordable housing development in the northeast corner of town. In 2002 the original Paradise Park Subdivision platted 11 units for Block 76 and four of the lots were designated for single-family homes. Since that time the Town Council has instructed staff to look at how to get higher densities on that site.

The $30,000 will go toward the process of developing the property with a private developer. Willa Williford, a workforce housing consultant based in Crested Butte, will be hired to help facilitate the process.

The town will subsidize some developer design expenditures and pay for the title commitments and survey costs. The selected developer will need to assemble a design/build team and be responsible for getting the development through the Board of Zoning and Architectural Review (BOZAR).

The developer will be responsible for self-financing the eventual build-out of the project with the units being sold at the end of the build. The town is looking at having to use the property as collateral for a loan as part of the deal.

As part of the three-step initial process a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) will be released this June, with two or three finalists selected by the end of July. Council members Will Dujardin and Kent Cowherd will serve as council representatives reviewing the proposals.

In August, a “community charrette” will be held to discuss the project with neighbors, the council and potential residents. The discussion will center on issues expected to guide the specifics of the project, including density of the project, the relationship of the development to Rainbow Park and the types of units built.

“That will be an opportunity to hear from citizens what is acceptable and what is not,” noted town manager Dara MacDonald. “Citizens will be encouraged to speak out early.”

“The density will certainly be a topic of discussion,” added councilman Kent Cowherd.

After that discussion, the town will ask the interested developers to submit actual proposals to be considered in September. The council would then choose a developer by October who could begin the BOZAR review process and financing details. From there, it is expected that approximately 22 to 26 units could begin construction in June 2019.

Employee housing is a growing concern but not everyone is on board

By Aimee Eaton

The Gunnison Watershed School District Board voted at its March 12 meeting to purchase, in collaboration with the town of Crested Butte, a duplex for employee housing. The structure will be located near the Paradise Park subdivision and is part of a larger project to construct five total duplexes for affordable housing.

At the Monday meeting, Gunnison school district superintendent Doug Tredway urged the school board to support the project, telling them repeatedly that the upper valley had a housing problem and that this opportunity was a chance for the school district to become involved in ensuring teachers and staff were able to live in the community in which they work.

“If not us, who? If not now, when?” Tredway asked the school board.

The duplex will cost the district about $500,000, with the town covering all tap fees and the cost of the land. John Stock at High Mountain Concepts will build the project.

According to a survey conducted by the district, about 88 percent of teachers in Crested Butte said they would be in support of employee housing, and about 40 percent said they would be interested in employee housing for their own needs. These numbers were quite a bit lower in Gunnison, and Liz Mick, an elementary teacher in Gunnison and president of the district’s teacher union, said she worried housing could be a very divisive issue.

“I have not heard from one person in Gunnison who is on board with this,” said Mick. “Where’s the equity? If you have all this money sitting there, what is the equitable way to help everyone? This project will help two people. Let’s take that money and add this to our salary schedule. This seems more equitable. All the comments I saw were related to that. Can we just get more money?

“I don’t see that it is the school district’s mission necessarily to provide housing for teachers,” Mick continued. “I see the school district as providing livable wages for teachers. We need to see some equity in this and I just don’t see how this is equitable to so many teachers.”

School board member Dale Orth attempted to address Mick’s concern.

“It’s unlikely that the state will ever have enough money to pay all our people what they want,” said Orth. “So what I look at is what our school district can do for our people. I think it is important that we not think of this as a subsidy for our teachers, but that we look at ways we can partner with our communities in ways that they’re willing to partner with us.”

“This option is not costing us, because the money is going to come back into the fund as rent,” Orth continued. “I look at this as not spending this money to subsidize but as a fund that we are going to have repaid and that will allow us to do other things.”

Orth then made the motion to move forward with the purchase of the duplex. The motion passed unanimously. District staff and the school board will spend the next several months working with the town and the Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority to develop policies and a plan for the construction, rental and maintenance of the duplex.

After the vote, school board member Lisa Starkebaum called for a measure that would outline the district’s commitment to developing employee housing in Gunnison as well. Under Starkebaum’s urging, the school board agreed to pursue signing two master leases for new builds in the Rock Creek project and to look at developing multi-family housing at the bus barn parcel in Gunnison.

Starr pushes for even more

By Mark Reaman

With the goal to get a quarter of all the houses in the town of Crested Butte deed-restricted, the town reviewed its five-year affordable housing plan last week. The hope is to get about another 50 units constructed in town in the next five years.

Crested Butte community development director Michael Yerman led the Town Council through the five-year plan that called for 28 units to be constructed before 2020. The process will start with four duplexes to be constructed this summer.

A lottery will be held in the fall for people interested in obtaining one of the duplexes. Qualified applicants can earn up to two times the Area Median Income (AMI) but the target is to get individuals or families in the 120 percent AMI range. That would currently be about $59,520 annually.

Of the eight new units, two would be rented, while six would be for sale. It is hoped the two-bedroom/two-bath, deed-restricted duplexes can be sold initially for less than $260,000. Yerman said the Re1J school district is interested in acquiring one of the duplexes for school employees. The town will begin reviewing applications received this spring for a fall lottery drawing.

The four lots are being transferred from the town to the Gunnison Valley Rural Housing Authority. One big reason for this is that the GVRHA can help secure a line of credit for construction loans. That line of credit will be ongoing and can then be tapped into by other county entities like the city of Gunnison, the county and Mt. Crested Butte. “It allows a financing stream for construction of new homes in the valley,” Yerman explained.

Yerman said High Mountain Concepts would complete the construction of the duplexes. The town will pay the $144,000 in tap fees and waive the BOZAR review fees to help keep the price down on the units.

Yerman told the Town Council that the overall goal of the town’s affordable housing program was to get active, year-round residents living in town as members of the community. Another goal is to get at least 15 units dedicated for town employees. Currently there are eight such units. Another goal is to partner with local developers to bring rental units online.

Yerman said that in his conversations with local developers, block 76, located next to Rainbow Park, could comfortably accommodate 11 to 14 such rental units on the seven lots with another six units on block 80. The town plans to issue a Request for Qualifications to see if there is interest in building housing on those parcels. Yerman said keeping that numbers range would make it easier for developers to obtain the loans needed to build the structures.

The town is budgeting $15,000 to help offset design costs for developers that might enter the RFQ process. If 20 units were constructed, the town would pick up the $378,000 in tap fees along with $100,000 in infrastructure costs for water and gas lines. The land would be used as collateral for the necessary $4 million to $6 million construction costs and the hope is to break ground in the spring of 2019.

Councilman Will Dujardin pushed to use that land for even denser development, perhaps another Anthracite Place–type building. “If not that, then perhaps four-plexes on each of the seven lots?” asked Dujardin.

Yerman said the town could ask for such ideas in the RFQ but admitted there were issues with such density on that property. “You have to think snow storage and parking and things like the park and places for the families that occupy those units. We want to do it right,” Yerman said.

“If the town of Crested Butte is doing 28 units and the town of Mt. Crested Butte is looking at another 20 units or so in the next 24 months that will open up as many as 48 rentals currently being occupied as well and help relieve some of the rental pressures,” said Yerman.

He also noted that once the Cypress Slate River annexation is completed there will be another acre of land for a potential rental project and that might lend itself to a more dense project.

Addressing the issue of density, Yerman said there are some areas of town, such as Bad Dog Alley and R-4 neighborhoods such as Poverty Gulch, where the density sits at more than ten units an acre. “The town is denser than any municipality in the valley right now,” he said. “The town has, over time, created dense urban neighborhoods. I am comfortable where Crested Butte is as far as density. It is important to build places where people want to live.”

“Seeing this happen over the next four or five years is really exciting,” said councilman Kent Cowherd.

Mayor Jim Schmidt asked if it was possible to require that all bedrooms in deed-restricted units be occupied. Yerman and GVRHA executive director Jennifer Kermode said under federal Fair Housing regulations that was not possible but Kermode said it “could be strongly encouraged.”

“I just hate to see spending public money and not filling all the beds,” said Schmidt.

Longtime affordable housing advocate Jim Starr complimented the council on Crested Butte’s past affordable housing efforts but said new challenges have emerged that called for different action. “You are looking at 50 units but the Needs Assessment report calls for 300 units so you aren’t coming close,” he said. “I’d encourage you to consider PUDs [Planned Unit Developments] to increase the densities. Unless you are building another Anthracite Place on a half acre you won’t meet the needs.

“While the goal of obtaining 25 percent of the housing stock for affordable housing is a worthy goal, the goals used to be closer to 60 percent,” Starr continued. “San Miguel County currently has 33 percent of its units deed-restricted. The town seems to me to be stuck in the quandary of keeping the town the way it is and if we do that it won’t be a town where people live and work. We need density for rental buildings in particular so I urge going for more density instead of following the patterns of the past.”

Yerman said one other goal for 2018 is to pass a regional tax measure through the GVRHA that would raise consistent funding for affordable housing projects throughout the valley. The idea is to get such a measure on the upcoming November ballot.

Quick decision necessary

By Mark Reaman

The Crested Butte Town Council is hoping that all four entities that fund the Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority (GVRHA) agree to proceed with a proposal this November asking voters to consider a property tax to go toward affordable housing projects in the county.

But if just one of the entities, the county, the towns of Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte or the city of Gunnison, decides the time isn’t right, such a tax proposal would not move forward and the Crested Butte council would want to consider putting a Crested Butte tax issue before its voters. The initial idea would be an additional sales tax on short-term rentals in town. The council directed its staff to investigate that option and determine a timeline to make it possible.

The council’s housing authority representative, Jim Schmidt, said the GVRHA board decided in a split vote to proceed with the tax initiative but it is now up to the funding entities to agree to move ahead with a one mill property tax for affordable housing.

“The recent survey indicated it would be a very close vote,” said Schmidt. “This made some people on the board hesitant about proceeding. Each of the entities must agree to proceed and that decision has to be made before September 8. Everyone on the board did agree that any ballot issue would have to firmly define what the money would be used for but not everyone is ready to move ahead this year.”

Mayor Glenn Michel suggested the council ask the county clerk to put in a “placeholder” for a possible Crested Butte tax initiative if the county one did not materialize. He suggested a new sales tax could be imposed just on short-term rentals (STRs) in town and the money used for the town’s affordable housing budget.

“The question right now is whether we should ask the town manager and town attorney to begin the process of lining up such an issue,” Michel said. He told the council that a new 5 percent sales tax on top of current STR sales tax could generate about $250,000 per year. Interim town attorney John Sullivan indicated he believed such a tax measure is legally allowed by the state.

Councilman Chris Ladoulis wasn’t quite on board with the idea, saying the council hadn’t defined the differences between affordable housing and workforce housing, and what a new tax would specifically go toward. He made it clear that local businesses were seeking seasonal workforce housing, primarily through rentals. While he said the recent Brush Creek rental proposal could address that issue, he wanted more clarity on the projects within the town if a new tax were passed.

Town manager Dara MacDonald said that given election timelines, the council needed to make a decision pretty quickly on whether to proceed.

“I look at this as Plan B in case the county tax doesn’t proceed ahead,” said Michel.

“Doing this and pursuing Plan B sort of puts pressure on Plan A with the rest of the entities in the county then,” noted councilman Paul Merck.

“Affordable housing has been discussed as a major priority both in town and the county,” said MacDonald. “If we can move ahead countywide that would be great. This provides an option to perhaps move ahead on a more local solution if that doesn’t work out this time. The countywide solution is the best path but if it is not there yet, Crested Butte can continue to move forward.”

“Perhaps there should be a provision in the ballot language that states it will sunset and go away if a countywide tax for affordable housing is approved,” suggested councilman Jim Schmidt.

“What the town would fund would be different from what the county tax money would be used for,” said councilman Chris Ladoulis. “I don’t see them as mutually exclusive.”

“A Crested Butte tax would just apply to Crested Butte and the money would remain in Crested Butte,” emphasized mayor Glenn Michel.

The council asked MacDonald to continue investigating the procedure to possibly put such a Crested Butte tax on the ballot for this November.