The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutTBP 2021-09-01 '17 0 1, 0 IR A Wr Board of Trustees Workshop and Regular Meeting Agenda Fraser Town Hall, 153 Fraser Avenue and Virtually Wednesday September 1, 2021 6:00 PM- 9:00 PM Members of the Board may have dinner together @ 5:30 p.m. NOTE: Times are approximate and agenda subject to change Watch the meeting live on Fraser's YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs5aHnl7d-kkOi 1 cxV28DSg Participate in the meeting through our virtual platform Zoom Meeting Information https://us02web.zoom.us/i/2590408013 Meeting ID:259 040 8013 Phone 1 -346-248-7799 1. 6:002,m. Workshop - Affordable Housing Documents: C-I OLA&IFR ALAC�L w r a r Houc.,k'q INkd eds Ainl1::wev( ion,ie.w y P 2. 7:00 Ipm. Roll Call I Approval Of Agenda 4. Consent Agenda a. Minutes August 11, 2021 Documents: 1.BM �021-(.')111 IPdf b. Minutes August 18, 2021 Documents: c. Minutes August 25, 2021 Documents: �BM ; 021-08 2f-3 Pdf 5. Discussion And Possible Action Regarding a. Muse Drive Housing Proposal Documents: -1,61 [Irh/e Flppo^:.4,p:-ff -1,61 1"Irk/e "Jte FlIain, pdf b. Disposal Bag Fee And The Drop - Michael Documents: 11 he If.Iropi And Bag Fee Hinainb4LJpdW,(,.r.[,Af 6. Open Forum a) Business not on the agenda (If you would like to request time on the agenda please contact the Town Clerk, Antoinette McVeigh at 970-726-5491 ext. 201) 7. Updates 8. Executive Session For discussion of a personnel matter under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(f) (1) and not involving any specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open session. Town Manager Performance 9. Executive Session For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) and For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators, under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e). Regarding litigation. 10. Discussion And Possible Action Regarding a. Resolution 2021-09-01 Conservation Easement Documents: Fl,a.�sdufioin 2021 (Y) 01 E)eed ("A ("I'll oin°-,',(,.n va Oor ii F-aerner'0 IWl.]k (,"reek, Meadow I'vncl Meadovv,pdf Oil 111".�,,.,..k,,,..,,E,uiiii,iiE;ii,oi ii e(,.'�R<, MeadovArd Me&Jow [)iJf 11. Adjourn UPCOMING MEETING WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 BOARD OF TRUSTEES Board Staff Lead: Future focused planning Direct: Define the service, product or value to be delivered Protect: Establish the operational Manage: Now focused policy and procedural boundaries to be respected by Staff and guidance to ensure on time, on budget, and on monitored by the Board target service delivery Enable:Advocacy, resource development, Accomplish: Ensure the work defined by the and role discipline direction of the Board of Trustees is accomplished u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn CAST Housing Survey-August 2021 Summary of tools members are utilizing or contemplating (21 Responses) Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes 10 7 Density bonuses 14 5 Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals 12 5 Multifamily allowed in most zones 13 1 ADUs 15 6 Development standards (ie small lots, small 7 11 houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing 18 5 Deed restrictions on existing housing 9 11 STIR moratorium 3 2 STIR regulations 14 11 Incentives for long term rentals 6 10 Secure/use public land for housing 16 4 Public partnerships building housing 16 8 Public partnerships financing housing 9 9 Property tax exemption 3 5 Redirecting lodging taxes to housing 1 8 u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to irmb w s.!� .l<iov irls...c....Ir m by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: City of Aspen 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? • Ongoing commitment to building affordable housing i. Currently 79 affordable units are in development by the City ii. Additional 300+City-built units are planned for 5-10 years • Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority(APCHA) management of approximately 3,200 affordable housing units; approximately half rental, half for sale units i. Currently implementing mandatory home inspection funded by APCHA at point of sale ii. Working on mandatory energy inspection funded by APCHA at point of sale iii. Working on mandatory capital repairs program for ownership units iv. Next up is addressing insufficient HOA capital reserves for affordable housing complexes • Land Use Code Improvements i. Recent update to our affordable housing mitigation Fee-in-Lieu ii. Increased incentives and clarity within our affordable housing credits program iii. Study evaluating effectiveness of existing growth management/affordable housing policies in the redevelopment of existing, but aging multi-family projects 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). Yes—1% Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax (HRETT).The first$100,000 of the transaction is deducted prior to applying the HRETT. Also,45%of.45%Sales Tax 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? Yes— • 1% Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax (HRETT).The first$100,000 of the transaction is deducted prior to applying the HRETT. • Wheeler Opera House Real Estate Transfer Tax (WRETT) of 0.5%. 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) • State law requiring,for new multi-unit development HOAs, a capital reserve study and sufficient level of capital reserves; • Grant funding or matching grant funding to support capital repairs to existing affordable housing to bring them up to an acceptable standard so we can implement a mandatory capital repairs program; and • Continued sharing of good ideas and successes between our peer communities. S. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes 0 0 Density bonuses 0 0 Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals ❑ 0 Multifamily allowed in most zones 0 ❑ ADUs 0 ❑ Development standards (ie small lots, small 0 D houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing 0 ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing ❑ 0 STR moratorium ❑ ❑ STIR regulations 0 0 Incentives for long term rentals ❑ 0 Secure/use public land for housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships building housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships financing housing ❑ ❑ Property tax exemption ❑ ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ ❑ Other: Re-examining our existing Affordable/Employee Housing mitigation requirements. Reducing of off-street parking requirements—for many uses, but this has a very direct impact on affordable housing. u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to irm 2wtby August 16. . CAST Member Jurisdiction: Town of Avon 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? • Avon implemented IMi Casa Avon!, a program that offers to buy a deed restriction in the amount of 12% of the purchase price, up to $100,000,to assist new home buyers. The deed restriction limits the use of the property to full-time residential use in perpetuity and has no price cap or price restriction on resale. • Avon adopted a 20%employee housing mitigation requirement for all new development approvals. • Avon adopted tax and fee waivers for construction of deed restricted Community Housing. 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). Avon does not have dedicated funding sources for housing. Avon Council may transfer up to 10% of Real Estate Transfer Tax revenue each year to Community Housing. 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? Yes, 2% RETT. It is used for Capital Improvements. 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) Land and money. 5. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes ❑ ❑ Density bonuses ❑ ❑X Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals ❑x ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones ❑x ❑ ADUs ❑ ❑X Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑ ❑ houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing ❑X ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing ❑ ❑ STIR moratorium ❑ ❑ STR regulations ❑ ❑X Incentives for long term rentals ❑ ❑ Secure/use public land for housing ❑ 0 Public partnerships building housing ❑ 0 Public partnerships financing housing ❑ 0 Property tax exemption ❑ ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ 0 Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to.1 by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: Basalt 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? Looking to fund a significant AH project (likely a partnership)through property tax this fall 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) regional funding sources and cooperation 5. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes ❑ ❑ Density bonuses ❑ ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals ❑ ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones ❑ ❑ ADUs ❑X ❑ Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑ ❑ houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing 0 ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing 0 ❑ STIR moratorium ❑ ❑ STIR regulations ❑ ❑ Incentives for long term rentals ❑ ❑ Secure/use public land for housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships building housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships financing housing 0 ❑ Property tax exemption ❑ ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ ❑ Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to i or s ?. psl<i. ins...g�>ir.n. by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: Big Sky, MT 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? Rent Local Cash Incentive program to switch owners from renting Short Term to renting to local workers 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). None dedicated. Apply annually for Resort Tax funds and local grants 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? No—not legal in Montana 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) State legislative changes: allow real Estate Transfer Tax, allow Inclusionary Zoning, allow short term rental restrictions. Have a dedicated funding source 5. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes 0 ❑ Density bonuses 0 ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals ❑ ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones 0 ❑ ADUs 0 ❑ Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑ D houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing 0 ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing ❑ D STR moratorium ❑ ❑ STIR regulations ❑ D Incentives for long term rentals 0 ❑ Secure/use public land for housing ❑ D Public partnerships building housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships financing housing 0 ❑ Property tax exemption 0 ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ 0 Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to.1 by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: Breckenridge 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? In Breckenridge we are using 4 strategies to acquire additional workforce housing,they are: • New Construction—partner with developers to construct new (we have almost 300 rental units in various phases right now) • Buy-down—we will buy market rate units(typically older condos) and then put a deed- restriction on them and resell them at approx. 15% less than we paid. • Housing Helps-We will provide a homeowner with 15-20% of their home value in cash if they put a "light" deed restriction (must be occupied by local worker) on their property,this can also be used for help with down payment if someone is buying a property. • "Landing Locals"—incentive program to encourage property owners to use their property for long-term rental. We are modeling this program after one in Truckee, California. 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). In Summit County we have a .725 sales tax that is dedicated to workforce housing. Each jurisdiction in the County gets the dollars generated in their community. For Breckenridge that equates to a little over 3 million a year. 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? Yes we have a 1% RETT but we use it for capital improvement projects 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) Legislative changes to how property tax is applied to STIR properties would be helpful to slow the onset of STIR properties and get them paying their fair share. Additional dedicated revenue streams—housing is VERY expensive to build-we are looking at increasing the fees substantially for STR properties to generate housing dollars S. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes ❑ ❑ Density bonuses 0 ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals 0 ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones 0 ❑ ADUs 0 ❑ Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑ ❑ houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing 0 ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing 0 ❑ STR moratorium ❑ ❑X STR regulations ❑ ❑x Incentives for long term rentals ❑x ❑ Secure/use public land for housing ❑X ❑ Public partnerships building housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships financing housing 0 ❑ Property tax exemption ❑ ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ ❑ Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to.1 by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: Crested Butte 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? Putting tax question to voters imposing flat tax of$2,500 on residential properties not used as primary residence or rented for 6 months or more. Considering moratorium on heated/plumbed accessory buildings and possible requirement that they always provide an ADU. Launched Green Deed program in 2021 to assist owners of deed restricted properties with efficiency upgrades (up to $5,000 grants). Launching an InDeed program in 2022 in collaboration with Gunnison County, Mt CB&City of Gunnison 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). Have 5%excise tax on short-term rentals November ballot question include combined tax on non-primary residences and 0.5% sales tax. Increasing vacation rental excise tax to 7.5%is a separate question on the ballot. 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? Yes, 1/5 to open space. %to capital/parks/affordable housing—allocated annually as part of the budget. 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) Legislative changes would be helpful. Particularly more flexibility in how LIVID money could be spent, i.e. mitigating impacts of tourism including impact on public lands and affordable housing initiatives. Greater flexibility in the target income levels for state and federal monies would be very helpful as our middle income workers continue to be priced out of the market. Ability to provide a "homestead exemption" for primary residences could be helpful, but currently not allowed in CO. 5. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes 0 0 Density bonuses 0 ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals 0 ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones 0 ❑ ADUs 0 0 Development standards (ie small lots, small 0 ❑ houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing 0 ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing 0 ❑ STIR moratorium 0 ❑ STR regulations 0 0 Incentives for long term rentals ❑ 0 Secure/use public land for housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships building housing 0 0 Public partnerships financing housing 0 0 Property tax exemption ❑ 0 Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ 0 Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to iors ?. asl<i. virs.. airm by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: Dillon 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? Creativity—developing partnerships with public and private entities to create affordable housing. 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). 5A Funds .6%sales tax 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? No 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) Legislative change at the State level to allow for a Real Estate Transfer tax to allocate towards additional affordable housing opportunities. 5. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes ❑ 0 Density bonuses ❑ ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals ❑ 0 Multifamily allowed in most zones ❑ ❑ ADUs 0 0 Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑ D houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing 0 ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing ❑ D STR moratorium ❑ ❑ STIR regulations ❑ ❑ Incentives for long term rentals ❑ 0 Secure/use public land for housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships building housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships financing housing 0 ❑ Property tax exemption ❑ ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ ❑ Other: CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to.! . m. by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: City of Durango, Colorado 1. What bold,innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? o Created a new Housing Innovation Division and hiring a Housing Manager. o Initiated multiple Land Use and Development Code Text Amendments including: ■ Parking Code Amendments ■ Development of Multiplex program ■ EN-Multifamily Code Amendments ■ ADU Program Updates ■ Vacation Rental Code Amendments o Updating the Fair Share Program o Granted $500,000 of Fair Share funds toward preservation of workforce housing at the Animas View mobile home park o Continued the HomesFund mortgage assistance program o Facilitated the development of the tax credit-supported Espero Permanent Supportive Housing project o Participated in the Coordinated Council on Homelessness and implemented the adopted Strategic Plan on Homelessness o Prepared and submitted request for$9M in federal funding for hotel conversion to affordable housing from Senator Bennet and Hickenlooper's offices o Tracking opportunities for City acquisition of property to support homeless populations and those in transition 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). The City of Durango has a Fair Share Program and two of the larger developments, Twin Buttes and Three Springs have transfer fee programs. 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? No 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants,dedicated funding sources,etc.) o TABOR changes to allow for Transfer Tax and other funding sources including grants, etc. o Commercial property tax rate changes for vacation rentals and 2nd homes. o Case studies and information that can be replicated (clearing house of projects). o Availability of public lands for housing purposes. S. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes 0 ❑ Density bonuses 0 ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals 0 ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones ❑ 0 ADUs 0 ❑ Development standards (ie small lots, small 0 ❑ houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing 0 ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing ❑ 0 STIR moratorium ❑ ❑ STIR regulations 0 ❑ Incentives for long term rentals ❑ 0 Secure/use public land for housing ❑ 0 Public partnerships building housing ❑ 0 Public partnerships financing housing ❑ 0 Property tax exemption ❑ 0 Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ ❑ Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn° 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 CAST Member Jurisdiction: Eagle County to include Vail and Beaver Creek 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? The Eagle County Housing and Development Authority is working with many public and private entities to support housing efforts, and to better secure additional workforce housing for local residents. See our Bold Housing Moves, and more details on our website nr v......r:.... ....i.ing 11 uaiNltY.jaiml I°iolrwlshig E ol(J MOV4.5, Prr^granm sur°r"Bil-n 'r'y ^.Judy?'P21 ECLF r w°a^rilll!y^,go^'h Fu,arrri'J; e!2112021 $30,010010 25 rs o nv-%1 sDe1P 1i RPti,fl:dr,ew prrPU:NFunl V'!Zr DP'1'i ', 01150 D011D IF'° H'amefl '@Gs Sd.ahbiilliuty grant 25 Cash IFuindi SJ 121 52.50:10 100011 4 i rotl°re's p , In r ratai ina;: .°uC&w' d!%*Gd''l'ir 19"1ei I"il S15I Iia� »u20 $7 S,IiOtu ADU 5tPkOI 01W IV7Y°�12P' $150 0010 3 ;S50„OOO '12.1S art'hs Entitle ad'ii iECIc Pp ECPHDA o irned Illa,r^d $100.000 EH,n, P"I M, ov,deae Eurr,;l,Pl P 5d0,0 0 01 4 5,29 NP'VuO p a 'Cam U~Qasiung S'.°'x°71 $251000 4 $tr.25,1t, Total 5.350"1000 11611 S31a,230, 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). None specifically dedicated; lost a 2016 ballot initiative for sales tax. 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? Several small RETA's built into deed restrictions for transfers to non-local residents. The funds are less than $100,000, and used towards housing operations. 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) Providing a higher AMI level above HUD's 80%AMI;we have needs up to 140%AMI due to the higher median home prices above$1million. Assistance with land acquisition in the form of grant,financing assistance and/or funding sources. Commercial versus residential tax rate on short term rental properties. S. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes ❑ ❑ Density bonuses ❑ ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals ❑ ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones 0 ❑ ADUs ❑ 0 Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑ ❑ houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing 0 D Deed restrictions on existing housing 0 0 STIR moratorium ❑ ❑ STR regulations ❑ 0 Incentives for long term rentals ❑ 0 Secure/use public land for housing ❑ ❑ Public partnerships building housing 0 0 Public partnerships financing housing ❑ ❑ Property tax exemption 0 ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ ❑ Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to.1 by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: Estes Park • What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? We have an exclusive negotiation agreement with a developer to work towards a Development Agreement to build workforce housing on Town-owned land. We continue to explore options for generating a reliable/dedicated stream of funding to invest in workforce housing. • If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). None. • Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? No. • What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) Dedicated funding sources that are flexible enough to help provide a variety of housing opportunities from the "missing middle"to seasonal housing would be helpful in resort communities like ours. Funding developments that are not restricted to a lower AMI is difficult. A dedicated peer-exchange network would also be beneficial in generating ideas about how to address our local challenges. • Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes ❑ ❑ Density bonuses ❑x ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals 0 ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones ❑ ❑ ADUs ❑ ❑ Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑ ❑X houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing ❑X ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing ❑ ❑ STIR moratorium ❑ ❑ STR regulations 0 ❑ Incentives for long term rentals ❑ ❑ Secure/use public land for housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships building housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships financing housing ❑ ❑ Property tax exemption ❑ ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ ❑ Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to iors•. asl<i. virs.. airm by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: Town of Frisco 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? Frisco is currently collaborating with CDOT to develop a 22 unit rental project that will house CCOT employees and employees of other businesses within the Town. We anticipate breaking ground in Spring 2022 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). Summit County voters approved a 0.125%sales tax in 2006, and in 2016 approved an expansion of that tax to 0.725%.The increased amount is due to sunset in 2026. 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? The Frisco Real Estate Investment Fee of 1%of the purchase price is used for General Fund purposes. 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) Increased funding opportunities and a renewed focus on lower AMI long-term rentals for employees in the service industry. 5. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes ❑ ❑X Density bonuses ❑x ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals ❑ ❑X Multifamily allowed in most zones ❑x ❑ ADUs ❑X ❑ Development standards (ie small lots, small 0 ❑X houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing X❑ ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing ❑X ❑ STIR moratorium ❑ ❑ STIR regulations 0 ❑ Incentives for long term rentals ❑ ❑X Secure/use public land for housing ❑X ❑ Public partnerships building housing ❑X ❑ Public partnerships financing housing ❑ ❑X Property tax exemption ❑ ❑X Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ ❑X Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to i or s ?. psl<i. ins...g�>ir.n. by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: City of Glenwood Springs 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? The City has an opt-in affordable housing program for for-rent product where fees are waived in exchange for rents being set an average of 100%AMI. 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). N/A 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? N/A 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) Dedicated funding sources and more available land. 5. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes 0 ❑ Density bonuses 0 ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals 0 ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones 0 ❑ ADUs 0 ❑ Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑ ❑ houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing 0 ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing ❑ ❑ STR moratorium ❑ ❑ STIR regulations 0 ❑ Incentives for long term rentals ❑ ❑ Secure/use public land for housing ❑ 0 Public partnerships building housing ❑ 0 Public partnerships financing housing ❑ 0 Property tax exemption ❑ ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ ❑ Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 CAST Member Jurisdiction: Moab City, UT 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? We created a Planned Affordable Development(PAD) ordinance, which allows for unlimited density on a property, within development guidelines (setbacks, building height, parking, etc.), in exchange for 70%of the units to be deed restricted under 100%AMI. Similarly, Grand County(of which Moab is the county seat) created a High Density Housing Overlay(HDHO) with allows for density bonuses in exchange for 80%of the units to be restricted for primary residency and active employment.The HDHO has been wildly successful amongst developers, but the PAD has been less successful, which has indicated to local leaders that our housing demand is for restricted units that are dedicated to local residents, regardless of income. Local housing partners are developing a significant amount of income-restricted units, but we are seeing a large donut hole in our housing stock for residents/households who earn too much to qualify for these programs but cannot afford the housing available in our market. In 2018,the city purchased a 3-acre trailer park and is in the process of redeveloping it into an 80-unit affordable multifamily development using the PAD.This is our first venture into direct housing development, and we are assessing our options to develop other publicly owned parcels. We are considering a myriad of other tools to better support housing, including following Crested Butte and Ouray's example of a TZO to allow emergency RV/tent camping for the local workforce. Concurrently,we will be exploring ways to allow long-term RV/camping/tiny home/alternative home living,which is loosely related to the same population the TZO will serve. We are exploring options to increase our deed restriction efforts for residents, including amending our residential zones to allow higher density for restricted units and lower density for non-restricted units, and allowing infill development typologies(like duplexes and triplexes) in our single-household zones. We do not have a funding source to support a Vail InDEED-style deed restriction program, but we would like to create an inventory of deed restrictions to offer to residents who wish to voluntarily restrict their home for locals. 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). In early 2019,the city passed a Workforce Assured Housing Ordinance (WAHO),which is an inclusionary zoning (IZ) ordinance specific to overnight accommodations industries.The ordinance is specific to overnight accommodations because an economic impact analysis indicated an IZ policy would not be economically viable for other commercial industries, and it would be minimally viable for second and/or high-end homes, but because second homeownership is not identified until the property is built and assessed,the IZ policy does not apply to this development typology. We received approximately$1.6MM in fees-in-lieu from the WAHO.Within the following year,the city placed a moratorium on and eventually removed overnight accommodations from our land use code,which has halted the development of this development type, but it has also halted income to this funding source. 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? No, the state of Utah does not allow a RETA. 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants,dedicated funding sources, etc.) 0 Funding(more of it, more flexibility from the state to use tourism/resort taxes to fund affordable housing) • Additional staff(a funding challenge... and an inability to find quality employees because they cannot find housing to relocate here) • Political will (NIMBYism, anti-growth, anti-tourism mindsets) 5. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes ❑ ❑X Density bonuses X❑ ❑X Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals ❑ ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones ❑ ❑ ADUs ❑X ❑ Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑X ❑x houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing ❑ ❑x Deed restrictions on existing housing ❑ ❑X STIR moratorium X❑ ❑ STIR regulations 0 ❑X Incentives for long term rentals ❑ ❑ Secure/use public land for housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships building housing ❑ ❑X Public partnerships financing housing ❑ ❑X Property tax exemption ❑ ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ ❑ Other: Notes: • During the 2020 session, Grand County, UT(of which Moab is the county seat) lobbied for the state legislature to change the Transient Room Tax (TRT)to allow affordable housing as an eligible expenditure, but it did not pass. • During the 1980s, Moab decreased the property tax to zero.The City Council will be voting on August 24 about whether to bring back the property tax as a more reliable source of revenue for capital improvements.That said, the state outlines a specific set of property tax exemptions, but at some point in the future, and especially considering we could not utilize a RETA,we have internally discussed the possibility of lobbying the legislature to allow resort communities to set a different primary residency exemption (it's currently set at 55%) so we could increase property taxes and gain more revenue from high-value second homes. • STIR regulations: Moab does not allow STRs currently, but we are working on amendments to our zones to eventually bring back STRs that meet specific development standards desirable to the community. • City is also facing challenges related to water and climate change,which are separate but related to housing. u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to.1 by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: Mt. Crested Butte 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? A. We have a couple of facilities that have been restricted to STR that we are allowing LTF for county employees. B. The Town is partnering with the Housing Authority to offer property management services to incentivize current STRs to long-term rent to local, pre-screened employees 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). We have a 2.9%excise tax on all STRs that is dedicated for affordable/workforce housing. 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? The Town does not have a real estate transfer tax, however,the Town Center Community Association has a 1%tax on condo sales in the ski base area. 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) A. Programs that don't have so many restrictions like no pets. They would need to be for infrastructure and the buildings themselves. B. Due to our unique landscape and location,we need varying levels of tax credit programs or grants that cater to non-traditional development,with shorter timelines to receive approval and awarding of any funding. We would also like to see expanded eligibility for CDBG funding; or similar funding sources for rural areas 5. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes ❑x ❑ Density bonuses ❑X ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals 0 ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones 0 ❑ ADUs 0 ❑X Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑ ❑ houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing ❑ ❑X Deed restrictions on existing housing X❑ ❑X STR moratorium ❑ ❑ STIR regulations X❑ ❑X Incentives for long term rentals ❑X ❑X Secure/use public land for housing ❑X ❑ Public partnerships building housing ❑ ❑X Public partnerships financing housing ❑ ❑X Property tax exemption ❑ ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ ❑ Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to i or sL?.�ps.l<.i.1 ins...ga ir.n. by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: Pagosa Springs 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? We are considering lessening site development standards, reducing the minimum dwelling unit size, as well as purchasing land for public-private partnership to develop units. 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). Primarily general fund (2021 is $108k)I; however, half of STIR license application fee and annual renewal amount goes to a housing fund (only generates about$20k per year).There are discussions currently about asking voters in 2022 for an excise tax on STRs and/or a dedicated sales tax for housing. 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? No, we do not have this tax. If it was legal to do so,we might consider implementing it. 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) • Funding and tax credits for developing missing middle housing projects (AMI 60-120%) • Scattered site development incentives to integrate housing within neighborhoods and on smaller parcels(through DoLA) • Developers willing to work in smaller communities (perhaps state can engage them on our behalf) • Real estate transfer tax allowed • Grants for vertical construction, not just infrastructure • More involved technical assistance from DoLA and other entities for smaller communities that don't have the expertise to build units S. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes 0 ❑ Density bonuses 0 ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals 0 ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones 0 ❑ ADUs 0 ❑ Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑ 0 houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing ❑ 0 Deed restrictions on existing housing ❑ 0 STIR moratorium ❑ ❑ STIR regulations 0 ❑ Incentives for long term rentals ❑ 0 Secure/use public land for housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships building housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships financing housing 0 ❑ Property tax exemption ❑ ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ 0 Other: • Ordinance allowing for smaller dwelling units (current code has 400 SF minimum); may allow down to 225 SF, which can allow for converted hotel/motel rooms into efficiency apartments u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to.mbowes@cosl<itowns.com by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: Park City, Utah 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? The City is using a three-pronged approach to the City's housing crisis that includes Development, Partnerships, and Policy changes. The City has become a developer and is producing units on its own. Park City is also utilizing public-private partnerships to accomplish housing goals. Recently the City instituting changes to the Land Management Code to provide greater incentives to affordable housing development. 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). The City is using bond proceeds being serviced by the funds generated by the Redevelopment Authority as well as utilizing a percentage of Resort Communities Sales Tax Revenue. 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? Transfer tax programs are not allowed by State code in Utah. 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) Additional sources of on-going funding as well as legislative changes at the State Level that provide flexibility for local jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions should be able to use as many tools as they have access to,to fund and incentivize affordable housing. S. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes ❑X ❑ Density bonuses ❑X ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals 0 ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones ❑ ❑ ADUs ❑ ❑X Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑x ❑ houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing X❑ ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing ❑ ❑X STR moratorium ❑ ❑ STIR regulations ❑ ❑X Incentives for long term rentals ❑ ❑X Secure/use public land for housing ❑X ❑ Public partnerships building housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships financing housing 0 ❑ Property tax exemption ❑ ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing 0 ❑ Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to.1 rr s.•. asl<i. w.1 s...c.21.n. by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: Salida 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? The City of Salida implemented an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 2018 requiring new developments to include 12.5%of their housing units as affordable to 80%AMI. Additionally,we have adjusted our system development fees (for water and wastewater)to provide a significant discount for affordable housing developments. Moreover, the City of Salida worked with a local community land trust,the Chaffee Housing Authority, to establish a development of six permanently affordable housing units on previously city- owned land. Additionally,the Planning Commission and City Council approved a high density, innovative planned development, being driven by the Chaffee County Community Foundation and the Chaffee Housing Authority, which will establish 17 rental units that will be publicly owned and managed along with a non-profit development center. To address concerns regarding Short Term Rentals, Salida adopted a an ordinance to permit short term rentals, limit their number in residential zones, as well as insure even distribution throughout those residential zones, i.e. only one short term rental is allowed per block. On July 20, 2021, Salida City Council established a moratorium on new permits for short term rentals in the commercial zones. 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance provided an option for developers to pay a fee in lieu of the required 12.5%affordable housing units, and these fees are dedicated to affordable housing. 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? I wish. 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) Initially, a dedicated funding source for the operation of the Chaffee Housing Authority as well as for incentives and contributions to public/private partnerships. In addition,funding streams from the state would be more helpful if they didn't have strict income guidelines; for example,the 60%and 80%AMI restrictions do not help with workforce housing in Chaffee County, where 65%of our workforce earns over 60%AMI and 46%earn over 80%AMI. Grants are always needed, particularly for real property acquisition, and particularly if those grants don't have strict income eligibility requirements. Moreover, grants for housing development that were "first in"funding, as opposed to gap funding,would instigate local contributions to innovative projects.Additional funding should be made available for housing stabilization, homeless prevention, and rapid rehousing, particularly for locations that do not have a continuum of care established or do not yet participate in the Balance of State Continuum of Care. Funding to support infrastructure, particularly bolstering and improving existing infrastructure so that it might hold greater housing density, is very needed. Lastly, affordable and highly skilled technical assistance should be readily accessible to smaller communities to assist with small-scale development as well as grant writing and reporting. S. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes 0 ❑ Density bonuses 0 ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals 0 ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones 0 ❑ ADUs 0 ❑ Development standards (ie small lots, small 0 ❑ houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing 0 ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing ❑ 0 STIR moratorium 0 ❑ STIR regulations 0 ❑ Incentives for long term rentals 0 ❑ Secure/use public land for housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships building housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships financing housing ❑ 0 Property tax exemption ❑ ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ ❑ Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to.1 rr s.•. asl<i. w.1 s...goi..n. by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: Summit County, CO 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? Renting and/or purchasing older hotels and converting the use and occupancy to rental housing. STIR to LTR programing that is creating "Opportunity Zones" of historic and current local workforce neighborhoods that target short term rentals within those OZ's to incentivize them to long term rent. Housing Helps—The purchasing of deed restrictions to be placed on market rate homes that require the home to be occupied by a local worker. Working with the Forest Service on their new enhanced leasing program to long term lease USFS land to build workforce housing. 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). 5A, .6 of 1%sales tax, expires after 2026 5A, .125 of 1%sales and use tax Development impact fees and voluntary housing endowment funds 1A, property tax fund for open space and housing 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? Generally no, but there are a couple small PUD's that have a RETA which use those funds for housing programs. 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) Large infrastructure grants and funding sources. The below market rate housing requires large subsidies to develop and often large investments are required for infrastructure. S. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes 0 ❑ Density bonuses ❑ ❑X Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals ❑X ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones ❑ ❑ ADUs ❑X ❑ Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑ ❑x houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing ❑X ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing 0 ❑ STR moratorium ❑ ❑ STR regulations 0 ❑ Incentives for long term rentals 0 ❑ Secure/use public land for housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships building housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships financing housing 0 ❑ Property tax exemption ❑ ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ ❑ Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to b w s .:�a ku.t,owns c orn by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: Town of Telluride 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? Constructing about 50 units/year; communal-living boarding house; constructing net zero housing; considering limits on short-term rentals, such as only one license/person or entity. 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). 2.5%excise tax on short-term rental properties (passed in 2019), 0.5%sales tax(passed in 1993-ish), 2-mill property tax (passed in 2018), mitigation fees charged on both commercial and residential construction. 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? Yes, 20%comes off the top and is dedicated to open space and the remainder goes into our Capital Fund (mainly infrastructure projects).We have made transfers into affordable housing and for rent relief on occasion. 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) Substantial State funding for land acquisition, construction of affordable housing, transportation subsidies. S. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes ❑ X Density bonuses X ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals X ❑ Multifamily allowed in most zones X ❑ ADUs X ❑ Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑ X houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing X ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing X X STR moratorium ❑ X STR regulations X X Incentives for long term rentals X ❑ Secure/use public land for housing X ❑ Public partnerships building housing ❑ X Public partnerships financing housing ❑ X Property tax exemption ❑ X Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ X Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 In advance of the Telluride meeting, we are asking each CAST member jurisdiction to share, at a high level,their recent housing actions. Please return to iors ?. psl<i. irs... airm by August 16. CAST Member Jurisdiction: Town of Vail 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? For the past 10- years Vail has managed the "In-Deed" program within which the Town purchased deed restrictions on willing private residences, limiting occupation to those who work at least 30-hours per week within Eagle County. To date Vail owns about$65 million in deed restricted assets inside and outside Vail town boundaries.Vail is also currently bonding for a $25 million housing project in the center of Vail which will be 100%deed restricted, 72 units for about 175 residents. Vail owns and maintains several apartment buildings which are 100%deed restricted and home to 300 local residents. In November 2021 Vail will have a .05cent sales tax on the ballot which would be dedicated toward our Housing Fund and would raise up to $4.5 million annually. 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). No current dedicated funding source. Current funding ($3.5 million per year is pulled from the town's General Fund) However, in November 2021 Vail will have a .05cent sales tax on the ballot which would be dedicated toward our Housing Fund and would raise up to $4.5 million annually. 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for?Yes, 1% RETT Fund which may only be used for open space acquisition, parks,trails, etc. No housing funding is allowed from our RETT fund (unfortunately).Town Council could change the use language, but that would be highly controversial in the community. 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants, dedicated funding sources,etc.) At the State or County level, allow for Short Term Rentals to be taxed at the Commercial Rate. State Grants for housing and child care will be key. Passing our own dedicated funding source for housing in the November ballot will be key, along with completion of a STIR "impact nexus study" so we may charge higher fees on STIR will be important as well.Those fees will go to our Housing Fund. S. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes ❑ 0 Density bonuses ❑ ❑ Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals ❑ 0 Multifamily allowed in most zones 0 ❑ ADUs ❑ 0 Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑ D houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing 0 ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing 0 ❑ STR moratorium ❑ ❑ STR regulations 0 ❑ Incentives for long term rentals ❑ 0 Secure/use public land for housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships building housing 0 ❑ Public partnerships financing housing 0 ❑ Property tax exemption ❑ 0 Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ 0 Other: u!i!i!puum�lllllllllpu Illlllllllilllllllllllllll u^Pummn 177 CAST HOUSING SURVEY-August 2021 CAST Member Jurisdiction: Town of Winter Park/Winter Park Housing Authority 1. What bold, innovative housing actions is your organization taking(high level)? Winter Park is actively investing in moving large housing projects forward.The Fireside Creek Apartment complex will provide 40 one-bedroom units and 10 two-bedroom units.The project is a public-private partnership with Consolidated Development Partners.The Town has committed the project site,water taps,fee waivers, and extended tax abatement through the housing authority.The Town total contribution will be approximately$3.3 million dollars including land and fee waivers and the units will be deed-restricted in perpetuity.The project is scheduled to be completed in early 2023. Winter Park is installing horizontal infrastructure for the next phase of the Hideaway Junction development, an owner-occupied development where the homes and land underneath are sold with a deed-restriction that limits appreciation over the long-term to qualifying members of the local workforce.The next phase will add 20 units to the existing 10.The Town's investment in the infrastructure is$1.2 Million,which is also supported by a $250,000 Department of Local Affairs grant. The Town is also in discussions to adopt a new ordinance providing additional development incentives for the private development of additional affordable housing include allowing for additional building height, lot coverage, density, parking, and simple materials. As a longer-term strategy, Winter Park is also exploring opportunities for regional collaboration including pursuing a multi-jurisdictional or regional housing authority with a dedicated funding source. Finally,the Town is proposing and moving quickly on a program to incentivize the conversion of short-term rentals to long-term rentals. Under this proposed program,the Town of Winter Park will pay a property owner who converts their STIR to a long-term workforce rental unit.The amount of the incentive to be paid will depend on the size of the unit—studios and one bedroom units will be compensated slightly less than two or three-bedroom units- and the length of time the unit is made available for a long-term lease. Owners providing a one-year lease will be paid more than owners only providing a six-month lease. Under the program,we are proposing that Winter Park business owners will be the party entering into the lease with the property owner.The business owner will then sublease the property to their employees. In this way,the property owner can hold the business owner responsible for any damage to their unit. We are proposing to work with the Chamber to develop the list of businesses that would be interested in entering into such a lease. People interested in converting their STIR to a long-term rental can contact either the Chamber or the Town staff. Under this program,we are proposing the following incentive structure: • Studios and 1 bedroom unit owners who convert STRs to long-term rentals will receive $5,000 for a six- month lease and $10,000 for a one-year lease 2 and 3 bedroom unity owners who convert STRs to long-term rentals will receive $7,500 for a six-month lease and $15,000 for a one-year lease. These incentives would be paid up-front and are in addition to the revenue the property owner would receive from the rental of their property. 2. If you have a dedicated funding source for housing, list the source(s). $3/square foot housing impact fee on all new construction 3. Do you have a Real Estate Transfer Tax and if so,what is it used for? A 1%Transfer Tax supports the general fund. Through annexation agreements,the Town has negotiating waiving part of the $3/sq foot housing impact fee for voluntary Real Estate Transfer Assessments. 4. What would be most helpful in dealing with the affordable housing crisis in your community? (Legislative changes at the State level, information,grants,dedicated funding sources, etc.) Grants assisting with land acquisition, technical assistance pursuing multi-jurisdictional housing authority and regional projects,federal policy changes allowing for additional LIHTC funding and simultaneous LIHTC projects in rural regions, S. Which of the following tools is your community utilizing or contemplating? Utilizing Contemplating Zoning changes ❑ ❑ Density bonuses ❑ ❑x Fee Waivers/reductions/deferrals ❑ ❑X Multifamily allowed in most zones ❑ ❑ ADUs X❑ ❑ Development standards (ie small lots, small ❑ ❑X houses, simple materials, set backs) Deed restriction on new housing ❑x ❑ Deed restrictions on existing housing ❑ ❑X STIR moratorium ❑ ❑ STIR regulations X❑ ❑ Incentives for long term rentals ❑ ❑X Secure/use public land for housing X❑ ❑ Public partnerships building housing X❑ ❑ Public partnerships financing housing X❑ ❑ Property tax exemption ❑X ❑ Redirecting lodging taxes to housing ❑ ❑x Other: Regional collaboration I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ion �"�oa� ,Vso", " sw IyYu " i u ' uaNl ,.1 J J �R ti M MEMNON 4,;,� N II'... muul�logp;wo,�!!,p^"III IiiIIII��lllllllSlil�loi IV4ilpllulgim Ny�pMgr „ I�Illll�l " w r imml• w nn I u�IpM M I *ININw N gum,'"9WJpPr,, � uP IVIIIII,pljllVllp „m w r' 9 q,"rm!plyu I ',I, � 'VPnVlumlpl�lgllml�lm,,,,r.„, fffIII�I CNV i r.i it m Mau,,,, Wendy Sullivan, WSW Consulting San Anselmo, CA wendyCcbwswconsult.com Christine Walker, Navigate, LLC Jackson, WY www.navigateih.co Melanie Rees, Rees Consulting, Inc. Crested Butte, CO www.reesconsultinciinc.com TOWN OF FRASER HOUSING NEEDS AND DEVELOPMENT STUDY May 2016 CONTENTS Executive Summary and Recommended Strategies Part I — Housing Needs in Fraser Part 11 — Development Environment A — Attainable Housing Code Provisions B — Attainable Apartment Case Studies C — FRODO Development Pro Forma D — Town Development Process and Strategies Part III — Town Land and Housing Resources Submitted by: Wendy Sullivan WSW Consulting wendy@wswconsult.com Christine Walker Navigate, LL.0 Melanie Rees Rees Consulting, Inc. Fraser Housing Needs and Development Study: Executive Summary, May 20I0 FRASER HOUSING NEEDS AND DEVELOPMENT s"rUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES TABLE OFCONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE0FSTUDY.................................................................................................................................................. 1 STUDYCOMPONENTS................................................................................................................................................ 1 STUDYMETHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................................ 2 WORKFORCE HOUSING TRENDS.......................................................................................................3 FxASDo'SSHIFTING DYNAMIC................................................................................................................................ 2 HOUSINGCHALLENGES............................................................................................................................................4 WORKFORCEHOUSING NEEDS..........................................................................................................7 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES AND NEXT STEPS.........................................................................8 1. Develop Strategic Plan................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Build Capacity toDevelop and Oversee Housing..............................................................................10 3.Amend Town Code(nAllow and Encourage Attainable Housing...................... 11 4.AmundAccuzzo(yDwelling Unit Begu/mbons/orAttoinob/oRentals------------.13 IUpgrade Community Infrastructure....................................................................................................13 fiPreserve and Upgrade Existing Resident Housing-------------------------22 7. Create Attainable Housing Fund with Dedicated Revenue Source............. ............... ....... 13 /lUtilize Town-Owned Lood/orWorkforce Housing..........................................................................14 9Draft and Adopt Workforce Housing Guidelines................ ...................... .............................. 24 Fraser Housing Needs and Development Study: Executive Summary, May 20I0 INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study This Housing Needs and Development study evaluates multiple components of Fraser's housing needs and development environment. The purpose of this study was to provide Fraser with the information needed to: ° Define what attainable housing isin Fraser, ^ Understand how much attainable housing is needed to keep up with job growth inthe area and ° Understand how the local development environment and town resources could better assist development ofthis housing. This information is intended to help the town establish housing strategies and workforce housing policies that will provide more opportunities for local employees to live inFraser. Study Components This Housing Needs and Development study is comprised of several components, each with an independent purpose. The results of each component are summarized in this Executive Summary and attached asseparate reports, including: Housing Needs. Defining the town's workforce housing needs interms ofhow many units are needed, what type (ownership and rental) and price points to help establish what "attainable houdng" means inthe Town ofFraser; Development Ei t Providing anoverview ofthe local development environment, including: ^ A review of the town's development code as it relates to providing or incentivizingottainab|e housing. Example programs implemented by other mountain resort communities are also provided to illustrate the variety and combination ofstrategies needed toproduce housing; WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Executive Summary—1 Fraser Housing Needs and Development Study: Executive Summary, May 20I0 ° Evaluating the cost to develop ownership and rental housing in Fraser and subsidies that may be required to produce attainable units. This included a pro forma analysis of a mixed-use development on town-owned land (FRODO) and case studies of attainable rental projects being constructed in the Town of Breckenridge; and ° Identifying how the town may approach development of attainable housing on its land. Local Resources. Providing an inventory oflocal resources that can be used to help meet attainable housing needs, including town-owned land, financing, and annexation potential. Study Methodology This research was conducted through: ° Aseries nfinterviews with local employers, Realtors, developers and development professionals, town staff and service providers to understand the housing market, demand for units and local development environment; • Local information from the County Assessor, town planning and G|5 department, and the Winter Park& Fraser Chamber; ° Secondary sources such as the US Census, Colorado Department of Local Affairs and the Bureau ofLabor Statistics; ° Studies completed in the fall of 2015, including the Grand Profile, the Fraser Valley Economic Development Plan and survey, and the Town of Winter Park Housing Needs Assessment; and ° Interviews and online research of other communities, including the Towns of Breckenridge, Estes Park, and Frisco in Colorado and the Town of Jackson, Wyoming, tounderstand the cost ofdevelopment projects andexisting attainable housing code provisions and funding sources. The below summarizes the results of this analysis and recommends next steps and strategies that the town can consider to help produce and fund more attainable housing. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. ExecutiveSummam—Z Fraser Housing Needs and Development Study: Executive Summary, May 20I0 Workforce Housing Trends Fraser"s Shifting Dynamic Fraser is in a favorable position to attract both locals and second homeowners tothe community. |tisproximate tnWinter Park, Devil's Thumb and Grand Lake, has significant land available for development, and can offer some unique home products compared toWinter Park and at slightly lower price points. This is attractive for second homeowners looking to be central to outdoor amenities and near Winter Park, as well as residents employed north or south of town. The Grand Park Community Recreation [enter, elementary school and local grocery store are also popular draws for locals, particularly singles and younger couples and families. Fraser'scentra| location topopular resort destinations, however, also presents challenges for the town during peak summer and winter employment seasons, when many of these workers seek housing in Fraser and the surrounding area. Locals also compete for housing with many Front Range buyers who tend to be more cost- conscious than second home buyers from out of state. This places Fraser in a unique and challenging position for providing housing for its locals compared to many other mountain communities. Predominate Second—HomeownerSecond-Homeowner Community. Recent trends show that locals have been losing ground to second homeowners. Fraser is now in a position where less than one-half of its homes (49%) are occupied by locals. Local home occupancy declined over 15 percentage points between 2000 and 2010, which is a large change relative to other Colorado mountain towns. Analysis of recent housing development shows that the vast majority are being purchased by second homeowners, where: ° Only 1596ofhomes built since 20OOare owned byhouseholds with alocal address, indicating new homes are not being purchased by locals; and • The typical price of new single-family and townhomes is $350,000 or more, with most well over$400,000. Local ownership ofhomes valued over$35O,O0Odrops off significantly, with the vast majority being purchased by out-of-area buyers. Fraser's current trend is leading it toward becoming both a second homeowner community and bedroom community for workers, many of them seasonal, drawn largely by its proximity to resort amenities and jobs located out of town. This has implications for both the long-term vibrancy of the town and the sustainability of its downtown and local businesses.' Asthe year round local base decreases, businesses I While analysis of visitor spending patterns was outside the scope of this study,the predominate Front Range influence has historically shown that these visitors are more likely to bring groceries and other necessities with them rather than shop/spend locally and generally obtain more services from Front WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Executive Summary—3 Fraser Housing Needs and Development Study: Executive Summary, May 20I0 must rely more strongly on peak visitor seasons tn sustain their operations. This also impacts revenue to the town both in terms of fluctuating sales tax revenues and, in Colorado, low property tax revenues that generally do not cover the impacts of large lot, z single-family home development and demanded ServiCeS. Locals Want to Live in Fraser. Fraser is, however, in a favorable position to attract more locals and house more nfthe year-round workforce. Presently about 4O96ofthe long- term workforce in the Fraser Valley resides in the Fraser area—this includes residents living both intown and the neighboring unincorporated area. Over one-half ofFraser's employed residents commute to jobs in other parts of the county. Many other trends point tothe desirability of Fraser to locals, including: ° All area employers interviewed indicated many of their workers that presently live out of town would prefer to live nearer Fraser if housing was available and affordable; ° Young couples and young families are looking to purchase homes in Fraser and there is more interest in homeownership from first time buyers this year than has been seen inatleast five years; ° Move-up buyers are also searching for opportunities in Fraser, though are currently more likely tofill their needs further north; and ° Rentals are indemand from both seasonal workers and young year-round workers employed in Fraser and Winter Park. Turning Point. Fraser has adecision tomake. It can proceed on its current path where the dominance of second home owners over locals grows or it can work to once again become a primarily locals' community and take advantage of its central position to help house the area's year-round workforce. Housing Challenges It will be challenging for Fraser to increase the supply of housing that locals can afford. Current trends show an extreme shortage of housing for locals, rising rents and sale prices, and increasing development costs. Range vendors.This reduces their expenditures in town and reliance on local services, affecting the level qflocal economic support from this visitor group. z For more information on the potential benefits nfhousing more locals in town,see the white paper"The Impact of Affordable Workforce Housing on Community Demographics, Economies,and Housing Prices and Options'^ byWSW Consulting.Available at: http://www.townnfbreckenridgezom/index.aspx?paQe=65 WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Executive Summary—4 Fraser Housing Needs and Development Study: Executive Summary, May 20I0 Shortage of rentals for the workforce. As in other mountain communities, rentals are in short supply. Vacancy rotes have been near zero the past two winters, turnover in the transition months of May and October has decreased and rents have been rising. This is due both 1Dincreased demand and decreased supply 0frental units due to: ° Jobs growing faster than the workforce housing supply, with no construction of rental units since 2OO2; • Long term rentals being sold bytheir owners tu primarily second homeowners now that the for-sale housing market isrecovering; ° Front Range residents renting units to avoid 1-70 traffic congestion (second home rentals); ° An increase in year-round leases, which decreases the seasonal turnover of units; and ° Master leasing bvlarge employers for seasonal worker housing, which has reduced the number of apartments and condominiums available for year-round renters. Fevvaffordab|eoxxnenhi rt iti The availability ofsingle-family and tnxvnhonoe product priced under$300,000 has been in short supply and is declining. The median price of homes listed for sale was 18% higher than those available in July of last year. Adding to local homeownership challenges: ^ Locals compete with cost-conscious second homeowners, largely from the Front Range, at all price points for sing|e-fanni|y, tnvvnhnrne, condominium and multi- family product, which is unique compared to many resort communities. In higher-cost mountain resort communities second homeowners typically focus on higher-priced units. ° Workers in Fraser earn lower wages on average than in the county overall, but home prices in Fraser are higher than all areas except Winter Pork making local home affordability particularly challenging. ^ The sale price of condominiums are more affordable for locals, but the average $33O/noonthHOA fees isequivalent toadding about $45,OOOtothe sale price of the home. Many units are also old and inneed ofrepair, lack adequate storage/garages for locals, and noprojects areFHA'approved, vvhich |inoits mortgage options and raises down payment requirements. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Executive Summary—5 Fraser Housing Needs and Development Study: Executive Summary, May 20I0 Seasonal workers compete for housing_. Fraser is in a unique position inthe valley. A similar number of summer and winter seasonal jobs are added in Fraser each year, resulting in fairly steady job counts throughout the year. The town and its housing, however, are affected hvthe large seasonal job swings that occur both north and south of town. Winter Park Resort owns or master leases a total of 45 units in the Fraser area and Devil's Thumb houses nearly 50 employees in a hostel and other units they own in the area. These units, however, fill only a portion of the near 2,000 seasonal summer and winter jobs in the area. This adversely affects year-round residents and workers needing housing. Difficult Despite favorable demand for homes, various development professionals inthe area, including architects, engineers, developers and others, indicated a preference to build housing in other communities. Compared to neighboring communities, Fraser isperceived asbeing generally anti-development both based on the development process and public reaction to proposed development. Concerns included costly on-site inspections, high fees, high construction standards for the region, and an unpredictable entitlement process. Fraser's development codes favor development of larger single-family homes that appeal to second homeowners over producing smaller, more affordable homes for locals. High housing development L High construction costs are not unique to Fraser. As in other mountain communities, construction costs have been and are rising between 3% to 5% per year. Also, much of the construction labor force left during the recession and has not come back. Labor must be imported from the Front Range or other areas. With good work elsewhere and a shortage of housing in the Fraser Valley for construction workers, skilled labor is hard and potentially costly to attract. The cost to construct a home varies by multiple factors, including location and project type: ° For difficult sites and plans like FRODO, hard costs, soft costs, site work, land and management result in costs of$375 per square foot for attached product (with near$260 needed for hard costs and site work only). Apartment development in Breckenridge ranges between $393 and $476 a square foot. ° The total cost for single-family home development tends tobelower, averaging between $270and $3OOper square foot. Local developers report that just the cost of constructing a shell for a home, which includes materials and labor only (i.e. land, soft costs, site work and management are excluded) may be $150 or below, but at that price point, these are bare bones and have tack-on finishes which raise the final cost tOthe buyer. More typical hard shell costs are nearer $18Oper square foot. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Executive Summary—6 Fraser Housing Needs and Development Study: Executive Summary, May 20I0 The high cost of construction prevents the market from building homes affordable for locals absent significant subsidies: | | * The pro forma for the FROOOmixed-use development Ontown-owned land estimated that a gap of between $200,000 and $300,000 per 1,240 square-foot unit would need to be filled to sell homes at$160,000 to $260,000, the prices affordable for households earning between O0Y6and 12OY6AIVI|. Several factors contribute tothe high cost ofdevelopment ofthis project, indudingsite challenges (high water table); mixed uses; multiple buildings, unit types and styles; significant infrastructure requirements and improvements; and the fact | | that itisaredevelopment project ratherthannevvdeve|oprnent. ^ Recently constructed affordable rental projects in8reckenridge, another mountain community, shows afinancing gap nf$2OO,000nrmore per unit to construct rentals affordable for households earning 8D%AMI or less. Workforce Housing Needs To keep up with job growth occurring inthe Town ofFraser alone, only about 40 units will beneeded through 2O2O. Because workers throughout Fraser Valley demand housing in the Fraser area, however, about 165 units will be needed to continue to house 40% of the Valley's workforce. This equates to about 30 to 40 homes per year needed in the area. Summary of Total Housing Needs by Own/Rent Through 2020 through 2020 40 165 wners ip 20 80 Rental 20 85 Table reflects the current ratio of 53%rentals and 47%ownership in town. Both ownership and rental housing are needed in Fraser. The precise ratio that should beconstructed isareflection ofhousing policy aswell asdemand. Agoal for owner/renter mix should be established during the recommended strategic planning process based on a combination of factors including stability associated with ownership, the seasonality ofrental demand, historic conditions and vision for the community. ° If the current homeownership rate is to be maintained, 4796 of attainable homes should befor homeownership. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Executive Summary—7 Fraser Housing Needs and Development Study: Executive Summary, May 20I0 o Homeownership supports year round residency and allows residents io invest in and help build more stable community. o Most of the new homes for ownership should be built at attainable homeownership prices, ranging between $I2O,OOOand $280,000 for working households (50Y6to I2098AK4|). o Preferred product types are tovvnhornes, duplexes and single-family homes- not condominiums. Some locals will consider condominiums in the current tight housing market, but only ifthe units have garages, low HOA dues, and the buyers can get financing, which are significant challenges. m Locals looking tobuy inFraser are primarily young couples, young families, and first-time homebuyers. Some move-up buyers with older children also search in the area, but typically find homes north of Fraser. � Rentals are in tight supply and, aside from some turnover in May, will be tighter this summer compared to last year. If trends continue, vacancies will again be near zero next winter. o Rentals support businesses inneed ofworkers and help new residents get afoothold in community. m Most ofthe new rentals should beaffordable for mid-professionals earning about $25per hour down toentry-level workers earning $10 to $15per hour.This ranges from about $50Oupto $I,25Ofor atwo-person household (OO96AMI or below). o Renters want to live close to their jobs. As transportation improvements are made, cross-county commuting to share employees between summer and winter jobs indifferent communities may bemore ofanoption. o Young renters particularly prefer to be near the Winter Park and Fraser area for its amenities and proximity tothe resort. o Renters want pets. Renters also want their units to be kept well maintained and ingood repair. Awell-managed apartment complex, as opposed to individually rented condos, avoids HOA restrictions that prohibit pets, ensures repairs are completed inatimely manner and will provide more stable rental inventory. Recommended Strategies and Next Steps Meeting the attainable housing needs of Fraser's workforce and residents needs to come from avariety ofstrategies. Housing needs are too diverse inthe community for one program Orone housing development tObeable tOsolve its attainable housing needs. There is no "silver bu||et" and there is no short-term solution. Key points to note about implementation strategies: WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Executive Summary—8 Fraser Housing Needs and Development Study: Executive Summary, May 20I0 ° Consistent commitment over time is required.The problem will not go away with just one strategy orone project completed. ° Specific strategies typically address only part of the need. For example, Federal and State subsidies can only be used to house low-income households (e.g. 60% AK4| or be|uvv). ° Local funding sources typically address the housing needs of moderate/middle income families who cannot afford homes provided by the private sector. ° Some strategies may only produce a few units, but, in combination with other efforts, are key for a diversified inventory of workforce housing that meets the wide spectrum ofneeds. • Strategics include both "carrots and sticka." There are no examples in high-cost mountain towns where incentives and public funding alone have been sufficient. While programs need tobetailored towork within local economic and development environments, sharing the responsibility for producing workforce housing with new development that creates jobs isacommon strategy. 1. Develop Strategk Plan Asthe first step, the community should develop a strategic housing plan that: ° Outlines the vision, goals and objectives for workforce housing. This needs to tie into Froser'svision for its community. For example, does the town desire to become more of a second homeowner draw, or does it envision being a home for the |noa| workforce and year-round residents. Very different housing product is needed based on the desired direction. Fraser is well situated to embrace a position as housing the workforce for the Fraser Valley, but given that it is currently moving in the opposite direction, this will require significant leadership and focused commitment toachieve. ° Identifies and prioritizes actionable tasks with realistic priorities. • Assigns roles and responsibilities for each task and identifies where additional staffing, local resources or regional resources are needed to effectuate each task. ° Defines a process for periodically evaluating, modifying and updating the plan. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Executive Summary—9 Fraser Housing Needs and Development Study: Executive Summary, May 20I0 Putting a plan in writing that requires regular, periodic review will remind the town why it is pursuing certain housing strategies, show what is being achieved, and illustrate where changes may need tobemade toreach its community goals. 2. Build Capacity toDevelop and Oversee Housing Implementing the Strategic Plan will require time and expertise, which can be obtained through several approaches. Typically capacity comes from multiple sources working in partnership. Coordinating the combination of talent required should be a staff function accomplished byanemployee dedicated atornear full time tothe work. Approaches for development of attainable housing run the gamut with no single model that is the clear preference. Development in other mountain communities offer examples: ° The model followed by Winter Park on its current Sitzmark Development turns over more aspects to hired experts, whereas Breckenridge, for many of its projects, has full-time staffing and turns over fewer tasks to private developers. ° Winter Park has less control over the units (quality, size, amenities) while Breckenridge leads inall design and pricing decisions. In most models, the government entity clearly defines objectives of the project (target market, general size of the units, etc.) and subsidizes the project through contributions of land, sponsorship of grant/loan applications, fee waivers and gap financing. [)n-going oversight isrequired toensure public funds are used asagreed. Regional partnerships help produce and manage housing. For Fraser, forming the following relationships could be beneficial: ° Town of Winter Park as a possible development partner. Winter Park has workforce housing goals that may be difficult to address within Winter Park and the town recently hired aHousing Director. • Partnerships with area employers could take some risk away from developing a rental project /nnaster |eases\. ° Grand County Housing Authority for management of both rental and ownership housing that is produced. Towns often do not assume responsibly for being landlords, calculating resale prices, enforcing deed restriction provisions and qualifying/selecting applicants. * Explore opportunities with Habitat for Humanity regarding construction or rehabilitation programs for low-income owners. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Executive Summary—1O Fraser Housing Needs and Development Study: Executive Summary, May 20I0 3.Amend Town Code to Allow and Encourage Attainable Housing Fr3scr'sdevelopment code deters the development ofattainable housing byhelping tn make it cost prohibitive and favors development of large single-family homes that appeal to second homeowners. Fraser should consider code revisions that incentivize desired attainable housing product. These may include: ° Re-evaluate development standards (snow storage, parking, set backs, etc.) to encourage infill development and higher density housing. Consider reduced requirements for attainable housing units. ° Codify fee waivers for deed restricted attainable housing—deve|opnnent permits, building permits, driveway permits, etc. • Allow density bonuses for attainable housing. • Increase the threshold for when aproject isdeterrninedtobea "major subdivision" subject to additional review and submission requirements. This can help streamline the process and support more development where it is wanted. ° Permit businesses tVconstruct housing Vnsite for their employees and potentially for other employees inthe community. This may include rentals above commercial or in independent single- or multi-family structures. ° Zone for density. Ensurethatareasvvherehigherdensityisdesired—inandnear downtown, infill parcels, etc. —is zoned for such density. It can add certainty to the entitlement process and make a developer less hesitant to explore higher density development asitreduces their risk. ^ Adopt clear annexation policies, which should include attainable housing requirements. ~ Use development agreements as part of subdivisions or PUD's to help generate funding (e.g., through real estate transfer assessments on second homeowner developments) orprovide attainable housing. ^ There is a significant amount of unplatted land in town. Inclusionary zoning can be effective to produce or generate fees for housing. A program can be tied with incentives, such asdensity bonuses, for required attainable units. As development activity increases, this may be a long range tool to consider. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Executive Summary—11 Fraser Housing Needs and Development Study: Executive Summary, May 20I0 4.Amend Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations for Attainable Rentals Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are often incentivized in mountain towns where land is limited and preserving community character is important. These units: ° Can provide long-term rental housing for moderate/middle income families. ° Contribute to the affordability of the primary residence by providing a source of income. |nother words, one accessary dwelling unit enhances the affordability/availability of two units. ° Fit well within existing neighborhoods in terms of architecture and scale, often only need one parking space given their small size and location, and can be designed to be compatible with various neighborhood configurations through attached and detached designs. ^ Add to attainable housing at no cost to the town; however, town incentives increase effectiveness. In Fraser, ADUs are permitted aso conditional use in several zones. Units may not exceed 1,200 square feet or 50% of the primary dwelling, whichever is less. The town could modify their standards to incentivize ADUs that are restricted as attainable rentals or for long-term rental to the local workforce by: ° Allowing workforce restricted ADUs as permitted, rather than conditional, uses; * Reducing their size to8UOsquare feet tobetter serve attainable needs; ° Providing reduced parking requirements, waived fees, additional lot coverage, or other incentives. 5. Upgrade Community Infrastructure Invest in infrastructure improvements inthe downtown core: upgradevvater/sexver mains, address storm water drainage, and build "complete streets" (traffic calming, bike lanes sidewalks, street trees, etc.) to make downtown development more attractive to developers and more financially viable. Explore state and federal financing options that can assist with these improvements (e.g. Colorado Department ofLocal Affairs Impact Assistance; Federal Highway assistance; etc.) 6. Preserve and Upgrade Existing Resident Housing K4obi|e honne n�rks. Mobile homes are one of the few products that are affordable for locals at market prices. The town should maintain zoning for mobile home parks as WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Executive Summary—1Z Fraser Housing Needs and Development Study: Executive Summary, May 20I0 permitted uses and encourage infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. Mobile home parks may provide opportunity for tiny homes which require small lot zoning. Buy-down programs/rehabilitation. Identify older properties that may be suitable for town purchase and renovation. Fraser should retain these units as rentals instead of reselling them with arestriction. Strategic purchases can build land banking and redevelopment opportunities. This can be done quickly and show progress toward meeting workforce housing goals. Sweat-equity and fixer-upper programs. Habitat for Humanity isactive inthe area and can produce homeownership for very low income households which most programs cannot reach (e.g. Below 60%AMI). Neighbor Works is another source active in Colorado for rehabilitation assistance. 7. Create Attainable Housing Fund with Dedicated Revenue Source Local funding is needed to address the broad housing needs in the Fraser area. With low-income limits imposed on Federal and State grant/loan programs, local funds are needed to bridge the gap between those limits (60%-80%AMI) and where the free market serves (near 120%AMI for ownership). Sources of dedicated revenue in Colorado mountain towns that Fraser should consider include: ° Property taxes or sales taxes. All taxes in Colorado must be approved by voters. Summit County was successful in passing an affordable housing sale tax in 2006 with a significant public outreach campaign. With the recent transportation tax passed in the Fraser Valley, this approach may not be immediately feasible. ° Real estate transfer taxes. New taxes cannot be levied, but real estate transfer assessments (RIETA) can be negotiated at annexation or subdivision through a development agreement. ARETAmay beotool useful for the Cornerstone attainable housing agreement, providing an alternative for the town to generate long-term financing itcan use toachieve attainable housing goals. • Impact orlinkage fees. Fraser should reinstate the impact fee that was inplace prior to 2004. Development that has occurred in the past decade has primarily targeted second homeowners, not locals. It is appropriate for impact fees to be charged on homes for these out of area buyers. Fees can be modified to reduce impact tolocals; exemptions for small units are possible. For example, the impact fee in Summit County is scaled from $0 to $2 per square foot based on the unit size, and the developer may instead opt to impose a real estate transfer fee Onthe property iDlieu Ofthe impact fee. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Executive Summary—13 Fraser Housing Needs and Development Study: Executive Summary, May 20I0 8. Utilize Town-Owned 1wndfor Workforce Housing The FRODO site is a prime location for workforce housing from a resident desirability standpoint and for adding vibrancy to downtown. The current plan is, however, ambitious, complicated and expensive. Before the town moves forward with development on any of its land, Fraser's goals, strategic housing plan and capacity should be established. Developing housing is resource intensive and a clear plan enables collaboration, access to funding, effective use of funds, and a greater chance of long-term success. Once these elements are determined, the plan for FR<]DOcan be revised accordingly, the funding can be procured, partnerships can be established and experts can be hired through an RPF/RFQ process to bring Fraser's development goals from a concept to a successfully completed project. Variousfundingoptinnsfordeve|oprnent /induding rental (LIHTC) and ownership) and tools by which development can be achieved are presented inthe Development Environment section ofthis report. 9. Draft and Adopt Workforce Homs/ng Guidelines This document will define for the town and developers what attainable housing is in Fraser. Guidelines should define: ° Housing goals and objectives. ° Explain the town's regulations in plain language. ° Specify unit types, sizes, ownership price points, rents and income levels. ° Explain procedures and qualifications for persons interested in owning or renting workforce housing. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Executive Summary—14 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 FRASER HOUSING NEEDS AND DEVELOPMENT s"rUDY PART N~ HOUSING NEEDS IN FRASER TABLE OFCONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 REPORT ORGANIZATION—'--_—_._—'--_-------'--_—_._—_._—'--'--'--'—. 1 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................................................................... 1 WHAT|yAFFORDABLE HOUSING|mFuAsen?..................................................................................................... 2 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND TRENDS...........................................................................................4 NUMBER0FJOBS.......................................................................................................................................................4 SEASONALITY0pJOBS.............................................................................................................................................. 5 WAGES......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 COMMUTING............................................................................................................................................................... 7 HOUSING INVENTORY..........................................................................................................................9 HOUSING UNITS—NUMBER AND OCCUPANCY....................................................................................................g TYPES0FUNITS.......................................................................................................................................................1O OWNERSHIP..............................................................................................................................................................10 HOMEVALUES.........................................................................................................................................................11 BEDROOMMIX.........................................................................................................................................................l% AGE0PUNITS..........................................................................................................................................................X3 ATTAINABLE HOUSING__''--'--'--'--_—_'_'_''--_''--'--'--'--_''--'---13 EMPLOYER ASSISTED HOUSING............................................................................................................................15 Loss0pEMPLOYEE HOUSING...............................................................................................................................15 9LAmNuo/P8NcU0C/P078NTuALDEVELOPMENT...........................................................................................16 HOMEOWNERSHIP MARKET------------------------------------28 TRENDS.....................................................................................................................................................................18 AVAILABILITY—HOMES LISTED FOR SALE.........................................................................................................20 AFFORDABILITY npHOMES FOR THE WORKFORCE..........................................................................................31 RENTALMARKET.................................................................................................................................24 KE0TAClNVEN70BY...............................................................................................................................................24 AGE/CONDITION OFUNITS...................................................................................................................................%4 VACANCYRATES......................................................................................................................................................3S RENTS................................................................'................................................................................................26 AVAILABILITY—UNITS LISTED FOR RENT.........................................................................................................27 HOUSING GAPS AND PREFERENCES..............................................................................................28 HOUSING UNITS NEEDED THROUGH 2O3O.......................................................................................................28 NEEDS8YTENURE..................................................................................................................................................39 NauoSuYAMl.........................................................................................................................................................3O HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS AND PREFERENCES 0FBUYERS AND RENTERS........................................31 APPENDIX/k—POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS....................................1 INCOME OPWORKING HOUSEHOLDS.....................................................................................................................4 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 INTRODUCTION Purpose Fraser has placed attainable housing at the top of its priority list for 7O16. This report will help the town pursue that priority. This Housing Needs Assessment defines the town's workforce housing needs in terms of how many units are needed, what type (ownership and rental) and price points to help establish what "attainable housing" means inthe Town of Fraser. This information, combined with the Development Environment and Local Resources sections of this study will help the town establish housing strategies and workforce housing policies to provide opportunities for local employees to live in Fraser and help support the local town character, sense ofcommunity and economy. Report Organization This report is organized into several sections, as identified in the scope nfwork for the project, including: ^ Economic Conditions and Trends ° Housing Inventory ° Homeownership Market ° Rental Market and * Housing Gaps and Preferences Each section begins with anoverview ofthe key points from that section The section can then be read in full if more detail is wanted on any of the observations. Because trends in local demographics have important considerations for the type of housing units needed, Appendix A contain a brief overview of these trends. This information is summarized and used in the Housing Gaps and Preferences section. The Executive Summary for the Housing and Development study as a whole contains the broad conclusions and recommendations resulting from this analysis and summarizes the housing needs and strategy recommendations to help fill those needs. Methodology Pursuant to the scope of work, this analysis utilized studies completed at the end of 2015 for Fraser and the Fraser Valley (Grand Profile, Fraser Valley Economic WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-1 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 Development Plan and survey, Town of Winter Park Housing Needs Assessment) as much as possible to utilize information already collected. Housing market sales prices, jobs and other information were used from these studies. Therefore, this report largely reflects trends and quantifies housing needs as of fall 2015 and was updated only where necessary to verify whether observed trends in the fall of 2015 have continued. This report also focused on how much housing is needed, rather than why workforce housing is needed. Recent studies documented the impact Vncurrent employers, economic development and the community due to housing shortages so this information was not repeated herein. In addition to utilizing recent studies mentioned above, the research for this study was supplemented with: • Interviews with local employers, Realtors, developers, and town staff to understand the housing market and demand for units; ° Local information from the County Assessor, town planning and GIS department, and the Winter Park & Fraser Chamber; and ° Secondary sources such as the US Census, Colorado Department of Local Affairs and the Bureau ofLabor Statistics. What is Affordable Housing in Fraser? Housing in Fraser is attainable (or affordable) when the monthly payment (rent or mortgage) is equal to no more than 30% of a household's gross income (i.e., income before taxes). Although there is some variation, this standard for affordability is commonly applied by federal and state housing programs, local housing initiatives, mortgage lenders and leasing agents. Affordable rents and purchase prices, meeting this 30% standard, are often calculated for various income levels, expressed as a percentage of the Area Median Income (AMI). AMI is published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for each county and represents the Median Family Income of an area. This means that the AMI does not incorporate incomes from non-family single and roommate households, which make up 52% of Fraser's households. As a result, the AMI will generally behigher than the average income ofall households. The AMI varies by household size. The median (or middle) family income estimate in an area generally falls ODOrnear the IOOY6AMI rate for 8family Offour. |DGrand County, for example, the AMI in2O1Sis $78,OOO. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-2 Part I: Housing Needs in Fraser, May 2016 Grand County AMI's by Household Size: 2015 30% $16,400 $18,750 $21,100 $24,250 $28,410 50% $27,300 $31,200 $35,100 $39,000 $42,150 60% $32,760 $37,440 $42,120 $46,800 $50,580 80% $43,700 $49,950 $56,200 $62,400 $67,400 100% $54,600 $62,400 $70,200 $78,000 $84,300 120% $65,520 $74,880 $84,240 $93,600 $101,160 140% $76,440 $87,360 $98,280 $109,200 $118,020 Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) Throughout this report, the analysis of affordability will be based on the income for a 2- person household, which is about the average size of households in Fraser. The affordable rents and purchase prices of the average Fraser household at various rates of AMI are as follows: Maximum Affordable Housing Costs 760% % $18,750 $470 $69,520 % $31,200 $780 $115,680 $37,440 $940 $138,820 80% $49,950 $1,250 $185,210 100% $62,400 $1,560 $231,370 120% $74,880 $1,870 $277,640 140% $87,360 $2,180 $323,920 Source: HUD,Consultant team *Assumes 30-year mortgage at 5.5%with 5%down and 20%of the payment covering taxes, HOA, PMI and insurance. Interest rates have been kept low for several years and will eventually rise. Rates for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage currently average around 4.5% depending upon credit scores. As rates rise, higher incomes will be required of buyers to buy the same priced home today. For example, a one percentage point increase drops the affordable purchase price by $20,000 to $25,000 for households with incomes at 80%AMI. This should be a consideration when setting prices for new homes and making decisions about resale price calculations. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part I-3 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND TRENDS Fraser now has more jobs than it did prior to the recession, showing slightly stronger recovery than in the county overall. The number nfjobs in the Fraser area is relatively small, comprising only 12% of jobs in the county, meaning that only 100 jobs were added since 2O1O. Compared to other parts of the county,jobs in Fraser: ° Show little seasonal fluctuation. Asinni|ar number of summer and winter seasonal jobs are added in Fraser each year, resulting in fairly steady job counts throughout the year. The town and its housing, however, are affected by the large seasonal job swings that occur both north and south oftown; and ° Pay lower wages on average than in the county overall and slightly less than year-round jobs inWinter Park. The Fraser area houses a majority of the town's workers, as well as many workers in other parts of the county. Over half of Freser's employed residents commute to jobs in other parts ofthe county. Number of Jobs Jobs inGrand County peaked in2OO7, fell through 2OI1 and began coming back in2O12. Jobs almost equaled pre-recession levels by 2015. The recovery was somewhat slower than in other mountain resort communities where the rebound started as early as 2010. Jobs in Fraser grew slightly faster than in the county as a whole since 2010. During the recession,jobs in Fraser dropped faster than in the county /37Y6 decline vs. 3.0Y6 decline), but has recovered faster than the county. Fraser recovered all jobs lost by 2013 and now has more jobs than pre'recession. The State Demographer projects thatjobsvvi|| increaseatadight|yfasterrateoverthe next five years. Estimates below assume that jobs in Fraser will increase atabout the same escalated rate that is estimated for the county. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-4 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 Jobs Estimates d Projections: 2007 to 2020 Grand County 9,960 8,816 9,592 10,707 1.7% 2.2% Town of Fraser 1,040 1,036 1,132 1,264 1.8% 2.2% Source:Colorado Dept.of Local Affairs,QCEW zip code files,Consultant team *Job growth estimates for the Town of Fraser in 2015 and 2020 are based on the State Demographer's projections for Grand County. Seasonality of Jobs Grand County has two similar employment peaks-one in the summer and one over the winter. May and October are the lowest employment months, which occur atthe changeover of the seasons. These low-employment months are generally representative of the year round employment base in the area, which totaled about 6,000 jobs in 2014. Grand County Employment b* Month: 2007, 2010L2014 9,000 ' 8,000 7,000WwPwwwww 6.000 ��' -� E 5.00 2007 LU mNvO wn,2010 § 4.00 U —21-20143.O0U 02,00 1,000 v � Jam Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sop Oct Nov Dec � [------------------------------------------------------------------------� Source: Quarterly Census ofEmployment and Wages(QCEW) Summer and winter seasonal employment in Grand County is estimated to be about 1,9ODjobs each in2O15. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-5 Part I: Housing Needs in Fraser, May 2016 Grand County Employment: Year Round and Seasonal 2014 9,348 7,877 1,844 1,921 2015 9,592 8,082 1,893 1,971 . ___________________________________ _ _____________.______________ ______________________________ _ _______________._____________ ____________ 2020 10,707 9,022 2,113 2,201 Source: DOLA employment estimates and projections, QCEW monthly employment estimates,Consultant team The percentage of Grand County jobs that are located in Fraser averages between 11% and 12% during the year. The number of jobs in Fraser remains relatively steady throughout the seasons, unlike in Winter Park where a significant rise occurs in the winter months or in Grand Lake where a significant rise occurs in the summer months. Although many employers in Fraser hire seasonal workers (e.g. winter seasonal jobs in retail; summer seasonal jobs in recreation and government), the total number of seasonal jobs in the summer and winter is similar. Seasonal job fluctuations in communities both north and south of Fraser, however, affects the demand for housing in Fraser and reduces housing availability during peak employment periods for the Town's residents and workers. Employment by Quarter: Grand County and Town of Fraser, 2015 m ® V , Grand County 9,592 10,087 9,274 8,961 10,045 .................................................................................. ..................................................... Town of Fraser 1,132 1,128 1,131 1,113 1,111 Source: DOLA employment estimates,QCEW zip code files Wages The average wage paid in Grand County in 2015 was about $32,600.This is equivalent to just over 50%of the area median income (AMI) for a two-person household. Wages dipped slightly during the recession and have been increasing since 2011 at an average rate of about 2.7% per year. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part I—6 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 Average Wage: Grand County, 2005bm2Dl5 (est.) $35,000 S30.000 $25,000 g $20.000 ----------------------------------------------------- � $15'OOO _ $10,000 $5,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- $O 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: Q[BN The average wage paid in Fraser ($27,800) was about 15% lower than the county average, but higher than that inWinter Park ($25,3OO). Seasonal jobs inWinter Park bring the yearly average wage down. The average wage duringnun+winterperiodsinVVinterParkareaboutOY6higherthaninFnaser, indicadng that year-round employment pays slightly higher inWinter Park. Average�/a 2014 d 2015 2014 $31,600 $27,000 $24,500 2015 (est) $32,600 $27,800 r$25,3OO Source: BEA,QCEVVzip code files Commuting Based on a survey of Fraser Valley employees conducted in August 2015, the Fraser area (meaning the incorporated town and neighboring unincorporated area) houses about 64% of its local workers and about 40% of workers employed in the Fraser Valley (from Winter Park through Tabernash).This is similar to the resident survey conducted for the 2008 Grand County Housing Needs Assessment, which also showed 64% of workers in Fraser residing iO the F[838[8[8@. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-7 Part I: Housing Needs in Fraser, May 2016 Where Workers Live: 2015 (est) "Fraser 64% 40% Other Grand County 36% 60% Total Workers 940 4,080 Source: 2015 Fraser Valley Strategic Economic Development Survey(RRC Associates, Inc.) Based on the 2015 survey, about 56% of working Fraser area residents commute outside of the Fraser area for work. In other words, Fraser helps house workers employed in other areas of the county. This was also supported by interviews of employers in the Fraser Valley and Granby—most employers had employees residing in the Fraser area. General live/work relationships are also shown in the below chart, which compares the relative distribution of jobs in Grand County by zip code area to the distribution of households in the county. This shows that: • The Fraser zip code area has 12%of jobs and 16% of households in the county, generally meaning that it houses workers that are employed in other areas of the county. • In contrast, Winter Park is a net-importer of workers who reside in other areas, where 32% of Grand County's jobs and only 12% of its households are located in the Winter Park zip code area. Distribution of Jobs and Households in Grand County: 2010 35% 32% %of Jobs %of Households 0 30% V o cs 25/0 24% 25% 20% 16% 16% 15%a 15% 2% 12%�IIjy1111I'll 'Illl 110/ N 10% 10% $% % 5%5% O 5% II� 1%llljjlllllli C o c 0a/0 9V�111V,,,, Zip Code Area Source: 2010 US Census by zip code;QCEW zip code files WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part I—8 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 HOUSING INVENTORY The inventory ofhousing in Fraser has not been keeping pace with recent job growth, contributing to the housing shortage in the area. Locals also face increased competition for housing from second homeowners, which has affected local home occupancy and new product. More specifically: ° Local occupancy of homes declined a very large 15 percentage points since 2000. Less than one-half ofhomes inFraser are now occupied bylocals. ^ Newer construction is not targeting locals, where only 15% of homes built since 2UOOare owned byhouseholds with alocal address. ° Fraser has a good diversity of housing types, although homes affordable for locals are primarily older and many are inneed ofrepair. ° Locals compete with second homeowners at all price points for sing|e-fanoi|y, tovvnhorne, condominium and multi-family product. Local ownership ofhomes valued over$350,000 drops off significantly, however, with only 13% of these homes being owned bylocals. Housing Units— PdWyMber and Occupancy The Town of Fraser has just over 1,160 residential units, which equates to about 7% of the units inGrand County asawhole. The number ofhousing units increased inFraser atamuch faster rate than the inthe county between 2OOOand ZO1O, but atslower rates than in the communities of Winter Park, Tabernash and Granby, which all more than doubled their number ofhomes. Housing Unit and Occupancy Estimates IN i 2000 10,894 5,075 622 410 2010 16,061 6,469 1,096 540 2015 (est) 16,659 6,710 1,166 574 Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census, DOLA household estimates(Grand County),Consultant team The local occupancy rate of homes in Fraser declined over 15 percentage points between 2000 and 2010, primarily due to an increase in second homeownership in the town. This loss was second only to Granby in the county, which declined from 92% local occupancy in2OOOto51Y6in2O1D. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-9 Part I: Housing Needs in Fraser, May 2016 Despite less than one-half of homes in Fraser being occupied by locals (49%), Fraser has a higher occupancy rate than the county (40%) as a whole. Occupied Housing Units: 2000 and 2010 100% d 90% ■Grand County 80% 111111111 Fraser 0 70% 65.9% R 60% 49.3% = 50% 46.6% o �— 40.3/° 40% ° a, 30/o 20% III = 10% 0% 2000 2010 Year Types of Units Fraser has a relatively diverse inventory of housing. About 59% are single-family homes or townhomes, 36% are condominiums or other multi-family product and 6% are mobile homes. In contrast, units in neighboring Winter Park are dominated by condominiums/multi-family (71%). Despite the significant percentage of single-family and townhomes, which are typically desirable owner-occupied products, homes in Fraser are mostly renter-occupied (53%). Housing Units by Type: Town of Fraser,2015 Condominiums& Multi-family 35.8% Single Family&Townhomes 58.6% Mobile Homes 5.7% 1,166 . ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Source: Grand County Assessor,Town of Fraser Building Permits,Consultant team Ownership While locals reside in about 49% of the housing units, only 34% are owned by locals based on the mailing addresses in Assessor records. Renters who live in units owned by absentee landlords account for the difference. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part I—10 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 Locals own about 80%of mobile homes, although these comprise less than 70 units in town. Local ownership of condominiums/multi-family drops to 35% and only 28% of single-family homes and t0vvnh0rn8Sare owned by locals. Realtors noted that local buyers in Fraser may be willing to purchase condominiums when alternative product is not available, provided they can get financing and adequate storage/garages are provided. This was less likely to occur in Winter Park, in which only 11% ofcondonoiniunn/nou|ti'farni|y units are owned by locals. Ownership mfHomes by Type ofUnit: Fraser, 2015 """"IliOut-of-amaowner 0Local owner 100% 90% -- ---- ----' ---- -- 80% — --- --- — 60% Residence Type Source: 201OUSCensus,Grand County Assessor,Consultant team Home Values Ownership varies by value: ° The values Vfhomes owned bylocal residents tend tobelower than those owned by out-of-area households, although locals compete with second homeowners at all price ranges. This is fairly unique among mountain resort communities, where typically second h0[n80vvDe[S prefer higher priced product. ° Once units exceed about $350,000 in value, local ownership drops off; less than l356ofhomes over$35O,O0Oare owned bylocals. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-11 Part I: Housing Needs in Fraser, May 2016 Ownership by Estimated Home Value: 2015 Local owner uuuuu Out-of-area owner 30% 25% 23% 23% 25% 0 20% d 15% 5% 14% 13% 15% 2% 1/o° VIII 9% 010% LII%I 6% 7%5% 7%. 5% 2%2% 3% 0% . (� I�I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIV CD 0 CD S ��S � � S 0, ©000t� Estimated Home Value Source:Grand County Assessor,Consultant team Bedroom Mix Only about 6% of units in town are studio or 1-bedroom homes. The majority are 2- and 3-bedroom units (78%). More studio and one-bedroom options could help smaller renter households, reducing the need to find roommates to fill extra bedrooms. Units by Bedroom Size: Fraser, 2015 4-bedroom 5+-bedroom Studio 1-bedroom 0 0 o �° o 4% ';lVV uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuui a0Q 2-bedroom 37/0 li'lil 3-bedroom 41% �I,�I��I�I�Iil110s°puii�lllll u uulwl Source:Grand County Assessor,Consultant team WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part I—12 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 Age of Units Residential construction has varied over the years. Activity was strong in the 1980's, slowed inthe 199O'sand early 20OO's, was strong again in2O04to28OO, almost halted due to the recession and just started to pick up in the past year. In recent years,job growth has outpaced housing growth, contributing to the current housing shortage in the area. Ownership varies by age of the unit. Locals are more likely to own older units built before 1990. This isapattern common inresort towns, because locals either bought years ago when housing was attainable or they have since purchased homes at the lower end of the price spectrum, which are typically older. Only about 15% of homes built since 2OOOare owned bymlocal resident. Ownership --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 392 774 1,166 Source:Grand County Assessor,Consultant team Attainable Housing The Town ofFraser has one affordable rental project pruviding 5Olow-income housing tax credit (L|HTC) units. There are no deed restricted attainable homes for ownership in Fraser. L|HTCAffordable Renta|s WapitiK8 d Fraser Source: Property manager interviews ° Wapiti Meadows is a Low Income Housing Tax Credit (L|HT[} rental property built in 1995. It is managed by Mercy Housing and provides rentals priced for WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-15 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 households earning 4O96 5DY6and 6O96AMI. The property has carried axvaidiot for the past two years. AaofJuly 2O15, there were five households onthe vvoit|ist. There are two attainable housing projects for residents in Winter Park providing atotal of 20 homes for ownership and six (6) rentals. Attainable Homeownership: Winter Park Miller's Inn Studio 1 500 115%AM I Condominium Condominium 1-b 4 650-1,100 115%AM 1 7 2-b 5 800-1,200 115%AM I Condominium Hideaway Junction -----------2-b---------------4___________1,700 $225,000 Single family-d 3-b 6 1,900 $245,000 Single family Attainable Rentals: Miller's Inn,Winter Park Studio 2 310-370 $400-$675 1-b 4 400-710 ^ Millers Inn is an original lodge in Winter Park that was used for short-term and later long-term rental housing. The project was purchased in late December 2002 and now provides nine residential cabins and a six-unit apartment building affordable for the local workforce. o Ownership at Miller's Inn is restricted to persons who earn no more than 115Y6AMI. Units can appreciate no more than 396 per year. o Rentals may be leased by Grand County employees or business owners only. There are no income qualification standards for tenants. If they cease being employed in Grand County, then the lease terminates. ° The first phase of Hideaway Junction was built by the Town of Winter Park in 2008. It provides IU single-family homes for purchase by residents employed in Grand County. There are no income limits imposed on the units, but they are deed restricted with appreciation caps of 2% per year for the first three years, then 196 annually thereafter. Fourteen households have been added to the vvoit|ist since 2012.The units originally sold for$225,000 (2'b) and $245,000 (]- b) and the Winter Park Affordable Housing Corporation /VVPAH[\ has maintained those prices upon resale. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-14 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 Employer Assisted Housing As is the case in many high-cost communities and especially in resorts, employers provide housing for some oftheir employees. ° Winter Park Resort houses 165 to 185 employees in dorm-style accommodations (shared bedrooms). Afevv units are located at the base of the mountain, but most are in Fraser, Tabernosh or Granby. In Fraser, the resort owns 15 condominiums and master leases 30 two-bedroom units at Fox Run Apartments. Transportation to the mountain is provided for these units in the winter and from Fox Run throughout the year. Winter Park's units are generally about 50% vacant in the summer, but fully occupied in the winter with vvaidisto. ^ Devil's Thumb—About 20 employees are housed in Fraser in a converted hostel that was acquired within the last couple of years, and about 30 live in various units provided by Devil's Thumb within a couple miles of the resort. Additional housing for Visa workers has been provided onsite for over 1Uyears. Local transportation is challenging and inconsistent, so it is desirable to keep workers close totheir jobs. ° Other Ernp|oyers—Afevx smaller employers provide units or some type of housing assistance for employees. For example, the Town ofFraser owns two units that it leases to workers and another employer provides temporary lodging and moving bonuses tohelp new workers relocate. Some employers who previously provided units stopped doing so during the recession when they were nolonger needed and hard tokeep full. Loss of Employee Housing Asindicated earlier, locals are losing ground tosecond home owners, from occupying 66% of units in 2000 to 49% in 2010. While some of this is due to the type and price of homes built, it also is the result of the loss of units that locals previously owned or occupied. The following trends are likely to continue: • When employees retire, many want to remain in the area and their homes are then nolonger housing the workforce. ° Seniors/retirees who move out ofthe area asthey age sell their homes to second home buyers who can afford the higher prices. ^ Homes that were once rented long term or owner-occupied are now rented short term through on-line sites, though this is more common at the Winter Park Resort base area than in either the Towns of Winter Park or Fraser. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-15 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 ° When employees move out of the area or move up, their homes are likely to be sold tosecond home buyers, especially ifpriced over$35O,UOO. ° Front Range residents are renting homes that local workers used to rent. Planmed/Pemdimg/PNtemtialDevelopnnent New residential development in Fraser began to pickup last year after a 5-year lull in new subdivision applications. One building permit was issued in2OlO (for amobile home). Building permits issued in 2014 totaled 17, compared to 39 issued in 2015 and 11 through March 2016. New residential projects primarily cater tnthe second homeowner market, offering units priced at $4OO,OOOormore. Single-family cottages were available in early 2016 at Elk Creek, offering slightly more affordable units than typical for newer product in Fraser. Ten cottages were offered starting at $299,OOOfor e1'bedroonn, 1.5bath home and $399,OOOfor a3'bedroono, 2- bathhome. Seven units have been reserved, about one-half by locals, at prices ranging between $339,OOOtn $434,0OO ($215to $236per square fnnt). Two are one-bedroorns. Under Construction and Pending Approvals: Fraser, 2015 Rendezvous 54 Single Family Over$400,000 (under construction) 2,0 -7 Elk Creek 71 Single Family Starting at$299,000; 7 (under construction) most over$400,000 Source: Town ofFraser Based on its proximity, it is important for the Town of Fraser to understand development activity in Winter Park. Because both communities have similar needs for workforce housing and workers cross-commute between the communities, cooperating wnproducing the variety ofhousing types and price points needed will be essential to minimize inter-community competition for buyers and expand options available for locals. The Town ofWinter Park has several projects underdeve|opnoentorpendingapprovai Of particular note are the 41 attainable condominiums to be purchased by the town and leased as attainable rentals in the current Sibnnarkdevelopment. Because many Winter Park workers rent homes in Fraser, these units should help reduce some pressure on F[8S8/SrGOt@l nO8[k8t. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-16 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 Under Construction and Pending Approvals: Winter Park, 2015 and 2016 Trailhead Lodges 24 Condominiums (under construction) (under construction) Lakota Central Village 16 Duplex units ND (under construction) Reunion Station 5 Townhomes, mixed $400,000 and up (pending construction) with commercial Sitzmark* 42 Condominiums Condos to be (approved/pending 2016) 26 Single family/single attainable rentals family attached (purchased by town); Single-family market rate homes Arrow at Winter Park 56 Condominiums Market rate (pending approval) 9 Townhomes Commercial Block E 18 Condominiums High-end; rented as (pending approval) apartments and later sold *SitzmarkvviU also have commercial components, including agrocery store and additional office/retail space. Source: Town ofWinter Park WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-17 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 HOMEOWNERSHIP MARKET The ownership market began recovering in 2012. Sale volumes and prices still remain below those seen at the peak; sale prices in Fraser are at approximately 2004 levels. Observed trends inthe ownership market include: ° Second homeowners dominated the ownership market both during and since the recession in Fraser; however, locals started buying again within the |oat couple ofyears. ° There is more interest in homeownership from first time buyers this year than has been seen inatleast five years. There isvery little affordable product available for locals to purchase, however, and the available product tends to be older and inneed ofrepair. ° Workers in Fraser earn lower wages on average than the county overall, but face home prices that are higher than most areas (other than Winter Park), making local home affordability particularly challenging. |ttook onincome ofover $115,0OO (18696AMI for a2-personhousehold) toafford the average priced single-family home that was sold in Fraser in 2014. ° The sale price of condominiums are more affordable for locals, but the average $33O/rnonthHOA fees add significantly totheir cost, aswell aachallenges Lo procure financing and tufind units suitable for local occupancy (i.e, ogp/condition, storage and/or garages). ° Theavai|obi|ityufsing|e'fanni|yondtuxvnhomoeproductpricedunder$3OO,000 has been in short supply and is declining. The median price of homes listed for sale was 1896 higher than those available in July oflast year. Trends The real estate market in Fraser and Grand County as a whole has slowly recovered from the depths of the recession in 2009 through 2012 but prices have not returned to peak levels. The recovery has been slower than in most comparable Colorado mountain counties (see Grand Profile, ZU15). ° In 2014` sales volume in Grand County (total dollar value of all sales) equaled less than 60Y6ofthe 2O87peak. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-1O Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 Gross Sales Volume for Grand County, 20&4- 2014 $700.000.000 $800.000'000 $500.000.000 $400.000.000 $300.000'000 Q200.000'000 $100.000,000 �0 ��, ��, ��" ��" ��n 11 . 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 3008 2000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source: Land Title ° Price increases in Grand County have been modest—slightly less than 12% over the past four years for both single-family and multi-family homes. Sales prices aresti|| be|oxvpre'recessionpeaks, buthaverecovered1oabout2UU4 |eve|s. Average Sales Price: Grand County, 2@11 - May 2016 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $O 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Jan'May 11110Single Family 1111111111 Multi Family Source: Land Title ° The number ofsales transactions began increasing in2O1O. Transactions rose over 4UY6for single-family home between ZO1land 2O14kgrowth iDmulti-family sales has been slower. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-19 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 ° Sales in the Fraser area increased from 11% of county-wide sales in 2011 to 14% in 2014, showing comparatively strong growth in the county since 2011. The number ofsales has stepped upconsiderably beginning in2Ol2. Number of Residential Sales, Grand County and 4 324 330 75 2012 408 3407 9S 2013 413 366 129 2014 459 407 123 Source: Land Title, MLS AvailabiUity— Homes Listed for Sale The median price of available homes in Fraser is lower than in Winter Park (20Y6 less per square foot), but higher than in the rest of the county (1296 more per square foot). The median price of condominiums in Fraser is similar tuthose available further north in the county (about $195,000), but the units in Fraser are smaller for this price. Residential Units Listed For Sale,July 2015 #of Listings Condos 96 54 657 Townhomes 20 34 24 Single Family 21 49 273 Total 137 137 362 Median Price EfEn Condos $240,000 $195,900 $195,000 Townhomes $609,900 $424,475 $279,900 Single Family $1,599,900 $619,000 $445,000 Overall $363,000 $400,900 $349,700 Median Price/SF Condos $252 $188 $165 Townhomes $225 $193 $133 Single Family $215 $206 $134 Overall $244 $196 $135 Source: N1B WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|—ZO Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 The inventory of homes listed for sale decreased the most at the |nxver end of the market. Compared to sales in 2014, there was less than a two-month supply of single- family homes and townhomes priced under $300,000 in July 2015 (six total); and one unit available in March 2016. More specifically: ° Homes that have been listed for several years in the $500,000 to $700,000 range are now selling; homes priced over$700,000 are still available and move more slowly. ° Single-family homes in the $300,000 to $500,000 range are very hard to find and go quickly. Evcntnvvnhonnes at this price are scarce and approaching seller's market, particularly those with garages. ° Bargains have disappeared; there is almost no inventory for sale under $200,000. ° Since July 3O15, thefur'sa|e market has gotten tighter, with less availability for locals. In March 2016, only 84 listings were available on the MLS in Fraser with a median price of$489,400— 18% higher than the median price of for-sale units in July 2015. The market is increasingly becoming a seller's market for most properties. Affordability of Homes for the Workforce Low-, moderate- and even middle-income households have very little opportunity to buy homes in Fraser. New construction has largely not been targeting the local workforce: ^ Of the 59 residential sales in January through June 2015, nine (9) were new units mostly located in Grand Park and Rendezvous developments. Newer homes were relatively large (2,200 square feet) and sold for an average price of nearly $SOO,OOO (227per square foot). ° In early 2016, 10 homes of 71 approved lots were offered at Elk Creek starting at a more affordable $299,000. About one-half have been reserved by locals, with the lowest price at $339,000. Prices for other homes offered at Elk Creek exceed $400,000. Contributing tuthe affordability problem for households employed in Fraser is that not only are home prices higher than in areas further north in the county (i.e., excluding Winter Park), but average wages are lower. As shown below, an income of over $1I5,000 (I8696AMI fora 2—person household) is needed to afford the average priced single-family home that was sold in Fraser in 20I4. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-21 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 Condominiums appear to be more affordable, where a household earning 86%AMI could afford the average condominium sold in 2014. Adding to this cost, however, are HOA fees which, inFraser, average about $33Oper month. This isequivalent toadding over$45,000 to the sale price of the home, increasing the income needed to afford the unit to 104%AMI. Condominiums have other challenges for locals, including: ° Aee— many are lower-end units that were built primarily in the 70's or earlier; ° Design—nnanyhaveinsufDdentstnrageandnogarages; and � Financing—there is limited mortgage availability; no complexes in Fraser are FHA approved. Average Price ofResidential Homes Sold in Fraser, Income Needed to Afford Average Home Compared toIncomes and Wages, 2014 �Average Sale Price � Income needed t0afford average home Median household income (County) �Average wage /COUOb/\ $450,000 $350.000 �40� ~ '000 $300.000 $350.000 tM CL $250,000�� , ��000 -_- -- vn $250.000 $200,000 $200.000 $150,000 �' i[ $150.000 $100.000 $100.000 -'-' --'-- -- -- � 000 $50,000 ---- ------- --- ~~.�0' $0 ML f $0 Single Family Multi Family Source: Land Title, HUD, DOU\Consultant team Available homes listed for sale inJuly 20l5 also show few affordable options. Only 38uf 127 listings were at prices attainable for households with incomes equal to or less than 120%AIVII. Thirty-six of these were condominiums which, as stated above, may not be suitable options for year-round residents. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-2Z Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 MLS Listings in Fraser Area: July 2015 Maximum Price* $115,684 $185,206 $277,642 Total Listings 137 9 11 18 Condos 54 9 11 16 18 Single Family 49 0 0 1 48 Source: K4L5 *Assumes 2femnnhouseholds qualifying for a3Oyearfixed-rate mortgage at5.5Y6with a 5%down payment. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-25 Part I: Housing Needs in Fraser, May 2016 RENTAL MARKET As in other mountain communities, rentals are in short supply. Vacancy rates have been near zero the past two winters,turnover in the transition months of May and October has decreased and rents have been rising.This is due both to increased demand and decreased supply of rental units.Jobs have rebounded, creating more demand, and supply has dropped due to owners selling their rented homes, some short-term leasing their homes, and front-range residents renting units to avoid 1-70 traffic. Fraser is unique in Grand County because it is primarily renter-occupied—53%of households rent their homes. Fraser draws both year-round renters and seasonal renters, but seasonal swings in vacancy rates can be large—rising to 30% in the transition months. This has declined the past couple of years, however; more tenants have been taking year-leases and units have leased quickly upon becoming vacant. Master leasing of apartments and unit purchases by large employers can help property managers during the transition seasons, but reduce the amount of year-round housing available for more permanent workers in the Valley. Rental Inventory About 53% of households in Fraser rent their homes. Rentals in Fraser are primarily individually owned condominiums, townhomes and single-family homes managed by their owners. About 38% of units are located in apartment projects, including Wapiti Meadows (50 units) and Fox Run Apartments (64 units). Renter-Occupied Households: Fraser, 2010 to 2015 (projected) "40 Total Households74Renter-occupied02 Source: 2010 US Census, DOLA projections(Grand County),Consultant team Age/Condition of Units It is estimated that about 50% of rentals in Fraser have been built since 1990. This includes Wapiti Meadows, Fox Run Apartments and about 30% of units available through individually-owned rentals. • One predominate property management company which manages about 70 units for owners leasing their homes in the Fraser Valley, reports about 70% of their Fraser properties were built in the 1980's or earlier. • Apartment property managers in Fraser noted increased incidence of new tenants complaining that their prior owner-managed rental was not well maintained and that owners were slow to respond to needed repairs. Employers WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part I—24 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 noted a similar rise in complaints from their employees regarding rented accommodations in recent years. * Both Wapiti Meadows and Fox Run are reported tObeingood shape. Fox Run underwent significant renovations since initial construction and the new owner has continued doing improvements. Both projects have management on site to address needed repairs. Vacancy Rates Vacancy rates vary by season and property type. Units typically have high turnover in May and October, with lower occupancy rates through the summer than experienced in the winter. In the past couple of years, however, fewer units have turned over, summer vacancies have dropped and vacancy rates have been at or near zero the past couple of winters. More specifically: * As of August 2015, there were no vacant units at Wapiti Meadows in Fraser and only two units are advertised as conning available in May 2016. Where 13 units turned over in2O1], this declined toless than six last year. The project hasbeen consistently over 9SY6occupied since 2O13. ° Miller's Inn in Winter Park also had no vacant units and only has about two Units turnover each year.This project rernainedfu|| duringtherecession. ° A local property management company which manages homes for rent in the Winter Park to Granby area had 9 of7Ototal units available in August 2015 (3 in Winter Park and 6 in Froser)—on|yone was advertised as available in March 2016. • Fox Run apartments had 4 vacant units (6%vacant) in August 2015. Units were full over the winter and they advertise one unit coming available in May 2016. ° Only one non-apartment home was listed as available in March 2016 in Fraser on [raigs|ist, with Oadvertised as coming available in May. Vacancy Rates: Winter Park andF August 2815 Attainable rentals 0% 0% Condo,TH,Single-Family rentals 1% (3 units) 4% (6 units) Market-rate apartments NA 7 Source: [raiUo|ist; Interviews;consultant team WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-25 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 Units also filled up much faster last May than they have since prior tothe recession, which is expected to continue this year. Year-round leases have been up, meaning seasonal turnover will bedown. Rents Rents of condominiums, townhomes, and single-family homes have been rising since the recession in the Fraser and Winter Park area. Based on an inventory of 44 occupied and vacant rental units in Fraser and Winter Park in August 2015, rents average over $800 for a one-bedroom and up to $1,700 or more for a three-bedroom home. These rents are affordable for households earning from 60Y6 up to 11OY6AMI. Of units available mid-August 2015, the average rent asked in Winter Park is $1.74 per square foot compared to $1.13inFraser. Average Non-Art tR 1 Winter Park andF 2015 1-bedroom —$841 (60%AMI) $808 Average rent per square foot $1.74 $1.13 (available units only) Source: Craigs|ist(Aug. 17'20I5);www.resortalfgraxdcountycom;consultant team Apartment rents have also been increasing. Wapiti Meadows was asking unsustainably low rents six years ago, but, corresponding with a change in ownership in 2016, rents are back up to the maximum permitted for the LIHTC property. Fox Run rents have also been increasing the past few years. ° The only market rate apartment complex in the area is Fox Run. Rents in August 2015 averaged about $1.63 per square foot. These rents include all utilities, including VV|F| and Direct TV. ° The income-restricted rentals at Wapiti Meadows range from $0.69 up to $1.12 per square foot. ° Rentals at Miller's Inn, which are restricted for occupancy by employees working inGrand County, average $1.12 per square foot. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-26 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 Apartment Rents: Winter Park and Fraser, 2015 1-bedroorn 14 $975 4 $498 $644 $790 $400- (2 studios) $675 2-bedroorn 46 $1,350 26 $605 780 956 0 - rented Source: Interviews;consultant team Availability— Units Listed For Rent Of rentals available in August 2015 in Winter Pork and Fraser, about 4O96were affordable to households earning over 1OOY6AML None were available for workers earning under 5UY6AMI —entry level workers earning$1Oto $15per hour. Available Rentals by AMI Affordability: Winter Park andF 201 100-120%AMI $1,870 2 Over 120%AMI Over$1,870 3 TOTAL - 13 Source: Interviews,Craigslist,www.resortsofgrandcounty.com,consultant team WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-27 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 HOUSING GAPS AND PREFERENCES All indicators suggest there is demand for additional workforce housing in Fraser. Low rental vacancy nates, a small inventory ofhomes for sale, and employer and Realtor interviews all evidence that there isneed for additional units. Housing shortages worsen when local job growth and the need for more workers exceeds the growth in available housing units. Therefore, this section estimates the total number ofhousing units needed |nthe Fraser area through 2O2Obased onprojected job growth in the area. The below estimates are likely conservative, however, because they do not take into consideration retiring employees, whose jobs will also need to be filled bynew workers. This section focuses on housing needs for the primary, year-round workforce in the area, as opposed to seasonal workers. While seasonal housing fluctuations in both the summer and winter in communities tothe north and south ofFraser greatly impact housing availability in town, the product type, location and design of housing for seasonal workers varies from that required for year-round occupants. Also, the number of units needed to accommodate seasonal workers who typically live in the area for six months is highly volatile. Towns and counties seldom adopt goals and strategies specifically for seasonal workers. Too much dependence on the seasonal worker flow in and out ofthe community does not enhance economic sustainability and community character. If more information is desired on this population and housing considerations, the Town of Winter Park Housing Needs Assessment (20I5) can be referenced. Housing Units Needed Through 2020 Employees working in the Town of Fraser create demand for local housing due in part to a preference to live near their job. About 64% of local town workers live in the Fraser area, meaning within town or the adjacent unincorporated area. To keep up with estimated job growth in the town, about 40 housing units will be needed by 2020 to retain 6496oflocal workers in the area. Employees working throughout the Fraser Valley—from Winter Park through Tabernash —a|so demand housing in Fraser due to its central proximity to jobs and amenities. About 40Y6 of workers in the Valley live in the Fraser area. To address the demand from the growth in jobs throughout the Fraser Valley, about 165 housing units will be needed, orabout 3Oto4Ohomes per year. Both of these figures are provided to illustrate the regional nature of housing in the area. |fFraser develops housing ata rate that keeps pace with job growth in town, demand from job growth throughout the Valley will continue to outstrip housing supply. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-2O Part I: Housing Needs in Fraser, May 2016 Estimated Housing Needed to Fill New Jobs; 2015—2020 Increase in Jobs through 2020 130 575 Jobs per Employee* 1.2 1.2 New Employees Needed 110 480 Employees housed in Fraser 70 305 Employees/Housing Unit* 1.84 1.84 New housing needed 40 165 It is estimated that workers in Grand County hold about 1.2 jobs on average and that there are about 1.84 workers per household.These figures are used to translate job growth into housing units needed by workers that fill new jobs.These figures are in line with other mountain resort towns and show little change since the 2008 Grand County Housing Needs Assessment. Needs by Tenure There is need for both ownership and rental housing in the Fraser that is affordable for the local workforce. Presently about 47%of resident's homes in Fraser are owner- occupied. The below estimates retain the current mix of owners and renters in the town, showing that about 80 ownership and 85 rental homes would be needed if 40% of Valley workers continue to be housed in the area. The precise ratio of ownership to rental is, however, somewhat dependent upon the desired direction and policy of the town. While the rental market is very tight and has had a faster post-recession recovery than the ownership market, ownership is needed long term for year round residents. The Town of Winter Park is also undertaking development of 42 attainable rentals, which should relieve some pressure from Fraser's rental market. It is recommended that Fraser undertake a strategic planning process to target its housing goals in line with its vision for the community. A goal for the owner/renter mix should be part of this process and based on a combination of factors including stability associated with ownership, the seasonality of rental demand, historic conditions, planned projects and vision for the community. Summary of Housing Needs by Own/Rent Through 2020 m n Units needed through 2020 40 165 Ownership 20 80 Rental 20 85 *Table reflects the current ratio of 53%rentals and 47%ownership in town. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part I—29 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 Needs by AMI To understand where the market is oversupplying and undersupplying homes for locals, current household incomes' are compared torecent sales and available homes and rentals. For ownership: ° The market currently oversupplies homes for locals earning over 140%AMI, but undersupplies homes for households earning between 50%to 120%AMI.These would beunits ranging from about $120,OOUuptoabout $ZO0,000for atwo- person household. Attainable oxvnershipshou|dfocuoonthispricc range. ^ Homes affordable for households earning under 50Y6AMI are also undersupp|ied; however, producing homes at this price will not occur without substantial subsidies or will require programs such as Habitat for Humanity. These households also have trouble qualifying for loans and meeting down payment purchase requirements. Given that incomes tend to be lower in Fraser than many other parts of the county, most of the new ownership product should be provided at attainable prices for households earning between 50% and 120%AMI. Units should be fairly evenly distributed among these price points given that a similar percentage of owner households earn within each AMI category inthis range. Homeowner Income Distribution Compared to Homes Sales and Availability Over140% Over 42% 73% 89% *Sales and listings exclude condominiums.As discussed in other sections of this report, multiple factors make condominiums largely unsuitable for ownership occupancy bylocals. zSee Appendix Afor household income distribution. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-3O Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 For rentals: * None of the available rentals are affordable to households earning under 50% AMI and rentals between 50 to 80%AMI are undersupplied. These would be units priced below $l,25Oper month for a2-personhousehold. Attainable rentals should focus onthis price range. Most ofthe new rentals need tobepriced below market, orattainable, for households earning 8OY6AMI orbelow. Rentals should beevenly distributed among households earning under 50Y6AMI and between 5OY6and OOY6AML Renter Income Distribution Compared tmAvailable Rentals *Available rentals include rentals available in Winter Park and Fraser inAugust lO15. Household Characteristics and Preferences of Buyers and Renters Unique to Fraser is that its households are mostly renter-occupied (5]Y6). This z contributes toseveral population and household characteristics intown: ° The town has the youngest population inthe county (median age of32). The fastest growing population segments between 2000 and 2010 were children under 5and persons between 45toG4years ofage; ° Households are primarily singles, young couples without children, and roommate households. Single parents and families with young children are more prevalent in Fraser than in the county overall; ° Fraser has the lowest percentage ofsenior'headed households in the county. Realtors noted that seniors tend to move out of the county as they age and need more care; and ° The town has the largest percentage of Hispanic/Latino-headed households in the C0UDty (7Y6), which is still relatively small, but iSgrowing. ~See Appendix Bfor more detail onhousehold characteristics. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-31 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 These observations are consistent with the demand for homes in Fraser reported by Realtors inthe area: ° Primarily young couples, first-time buyers and young families (elementary school in town) are searching for homes in Fraser. Most are looking for homes priced below$3OO,O0O. • Some move-up buyers are interested in the area, but are also attracted to areas north oftown. These households are typically looking atprices between $3UO,OOUand $4OO,O0O. ° Price tends to be of prime consideration for buyers. Locals will compromise on unit type to afford a home in o location nearer Fraser and Winter Park. While single-family homes are preferred, townhomes and multi-family homes are acceptable. Townhomes with garages are very popular. Some locals will purchase condominiums, but storage and/or garages and low HOA fees are necessary. ° Many local buyers are also not deterred by deed restrictions, particularly given the tight for-sale market and general unavailability of homes under$300,000. Buyers that initially indicate they will not consider deed restricted properties often change their minds when they see what is available (or not) on the market. ^ Local buyers are attracted to good neighborhoods—family friendly, safe and occupied (e.g. not second-homeowner dnnninated). Young renters working in the Winter Park area and seasonal workers—employed at Winter Park Resort and Devil's Thumb—also seek homes in Fraser. Rentals priced below 80%AMI will be primarily for one- and two-person households, mostly targeting singles and some young couples: ° Households earning below 5O96AMI include entry level and service workers earning $IOto $15per hour. These units would rent for about $5O0per bedroom. ° Households earning up to 80%AMI includes two-income households that cannot income qualify for LIHTC units and young professionals earning near$25 per hour. Wapiti Meadows has turned away many two-income households which do not have children because they cannot income-qualify for their units. ^ Renters want pets. Renters also want their units to be kept well maintained and in good repair. Avve||-rnanaged apartment complex avoids HOA restrictions that prohibit renters to have pets and ensures repairs are completed in a timely manner. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|-3Z Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 APPENDIX A — POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS The Town ofFraser has: ° Ayounger population than other communities inGrand County. The median age ufthe population is32.1years compared to41.Zinthe county overall. • Ahigh proportion ofyounger residents inthe 25to34age category and alow proportion ofseniors who are 65years old and over. The fastest growing population segments between 2OOOand 2U1Owere children under 5and persons between 45to64years ofage. Population Distribution 6yAge: 2010 4O016 35% 3596 Grand County 30% Winter Park 7% Fraser ��2b� '" 25% ------------------� --� �---------- cc 20% - ------ -- 15% 10.).1% 10% 1 1�� 7% - � O�=/�m ' ' — um om r-------,------,------',-------r------'r------r------ , Under 5b317 18h}24 25h}34 35bJ44 45tO64 O5and over � Age ofPopulation � � 1 Source: 2OU0and 2OIOUSCensus ° Relatively more persons live alone or with roommates (5196) and there are fewer family households than in Grand County overall. Fraser has a comparatively high percentage ofsingle-parent families. The affordable rentals provided by Wapiti Meadows helps house some of this population. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. A'1 Part I: Housing Needs in Fraser, May 2016 Household Distribution by Type: 2010 45% 40% Grand County 39% 0 35% 34% 11111p1111 Winter Park 33% Fraser 29%li 30% 0 23% 0 25/0 21% 19% 19% 20% 0„ 17% 15/0 14%15% C ii11111iiii°uum �. 0 ° Ch- 9/o 9% ° o l 10% 6% w 5% muiuuullllll (lll�l�l�l�l�l�l�llllll 0 0% Couple, no Couple,with Single parent Living alone Other non-family children children households households Source. 2000 and 2010 US Census • A higher rate of growth among persons living alone than any other household type, followed by couples without children. In contrast, the Town of Winter Park saw the largest rate of increase in couples with children. Percent Change in Households by Type: 2000 to 2010 mam Couple, no children 32.0% 45.5% 55.6% Couple,with children 7.2% 33.9% 97.1% Single-parent households 31.2% 16.1% 34.8% Living alone 50.6% 58.4% 54.9% Other non-family households 1.2% 0.0% 22.4% TOTAL 27.5% 31.7% 51.3% Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census • An average household size of about 2.26 people per unit, similar to the county overall. • Fraser is the only community in Grand County in which renter households are larger(2.37 persons on average) than owner households (2.13 persons on average). This is primarily due to a comparatively low proportion of renters living alone (32%) and high proportion of renters with roommates (25%). WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. A-2 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 Household Size: 2010 ii 0 1 EMEMEN 3-person 13% 14% ::412% Average: 2.26 2.26 2.05 Source: 2010 Census � A small but fast growing Hispanic/Latino population (38 households in 2010). Hispanic/Latino-Headed Households: 2000 to 2010 PEEMEMEN=8 M20% 2000 170 3.39%. Source:2O00and 2010USCensus ° The lowest percentage of senior-headed households than any other community inGrand County (6Y6). Seniors often move out ofthe area asthey age. Senior-Headed Households: 2000 to 2010 2000 604 11.9% 25 2010 986 15.2% 33 0 Source: 2OUUand ZO10U3Census ° Households that primarily rent their homes (53% renter-occupied); all other communities have atleast 57Y6ofhomes occupied byowners. Owner-and Renter-Occupied Housing: 2080 and 2010 1!!!010 69% 31% 47% 0 Source: 2OOOand 2O1OUSCensus WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. A'5 Part 1: Housing Needs inFraser, May 2OI6 Income of Working Households To determine the sale price or rent for housing to be attainable by the workforce, housing costs are compared to the incomes of households with employees. For the Fraser workforce, the following incomes are used since the majority of employees live within the larger area that extends to Grand Lake. Aswas the case in 2OO7when the Grand County Housing Needs Assessment was conducted, the percentage of households with incomes above 140Y6AMI, particularly renters, is relatively high. Area Median Income: Owners and Renters Winter Park/Fraser Valley/Grand Lake Area, 2015 TOTAL 1,701 3,723 5,424 Source: Ribbon Demographics, LLC;Consultant team WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. A-4 Part UKVAttainable Housing Code Provisions, May 2OI6 FRASER HOUSING NEEDS AND DEVELOPMENT s"rUDY PART °N (A) ~ AwwANNA=LE HOUSING CODE PROVISIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1 ATTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND FUNDING STRATEGIES............................................... 1 COMMUNITY STRATEGIES: JACKSON, FR|SCQ, ESTE6PARK, FRASE0........................................ 5 COMMUNITY AFFORDABILITY SNAPSHOT............................................................................................................ 5 ATTAINABLE HOUSING PROVISIONS...................................................................................................................... 6 Jackson, N/yomin\V—............................................................................................................................................ 6 Frisco, Colorado......---.... ..... ........ .................--..............-----------........--....... ..... ...... 7 EstesPark, Colorado...........................................................................................................................................8 Fraser, Cokxnob—...---.... ..... ........ .................----.........---- ........ ---.......--....... ............ 9 Part UKVAttainable Housing Code Provisions, May 2OI6 INTRODUCTION This section can help the town of Fraser define its housing plan and prioritize strategies to meet goals. It introduces o variety of tools and strategies that communities may incorporate into their development process and codes to assist with attainable housing production and preservation. This section presents: ° A matrix defining various development code requirements, incentives, zoning provisions and funding mechanisms that can help meet attainable housing needs; ° Development provisions and fund sources used by three other resort mountain communities with attainable housing challenges; and ° A summary of Fraser's code in the context of these attainable housing tools. This information can help identify strategies that may be most effective in the near term and long term. Suggested strategies for Fraser are presented in the Executive Summary, Recommendations and Strategies section ofthis report. Attainable Development Code and Funding Strategies The following table defines several strategies that communities have incorporated into their development process to help fund and produce attainable housing in their communities. Strategies may be mandatory or voluntary, provide incentives, support housing densities and housing types that promote more affordable options, and help generate financing to support attainable housing production and programs. The below table: ° Defines each presented strategy; ° Shows the type ofhousing typically produced; and ° Presents the conditions under which the tool may be most useful or effective. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part 11 (A)-1 > ET LA 0 x 0 CD CD 0 CD 0 Ln. a CD X. • 3 c • r) cn (n. 3 Ln. ccn Iz CD CD 0 0 0 CD c 0 Q) =3 N 0 cn ;K, 0 _0 77 0) 2 0) co M. (D z CD CD w cn O'Q co ID r— f? E. 0 E: 53 B 0--C;�, 3m 0 m 0 0 m w m 5�, CD cD CD =Tt w 3 cD CCD cD 3 0 cD 0 X_ 0) 5 0 CD < & — (D '< CD CD 3 < -0 CD (n.-0 CE Z 3 U) cn (D - 5 cr 0- — a — o- 0 (1. Z; CL -0 CL 0 n Q) C E5 D 0 =3 CD m CO (a w Er = = 3 -Cn Ciu —D cn 3 cn CD CD cn CD ::4 o- 3 o 3 MD- 3 CD CD 0 =3 n CD CD c"D C CD RD CD 1 0 a) 3 ':' 3, 0 0- E5, E &; — t-- CD < CL 0 0 CD * CD =r w In -0 CD W 0) m — :3 D cn =3 cn CD 8 M 0 CD cn :3 0 < cn 0 3 -6 0 - CD CC COD EH CD CD C 0 a) -0 0- M E :3 CD :3 - w w 0 0 cn 0 cn to C� :3 =3 CD CD =:P CD CD cL M 9 3 -M =W' SL- ma ;-,: 0 CL D- C, CD CD B o CD CD =r CD =r (n 0 o ;:L CD CD CD _0 CD cn 0 l< n 87 0 Cr-0 -0 CD 0 o 0 cn U) w CD CL CD 0 x CD :3 a) CD CL cn. ww CD @ 0 cn (n C, CL — CD =r 3 -- ,n C-D N CD 0 CL 0. �a- Cn < CC (n C CL =3 0- M CL CD < CD w CD Dry > CD cD =3 cn < Z57 cWn 'CnD (9 'Z 0 =r 1� CD S2. o — CD < 0- 0 CD :zr m -0 — > CD 0- o CD 0 =r CD -0 M M B M w CL - =3 CD 5R C��- CD CD -o 3 :3 = Er :0 CD :3 -0 O. 0 CD 0 & = 2 0 0 — I < CD W. 0 3 3 in CD < CI- 0 D -0 3 CD (o CD cn =3 0 3 mCD 0- -0 CD CD < 0 (D a) 0 3 0 0 0- m CD CD (a CD E: — C) CD — 0 Cl- cn SD 0 co C: 0 E3 g- ::v 0- CL 00 O'Q CD CD 3 Z3 3 0 w CD C::, —.72. CD CD 3 C, -n 0 0CD l< c 0 59 to 0 0) (D cn CD 0- ::r CD CD ,z (n CD to E; o In cn 3 0 = * 0 0 0 0 < 0 a < W = --' ;--p = a CD 57 > CD CD 0 9 Z-n C, Z-11 CD o 0 3 =r f-P FD'Sn cn :E =r E3 -6, -1 (n 3. 3 CD CD 00 CD (<D =,a CD CD cn cn CD CL CD cn -6. 0 0 -- cn 0 a w L/>. CD 25" CD CD CD 0- CL ( - i�, Z3 C) l< CD (D rn �n CD cr 6 Z.F _0 n CL G) =r =3 =r CD CD (D 0- CD 3 o@ 0 0 0 0 0 3 =3 CD CD =3 0 CD _0 _0 CD CD < o CD m CD -0 E. con .o -0 :5. cn < < on c L T. Cy- cn, E3 CD SS 0 0 0 CD 3 Sn CD =3 CD =3 E3 0 6 :3 =:� CD -0 _0 M3 —, cn CD 6(0 CT Co(a < CD -0 aL 3 cp 3 cn 0 -0 CD CD w 3 CCD -0 3 3 c., =r =5 CD CD CD 0 FD- CD 3 CD =r CD CD 0) c 0 �n a-) C. Ca�L CD >< < o o 'n cn w Y? m -0 c cn CD 0 =5 =5 m m 5- w w < 0 = Cn CD _0 CS0 cr CO 70 3 5—' C,D CcDr CD cn cn cn o CD 0 cr X CL o< 33 '< CD cD B w 5' 0 ur — = cn -2. 0 E, 0 cn CD 0 C:)- ta '< =- =3 c 6 CD 0 0 0 Co 6 0 CD a:� 0 CD Ca -0 CD 2- S�) 00- ;-_ @ cn 0. 0 = CD 0- = -0 0 a 3 o- cD w 0 o- C: COD U) CD cn 3 CL CD cn 0 CD ch g CD -0 w 0 3 < < < (n I - CD C C0'1 CD o' w coil 3 Er g m 0- a 1p CP CD 0 CD CD n C.) =3 0 CD CD 3 0 0 0 a) 0 3- is N o' E; O CD FD'-1 -0 3 -0 < 0 �F CD ca. 3 3 �3 3 CD -0 W = M. 0 cn 0- OL CD CD CD 77 cn M C, CD C.0 0- cD E. 0- 3- w 0- 0- CD a- o :3 0 CD 0 = CD ='< < < < =3 Er =03 0 CD @. < cn Cr CD _0 ML CD 0 CO c a 3 = -0 0 0 0 CD cn CD CL CL ;:w 77 3 =3 3 a 3 CD 3 CD cn CD CD _0 0 CL 0 CD cn w CD CD 0 cn 0 F74 0 5D D NCD CD CD Q U) -n r— m C/) > m CD m e3 Eq :3 CD CD CD 0 M CD • r) < x 0o :30 cn C: CD c Cl) (n o Q- CD Q CD 0 CD 0 00o x 0 (n Cn CD CDCD :3 2' CD z 0- cn co m m CD CD cn O'Q cn 0) ID f? =r q =r M =r C- 0 CD Q -0 -0 Cl 07 'O CL-0 CO F7 0 C/) CD 0 CD o m 0 0 CD CiD CD CD 0 :3 C 7 ::a C= CD 9 :3 Ln CL =j CD (D 0 C<D CD. :3 CD (D - cn n 0 0 CC (0 -0 CD a 0 0 :3 M CD 0 �R CD Co 00 t—v 3 0 av m cD cn 0 FD* a) 3 0 n@ 0 a 0 =3 CD (D S� -0 E-Y < > m 0 u) 0_ 0 CD < =r CL = CC , 0 CD 0- - _0 CD CD 0 0 W cn CD (n CD CD C < Cr - ;:-W CD -a `0 0 =3 ET o. C-) M cn Ln. CD 0 CD 0 CD CD CD 0 3 (a -0 0 < (p = 0 CD -0 C� cn CD m CC -0 0 < FD CD 0 CD C:- -0 C7q a@ CD CD _ M CD M_ �� M CD 0 m CD cn ;:;: cn :3 - U) ch < Er CD a CD M CD :3 . m CD W -< - CD CD 0- X m =r = M CG 0 C�, C- w cn _a 9-- cr(m 0 0 0=1� CD 0 CD CD CD a @ =3 CD CD 3 'D - 0 cr w cn cn E� m wc o -0 m CD cn CL 0- (D :pt CD 0 w 0 0 -0 C, - = CL CD 0 0 C'- CD cn. p D7 cn cu CD CD X Er =r ;::- 0 = m cn CD 3 CD > CD CD FD' 0- Co CD E3 -C, CD =- M M :3 cn cn C_ cn CD --R U> m (n < 5 > C CD S2. CD =r CD 0 3 0 < m w M cr < (a =r CD- CD 0 -a M CD 0- (D < M 0 < M = �4 m cn CD =5 CD @ = C !�L,< a- :3 C, CD CD CO. 3 a a- CD cn 0 CL -0 cr 77 0 F,-0 n = @ S < M j L =3 co 53. CD CD :3 CD w 0 �o m CD CD CD �= C CD C-) 0- is CD CD CL CD cn CL CD CD (D cr CL :3 CD cn C.) :3 CD cn CD cn CD CD CD :3 o 0 CD 0- CCD 0- E; CD C: L> L> > -0 on0 -0 CD o =3 E3 n ca- a m 0-co CL 0 -0 c CD = a- CD CD (D 0 m (D U) cn - COD '�n =r CCD) U) 5. - z C (n :3 CD -o �3 0 CD < F,, 3 < CD I (n o 0 cD Er :E 3 CD E3 :3 (n o ':n:r C.0 Dl =r -6, = CL CD 0 0 -. o Ln. NCD E 3 5 a m CD rn CD W= 0- 0 CC cn CD CI- 5- �E' cn w -o 0 r- 0 m A G@ 0 ;7- CL CD C.) cT =3� 3 C) -0 CD CD C < CD CD m 0 < CD C) m M !R 0 70 < CD CD m 0 CD SR 0 CD 0 cn F�� 57-0 0 E3 CL CD U) W cn C CD w c cr -0 CD CL CD U) 0 :3 0- cn 0 3 -0 ��o < =s 3 :D :3 =$- CD CD cD CD = 0 CD 0 0 =j 2 CD 0 C-) CD - 0_ 0 cn =r c: CD =T - 1 0 3 Cn = -0 w CD CD 3 CD CD CD 0. 0 < n CMD 0 L - CD Co 2 < :Z CD CD CD Co CD = N CD CD < :3 =3 a (D CD w Er a o m m q m :3 C m m c 0 �n M = �D_ CD cn :3 0- CD CD < CL 0- CD W =*! a CCD c CD (n �_0 =r C, 3 0 CD C CD 0 - 0- a 0- 0 M CD 0 CD CD Cn 0. or 0 U) m (D c=n Co =-0 cn -9 :D 0 CD CD CrZ < n 5, 'S Co0- 0 < cn in - (D CD j a CD -0 E; CD M p 0 (o -0 m 0 0 E3 0- =- (n 0 CD =r < = C) C) _0 =3 5" m 0 m 0@ 3 =t Er M CD (n CL-0 M _0 CD - Cn CD CD -0 m C)- cn 0 0 rt 0. - CCD S. 0 CL C.) :3 0 0 0 n Co CD CD 0 5'0 @ CD mCL 3 CD 0 -S 3 cn < :3 CD =7 C=D3 'cn Cu U) CE3 cn �R m C7 CD _0 CD cn CD 3 0- 0 0 CD M x 0 CD-CD -0 m CL -0, ;�w u) K cn CD O. CD -0 M ON 0 C/) U) X �f LA X, 0) CD -a3 0 Y)* CD w a) 3 -S L7 CD O CD Y' m Fn- 0 CD Ln ,< E� 0 0 CD m 0 CD =3 CD cCD cn =T 3 (D M CD 0 CD c _0 to Cn. w oq U) CL (0 U) Z G CD CD co X ID r— f? Z3 CD 0 0 C Cn. COD B CD Co CD CD (m CD M. 0) 0 0 — =) r(9 o- cD cn CcD, 2� CD =:;* jB 0 CD (D 0 0 W ID CD :3 CD — X m CD a) '0< g co(D CD = a) CD 0- =r 0 cn 0 C� ',nD 3 CD =3 =3 n CD 0 CD - =,:�! cn 0 M CD 0 0 =r 0- N 0 = 0) 0 cn �o =3 M o — 0 0 0 =r cr cn x = C CD CD 0 l< S� =3 0 CD CD CD CD CQ CD 0 CD (n CD W 27 E w CD (Q. 0 cD CD-0 Q 5. & 5 CD CD M =3 C n m -0 U; La: X CL �n CD -0 =my'CO CD cn CD CO cn- :E 0 3 -0 CO < 0 cn CD. - --q cn E —0 C, 0 Er -9 on ucc 0 CD 0 CD CD 0 CD CC CL cn o-0 a cn —: 0 cu 0 CL F6 o @ . = cn -0 cn CD ::1 2 = 0) g: < 0CL CL CD CD loo �n :3 a) 2 CD 0 CD — to ;::LL 0 CL 03 Cooco 2: w 0 CD a-co(o m E CD 19 CD cn Cr cL 2� cD o cD cD cn < 0 CD 3 =r CD 0 :E =r CD C�' �O CD C� 8' 0 3 CD CD 3 5 o o M�-0 =� — z C5 (D W CD U) CD — -0 CD w -0 c =r > E3 c-> a CD to 3 cD o �F cL cD (D CD C) 3 'n 0 =3 crt o CD Cn CD 73 Cn C.0 CD 2. — (D Ln. (n =7- w CD W =r 00 =3 C.) U) Ln. CD 0 CD — = cn co c 0 07 3 CD -0 cn o cT 3 c-') -0 CD CD w 2: M _0 0 cn < m cn cn (o CD a - 3- =3 (D = CL CD =r cn cn cn CD CD C)- =3 G' C (a 5' m cn CD CD =r 0 0 CD 0� 3 cr r— L> L> L, 0 CD 0 0 0 = 0 Ln. 0- :3 (D _0 _0 -a C) CD 0 CD (D CD 77 U) to cn 0 U) cn (n ci :z 0- M 0 CD 5E� = ��r �T . @ -0 0 -0 _0 0 0 ---I CD . 5; o 0 < D 0 m =3 =$, :3. cn n — — 3 Ui' = CD =- @ N. CD 0 3 0 =3 :3 0 a cn. m cw n :3 :3 0Ca 0 cr =1 R cz) CD CD w w 21 2: (n > =r 0 — CD CD a =- CD 0- 61 CD CD W CD -0 0 CD CL r Q =r =r cn 37 57 Cr 5- C -0 W 0 0 CD =3 CD 0 0 CD 0 CD 0 0 0 m C, C< �<3 o 0 D D --j — o- cD o- C) CD 3 =r 2" 0- cD 3 -6 (n 0 (n @ 3 'D ch cn 0 0 3 cn- =3 =1 CD CD 3' cD CD a) CD CD ;::W 0 cD (n :3 =3 C, U, 0 :D in CD (o CL CD CC — Co — = cn 0- W CL -0 =r U) w m 0 CD C�, cn =r U> — CD CC o 0 flr 0 'n a) 70 CD zs(c1 W CD o CD (n —0 3 2: CD m 0 < CD 0 C W 0 0 cc 3 CD cn CD 0 3 0) &-)- = 0) = m —o ' - 5 w=r 0 m w -cc 0- m =-, n I-D 0 m = =r < Q a < CD CD CD < M 5* ><.CC 0 -0 CL — =' 0=) Cr M _ CD 0- W CD C:� 0- I'D 0- 0) CD — _ a 3- _ 5--- -a CD m 0 E3 CD CD 0 :3 jB CD ��C, o7 iB -7 — CL 0 CD -0, -C> E; Fn' CD -o 0 CD 2) 0 0 ::; Z CD 05) f Cn c' C—D C=n C, n W CD - -0 CD (n 26 ca 3 @ o) < w CL c cn 0 C-) 0 0 W :3 5- !�L C) 0 3 0) cL ED C, C, = 9 CD (D -!;R CD C m m cn,- I CD cr C, CD < CD CD CD 07 3 0 0) < 0 < C R CL ol '. ' :3 5D 0 M CD CD CD 3 - < E5' 3 Ln. m cD -o c 9L F,co *a 0 0 -0 0 C3, CD cL , - - cai E� CD 0- C n CL-0 0 cc C> 3 cn 3 0 _ 0 0- 1<0 3 3 CD 3 w m 0 c CL -0 2: - (n CD < 0- CD CD cn CD :3 cn CD Cr 0- =0 a w 3 =r z CD CD, co0 CO 0 0 0 0 w m- CND ' 0 CD 10 cc 0 CL 0 -20) U m' :p 0 Cr Cn CD cn - n 6 (n ;7— =--0 0 -0 x -0 < C/) c-, 0 o 0 m cn cn —"o * :R w -0 0) 3 ci =3 cD o =3 cn -0 En 3 _0 C.) cn 3 CD w 0 CD CU C) 0 C, -- 0- A m CD CD _0 LT 0 3 (n C.) CD _0 0) j 0 0 CD CD W =, 0 0 i5, a l< CD ;- =3 — CD , Z 0 CD Z — -0 9. =r - CD cn 3 Er 57 Z <. Cr 2 CD W CD CL CD 0 n 0 cn CD C') CL 3 Er 0 CD 0L �< CD Part UKVAttainable Housing Code Provisions, May 2OI6 Community Strategies: Jackson, Frisco, Estes Park, Fraser There is no one-size-fits-all approach to producing and funding attainable housing. There isalso nosingle strategy that can doitall. Tobesuccessful, communities need to evaluate a range of opportunities and housing tools, understand which options may be successful in their development and economic environment and tailor selected options to their community. To provide some examples of how communities have implemented various tools, attainable housing provisions implemented by three mountain resort communities are discussed below. Examples include: ° Asophisticated attainable housing producer(Town ofJackson, WY); ° A mountain resort community that is impacted by neighboring ski resort communities (Town ofFrisco, CO); and ° A low-wage resort community with more moderate home prices than many ski communities (Town ofEstes Park, [[)). An overview of each community is presented below. The matrix at the end of this document provides more detail on the code provisions and attainable housing fees or dedicated funds collected byeach ofthese towns, asapplicable. Community Affordability Snapshot The below chart compares the population, local housing occupancy rate, incomes, home prices and home affordability level of each community with the Town of Fraser. As shown: ° Less than 5096ofhomes in Fraser and Frisco are occupied by locals. Both Estes Park and Jackson are majority resident-occupied; ^ Average wages are lowest in Fraser; ° The largest discrepancy between the county area median income and wages is in Frisco. The median household income isabout 13996higher than the average wage in both Fraser and Jackson; * Homes are least affordable to locals in Jackson. Homes are comparatively more affordable in Fraser, though the median sale price is still 38% higher than a household earning the area median income could afford; and ° Jackson has the largest inventory ofaffordable housing units, followed by Estes Park and Frisco. ° Affordable homes are primarily rentals in Estes Park and primarily ownership in Frisco. The diversity and type ofhomes developed ineach area isafunction of local policies, commitment tohousing, capacity and priorities. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|| (A)-5 Part II (A)Attainable Housing Code Provisions, May 2016 Comparative Incomes, Home Prices and Affordable Home Inventory MEMENOMMEN1300P Population 1,300 10,135 2,750 6, Households 574 4,147 1,330 3,000 %Vacant Housing Units 51% 16% 57% 30% Area median income(county) $78,000 $96,800 $89,800 $77,800 Average wage(county) $32,600 $40,484 $33,000 $38,000* Median home asking price** $400,900 $867,000 $700,000 $499,000 Median asking price per sq.ft. $196 $411 - $227 Affordable purchase price for $290,000 $360,000 $333,000 $288,500 median income household Affordable housing units 50 1,504 116 277 Ownership 0 538 105 74 Rental 50 966 11 203 AMI Range served------------ —40 to 60% _ Seven income _80 to 100%__---Under 60%-- AMI categories AMI (rentals); AMI (rentals); from <80%AMI 80 to 160% 50%to 120% to 200%AMI (ownership) (ownership) *Average wage in Estes Park is the weighted average based on the job mix in the Estes Park area,which is primarily accommodation and food services, health care, retail and recreation jobs.The mix of jobs in the Estes Park area differ substantially from those in Larimer County as a whole. **Median home asking price includes all homes for sale(condominiums,single-family homes,townhomes and other multi-family homes)on the MLS at a point in time during the given year. Attainable Housing Provisions The number and type of strategies used by each community to help provide attainable housing varies significantly. The strategies employed also reflect the affordability level and type of units that are produced. Jackson, Wyoming The Town of Jackson has the most diverse attainable housing stock, comprising seven income categories ranging from below 80%AMI (primarily rentals) up to 200%AMI for ownership. Of its over 1,500 units, about 36% (538) are deed-restricted ownership. • Jackson is the only compared community that has mandatory attainable housing requirements in place. This includes both inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage. It also has the strongest development environment of the other WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part 11 (A)—6 Part UKVAttainable Housing Code Provisions, May 2OI6 communities. Over 5O0units have been produced through these housing requirements. ° Jackson also has several incentive programs to promote attainable housing development, including density bonuses, credits for employer-provided units, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and fee waivers available for attainable housing developments. About ]60ofits units are provided bymajor ernp|oyero— nnost|y rentals, but some ownership. About 96ADUshave also been built, which are restricted for occupancy bylocal workers. ° Another 34Ounits were provided bythe Jackson/Teton County Housing Authority, Jackson Hole Community Housing Trust and low-income housing tax credit (L|HT[) financing. ° The primary sources of funds for Jackson's housing program comes from two voter approved Special Purpose Excise Tax initiatives ($14.3 million) and mandatory development fees and payments in lieu of development through their inclusionary and commercial linkage program. The town is currently evaluating whether a sales tax could be approved as a source of consistent revenue. Frisco, Colorado Attainable housing in Frisco is primarily ownership housing— 105 of 116 total units. Since 2013 another 36 homes for ownership have been constructed at Peak One,' increasing the ownership inventory to141units. Unlike inJackson, most ofthe attainable housing inventory in Frisco has either been facilitated by the town (e.g. at Peak One) or developed through development incentives. It also does not have any L|HTC properties in town, contributing to the |ovv rental inventory. ° Frisco does not have any mandatory inclusionary orlinkage provisions to produce attainable housing. ° The town has a successful density bonus provision through which 50Y6 of the granted additional density must bedeed restricted attainable. Two projects are currently under development and will beproviding another 1lattainable condominiums utilizing this density bonus, which will be part of the market rate project. There is no codified limit on the additional density that a prjectnoay seek. Current projects using this provision received athree-fo|d density increase (from 5 and 6 units/acre up to 15 and 18 units/acre). Peak One is a mixed single-family and attached home development for which the town donated land, water taps,increased density,snow storage reductions and other concessions to have a total 62 homes for ownership produced at prices attainable for households earning between 80 and 160%AMI. The final phase was completed this year. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|| (A)-7 Part UKVAttainable Housing Code Provisions, May 2OI6 ° The code also perrnitsADUs by right in most zones, which are required to be rented to local employees otattainable rates. A5Y6increase in lot coverage is permitted asanincentive, but few have been built. ° Acounty-vvide sales tax (0.12596) and impact fee (ranging from $0 to $2 per square foot depending upon the square footage) were passed in2OU6for housing purposes. The town received just over $320,008 last year from these sources. * Frisco also has a 1% real estate transfer tax in place (pre-Tabor), but funds are dedicated tothe general fund and not specifically housing. ° The Summit County Combined Housing Authority manages the sale of attainable homes and rental of units and conducts occupant-qualification and verification ofunits constructed in Frisco. Estes Park, Colorado About 200 of the 277 attainable homes in Estes Park are rentals. The primary source for homes constructed intown isthe Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA). L|HT[ has played a prominent role in helping to finance units, along with town waiver of fees. While town fee waivers are not codified for attainable units, they are routinely applied z toEPHAdeve|opnnents. Only about 3Oownership homes have been provided bythe private sector in Estes Park. ° Estes Park does not have any mandatory inclusionary or linkage provisions to produce attainable housing. • The town has a limited density bonus provision that allows the already low densities /O-units per acre) to be increased toa nnoxinounn of 12-units per acre if attainable homes are provided. This bonus isdiscretionary, not by'right, and in the development-adverse community isvery difficult toget approved. ° The town permits ADUs, although prohibits them from being rented, which removes their ability tohelp house the workforce. • Employee housing is an accessory use in non-residential districts.The town is in the process of allowing employers to construct units not only for their own employees, but for others in town aswell. They currently have an application under review. The extremely tight housing market severely impacts employers in the area, spurring the town to address this and other provisions in their code to assist more attainable housing development. • Estes Park owns land that itisunder discussion for attainable housing development with the local Housing Authority asdeveloper. ' Feewaiversamountinbtu$3h9'U0DmadeFa|conKidXe'anaffordab|e48'unitrenta| projectthatis presently under construction,feasible. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|| (A)-8 Part UKVAttainable Housing Code Provisions, May 2OI6 ° There ianodedicated revenue for housing inEstes Park, though options are being considered. To-date general fund allocations have been used tohelp attainable housing development. Fraser, Colorado Fraser has 50 affordable rentals intown that were built with L|HT[funding in 1995. The town does not have any dedicated attainable ownership homes. ° There are nomandatory attainable housing provisions inFraser'scode. • Fraser had a development impact fee that was imposed in the early 2000's, but that was repealed in 2004. There are no other sources of funding for attainable housing purposes. ° ADUs are permitted through a CUP process in several zones. The units permitted can be up to 1,200 square feet, which is larger than many communities. Smaller units, when rented to locals, can help keep them at more moderate prices. There isnorequirement that units berented oroccupied byresidents. • The Planned Development district allows some flexibility in design and opportunity for development agreements through which attainable housing can be negotiated. ° The town has an annexation agreement as part of the Grand Park development for 144 attainable units or lots. ° The Grand County Housing Authority manages several units throughout Grand County, including Winter Park, but none in Fraser. They are a potential resource to help Fraser manage resident qualification and occupancy for future units. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|| (A)-9 -n v r) 0 0 0 c 00 z z0 0- c rD PQ r-) 0) 0 0- 0 3 Ln 0 (D aq =5 0- 0 3 0 c < (D 0 w (D — :3 - =3 M :2 + , 0 3 D- ID (D V, G W po 0- ;7+7 w rt) -0 (D o- rD 0 rD rD rD rD M r) 3 3 !n- :3 f? rp < 0- !n, C (D rOD- ::a 5* T- rD (D Ln =3 =1 rD 0 < -0 CA = rD -0 rD n m D 0- 0 W 0 rD 0 cu X- rD =3 — D F 3 0 Ln w — 0 <. 0 m oaa 3 07 =3 rD rD (D o=3 0 00 Ln 04, C > C: n N > D (D 0 D (D W 0 < Ln fD (D Q x R 3 -a LA =, rD C) w c rD rD 3 rD =3 0 rD (D < X- -0 n FD ::;4 oo rD rD �o rD L� x- < rD 0 — 0- v, m m m Z-P C) V) Ln m rD 0 0_ -h LA 0 e L, Ln Ln o- ,o 0 (D * -- M C M 3 o- ZZ 5 �< o 0 o- rD n M C rD n o- > 0 0- m -;, D- ul 0- -0 0- 0- X C: > Ln 3 =r 3 rD 0 — a- M 0 0 rD w m -0 0 0 0 rt w r) (D (D Di Ln r) W 0,0, =3 (D X- 0 D = I - m- m 3 0. - =3 > 0 --h o " E o M— (D (D (D rD Ln 0- 0 0 m = m — c , - 3 Ln < M (D :300000 =r _ c: 3 m co C: M w w O'Q 0- 0 —, F. 2�3o o rD CL rD :3 =3 0 =3 =r 00 ca. r- CL n 1+ o 3 C) (D 0 rD M W rD -+' '�: -0 r+ q V) (A NJ C < 0 rD M M w Ln rD n 1+ m (D 0 cr rD rD 1 0 0 In LA w Ln 0 CL (D CU =3 77 fD C x (D 0 0 3 , =) Ln. n Ca- Ln Ln rD �001 0 0 �< -0 , FO* 0 — + C- n to Ln CL — Q- m cu. Ln w n = 'D 3 C: z :3 o :3 w LA - qh Ln Ln Z5 0 rD 0 (D , UQ o- :3 — 0 a- — Z, LA CU w :3 _0 0 n 0 C rD :3 �< — rD rD rD cr 3- rD CL =3 0 0 :E = 0- 0 o (D cu W 0 =3 F n (D (D — w o m 0 3 0 o- n cu rD :3 (D (D -. < (D - _0 a (D - =3 (D 0 rD m cu w 3 w Ln X < — Ln (D = LA (D 0- ro 3 (D o 0 (D 0 + rD :3 n (D cu o- aj (D -tib:3 o- M n M D m 0 S Ln C) LA 0 0) CL 0 0ro- rD ":) ;:;: ;;z n (D m < X- 0 < 0 (D (D r) 0 -< (D (D CL (D rD Z3 , w 0 D- D- F, 0 OG 0 C: rD I-- Z; o < rD Ln Ln 0 0 rD z 0 a rD (D rD M ro �L *1+ rD C -0 0 (D 3 W =; (D V) rD C: 0 cu X- 0 m 0 0 rD rD (D O'q 5 3 rvy rD m -< 1+ In 0 Ln o0rD M 1+ -h rD 61 O5' -0 co 3 o cu rl> rD M— 3 x Ln w 3ro rD :r CA c :3 r+Cu (D • o cL 3 < Ln (D to rr r+ ;+, cuL". w 0 =r rD rD --h w P `rt D- PI4 owwLn O ro rD W 0 Ln - , (D CL L". rD Ln (D (D r+ 4 N — , . 0 =3 C: > LnrD :3 3 0 ;;a 0 0 Ln rD rD cu cu Z C 0 0 M C = -a < 0 LA. rD m (A r+ 0 rD M Cr 0 M (D rD 3 M 7 m CD r) 0 :3 0 c O z Z 0 0 O'Q :3 :3 0) (D (D ID f? (D (D 0 OC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O -0 A -0 -0 --1 =r --i c m > =r M� ET n C R 0 0 0 r 3rD 0 !2. c =3 J Q (D (D N rD rD 0 C: (D CO co 0 0 1 m co cu (D a) -< r— > D =r " oL 0 (D 0 cu mFLT 'FD 2� 0 0 :E "VO =;. (D C D M Ln C: =3 M M M 0 Fj =) y? m 3 :3 (1 o- — = (D n =3 :3 cu cfq z M 0 u :3 m 0 3 0 0 ;+ 3 (D 0 3 (D n I Ln M -0 n CD a- m m FD M RD CL `< r-) a w 0 — -0 (D 0 0 0- = 0 (D0 (D = rD — =r r" 0 a- 0 rD '< 0 orqS M M (D O eZ (D= 0, 0 01 rD 3 — 0 O. M CL . X rD —W -0 0 cu orq w oma,a) CL O 61 :v a ;z w n CL C: rD 0 J4 m O 0 x 0 :E — 3 x rD 0- =5c: :3 (D C: rDr) c: — M = 3 0 0 n CL o 0 5' =T :E :2. — = M (D 2. = :3 < < m rD I =r :E 3 3 r) r (D rD NOU 64 o Ul 0 M R, 0 rD c a- 1 :E rj Z3 0 iP 0 < 0 (D 0 Mr) w rn3. 90 M cu Z C: oo c o 0 c c 0 E, (D 0 (D 0 M 0 CD r) -a 0 :3 X, c (D 0 r) z 0 rt O'Q rt w m Q. F" N V) ID z z 0 0 C37 PJ 00 Q c m o x Cita (D =3 0 ID. r< 3 w 0 z < 0 f? rD 0 D 0 < rD 1- 0 w < 0 0 ::a E rn) X (D (D — (D rD 0 0 rD 0 3 3 3 0 M :E rD rD c , — w rD 0 0- — a) C z w = 0 m iv� M rD W rD CL rj < a I X 0 0 rD0 0—0 (D rD 0 0 3. '0 — 3 - m o 0 0 CO (D c w (D n PQ :3 =3 m TI =5 rD 3 N) x co rt crq 0 rD -0 rD Ul r) n rD 0 0 C: 0) fD M m rD =3 (A Z, < 0 E- W rD 0 (t) V) c rD rD 0- ---4 1'1 r10 D rD -0 r[> (D w x 3 rD < 0 3 rD rD 0 0 x 0 Pli CL 0 0- 2 0'0 "m rD C c — "a 0 rD 0 =3 r) rD m orq rD 0 3 rDo rD< I rD CL n n =r — L o 0 > (D c rD vi (D rD (D 0- rD co rD 010 rD m < < > m 0 c M (D 0 o c 0 3 =— CML (—D 2. =) r)— 1+ (D 77 CL 3 0 3 EU 0 -1 G cn 0 0 m a) (D = M 0 0 = < 0- rt 0 rD (D. rD 0 c (D 5' — '0 cu (D 0 zTCL 0 0 (D vr) 0 aq F 0 c f+ > 3 =r < -, c W C-+. -0 0 0 rD W _0 m > 0 X 0 C: rD rD w 0 0- 0 fD 0 rDw 0- 0 0' 0 < M (D n 0 0 :3 0 w -0 rD m 0 0 r) Z; > r') 0 n =5 rD 0 3 > W c 0 (D 3 < (D Ln F. 0 rD rD > V) Vf x 0 'o 0- Ln -a > o- > Vf ro 0 0 rD < mz < � 3m = o< z� oz- . O < Ox, =FrD < 0 W — 0 — rD _ W 0 =3 CL 0 rD 0 0— — ', 0 (D fD rD -< o m m 'a r, rD w rD o- w o- 3 rD ry m -10 o 0 Q, 0 of 0 I =r 0- = — rD (D W "2 3 om oo rD' 0 CL — ;,z- rD 0 ;W 0 - 9 -u -6 3 Q�) FO- vc w -0 0 n ol rD — , r (D Z' 3 crq (D Q 0 zT 0- 32' 0= m- =M '� � < EO, 00 rD -n n 00 rD 0 co w:E rD cu 3 'r'D 0 0 0 — M X (, cu (D 0 3 cu n L 0 L < rDC: 0 C) 0 m :E 3 rD i vii ;:w rD 0- o0 UQ _0 Part U (B)—Attainable Apartment Case Studies, May 2OI0 FRASER HOUSING NEEDS AND DEVELOPMENT s"rUDY �� N �� ATTAINABLE �� V��N�� PART ". �~°� ��w w��~"�°°°~�� APARTMENT"�°�"� . =�"~°� STUDIES TABLE OFCONTENTS INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE..................................................................................................................................................................... l CASESTUDY SELECTION.......................................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OFPROJECTS......................................................................................................... 2 PINEWOOD VILLAGE U(AIRPORT ROAD)-Ll8TC............................................................................................ 2 HURON LANDING(COUNTY ROAD 45O)—LOCAL pUBOCFUNDING.............................................................. 3 PROJECT COMPARISON ........................................................................................................... 4 PROJECTCOSTS.......................................................................................................................................................4 SOURCESVFFUNDS................................................................................................................................................. S REVENUEGAP............................................................................................................................................................ 6 Part U (B)—Attainable Apartment Case Studies, May 2OI0 INTRODUCTION Purpose This section presents information that can help the Town of Fraser understand how much itcosts to develop apartments in mountain communities. Because apartments have not been constructed in the Fraser area for over a decade, this information is based on case studies of two affordable apartment projects under construction in the resort mountain town ofBreckenridge, Colorado. While asite-specific analysis for any proposed project inFroserxvi|ibenecessarybefore undertaking development, this information can be used tVidentify: ° The general cost todevelop affordable multi-family apartments in mountain resort communities; ° How construction costs can vary based on the design of the project; and ° Tradeoffs between using federal or local financing sources and town inputs that can assist the process. Case Study Selection An apartment complex has not been constructed in the Fraser area since the early 2000's. To understand the cost to develop this type of product, it is necessary to look outside of the area in similar mountain environments. The Town of Breckenridge is in a mountain resort environment, with an economy (and wages) largely driven by tourism. While Fraser and Breckenridge may have significant differences aacommunities, interms ofconstructing multi-family projects, bothareas face similar challenges, including: ° Seasonal construction environment, � Finding and recruiting construction labor to build projects, ° Construction costs for materials and shipping/transport, ° High land and housing costs compared tolocal wages and ° Construction requirements in terms ofinsulation, heating, snow requirements and other structural and design needs incold, snowy mountain climates. Both areas also have a shortage of rentals priced affordable to households earning 80% AK4| or below. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|| (B)-1 Part U (B)—Attainable Apartment Case Studies, May 2OI0 Breckenridge iocurrently undertaking development oftwo apartment projects targeted for this price range. This section presents information on both projects, which include: ° Pinewood Village U -845-Un|tapartment complex, funded inpart with federal low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) financing. Units will be income-restricted and priced affordable for households earning 60% of the area median income (AIVI|). * Huron Landing—toinclude 26apartments jointly funded h»the Town of Breckenridge and Summit County. Rents will bepriced below market, at80Y6 AN1|, but at higher rates than permitted by L|HT[ units. Summary of Projects Pinewood Village UU (Airport Road) - LUHl[C Pinewood Village || iscurrently under construction. This "We thought it would be a 45-unit, 3-storystacked complex contains one-bedroom good opportunity for people and studio apartments, designed toappeal tosingles to get out of crowded and young couples. All units will berent-restricted for roommate situations, and residents earning 60Y6ofthe area median income (AK4|) have their own place." or lower. It will be pet-friendly community. Breckenridge Planner Laurie Best Applications to lease are currently being accepted (April ZO16). ^ Location. Pinewood || isconsidered agood location for workforce housing. |tis located on Airport road with close access to public transit, work centers, and amenities. ° Unit Design. Units are located within one building and accessed by interior stairs and corridors. Each unit is equipped with a washer and dryer, a storage cabinet located in the hallway, avva|k'in closet, balconies orpatios and an electric kitchen. ° Land and Financing. The town obtained the land from the Forest Service through oland exchange in2O12. The town was able toget assistance infunding the project through the use of low-income housing tax credits. The estimated total project cost is $11.13 million (about $247,000 per unit) with tax credits accounting for about $4 million. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|| (B)-2 Part II (B)—Attainable Apartment Case Studies, May 2016 I� rvu� m I I I I I I I I I � I I u I I I I uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum I I I I I I I I I I I I I.IIII to � ,��, w � � ullouuuu n I II II II II N� 1 I I I I uuuu 1�11�, „fl I i VN III � IV II II II II 1.. I,I IIII II II n � II II � II Ill � � „ I. I IIII IIII II II u u II I�� II I V � I I I I I u I Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllli I I (IIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � III �� I III II II I I I IIII � I I II I I I II� II �ry I II II I I� �� , , I I I I II a �� II I� uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulul III u �Id III III �� III �� III I Iluu �� I. II a II u u �II�IIII IIII �� III I�� LL. IIII I�� III IIII IIII „ �� I � I ula IIII II � III II I I III I� I I I I I II ��I� IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I III uu,ll II IIII �I I I I I �IIIIIII �, II „ u I II IIII II I I I II�� I �mmmmp0 I ,I I I I II � I I II I I I III I I1 I I I N I I uu � I II I I I I II ��10000000 II IIII I I III � � III III I I i i I I .0 II I I I I I I II I ,, ou 1111111 u u m u IIIuI � I � I I I u m l nn I� � 1 Nj��b�HNHHHHH�II�I� � I � III II I� I � 1 I l I h I IIII�� II I C I A IN� „ I � IIIIIIIIIo Ilii �I,,,,�I��,,,,I q �1 ,,,,,, �,pVll�lll�� II IIII11111111111111 ,, umum111111, ,II„Iiouom ,ip dluulul Ilutll l III II � 1��Illm III °„ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111„,�11„ ,,r � � � !!!!,,,;,,^ piouommmuu°I mo��T I�IIu��lll I^I I��II II I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII„"!,�;,,�!Pp,+lilll I"oNl M�M;IIi I I�� i�'i�� e'r”\\\\\\1\\1111111 „„„ y��'N''V��Ijlllllllllllll�� IIII IIII, „ .Il�'I�V��d� I��Illlllllli��i� ��IIIl111��ull��u,lA'I,I�Ylll ry I u,�,ll��l 1IIIIII N�N'M��IIIIII011�� da , IIW 111111 VII J I � "�iluluugl�VW a uulllll��llllll�llllllllllll,,,,,IIII 'ml� a m°I I �� u I I Illull111 W u II I� IIS; �II VVuuuliilV!!!!uuul IIII a A NI ^��„ om wuuglu N �mI� ImwI'P N 'drY�lll �uIGII YV��it„I� IIII W V �� uIIVVW i �i uM Pirvr �IIL I lull p l l L.. II B ." ' mow,.,. wail' h"'�w Y rw. Zmnn Im,f mm Photo of Pinewood Village II under construction in Breckenridge, Colorado Huron Landing (County Road 450) — Local Public Funding This 26-unit affordable apartment complex is a joint project between Breckenridge and Summit County utilizing county owned land. All units will have two-bedrooms housed in two three-story buildings. These stacked flats with surface parking are designed to house local workers earning 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Lease terms are tailored toward the needs of long-term local employees, rather than seasonal workers, to maintain consistency with surrounding properties. • Location. Huron Landing is located at 143 Huron Road, or County Road 450, on a former recycling drop-off site. It is well located for workforce housing, being on the bus route for Highway 9, near recreational trails, and close to employment centers. • Unit Design. Units are located within two buildings. Units have exterior access with a central stairway serving up to six units each. Each unit is equipped with a stacked washer and dryer, adjacent stairwell storage, and two surface parking spaces per unit. • Land and Financing. Summit County owns the site and is donating the land for ---------------------------------------------------------------------- development. This project uses Certificates of Participation (COPS), a lease- purchase financing mechanism, instead of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. Because federal funds are not used, this provides flexibility for the town to target incomes above the 60%AMI level for all units. The estimated total project cost is $10.2 million with COP providing about $8.5 million. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part 11 (B)—3 Part II (B)—Attainable Apartment Case Studies, May 2016 M M p Pu, V I ,dYi( III I u1111111101 Rendering of Huron Landing in Breckenridge, Colorado Project ri The below table provides a snapshot of the purpose, structure and overall costs of the two rental projects. Rental Project Overview Income Level (Rents) 609,o AMI ($800- $870) 809,.AMI ($1,400+) Funding Federal LIHTC,town town, County Number of units 45 26 Parcel size 2.9 (15.5 units/ac) 1.48 (17.5 units/ac) Unit size-----------------------mm---Studios (9), 1-bedrooms (36); Two-bedrooms; 525 -600 sq. ft. 770-950 sq.ft. _. ............................................................................................................................. Target demographic Singles,young couples Couples,young families, roommates Total project cost $11,130,000 $10,188,000 _. ............................................................................................................................. Cost per unit $248,000 $392,000 .......................................................................................... Cost per square foot $393 $476 Project Costs The total development cost shows a difference of$83 per square foot for Pinewood Village II ($393 per square foot) and Huron Landing ($476 per square foot). These costs do not include town staff time (planning, project management, legal support, financial assistance). Some reasons for this difference include: WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part 11 (B)—4 Part U (B)—Attainable Apartment Case Studies, May 2OI0 ° Site grading, utilities and infrastructure needs and requirements, � Unit structure design. Interior hallways and corridor access in one building (Pinewood) is less expensive to produce than two separate buildings with exterior unit access (Huron Landing); and ° Land acquisition shows significant variation between the two projects. Cost toDevelop MMENiN$q26 I$MM$42 Land Acquisition $750,000 890,000 Hard Costs" $7,220,000 $255 $6,733,000 $314 Financing Costs(Equity/Bond) $650,000 $23 $350,000 $16 Owner's Contingency $270,000 $10 $331,000 $15 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $11,130,000 $393 $10,188,000 $476 Includes design,studies,testing, legal, permits,fees,owner's rep and in kind services. Does not include town staff time,such as planning, project management, legal support and finance department. "Includes general contractorfee, performance and payment bond,general contractor contingency,site work,shell,furnishing,and utilities. Source: Town ofBreckenridge,consultant team. Sources of Funds Breckenridge has accessed various layers offunding to ensure project success for both projects: ° Government owned land, ° Low-income housing tax credits (tax credit equity), � Certificates nfParticipation (COP), ° Leveraging the housing fund to bond, and ° In-kind services. The below table shows the level of funds applied from each source to each rental project. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part U (B)-5 Part U (B)—Attainable Apartment Case Studies, May 2OI0 Sources wfDevelopment Funds d Resources PTownLaMEN RCountyLaNnd110,000M$42 Tax Credit Equity $3,970,000 $140 Town Financing $8,500,000 $397 Town Permanent $6,150,000 $217 Town/County In $798,000 $37 Loan (Bond) Kind Services* Town/County In $260,000 $9 TOTAL SOURCES $10,188,000 $476 Kind Services TOTAL SOURCES $11,130,000 $393 Source: Town ofBreckenridge,consultant team *In Kind services include waiver of development and building permit fees,water plant investment fees, Upper Blue Sanitation District fees. Does not include town and county staff time toplan and manage the project and secure funding. Revenue Gap Both projects are to be rented at below-market rates. ° Pinewood Village 11 will be rented affordable to households earning 60%or less AK4|. Because this project used L|HTCfinandng, units cannot be leased for higher than this rate. Some L|HTCfinancing will permit mixed-income rentals, with some units rented at market and others affordable at6D96orbelow. Federal financing can help produce needed projects, butdoesrestrict some freedoms with respect toincome levels served. • Huron Landing will berented below market, but above L|HTClimits, for households earning 00%AK4|. The alternative financing structure, using Certificates ofParticipation ([(]P)z permits additional flexibility inthe target income market. ,Certificates ofParticipation ([OP)area lease-financing mechanism where the government enters into an agreement to make regular lease payments for the use of an asset for a set period of time.After that time,the title of the asset transfers back to the government.Since the government can decide,at any time,to discontinue the lease,COPs do not constitute a multi-year fiscal obligation and so can be issued without voter approval. The Town of Breckenridge is using a town owned building to secure Certificates of Participation (COP) in the amount of$8,628,000 with a 20-year term and variable interest rate ranging from 2% 5%.The town will use$8.5 million to construct the project and pay for the cost of issuing the COPs,and can use any excess for other purposes. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|| (B)-6 Part U (B)—Attainable Apartment Case Studies, May 2OI0 Rents will bebelow what ioneeded tocover the costs nfdeveloping the project and make it profitable. This results in a significant revenue gap that must be filled by alternative sources. ° For Pinewood Village ||, Breckenridge must fill afinancing gap ofover $9,000,000. ° For Huron Landing, agap ofover$7,70D,OOOmust befilled. It is clear to see why the private sector does not create this product. Rental revenue received from rents priced affordable for the workforce covers only a snna|| portion of the cost ofdeveloping the project. Gap Between Rents Received d Cost tConstruct ........ Bum Annual Net Operating Income (NOI)— $192,000 $250,000 Rents Received- Loan supported by NOI* $2,000,000 $2,500,000 Total Project Cost $11,130,000 $10,188,000 Project financing gap $9,130,000 $7,700,000 *Assumes atraditional commercial loan with a30year term,5Y6interest rate and debt coverage ratio ofI2:I WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|| (B)-7 Part U [-FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 FRASER HOUSING NEEDS AND DEVELOPMENT STUDY PART NN (C) ~~ FRODO Development Pro Forma TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND K8ETHOQOU0GY.---...-------.---..---..---..-------.---.-' 1 PROFORMA CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................... 2 FRODOPROJECT COSTS/P0R,S&L8RESIDENTIAL PORTION)....................................................................... 2 ATTAINABLEGAP SUMMARY................................................................................................................................... 2 METHODS 70LOWER THE GAP.............................................................................................................................. 3 UNIT PRICES: FR0D0COMPARED TONEW MLS LISTINGS...........................................................................4 PROJECTSUMMARY................................................................................................................ G SOURCES AND USES OFFUNDS................................................................................................ Q SOURCES......................................................................................................................................................................9 OwnerEquity............................................................................................................................................. 9 SolesProceeds.......................................................................................................................................................%0 USES...........................................................................................................................................................................10 loodAm7ubition...................--...........................................--- ..............................-.....-..................12 SoftCosts.............................................................................................................................................................12 BurdCosts---' ........... .....................................................................--......................16 Sales...................................................................................................................................................................-20 Contingency--'-------------------------------------------------%0 GAP(USES MINUS SOURCES)------------------------------------------..28 TRENDS AND PERCEPTIONS....................................................................................................21 LABOR........................................................................................................................................................................21 CONSTRUCTIONCOSTS...........................................................................................................................................21 DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................................31 l0KIND SERVICES_._----_-_._-_._-_._-_._-_._._._._-'--'--'---22 Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 Purpose and Methodology The purpose of this analysis is to help the town of Fraser understand the financial gap that may need to befilled to produce residential units atattainable sale prices tothe local area workforce. This analysis assesses the cost to develop the Downtown Fraser Mixed-Use Block concept (FRODO), which was a design study completed in 2007 for a town-owned and neighboring parcel in downtown. This pro forma presents development costs for the mixed-use FRODO plan, but focuses on the residential for- sale component (19 total units) when discussing the financial gap for producing attainable units. The pro forma provides: * Detailed estimates ondevelopment costs, including land acquisition, construction (hard costs), architecture, planning, and engineering (soft costs), infrastructure and development fees Lo identify the relative contribution of each expense tuthe total cost ofdevelopment; ° Estimated revenues received from selling homes at attainable price points; ^ The financial gap between revenues received and the cost of development; and • Recommendations on development costs that Fraser could consider reducing to lower this gap. This analysis involves several assumptions on development costs, financing terms, sales prices, rents and other inputs. Information was collected through: • Interviews with local and regional developers, construction tradesmen, utility providers, architects, property managers, town ofFraser planners and building officials; ° Research ofFnaser'sDevelopment and Building Codes; and * Secondary data, where available, regarding construction costs and local development requirements. The lowest cost alternative was assumed for several key variables including how the development process will be managed. Relevant assumptions are defined within each section nfthis report. Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 Pro Forma Conclusions FRODO is a complex, dense, infill development incorporating mix of commercial, rental andfopsa|eresidentia| usesandproducttypes (sing|efanni|y, tovvnhonnes, and apartments). The design is varied and would create diversity of product type in the downtown core, but these factors add to the cost of development. Simpler plans that provide one type of residential product are cheaper to build, for example. Under Fraser's development environment, larger lot single family homes can be developed at the lowest cost, which has been the predominate product type developed in Fraser in recent years. FRODO Project Costs (Foy-Sale Residential Portion) The below table shows the estimated costs to develop the 19 for-sale units of FRODO: ^ The total cost todevelop the for-sale portion isestimated tobeabout $D,840,000. This equates Lo $4G5,000per unit nr$375per square foot. ° The largest contributor to this cost is the hard costs (direct materials, labor and site work involved in building the homes). This is an estimated $262 per square foot. FRODO Estimated Development Land Acquisition $540,000 $23 $28,000 Soft Costs $800,000 $34 $42,000 ft Hard Costs $6,190,000 $262 $326,000 F�inancing Costs _ $190,000 $8 $10,000 Sales Costs $300,000 $13 $16,000 Owner's Contingency(10%) $820,000 $35 $43,000 TOTAL USES $8,840,000 $375 $465,000 Attainable Gap summary When homes are sold below-market, as would bethe case for attainable ownership product in Fraser, sale prices for each home will be lower than the cost to construct the home. This results in a gap between the cost to construct and the sale price. In FRODO, this gap ranges between $200,000 to $300,000 per average-sized 1,240 square foot unit based on sale prices attainable to households earning between 60% and 120%AMI. More specifically: WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 ([)—Z Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 * At$375 per square foot to build, the break-even price of each home would be $465,000. ° For units priced affordable to households earning between 100 and 120%AMI ($250,000 sale price), a gap of about $173 per square foot needs to be filled. This equates tnabout $20O,0O0per l,24Osquare-foot unit. ^ The gap rises to $226 per square foot to produce homes for households earning between GOand 8OY6AMI /$16O,UOUsale price\. This equals about $]00,0OOper average-sized home. This significant gap explains why the free market is not producing this type of product attainable to local households in downtown Fraser. F0O0O Gap Summary lip, I Break-even price $465,000 $375 $0 Methods toLower the Gap The below table shows where the town could help fill the financial gap between the cost to construct homes and the attainable sale prices. While these cost-saving measures are specific to FRODO, they could be applied to other developments to help encourage attainable housing. Town waivers and concessions could realize a savings of about $73 per square foot of development, or$91,21lper unit. Components which will result in the most cost- savings, in descending order of their effectiveness, include: ° Donating/purchasing the land ($23per square font); ° VV8iViDgvVGtpr/s2vve[ plant fees ($12 per square fOOt); ^ Selling homes in-house or partnering with Grand County Housing Authority ($12/squarefood; 0 Providing construction financing /$8per square foot) and Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 ° Building duplexes in place nftnvxnhorneo and single family homes ($7 per square foot). Additional cosi-saving considerations which were beyond the scope of this study to quantify include: ° Simplifying the design ofthe project touti|izefevverunittypes, xxhichvvou|d reduce both design and construction costs. ^ Increasing revenue bvselling some homes at market prices, which would reduce the amount of subsidy needed for the remaining attainable homes. With no product comparable to FRODO having been built in Fraser for many years, an assessment is needed tndetermine market prices.' FRODO Methods to Reduce Development Costs (For-Sale Residential Portion) Purchase the land $540,000 $23 $28,421 Waive water/sewer plant fees $289,000 $12 $15,211 Sell units or partner with GCHA $275,000 $12 $14,474 Provide construction financing $180,000 $8 $9,474 Build duplexes to remove fire sprinklers $165,000 $7 $8,684 In kind services* $100,000 $4 $5,263 Install public easement improvements" $60,000 $3 $3,158 Streamline entitlement process $50,000 $2 $2,632 Waive planning/building permit fees $26,000 $1 $1,368 TOTAL POTENTIAL REDUCTIONS $1,733,000 $73 $91,211 NOTE:Totals may differ the sum ufall amounts shown due torounding. * This includes legal,construction material staging,site preparation' hauling ufmaterials,etc. **This includes sidewalks, landscaping,and exterior lighting within the street front easement. Unit Prices: FRKDDO Compared to New IMLS Listings New attached product for sale on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) in March 2016 are listed atprices averaging below the cost todevelop the FR[}OOproject /betvveen $317 to $377per square footi zThe only new attached product in Fraser listed on the MLS for sale in 2O10for over$375 per square foot isatownhomeatAngler's Retreat inRendezvous. Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 This highlights the challenge of comparing developments as they vary by many factors including: location, type ofproduct, target market, site conditions, scope ofproject, size of parcel, uses, and timeline. Factors adding tothe increased cost to develop FRODO compared tVother product Onthe market include: ° Land cost per acre. Prime downtown site; ° Redevelopment. FRODC} requires demolition nfexisting units inaddition tn construction of homes; ° Infrastructure conditions. Utilities need to be grounded and infrastructure upgraded; ° Design costs. FR[}D[) contains amix ofuses (cornnnerda|, apartments, tovvnhonnes, single family), several unique building types and floor plans, and complex code requirements; ° Construction costs. Stacked and attached product, separation ofuses, and complex structural and mechanical systems; ° Constrained site with construction challenges. The site has buried stormwater detention, requires off-site construction storage of materials ("staging"), increased oversight to coordinate trades, and a high water table posing site preparation complexities. The cost for the town to construct also has several costs that either do not affect private developers or that experienced developers may be able to keep in-house, such as: ° Legislative requirements placed on government entities through procurement processes and surety bonds, often called performance z and payment' bonds. Procurement processes add time tothe development process and utilize staff resources. Surety bonds protect the government against contractor default but can cost between 1—3% of the total construction cost; ° Hiring of an owner's representative for project oversight (est. $8.50 per square foot); and ° Hiring of real estate broker to sell units (est. $12 per square foot). ^Aperformance bond guarantees the faithful performance ofthe contract.Should the contractor fail to construct the project per specification,the surety company issuing the bond compensates the client. 3 A payment bond protects certain laborers, material suppliers and subcontractors against nonpayment. Part 11 C—FRODO Development Pro Forma, May 2016 Project Summary A design study was completed in 2007 for a parcel of land located in downtown Fraser, called the Downtown Fraser Mixed-Use Block (FRODO) proje Ct.4 In summary: • The Downtown Fraser Mixed-Use Block (FRODO) project is located on a 1.5-acre downtown site in north Fraser, of which about 0.8-acres is owned by the town (highlighted in green in the below map). The site is framed by US Highway 40, Fraser Avenue, Eastom Avenue and Doc Susie, commanding a visible presence downtown. FRODO Site Fastorn Ave 4125 �;A r 'A 00 10� 'J '11 � X 31 1151 J ZE R,E X ....................................... i" 'S ei'l AV,P:� • As designed, FRODO contains a mix of residential and commercial uses, containing approximately 26 dwelling units and 6,500 square feet of ground floor non-residential space. The residential portion contains a variety of unit types, 4 Reference the"Downtown Fraser Mixed-Use Block Design Study(2007)" by Wolff Lyon Architects for more information. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 (C)—6 Part II C—FRODO Development Pro Forma, May 2016 including duplexes, row houses and single family cottages. Residential units are proposed to include both for-sale and rental product. Unit Mix and Size • Residential Rental Above 7 800 Sq. Ft. commercial For Sale Townhomes, 19 1,100- 1,500 Sq. single family Ft. cottages 1,242 Sq. Ft. Avg. Commercial NA 6 800- 1,200 Sq. Ft. 6,525 Sq. Ft. Total • Three buildings containing commercial on the first level with residential rentals on the second level are proposed (mixed-use portion) on the town-owned portion of the site. • A mix of for-sale single-family and townhome residences are proposed on the other 0.7-acres not yet owned by the town. The approximate net-density of the residential portion of the site is 20 dwelling units per acre. This pro forma summarizes the cost to construct this for-sale residential portion of the development. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 (C)—7 Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 FRO0O Site Plan Iwl Source: Downtown Fraser Mixed-Use Block Design Study(2007)"byWolff Lyon Architects Sources and Uses of Funds Total development costs compared toanticipated revenue from the project istypica||y represented in a Sources and Uses chart, where: ° "Sources" refers tothe monies and revenue received that make aproject feasib|e—the sources of funds. The most common source in residential development is revenue from the sale or rental of the land or unit. Other sources of funds may include donated land, in kind services, grants, long-term loans based onrent revenue, and tax relief, among others. ° "Uses," ordevelopment costs, refers tohow funds are used tobring the project from a concept to the desired level of completion. Uses identifies the costs involved todevelop aproject. Thesecostsxvi|| berefinedandadjusted throughout the development process. The costs associated with the development process are typically separated into the following categories, although the exact terminology and breakdown may vary by region, developer and project: o LandorbsndAcquisitiun—phceofthe |andandaffi|iatedacquisition costs (broker fees, title insurance, inspections, etc.) Part U [-FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 o Soft cosb-architectuna|, engineering, legal, marketing, permitting, finance and project noanagenoent o Hard Costs-site work, utilities, and vertical construction of buildings o Financing-cost 1Oborrow money until units can be built and either sold or rented o Sales/Leasing-advertising, marketing, real estate brokers, and property managers o Contingency-apercentage nftotal development costs Lotake into account unforeseen changes incosts over the duration ofaproject. Each source and use of funds along with associated assumptions is summarized below. Pursuant to the scope of this pro forma, this information is presented for the for-sale residential portion nfFROD0only. Sources The primary sources of funds for FRODO includes owner equity, in this case the town- owned land, and sales proceeds from the sale of homes at attainable prices. Combined, the sources offunds equates to $5,10U,8OO. Sources ofFunds: FRO0O Owner Equity (Town Owned Land) $300,000 Sales Proceeds $4,800,000 SUBTOTAL of Sources $5,100,000 Source: Interviews;consultant team Owner Equity Owner Equity in real estate development represents the owner investment in the project. In this case, owner equity is the value of the land (equity) owned by Fraser (owner). The town purchased 0.8-acres of the FRODO site for$464,000. About 65% of this land will be used for the for-sale residential component. Therefore, the owner equity for the for-sale component isabout $3OO,OOO. Owner Equity in FRO0O Owner Equity(town-owned land) $464,000 $160,000 $300,000 Source:Town nfFraser Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 Sales Proceeds Sales Proceeds are the gross revenue from the sale of the units. In FRODO, it is estimated that sales proceeds would be just under$4,800,000 if all 19 homes were sold atprices attainable tohouseholds earning between 1O096and 12096AK4|. This isbased mnthe following: • The FRODO design includes (9) two-bedroom units and ten (10) three-bedroom homes ranging in size from 1,100 to 1,500 square feet. Units include either one or two garage stalls. The average size of all homes is about 1,240 square feet. ° A two-person household earning the midpoint between 100% and 120%AMI ($68,600 or 110%AIVII) can afford to purchase a home priced at $25 0,000.5 This equates to $202 per square foot of the average-sized 1,240 square foot home in FR[)DO. ° Price points for the two-bedroom and three-bedroom homes range between $222,200 for the smaller 2-bedroom homes up to $303,000 for the larger 3- bedroom homes based on an average sale price of$202 per square foot. Estimated Revenue from Sale ofHomes Attainable to Households Earning Between 100% 1209SAMI: FRO0O 1,100 3 $222,200 2 1,150 6 $232,300 3 1,250 4 $252,500 3 1,350 4 $272,700 Source: Fraser Housing Needs study, FROD0design study,consultant team Uses The primary uses of funds, or development costs, for FRODO include hard costs, soft costs, contingency, land acquisition, sales and financing costs. Total development costs for the for-sale residential portion of FRODO is estimated to be about $8.8 million, with hard costs, soft costs, contingency and land acquisition being the largest contributors. ,AssumeoIO%down'fixedrate30-year|oanat5.5Y6intereot'2O%ofpaymenttoH0A' propertytaxes and insurance for atwo-person household earning 1I0Y6AMI ($68,640) WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 (C)-1O Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 FRODO Uses of Funds ) i 07 _WLandAcqu=iisition $540,000 S ft Costs oft Costs $800,000 Hard Costs $6,190,000 Financing Costs $190,000 Sales/Leasing Costs $300,000 Contingency (10%) $780,000 SUBTOTAL of Uses $8,800,000 Source: Interviews,consultant team Land Acquisition The town owns almost 60% of the FRODO site.To secure the entire site, the town would need to purchase three lots owned by two separate entities, and extinguish the right of way dissecting the site. As shown in the table below: ° The town paid $464,O8Dfor the 0.8 acres that it currently owns. This is the "Owner Equity" inthe Sources table. ° The town needs to acquire three lots assessed at a total value of$366,O0Ofor o total ofabout O7 acres. Total land acquisition costo are, therefore, $830,000. Because the for-sale portion of FR[)O(} is about 65% of the total land area, this equates to land acquisition costs of $540,000. Land Acquisition: Entire FRO0O Parcel 0.84 $464,000* None 315 315 Fraser Ave. 0.50 $153,000 824 sq.ft. Source:County Assessor records;Town ofFraser;consultant team *Represents the price Fraser paid for the lot, not the assessed value. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 (C)-11 Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 Land Acquisition: OFor-Sale MENEEMEMOSER011 Land acqui Source: Consultant team Soft Costs Soft costs refer to expenses that are not considered direct construction costs.These include architectural, engineering, permitting, taxes, insurance, and legal fees. Soft costs are accrued throughout the development process, but are considered front end loaded because they occur atthe beginning ofthe development. Planning and designing the project arothebiggestexpenses, fn||nxvedbyrnanagcnnentoftheprncess and permitting fees. The FRODO Design Study provided a good framework to evaluate soft costs because it defined the scale ofthe project (nurnberofbui|dings, numnberofunits, sizeofunits, height of structures, proposed uses) and general site layout (location in relationship to infrastructure, parking configuration, landscaping, sidevxa|ks). This allowed for specific review of Town of Fraser building and development codes, as well as interviews with design professionals, developers, engineers, insurance companies and legal experts to gather rough estimates onsoft costs. Each soft cost component is described in more detail in the following sections. It is estimated that the soft costs for the for-sale portion of FRC)O[>total just under $8OO,000. Common ways towns may help reduce these costs include: ~ Streamlining the development permitting process, ° Providing legal assistance, ° Dedicating staff tomanage aspects ofthe project ond ° Waiving related fees in return for deed restricted attainable housing. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 (C)-1Z Part II C—FRODO Development Pro Forma, May 2016 FRODO Soft Costs—For-Sale Portion Project Oversight Owner's Representative $200000 $847 $10526 ______________________ i , . , _______ _________ _____ __ ________________ __________________ _____________________ ______ Town Staff(not estimated) $- $- $_ Design Team Architect/ME Engineers $39_0,000 $16.53 $20,526_ Civil Engineer $39,000 $1.65 $2,053 Landscaping $13,000 $0.55 $684 Site Analysis $16,000 $0.68 $842 Traffic Engineer $5,000 $0.21 $263 Survey $10,000 $0.42 $526 --------------------------------------------- Other Professionals $15,000 $0.64 $789 _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.__.._._. Legal _.___$20,000 $0.85 $1,053 Permitting Fees Building Permit Fee $11,300 $0.48 $595 Plan Review Fee $7,000 $0.30 $368 Development Permit Fee $4,600 $0.19 $242 Grading Permit Fee $400 $0.02 $21 Access Permit Fee $500 $0.02 $26 Driveway Permit Fee $100 $0.00 $5 Fire Plan Review Fee $1,300 $0.06 $68 Use Tax (4%) $48,000 $2.03 $2,526 Insurance $18,000 $0.76 $947 Property Tax $- $- $__ Total $799,200 $33.86 $42,063 Sources: Interviews, review of Town of Fraser codes,consultant team. Project Oversight Project oversight will include costs associated with hiring an Owner's Representative and for staff involvement. Estimates have not been provided for the latter, meaning total project oversight estimates are conservative. This pro forma assumes that the town hires an Owner's Representative through a standard procurement process to guide them through and manage the development process. This is a common method used by government agencies in resort communities to provide expert advice on the various facets of an affordable housing development, WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 (C)—13 Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 while representing the owners' inteneSt." Private sector developers typically have the knowledge and skills tonavigate the development process, negating the need for an owner's representative for private development projects. This method reduces project costsbypayingfordeve|operservioesthroughanoxvner's representative, while eliminating developer fees that are commonly 15Y6ofconstruction coats. This can result in substantial cost-savings. For the for-sale portion of FRODO: ° An owner's representative is estimated to cost $200,000. This is based on fees paid for this service in other resort communities and the scope of the project. ° In comparison, a developer fee of 15%of construction costs would be about $1,350,000. ° Therefore, hiring an owner's representative represents a cost savings of about $1.15 million. The planning process includes the design ofthe project torneeta|l |oca| requirennents prior to beginning construction. In Fraser, FRODO is considered a "major proposal" because it is located in the Business zone and includes commercial uses plus more than 3 residential units. The town p|anningprocessrequiresa "nnojorproposa|" tohaveadeve|oprnentperrnitxviththe following elements: ^ Work Session with town Staff ° Planning Commission Hearing, includes Design Review ° Development Permit Issued FR[)DOisalso considered a "major yubdivision" becauseitrequiresasubdivisionof|and with 5 or more townhomes. This town planning process runs in tandem with the "major proposa|" process and requires adherence to the following: ° Sketch Plan approved by town staff with an optional Planning Commission design charrette • Preliminary Plat approved at Planning Commission hearing with on optional Board ofTrustee meeting • Final Plat reviewed at Planning Commission Hearing and approved at Board of Trustees meeting ° Subdivision Improvement Agreement 65ee Part|| (D)Town Development Process and Strategies for more information. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 (C)-14 Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 ° Final Plat Executed � � As-Built P|a. approved by town staff and recorded with County Clerk and Recorder Based on a review of Town of Fraser development codes, interviews with design professionals, and scope ofthe FROD(] project, itisestinoa1edthatitxvou|dtakeabout 1.5 years (18 months) to successfully complete this planning process with all of the associated requirements. Streamlining the entitlement process could reduce design costs by an estimated 10% based on interviews. This could include eliminating the multi-step process for attainable housing projects orreducingapprnva| tostaffandTrusteeson|yofthefino| p|atif preliminary plat conditions are met. Astrearn|ined, one-step process would reduce the number of design team hours needed to prepare development permit documents, create presentation materials and attend multiple public meetings. Permitting Fees The town and Grand County have many development planning and permitting fees, including: ° Building Permit ° Access ° Plan Review ° Driveway � Development Permit " Use Tax ^ Grading * Fire Plan Review and Impact These add over$70,000 to the cost of the Residential Portion of the development. The Use Tax is the largest fee at $48,000 or about $2,500 per unit. An advantage of a government agency owning the land is the automatic exemption from property taxes. Other entities may qualify for property tax exemption, but it is an annual qualifying process. This pro forma assumes town ownership of the land, which eliminates property taxes while planning, designing, and constructing the project, arnountingtoobout $lZ,UO0. rAnos'bui|tp|atisanamendedfina| p|atthatshowsexact|ocationsofaUconstructedpub|icandprivate improvements.This isrequired nftownhomeand condominium projects. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 (C)-15 Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 Hard Costs These development costs are often called "brick-and-mortar," which includes both vertical construction and site work. Vertical Construction The cost nfvertical construction isoften cited asacost per square foot. This can bea nebulous number as there is no standard method used to calculate this figure. Methods vary based on how square feet is measured (gross, net, conditioned space, leasable, garages, porches, etc.) and which costs are included (general contractor overhead, bond, site work, utilities, etc). Final cost per square foot estimates will vary onthe methodology chosen. For FR0U0, construction costs are based on: ° Gross habitable square feet and ° Include General Contractor fees, general contractor contingency, and 100% Performance and Payment Bond. The type and scope ofoproject affectsveriica| constructioncosts. Forexannp}e, the construction of a single-family home on a platted lot takes less supervision and oversight than o 20,000 square foot mixed-use structure with associated infrastructure. Mixed-use and multi-family structures result in more complex systems (mechanical, electrical, Additional Costs vs.Single-Family plumbing, structural), coordination of more (rough estimates) subcontractors, multi-layered building codes, and integration of infrastructure (roads, utility Sprinkler system $7/Sq. Ft. service, fire suppression). This complexity Additional oversight $9/Sq. Ft. increases contractor skills needed and labor Performance & costs. Payment Bond $2/Sq. Ft. Increased General Therefore, the vertical construction cost for a Conditions $18/Sq. Ft. single-family home will generally be lower on a per-square-foot basis than for e multi-family development in a more urban development environment, such osdowntown Fraser. The assumption for vertical construction costs was derived from interviews with local area contractors and developers and the analysis Ofaffordable housing multi-family projects being developed in the Town of Breckenridge: WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 (C)-16 Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 ° Local area professionals estimated vertical "Realistically, we are not able to constructions costs for single-family homes get construction costs below ranged from $150 ' $18Oper square foot. $170-$180 per square foot for ~ The actual hard cost figures for multi- family projects under construction by the Town of Breckenridge range between $227 - $229 per leasable square foot. As these hard costs are quantifiable and consistent with the FROD0project, $227 per habitable square foot is used in the pro forma. FRODO-Vertical Construction Costs (Residential For-Sale Portion) 23,600 4,464 684 28,748 $227 $5,357,000 Source: FR0DODesign Study, Interviews,Consultant Team The square footage of garages and decks on the Residential Portion are not included in this calculation. This isconsistent with the comparable square foot calculation method used by Breckenridge, which is based on leasable square footage and does not include hallways, stairs, orbalconies. Site work Site work involves grading the site, installing utilities, paving roads, etc. As each site is unique, site work costs can vary widely. Estimates for each site work component is provided in the below table. Total site work costs are estimated to be about $831,000 for the for-sale component of FRODO or $43,9UOper unit. The highest cost items include: ° Utility hook upfees for water and sanitary sewer; ° Installation of electrical utility service; ° Demolition of existing structures; ° Construction dewatering (high water table); and ° Asphalt paving. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 (C)-17 Part II C-FRODO Development Pro Forma, May 2016 FRODO Site Costs-For-Sale Residential Portion a Site Preparation Demolition of Structures $60,000 $2.---------------------54 $3,200 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overlot Grading-Site Prep $3,000 $0.13 $158 --------- Utility Hook Up Fees Water Plant Investment Fee $146,000 $6.19 $7,700 Sanitary Sewer Plant Investment Fee $143,000 $6.06 $7,500 Water Meter Fee $16,000 $0.68 $800 Utility Installation Water Service $26,000 $1.10 $1,400_. Electrical Service $130,000 $5.51 $6,800 ---NSewer Service_ _-- $22,000---____--$0.93 $1,200 m--------------------- Manholes $13,000 $0.55 $700 Natural Gas Service/Distribution $13,000 $0.55 $700 Natural Gas Meters $5,000 $0.21 $300 Communications Service $0 $0.00 $0 Storm Water $26,000 $1.10 $1,400 Fire Hydrants $15,000 $0.64 $800 Alley/Parking/Sidewalks-------------------- Alley(Asphalt paving) $45,000 $1.91 $2,400 Parking(16 spaces) $36,000 $1.53 $1,900 Curb and Gutter $16,000 $0.68 $800 Sidewalk/Trail $33,000 $1.40 $1,700 Landscaping $26,000 $1.10 $1,400 Site Lighting $13,000 $0.55 $700 Construction Dewatering $44,000 $1.86 $2,300 TOTAL $831,000 $35.21 $43,900 Sources: Interviews, review of Town of Fraser codes,and consultant team. The FRODO site poses some redevelopment advantages and disadvantages to development. In the context of construction site work, advantages help to reduce needed site work; disadvantages raise site work costs. These include: Site Advantages: • Relatively flat • Surrounded by improved roads • Electric, water, sewer, natural gas are nearby • New exterior street lights installed along Hwy 40 WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 (C)-18 Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 ° Fire hydrants exist nnthe corners nfHwy 4O0' EastonnAvenue and Hwy 40 & Fraser Avenue ^ Town owned land nearby for construction staging w FRODOdeSign minimizes interior roads and curb cuts; maximizes existing roads and on-street parking Site Disadvantages: ° Ground water near surface posing costly measures to prevent infiltration of dean water into the sanitary sewer system (i.e, construction dewatering) ° Above ground electric lines need tobeburied ° Existing sidewalks, curb cuts, roadways and cross walks inconsistent with proposed FR[)D[) design ^ Storm water drainage challenges with potential surface flooding in high snow years and aresult ofirrigation laterals nearby ° Right ofway bisects the site � Water, sewer, electric and storm water systems need upgrading ° Soils may not bestable inthis area, geotechnical evaluation needed ° CDOT access agreement needed—could trigger costly improvements such as turn lanes and atraffic signal ° Infill project. Demolition of existing uses, higher risk of buried objects, upgrading and capping existing utilities, etc. ° Constricted site. Poses challenges with construction staging, avoiding neighbor nuisances, snow storage, utility easements, etc. ° Large number of sidewalks including perimeter and internal Utility Hook UpFees Many communities waive utility hook upfees in return for providing e deed-restricted attainable product for working households. This would help lower the cost per unit by about $16,000. By waiving fees, however, there needs to be alternative means or revenues available tofund water and sewer treatment plants. Utility Infrastructure Utility service cost estimates assumed that existing utility infrastructure would meet the demand needs for FRODO. Interviews, however, indicated that this might not be the case. Working cooperatively with developers and assisting with needed utility upgrades in return for deed-restricted attainable resident housing isan option some communities employ. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 (C)-19 Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 Sales An estimate of$300,000 is needed to cover sales costs for FRODO. This includes real estate brokerage fees, owner's title insurance and standard closing costs. Real estate brokers are generally hired to sell units in market developments. Because the town does not have sales capacity in'house, it is assumed that real estate broker would behired iosell units atFRODO. Brokerage fees make upthe bulk ofthis estimate, with about $275,000 representing an average commission of 5.2%from all sales.8 These costs may be reduced by the town by using a local Housing Authority (e.g., Grand County Housing Authority) or by handling the sales transaction itself. For attainable housing, it will be necessary to qualify buyers and oversee sales beyond the initial sale. Dedicating staff time or forming a long term relationship with other regional sources will be needed. Contingency A 10% contingency for potential cost overruns or unforeseen circumstances is a typical estimate for projects in1heconceptua| designphase, |ikeFRODO. This equates toabout $78O,UO0for the for-sale portion ofFROD(]. As the project progresses,this percentage is typically lowered. Gap (Uses minus Sources) If a development is profitable, then the sources of funds (sale proceeds, rents received, land donation, etc.) will exceed the uses of funds, or cost to construct the project. When developing attainable housing, however, the proceeds received from the development (sources) will typically fall below the cost to develop the project (uses), resulting in a financial gap to produce the units. It is common to have a large financial gap for developments in mountain resorts that exclusively target working households. Comparing the sources of funds to the uses for FRODO shows that funding sources fall short ofconstruction costs by about $3.7 million if all 19 units are priced affordable for households earning between 100% and 120%AMI. If more affordable homes are provided (e.g., for households earning 8OY6AK4|), the gap will belarger; ifsome homes are sold at market prices, the gap will be lower. This gap illustrates the high cost of development in Fraser and shows why the market has not been producing affordable homes for locals. 85nurce: Colorado Association ofRealtors website WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 (C)—ZO Part U [—FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 Gap Between Source and Uses: FRODO For-Sale Portion 7 SU BTOTAL of Sources $5,100,000 ___ 7 SU BTOTAL of Uses $8,800,000 Gap (Uses-Sources) $3,700,000 Source: Consultant Team Trends and Perceptions In compiling this pro forma for FRODO, some trends emerged regarding the development process and perceptions in Fraser. These can be helpful asFraser reviews its development code and programs in light of obtaining more attainable housing in town. Labor A shortage of skilled labor was reported in the region, seen as a result of Denver being busy. This hampers the ability todraw skilled and less expensive construction labor from Denver. General contractors in the mountain region reported recruiting from Denver to Grand Junction. Where workers from other mountain areas may demand lower wages than those from the Front Range, the cost to house the workers locally offsets these potential wage savings. Construction Costs General contractors, developers, and engineers indicated that construction costs are rising from ]96—SY6per year. This isanimportant consideration as construction costs make upalarge portion nfthe total cost ofdevelopment. Development Environment Interviews highlighted perceived anti-development culture in Fraser. This perception was expressed by most of the development professionals that were interviewed, including architects, engineers, developers and others. Comments included costly on- site inspections, high fees, construction standards higher than others in the region and leadership fluctuations creating a confusing and unpredictable entitlement process. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 (C)—Z1 Part U [-FRODODevelopment Pro Forma, May 2OI5 Many felt there is a favorable development potential in Fraser. However, the cultural challenges make some development professionals reluctant to enter the Fraser market, especially with plenty of work available in other areas. In Kind Services There are various miscellaneous methods that the town can assist in reducing the gap in producing housing. They are smaller line items that add up to making a difference and include the following: � Legal assistance ~ Finance department ° Project management � P|anning, building, engineering staff time � Construction and material staging ° Demolition ^ Hauling ortrash and materials ° Landscaping materials from other projects WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. 11 (C)-ZZ Part U (D)—Town Development Process and Strategies, May 2O10 FRASER HOUSING NEEDS AND DEVELOPMENT s"rUDY PART "N (D) — TOWN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND STRATEGIES TABLE OFCONTENTS INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1 REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT—APRIMER................................................................................ 1 STEPS |NTHE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.................................................................................... 2 PRE-DESIGN............................................................................................................................................................... 2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION (PL&0N/NC/PE0Mrr7lm()............................................................................................... 2 CONSTRUCTION....................................................................................................................................................... 3 POST-CONSTRUCTION............................................................................................................................................ 7 UNDERTAKING DEVELOPMENT{jN TOWN-OWNED LAND........................................................ 4 DEFINE PROJECT GOALS........................................................................................................................................... 5 DETERMINE FUNDING SOURCES.............................................................................................................................. 5 DETERMINE 70VY0'sROLE iNDEVELOPMENT.................................................................................................... 6 TownoxDeveloper............................................................................................................................................... 6 TownHiring oDovukpuc—......—................................................................................................ ............ 7 Part U (D)-Town Development Process and Strategies, May 2O10 INTRODUCTION This section introduces and explains the development process as it pertains to developing attainable housing ontown-owned land. It: • Defines the elements involved inthe development process; ° Presents the common roles that government take, discussing models used by the Towns ofBreckenridge and Winter Park asexamples; and ^ Identifies strategies that can be implemented to help facilitate attainable housing development. It is recommended that the town undertake additional research before embarking upon development on its land, including speaking with other communities who have or are undertaking this process, such as the Towns of Breckenridge, Frisco and Winter Park. Real Estate Development — A Primer Real estate development iS3multifaceted business process that typically involves: * Purchasing aparcel ofland, ° Determining the marketability ofthe property, ° Generating the building program and design, ° Obtaining the required public approvals, ° Securing financing, ° Building the infrastructure and structures and ° Renting and managing nrselling the units created. Although the final constructed product is the most visible aspect of development, real estate development is much more than construction. Given the variety of skills necessary to bring a development from conception to completion, real estate developers must coordinate the activities of many disciplines, including: ° Architects, landscape architects, and civil engineers todesign the project; � Market consultants todetermine demand and aproject's econonnics; ^ Attorneys tohandle agreements; ° Land use experts to obtain government approvals; w Environmental consultants and soils engineers tOanalyze asite's physical limitations; ° Surveyors and title companies to provide legal descriptions of a property; WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|| (D)-1 Part U (D)—Town Development Process and Strategies, May 2O10 ° Lenders toprovide financing; � General contractors tomanage construction; ~ Property managers tolease and manage rentals; and ^ Real estate agents to market and sell units. This makes it a complicated process and one that is not easily tackled by those new to the business without expertise unthe development team. Steps in the Development Process The development process can take many years from concept to completion. While any particular project vvi|| haveuniquestepsthatneedtobetaken, therearefourprirnary stages to most every project: 1. Pre-design, Z. Pre-construction (design/permitting), 3. Construction and 4. Post construction. Pre-Design This stage ofdevelopment occurs before investment indesign ofthe project. |tdefines the project parameters that must be met by the design. Pre-design includes: ° Acquiring land, � Establishing project goals, such aywhether units should befor rental or ownership, the desired number and size ofunits, the type ofunits (attached/detached, stacked/side by side) and the target household incomes, ° Performing the initial site assessment (location of utilities, zoning analysis, existing uses, historic uses, topography, type ofsoils, etc.), � Performing financial feasibility analysis (with attainable housing this includes sources ofgap funding, such asL|HTC) and ° Selecting the development team (owner's representative, architect, civil engineer, land use planner, attorney, eic.). Pre-construction (Planning/Permitting) This step includes designing the project andobtaininga|| theperrnitsrequiredto construct as planned. There are generally several progressive steps with the design of a project, which correspond to development permit processes. In conjunction, the budget and schedule are refined.The elements ofpre-construction typically include: WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|| (D)—Z Part U (D)—Town Development Process and Strategies, May 2O10 ° Forming the conceptual design (preliminary site layout, building massing, development code analysis, parking location, access, and neighborhood context), ^ Drafting the schematic design (refinement of site layout, rough utility placement, building footprints, basic floor plans, elevations, parking, vehicle access, pedestrian movements, etn], • Developing the design (refining schematic designs, locating utilities, grading and drainage analysis, elevations with material selection, etc.), ° Creating construction drawings and specifications, ° Bidding tosubcontractors, • Securing permits (federal, state, local requirements including development, building, grading and erosion control, access, etc.) and • Secure construction financing and other funding sources. Construction This is the most visible aspect of development and includes construction of all the infrastructure and buildings. |talso entails managing the construction progress, ensuring the project isbui|ttop|ansandspedfications, andconDrnningthatfundingisavai|ab|e and expenses are tracked. Tasks typically include: 0 Installing utilities: water, sewer, storm water, electric, natural gas, and communications, ° Building roads, parking, sidewalks, and pathways, ° Constructing buildings, ° Completing site work: grading, landscaping, and site lighting ° Reviewing pay applications on a monthly basis and submitting them to the funder for processing and ° Conducting regular progress meetings with the owner, architect, and contractor. Post-Construction Many of these steps or preparation for them take place prior to actual completion of construction and include: ° Securing permanent financing for rental projects, * Managing final inspections and obtaining occupancy permits, ^ Hiring aproperty management company, ° Setting upahomeowners association, ifapplicable, ° Selling nrleasing units and � Responding towarranty claims. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|| (D)—] Part U (D)-Town Development Process and Strategies, May 2O10 For attainable housing projects, itisa|soirnpnrtanttop|an6orthe |nng- errnnversighi and management of these units. Post-construction management of these projects is necessary to retain this public investment and ensure that units produced as attainable remain attainable well into the future for successive 0vvnBr3 and tenants. Every step Of the process can assist in the long term management of the quality and affordability of the units. For example, design considerations can reduce long-term maintenance costs, minimize snow removal costs, decrease tenant complaints, increase occupant satisfaction and create community pride of place. Producing attainable housing takes a significant dedication of resources from government entities, making it important to protect this investment long-term. Undertaking Development on Town-Owned Nand There area wide variety nfmodels available to develop attainable housing on government owned land. This is because of the many variables involved in development, such assite characteristics, desired uses, development codes, market conditions, target households, unit types and uses (ownership or rental) and location. Because not all scenarios can be covered, this section focuses on two of the more common models used bygovernments, including: ° Town hiring the developer. This model turns over more aspects ofthe development to hired experts, requiring less staff time and responsibilities during the development process, but also providing the town with less control over the units (quality, size, amenities). This is the model currently being followed by the Town of Winter Park on the pending development of rental units in its downtown. • Town acting as the developer. This model turns over fewer tasks to private developers and retains design and pricing decisions within the town. This is a model that works well when the community has full-time staff dedicated to development projects andexperiencevviihpr jectirnp|emnentation. TheTovvnmf Breckenridge isfollowing this model for two rental projects currently under development. Regardless of the model chosen, however, there are three steps that are typically taken bythe most successful models. These include: ° Clearly defining project gua|sandobieotives; ° Subsidizing the project throughnnorethanjustthecuntributionufiand; and ° Committing to the on-going oversight of the process to ensure public funds are used asagreed. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|| (D)-4 Part II (D)—Town Development Process and Strategies, May 2016 Define project goals Project goals set the stage for decision- As a city we would have figured out what making throughout the development we wanted first. We got proposals all over process and are integral to evaluate the map—affordable housing, hotel success. Goals help focus the development, development, etc. provide direction to the chosen developer City of Steamboat Springs response to and allow the town to determine whether question on how they would have done the changes to the development will still meet RFP process differently community needs. Having an attainable housing plan in place that defines the overall housing goals for the community can assist with this step by helping the community align the specific project with its stated vision for housing. Project goals define such things as: • The target market (e.g., year-round residents earning about 80%AMI), • Whether ownership or rental units should be built, • The general size of units, • The affordability and livability of units (price points, parking, storage, amenities), • Preferred project density, height, bulk and scale, pedestrian access, and other factors that ensure the project fits within the community and • Project design, material choices, and building components to ensure cost effectiveness as well as suitability in a particular neighborhood. Determine funding sources The FRODO pro forma and apartment case studies for Breckenridge present several funding sources that are available to help subsidize attainable housing development and bridge the gap between the costs to produce housing and returns received from below- market sales prices and rents attainable to working households. Based on project goals, the town can determine the most appropriate funding sources to fill the gap. Common funding sources in resort communities include: • Land donation, • Building and Development Fee waivers, • Waiver of Water and Sewer Plant Investment Fees, • Certificates of Participation, • Low Income Housing Tax Credits (rentals), • Sponsorship of grant/loan applications, • Revenue Bonds, WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part 11 (D)—S Part U (D)—Town Development Process and Strategies, May 2O10 ° Exemptions from Sales, Use and Property Taxes, � Impact Fees, ° Transfer Fees, ° Sales Tax rebates, and � In-Kind Services Uega|, etc.\. Fraser should explore these funding sources and determine which ones it can make available in exchange for the production of attainable housing. Determine Town's Role in Development Real estate development is o complex and continually evolving business. It takes a person that fundamentally understands the many facets of development to manage the performance of the multiple disciplines associated with real estate development and coordinate the development process, including planning, staffing, organizing, budgeting, scheduling, and monitoring. Throughout this process, this person also must continually identify and mitigate inherent risks that can threaten the viability of the project. An Owner's Representative (development professional hired to represent the owner) or a Developer often performs this role. Fraser can choose to hire some or all of the professionals needed to complete an attainable housing project (Sge "Re8lE5tateDgVelOprDgDt—AP[iD1g[" abOvefO[thi5 list). In any scenario, however, the town will have management responsibilities throughout the development process to ensure public funds are used as intended. Considerations in determining the town's role include: 1) Knowledge, experience and skills available in house and those that need to be hired; 2) Level of desired oversight (project design, material choices, sales/rental prices, etc.); and 3) Complexity of the project. The two most common methods used bvmountain resort communities todevelop attainable housing on town-owned land include the town acting as the developer and the town hiring the developer. Town as Developer Under this method, the town appoints o "In addition to saving the money, we also project manager internally and hires an Owner's Representative toguide them high- through the development process, quality units." Laurie Best, Breckenridge Long Range Planner WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|| (D)-6 Part U (D)—Town Development Process and Strategies, May 2O10 including hiring the other development team members. The town retains project decision-making authority and isconsistently updated onprogress. Breckenridge utilizes this method, which is detailed inthe case studies. The FR{)D(] pro forma also assumes this method to estimate soft costs.The advantages to this model include: ° Cost savings because an owner's representative costs less to hire than does paying developer fees (see Section || (C) FRODOPro Forma for more information); ° |tiyamore collaborative process, allowing use ofin-kind services; and ° The public sector has greater control and decision-making capacity over the project, including, for example, the quality ofmaterials, design of units, site planning, mechanical systems and other factors that can affect management costs, community perceptions, project desirabi|ityondnnaintenanceexpenses. The disadvantages tothis model are that: ° |trequires more staff time time tomanage the project; ° It is less suitable for more complex developments with a mix of market uses; and ° The town takes onmore ofthe risk associated with the development. Town Hiring oDeveloper As many smaller municipalities do not have the resources internally to act as the developer orproject noanager, rnanyre|eoseaReques1forProposa|s (RFP) orReques1 for Qualifications (RF[L) to contract for those services. This process typically requires the town to: ° Clearly define project goals; ^ Issue anRFP/RF(}torecruit anexperienced developer; and ° Negotiate mutually-beneficial public-private partnership. Winter Park is using this model with the 5itznnarkdevelopment, which contains mix of uses including attainable and market housing, a grocery story, other retail, and structured parking. Through negotiated contracts, the town has clearly identified what they are contributing tothe project inreturnforthedeve|operde|iveringconnnnunity benefits, including aspecified number ofattainable units. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|| (D)-7 Part U (D)—Town Development Process and Strategies, May 2O10 Advantages with this method include: ° Less staff management ofthe development process, ^ More suitable for complex developments with amix ofmarket uses, w Ability to leverage other uses (retail, restaurant, office, lodging) to off-set attainable housing costs and � Reduces public sector development risk. The disadvantages include: ° Less control over project outconnes, � Limited control over the development timeline, * Higher costs for IUUY6attainable housing projects and ° |tismore challenging tonegotiate beneficial terms tothe community. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part|| (D)—O Part III—Town Land and Housing Resources, May 2016 ERASER HOUSING DEEDS AND DEVELOPMENT T s"r UOY PART 111 - TOWN LAND AND HOUSING RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS TOWN-OWNED LAND.............................................................................................................. 1 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL................................................................................. 3 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND FUNDING......................................................................... 4 WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part III—TOC Part III-Town Land and Housing Resources, May ZO10 Town-Owned Nand The town owns two parcels, comprising about 1.3 acres, on which an estimated 26 units of attainable housing could be built (assuming an average density of20'units per acre). This includes: ° The FROD[) site, sonamed because ofthe Downtown FnaserMixed'Use Block conceptual development design that was developed in 2007. The town-owned portion isalong EastornAvenue and comprises about 0.Oacres. Adensity ofno more than 20-units per acre was recommended for this site in the conceptual design due to construction limitations (high water table) and aesthetics because of its prominent downtown location. This parcel could contain up to 16 units at this density. ° AO.5-acre parcel just southeast ofFROD(}, which could support 10-unitsato density of 20-units per acre. This parcel is relatively flat, has good access to downtown and bordered by some existing residences on Doc Susie Avenue to the west, the Fraser River to the east and storage to the south. WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part III-1 Part III—Town Land and Housing Resources, May ZO10 Vacant Town Land: 2816 Source:Town ofFraser Planning/GIS Dept. 0.8 acres 16 units Town of Fraser Vacant Parcels Vacant PlattecIAS acres; 393 units Vacant Unplatted:1,460 ac�res;�6,000+ units(est.) 0.5 acres 10 units Al '~~ WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part U|-2 Part III—Town Land and Housing Resources, May ZO10 Residential Development Potential Understanding the extent of town buildout can be an important tool for attainable housing planning. Not only can it help identify various strategies that can help the town achieve its attainable housing needs, but it can also help the town track the extent to which goals are being met. Based on vacant parcel data provided by the town, it is roughly estimated that about 7,570 housing units can be built on land currently annexed within town boundaries. This includes already developed lots, approved and platted but unbuilt lots, and unplatted land. Not included in this estimate are the over 1,500 acres lying north and west of town that could potentially beannexed inthe future. Based on these estimates, as of 2016, existing land within the town is only about 15% built out. Another 390 units have been approved, but are not yet built. If all of these units are constructed, which could take five (5) to ten (10) years based on historic building permit activity, Fraser would be only 20% built out. This means that about 8096 of its potential residential density remains to be platted and developed. General Buildout Estimate (2016): Fraser Buildout 7,570 100% Built Units 1,166 15% Platted/unbuilt 95 390 5% Unplatted 1,460 6,010 80% Annexation Potential (est) 1,500+ Not estimated - Source: Town ofFraser Planning/GIS Dept.;Consultant team estimates Platted but unbuilt lots are anticipated to be primarily single-family and townhome/cluplex product, excluding about 35 condominiums at Cozens Pointe. The majority of these lots are part of the Rendezvous and Grand Park developments. Presently, 49% of Fraser's housing units are occupied by local residents. As Fraser builds out, the below table shows how many new units would need to be occupied by locals to retain this ratio: about 190ofthe 39Oplatted lots. Trends identified inthe Housing Needs study show that market development has not been meeting this level of local housing need. More specifically: * Local housing occupancy decreased more than 15 percentage points between 2OOOand 2OlO—from 66Y6to4996local occupancy; WSW Consulting; Navigate' LL[; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part U|—] Part III-Town Land and Housing Resources, May ZO10 ° Only 13% of units built since 2000 are owned by someone with a local address; and ° Only 20% of units on the MLS are priced below $350,000 (i.e., prices at which the majority of locals could afford), almost all of which are condominiums. Example Local OTargets for F Retaining 49%Occupancy All PBu i I d o Mut 3 1 727 3,8.43 7,570 Built Units 574 592 1,166 Platted/unbuilt 192 198 390 Unplatted 2,959 3,051 6,010 Source: US Census;Consultant team estimates Regulatory Requirements and Funding The town has few provisions in place that can help fund or provide attainable housing: ° The town has $135,000 in revenue from an attainable housing impact fee that was inplace inthe early 2OOU's. This fee was repealed inJUU4inpart due tothe concern that persons building housing for locals were being charged the fee. ° Development agreements have thus far been the primary tool Fraser has used to help provide attainable housing. The town has a development agreement as part of the annexation for the Rendezvous Property in 2003 requiring 144 attainable housing units. This agreement isfurther described inthe "Cornerstone Attainable Housing P|on," approved onApril 2O, Z0O5. • Accessory dwelling units (ADIUs) are permitted as a conditional use in several zoning districts (residentia|, mobile home and business). Units cannot exceed 1,200 square feet or 50% of the principal residence, whichever is less. ADUs may not beseparately owned from the principal dwelling. There are neither provisions nor incentives in place to ensure local occupancy or long term rental ofADUs. WSW Consulting; Navigate, LLC; Rees Consulting, Inc. Part III-4 FRASER BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES DATE: August 11, 2021 MEETING: Board of Trustees Regular Meeting PLACE: Fraser Town Hall Board Room and Virtually PRESENT Board: Mayor Philip Vandernail; Mayor Pro-Tem Eileen Waldow; Trustees; Andy Miller, Brian Cerkvenik, Parnell Quinn, Katie Soles and Kaydee Fisher Staff: Town Manager, Ed Cannon; Town Clerk, Antoinette McVeigh; Assistant Town Manager, Michael Brack; Town Planner, Catherine Trotter; Police Chief, Glen Trainor Others: None Mayor Vandernail called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. 1. Rollcall: Mayor Philip Vandernail; Mayor Pro-Tem Eileen Waldow; Trustees; Andy Miller, Brian Cerkvenik, Parnell Quinn, Katie Soles and Kaydee Fisher 2. Approval of Agenda: Trustee Cerkvenik moved, and Trustee Quinn seconded the motion to approve the amended agenda, removing the first Executive Session regarding the Conservation Easement. Motion carried: 7-0. 3. Executive Session: For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) and For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators, under C.R.S. Section 24-6- 402(4)(e). Regarding Litigation. Including Town Attorney Rod McGowan, Town Attorney Kent Whitmer, Town Manager Ed Cannon, Town Clerk Antoinette McVeigh, Assistant Town Manager Michael Brack, Town Planner, Catherine Trotter Trustee Miller moved, and Trustee Cerkvenik seconded the motion to open the Executive Session. Motion carried: 7-0. Trustee Miller moved, and Trustee Cerkvenik seconded the motion to close the Executive Session. Motion carried: 7-0. Attorney's Opinion Required by C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(II)(B). As the attorney representing the Town of Fraser, I am of the opinion that the entire executive session, which was not recorded, constituted a privileged attorney-client communication. Page 2 of 2 Rod McGowan, Town Attorney 5. Adjourn: Trustee Miller moved, and Trustee Waldow seconded the motion to adjourn. Motion carried: 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m. Antoinette McVeigh, Town Clerk FRASER BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES DATE: August 18, 2021 MEETING: Board of Trustees Regular Meeting PLACE: Fraser Town Hall Board Room and Virtually PRESENT Board: Mayor Philip Vandernail; Mayor Pro-Tem Eileen Waldow; Trustees; Andy Miller, Brian Cerkvenik, Katie Soles, Parnell Quinn and Kaydee Fisher Staff: Town Manager, Ed Cannon; Town Clerk, Antoinette McVeigh; Marketing and Economic Development Manager, Sarah Wieck; Assistant Town Manager, Michael Brack; Public Works Director, Russell Pennington; Town Planner, Catherine Trotter; Finance Manager, Beth Williams; Wastewater Superintendent, Adam Cwiklin; Police Officer, Donnie Ransom Others: See attached list Mayor Vandernail called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1. Rollcall: Mayor Philip Vandernail; Mayor Pro-Tem Eileen Waldow; Trustees; Andy Miller, Brian Cerkvenik, Katie Soles, Parnell Quinn and Kaydee Fisher 2. Approval of Agenda: Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Miller seconded the motion to approve the amended agenda, the executive session will be moved to #7 after Updates. Motion carried: 7-0. 3. Consent Agenda: a) Minutes August 4, 2021 Trustee Waldow moved, and Trustee Miller seconded the motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion carried: 7-0. 4. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding_ a) Xcel Energy Update Iffie Jennings and Kelly Flannigan Presented to the Board. Xcel hopes to have the new gas lines installed by November 2021. At this time, they will review current contracts and future services. They will try to meet current demand without the use of compressed natural gas trucks in the Town of Fraser. b) Project N Update Andrew Stewart and Jim McLaughlin from Merrick presented to the Board. C) Resolution 2021-08-02 Adopting Water Master Plan Page 2 of 3 Wastewater Superintendent Adam Cwiklin gave a presentation regarding the current and future water rights and needs to the Board. Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Miller seconded the motion to approve Resolution 2021-08-02 Adopting Water Master Plan, the Town of Fraser Water Supply Report June 2020 as presented in the packet. Motion carried: 7-0. d) Moltz Settlement The Joint Facilities project is complete. There is a dispute regarding a payment between contractors which Moltz will resolve and finalize the contract. e) Historic Church Remodel Update Marketing and Communications Director Sarah Wieck presented a rendering of the possible remodel for the Fraser Historic Church. 5. Open Forum: a) Mike Ziehler regarding Muse Dr. b) Mayor Vandernail regarding the weigh station at CR 8 and HWY 40. TM Cannon will contact CDOT regarding this. C) Trustee Miller regarding wages for current and future town staff. 6. Updates a) NWTPR Project Priority Trustee Cerkvenik will attend the next meeting on September 30 with TM Cannon to press for Fraser Valley projects to be a priority. Trustee Quinn exited the meeting at 7:00 p.m. 7. Executive Session: For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) and For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators, under C.R.S. Section 24-6- 402(4)(e). Regarding Litigation. Including Town Attorney Rod McGowan, Town Attorney Kent Whitmer, Town Manager Ed Cannon, Town Clerk Antoinette McVeigh, Assistant Town Manager Michael Brack, Public Works Director Russell Pennington, Town Planner, Catherine Trotter Trustee Cerkvenik moved, and Trustee Soles seconded the motion to open the Executive Session Trustee Cerkvenik amend the motion to include Town Planner Catherine Trotter, amended motion approved by Trustee Miller at 7:20 p.m. Motion carried: 6-0. Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Cerkvenik seconded the motion to close the Executive Session at 8:41 p.m. Motion carried: 6-0. Page 3 of 3 Attorney's Opinion Required by C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(II)(B). As the attorney representing the Town of Fraser, I am of the opinion that the entire executive session, which was not recorded, constituted a privileged attorney-client communication. Rod McGowan, Town Attorney 8. Adjourn: Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Waldow seconded the motion to adjourn. Motion carried: 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Antoinette McVeigh, Town Clerk FRASER BOARD OF TRUSTEES MINUTES DATE: August 25, 2021 MEETING: Board of Trustees Regular Meeting PLACE: Fraser Town Hall Board Room and Virtually PRESENT Board: Mayor Philip Vandernail; Mayor Pro-Tem Eileen Waldow; Trustees; Andy Miller, Brian Cerkvenik, Katie Soles and Kaydee Fisher Staff: Town Manager, Ed Cannon; Town Clerk, Antoinette McVeigh; Assistant Town Manager, Michael Brack; Town Planer, Catherine Trotter Others: None Mayor Vandernail called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1. Rollcall: Mayor Philip Vandernail; Mayor Pro-Tem Eileen Waldow; Trustees; Andy Miller, Brian Cerkvenik, Katie Soles and Kaydee Fisher 2. Approval of Agenda: Trustee Soles moved, and Trustee Waldow seconded the motion to approve the agenda. Motion carried: 6-0. 3. Executive Session: For a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) and For the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators, under C.R.S. Section 24-6- 402(4)(e). Regarding Litigation. Including Town Attorney Rod McGowan, Town Attorney Kent Whitmer, Town Manager Ed Cannon, Town Clerk Antoinette McVeigh, Assistant Town Manager Michael Brack, Town Planer Catherine Trotter Trustee Cerkvenik moved, and Trustee Soles seconded the motion to open the Executive Session at 6:03. Motion carried: 6-0. Trustee Cerkvenik moved, and Trustee Miller seconded the motion to close the Executive Session at 7:12. Motion carried: 6-0. Attorney's Opinion Required by C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(d.5)(II)(B). As the attorney representing the Town of Fraser, I am of the opinion that the entire executive session, which was not recorded, constituted a privileged attorney-client communication. Rod McGowan, Town Attorney Page 2 of 2 5. Adjourn: Trustee Miller moved, and Trustee Soles seconded the motion to adjourn. Motion carried: 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:13 p.m. Antoinette McVeigh, Town Clerk KBZINVESTMENTS, LLC May 26,2021 Town of Fraser—Town Manager 153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 RE: Workforce Housing Proposal 461 Muse Drive Fraser,Colorado 80442 Dear Mr. LaVanchy, It was a pleasure speaking with you a few weeks ago. As discussed, the lack of affordable workforce housing continues to be a critical challenge in the Fraser Valley. With rapidly rising housing prices and rents, local businesses are struggling to find employees to serve residents and visitors. This is a common problem in mountain communities and is negatively impacting the quality of life for the already limited Fraser workforce. It is apparent that these affordable housing issues are now forcing workers to move out of the Fraser Valley which is likely to worsen unless action is taken. It is our understanding that the Town of Fraser has introduced a voluntary deed restriction program, intended to mitigate these issues, and we would like to help. Please find below a number of possible project concepts for the aforementioned site which will likely require varying degrees of support and approval from the Town of Fraser. To begin, the lot is approximately 0.47 acres (20,473 sf) in the Low Density Multi-Family (LDMF) district which as currently zoned could accommodate up to six (6) single family-attached or multi-family dwellings. Our current building concepts would entail two (2) separate townhome buildings (29'-8" x76'footprints), with a common drive lane and parking area down the middle of the lot. The building footprints would not change based upon the number of approved dwellings, rather the size of the individual units and possibly the required parking spaces. All open space, landscaping and snow storage requirements will be met. Please reference the attached preliminary site plans for clarification. Project Design Concepts A. The first design concept could entail two (2) tri-plex buildings, three (3) stories tall with four (4) bedrooms, three and one-half (3%) bathrooms and an attached two (2) stall garage. Each dwelling would be approximately 2,255 square feet and the standard parking requirement for this design would be twelve(12) spots, provided by the attached garages. This six(6)dwelling,twenty-four(24) bedroom concept would conform with the current LDMF district standards, however townhomes of this size are selling for approximately $800,000 on the open market which is well outside the affordable workforce housing profile. B. The second design concept could entail two (2) tri-plex buildings, two (2) stories tall with three (3) bedrooms and two and one-half (2%) bathrooms. Each dwelling would be approximately 1,503 square feet and the standard parking requirement for this design would be twelve (12) spots, provided by surface paving. This six (6) dwelling, eighteen (18) bedroom concept would conform with the current LDMF district standards, however townhomes of this size are selling for approximately $600,000 on the open market which again is outside the affordable workforce housing profile. C. The third design concept could entail two (2) four-plex buildings, two (2) stories tall with two (2) bedrooms and two and one-half (2%) bathrooms. Each dwelling would be approximately 1,127 square feet and the standard parking requirement for this design would be twelve (12) spots, provided by surface paving. This eight (8) dwelling, sixteen (16) bedroom concept would require an increase in density approval from the Town of Fraser. Townhomes of this size are selling for approximately $450,000 on the open market which is the upper end of the affordable workforce housing profile. D. The fourth design concept could entail two (2) five-plex buildings, two (2) stories tall with two (2) bedrooms and one and one-half(1%) bathrooms. Each dwelling would be approximately 901 square feet and the standard parking requirement for this design would be fifteen (15) spots, provided by surface paving. This ten (10) dwelling, twenty (20) bedroom concept would require an increase in density approval from the Town of Fraser. Townhomes of this size are selling for approximately $370,000 on the open market which is within the affordable workforce housing profile. E. The fifth design concept could entail two (2) four-plex buildings, two (2) stories tall with a combination of two (2), three (3) bedroom, two and one-half (2%) bathroom units along with two (2),two(2) bedroom,one and one-half(1%) bathroom units. Each dwelling would be approximately 1,246 and 1,009 square feet, respectively, and the standard parking requirement for this design would be fourteen (14) spots, provided by surface paving. This eight (8) dwelling, twenty (20) bedroom concept would require an increase in density approval from the Town of Fraser. Townhomes of this size are selling for approximately $500,000 and $415,000, respectively, on the open market which is the upper end of the affordable workforce housing profile. Design Concept Summary • Concepts A & B are the only designs currently allowed in the LDMF district yet are the least affordable for Fraser Valley workforce. • Concept A will yield the largest building volume (3 stories) and highest density of bedrooms (24) which,consequentially,could result in the most vehicular traffic. • From a real estate development standpoint, Concept A is the most desirable as it will yield the most sales revenue ($4.8M) and have the lowest associated fees (water/sewer tap, fire, subdivision and school fees)yet will be the least affordable for Fraser Valley workforce. • Concepts B though E should yield approximately the same sales revenue ($3.6-3.7M)yet Concepts C & E will require an additional $30,400 and Concept D $60,800 in water/sewer tap fees. Due to the increased number of water and sewer lines installed, the construction costs will also be more expensive for these concepts. • Concepts B though E will also likely require additional fire,subdivision and school impact fees. • Concept D is the most affordable workforce housing design due to the smaller unit size yet will require the biggest dwelling density increase approval from the Town of Fraser. • The parking, open space, landscaping and snow storage requirements can be met for all design concepts. 2 Existing Neighborhood The existing character of Muse Drive is predominantly two-story, single family-attached dwellings. Design Concepts C-E fit this profile and are more affordable for the Fraser Valley workforce. 186 ""'Illlllllq!!!I,Illll711illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Ilu 111111111 Id 111111 I I YII 11 I auryuXi�r' I� .�1 471 Muse Drive was recently completed and includes six (6) dwelling units, each three (3) stories tall with approximately 2,383 square feet. This product is similar to our Design Concept A which would have the largest building volume, highest density of bedrooms and would be the least affordable for Fraser Valley workforce. Without town approvals and incentives, this is the type of product which will likely continue to be built in the LDMF and other districts. IIII ��($�VN( ��.��yIIIIIf��NIIIIININ�� °°""° I'I'""''u�� ll''�III�'I'luul'�Iplllllrllllullllllllllllllll gll IIIII uu N��,IIIIIIIIII�� 1111111,;;M�';P;;;CIN,�III;gIgI1l ��j� II IIII \ ml iiiimvvvvvvvv411!!!!!!,,,,,, n „,,,, II««u611Vlllllllllllp I V1„\Ih` 1611�I,,111\�iliii�Yl��lll'I�jj11111 0\ �lu\0\\0111111� Im�� ull` � �IIIII I p1111114imlumullullai111 ��,,,,,,uumuu ��II llluuuuutlllllllllllllluuuul I ��III��Yl��I� \�\� 1111;1�i 01�I�I� i^JNhr �ti"Ip10r��111P II I"I�uuuul � . ,; , ,,,,°'�hVI�1�,Illlllm�o��!��I�Iu111��P��;lil��""IIIIIII�iPIIPliilllliii��lilll��j!��Iiii��M�ll��iliilii�iil"iii�illiiiillPlr�1111��1�11141111111IIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIPII�llllll �m11, lnuuuuloiullllllluullluuul dm �IIIIIII, ” I� 1. IIII Workforce Housing Discussion During our recent project exploration, we discovered that there are no workforce housing units currently enrolled in the Fraser Deed Restriction Program. This leads to the very important question of"why?" Further investigation into these affordable housing matters revealed that even though the program does not specifically cap property values and appreciation, local workforce income does, naturally restricting the current purchase price to approximately$450,000 or under and 20%below market value. Furthermore, it is our understanding that the Town of Fraser has offered approximately $12,500 per workforce bedroom in the past. To be candid,this incentive alone is far below the amount needed for property owners and real estate developers to take on the additional risk of a greatly reduced buying pool, loss of property value and potential short-term rental income. Notwithstanding, we are seeking a partnership with the Town of Fraser to begin addressing this critical issue before the situation becomes even worse. 3 Private/Public Partnership We feel compelled to work toward workforce housing solutions, rather than our company moving forward with yet another real estate project which will be unobtainable for local workforce. We understand the Fraser Deed Restriction Program is relatively new with limited funds, however, in order to achieve a private/public partnership, we would like to propose the following: In exchange for deed restrictions, in perpetuity, on a mutually agreed upon design concept, we seek the following approvals and incentives from the Town of Fraser: • Dwelling density increase to reduce the individual unit size for workforce affordability. • $12,500 per bedroom provided. • Waived water/sewer tap fees. • Waived fire and school impact fees. • Waived variance,subdivision, planning review and building department permit fees. Other than the aforementioned per bedroom incentive, the density increase and waived fees should not cost the Fraser Deed Restriction Program any additional money and will still allow other properties to enroll, if presented. We appreciate your time and consideration on this matter and sincerely look forward to working with the Town of Fraser. King Regards, Michael Ziehler, PE Kristina Ziehler, PMP, MPH KBZ Investments, LLC Member KBZ Investments, LLC Member 4 SNOW 5TORASE ua AMR low mo my �. my i � wrxa�naavae aCrnraaaY LOT OOVERME i ua AM I I I I AL I I I I M I I I i •� I •� i •. i •• i I i i 46 �d I i 62 FROMM) wr. war. FVALIWAWMFLMD SNOW 5TORASE ua AMR low mo my �. my j � wrxa�naavM arnraaar LOT OOVERME j LML AM I I I I ,M :. I I -wg�..�� j air I I I ,fit I I I 1 t I 4611 G / AMM SPACES I % I %62 FROMM) �' I I // IaY,5'w a�iTiw ' aaILIw Tar. NALI6WVMFL M6 SNOW 5TORA6E ua AMR low mo low �. we j \ wrxa�naawe �frlasr \ LOT GONERA6E j \ ua AM MopI 461 mvae I I I I � Iafonmf I I a�w I I '\ I '\ I ?ffSf" •\'\ I '\ I ( I IM PAM*�p / ns PROYM) % I % I % I /* %9x I // I M4 1ftl/OOH fftl1.— I fffl�ffl ' FVALIWAWMFLMO SNOW 5TORASE ua AMR low mo low rk. my j � wrxa�naavae awt�waY LOT OOVERME j LML AM I AL I I I I I I I I ,fit I I ARL �•� I 1 t I 4611 DRI _14 / I % AMM SPACES 64 FROMM) I I // A / A i i FVALIWAWMFLMS i i IMP „„ w,p rypvpv„p uuy,�wur a r COILORADO MEMO TO: Mayor Vandernail and the Board of Trustees FROM: Michael Brack, Assistant Town Manager DATE: September 1, 2021 SUBJECT: Financial Update on The Drop MATTER BEFORE BOARD: Provide financial update on The Drop, Fraser's Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) trash and recycling facility. BACKGROUND: Earlier this year, the Town Board asked about financial status of The Drop and if the disposable bag fees were anticipated to cover the gap in cost to fully fund operations for The Drop following the reinstatement of the disposable bag fee on May 1, 2021. As of the end of July 2021, expenses and revenues are as follows: PAYT Trash Bag Sales and Donations: $33,871.25 Cost to Operate the Drop (labor, service, maintenance): $43.058.30 Surplus/Deficit: ($ 9,187.05)- 79% Cost Covered Disposable Bag Fee Revenue (May 1-July 31): $ 7.136.76 Remaining Deficit: ($ 2,050.29)- 95% Cost Covered The remaining $2,050.29 deficit is nominal. Staff are confident that the disposable bag fee revenues will end up covering any deficit by the end of the year and provide surplus funds to contribute to other sustainability initiatives. Additionally, expansion of The Drop is anticipated for completion by July 2022 and will double the capacity for the facility and lower operating costs. Current operating costs are high due to reliance on 30-yard roll offs which are about five times more expensive than having the additional space for five 6-yard dumpsters. This expansion will lower the facility's operating cost, accommodate current and future capacity requirements and programs, and contribute to the continued success of this waste diversion sustainability initiative. Increases in operating expenses reflects the abundance in use in the pay-as-you-throw trash and single stream recycling initiatives and is a great indicator of shared community goals to recycling more and dispose of less waste. u NI,,.,P A "o6 r'i ° c.wp e d TOWN OF FRASER BOARD OF TRUSTEES Resolution No. 2021-09-01 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR ELK CREEK MEADOW AND COZENS MEADOW BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO, THAT: 1. The Board of Trustees hereby approves the terms of the Deed of Conservation Easement for Elk Creek and Cozens Meadows, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. The Mayor is authorized to execute such Deed of Conservation Easement upon receipt of a copy signed by the Grantor, Grand Park Development, LLC. READ, PASSED ON ROLL CALL VOTE, AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES THIS day of , 2021. Votes in favor: BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Votes opposed: TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO Absent: Abstained: BY: Mayor ATTEST: ( SEAL ) Town Clerk -1- DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT [Elk Creek and Cozens Meadow] THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT ("Deed") is granted on this day of ,2021,by GRAND PARK DEVELOPMENT LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Grantor"), whose address is P.O. Box 30, Winter Park, Colorado 80482, to TOWN OF FRASER ("Grantee"), whose address is P.O. Box 370, Fraser, Colorado 80442. (Grantor and Grantee are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties".) RECITALS: A. Description of Property. Grantor is the sole owner in fee simple of approximately acres of land, located in Grand County, State of Colorado, more particularly described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, both attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Property"). B. Qualified Organization. Grantee is a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado and qualified to be the holder of a conservation easement interest under C.R.S. § 38- 30.5-104(2). C. Conservation Values. The conservation purposes of the conservation easement conveyed by this Deed are set forth in Recitals C,D and E,and are collectively referred to hereafter in this Deed as the "Conservation Values." The Conservation Values as defined herein include the Conservation Values as they exist on the Effective Date (defined below) and as they may evolve in the future based on changes in the ecological conditions of the Property. 1. Public Recreation and Education. The Property is in a predominantly natural condition and features meadows, wetlands, ponds, waterways and riparian areas. The Property includes public trails that will provide access to the Property for recreation of the general public for hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, horseback riding, fishing, wildlife viewing, photography and other similar passive recreational activities. The Property's wildlife habitat can also provide opportunities for interpretive activities and for education of the public about the environment, geology, and wildlife. 2. Relatively Natural Habitat. Elk Creek and Leland Creek traverse the Property and include surrounding riparian areas. The Property also contains wetlands, riparian areas and open meadows. The wildlife habitat on the Property provides food, shelter, breeding ground, and migration corridors for several wildlife species, including deer and moose. The Property contributes to the ecological viability of the Arapaho National Forest. 3. Open Space. The Property is being preserved for the scenic enjoyment of the general public and pursuant to a clearly delineated federal, state or local governmental conservation policy(set forth in Recitals D and E below) and will yield a significant public benefit. Page I a. Scenic Enjoyment. The Property contains a beautiful view of meadows, riparian areas, wetlands and Leland Creek and Elk Creek. A large portion of the Property is visible to the general public from U.S. Highway 40, Old Victory Road and Grand Park Drive, which are open to and actively utilized by residents of the Town of Fraser. b. Significant public benefit. There is a foreseeable trend of intense development in the Town of Fraser, including in the Grand Park and Rendezvous developments adjacent to the Property currently and into the near future. There is a strong likelihood that development of the Property would lead to or contribute to degradation of the scenic and natural character of the area. Preservation of the Property will continue to provide an opportunity for the general public to appreciate its scenic values. C. Clearly Delineated Government Conservation Policy. Protection of the Property furthers the specific objectives of those clearly delineated government conservation policies set forth in Recitals D and E below. These Conservation Values are of great importance to Grantor, Grantee, the residents of Grand County, and the State of Colorado. D. State Policy Concerning Conservation Easements. C.R.S. § 33-1-101, provides in relevant part that"it is the policy of the state of Colorado that the wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of this state and its visitors." C.R.S. § 35-3.5-101 states in part that"it is the declared policy of the state of Colorado to conserve,protect, and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural land for the production of food and other agricultural products." C.R.S. § 38-30.5- 102 provides for the creation of conservation easements to maintain land "in a natural, scenic, or open condition, or for wildlife habitat, or for agricultural, horticultural, wetlands, recreational, forest or other use or condition consistent with the protection of open land, environmental quality or life sustaining ecological diversity . . ." E. Other Supporting Government Policy. The Amended and Restated Annexation Agreement for the Rendezvous Property (the "Annexation Agreement") recorded at Reception No. 2003-0167333 of the Grand County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder's Office (the "Records"), requires that the Property be encumbered by this Deed. F. Baseline Documentation Report. In order to document the condition of the Property as of the Effective Date (defined below), a report will be prepared by Grantee within six (6) months after the Effective Date and dated as of the Effective Date (the "Baseline Report"). The Baseline Report will contain a natural resources inventory and also document the Conservation Values and the characteristics, use, and status of improvements on and development of the Property. The Baseline Report will be acknowledged by Grantor and Grantee as an accurate representation of the Property as of the Effective Date, and a copy of the Baseline Report will be kept on file in the offices of both Grantor and Grantee. The Baseline Report will be provided to both parties and will be used by Grantee to assure that any future changes in the use of the Property will be consistent with the terms of this Deed. However, the Baseline Report is not intended to Page 2 preclude the use of other evidence to establish the condition of the Property as of the Effective Date. Both Parties may agree to update the Baseline Report at any time,provided that any change in condition to the Property from the time of the original Baseline Report is described in detail in the update. G. Conveyance of Conservation Easement. Grantor intends to create a conservation easement pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 38-30.5-101, et seq., which conveyance Grantor acluiowledges shall not be a charitable gift but is conveyed as required by the Annexation Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals set forth above, incorporated herein by this reference, and the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions contained herein, and pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado, Grantor voluntarily grants and conveys to Grantee and Grantee voluntarily accepts, a perpetual conservation easement in gross ("Easement"), an immediately vested interest in real property defined by C.R.S. §§ 38-30.5-101, et seq., and of the nature and character described in this Deed, for the purpose of preserving and protecting the Conservation Values in perpetuity. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Easement is to ensure that Grantor preserves and protects in perpetuity the Conservation Values, in accordance with C.R.S. §§ 38-30.5-101, et seq. ("Purpose"). To effectuate the Purpose of this Easement, the Parties agree: (i) to permit those uses of the Property that are expressly permitted by this Easement, subject to any limitations or restrictions stated herein, and those uses of the Property that do not materially adversely affect the Conservation Values, as determined by Grantee subject to Section 16 (Grantor's Notice) and Section 17 (Grantee's Approval), and (ii) to prevent any use of the Property that is expressly prohibited by this Easement or that will materially adversely affect the Conservation Values, as detennined by Grantee subject to Section 16 (Grantor's Notice) and Section 17 (Grantee's Approval). Nothing in this Easement is intended to compel a specific use of the Property, such as agriculture, other than the preservation and protection of the Conservation Values. 2. Rights of Grantee. To accomplish the Purpose of this Easement,this Deed conveys the following rights to Grantee, its employees and its representatives: A. To preserve and protect the Conservation Values in perpetuity; B. To enter upon the Property at reasonable times to monitor Grantor's compliance with and otherwise enforce the terms of this Easement; provided that prior to such entry, Grantee shall first provide reasonable notice to Grantor, and Grantee shall not unreasonably interfere with Grantor's use and quiet enjoyment of the Property; C. To prevent any activity on or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the Purpose or the express terms of this Easement and, except as limited by Section 7 (Responsibilities of Grantor and Grantee Not Affected), Grantee may require the restoration of such areas or features of the Property that are damaged by an inconsistent activity or use to the Property's condition at the Effective Date as documented by the Baseline Report (defined below) and any update thereto, provided, however that if the condition of the Property immediately prior to the damage was materially improved as Page 3 compared to the condition of the Property at the Effective Date, Grantor shall restore the Property to its condition immediately prior to such damage; D. To access the Property in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.11 (Rights of Grantee), including vehicular,pedestrian or equestrian access, or using imagery captured by airplane flyover, satellite, drones or other electronic devices, as necessary or appropriate to exercise Grantee's rights hereunder, over and across any property and all rights-of-way and roads owned by Grantor or over which Grantor has or shall have rights of access to the Property. Grantee may use snowmobiles, ATVs, motorcycles or other motorized vehicles to conduct monitoring but shall do so subject to the same limitations as applicable to Grantor; E. To receive notice, in the same manner and form as Grantor, of the exercise by others of rights-of-way, easements, mineral rights and condemnation; F. To enforce the terms and provisions of this Easement; and G. All Development Rights as defined in Section 23.11 (Development Rights). Nothing in this Section shall preclude the right of Grantee to enforce the preservation and protection of the Conservation Values or any other provisions of this Easement. 3. Rights Retained by Grantor. Subject to the terms and provisions of this Easement, Grantor reserves to Grantor, and to Grantor's successors and assigns, all rights accruing from Grantor's ownership of the Property, including: (i)the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the Property that are expressly permitted by this Easement, subject to any limitations or restrictions stated herein, and those uses of the Property that are not prohibited by this Easement and that do not materially adversely affect the Conservation Values; and(ii)to retain the economic viability of the Property and to retain income derived from the Property from all sources. Grantor may not, however, exercise these retained rights in a manner that is expressly prohibited by this Easement or that materially adversely affects the Conservation Values. 4. Property Improvements. Grantor shall not construct any buildings or other improvements (collectively, "Improvements") on the Property except as expressly perrnitted in this Easement. Improvements existing as of the Effective Date, as described below and in the Baseline Report, are permitted, and Grantor may maintain, repair, replace and reasonably enlarge (subject to square footage limitations set forth below) such Improvements in their current locations without Grantee's approval. Grantor reserves the right to constrict or place only the new Improvements listed below, and Grantor shall provide prior notice of such construction to Grantee in accordance with Section 16 (Grantor's Notice) to allow Grantee to update its records. Once constructed,Grantor may maintain,repair,replace and reasonably enlarge such new Improvements in their initially-constructed locations without Grantee's approval. The following Improvements shall be permitted anywhere on the Property, subject to the limitations set forth in this Deed: fences, benches, wildlife viewing platforms, water lines, water wells, ditches, drainage and detention facilities, water storage facilities, underground utilities, Roads (defined below), Trails (defined below), information kiosks, trail markers and trash receptacles. Page 4 A. New Improvements. Grantor may construct,install,and place the following Improvements on the Property, only after the design, specific location and size of such Improvements are approved by Grantee. B. Roads and Trails. For purposes of this Section, "Roads" shall mean any permanent road that is graded,improved or maintained,including any seasonal unimproved roads and two-track roads. "Trails" shall mean any unimproved or improved path, or paved or unpaved trail constructed or established by human use, but shall not include trails established by wildlife, which are permitted but may not be improved or enlarged or used for public access to the Property unless otherwise approved by Grantee in accordance with Section 16 (Grantor's Notice) and Section 17 (Grantee's Approval). Grantor may construct Roads or Trails only in the manner permitted below and only after providing notice to Grantor in accordance with Section 16 (Grantor's Notice). i. Roads. Grantor shall not maintain, construct or establish Roads on the Property except for those existing Roads depicted on Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof, or such other Roads approved by Grantee pursuant to Sections 16 (Grantor's Notice) and 17 (Grantee's Approval). ii. Trails. Grantor may maintain the existing Trails identified on Exhibit C, including mowing the Trails and cutting back encroaching vegetation. Grantor shall not construct or establish any new Trail on the Property unless approved by Grantee pursuant to Sections 16 (Grantor's Notice) and 17(Grantee's Approval). C. Fences. Grantor may repair and replace existing fences and construct new fences anywhere on the Property, provided that the location and design of fences shall be constructed in such a manner as to permit the movement of wildlife across the Property consistent with standards approved by Colorado Parks and Wildlife ("CPW") and the Purpose. Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that as of the Effective Date, the fencing on the Property does not meet the requirements of this Section. Within six (6) months after the Effective Date, Grantor shall add wildlife crossing areas or breaks within the fencing, based upon consultation with CPW, to comply with the requirements of this Section. D. Utility Improvements. Existing energy generation or transmission infrastructure and other existing utility Improvements, if any, including but not limited to: (i) natural gas distribution pipelines, electric power poles, transformers, and lines; (ii) telephone and communications towers, poles, and lines; (iii) septic systems; (iv) water wells, water storage and delivery systems; and (v) renewable energy generation systems including, but not limited to, wind, solar, geothermal, or hydroelectric ("Utility Improvements"), may be repaired or replaced with an Improvement of similar size and type at their current locations on the Property without further permission from Grantee. New Utility Improvements may only be constructed on the Property, subject to the restrictions below and provided that they are consistent with the Purpose. i. Requirements. Grantor shall not enlarge any existing Utility Improvements or construct any new Utility Improvements on the Property without Page 5 Grantee's approval pursuant to Sections 16 (Grantor's Notice) and 17 (Grantee's Approval). ii. Additional Requirements. Following the repair or replacement, or the permitted and approved enlargement or construction of any Utility Improvements, Grantor shall promptly restore any disturbed area to a condition consistent with the Purpose. Any easement, right of way or other interest granted to a third party or otherwise reserved,to be used for Utility Improvements is subject to Section 6.K (Easements, Rights of Way or Other Interests). 5. Resource Management. To accomplish the preservation and protection of the Conservation Values in perpetuity, Grantor shall operate, manage and maintain the Property in a manner that promotes the continued viability of the natural resources on the Property while maintaining any permissible productive uses of the Property, subject to the provisions of this Section 6. Specifically, Grantor shall conduct the uses listed below in a manner consistent with the Purpose. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantor and Grantee recognize that changes in economic conditions, in agricultural technologies, in accepted farm,ranch and forest management practices, and in the situation of Grantor may result in an evolution of agricultural, silvicultural, and other uses of the Property, and such uses may be permitted if approved by Grantee in accordance with Sections 16 (Grantor's Notice) and 17 (Grantee's Approval). A. Agriculture. Agricultural uses, including hay production, may be conducted by Grantor on the Property, provided that livestock pasturage and other animal operations are not permitted and no new or additional agricultural uses shall be permitted unless approved by Grantee in accordance with Sections 16 (Grantor's Notice) and 17 (Grantee's Approval). Any new or additional agricultural uses permitted by Grantee shall not interfere with access of the public to the Trails. B. Timber and Vegetation. Grantor may cut trees and vegetation to control insects and disease, to control invasive species, to prevent personal injury and property damage, and for fire mitigation purposes including limited and localized tree and vegetation thinning. Grantor may also cut dead trees on the Property for the construction of permitted fences. Any large scale fire mitigation activities shall only be permitted in accordance with a fire mitigation plan approved by Grantee pursuant to Sections 16 (Grantor's Notice) and 17 (Grantee's Approval). Commercial timber harvesting activities are prohibited. C. Relatively Natural Habitat. Grantor may conduct any activities to create, maintain, restore, or enhance wildlife habitat and native biological communities on the Property, provided that such activities do not temporarily or permanently have a material adverse effect on the Conservation Values, except as otherwise prohibited by Section 5.H (Hunting; Wildlife Control). If such activities could in any manner temporarily or permanently have a material adverse effect on the Conservation Values, Grantor must first notify Grantee and obtain Grantee's approval pursuant to Sections 16 (Grantor's Notice) and 17 (Grantee's Approval). Page 6 D. Minerals and Other Deposits. This Easement expressly prohibits the mining or extraction of Minerals using any surface mining method. Grantor may pernlit subsurface access to Minerals from locations off the Property, provided that Grantor shall not permit such subsurface access to disturb the lateral and subjacent support of the Property. E. Recreation. Grantor may undertake passive recreational uses such as, and without limitation, wildlife watching, photography, birding, horseback riding, hiking, biking,cross-country skiing, and fishing,provided such uses are undertaken(i)in a manner consistent with the Purpose, and (ii) on Roads and Trails. Such uses shall be non- motorized, except as otherwise set forth in Section 6.J (Motorized Vehicle Operation). Trails are permitted only in accordance with Section 4.B.ii (Trails). F. Educational/Interpretive and Research/Monitoring Activities. Grantor may use the Property for educational and interpretive activities and research and monitoring activities on Roads and Trails without Grantee's permission,and such activities may be conducted in other locations off Roads and Trails, only if such use is consistent with the Purpose and is approved by Grantee pursuant to Sections 16 (Grantor's Notice) and 17 (Grantee's Approval). G. Water Rights. No water rights are included in the Property subject to this Easement. H. Hunting; Wildlife Control. Hunting on the Property is prohibited. Live trapping may be allowed by Grantor as deemed necessary to study threatened or endangered species, species proposed for listing, or species of concern. Grantor, or any other party, shall not release any rodents, or non-native or exotic wildlife species on to the Property, including any wildlife species intended to be relocated from another Property, and any release of other native wildlife species on the Property is subject to applicable law. 6. Restricted Practices. A. Subdivision. The division, subdivision or de facto subdivision of the Property, whether by legal or physical process, into two or more parcels of land or partial or separate interests (including, but not limited to, condominium interests or the partition of undivided interests) is prohibited. At all times Grantor shall own and convey the Property as a single tract of land which shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Easement, regardless of whether the Property now consists of separate legal parcels, was acquired as separate legal parcels, or is treated as separate legal parcels for property tax or other purposes. Grantor may own the single tract of land by joint tenancy or tenancy in common, consistent with Section 23.K (Joint and Several Liability); provided, however, that Grantor shall not undertake any legal proceeding to partition, subdivide or divide in any manner such undivided interests in the single tract of land. Nothing in this Easement shall prohibit Grantor from separately conveying the Property and any land adjacent to the Property owned by Grantor. Page 7 B. Surface Disturbance. Any alteration of the surface of the land, including without limitation, the movement, excavation, extraction or removal of soil, sand, gravel, rock, peat or sod, is prohibited, unless such alteration is associated with permitted acts on and uses of the Property and is consistent with the Purpose. C. Water Improvements. The construction of new water Improvements or enlargement of existing water Improvements, the enlargement of existing ponds or reservoirs, and the construction of new ponds or reservoirs, is subject to Grantee approval pursuant to Sections 16 (Grantor's Notice) and 17 (Grantee's Approval). Any portion of the Property that is disturbed by the maintenance, repair, construction or enlargement of water Improvements shall be restored to a condition that is consistent with the Purpose promptly after said activity is completed. Grantee is and may become the owner of certain water rights and easements for wells, water storage and related facilities on the Property, and Grantee shall have the right to construct, repair and maintain such facilities without amendment to this Deed. D. Commercial or Industrial Activity. Grantor shall not conduct industrial uses on the Property. Grantor shall not conduct commercial uses of the Property except for those commercial uses approved by Grantee pursuant to Sections 16(Grantor's Notice) and 17 (Grantee's Approval). E. Feed Lot. Grantor shall not establish or maintain a feed lot. For purposes of this Easement, "feed lot" means a permanently constructed confined area or facility which is used and maintained continuously and exclusively for purposes of warm-up or fattening large numbers of livestock for market. F. Public Access. There are currently public Trails located on the Property, and the Parties acknowledge that members of the public have the right to access the Trails on the Property. G. Trash. Grantor may not dump or accumulate any kind of trash, sludge, or refuse on the Property. H. Hazardous Materials. Grantor may use agri-chemicals on the Property in accordance with all applicable federal, state or local laws. For purposes of this Easement, "Hazardous Materials" shall mean: (i) any"hazardous substance" as defined in § 9601(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended ("CERCLA"), (ii) any"pollutant or contaminant" as defined in § 9601(33) of CERCLA, (iii) any hazardous waste as defined in C.R.S. § 25-15-101(6), or any of items included within the non-exhaustive list of over 600 substances listed in 40 C.F.R. § 302.4 that qualify as hazardous substances under CERCLA. The use,treatment, storage,disposal, or release of Hazardous Materials shall only be permitted in accordance with applicable, federal, state and local law and regulations. Without limiting the foregoing,nothing in this Easement shall be construed as giving rise to any right or ability in Grantee, nor shall Grantee have any right or ability, to exercise physical or managerial control over the day- to-day operations of the Property, or otherwise to become an operator with respect to the Property within the meaning of CERCLA. Page 8 I. Weed Control, The Parties recognize the potential negative impact of noxious weeds and invasive plant species on the Conservation Values. Grantor shall manage noxious weeds and invasive plant species in a manner consistent with the Purpose. Grantee has no responsibility for the management of noxious weeds and invasive plant species. J. Motorized Vehicle Operation. Grantor may operate motorized vehicles on the Property for property management and public safety purposes. Subject to the provisions of Section 6.F (Public Access), Grantor may permit members of the public to access the Property(i)by motorized vehicles only on the Roads, (ii)utilizing power-driven devices for disabled persons on Roads and Trails and only pursuant to Grantor's or Grantee's adopted rules and regulations, (iii) using electric bicycles only on Roads and Trails and only pursuant to Grantor's or Grantee's adopted rules and regulations, and (iv) to the extent otherwise required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act or as otherwise approved by Grantee pursuant to Sections 16 (Grantor's Notice) and 17 (Grantee's Approval). K. Easements, Rights of Way or Other Interests. The conveyance or modification of an easement, right of way or other similar interest is prohibited unless approved by Grantee pursuant to Sections 16 (Grantor's Notice) and 17 (Grantee's Approval). L. Signs. Grantor shall not place signs on the Property unless approved by Grantee pursuant to Sections 16 (Grantor's Notice) and 17 (Grantee's Approval). M. Other Restricted Uses. Grantor shall not construct or establish playgrounds, athletic fields, golf courses, sod farms, helicopter pads, or airstrips anywhere on the Property. 7. Responsibilities of Grantor and Grantee Not Affected. Other than as specified herein, this Easement is not intended to impose any legal or other responsibility on Grantee, or in any way to affect any existing obligations of Grantor as owner of the Property. Additionally, unless otherwise specified below,nothing in this Easement shall require Grantor to take any action to restore the condition of the Property after any Act of God or other event over which Grantor had no control. Grantor shall continue to be solely responsible and Grantee shall have no obligation for the upkeep and maintenance of the Property and Grantor understands that nothing in this Easement relieves Grantor of any obligation or restriction on the use of the Property imposed by law. Among other things, this shall apply to: A. Taxes. Grantor shall be solely responsible for payment of all taxes and assessments levied against the Property. If Grantee is ever required to pay any taxes or assessments on its interest in the Property, Grantor will reimburse Grantee for the same. If for any reason Grantor fails to pay any taxes, assessments or similar requisite charges, Grantee may pay such taxes, assessments or similar requisite charges, and may bring an action against Grantor to recover all such taxes, assessments and similar charges plus interest thereon at the rate charged delinquent property taxes by the county assessor's office in which the Property is located. Page 9 B. Indemnification. Grantor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Grantee and its trustees, commission and committee members, officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors and the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of each of them (collectively,the "Grantee Parties") from and against any and all loss, damage, cost, or expense, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from or in any way related to: (i) injury to or the death of any person, or damage to property, occurring on or about or related to the Property, except to the extent due to the act or omission of the Grantee Parties; (ii)Grantor's obligations under this Easement; (iii)the presence or release of hazardous materials on, under, or about the Property under Section 6.H (Hazardous Materials); (iv) the existence of any underground storage tanks on the Property; or (v) the violation or alleged violation of, or other failure to comply with any state, federal, or local law, regulation, or requirement, including, without limitation, CERCLA and state hazardous waste statutes, by any person other than any of the Grantee Parties, in any way affecting, involving, or relating to the Property. 8. Enforcement. If Grantee finds what it believes is a violation of the terms of this Easement, Grantee shall immediately notify Grantor in writing of the nature of the alleged violation ("Notice of Violation"). Upon receipt of the Notice of Violation, Grantor shall immediately discontinue the activity or use that has caused the alleged violation and shall either: (a) restore the Property to its condition prior to the violation in accordance with a written restoration plan ("Restoration Plan"); or (b) provide a written explanation to Grantee of the reason why the alleged violation should be permitted. The Restoration Plan shall be submitted to Grantee within twenty (20) days after Grantor's receipt of the Notice of Violation, or within a longer time period if so specified by Grantee in the Notice of Violation. The Restoration Plan shall be approved or disapproved by Grantee in writing within thirty (30) days after its submittal. Grantor shall begin restoring the Property in accordance with the Restoration Plan within ten (10) days after it is approved by Grantee and diligently pursue such cure to completion in compliance with the terms of the approved Restoration Plan. If the condition described in clause (b) above occurs, both parties agree to meet within thirty (30) days to resolve this difference. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute at the meeting, Grantee may, at its discretion, take appropriate legal action. If after receipt of the Notice of Violation, Grantor continues the activity or use that caused the alleged violation or if a court with jurisdiction determines that a violation is imminent, exists, or has occurred, Grantee may seek an injunction to stop it, temporarily or permanently, prior to the parties meeting and prior to completion of the Restoration Plan. A court may also issue an injunction to require Grantor to restore the Property to its condition prior to the violation, and may order Grantor to pay any restoration costs necessitated by Grantor's violation of the terms of this Easement. Grantor shall pay any costs incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Easement against Grantor, including, without limitation, costs and expenses of suit, and attorneys' fees and any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's violation of the terms of this Easement. If the deciding body determines that Grantee has acted in bad faith in seeking to enforce this Easement, each Party shall be responsible for their own costs. The parties will share equally in any mediation fees. Grantee's remedies described in this Section shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity, including the right to recover any damages for loss of Conservation Values. Enforcement of the terms of this Easement shall be at Page 10 the discretion of Grantee, and the failure of Grantee to discover a violation or to take action shall not waive any of Grantee's rights, claims or interests in pursuing any such action at a later date. 9. Transfer of Easement. Grantee shall have the right to transfer this Easement to any public agency or private non-profit organization that, at the time of transfer, is authorized to hold conservation easements under C.R.S. §§ 38-30.5-101 et seq., and only if the agency or the organization expressly agrees to abide by the terms of this Easement and to assume the responsibility imposed on Grantee by this Easement. Grantee shall notify Grantor in advance of any proposed transfers. If Grantee ever ceases to exist or no longer qualifies under federal or state law, a court with jurisdiction shall transfer this Easement to another qualified organization having similar purposes and that agrees to abide by the terms of this Easement and to assume the responsibility imposed on Grantee by this Easement. 10. Transfer of Property. Grantor shall incorporate the terms of this Easement by reference in any deed or other legal instrument by which it divests itself of any interest in all or a portion of the Property, including, without limitation, a leasehold interest. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing within (5) business days after closing using the form in Exhibit D attached hereto and made a part hereof, and shall attach to the form a copy of the new ownership deed. 11. Acts Beyond a Party's Control. Nothing contained in this Easement shall be construed to entitle a Party to bring any action against the other Party for any injury to or change in the Property resulting from causes beyond the Parties' control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent action taken by a Party under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to the Property resulting from such causes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantor shall take reasonable efforts to prevent third parties from performing, and shall not knowingly allow third parties to perform, any act on or affecting the Property that is inconsistent with the Purpose of this Easement. 12. Termination or Extinguishment of Easement. Except as provided in Section 13 (Compensation upon Condemnation, Termination or Extinguishment), this Easement or any part hereof may be terminated or extinguished only by judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. The only ground upon which this Easement can be terminated or extinguished is the total loss of all Conservation Values. If termination or extinguishment occurs, Grantee shall be entitled to compensation determined as provided in Section 13 (Compensation upon Condemnation, Termination or Extinguishment). 13. Compensation upon Condemnation, Termination or Extinguishment. A. Value of Conservation Easement. Grantor and Grantee agree that this Easement gives rise to a property right, immediately vested in Grantee with a fair market value that is at least equal to the proportionate value that the Easement, at the time of its conveyance, bears to the value of the Property as a whole at that time. The Parties agree that the best estimate of the fair market value of the Easement is seventy-five percent(75%) of the full fair market value of the Property unrestricted by this Easement represented as a percentage ("Easement Value Ratio"), which Easement Value Ratio shall remain constant,and Grantee's proportionate share of the fair market value of the Property thereby determinable shall remain constant. Page 11 B. Termination or Extinguishment. If a subsequent unexpected change in the conditions surrounding the Property can make impossible or impractical the continued use of the Property for conservation purposes, this Easement can only be terminated or extinguished, whether with respect to all or a part of the Property, by judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. Unless otherwise required by applicable law at the time, in the event of any subsequent sale of all or any portion of the Property (or any property received in connection with an exchange or involuntary conversion of the Property) after such termination or extinguishment, and prior to the payment of any costs or expenses associated with such sale, Grantee shall be entitled to the Easement Value Ratio multiplied by the proceeds of any such sale. C. Condemnation. Grantor shall notify Grantee immediately of any communication or notice received concerning any proposed taking or condemnation affecting the Property. If all or any portion of the Property is taken under the power of eminent domain by public, corporate, or other authority, Grantee shall have the right to participate in any proceedings as a real property interest holder and Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate proceedings at the time of such taking to recover the full fair market value (without regard to any diminution in value attributable to the Easement) of the interests in the Property subject to the taking and all incidental or direct damages resulting from the taking. In addition,Grantee may pursue any remedies in law or in equity, including opposition to the condemnation of the Property. Prior to the payment of any expenses reasonably incurred by the Parties in connection with such taking, Grantee shall be entitled to the Easement Value Ratio multiplied by the proceeds received from such taking. The respective rights of Grantor and Grantee set forth in this Section 13.0 shall be in addition to, and not in limitation of, any rights they may have at common law. D. Proceeds. Grantee's share of any proceeds received pursuant to this Section 13 shall be used by Grantee in a manner consistent with the conservation purposes of this Easement as of the time of its conveyance and shall otherwise comply with Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6). E. Remedies. Grantee's remedies described in this Section shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to any and all remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity, including the right to recover any damages for loss of Conservation Values as described in C.R.S. § 38-30.5-108. 14. Perpetual Duration. This Easement shall be a servitude running with the land in perpetuity. The provisions of this Easement that apply to Grantor or Grantee shall also apply to their respective agents, heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and all other successors as their interests may appear, provided, however, that each party's rights and obligations under this Easement shall terminate(as to such party,but not as to such party's successor,who shall be bound as provided herein) upon a transfer of the party's entire interest in this Easement or the Property, except that liability of such transferring party for act or omissions occurring prior to such transfer shall survive the transfer. 15. Change of Circumstance. The fact that any use of the Property that is prohibited by this Easement, or any other use as determined by Grantee to be inconsistent with the Purpose Page 12 of this Easement, may become economically more valuable than permitted uses has been considered by Grantor in granting this Easement. It is the intent of both Grantor and Grantee that such circumstances shall not justify the termination or extinguishment of this Easement pursuant to Section 13 (Compensation upon Condemnation, Termination or Extinguishment). In addition, the inability to carry on any or all of the permitted uses, or the unprofitability of doing so, shall not impair the validity of this Easement or be considered grounds for its termination or extinguishment pursuant to Section 13 (Compensation upon Condemnation, Termination or Extinguishment). 16. Grantor's Notice. Where Grantor's notice is required in this Deed, Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing not less than sixty(60) calendar days prior to the date Grantor intends to undertake the activity in question. The written notice shall describe the proposed activity in sufficient detail (i.e. location, size, scope, design, nature) to allow Grantee to evaluate the consistency of the proposed activity with the pertinent terms of this Easement. 17. Grantee's Approval. Where Grantee's approval is required in this Deed, Grantee shall grant or withhold its approval in writing within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of Grantor's written notice thereof. Grantee's decision may be withheld if Grantee is unable to immediately evaluate the proposed action. Grantor shall not engage in the proposed act or use until Grantor receives Grantee's approval in writing. As part of its determination, Grantee shall consider the proposed manner in which the proposed activity will be conducted, whether it complies with the terms of this Easement, and the likely impact on the Conservation Values. Grantee's approval may be withheld in its sole discretion. Grantor shall pay any and all costs associated with the evaluation of the proposed use or activity, including, but not limited to, staff time,legal fees, and resource specialist fees. Grantee may require an update to the Baseline Report to document any approval. 18. Notices. Any notice that either party is required to give to the other in writing shall be transmitted via U.S. mail, overnight delivery service or served personally to the following addresses which addresses may change from time to time by a party giving written notice in the manner set forth above: Grantor: Grand Park Development LLC P.O. Box 30 Winter Park, CO 80482 Grantee: Town of Fraser P.O. Box 370 Fraser, CO 80442 Attn: Town Manager 19. Liens on the Property. No provisions of this Easement should be construed as impairing the ability of Grantor to use this Property as collateral for subsequent borrowing. Any mortgage or lien arising from such a borrowing is subordinate to this Deed. 20. No Merger, Abandonment, Release, or Adverse Possession. Should Grantee in the future own all or a portion of the fee interest in the Property, Grantee as successor in title to Grantor, shall observe and be bound by the obligations of Grantor and the restrictions imposed on Page 13 the Property by this Easement. In addition, this Easement shall not merge with the fee title to the Property. The Easement shall not be extinguished, in whole or in part, through the legal doctrine of merger in view of the public interest in its enforcement. This Easement cannot be abandoned, released, or affected by adverse possession. 21. Grantor Representations and Warranties. A. Except as provided in Section 19 (Liens on the Property), Grantor warrants that Grantor: (i) has good and sufficient title to the Property, free from all liens and encumbrances securing monetary obligations except ad valorem property taxes for the current year; (ii) has the right to grant access to the Property to Grantee for the purposes described in this Easement and has in fact granted said access to Grantee; and (iii) hereby promises to defend title to the Property against all claims that may be made against it by any person claiming by, through or under Grantor. B. Grantor represents and warrants that, after reasonable investigation and to the best of its knowledge: i. No hazardous substance or toxic waste exists nor has been generated, treated, stored, used, disposed of, deposited, or transported, in, on, or across the Property, and that there are no underground storage tanks located on the Property; ii. Grantor and the Property are in compliance with all federal state, and local laws,regulations, and requirements applicable to the Property and its use; iii. There is no pending or threatened litigation in any way affecting, involving, or relating to the Property; and iv. No civil or criminal proceedings or investigations have been instigated at any time or are now pending, and no notices, claims, demands, or orders have been received, arising out of any violation or alleged violation of, or failure to comply with, any federal, state, or local law, regulation, or requirement applicable to the Property or its use. 22. Acceptance. Grantee hereby accepts without reservation the rights and responsibilities conveyed by this Deed. 23. General Provisions: A. Severability. If any provision of this Easement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Easement, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, as the case may be, shall not be affected thereby. Page 14 B. Captions. The captions in this instrument have been inserted solely for convenience of reference and are not a part of this instrument and shall have no effect upon construction or interpretation. C. Waiver of Defenses. Grantor hereby waives any defense of laches,estoppel or prescription and acknowledges and agrees that the one-year statute of limitation provided under C.R.S. § 38-41-119 does not apply to this Easement, and Grantor waives any rights of Grantor pursuant to such statute. D. Controlling Law and Liberal Construction. The provisions of this Easement are subject to the laws of the United States and the State of Colorado as amended (or any successor provision then applicable), and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder. The provisions of this Easement are to be liberally construed in favor of the Purpose,and any ambiguities or questions regarding the validity of specific provisions shall be interpreted in favor of maintaining the Purpose. Any decisions resolving such ambiguities or questions shall be documented in writing. E. Counterparts. The parties may execute this instrument in two or more counterparts which shall, in the aggregate, be signed by all parties; each counterpart shall be deemed an original instrument as against any party who has signed it; all counterparts, when taken together, shall constitute this instrument. F. Amendment. This Easement may be amended only with the written consent of Grantor and Grantee, to be granted or withheld in each Party's sole discretion. The amendment must: i. be consistent with the Conservation Values and Purpose of this Easement; ii. not affect the perpetual duration of the restrictions contained in this Easement; in. not affect any applicable laws, including C.R.S. § 38-30.5-101 et sed., and any regulations promulgated thereunder; iv. either enhance or have no effect on any of the Conservation Values protected by this Easement; V. not result in private inurement or impermissible private benefit to any party; vi. be consistent with Grantee's public mission, and vii. comply with Grantee's procedures and standards for amendments (as such procedures and standards may be amended from time to time). Any amendment must be in writing, signed by the Parties, and recorded in the Records. Grantee shall have the right to charge a fee to Grantor for reasonable costs incurred by Page 15 Grantee,including staff and consultant time and reasonable attorney's fees,associated with any amendment. The term "amendment" means any instrument that purports to alter in any way any provision of or exhibit to this Deed. In order to preserve the Easement's priority, Grantee may require that Grantor obtain subordinations of any liens, mortgages, easements, or other encumbrances. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as requiring Grantee to agree to any particular proposed amendment. G. Entire Agreement. This Deed sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the terms of this Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or agreements relating to the terms of this Easement, all of which are merged herein. H. Development Rights. For purposes of this Easement, "Development Rights" are defined as all present or future rights to (i) constrict, place, replace, enlarge, maintain or repair any Improvements on the Property; or (ii) receive credit for density for development on or off the Property. By this Deed, Grantor conveys to Grantee all Development Rights associated with the Property. Therefore, Grantor does not have the right to use or transfer any Development Rights conveyed to Grantee by this Deed. I. Recording. Grantee shall record this Deed in timely fashion in the Records, and Grantee may re-record it at any time as may be required to preserve its rights in this Easement. J. No Third Party Enforcement. This Deed is entered into by and between Grantor and Grantee and does not create rights or responsibilities for the enforcement of the terms of this Deed in any third parties except as expressly reserved herein. K. Joint and Several Liability. If Grantor at any time owns the Property in joint tenancy or tenancy in common, Grantor shall be jointly and severally liable for all obligations set forth in this Easement. L. Environmental Attributes. Grantor hereby reserves all Environmental Attributes associated with the Property. "Environmental Attributes" shall mean any and all tax or other credits, benefits, renewable energy certificates, emissions reductions, offsets, and allowances (including but not limited to water, riparian, greenhouse gas, beneficial use, and renewable energy), generated from or attributable to the conservation, preservation and management of the Property in accordance with this Easement. Nothing in this Section 23.L shall modify the restrictions imposed by this Easement or otherwise impair the preservation and protection of the Conservation Values. M. Authority to Execute. Each party represents to the other that such party has frill power and authority to execute and deliver this Deed, and perform its obligations under this Easement, that the individual executing this Deed on behalf of said party is fully empowered and authorized to do so, and that this Deed constitutes a valid and legally binding obligation of said party enforceable against said party in accordance with its terms. Page 16 N. Effective Date. The "Effective Date" of this Deed shall be the date of its recording in the Records. O. Annual Appropriation. To the extent that any financial obligation of this Deed is subject to the multiple fiscal year obligations of Article 10, Section 20(4)(b) of the Colorado Constitution or C.R.S. § 29-1-110, such obligation may be subject to annual appropriation by Grantee. The foregoing is not an agreement or an acknowledgement by either Grantor or Grantee that any financial obligation which could arise pursuant to this Deed would be subject to the requirement that funds for such financial obligation must be appropriated by Grantee. Nothing in this Deed shall be deemed to be a waiver of any rights that Grantee may have pursuant to C.R.S. § 30-25-104. P. Costs and Fees. In addition to the costs and fees of enforcement as set forth in Section 8 (Enforcement), Grantor shall be responsible for the costs and fees set forth in this Section 23.P. Grantor shall pay any and all costs associated with requests for Grantee's approval pursuant to Section 17 (Grantee's Approval), including but not limited to, staff time, legal fees, and resource specialist fees. Grantee shall have the right to charge a fee to Grantor for reasonable costs incurred by Grantee, including staff and consultant time and reasonable attorney's fees, associated with any amendment to this Easement pursuant to Section 23.F (Amendment). Q. No Waiver of Governmental Immunity. Grantor, its trustees, commission and committee members, officials, officers, directors, agents and employees, are relying on, and do not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Deed, the monetary limitations or any other rights, immunities and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. §§ 24-10-101 to 120, as amended. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, this Deed of Conservation Easement unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever. Page 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee, intending to legally bind themselves, have set their hands on the date first written above. GRANTOR: GRAND PARK DEVELOPMENT LLC By: Name: Title: STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2021, by as of Grand Park Development LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public Page 18 GRANTEE: TOWN OF FRASER By: STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2021, by as of the Town of Fraser, State of Colorado. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public Page 19 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property [To be inserted] Page 20 EXHIBIT B Depiction of the Property [To be inserted] Page 21 EXHIBIT C Map of Roads and Trails on the Property [To be inserted] Page 22 Z CL ul i�, CK) IM ............... u "1; ",r' Ln Co 0 z J < uj '000 00, 00 j 10 .4... It 41, f7 1.4 4 4 w yr rN f ol ✓< C 010# /F X4 f EXHIBIT D Sample Notice of Transfer of Property To: Town of Fraser("Grantee") From: [Insert name of fee owner] ("Grantor") Pursuant to Section 10 of the Deed of Conservation Easement recorded (date) under reception number , Grantee is hereby notified by Grantor of the transfer of the fee simple interest in the subject Property legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto effective [insert date of closing] to [insert name of new Grantor], who can be reached at [insert name, legal address,phone and fax number]. Also pursuant to Section 10 of the aforementioned Deed of Conservation Easement, a copy of the new ownership deed is attached. GRANTOR: By: Title: STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20_,by as of Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public Date: Page 23 EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR AREAS FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SITUATED IN SECTIONS 20, 28 AND 29 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO SCALE 1" = 2000' WINTER PARK FRASER SITE NOTES 2930 28 2019 21 3231 33 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AREA C SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR AREAS FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SITUATED IN S20, S28 AND S29 T1S, R75W, 6TH PM ELK CREEK ELK CREEK H W Y 4 0 R R LEGAL DESCRIPTION AREA A LEGAL DESCRIPTION AREA B LEGAL DESCRIPTION AREA B LEGAL DESCRIPTION AREA D LEGAL DESCRIPTION AREA D EXCEPT 9/2/2021 AREA D SEE SHEET 5 AREA D SEE SHEET 6 AREA A SEE SHEET 3 AREA C SEE SHEET 5 NORTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 29 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT AREAS A, B, C & D NORTHWEST CORNER SECTION 29 SECTION 20 SECTION 29 SE C T I O N 2 8 SE C T I O N 2 9 AREA ACREAGE +/- TOTAL 140.25 +/- ACREAGE TABLE HI G H W A Y 4 0 BASIS OF BEARINGS S 89°44'20" W 2638.90' AREAS A, B, C & D U N I O N P A C I F I C R R AREA B SEE SHEET 4 ELK CREEK E L K C R E E K 0 250 500 SCALE: 1" = 250' EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR AREAS FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SITUATED IN SECTIONS 20, 28 AND 29 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR AREAS FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SITUATED IN S20, S28 AND S29 T1S, R75W, 6TH PM 9/2/2021 AREA A 14.74 ACRES +/- UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COZENS POINTE AT GRAND PARK REC. NO. 2006009840 METES AND BOUNDS REC. NO. 95004884 ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 4 REC. NO. 2018002614 P.O.B. AREA A P.O.C. N1/4 SEC 29 UNPLATTED OWNER: GPD, LLC ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 4 REC. NO. 2018002614 ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 3 REC. NO. 2018000114 ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 2 REC. NO. 2016003562 ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 1 REC. NO. 2016001816 EL K C R E E K EL K C R E E K ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 2 REC. NO. 2016003562 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 0 80 160 EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR AREAS FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SITUATED IN SECTIONS 20, 28 AND 29 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR AREAS FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SITUATED IN S20, S28 AND S29 T1S, R75W, 6TH PM 9/2/2021 METES AND BOUNDS UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD AREA B 6.56 ACRES +/- P.O.C. N1/4 SEC 29 P.O.B. AREA B ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 1 REC. NO. 2016001816 ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 3 REC. NO. 2018000114 ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 3 REC. NO. 2018000114 ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 2 REC. NO. 2016003562 ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 1 REC. NO. 2016001816 ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 1 REC. NO. 2016001816 ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 1 REC. NO. 2016001816 ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 3 REC. NO. 2018000114 ELK CREEK AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 2 REC. NO. 2016003562 METES AND BOUNDS 0 60 120 EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR AREAS FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SITUATED IN SECTIONS 20, 28 AND 29 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR AREAS FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SITUATED IN S20, S28 AND S29 T1S, R75W, 6TH PM 9/2/2021 POND CELL A REC. NO. 2021006416 P.O.C. N1/4 SEC 29 P.O.B. AREA D U.S. H I G H W A Y 4 0 U. S . H I G H W A Y 4 0 COZENS MEADOW AT GRAND PARK AMEND. NO. 1 REC. NO. 2007006785 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED REC. NO. 2009001131 SP E C I A L W A R R A N T Y D E E D RE C . N O . 2 0 0 9 0 0 1 1 3 1 RESUB. OF TRACTS D AND E FOREST MEADOW SOLAR COMM. REC. NO. 218772 POND CELL B REC. NO. 2021006416 POND CELL C REC. NO. 2021006416 POND CELL D REC. NO. 2021006416 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 6 TRA C T C OWN E R S : G P D , L L C AR E A C 1.65 A C R E S + / - AREA D 117.30 ACRES +/- TRACT E TRACT A OWNER: GPD, LLC TRACT B LOT 19, SUB. EX. PLAT OF COZENS MEADOW AT GRAND PARK, AMEND. NO. 1 REC. NO. 2018004431 OWNER: GPD, LLC TRACT A LOT 19, SUB. EX. PLAT OF COZENS MEADOW AT GRAND PARK, AMEND. NO. 1 REC. NO. 2018004431 OWNER: GPD, LLC U . S . H I G H W A Y 4 0 UNPLATTED MEADOWS AT GRAND PARK FILING NO. 1 REC. NO. 2020001836 MEADOWS AT GRAND PARK FILING 1 REC. NO. 2020001836 SU B . E X . P L A T O F CO Z E N S M E A D O W A T GR A N D P A R K A M E N D . 1 RE C . N O . 2 0 1 1 0 0 9 5 0 8 SUB. EX. PLAT OF COZENS MEADOW AT GRAND PARK AMEND. 1 REC. NO. 2011009508 SUB. EX. PLAT OF COZENS MEADOW AT GRAND PARK AMEND. 1 REC. NO. 2011009508 WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK FILING 1 REC. NO. 2015004926 S P E C I A L W A R R A N T Y D E E D R E C . N O . 2 0 0 9 0 0 1 1 3 1 UNPLATTED COZENS MEADOW AT GRAND PARK AMEND. NO. 1 REC. NO. 2007006785 UNPLATTED UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 0 150 300 EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR AREAS FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SITUATED IN SECTIONS 20, 28 AND 29 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR AREAS FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SITUATED IN S20, S28 AND S29 T1S, R75W, 6TH PM 9/2/2021 GRAND PARK NOT RECORDED GRAND PARK NOT RECORDED SEE SHEET 5 MATCH LINE AREA D 117.30 ACRES +/- TRACT E OWNER: GPD, LLC TRACT A OWNER: GPD, LLC TRACT I OWNER: GPD, LLC TRACT H OWNER: GPD, LLC TRACT L OWNER: GPD, LLC TRACT J OWNER: GPD, LLC METES AND BOUNDS OWNER: GPD, LLC METES AND BOUNDS OWNER: GPD, LLC TRACT K OWNER: GPD, LLC THE VILLAGE AT GRAND PARK FILING 2A REC. NO. 2008007840 UNPLATTED UNPLATTED WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK FILING 1 REC. NO. 2015004926 WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK FILING 3 REC. NO. 2016006982 WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK FILING 2 REC. NO. 2016006979 WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK FILING 2 REC. NO. 2016006979 WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK FILING 3 REC. NO. 2016006982 WILLOWS AT GRAND PARK FILING 1 REC. NO. 2015004926 UNPLATTED U . S . H I G H W A Y 4 0 GRAND PARK NOT RECORDED UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 0 150 300 EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR AREAS FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SITUATED IN SECTIONS 20, 28 AND 29 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR AREAS FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SITUATED IN S20, S28 AND S29 T1S, R75W, 6TH PM 9/2/2021 0 250 500 SCALE: 1" = 250' EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR AREAS FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SITUATED IN SECTIONS 20, 28 AND 29 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 75 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR AREAS FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SITUATED IN S20, S28 AND S29 T1S, R75W, 6TH PM 9/2/2021