HomeMy Public PortalAboutTBP 1992-09-21~' ~ ~ ~ ..
TOWN OF FP.ASER
BOARD OF TRUSTEES ~
RETREAT 1992 ,
MONDAY SEPTEMBER 21, AND TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 22
6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
SEPTEMBER 21, 1992
1) REVIEW OF 1992 GUALS AND OBJECTIVES
-Compare with 1991
-Compare to 1992 Survey Results
-Where are we headed?
-Ts a change necessary? '
2) GUALS ACCOMPLISHED
-How did we do?
-How can we improve?
3) REVIEW HOUSING STUDY RESULTS
-Where do we go with housing?
4) REVISE, REWRITE AND CREATE 1993 GOALS
SEPTEMBER 22, 1992
1) 1~EALITY CHECK WITH NEW 1993 GOALS
-Do we like them?
-Any changes?
2) CAPITAL IMPRUVEMEN`iS PROGRAM
-Review e~~isting projects
-Keview elements of a CIP
-How long should we plan for?
-Develop wish list
-Prioritize without regard to cost
-Ne~:t step
3) DISCUSSION ON "WALK 'PHROUGH HISTORY" PARK
-Staffing options
-Chamber participation
4) OPEN DISCUSSION
5) 1993 Budget input to staff
• ~, •
TOWI~I OF FRASER
'Icebox of the Nation"
P.O. Box 120 / 153 Fraser Avenue
Fraser, Colorado 80442
(303726-5491
FAX Line: (303) 726-551 B
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR
THE TOWN OF FRASER
FOR THE YEAR 1992
At the Annual Board Retreat on September 14, 1991 the
Fraser Board of Trustees set the following goals and objectives
for the Town. They are not listed in a priority order. The
goals and objectives are generally intended to provide a
direction to pursue during the course of 'the year.
1. TOWN BEAUTIFICATION
A. Downtown tree plantings
B. Continue landscaping, begin turf maintenace.
C. Landscape Amtrak Depot.
D. Continue to improve Downtown signage and install
Directional Signs.
2. BUILD ALTERNATE ACCESS TO WEST SIDE OF TOWN.
A. Construct temporary road and river crossing through
pole yard.
B. Pursue construction of Fraser Valley Parkway with
County.
3. DEVELOP PEDESTRIAN/BIKE WAYS
A. Build Phase 2 of Fraser River Trail.
B. Design/Build Leonard Lane pedestrian/bike way.
C. Develop pedestrian Master Plan.
• •
4. PARKS AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT
A. Master plan future park sites.
(1) Inventory land and potential fees.
B. Build Walk Through History Park
C. Continue working with FVMRD on softball field site.
5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
A. Assist existing businesses.
(1) Establish dialogue.
(2) Marketing Fraser Valley.
6. REVISE ZONING REGULATIONS
A. Business zone.
B. Mobile Home/Park zone.
C..Mobile Home permits
E. Construction specification handbook.
F. Revise water regulations.
G. Resource cataloging in coop with
Coalition and Wintar Park.
7. PROPERTY OWNERS BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAM.
A. Improvement award.
B. Town tree planting program.
8. MARKETING PLAN
A. Market Fraser's assets.
B. Develop promotions
C. Participation in general/generic marketing.
D. Co-op efforts with Chamber, FVMRD, and business
community.
9. INVESITGATE AND DISCUSS ANNEXATION OF MEADOWRIDGE
0
~ -
TOWI~I OF FRASER
"Icebox of the Nation" ~
P.O. Box 120 / 153 Fraser Avenue
Fraser, Colorado 80442
(303) 726-5491
FAX Line: (303) 726-5518
D
v
D ~
D
. -~ \\
,~ ~ -_
TOWN OF ~"RASER
RESIDEN7.'IAL ANll BUSINESS
SURVEY RESULTS
AUGUST 1992
ýÿ
e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. RESIDENTIAL SURVEY SUMMARY
2. RESIDENTIAL SURVEY RESULTS
3. BUSINESS SURVEY SUMMARY
0
4. BUSINESS SURVEY RESULTS
ýÿ
e o
RESIDENTIAL SURVEY - SUMMARX OF RESULTS
I. BACY.GROUND
A survey was administered to residents of the Town of Fraser
during the summer of 1992 to assess the feelings of residents
about tovrri services and to determine major areas of concern among
citizens. A similar survey was conducted in 1989, and was used
by the Town Board and staff to set goals and priorities. The
following is a comparison of public opinions from the date of the
last survey (1989) to the present. .
II. RETURN RATE
Two hundred seven surveys were distributed to residents of
the town of Fraser, compared to two hundred fifty for the 1989
survey. Sixty-three surveys were returned to the town staff, for
a thirty (30) percent return rate. The return rate for the 1989
survey was thirty-nine (39) percent.
III. SURVEY RESULTS
A. SERVICES
Opinions of conditions in the town of Fraser and services
provided by the town have remained fairly consistent since the
1989 survey. Animal control, the cleanliness of the totvri and
street repair continue to be major conr_erns among residents. On
street parking and building inspections have become less
acceptable, while police patrols and traffic law enforcement have
improved.
The overall rating of services for the town remains high.
B. TOWN DEVELOPMENT
Regarding capital projects, dust control has become the most
important improvement among residents. Tree planting anc~
landscaping also rank high in importance, followed by street
paving. Of note, residents ^trongly supported street paving, but
were unwilling to pay extra for it.
Eighty-two percent of residents felt the
encourage more business development, compared
percent in 1989. Fifty-seven percent of Fras
the town should do more to promote growth.
Suggestions included more cottage industries,
manufacturing, tourist-type businesses, and a
store.
town should
to seventy-five
er residents felt
light
large discount
ýÿ
s e
When asked what changes or improvements they would like ~o
see, residents consistently expressed a desire for continued
cleanup of the town, street paving, and possibly building a
recreationJyouth center. They supported landscaping and bicycle
paths as well.
C. ECONOMIC PROFILE
Ninety percent of respondents felt their personal economic
situation was either stable or improving, reflecting virtually rlo
change since 1989. Eighty percent felt the community's economic
condition eras positive, compared to seventy-even percent a.n
1989. Ttie ma3ority believed that growth of the ski area and more
businesses in Fraser would enhance their economic future.
Gambling was cited as the least desirable in terms of improving
the economic condition of households.
If residents were willing to pay more taxes to receive more
services, they would support paving the streets, more cleanup
around town, a recreation center, better schools and better
animal control.. If asked to give up services, they chose a
reduction in the number of police, reduced advertising by the
town, and a reduction of landscaping, recreation and animal
control. The answers given to these two questions appear to be
somewhat inconsistent
Page - 2
ýÿ
e
1992 FRASER RESIDENTIAL SURVEY
RESULTS
A. SERVICES
0
I. HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIOPJS IN
YOUR PJEIGHBORHOOD?
(3-Mayor problem,2=Somewhat of a problem,l=No problem,0=Don't know)
RATING OF
CONDITION
( Ranked worst to best )
1-3 Dogs (running, barking) 2.1
1-4 Street repair 1.8
1-1 Off street parking 1.7
1-2 Trash and litter 1.6
1-7 Vehicle travelling speeds 1,5
1-6 Walking routes 1.2
1-8 Crime prevention 1.2
1-9 Neighborhood noise 1.2
1-5 Park facilities 1.2
II. FiOW WOULD YOU RATE THE QUALITY AND LEVEL OF THE FOLLOWING
SERVICES FROM THE TOWI`I OF FRASER?
(5=E:~cellent,4=Good,3-Adequate,2-Poor,l-Bad,0=Don't know)
QUALITY LEVEL
OF SERVICE OF SERVICE
(Ranked worst to best)
2-13 Animal control 2.4 2.4
2-5 Cleanliness of rest of town 2.6 2.8
2-6 On street parking 2.9 2.9
2-14 Building inspections 3.0 2.9
2-2 Street grading/repair 3.1 3.1
2-15 Bus system 3.1 3.1
2-4 Cleanliness of downtown 3.2 3.2
2-8 Police patrols 3.2 3.2
2-9 Municipal Court 3.2 3.6
2-7 Traffic law enforcement 3.2 3.2
2-3 Street lighting 3.4 3.6
2-17 Park maintenance 3.5 3.6
2-18 Town Council 3.5 3.9
2-19 Town Staff 3.6 4.0
2-16 Water service 3.7 4.0
2-12 Emergency medical response 3.8 3.8
2-10 Fire Dept. response time 3.9 3.6
2-11 Fire suppression 3.9 3.8
2-1 Snowplowing and sanding 4.0 4.0
2-20 Overall rating of service 3.5 3.6
ýÿ
e e
B. TOWN DEVELOPMENT
III. iiOW IMPORTANT TO YOU ARE THE FOLLOWING CAPITAL PROJECTS ~`
FOP. USE OF THE TOWN'S TAX DOLLARS?
(S-Very important,4=Important,3=Neutral,2=Unimportant
1=Very unimportatit,0-Don't know)
LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
3-5 Dust control 4.0
3-1 Tree planting and landscaping 3.9
3-3 Construction of multi-use paths 3.8
3-6 Street paving 3.8
3-4 Acquisition o f land for intown
recreational facilities 3.7
3-2 Second access to old town 3.2
IV. PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BY CHECKING ONE
COLUMN.
YES NO
4-1 Do you feel the Town of Fraser should do
more to promote growth? 36 (5795) 27
4-2 Should the Town of Fraser increase its
tourism marketing efforts? 38 (61°x) 24
4-3 Should the Town of Fraser encourage more
business development 51 (82:x) it
If you answered yes, what kind? (in order of frequency)
Cottage industries, light industry, tourism, small business,
recreation, gambling, large store(K Mart), Bed & Breakfasts.
4-4 Aside from the above, what changes or improvements would you
personally like to see in the town? (in order of frequency)
Clean up dunk and improve buildings, pave streets, build youth/
recreation center, recycling facilities, street/curb/ gutter
improvements, improve animal control, tear down old buildings.
4-5 Are you happy caitti ttie Town of Fr:xser's slogan, "Icebo~s of the
Nation", or do you tkiinlt it sYiould be changed?
STAY SAME 7296 SHOULD BE CHANGED 28°16
C. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
V. ECONOMIC PROFILE
5-1 Do you own a business in Fraser? YES 23°K NO ?7°~
5-2 Indicate your household's current sense of economic security?
SECUP,E & IMPROVING 45a STABLE & STATIC 455 INSECURE 1095
Page - 2
ýÿ
O
O
5-3 Which of the following best describes the community's economic
condition to you?
STABLE 6114 GROWING l9u DECLINING 19:Y
5-~ Indicate your types of employment in order of importance.
YOU YOUR SPOUSE
a) Professional services 16 6
b ) Resort 11 8
c) Government 5 1
d) Other 5 1
e) Restaurant 5 0
f) Real Estate 4 4
g) Construction 4 5
h) Education 3 1
i) Manufacturing 2 2
k) Retail 2 1
5-5 Indicate if and where you and/or your spouse work.
YOU YOUR SPOUSE
a) In Fraser 13 7
b) In Winter Park 12 7
c) Winter Park Ski Area 9 4
d) In Granby 1 1
e) In Denver or suburbs 14 9
f) Other 13 4
5-6 fiow would you rank the following p ossible future event s
in the enhancement of your hvuselio ld's economic future
in Fraser? (Rank 1st through 4th)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
a) Future growth of the sl:i area 35 7 9 3
t~) More downtown businesses 10 23 17 4
c) More new home construction 4 16 19 10
d) Gambling in Granby/Grand Lalce 9 4 4 31
5-Z Clieclc the two mast important factors in your decision to
live in Fraser.
Ranking
No. of residents
{1) g) Recreation/Culture 27
(2) a) Fraser's atmosphere 22
(3) b) Affordable housing 22
(4) f) Climate 12
(5) d) To start a business 62
(6) i) Born here 6
(7) c) Job opportunity 4
(8) e) To start a family 4
(9) h) Schools 2
(10) ~) Other 2
Page - 3
e e
VI. GENERAL QUESTIONS
6-1 If you were willing to pay more taxes, what improvements '
would you like to see?
Paving o.f roads, more cleanup around tocan, Recreation center, bike
paths/parks, better schools, better animal control, more police.
6-2 If taxies were to decrease, what services would you give
n.p? .
rJumber of police, advertising the town, recreation, landscaping,
ochools, animal control, dust control.
6-3 Do you feel that Fraser's property tax is:
(do not include county, fire, school, sanitation)
EXCESSIVE 22°G FAIR 73`Y NOT ENOUGH 390
6-5 Grand County Sheriff's Dept. provides two police officers
for Fraser by contract. Do you think that there are:
TOO MANY OFFICERS 12°0 ADEQUATE NUMBER 7446 TO0 FEW 12:~
6-6 Would you be willing to pay a user fee for street paving?
YES 2590 NO 7590
6-7 Does this survey seem likely to have an impact on your
life in Fraser? YES 4986 riO 514;
VII. RESPONDENTS CHARACTERISTICS
7-1 Length of residence in Fraser: Average = 17 years.
7-2 Age: Average 48 years old.
7-3 Sex: 30 FEMALE 29 MALE
7-4 Are you a registered voter in Fraser? YES 34(5746), NO 25.
7-5 Do you live in Fraser year round? YES 54(63`0 , NO 33.
If no, what months do you live in Fraser?
Summer only 5
Winter only = 5
Weekend = 2
Page - 4
e
1992 FRASEf? B[JSIPfESS SURVEY
RESULTS
I. GEPiERAL INFORMATION
1-1 How long has your establishment been doing
business in Fraser?
~) Less than 1 yr.: 2 d) 6-10 years: 13
b) 1-2 years 3 e) 11 + years: 7
c) 3-5 years 9
1-2 Does tYte business owner live in Fraser? YES 45!K NO 55`~
II. BUSINESS CLIMATE
2-1 Plhat is your overall opinion of the business
environment in Fraser?
GROWING/BUSY 54`~
STABLE/STEADY 32°G
SLOWING/DOWN 1395
.\
Overall feeling is that business climate is good, with certain sector^
doing better than other. Some concern e~tpressed over the seasonal
nature of the local economy, and the overall lack of volwne in the
valley.
2-2 Uo you expect to remain in business
ttrrougfr this year? YES 100°5 NO 095
2-3 Does your business plan on e~:panding
this year? YES 26`~ NO 74°5
2-4 In the past year have your business revenues:
INCREASED 39`5 REMAINED THE SAME 39`~ DECREASED 2195
2-5 Uoes your business rely heavily on tourist
traffic? YES 60°5 NO 40°5
2-6 Presentl~•, what is your most significant business
problem?
Lack of volume, high rents/overhead, sign code, high takes, tttttte.lpful
town board and staff, seasonal economy,.:
2-7 Strould the town increase it's tourist marketing?
YES 8395 NO 1795
2-8 Should the town encourage more businesses in Fraser?
YES 9695 NO 4`.K
What kind?
Light industry, cottage industry, large discount store, more year-
round non-tourist buoine^ses, convention center/gulf course, mere
tourist "attractions."
e
0
0
liocv would you suggest doing it?
Town staff focus more on growth and development, provide incentives
for businesses to come to Fraser (tax incentives, form an economic
development corporation). Male it easier for businesses to
advertise and promote themselves, revise sign code, give the town a
unique "identity" to attract people.
2-9 Are you satisfied with the current business license fee?
YES 65°5 NO 35°5
'r* some business owners e~cpressed concern about how money
is spent.
2-10 In 1990 the sign code was revised allowing an increase in the
number of signs for businesses. What effect has this had ?
POSITIVE 8°5 PIEGATIVE 3295 NO EFFECT 59~
2-11 Should highway 40 be a business zone?
YES 70°5 NO 3:Y DON' T KNOW 2686
2-12 Are you happy with the Town of Fraser's slogan, "Iceboat of the
Nation," or do you think it should be changed?
SAME 5346 CHANGED 2845 NO PREFERENCE 1895
III. SERVICES
3-1 Are you satisfied with police patrols?
YES 8746 NO 13°.5
3-2 Town street maintenance and snow removal:
EYCELLEPIT 4545 GOOD 39°5 ADEQUATE 9°G FAIR 0°S POOP. 6`~
8596 of the respondents felt service eves good to excellent.
3-3 Do you feel that the Town Board is working towards
goals that are in the business community's best
interest?
YES 5696 NO 25:~ DO NOT KNOW 1896
3-4 How would you like to see capital improvement dollars spent?
Paving, continue improving appearance of town, clean up Sunk in
town/fix up run-down buildings, better trash disposal/pick-up,
build recreation center, provide grants/loans to business owners,
create central "tourism district" to attract people to tyre area.
3-5 Do you have any special concerns you would like to see addressed?
- Improve roads and bus routes.
- Town board should be mare open to ideas/input from businesses, and
make access to codes, regulations easier. Better communication between
town and business owners.
- Town should administer policies more fairly (i.e., snow removal. code
enforcement).
- Better dust control.
- Make it easier to start and maintain a business.
- Control vehicles speeding through town.
- Combine water districts.
- Don't give business license fee to Chamber of Commerce.
Page - 2
0 0
GRAND COUNTY
IIOiJSING NLLDS ASS~SSMLN'i, 1992
AN OVLRVI~W
INTRODUCTION
The Grand County Marketing and Economic Development Corporation (Grand Mecca), which includes
financial participants representing a number of small businesses in Grand County together with the towns
in the County, pooled their resources to cooperatively undertake an assessment of housing needs and
related issues. The purpose of the study was to determine if an affordable housing problem exists,
provide insight as to how it might be impacting residents, examine issues related to housing, and provide
preliminary guidance on how potential solutions or programs to address housing needs might be
developed. The study area encompassed all of Grand County.
The ftrm of RRC Associates was hired to conduct the needs assessment. The assessment was based on
primary research obtained through surveys of both local employers and employees. Tl~e surveys were
conducted during the month of March, 1992. ]nterviews with local officials and management companies
provide additional insight in to the housing market. Data from the 1990 U.S. Census were also used
to verify and supplement the findings from the primary research.
Organ~lzation of the Report
'T'his report consists of three major parts: 1} an evaluation of the perceptions, needs, and preferences of
local residents based on approximately 590 completed survey forms; 2) an analysis of survey responses
and comments from 103 local businesses; altd 3} a series of technical appendices that include various
charts and tables that serve to further illustrate findings and conclusions. Affordable housing is the
primary focus of this report although several other issues, including childcare and transportation, are
also described through survey data.
The Emolover Survev.
Businesses and employees were randomly selected to participate in tl~e survey from a list containing all
employers in Grand County. llata from the Colorado llepartment of Labor fQr the second quarter of
1991 were used to select employers. These businesses were first divided into two groups -large
businesses employing SO or more persons, and small businesses. Due to their significant impact on the
local economy and infrastructure, all of the 12 large employers located in the study area were
interviewed. To achieve proportionate representation whereby small and large businesses were
represented in the survey similar to their presence in the study area, one in every five small businesses
were asked to participate in the survey.
RRC ASSOCIATES OVERVIEW • PAGE 1
GRAND COUNTY ~ ® HUUSINC3 RESEARCH 1992
T71e sample was then tested to insure that a proportionate number of businesses from each town was
included. Representatives of RRC Associates then conducted a telephone survey of local businesses
using the Employer Survey instrument. If businesses declined participation, alternative firms from the
same community were selected from the Department of Labor list with efforts made to ctloose a similar
type of enterprise with the same number of employees as the business originally selected.
The Emnlovee Survev
Mailback surveys were distributed to employees tllrougll their employers. One in every four employees
of the large businesses were chosetl at random. All of the employees of the smaller companies were
given surveys in order to adequately represent them in the sample.
A total of 590 responses was received from employees of area businesses. The responses represented
a 48 percent response rate based on the 1,229 survey forms distributed. The response rate was improved
by publicity and the offering of an incentive (tile opportunity to participate in a drawing for a spring trip
to Mazatlan, Mexico).
Perceptions of the Problem
The surveys resulted in an extensive data base describing conditions in Grand County. The findings
include:
While the perceived extent of the housing problem is less overall than that found in some
other resort communities, there still exists a problem. It is especially acute for renters
in the 'Three Lakes and Fraser Valley areas. One in five residents reported it to be "very
difficult" to find affordable housing in the past two years and about 15 percent of county
residents report they are not satisfied with their housing.
There are sharp differences in perceptions of file .problem existing between communities
within Grand County. However, when considered in aggregate, the overall totals tend
to "mask" the true problems. While the overall totals suggest relatively few problems,
individuals in some areas are experiencing difficulty. The wide difference in perceptions
must be taken into account when considering programs and solutions. County-wide
actions will be difficult to undertake; local area activities may be easier to support and
develop.
Povr maintenance is a frequent complaint in the county. This is a problem that is
different from that of generating more units. It can be addressed in a variety of ways and
deserves particular attention. 1
Rousing Cvsts and Income
The surveys provided a number of different measures of income including "household" and "individual"
income figures. Overall, the mean (average) household income was $31,968 and the mean individual
income was $17,148. Both are important considerations in determining the ability of households to pay
for housing.
RRC ASSOCIATES OVERVIEW • PAGE 2
ýÿ
GRAND COUNTY ~ ® HOUSING RESEARCH 1992
The income figures may be grouped in a variety of ways. 'The table below shows that while individual
incomes are most likely to fall in the $7,500 to $14,999 annual category (38 percent), the most identified
household income is in the range of $35,000 to $44,999 (21 percent).
ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD AND INDIVIDUAL INCOMES IN GRAND COUNTY
Annual Income Household Individual
$0-7,499 2 13
$7,500-14,999 12 38
$15,000-19,999 11 19
$20,000-24,999 17 14
$25,000-29,999 6 4
$30,000-34,999 11 5
$35,000-44,999 21 3
$45,000-59,999 12 2
$60,000-79,999 7 1
$80,000+ 1
100% 99%
(n = 520) (n = 523)
By combining data concerning housing cost with income information additional insights are gained into
local conditions. Housing costs are more clearly understood when considered as a percentage of income.
771e breakdown below summarizes conditions in Grand County, based on relit/mortgage payments
without utilities included. As noted in the report, including utilities in these calculations increases the
indication of housing affordability problems.
HOUSEHOLD RENT/MORTGAGE PAYMENT
AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Housing Cost as a Overall Owners Renters
Percent of Income (n=442) % % %
1 - 9% 10.4 10 9
10 - 19 % 48.9 50 48
20 - 24 % 14.4 16 14
25 - 29 % 9.3 12 8
30 - 34 % 5.9 5 7
35 - 39 % 4.1 2 6
40 % or more 7 5 $
(n = 442) 100 % 100 % 99
l
RRC ASSOCIATES OVERVIEW • PAGE 3
0
GRAND COUNTY
Seasonal Workers
0
HOUSWt3 RESEARCn 1992
Persons living in the area for six months or less per year exhibited some unique needs and preferences.
These persons represented about 12 percent of t11e sample. The data show:
About 36 percent felt they were "paying too much" for their housing as compared to 28
percent of year-round residents.
Seasonal workers are especially likely to live in Fraser (36.5 percent), Granby (32
percent) and Winter Park (24 percent). Clearly, they are being driven down the valley
to find available units. They are especially likely to be cvnlmuting longer distances (32
percent are commuting 11 or more miles). Typically, they are paying more than other
residents (for example, $516 on average for apartments/condos, compared to $425).
Their experience in finding an affordable place to live was considered much mere
difficult than that experienced by year-round residents. About 46 percent called their
experience very difficult compared to 19 percent of year-round residents.
In spite of the difficulties experienced, seasonal workers are no more likely to express
dissatisfaction with housing than year-round residents.
Summary of Findings -Employee Sun~ey
The analysis of collected data revealed a variety Of housing needs throughout the study area. 'There were
differences in the separate communities and among respondents depending upon their employment
patterns, income level and current housing situation. 'T'hese diverse needs can not be effectively
addressed through a single strategy or project. An understanding of needs specific to particular groups,
however, makes it passible to develop comprehensive, effective solutions. This information can assist
private developers or the public sector to provide housing opportunities which are appropriate and
responsive to market conditions. These specific Dousing needs and suggestions for how they might be
addressed are summarized below:
A mechanism for making improvements to existing properties is needed. Many
respondents complained that rental units were in poor condition, heating systems were
inadequate and that homes needed to be more energy efficient. This suggests that a
housing rehabilitation program through which financing could be' provided for
weatherization and renovations might be appropriate.
Rental housing which is more affordable is needed for year-round residents. '1"he cost
of rental housing is liigl} as a percentage of renter income. ,This makes it difficult for
tl~e many renters who wish to purchase homes to save necessary down payments. 7•he
high rent-to-income ratios experienced by some residents, especially renters, suggest that
programs whereby housing bonuses•or rental subsidies are paid by employers are in
demand.
RRC ASSOCIATES OVERVIEW • PAGE 4
GRAND COUNTY ~ ® HOUSING RESEARCH 1992
Rental housing is also needed tv serve seasonal residents. Increasingly, these groups are
being forced to commute longer distances. ~'Irey are much more likely. to report
problems finding affordable housing, although in general they are not overly dissatisfied
with the housing dley find.
Grand County has some unique opportunities to encourage existing housing to be made
available to serve local resident needs. Unlike some counties where the housing stock
does not exist, in Grand County the problem is one of existing units that are not available
due to fire use pasterns of current owners. One "prong" of any local housing strategy,
especially in the Fraser Valley and Three Lakes w}lere demand is greatest, should be to
encourage programs to allow locals greater access to existing units.
Affordable single-family homes are in demand. Detached homes are the preference for
the large majority of respondents. Affordability appeared to be more of a concern for
those who wish to buy homes than availability. homes within the $75,000 to $85,000
price range are very difficult to fired. Subsidized land costs, small lots and cost-
minimizing designs are needed for homes to be built within this price range. Should new
homes for residents be constructed, demands by second home buyers and investors could
push their prices beyond the affordable range unless rnecha-iisms are in place to prevent
rapid price inflation. lleed restrictions prohibiting the resale of homes to anyone who
is not ayear-round resident is a program that is being used by other communities to
create housing.
171e need for seasonal worker housing has not reached the critical level that it currently
is in some other resort-impacted areas but it is clear that Grand County's currently
available housing supply will be inadequate to meet the increase in demand should future
tourism growth create more seasonal jobs. 'i'bis situation requires Borne attention as local
officials look to the future.
Energy efficiency and sunlight are desired over all other possible amenities by both
renters and owners. This should be considered when designing homes, development and
reviewing site plans and selecting sites Tor future residential use.
High housing costs and the lack of availability have not become so severe dlat many
persons are forced to live in places other than their preferred location. Phis may be
changing, however, based on the comments provided by property management
companies. As the housing situation worsens, so too will transportation problems as
more residents are forced to commute longer distances.
Approximately 16 percent of the businesses surveyed currentlX provide some form of
housing assistance for their employees. 1'llis exceeds the level of housing participation
found in many of the competing resort cotnmuliities, but is still snort of meeting the
demand that exists when measured through the Employee Survey.
More businesses are willing to assist with employee housing in the future than do so at
present. These businesses are largely uncertain about the method they would prefer to
RRC ASSOCIATES OVERVIEW • PAGE S
GRAND COUNTY • ~ ~ ROUSING RESEARCH 1992
use. 'Irtiis leaves a great deaf of flexibility for the development of employer-sponsored
housing programs.
Sentiment among businesses in support ofemployer-provided housing is not widi'spread,
however. Almost half feel that housing should not be directly assisted. Very few
businesses felt that housing should be the responsibility of state or federal government
and most agreed that taxes should I~ot be used to' finance affordable housing. Master
leasing by employers is the preferred method of dealing with the situation.
Although employees express interest in improved transportation, most employers do not
consider it a major problem or a high priority. As residential pressures move down
valley the magnitude of this problem may be anticipated to increase.
RRC ASSOCIATES OVERVIEW • PAGE 6